Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-098"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-03-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000314.7.2-098"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-03-14-Speech-2-0992
lpv:speaker	lp:Gérard Caudron2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Parti socialiste (1999-07-20--2002-07-09)3 member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-08--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; PES (1999-07-20--2002-01-16)3
lpv:translated text	"The report on which we are called to vote today is indicative of the position which the European Parliament wishes to adopt in the debate on maritime safety, brought to the fore once more by the tragic wreck of the . Let me remind you that the proposed directive which we are discussing today is intended to improve the availability and the use of port waste-disposal facilities for operational waste and cargo residues. It is totally in keeping with the 73/78 Marpol Convention (Prevention of Pollution from Ships), while concentrating more particularly on the waste-disposal facilities in ports. It forms part of the overall Community strategy for waste management and requires all ports to provide appropriate waste-disposal facilities, adequate for the needs of vessels. Today we face maritime pollution problems, which we must tackle head-on by adopting bold measures. The fact is, as the rapporteur points out, that regulations already exist, but they are not observed. The system generally applied is the one governed by the ‘polluter pays’ principle, a principle which is outstanding in terms of its inefficiency! This is why we need to find an alternative. Such an alternative is offered to us in an amendment which I supported. The amendment seeks to establish a system of charges which all vessels would have to pay systematically each time they dock in a port, whether or not they make use of the waste disposal facilities. These charges would be used to finance the relevant installations up to 90%. This system would inevitably encourage vessels to dispose of their operational waste and cargo residues in port rather than degassing at sea, a deplorable practice which is commonplace nowadays. Everyone knows that some vessels even took advantage of the pollution caused by the wreck of the to discharge their waste at sea. This is absolutely scandalous and intolerable. There are, however, examples of good practice, because the countries around the Baltic Sea have already been operating in this way since 1998. I am well aware of the fact that this would cause upheaval in the organisation of the ports of many Member States and would entail additional costs for vessels. But this is no more than the price which must be paid in order to guarantee the cleanliness of the marine environment, especially since the directive envisages that it should be possible to identify the vessels which cause less pollution and to offer them reduced rates? This system seems a fair one to me, and I therefore voted in favour of it."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Erika"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph