Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-05-Speech-2-288"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060905.25.2-288"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Firstly, I can tell you that the United States has not signed the Biodiversity Convention. It has different rules; it has a general ban but it also has exemptions. We have more or less the same result by having species considered separately. However, the results are more or less the same because the United States has a lot of illegal trade and we also have illegal trade. The Commission will look at what the United States is doing and what the results are. While the United States bans all imports, we have to look at it and see whether, firstly, this general ban will increase the illegal trade. We do not know. The study shows that perhaps we have less illegal trade, but we do not know what will happen in the future. If we introduce a permanent ban for birds we will have to consider how and why they are treated differently from all other species, like corals and reptiles, because we have a comprehensive policy. The United States has a different approach to this.
We would also like to consider whether an unlimited trade ban by the United States could be challenged by exporting countries, for example within the framework of the World Trade Organization. This might also challenge and undermine our existing sophisticated restrictive measures which make it possible for the European Union to take temporary measures on a consultation basis with the exporting countries. But still, we will look at a ban with derogations in our study."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples