Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-13-Speech-3-196"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001213.8.3-196"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, exactly a year ago today, the sinking of the oil tanker
took place. That disaster led to the pollution of 400 km of French coastline, with serious consequences for the environment, and for the citizens who lived and ran businesses in that area, whether they be oyster farmers, shellfish gatherers, fishermen or simply citizens involved in the tourist sector.
And the final objective of this directive is to strengthen the management of emergency situations at sea, through the obligation to designate ports of refuge, the prohibition on taking to sea during high storms and greater powers of intervention at sea on the part of the coastal State in the event of a serious risk of pollution.
Secondly, another aspect of this package consists of improving the rules in force in the field of responsibility and compensation for damages in the event of pollution by oil or its derivatives. We simply need to remember that the case of the
oil slick has shown us how slow and insufficient this compensation is, and it is still a long way from being paid to the victims and the people affected by this pollution a year after the accident happened. Furthermore, they are unlikely to be compensated for 100% of the damages they have suffered.
Thus the Commission’s priority is to try to resolve these two problems, and the solution we propose is to supplement the existing funds through the creation of a European fund financed by the oil companies, which would offer the victims quick compensation of up to EUR 1 000 million, instead of the EUR 200 million – USD 180 million – currently granted by the international authorities.
At the same time, we will be approaching the international bodies in order to try to review in detail the system established by the international agreements. In the event that the IMO does not adopt the necessary measures, the Commission would submit a proposal to Parliament and the Council on a Community system for responsibility and compensation in the event of pollution by hydrocarbons.
Furthermore, any person who has contributed through serious negligence to causing pollution will be subject to deterrent penalties, which will serve to promote responsible behaviour on the part of the maritime industry as a whole.
The third measure in the Erika II package is the proposed creation of a European Maritime Safety Agency, which will provide the Commission and the Member States of the Union with the technical support necessary to implement the applicable Community legislation. It will also serve as a platform between the Member States and the Commission for the development of harmonised practices and procedures, as well as facilitating the smooth flow of information between the various ports and between the various States and administrations.
In fact, with more than fifteen directives or regulations in force, it is crucial that we standardise practices and exercise greater control over the implementation of Community rules, in order to prevent significant and unacceptable differences in the field of maritime safety which could arise within the Union.
The European Maritime Safety Agency constitutes a first stage in the increasing integration of the administrative practices of the Member States, which may one day lead to the creation, as has been repeatedly requested by this House, of a genuine European coastguard organisation. However, ladies and gentlemen, we have not reached that stage yet.
Mr President, I hope that Parliament will take this opportunity, on this highly symbolic date – the first anniversary of the
disaster – to remember its determination and give the Commission the support that it will need throughout the legislative process. This issue is of crucial importance, since through it the European Union has asserted, in the eyes of the outside world and of its citizens, its ability to impose its own demands, in an international environment which is in principle largely unfavourable, in the field of maritime safety and the prevention of pollution.
I would like to remind you that the Heads of State and Government, meeting just three days ago at the European Council in Nice, have given decisive political impetus to this second package of measures, recognising that it is aimed at strengthening maritime safety, improving the European system of information on maritime traffic and creating an agency which will improve on the shortcomings of the current international system. So much so that they recommended to the States that they adopt the appropriate measures
and as soon as necessary, without waiting for the Parliamentary and Council procedure to allow us to definitively approve the directives I am referring to.
This accident, which followed many others, gave rise to anger and despondency amongst the communities that were affected and within public opinion in general because of the opacity of the maritime sector and the inability of the legislation in force to prevent problems such as this. This feeling unfortunately still persists to this day in the mood of European public opinion.
The sinking of the
had a completely new and surprising effect. Never before had there been so much talk about maritime safety in the European Union. For the first time there has been awareness of the need to find European solutions to this type of issue related to maritime pollution. It is obvious that one State of the Union on its own cannot have any real influence on maritime transport across the world and, on the other hand, the International Maritime Organisation is too slow and lacks effective means to adequately monitor the rules which it lays down.
The European public has insisted that the European institutions should adopt quick and drastic measures to put an end to the scandal of flags of convenience.
One year after the sinking of the
we must all ask ourselves whether or not we have really been able to meet the expectations of Europe’s citizens. I sincerely believe that, given the progress that has been made quickly in the work of our respective bodies, it is undeniable that all the institutions have understood and fully accepted the importance of this issue. For its part, just three months after the accident, the Commission assumed its responsibilities and adopted a first package of measures, which the European Parliament approved fully on 30 November.
In addition to these first measures, the Commission has just adopted, on 6 December, a second package which I believe will respond even more directly to people’s expectations and will also profoundly change the rules of the game in the field of maritime transport, which will be of great benefit to maritime safety and to the protection of our coasts against the risks of pollution. In this respect, I would like today to very briefly present the content of this new package known as Erika II.
Firstly, we will be implementing a European system of maritime transport inspection. As such, the first measure is a proposal for a directive establishing a European system for monitoring, inspection and information with regard to maritime traffic. It is clear that inspection by the port State, regardless of the rigour with which it is carried out, only partially protects the States against the risks of accident and pollution, particularly from ships in transit.
The Commission’s proposal therefore has three fundamental objectives: firstly, to carry out better monitoring and inspection of the traffic of all the ships off our coasts. To this end, the ships must be equipped with devices that allow them to be automatically identified and monitored from land. Another device, whose importance in the eyes of MEPs is known to the Commission, is black boxes, which are also required by this directive, which must be fitted on board ships which dock in a European port, in order to aid the investigation of the facts in the case of an accident at sea or, possibly, to facilitate inspection by the port State. This will oblige the captain and crews to run the ship with more care.
The second objective is to simplify and speed up, in the case of accident, the communication of detailed information on dangerous and polluting cargoes, obliging ships and authorities to communicate the data electronically."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples