I understand what Mr. Duguid just said about his amendment, but I'm not sure he answered my question about the fact that this is about the “principe de précaution” rather than the “principe de la prudence”. That is the point of the subamendment I wanted to propose. A little later, I will also propose that we use the definition given in the Rio Declaration.
What I don't like about the wording of amendment G‑1 is the use of the term “mesures rentables” when talking about “remettre à plus tard l’adoption de mesures rentables”. What are “mesures rentables”? Does it mean that it has to be profitable only in economic terms?
Personally, if those are the words being used, I will vote against the amendment, even though it supposedly makes a correction to the French version.