Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-13-Speech-2-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030513.2.2-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating a draft directive which we have been waiting 20 years for. The practical application of the polluter pays principle appears to be more complicated than we imagined, which is only reasonable because, of course, we need both to establish liability for restoring environmental damage and to find a way so that the taxpayer does not bear the liability and the cost and pollution is prevented, not just suppressed. Consequently, we are talking about the objective liability of polluters and about a set of arrangements to influence the behaviour of operators.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ecosystem and the flow of matter and energy follow a predictable, quantifiable course to which human activity must be adapted. We do not protect nature just by putting a fence round it. In order for us to protect the viability of Europe, we need industry and the economy as a whole to turn green. We cannot say that we are neither with one nor the other.
I trust that the outcome of our vote will send a clear political message to the whole of Europe: that we are determined to lay down a substantial policy which will guarantee better environmental protection, in keeping with the economic and social objectives of the Union. Our vote will not bring about immediate change. If we vote in favour of the amendments which we have the honour of presenting to you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think that we can start paving the way for the gradual introduction of a model of sustainability and responsibility in Europe and beyond.
This draft directive gives rise to conflicting emotions in me: both satisfaction, because it may pave the way for reform, but merely pave the way, and reservations, because the steps proposed are timid, Commissioner.
For example, biodiversity, as defined in the draft, is restricted to habitats and species covered by the Habitats and Birds Directives, in other words only 13% of the EU's territory.
Secondly, the definition of environmental damage needs to be broader and should also include radiation, damage to air quality and damage to biodiversity caused by genetically modified organisms.
Thirdly, oil pollution and nuclear damage are not covered with the argument that they are covered by international conventions. However, these generally cover traditional damage and not environmental damage. In addition, several Member States of the European Union have not signed them. Furthermore, they contain clauses expressly prohibiting the introduction of provisions governing wider environmental liability. The directive must therefore be clear and must expressly state what the current liability regime is. There must also be a provision allowing these international conventions to be amended and we must wait for the relevant proposals from the Commission.
In addition, provision is made for exceptions from environmental liability for emissions or activities for which a permit has been issued or which were not considered harmful when the permit was issued. These are the so-called ‘permit and state of the art defences’. I think that these exceptions undermine the reliability of the objectives of the directive, limit the scope of the liability regime and undermine the polluter pays principle. There is a study which was carried out by the Commission itself, Commissioner, and which shows that 10 of the 15 Member States of the Union do not make provision for this sort of exception. Why, therefore, should the new directive encourage numerous Member States to back off when it comes to the severity of their environmental legislation?
Furthermore, the proposal for a directive establishes a public law regime, with the competent authority responsible for determining and securing the appropriate prevention or remediation measures. However, this may risk putting the burden on the taxpayer. Thus, initial liability for taking preventive and remediation measures should lie with the operator. The competent public authority must comply with the procedure for ascertaining and restoring the damage.
Then there is the question of citizens' only having indirect access to justice. The proposal does not foresee the possibility of citizens' taking direct recourse to justice. I think that this violates the Aarhus Convention. I also believe there must be a mandatory operator insurance system with common rules for financial guarantees. If there is, there will be no distortion of competition. However, if there is not, it may be distorted and, moreover, the prevention system will be weak and I think we shall not see the beneficial impact on the economy that we hope for.
The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which I have the honour of acting as draftsman, approved an opinion in the spirit of these comments. We are now submitting to the House, together with numerous other honourable Members from numerous political groups, a series of proposals which are less ambitious but which represent a compromise of several views. We are trying to achieve a rapprochement with the Council's positions so that we can see the Greek Presidency achieve political agreement in the Environment Council on 13 June."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples