Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-18-Speech-2-127"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000118.5.2-127"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I have brought you a small gift. Here is a cake of oil sent by someone living on the French island of Noirmoutier who wrote to me as follows: “With every tide, the beach is covered with heavy fuel oil which has leaked out of the Erika. With every tide, the volunteers, members of the armed forces and firemen remove great pancakes of this thick, sticky, black tar. When will we see a return to cleanliness and the end of this devastating accident?”
Indeed this disaster involving the Erika, like that of the Russian vessel in Turkey, moreover, is unacceptable and intolerable at a time when the ultimate hi-tech technology is available. It is all the more unacceptable for such a thing to occur twenty years after the Amoco Cadiz disaster, despite our saying at the time and many times since, “Never again!” It is, of course, the responsibility of policies, and therefore our responsibility, to guarantee the safety of sea transport. We absolutely have to guarantee our citizens that a disaster of this type will never happen again. But, listening to you, Commissioner, we are somewhat frustrated because anyone already involved in these matters knows that in 1992, I believe, the Commission and Parliament drew up a very interesting text which already contained all the proposals included in the resolution drawn up by the transport committee. Indeed, we must say and keep saying that the Erika is one disaster too many.
This is why it is essential, as a matter of urgency, for the European Union to undertake a radical review of its directives on sea transport to make them more restrictive and to establish clear and specific regulations determining the responsibilities of the owners of the cargoes. We should be aware, for example, that Shell and British Petroleum refused to use the Erika to transport their oil. Why, in these circumstances, is the liability of Total as charterer not recognised? Your proposals must also include making double hulls mandatory and enforcing observance, at last, of the ban on degassing at sea. A European inspection body must be established which can monitor the condition of vessels effectively and efficiently. In addition, it is also essential for the European Union to undertake to reform the IMO, as a matter of urgency. What point is there in issuing restrictive directives if, once they are at sea, most vessels do just what they wish?
Finally, a compassionate thought for all the volunteers, nature lovers and bird lovers, who spontaneously and generously are coming through to the aid of the oil-covered birds, organising rescue operation with the means available. I can testify to this remarkable work. You are no doubt aware that approximately 200 000 birds are going to die as a result of this oil slick, which is a major ecological disaster, practically unprecedented in scale. In relation to this, you are no doubt also aware how difficult it is nowadays to preserve natural species as well as natural spaces. And, on this subject, Commissioner, you did not mention how the Commission intends to contribute to the restoration of the natural environment and the natural habitats. Once again, there will be no clearly defined party responsible. In the meantime, it is nature that is taking the rap, as always."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples