Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-13-Speech-2-023"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030513.2.2-023"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, drafting legislation on environmental liability is like opening Pandora’s box, because environmental damage is so badly defined by the directive, and the scope of the directive is so vague, particularly with regard to biodiversity, which is already governed by the international Berne and Bonn Conventions.
The ‘remedying’ aspect would be limited to Natura 2000 areas and would exclude non-profit-making activities such as leisure activities, which the directive treats as equivalent to occupational activities. Nor does the directive cover either the transporting of hydrocarbons or GMOs. Remedying should be based on objective and quantifiable criteria, on the nature of the damage and its impact, on the state of the environment where the damage occurs, and on local circumstances.
The state-of-the-art and permit concepts should be retained so that the polluter pays principle can be effectively applied, and so as not to allow that principle to be replaced by the ‘taxpayer pays’ principle. Liability must include GMOs, particularly at a time when the United States is putting pressure on to try to get the moratorium on imports lifted in the context of the WTO negotiations.
More generally, what is the point of transferring the liability arrangements to Community level, when the Danish initiative for a Council framework decision on the combating of serious environmental crime falls within the scope of legal cooperation, particularly when there are other legal instruments that could be used, such as the Lugano Convention?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples