Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-17-Speech-3-095"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031217.4.3-095"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Legislating on environmental liability is like opening a Pandora’s box, so badly is environmental damage defined and so imprecise is the scope of the legislation, particularly on the issue of biodiversity, which is already governed by two major international conventions, those of Berne and of Bonn.
Compensation should be limited solely to the Natura 2000 areas and exclude non-profit-making activities, such as leisure pastimes, from professional activities. The directive does not, however, draw a distinction between these two types of activity. If liability is to be applied, it must be based upon objective and quantifiable criteria: the nature of the damage and its impact, the state of the environment at the time of the damage and, above all, local circumstances. The permit to pollute and the notion of the ‘state of scientific and technical knowledge’ must be maintained if the ‘polluter pays’ principle is to be effectively applied and not replaced by the ‘taxpayer pays’ principle. Liability must also exist in relation to GMOs and hydrocarbons, sensitive subjects that are excluded from the area of competence. More generally, what is the point of recognising the European Commission’s competence in this area when penalising environmental crime depends upon judicial cooperation and when other legal instruments such as the Council of Europe’s Lugano Convention could be used?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples