Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-07-Speech-5-036"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000707.3.5-036"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, in all decisions and acts, it is sensible first to examine what has already been regulated and what else we are prepared to do or can do. In the Council of Europe – and this has already been echoed by others – a convention was concluded in 1998 to fight international environmental crime. However, most Member States have yet to sign and ratify this “Convention of the Council of Europe on the Protection of the Environment”.
Denmark has proposed that more far-reaching measures be taken at EU level to fight environmental crime. Within the Council of Ministers, the only item which survived in the framework decision was that of criminalisation, and all Denmark’s other ideas have been taken out. As such, the added value of such a framework decision has been nullified, since penalisation was already included in the Council of Europe’s Convention. In more concrete terms, fewer countries have signed up to the framework decision than the Council of Europe’s Convention. Hence it is preferable for various Member States to sign and ratify the Council of Europe’s Convention. Needless to say, I welcome further steps at EU level, such as the Danish proposal. My question to the Council of Ministers is whether it would be prepared to go this extra mile.
The European Parliament, however, is now caught in a dilemma. Should it issue a recommendation with regard to the Danish proposal or with regard to the Council of Ministers’ amended proposal? Since we only have the Danish proposal at our disposal, we will use it as our basis, although we wonder whether this is at all useful, because if the Council enforces the watered-down proposal, I for one will argue against laying down any EU framework decision at all.
Concerning the Danish proposal, I would firstly point out that this framework decision should mainly be considered as a supplement to the national approach to environmental crime. This supplement must have a legal framework for an international approach, such as coordination, information exchange, reporting of crimes, central registration and criminal prosecution in international environmental crime.
In order to make clear what does and does not fall within the scope of the framework decision, a sound definition of environmental crime is vital. I principally assent to the formulations proposed by Denmark, although I wonder whether the illegal trade in threatened flora and fauna could be added to the definition.
Even if we can agree on a sound definition, the application will be difficult in practice. Was the
disaster an example of environmental crime? And what about the cyanide pollution in Romania? It was a clear case of extensive environmental damage, but do the other criteria apply too? It is important that liability for these acts eventually falls to those responsible. It would be useful if this issue could be included in the White Paper on environmental liability.
Many of the amendments tabled by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs concern editorial changes, some of which are redundant. In my opinion, it is better to give the Danish proposal to the Council our full backing than to propose minor changes of no real consequence. I do, however, support additional ideas, such as providing information on the effects of environmental crime and court rulings.
Mr President, naturally I am interested in the European Commission’s view. Could Commissioner Schreyer clarify this rather odd procedure which we have ended up with?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples