BETA

16 Amendments of Daniel BUDA related to 2016/2251(INI)

Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas the EU seeks to ensure its citizens have a high level of health protection and improvement of environmental quality, as well as promoting the prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources, accompanied by measures at international level to address global or regional environmental problems;
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas a coordinated environmental strategy across the Union is a way of encouraging cooperation and ensuring that EU policies are consistent with each other;
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas Article 191(2) TFEU stipulates that Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection and is based on the ‘polluter pays’ principle, together with the precautionary principle, the principle that preventive action should be taken and the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source;
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Acknowledges the importance of the Commission’s studies and reports onregarding the assessment of the implementation of the ELD and its effects on the Member States;
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Welcomes the Commission’s recommendations set out in its report to the Council and European Parliament under Article 18(2) of Directive 2004/35/EC on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, in particular the priority given by it to promoting the harmonisation of national solutions and practices within the framework of the Directive and establishing how it can be implemented effectively and coherently in a wider legal liability framework;
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Points outRegrets that, in spite of the action taken by the Commission concerning late transposition and issues relating to non- conformity and that, in spite of the ELD’s extreme flexibility, seven Member States have yet to resolve a number of non- compliance issues;
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Notes the abnormal inconsistency in the reporting by Member States of cases of environmental damage by the Member States, which is probably due to the habit of applying national legislation instead of the ELD;that triggered the application of the ELD1a, something that can be attributed to implementation of their national legislation instead of the ELD; __________________ 1aAccording to the Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament under Article 18(2) of Directive 2004/35/EC on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, between April 2007 and April 2013, Member States reported around 1 245 confirmed cases of environmental damage which triggered the application of the ELD. Moreover, according to the same report, the number of cases varies considerably from one Member State to another. Two Member States account for over 86 % of all reported cases (Hungary: 563, Poland: 506 cases), most of the remaining cases having been reported by six Member States (60 by Germany, 40 by Greece, 17 by Italy and 8 by Latvia, Spain and the United Kingdom). 11 Member States reported no such incidents in 2007, possibly because they deal with them exclusively under their national system.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Notes that the cost of environmental damage for the operators responsible can be reduced through the use of financial security instruments, but also that (covering insurance and alternative instruments, such as bank guarantees, bonds or funds); notes that, despite this, demand is low due to the insufficient number of cases detected in many Member States, in addition to the lack of clarity regarding certain concepts set out in the directive and the slower emergence of a number of insurance markets;
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Calls for the ELD to be reviewed as soon as possible and the definition of ‘environmental damage’ laid down in Article 2 of the directive to be revised with a view to making it sufficiently effective, consistent and coherent to keep pace with the rapid evolution of pollutants from industrial activities;
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Calls for the Commission to clarify and specify, define and set out in detail the concept of ‘significance threshold’, in order to standardise the application of the ELD, making it uniform in all Member States;
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Calls on the Commission to provide a clear and coherent interpretation of the geographical scope of ELD ‘favourable conservation status’ (EU territory, national territory, natural landscape area); in this respect, a site- specific approach is necessary to ensure correct and effective implementation;
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on the Commission to check whether it is possible to extend the scope of the ELD also to damage to the air15, which can have significant health risks, and to damage caused by electromagnetic pollution16; __________________ 15Thisoption was considered in the Commission document of 19 February 2014 ‘Study on ELD Effectiveness: Scope and Exceptions’ p. 84. 16The effects of continuous exposure to electromagnetic fields were considered in a study by STOA, ‘The Physiological and Environmental Effects of Non-Ionising Electromagnetic Radiation - 03-2001’; furthermore, there are still no data available on the effects of long-term exposure to intense electromagnetic fields.deleted
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Calls for theon the Commission to consider the possibility of establishment ofing a European fund for the protection of the environment from damage caused by industrial activity governed by the ELD17, for insolvency risks and only in cases where financial security markets fail; __________________ 17 As regards this option please refer to the document published by the Commission on 17 April 2013 entitled ‘Study to explore the feasibility of creating a fund to cover environmental liability and losses occurring from industrial accidents’.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Calls for consideration to be given to the option of including in the ELD a third-party liability regime for damage caused to human health and the environment18; __________________ 18As already provided for in Portugal and as assessed in the Commission study of 16 May 2013 entitled ‘Implementation challenges and obstacles of the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD)’ p. 75.deleted
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Calls on the Commission to establish a mandatory register for operators who engage in the dangerous activities listed in Annex III and a financial monitoring scheme to ensure the operators are solvent;
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Calls foron the extension ofCommission to examine the possibility of extending the categories of dangerous activities set out in Annex III in order to include all activities that are potentially harmful to the environment and human health;
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI