Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-13-Speech-1-090"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000313.5.1-090"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, we are debating a directive which is extremely – I repeat extremely – rigorous. We have been discussing the Erika disaster here for the past couple of weeks. A whole ream of new measures on double hulls, inspection, the inspection of inspectorates, etc are being conceived in the short term. Disasters of this kind account for no more than 3% of oil pollution at sea. Normal shipping operations account for double this amount. Not only that. If we consider our beaches, for example in the Netherlands – but also in other countries – 49% of the rubbish washed up on the shore comes directly from the sea. Only 15% is due to tourism and a large proportion is even unaccountable for, although that, of course, must originate from somewhere.
In short, this directive is essential because the economic damage is significant and because the quality of the habitats for birds, fish, etc., which is so vital, is deteriorating. In other words, this affects our own habitat. I do not need to say any more concerning the motives underlying this directive. I will only have positive things to say to the Commission about the quality of the directive. There was nonetheless a whole raft of amendments at first reading which has been completely endorsed by Parliament. I believe there were eighteen in total, a large proportion of which have been adopted, with a number of less important ones having been rejected. These will re-emerge in some shape or form. I would mainly like to home in on one very important point.
We all share the view throughout the Union that something needs to be done when the seas are polluted. I would once again refer to the Erika, but there are also other examples. We are also agreed that the polluter-pays principle must apply.
The present report contains an amendment which states that the full range of cost recovery systems should not be admitted within the European Union because some cost recovery systems for port reception facilities do not do justice to what is needed to keep our environment clean. There is no financial incentive. Let me illustrate this quite clearly.
In the southern Member States, to all intents and purposes, a direct costing principle applies, which means that the polluters who deliver their waste to port do pay whereas the polluters who do not deliver their waste to port, still pollute but do not pay.
Northern countries apply a system in which this financial element is handled in a different way. Everyone pays, whether they dump their waste in the sea or dispose of it elsewhere. In addition, there is some kind of financial incentive that contributes in some way or other to ensuring that this waste is disposed of. Experience and scientific research has shown that this seems to work.
This is one of the reasons why Parliament is tenacious on this point. The Commission, too, on whose behalf I am talking, persists in applying a percentage of indirect costs which must be included in the port dues.
This is, in fact, what we are opting for. If the percentage is 90%, so be it. It could also be 75%, but there should at least be a minimum level, which should be quite inflexible. Otherwise we will fall back into a variety of systems and it will be years – in a manner of speaking – before we learn from the lesson we have actually already been taught. I would therefore like to assure everyone that this is why it is sensible to opt for a system in which indirect costs are somehow absorbed in port dues. If you read the Commission’s proposal, a country could fall to 0.01% of indirect costs if it so wishes. I fear that this will be opted for in practice. This will also be the key point of discussion for the foreseeable future.
There is a whole raft of other factors involved and we have reached agreement on a great many of them. I do believe that somehow we will make it. But this is the crux of the matter and I wanted to draw everyone’s attention to it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples