natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Vi siger uden videre, at verden er en landsby. Skal den landsby blive ved med at være en landsby præget af ulighed?
I raise it this evening because the British Ministry of Defence has admitted dumping potentially lethal nerve gas off the coast of Donegal in Ireland in three ships which were scuttled in the 1950s which contained some 76 000 tonnes of gas-packed aircraft bombs and 3 500 tonnes of 25-pound artillery shells containing mustard nerve gas.
Gallagher (RDE). — (EN) Hr. formand, jeg vil geme tale om dumpningen af livsfarlig nervegas i farvandet ud for et county i min valgkreds i det nordvestlige Irland.
We are living in an age when satellites enable us to observe the earth and assess the impact of human activity on the state of the environment.
Det er en sag af international betydning.
The environment is an area where we have realized how little frontiers mean.
Jeg tager det op her i aften, fordi det britiske forsvarsministerium har indrømmet, at man har dumpet potentielt livsfarlig nervegas ud for kysten ved Donegal i Irland i tre skibe, som blev sænket i 1950'erne med omkring 76.000 ton flybomber indeholdende gas og 3.500 ton 25-punds artillerigranater med sennepsgas.
We are quite happy to talk about the global village, but must this village continue to be founded on inequality?
Endvidere har det britiske forsvarsministerium indrømmet, at 145.000 kemiske våben er blevet dumpet ud for britiske og irske kyster siden den anden verdenskrig.
In addition, the British Ministry of Defence has admitted that 145 000 tonnes of chemical weapons have been dumped off the British and Irish coasts since the Second World War.
Hvad er vor opgave?
What must our role be here?
For det første at have et stærkt og klart budskab.
First of all, to send out a strong, clear message.
For det andet at have det samme niveau for krav og påpasselighed, som vi gav udtryk for på topmødet i Rio om beskyttelse af jorden.
Second, to be as demanding and aware of the need to protect the earth as we were at the Rio summit.
Og endelig at have en voluntaristisk politik vedrørende den teknologiske udvikling og forsøg på at behandle affaldet forsvarligt.
And finally, to adopt a resolute policy of technological progress, with an emphasis on waste management.
Vi har altså en situation, hvor 25.000 ton ustabile kemiske våben indeholdende nervegas, arsenikbomber, giftige frøbejdsningsmidler og 71.000 bomber med nervegassen tabun ligger i dumpingområdet Beaufort Dump uden for kysten ved Lame, County Antrim.
We also have the situation whereby 25 000 tonnes of unstable chemical weapons including nerve gas, arsenic bombs, mustard gas, toxic seed dressings and 71 000 bombs containing the nerve gas tabun are located in the Beaufort Dump off the coast of Larne, County Antrim.
Der findes tre andre dumpingområder ved de vestlige indsejlingsruter ud for Irlands sydkyst og Land's End, et område vest for Hebriderne i Skotland og 80 miles nord for Irlands nordkyst.
Three other dumping areas are located in the western approaches off the south coast of Ireland and Land's End, an area west of the Hebrides in Scotland and 80 miles off the north coast of Ireland.
Der er ingen tvivl om, at vi accepterer, at befolkningerne i udviklingslandene helbredsmæssigt lider under virkningen af de udviklede landes storforbrugende samfund.
It is out of the question that we should allow the health of people in the developing countries to suffer as a result of the highly consumerist societies of the developed countries.
Finland, Sverige og Danmark har foreslået et totalt forbud mod eksport, selv med henblik på genvinding.
Finland, Sweden and Denmark have proposed a total ban on transfers, even for recycling purposes.
Er det et tilfældigt sammentræf, eftersom det er lande, der i tidligere tider ikke har haft koloniimperier?
Is it purely a coincidence that none of these countries had a colonial empire in the past?
Skal man på baggrund af, at Den Europæiske Union ikke har fulgt disse landes forslag, konkludere, at der i Den Europæiske Union findes en imperiekultur?
Is one to believe, in the light of the European Union's failure to take up the proposal put forward by these countries, that imperialistic attitudes still prevail within the Union?
For det første kan den øjeblikkelig acceptere og vedtage forslaget fra de nordiske lande vedrørende gennemførelsen af afgørelsen fra sidste år.
The Commission is in a unique position: the Commission has a crucial role to play in preventing this from happening.
EU-landene om. at Kommissionen kunne have indgivet det ændringsforslag til Baselkonventionen, som de nordiske lande i stedet har indgivet.
However it would have been even better if the Commission had recognized its cue and had secured agreement among the EU countries for the Commission to submit the amendment to the Basle Convention which the Nordic countries have proposed instead.
Derved ville forbuddet have omfattet samtlige OECD-lande og ikke som nu — i øvrigt under forudsætning af, at Rådet overhovedet vedtager Kom missionens forslag — blot de femten EU-lande.
That way the ban would have covered all the OECD countries, not as now — provided of course the Council adopts the Commission's proposal at all —just the fifteen EU Member States.
For det andet fremlagde den for nylig en liste over farligt affald og fik den godkendt i Ministerrådet. Kommissionen står i en ideel position til at argumentere for en klar og endelig liste over farligt affald, som skal bruges ved gennemførelsen af Baselkonventionen.
Secondly, it recently presented a list of hazardous wastes and had it accepted by the Council of Ministers.
Jeg behøver næppe minde Ritt Bjerregaard om, at Danmark flere gange anmodede Kommissionen om at følge op på den beslutning 11/12, hvor samtlige medlemsstater i marts 1994 enedes om et forbud mod eksport af farligt affald såvel til bortskaffelse som til genanvendelse. Dette har Kommissionen direkte forsømt.
I hardly need remind Ritt Bjerregaard that Denmark has several times asked the Com mission to follow up Decision 11/12, under which all Member States agreed in March 1994 to prohibit exports of hazardous waste both for disposal and for recycling.
Kommissionens forsømmelse kan altså nu kun delvis gøres god igen.
The Commission's negligence can now only be partially remedied.
Endelig står Kommissionen i en enestående position for at tale med Ministerrådet, for at overbevise det om dets aktuelle dårskab og forvirring og for at sikre, at dette spørgsmål kommer på dagsordenen for Rådet af miljøministre i juni, således at når parterne i Basel-konventionen mødes næste gang i Madrid i september, vil Den Europæiske Union være i stand til at acceptere sit moralske ansvar og tage hånd om dette problem, at gå i spidsen for at standse enhver yderligere udnyttelse og skade og starte oprydningen af det svineri, som skyldes tidligere tiders skammelige handel.
Finally, the Commission is in a unique position to talk to the Council of Ministers, to persuade it out of its current folly and the confusion and to ensure that this issue is placed on the agenda of the Environment Council meeting in June, so that when the parties to the Basle Convention next meet in Madrid in September the European Union is in a position to accept its moral responsibility and deal with this problem, to take a lead to stop any further exploitation and damage and to initiate the process of cleaning up the mess caused by this disgraceful trade in the past.
Kommissionen må skride til handling.
The Commission must act.
Jeg håber på en klar og positiv handling fra Kommissionens side.
I look to the Commission for clear and positive action.
Jeg finder det i øvrigt yderst pinligt, at Kommissionen tillader sig at true de nordiske lande med en domstolssag, hvis de ikke trækker det ændringsforslag til Basel-konventionen tilbage, som Kommissionen selv burde have fremsat, og som loyalt følger op på beslutning 11/12.
Moreover I find it extremely regrettable that the Commission now sees fit to threaten the Nordic countries with legal action if they do not withdraw their amendment to the Basle Convention, which the Commission itself should have submitted and which gives proper followup to Decision 11/12.
Kommissionen finder det illoyalt at fremsætte såkaldte ensidige forslag, siger den.
The Commission claims that it is disloyal to present socalled unilateral proposals.
Jeg anser det omvendt for netop at være loyal over for Fællesskabet at forsøge at få dets gode beslutninger ført ud i livet, også og vel især når visse medlemslande af ukendte og fordækte årsager skifter standpunkt.
On the contrary, I consider it a mark of loyalty to the Community to seek the implementation of sound decisions taken by it, even, and especially, when certain Member States change their position for unknown or covert reasons.
Sagen har således fået absurde implikationer, og Kommissionen kan komme til at befinde sig i en situation, hvor den ved et sagsanlæg direkte modarbejder sine egne synspunkter. Det ville unægtelig være ironisk, om Ritt Bjerregaard, som jo ikke har erklæret sig som en varm fortaler for at slæbe medlems stater for Domstolen, skulle påtage sig en så utaknemmelig sag som sin allerførste, og det er som sagt ulogisk.
The affair has thus taken on absurd implications. The Commission may end up in a situation in which, by mounting a court case, it directly works against its own intentions.
Jeg vil blot fortælle kommissæren, at jeg finder både forhandlingen og behovet for den yderst deprimerende.
I should just like to tell the Commissioner how unutterably depressing I find both the debate itself and the need for it.
De af os, som sad i Parlamentet fra 1984 til 1989, husker forhandlingerne om det emne, som var fremme dengang.
Those of us who were in Parliament from 1984 to 1989 remember the debates on the subject which we had at that time.
Vi husker ligeledes — og Ken Collins vil helt sikkert huske — at mens vi sad og diskuterede det, sejlede der et forfærdeligt skib fuld af unævnelige stoffer rundt ud for Afrikas vestkyst og ledte efter et sted at losse sin last.
We also remember — and Ken Collins will certainly remember — that at the time we were debating it there was some hideous ship full of some unspeakable substance wandering around the west coast of Africa looking for a place to unload its cargo.
Jeg husker også, at det var på tale at indstille udviklingshjælpen til et bestemt land som den eneste måde, hvorpå vi kunne forhindre det i at modtage den last, som landet helt klart var ude af stand til at opbevare på betryggende vis for slet ikke at tale om at genanvende det eller behandle det på anden vis.
I also remember that there was a question of our withdrawing development aid from a particular country as the only way in which we could prevent it from accepting that cargo which it was clearly incapable of storing safely, let alone recycling or dealing with in any other way.
Så frem for at gentage alle mine kollegers argumenter — hr. Florenz talte på min gruppes vegne, og jeg er fuldstændig enig med ham — her står vi i en situation, som frem for alt er et moralsk spørgsmål; det er også et politisk spørgsmål, og naturligvis også et spørgsmål om økonomi.
So, rather than repeat the arguments made by all my colleagues — Mr Florenz spoke for my Group and I completely agree with him — here we have a situation which is above all a moral issue; it is a political issue as well, of course, and also an economic issue.
Hvorfor vil EU foreslå, at der inden for Fællesskabet indføres totalforbud mod eksport af farligt affald samtidig med, at man ikke vil foreslå et sådant forbud til Basel-konventionen?
Why is the EU so keen to have a total ban on the export of hazardous waste within the Community but does not want to propose such a ban under the Basle Convention?
Det giver ikke mening.
It does not make sense.
Måske har Rådet haft det gustne overlæg, at definitionen af farligt affald endnu ikke er udarbejdet.
Perhaps the Council is clinging to the idea that a definition of hazardous waste has not yet been worked out.
Når definitionen skal udarbejdes i juni måned, vil en tilstrækkelig vid definition kunne udvande forbuddet i EU, som visse medlemsstater har ytret ønske om.
When this work comes to be done in June, a suitably broad definition could water down the ban in the EU, which some Member States seem to want.
I givet fald vil der således fortsat blive lirket farligt affald fra de rige til de fattige lande.
The final outcome may be that it continues to be possible for hazardous waste to be sneaked out and shipped from the rich to the poor countries.
Vi bestemmer nemlig bare, at det ikke længere er farligt affald.
All that need be done is to decide that it is no longer hazardous waste.
Det er ganske usmageligt, hvis det er det, den ambivalente holdning i Rådet går ud på.
If that is what the ambivalent attitude in the Council is all about, this will turn out to be a very unsavoury affair indeed.
Når Parlamentet skal behandle sagen, vil min gruppe kæmpe for, at totalforbuddet bliver et reelt forbud, som modsvarer den holdning, der oprindelig var i Rådet i marts, forhåbentlig med Kommissionen som medspiller.
When Parliament comes to debate the matter, my group will fight to ensure that the total ban becomes a real ban, which is what the Council originally envisaged in March last year, and I hope that the Commission will join with us in seeking that outcome.
Bowe (PSE). — (EN) Hr. formand, jeg blev glad for at høre Kommissionens velinformerede svar, men det vi i virkeligheden ønsker at høre her i aften er nyheder om klar og positiv handling.
We all know that the minute any discussion on dealing with waste within our countries raises its head our governments usually run for cover and try to export the waste so that they do not have to deal with the political problems incumbent on them.
Historien bag dette spørgsmål strækker sig langt tilbage i tiden. Men frem for alt skal det understreges, at Parlamentet tog en klar beslutning i den mødeperiode, og at vi står fast på den nu.
We see, for example, that the Germans continue to export their nuclear waste to the Sellafield plant, because it is politically uncomfortable for them to deal with it in their own country.
Jeg håber, at kommissæren er klar over, at vi står på hendes side i denne sag, og at hun vil vise sig modig og principfast.
Bowe (PSE). — Mr President, I was pleased to hear the Commission's informed response, but what we really want to hear tonight is news of clear and positive action.
Vi var alle begejstrede for den klare og positive indsats sidste år, da parterne i Basel-konventionen i Genève blev enige om at afvikle eksporten af farligt affald fra OECD inden 1997.
We were all delighted with the clear and positive action last year, when in Geneva the parties to the Basle Convention agreed to phase out the export of hazardous waste from the OECD by 1997.
Men nu er vi chokerede over, hvordan man stille og roligt trækker i land fra gennemførelsen af den afgørelse.
But now we are horrified at the way in which
Vores borgere forventer — med rette — en effektiv og miljørigtig
The history of this matter goes back a long way.
Kommissionen står i en enestående position: Kommissionen skal spille en vigtig rolle for at hindre dette i at ske.
But, above all, it has to be emphasized that this Parliament took a very firm decision back in that part-session, and we stick by it now.
Hyland metode til bortskaffelse af husholdnings- og industriaffald.
I hope the Commissioner realizes that we are on her side in this, and that she will take a courageous and principled stand on it.
Men i mange tilfælde gøres der i lokalsamfundene helt legitimt indsigelser over for placeringen af fyldpladser og andre metoder til bortskaffelse af affald.
have to speak for the environmental aspect here and we ask one thing of you: let the voice of the Scandinavian countries ring through, because they are first-rate on this, and secondly please take care that this is treated as a file for protection of the environment and protection of people in the north and in the south; that is what this Parliament expects of you.
des, til lande, som ikke råder over den dertil nødvendige teknologi, er man derfor skyld i denne form for forbrydelse.
Manière (ARE). — (FR) Mr President, who profits from crime?
Når man lukker øjnene for de betingelser, hvorunder transport en foregår, og for den lemfældige kontrol med genvindingsprocessen, og når man foretrækker at være uvidende om, hvorvidt dette affald virkelig er blevet genanvendt eller blot smidt på lossepladsen, er man også skyldig i denne form for forbrydelse.
Crime is not simply a case of disobeying the law: it can also mean endangering people's lives by exposing them to dangers the existence of which they are all too often unaware.
Den 8. marts sagde Rådet nej til at forbyde eksport af alt farligt affald uden for OECD-landene, selv om nogle af Unionens stater havde foreslået det.
Yet in many cases communities raise legitimate objections to the location and siting of landfill sites and other means of waste disposal.
Vi kan ikke under påskud af at fremme genvinding smide indholdet af vore skraldespande ud i udviklingslandene.
So anyone allowing waste to be transported for socalled recycling to countries which do not have the appropriate technology, is guilty of such a crime.
Netop derfor har vi forpligtet os til at få forbudt eksport af farligt og nukleart affald til AVS-landene.
But anyone who closes his eyes to the way in which it is transported and the lax controls on recycling, preferring not to know whether the waste really is recycled or whether it is simply being dumped, is equally guilty.
Transporten af affald til andre medlemsstater er endnu mere alarmerende og bør søges begrænset.
The transportation of waste to other Member States is even more alarming and should be discouraged.
Efter min mening kan intet land forventes at bortskaffe affald produceret i et andet land, navnlig ikke hvis affaldet er farligt eller giftigt.
In my view, no country should be expected to dispose of waste generated in another country, particularly if it is waste of a hazardous or toxic nature.
De enkelte regeringer kan ikke løse dette problem, så derfor er der behov for kontrol på europæisk plan. Som sagt er det uacceptabelt, at landene som hidtil for eksempel skiller sig af med deres farlige affald til søs.
Individual governments cannot deal with this problem, and so we must have control at European level.
Det er ligeledes uacceptabelt, at landene overvejer at placere opbevaringspladser for farligt affald på en sådan måde, at det får ødelæggende virkninger for deres nabolande.
It is equally unacceptable that states should contemplate locating hazardous-waste disposal sites in such a way as to have a detrimental effect on neighbouring states.
Igen et spørgsmål, som kun dette Parlament kan træffe afgørelse og lovgive om.
Again, this is a matter which only this Parliament can adjudicate and legislate on.
Jeg er ikke overbevist om, at der tages hensyn til befolknin gernes legitime bekymring i forbindelse med Den Europæiske Unions forordninger.
We cannot dump the contents of our dustbins in developing countries on the pretext of encouraging recycling.
Dette blev bevist meget tydeligt for nylig i Irland, da en gruppe bekymrede borgere fik medhold ved vore domstole i den langvarige diskussion om Sellafield.
This is why we are commit ted to banning exports of dangerous and nuclear waste to the ACP countries.
Vor hast med at skille os af med vort giftige affald har skabt et ægte parallelt marked.
Our eagerness to get rid of our toxic waste has created a thriving parallel market.
Der opnås i al ulovlighed betydelige fortjenester til skade for økonomien i de lande, der importerer, og for de lokale befolkningers liv og helbred.
Considerable illegal profits are being made off the backs of the importing countries' economies, with a complete disregard for the health, and even the lives, of local people.
At drive denne form for handel er det samme som at forsyne mafiaerne og andre internationale net med sorte penge.
I am not satisfied that the legitimate concerns of our people have been taken into consideration in the context of European Union regulations.
En sådan handel er ikke andet end en fortsættelse under andre former af den kolonialisme, som Christiane Taubira-Delannon for lidt siden tog afstand fra.
Proof of this fact was demonstrated recently in Ireland when a group of concerned citizens won their case in our courts on the Sellafield debate which has been going on for a long time.
Vi har teknologisk kapacitet til at behandle vort affald og vi har et påtrængende ansvar for selv at sørge for forvaltningen af det.
So I want to add my support to the case already made by my colleagues here this afternoon in Parliament for an investigation, particularly in relation to Ireland, on the dumping of waste around our coastline, at sea and in other locations as well.
Jeg opfordrer derfor Rådet til omsider at træffe en ansvarsbevidst afgørelse i denne sag.
I therefore call on the Council to take a responsible decision on this matter.
Basel-konventionen skal ændres med henblik på at forbyde eksport af alt farligt affald til lande uden for OECD.
We must amend the Basle Convention to ban the export of all forms of dangerous waste to non-OECD countries.
Det er nødvendigt, at Unionen omsider træffer den ensidige beslutning at forbyde denne eksport.
It is high time that the European Union took a unilateral decision to ban such exports.
Aelvoet (V). — (NL) Hr. formand, fru kommissær, ærede kolleger, vi står her over for en typisk sag, hvor velstående og højt industrialiserede lande vil af med deres affald, farligt eller ej, til den billigst mulige penge.
Aelvoet (V). — (NL) Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, here we have to deal with a typical file in which prosperous and highly-industrialized countries are try ing to dispose of their waste, whether or not it is hazardous, at the lowest possible price.
Det er stadigvæk eksport.
That is still exporting.
I sin tid, dengang Basel-konventionen blev indgået i 1989, var dette allerede det væsentligste kritikpunkt fra miljøbevægelsens side, nemlig at det, man gør med Basel, er en legalisering af eksisterede affaldsstrømme, ingen begrænsning af de eksisterende affaldsstrømme og i al fald ingen sikring af de lande, der stadig hverken finansielt, teknologisk eller politisk i virkelig heden har en chance for at sige nej.
When the Basle Convention was concluded in 1989, the main criticism from the environmentalists was that with Basle we were merely legalizing the existing channels for waste with no restriction on existing channels and certainly no safeguards for the countries which in reality had no chance to refuse either financially, technologically or politically.
Der har været tilstrækkeligt med skandaler, jeg behøver ikke at fremdrage dem her.
There have been scandals enough, I do not have to recount them all here.
Kirsten Jensen (PSE). — Hr. formand, udviklingslandene er trætte af at være de rige landes losseplads, og vi kan i det lange løb heller ikke være interesseret i, at de er det.
Kirsten Jensen (PSE). — (DA) Mr President, the developing countries are tired of being the dumping grounds of the rich countries and, in the long run, it is not in our interests that they should be so.
Den vigtigste enkeltsag for ulandene på Rio-konferencen var netop at få stoppet byttehandelen med affald for udviklingsbistand.
The most important single issue for the developing countries at the Rio Conference was to put a stop to the bartering of waste for development aid.
Ulandene bliver holdt som gidsler.
The developing countries are being held hostage.
Hvilke muligheder har de for at sige nej til affald, der vil forgifte deres eller vores fælles jord, når de reelt står med pistolen for panden?
What chance have they got to say no to waste that will poison their land and the earth we all live on, when they are standing there with a gun to their heads?