Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2015-05-19-Speech-2-014-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20150519.3.2-014-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, tomorrow we have big decisions to make in order to stop the fuelling of conflict through the extraction of, and trade in, minerals and metals in conflict areas around the world. While we cannot agree on the form of the EU’s approach and which direction it should take, at least we can agree that this is a problem that must be overcome.
Unfortunately, in my view, there is a real risk that by going in a certain direction we make matters worse for those on the ground. This is not what we want to do. While there are differences between the US Dodd-Frank Act and the mandatory measures being proposed by some groups, my concern is that the effects of a full mandatory approach will have similarly cumbersome requirements, particularly for the downstream supply chain. The response of many European companies, following the implementation of these requirements, will be to source elsewhere, creating de facto embargoes to the detriment of innocent miners and their families. Evidence from the Congo already points to this very problem.
So my alternative proposals are clear. We have established that there is a pinch point in the supply chain where there is a very realistic opportunity to determine the source of the minerals. A political compromise in the committee vote led to a mandatory approach being taken for this critical part of the supply chain, and I am happy to support it. Whether we like it or not, further down the supply chain it becomes more and more unfeasible for companies to prove where minerals used in finished products have come from.
This does not mean that attempts cannot in fact be made to find verification, and they are already being made through many industry schemes which we should recognise and also encourage. But as long as we adopt a strong review clause, which I believe we have done in our committee vote, it gives us the opportunity to assess the impact of our legislation and particularly to take into consideration the voluntary uptake for the scheme for downstream companies and the impact that it has really had on the ground. If changes need to be made at that point, then we will make them in full possession of the facts, rather than rushing into creating a top-down scheme that may do more harm than good. At this point we will see what works, what does not work, and what more needs to be done to eliminate the use of these minerals and metals to fund conflict worldwide."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples