Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-13-Speech-2-046"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030513.2.2-046"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I should like to thank Members for all those valuable speeches and constructive ideas on how to improve this proposal.
It has also been proposed that after a five-year transitional period, the Commission should develop proposals so that the directive applies eventually in a complementary manner to the international conventions where liability or compensation is insufficiently regulated within those conventions. The Commission does not believe that letting the directive play the role of filling in possible gaps in existing conventions would be either constructive or workable. The conventions contain exclusivity clauses that bind the States' parties to the conventions and prevent them from imposing any complementary legal instruments, so Member States would have to denounce conventions they had ratified to be able to follow Community rules. Before letting it come to that, it would surely be preferable to try to improve those conventions by renegotiating them in the proper international context.
What about regulatory compliance and state-of-the-art and development risks? Some amendments have been tabled that seek to maintain the so-called permit and state-of-the-art or development risk defences as proper defences and, as far as permit defences are concerned, with a formulation that would better specify its scope. Other amendments aim instead to introduce regulatory compliance and state-of-the-art as mitigating factors.
The Commission believes that proper defences, with the proposed improved wording, constitute a preferable solution in terms of insurability and legal certainty. The Commission considers it useful, however, to better specify the scope of the so-called permit defence to avoid any suggestion that this might be tantamount to a blank cheque to pollute, because this is not the idea.
The Commission does not find it appropriate to impose liability on the competent authority when damage is caused by a permitted activity, nor does it find it appropriate that there should be a link between the state-of-the-art defence and any environmental audit and management system. I am sure that these issues will come back during further decision-making on this issue.
Amendments have been tabled to impose either proportional liability or joint and several liability. The Commission considers, however, that Member States should retain the right to opt for either joint and several, or for proportional liability, or a mix of both, according to their national legal traditions. I recall in that respect that the proposal offers some safeguards to operators, since it provides that operators who are able to establish the extent to which the damage results from their activities, be required to bear only such costs as relate to that part of the damage.
It has been proposed that the Commission should present a proposal to supplement the regulatory framework on liability for damage caused by GMOs. Apart from the fact that such a requirement would unduly impinge on the Commission's right of initiative, the Commission is currently considering the issue of economic damage to conventional and organic farmers in the context of the so-called coexistence debate. The outcome of that debate should not be prejudged here. Again, this is what will cover traditional damage.
On financial security: amendments have been tabled either to propose that financial security become compulsory after the directive enters into force, or to oppose such a move towards compulsory financial security. I think we can agree that financial security will become an important factor in the proper implementation of the directive. Member States and market operators, as well as the Commission, will have an important role to play in encouraging a timely emergence of financial assurance systems, products and markets to that effect.
Having said this, it is clear to me that Member States should have the possibility to develop financial assurance solutions at their own pace; solutions which are well adapted to their own needs and institutional conditions. In addition, financial markets should be given time and leeway to develop market solutions following the demand for insurance that is very likely to take off once the new liability regime is established. In the light of this, it appears premature to impose fully-fledged financial security for all Annex I operators within a few years.
That said, it would certainty be fruitful to revisit the situation when the Commission carries out its general review of the implementation of the directive.
There is general agreement that the polluter-pays principle should imply, for the liable operator as polluter, to pay for all the damage it causes to the environment. In addition, there is a clear need for a common understanding within the Community that the costs of environmental damage should be borne by the polluter. Furthermore, the rules set out in the proposal specify the full range of remediation actions to be carried out by the liable operator.
Let me begin by commenting on two things: the polluter-pays principle and the scope. Several Members referred to the long history of this proposal; the debate reflected the different views and the need to find a balanced approach in the end. I also understand that many Members want to be more ambitious: to overload this proposal with a lot more. I can understand that, but it is important to see it as a step-by-step approach, because we have a practical view on this. We do not want to overload it with aspects that we are negotiating at the same time in international fora. I am sure that there would be more chance of losing the whole proposal if we were to try to burden it with these aspects.
Amendments have now been tabled to narrow down the scope of damage remediation by suppressing the remediation of interim losses, together with suppressing the concept of a natural resource service. Deleting elements from this range of actions would inevitably result in the polluter not having to carry the full cost of the damage he causes.
Finally, in the difficult context of this debate on environmental liability, the Commission has tried to reach an overall balance which has already been built on compromise solutions. At this stage the Commission is still of the opinion that the proposal is fair and workable in many respects and should be supported. I am also aware, however, that we are still at the beginning of the legislative process, and thus entirely conscious of the need for all the institutions involved in this process to reach agreement in due course. Such an agreement implies necessarily the willingness of all parties to find appropriate and satisfactory compromises. The debate has reflected this need to ensure that we bridge the different views and find a workable solution in the end.
I shall hand the Commission's position on all the amendments to Parliament's services for publication. However, I should like to say one word about the amendments we have accepted. In addition to the technical amendments that the Commission can support, I would single out the amendments to Articles 4 and 5. The Commission can accept these – at least in principle. These two articles are at the core of the proposal since they specify via whom and how preventive and remediation measures should be taken.
The polluter-pays principle is the guiding principle behind this whole proposal, and that is why it is quoted in the first article. The idea behind it is to create responsibility and, via that, to achieve prevention. It gives that very clear signal. We also touch upon the fact that in many cases it is not possible to find the polluter, or to make the polluter pay. In that case, there has to be remediation. We want to see an insurance system. However, we believe that market forces should be allowed to create that kind of system. We do not want to impose it today in a situation where it is not clear that we would achieve the desired effect.
In reply to Miss Breyer's point: all accidents are covered. I do not know what Members' presumptions are about the targets for this legislation, but our presumptions are very much based on the facts that there are too many accidents and too many cases of negligence, and also that short-sighted greed is behind much of the pollution. This is why we have designed the proposal this way. Therefore, all accidents are covered and we have also covered cases of negligence; this will create a polluter-pays principle and, in the end, pave the way for prevention.
What about the scope? It was
important for us to ensure that we have legal clarity if we want to introduce a new system covering biodiversity, because traditional damage – economic damage or damage to people – is already well covered by the legislation in all Member States. We do not have to take over that at Community level, but we want to harmonise the rules for covering damage to biodiversity. That was the starting-point.
If we want to do this and have a credible system, we need legal clarity and a system which is manageable and which can be applied. If the definition is too wide – as it is proposed, it would cover, in some cases, the whole biosphere – it will be unmanageable. For example, we would have to cover damage to weeds! Is that something insurers will be happy to cover? Would that be a manageable system? Digging the foundations for a house would hurt worms. Do we want that to be covered? Is that reasonable? You have to be sure about the scope and make a definition that provides legal clarity. We have to see it as a step-by-step approach. I am sure that as we apply this legislation there will be more legal clarity. However, if we are too ambitious at the beginning and think that we can cover the whole biosphere, then we would not be serving environmental interests.
On GMOs, nuclear and marine pollution: we can see that this is an area in which we would also like to be more ambitious. However, we have a very practical reason for not covering this in this particular proposal. We are negotiating to improve the rules on these areas. We have international fora and conventions that cover these matters. We do not want to duplicate work: we want to be practical. We do not want to overload this system by taking it on here. We need another few years to work on incorporating these aspects. For international activities, there should be international rules. As I have already said, traditional damage is already covered by legislation in Member States.
What about oil or marine pollution? The polluter shall pay! This is the only rule that can apply. It is a scandal that we have let it go this far. We have seen accident after accident. But, again, this is a truly international activity and we have to work towards international rules that apply the polluter-pays principle. I understand that the Director of the IOPC Fund has announced that claims for compensation would only be covered by up to 15% of this amount. This is not acceptable. The Commission is well aware of the situation and this is why we have always supported the attempt to raise the funds available up to EUR 1 billion. I understand that this week a diplomatic conference is being held in London to sign a protocol to raise the ceiling of the funds available for compensation. I hope that this conference will be a success; we are all determined to work on marine pollution and to do everything we can.
We want to avoid loopholes and also the absurd situation where neither the directive nor international conventions apply. That is why the Commission agrees that the directive should apply in all cases where the relevant international convention is not yet in force. For the same reason, where the relevant conventions are not in force, the Commission does not support the notion of waiting for five years before the directive is applicable."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples