Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-20-Speech-4-153"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000120.9.4-153"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, to throw some light on this debate, I should like to quote you some figures that speak for themselves, first and foremost, with regard to Chad. It is the fifth poorest nation in the world. Life expectancy is less than 50 years. One child in five dies before the age of 5. The annual per capita income is 180 dollars. Cameroon scarcely fares any better, with an income per inhabitant of around 650 dollars.
Why am I quoting you these figures? Simply because they express and illustrate the urgent need to offer these countries, particularly Chad, the development opportunities to which they are entitled. I believe that it is in this context that the great oil field project in the south of Chad and the construction of an oil pipeline between Chad and the Cameroon coast should be carefully examined. This project is now considered to be essential to the development of these two countries. Let us for a moment consider that the anticipated effects of operating these oil fields could increase the gross domestic product of Chad by almost 10 points and earn this country between 5 and 10 billion dollars.
The World Bank, which has not yet issued its final opinion, is following this project very closely and is helping Chad to bring it to fruition. The three main points of discussion, i.e. the environment, social problems and the management of the income from the projects have been the subject of in-depth studies for almost four years. If this is anything to go by, 900 meetings have been held on the route of the oil pipeline, 40 000 people have given their opinions and 250 NGOs have been consulted. The director of one of these, the World Wide Fund for Nature, even said that in environmental terms, the project to install the oil pipeline is one of the best in the world. Nonetheless, we must, of course, continue to closely monitor the consequences of such a project and ensure that the absolute minimum amount of damage is done in environmental and human terms. That is the reason for the debate today.
If, by chance, on completion of these additional studies, the World Bank, whose criticisms I find hard to understand, were to give an unfavourable opinion, it would be out of the question to continue. But, on the other hand, if the Bank did, in the end, support this programme, it would mean that our legitimate fears could be allayed. It would also mean that our attention would for once actually be focussed on the development of the poorer countries, which we discuss frequently in this House. Human rights, ladies and gentlemen, also mean rights to development."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples