22 Amendments of Sabrina PIGNEDOLI related to 2020/2027(INI)
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the ELD established ‘a framework of environmental liability based on the ‘polluter pays’ principle, to prevent and remedy environmental damage; whereas the ELD complements main pieces of EU environmental legislation, to which it is directly or indirectly linked, in particular the Habitat Directive9 , the Birds Directive10 , the Water Framework Directive11 , the Marine Strategy Framework Directive12 and the Offshore Safety Directive13 ; _________________ 10Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7. 11Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1. 12Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy, OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19. 13Directive 2013/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on safety of offshore oil and gas operations, OJ L 178, 28.6.2013, p. 66. 9Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas operator insolvency as a consequence of major accidents remains a problem in the EU, thereby resulting in the disregard for the “’polluter pays’ principle;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. ObservesPoints out that the discretionary powers set out in the ELD, the lack of awareness and information about the ELD, insufficient resources and expertise and the weak mechanisms for securing compliance and effective governance at national, regional and local level have led to implementation deficiencies, considerable variability between Member States in the number of cases, and an uneven playing field for operators; is therefore of the opinion that additional efforts are required to ensure regulatory standardisation in the EU and increased public confidence in the effectiveness of EU laws;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Regrets that in many Member States, the budgets of environmental inspectorates have stagnated or decreased due to the financial crisis and that even large, well-resourced authorities can find it difficult to independently develop knowledge of the best ways to ensure compliance; is thus of the opinion that stronger support at EU level is needed and, therefore, calls on the Commission to support Member States in the development of tools for operators, competent authorities, civil society organisations and insurers, for example through accessible information portals, commonly used networks (EU networks for practitioners), best practice information and guidance, additional training programmes, training materials and guidance on skills, as this could increase the pressure on ‘black sheep’ companies and, benefit companies that respect the law and would enable stakeholders, operators and the public to become more aware of the existence of the ELD regime and its enforcement and thus contribute to better prevention and remediation of environmental damages;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Points outreiterates that reliable data on environmental incidents giving rise to the application of the ELD or other administrative, civil or criminal instruments should be collected and should be made public in order to establish whether a combination of different legal instruments could adequately respond to environmental harm, or whether serious gaps still exist that need to be remedied; asks for the establishment of a European register of cases of environmental damage governed by the ELD and calls the Commission and all the Member States to develop public available databases for reporting on ELD cases in order to create better trust in the ELD system and better implementation;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for the ELD to be revised as soon as possible and to be transformed into a fully harmonised regulation in order to achieve a level playing field for EU industry; emphasises that EU rules for liability of companies for environmental damage are currently not providing a level playing field , thereby distorting the proper functioning of the EU’s internal market;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Believes that most definitions in the ELD should be further clarified and broaden, to make the directive fair and clear to all stakeholders, such as operators, competent authorities, civil society organisations and insurers and to keep pace with the rapid evolution of pollutants; welcomes therefore the current efforts to develop a common understanding document (CUD) on key ELD definitions and concepts; regrets, however, that the Commission and the ELD government expert groups did not reach an agreement on its format, meaning that the CUD remains a document produced by the consultancy which was hired by the Commission to support the implementation of the 2017-2020 Multi- annual ELD Work Programme;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Points out that the different interpretations and application of the “significance threshold” for environmental damage has been identified as a main reason for the uneven application of the ELD; calls, therefore, for a more consistent application and better clarification and guidance of the threshold of “significant damage” in the context of the ELD; calls for the clarification and harmonisation of the “significant” damage to biodiversity threshold and the criteria for its definition, and the alignment of the environmental liability regime to the Habitats Directive Article 6(2);
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. AskCalls the Commission to undertake a study to establish whether extending the scope of the ELD to align it with other pieces of EU legislation, including the ECD, could limit short- and long-term damage to the environment, human health and air qualityextend the scope of the ELD strict liability to non- Annex III activities to cover all environmental damage, as well as to human health, such as air pollution by cars violating EU car emissions legislation so as to improve the effectiveness of the legislation in implementing the ‘polluter pays’ principle; considers that such extension of scope would streamline the ELD with other pieces of EU legislation on protecting human health and environment, including the ECD, and would facilitate adding provisions to the ELD, such as including a requirement to carry out preventive measures and emergency remedial action, either in the directive itself or in national law implementing it; asks the Commission, furthermore, to assess wthether the precautionary principle approach properly presupposes potentially dangerous risks or effects; potential damage that the so-called industry-led ‘innovation principle’ can have on the short and long term, and the danger it poses to the established precautionary principle and its ability to limit liability in environmental damage;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11 a. Notes that the activities listed in Annex III do not sufficiently cover the sectors that could potentially give rise to environmental damage; points out that there are activities with potential negative impacts on biodiversity and the environment, such as the pipeline of transport of hazardous substances outside of industrial establishments covered by Annex III, mining, the introduction of invasive alien species and shale gas operations, that are currently not covered by the requirement for strict liability;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the Commission to assess whether it would be appropriate to introduceintroduce a secondary liability regime, that is parental and chain liability for damage caused to human health and the environment20 ; _________________ 20See, for instance, Judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 September 2009, Akzo Nobel NV and Others v Commission of the European Communities, C-97/08 B, ECLI:EU:C:2009:536.
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. believes that Corporate Social Responsibility(CSR) and Corporate Environmental Responsibility (CER) could play a complementary role to environmental liability, as duly compliance with CSR and CER can reduce the likelihood of environmental harm; considers important in this sense that these commitments should be connected to mandatory obligations towards sustainable value creation, including the enforcing of non-financial reporting obligations;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12 b. considers that a new legislation is urgently needed in order to establish clear, robust and enforceable cross- sectoral requirements on business enterprises to respect human rights, good governance and the environment and to carry out due diligence; stresses that such legislation should follow a cross- commodity approach, apply to all economic sectors in the supply chain, including the financial sector, both upstream and downstream, be accompanied by a robust reporting, disclosure and enforcement mechanism, including effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for non-compliance;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. AsksCalls on the Commission to look into the possibility of introducinge a mandatory financial security system (covering insurance, bank guarantees, company pools and bonds or funds) with a maximum threshold per case, aiming to prevent taxpayers from having to bear the costs resulting from remediation of environmental damage; asks the Commission, in addition, to develop a harmonised EU methodology for calculating the maximum liability threshold, taking into account the activity and the impact on the environmenthighlights that insurance cannot be designed to limit liability, but only to address costs of clean-up;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Reiterates that according to the ELD, persons adversely affected by environmental damage should be entitled to ask the competent authorities to take action; believes in this regard that a compensatory collective redress mechanism should be available to any individual or organisation that has suffered due to environmental damage or impairment of right within the scope of the ELD;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)
Paragraph 16 b (new)
16 b. Welcomes the Commission legislative proposal amending the Aarhus Regulation1367/2006 (COM(2020) 642 final) to allow for better public scrutiny of EU acts affecting the environment; taking into account that the European law stipulates that European citizens should be guaranteed effective and timely access to justice(Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Regulation, Article 6 TEU and relevant provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights) and that the costs of the environmental harm should be borne by the polluter (Article 191TFEU), calls on the Council in its capacity as a co-legislator for the effective implementation of the third pillar of the Aarhus Convention to guarantee access to courts for natural persons and NGOs for representative action to directly file a lawsuit against an operator potentially liable for environmental harm;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Is of the opinion that in cases of extremely widespread pollution, not just environmental liability instruments, but a multitude of instruments, including administrative measures, financial penalties and in some cases criminal prosecution, should be applied to remedy the problem; notes that criminal penalties alone are often ineffective as they may lead to large dismissals of environmental cases especially in Member States where there is no criminal liability of the corporate entity; also notes that in many Member States administrative financial penalties are increasingly used; calls therefore on the Commission to facilitate, and on Member States to use, administrative fines as a complementary tool alongside criminal sanctions;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Calls for the scope of the ECD to be reviewed to ensure that it covers all relevant environmental legislation taking into account new types and patterns of environmental crime, including illegal logging and timber trade, illegal fishing, human-made fires and carbon credit fraud and all activities that contribute to cover-up environmental crimes;
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17 b. Calls for minimum rules under the ECD with regard to the definition of sanctions and on the Commission to issue guidance on what constitutes effective, dissuasive and proportionate sanctions and a uniform application of sanctions in the EU and minimum standards for national authorities on the frequency and quality of checks on operators; the ECD should include requirements for Member States on data collection, publication and reporting, while using synergies with existing reporting obligations for Member States under the EU sectoral legislation listed in the annexes to the Directive;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 c (new)
Paragraph 17 c (new)
17 c. Calls for further clarification and guidance on the interpretation of some legal terms of the ECD, such as “substantial damage”, “non-negligible quantity”, “negligible quantity” and “negligible impact”, “dangerous activity” and “significant deterioration” to ensure consistent application in individual Member States and facilitate cross-border cooperation;
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 d (new)
Paragraph 17 d (new)
17 d. Calls on the Commission to examine the possibility of a legislative proposal for the crime of ecocide and calls on the EU and Member States to work in order to extend the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to the ecocide as well; this extension would make it possible to recognize that large- scale environmental crimes are comparable to voluntary violations of human rights or to outright warlike actions;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 e (new)
Paragraph 17 e (new)
17 e. calls on the Commission to examine the possibility of establishing a European Environmental Criminal Court with powers similar to those of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which enforces the 'polluter pays' principle, including compensation for victims;