Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-06-Speech-3-065"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000906.4.3-065"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating a directive intended to fight marine pollution, and this will not be the only one this year. I am, of course, referring to the
directives which are due at a later stage. It would perhaps be a very nice start to the season and the French Presidency if this directive, along with the outcome of the conciliation between the Council and Parliament, in particular, were to be adopted today in Parliament. That is why I would like to say a word of thanks to the representatives of the Council, as well as to the Portuguese Presidency, which had a role to play, and also to the French Presidency, the Commission and the members of the conciliation committee, who were involved at the last stage.
I would like to thank everyone, and my fellow committee members, in particular.
As we have already discussed, at the heart of the proposal is, of course, the duty on the part of ships to report and to deliver waste. Ports are required to draw up waste-processing plans and to ensure that there are waste-processing plants or organisations that implement these plans. This is to prevent the problem of marine pollution from escalating to an even higher level than that at which it already stands. A recent study by KIMO Coast Watch has shown, for example, that there is still a growing volume of waste on beaches, that the sea is still being polluted and that state-of-the-art technology is being used to discharge sludge into the sea.
If we consider the waste processing plants which already exist in a number of ports, there is even a downward, rather than upward, trend in waste deliveries. Officially, according to MARPOL and other conventions, waste is required to be handed over. In practice, however, it appears that this does not happen. This was the reason why the Commission was right to come up with a directive which was the subject of conciliation not so long ago.
It might be useful, in this context, to highlight the outcome of the negotiations because, at the end of the day, we made a certain investment, and we must assess this investment jointly in order to be able subsequently to decide in this House whether or not we can go along with it. Eventually, what mattered most was the fee system, which is, in itself, not unimportant. It is important because we hope that by means of a fee system – leaving to one side the attendant obligations for a moment – ships will be coaxed into delivering waste. This is why we have had long debates with the Council, and the Commission was a great help in ensuring that the financial incentives were incorporated into this system in one way or another.
Parliament’s suggestion was for a figure of 90%, which we would like to collect by means of port dues in one way or another. During committee discussions, we took a more lenient approach but, ultimately, decided to start the negotiations with this figure. For a long time, the Council had decided neither to incorporate the word “significant” in this sense, nor to include the percentage figure. However, certainly in the light of the review clause which has already been the subject of discussion, it is important ultimately to specify the amount.
You may well ask yourself why this percentage would be of any significance? For the simple reason that if we were to endorse and adopt the polluter-pays principle, each and every ship could then pay at the port but could also decide simply to dump the waste at sea. In other words, this principle is not very effective in this case. This is why we have abandoned it and believe that a fee system as explained should be introduced. We support the percentage which has now been agreed upon, or at least the interpretation laid down in the Commission statement, namely 30%, certainly in the light of the review clause which has been adopted. In this clause, it is agreed that, three years after the entry into force of the directive, it will be examined whether the volume of waste delivery has increased or whether a situation has been created which requires either a higher percentage level or a review of the system. We can go along with this.
It may be useful to indicate that we were able to reach agreement on the 25% of inspections to which we aspire, as well as a provision for delays which can arise when waste is being delivered. In the main, national legislation prevails in this context.
A few exceptions have been made for small ships, not so much on the basis of the length but on the basis of the number of passengers they carry i.e. twelve. This means that, although they do not have a notification duty, they must, of course, deliver waste. Small ports will need to make a considerable effort to accommodate this directive in the foreseeable future.
Finally, I should like to note that, with regard to traditional sailing ships, whose exemption we initially secured by drafting a specific list, we have now decided to apply the Marpol convention to them with regard to sewage."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples