Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-15-Speech-1-086"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010115.8.1-086"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is a commonplace to say that our heritage and its protection are crucial components of European identity, a commonplace but true, nonetheless. Our heritage is one of the most visible components, one of those closest to the culture of our fellow citizens. It forms part of their everyday environment and their own identity. It strengthens the sense of belonging to the European Union by identifying the roots we all share. Protection of heritage is therefore a vital necessity in view of the ravages it suffers over time, but also in view of the new forms of attack it is undergoing, such as atmospheric pollution, uncoordinated urbanisation, demographic pressure and, unfortunately, many others.
The European Parliament has approached this matter very seriously with, in particular, two resolutions adopted in 1982 and 1988, which provide a frame of reference for the action to be undertaken in this field. I now consider it necessary to assess the current situation on this issue, taking into account both the principle of subsidiarity and the development of the European Union due to the increased number of Member States.
It is worth recalling the objective of the UNESCO Convention, which is to protect heritage and not to enter it on a heritage list. Since the last time sites were selected in December 2000, 690 sites have been added to the World Heritage List, 208 of which are located within the European Union. Of these 208 sites, 192 are cultural properties, 11 are natural sites and 5 are properties of mixed type. The fact that the European Union is highly placed on this list, with almost a third of the sites, is easily explained in terms of Europe’s contribution to world civilisation. However, in order to obtain a better balance on the list between the various categories and also between States, UNESCO has drawn up a world strategy and an action plan for the implementation of that strategy. I think it appropriate that Parliament recommend that Member States that can pride themselves on a significant number of listed sites should restrict the number of sites they propose in future. I think it perfectly reasonable that they should make a contribution towards making the world list more representative and more balanced, both geographically and in terms of its content.
When this report was adopted by Parliament’s Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, the two provisions on self-imposed restriction were withdrawn by a very slim majority. I do however feel, ladies and gentlemen, that these provisions should be reincorporated, and I have therefore tabled two amendments to this effect on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. Another proposal was made in the report for a European list to be drawn up, for UNESCO sees heritage sites primarily from a geographical point of view, which restricts their concept of what a site is. A port may be classified, for example, without any regard for the boats. A steel plant may be classified without regard for the equipment. I feel that Europe, the European Union, on the other hand should look at things from a dynamic point of view. It could therefore take action on dynamic aspects of heritage and, from this point of view, a European list may represent real progress. It would make it possible to raise the profile of sites which are of more than purely national importance but which are not yet accorded world recognition. That would moreover help to bring Europe closer to the people, giving them an awareness of a shared cultural heritage.
There is often need for heritage to be restored. The Commission should draw up a report on the position of restorers in Member States with a view to structuring the restoration sector in order to guarantee the quality of such work. High-quality restoration requires sufficient funding, and the need for economy should not override the need for quality work. Finally, I suggest that the European Commission should, in liaison with the Council of Europe and UNESCO, look into the viability of a legal and fiscal instrument in order to facilitate forms of patronage relating to the conservation of the cultural and natural heritage. This aspect might be included in the deliberations on the harmonisation of European tax systems. Protection of heritage is an area over which we must be continually vigilant. It is our responsibility to hand this heritage on to future generations. The young people of Europe must be able to identify themselves in this in order to build their future and to be able to perceive their European identity more clearly. Surely the feeling of being European relates far more to cultural references than to economic and social data?
In conclusion, let me repeat this expression which you will all recognise as emanating from one of the great founders of the European Union, "If I had to start again, I would start with culture." It is something which could have been said by Haydn composing in London, da Vinci painting in Amboise, or Byron dying in Missolonghi. It is the feeling, the pleasure we all experience when travelling through the European Union and marvelling at the treasures we find there and the pride we feel that, thanks to the existence of the European Union, we are in some small way owners, and also their custodians for all time."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples