Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-13-Speech-1-091"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000313.5.1-091"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to stress that we had a good debate at the two readings. May I thank the rapporteur, Mr Bouwman, very much for taking on this dossier and for elucidating it so well. We are after all at one with the Council on three points.
Firstly, proper port reception facilities for ship-generated waste have to be constructed at every European port unless it already has them. They must therefore be provided. Secondly, all ships, regardless of the flag they fly, have to dispose of their waste. Thirdly, the costs must be borne by the ship. We agree on these points.
In fact, together we want to put a system in place so as to avoid there being financial incentives to dump waste into the sea. Firstly, we wish to protect flora and fauna and secondly, there are a large number of coastlines along which, on the one hand, tourists enjoy themselves and on the other jobs are to be created. That means that we want to have an effective system.
So where do we differ from the Council, apart from on minor details such as the fact that we wish to exempt museum ships from the bureaucratic rules and that we are a little stricter where large fishing vessels and recreational craft are concerned? The really decisive difference is the issue of how the disposal costs are charged to the ship. Mr Bouwman has, of course, already explained this. There are two precedents. The first is in the Baltic Sea area, and this is not the experience of an individual state but the experience of the entire Baltic Sea area, and it says that if a large proportion of the disposal costs is covered by the general port dues then there is obviously no incentive to dispose of the ship-generated waste at sea. Surely if people have already paid the disposal costs then they will actually dispose of the waste in port.
The other system is the pure polluter-pays principle: anyone who lands ship-generated waste has to pay extra for doing so. This second system has proved to be ineffective, otherwise why would the Mediterranean Sea be so dirty? Why would the North Sea be so dirty? Because for lack of adequate controls the polluter-pays principle does not work! That is why a broad majority of the committee – not a large majority; the representatives of the minority view will be speaking shortly – said, as Parliament as a whole did in the first reading, without any dispute, that the ‘no-special-fee’ system was the best system because it, as it were, offers ships a financial incentive not to dump their muck into the water when they are at sea but to dispose of it in proper port reception facilities.
That is the decisive issue. We are prepared to reach an agreement with the Council. But so far the Council has rejected any serious agreement with us. That is why I call on the House to support our amendment whereby a significant proportion – up to 90% – of the costs have to be covered by the general port dues. This would give us the opportunity to reach an agreement with the Council in the conciliation procedure, whether it be on 75% or whatever. That is also why I would make the following request of the Commission: Madam Vice-President, think carefully about which side you stand on! I believe that in the interests of protecting the environment and of a permanently thriving tourist industry in many countries of our Community it is better to have an effective system. For these reasons support our ‘no-special-fee’ system. Perhaps then we will reach a reasonable compromise with the Council in the conciliation procedure."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples