Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-13-Speech-2-030"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030513.2.2-030"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the objectives of the proposal for a directive are very ambitious and are designed to minimise environmental damage using both preventive means and means of apportioning the cost of restoring the damage.
The amendments we support represent a necessary compromise, not just to prevent the adoption of the directive from being put off, but also to ensure the entire protection system is viable and to prevent distortions of the market. My congratulations to my honourable friends Mr Manders and Mr Papayannakis on achieving the necessary compromises. The implementation of the polluter pays principle is of fundamental importance. However, it calls for the introduction of new concepts and innovative institutions which, however much we want them, are difficult to introduce at once. The compulsory financial guarantees for restoring environmental damage are a
for efficient environmental protection. Without doubt, our long-term objective must be to introduce a system of compulsory insurance which will function as a disincentive. However, compulsory insurance must be introduced gradually in cooperation with the operators involved. Account must be taken of the fact that insurance companies need a certain amount of time to prepare. In all events, however, the phases for imposing a compulsory insurance system need to be defined as of now in the text of the directive, together with the type of damage it will cover and the activities to which it will refer.
As far as restoring environmental damage is concerned, we cannot accept broad derogations from operators' liability. Otherwise, the final financial burden will be shifted to the taxpayer. The exercise of activities for which permits are granted and which are not considered harmful at the time they are exercised must not preclude the operator's responsibility; however, the fact that there is a permit or that the harmful consequences of the activity at issue were not recognised in time could function as a mitigating circumstance when apportioning the cost of restoring ecological damage to the operator, provided that the operator was in full compliance with the terms imposed under current legislation or the permit during the exercise of its activity. We are right to accept the report's differentiation criteria for compensation, from which we can indirectly see the size of the company, thereby ensuring that the viability of small companies is not jeopardised.
The foregoing also demonstrates that, if environmental protection is to be effective and ecological disasters are to be prevented, the activities that come within the scope of the directive must be revised on a regular basis, together with an evaluation of the most recent scientific conclusions and the experience acquired in the meantime."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples