Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-11-Speech-3-278"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040211.11.3-278"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the FIPOL Protocol that we are debating today, to increase the financial resources available to compensate victims of spillages, is another matter which I would like to say to Commissioner de Palacio has nothing to do with the
.
In fact, it would be ludicrous to tell the victims of this disaster that, because of the fact that we, Europe as a whole, did not do our duty, they are only going to be compensated for 15% of the damage suffered, because the fund for that purpose only has EUR 170 million available and because unfortunately this increase that we are debating today is not retroactive.
Following the
accident (we are talking about November 1999) it became clear that the compensation system was inadequate for dealing with this type of disaster, both at international and European level, where such mechanisms were not provided for.
The IMO decided, a long time before the
sank, to increase the amount allocated to the FIPOL to compensate victims to EUR 600 million, and in 2000, the Commissioner proposed creating an additional European fund, Compensation for Oil Pollution in European waters (COPE), with a limit of one billion euros. The proposal received the support of the European Parliament, but was rejected by the Council, which opted to negotiate in the IMO.
Although the IMO finally established a new fund, and even set it close to the magic and famous billion figure, that amount will never be able to ensure full and swift compensation for victims of future oil spills, for two reasons. The first was mentioned by Mr Ortuondo Larrea: more than a year after the disaster we are far from succeeding in assessing the full extent of the consequences, not only because the vessel, carrying at least 15 000 tonnes, is still 3 000 metres deep in the Atlantic, but also because the oil is still reaching our coastlines. The second reason is that the rising number of increasingly independent reports calculate the damage caused at a figure that is never less than five billion euros.
The maximum compensation limits cannot guarantee sufficient protection for potential victims of a large oil slick; this can only be achieved through unlimited liability, including collective damage. Setting a limit on damage is not rational and, above all, it sends a perverse signal to potential polluters.
Given that only sovereign States can be parties to the Protocol, as has been mentioned here, the Commission proposes that we call upon the Member States to sign or ratify it – sign or ratify the protocol as soon as possible and by July 2004 if possible – in the words of Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, whom I congratulate on his work as rapporteur. Perhaps, Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, we will have to get down on our knees, because, from May until now, only two Member States have ratified it and a minimum of eight ratifications are needed in order for it to enter into force.
I also think it will be necessary to develop the agreements to extend the circle of liability, which, as we have said many times, should cover all those involved in the transport chain."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples