BETA

Activities of Victor BOŞTINARU related to 2012/0297(COD)

Shadow opinions (1)

OPINION on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment
2016/11/22
Committee: PETI
Dossiers: 2012/0297(COD)
Documents: PDF(278 KB) DOC(472 KB)

Amendments (22)

Amendment 53 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
(3) It is necessary to amend Directive 2011/92/EU in order to strengthen the quality of the environmental assessment procedure, streamline the various steps of the procedure and enhance coherence and synergies with other Union legislation and policies, as well as strategies and policies developed by Member States in areas of national competence. The ultimate purpose of amending this Directive is to bring about more effective implementation at Member State level.
2013/05/13
Committee: PETI
Amendment 58 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
(4) Over the last decade, environmental issues, such as resource efficiency, biodiversity, climate change, and and sustainability, biodiversity protection, combating climate change, and natural and man-made disaster risks, have become more important in policy making and. They should therefore also constitute critical elements in the assessment and decision- making processes for any public or private project likely to have a significant impact on the environment, especially for infrastructure projects.
2013/05/13
Committee: PETI
Amendment 62 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
(5) In its Communication entitled ‘Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe’, the Commission committed itself to including broader resource efficiency and sustainability considerations in the context of the revision of Directive 2011/92/EU.
2013/05/13
Committee: PETI
Amendment 63 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
(7) The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity ("the Convention"), to which the European Union is party, requires assessment, as far as possible and as appropriate, of the significant adverse effects of projects on biological diversity, which is defined in Article 2 of the Convention, with a view to avoiding or minimising such effects. This prior assessment of impacts should contribute to attaining the Union headline target adopted on 2010 of halting biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystem services by 2020 and restoring them where feasible.
2013/05/13
Committee: PETI
Amendment 65 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
(8) The measures taken to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset significant adverse effects on the environment should contribute to avoiding any deterioration in the quality of the environment and any net loss of biodiversity, in accordance with the Union’s commitments in the context of the Convention and the objectives and actions of the Union Biodiversity Strategy up to 2020.
2013/05/13
Committee: PETI
Amendment 68 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
(9) Climate change will continue to cause damage to the environment and compromise economic development. Accordingly, the environmental, social and economic resilience of the Union should be promoted so as to deal with climate change throughout the Union’s territory in an efficient manner. Climate change adaptation and mitigation responses need to be addressed now across many of the sectors of Union legislation.
2013/05/13
Committee: PETI
Amendment 70 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
(13) Experience has shown that in cases of civil emergency compliance with the provisions of Directive 2011/92/EU may have adverse effects, and provision should therefore be made to authorise Member States not to apply that Directive in appropriate but strictly defined and limited cases.
2013/05/13
Committee: PETI
Amendment 74 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
(16) When determining whether significant environmental effects are likely to be caused, the competent authorities should identifmust define clearly and strictly the most relevant criteria to be considered and use the additional information that may be available following other assessments required by Union legislation in order to apply the screening procedure effectively and transparently. In this regard, it is appropriate to specify the content of the screening decision, in particular where no environmental assessment is required.
2013/05/13
Committee: PETI
Amendment 78 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
(18) The environmental report of a project to be provided by the developer should include an assessment of all reasonable alternatives relevant to the proposed project, including the likely evolution of the existing state of the environment without implementation of the project (baseline scenario), as a means to improve quality of the assessment process and to allow integrating environmental considerations at an early stage in the project’s design.
2013/05/13
Committee: PETI
Amendment 83 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
(20) With a view to ensuring transparency and accountability, the competent authority should be required to substantiate comprehensively and in detail its decision to grant development consent in respect of a project, indicating that it has taken into consideration the results of the consultations carried out and the relevant information gatheredwith the public concerned and all the relevant information gathered. Should that condition not be met, the public concerned should have the right to appeal against the decision.
2013/05/13
Committee: PETI
Amendment 92 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b
2011/92/EU
Article 1, paragraph 2, point g
"environmental impact assessment" shall mean the process of preparing an environmental report on a public or private project, drawn up by an expert who is independent of both the competent authority and the project manager, carrying out mandatory consultations (including with the public concerned and the environmental authorities), the assessment by the competent authority, taking into account the environmental report and the results of the consultations in the development consent procedure as well as the provision of information on the decision in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.
2013/05/13
Committee: PETI
Amendment 105 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
2011/92/EU
Article 3 – point d
(d) the interaction between the factors referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) and the cumulative and cross-border effects of these factors;
2013/05/13
Committee: PETI
Amendment 107 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point a a (new)
2011/92/EU
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
(aa) The following paragraph is inserted after paragraph 2: ‘2a. In setting the thresholds and criteria referred to in paragraph 2, the Member States shall endeavour to set flexible minimum thresholds and criteria so as not to exclude any public or private project that may have a significant impact on the environment;'
2013/05/13
Committee: PETI
Amendment 110 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point a
2011/92/EU
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. When a case-by-case examination is carried out or thresholds or criteria are set for the purpose of paragraph 2, the competent authority shall take account of selection criteria related to the characteristics and location of the project and its potential impact on the environment. The results of this examination must be published, and the public concerned must be able to appeal. The detailed list of selection criteria to be used is specified in Annex III.
2013/05/13
Committee: PETI
Amendment 113 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b
2011/92/EU
Article 4 – paragraph 5 – point c
(c) include a description of the measures envisaged to avoid, prevent and preducevent any significant effects on the environment, where it is decided that no environmental impact assessment needs to be carried out pursuant to Articles 5 to 10;
2013/05/13
Committee: PETI
Amendment 117 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
2011/92/EU
Article 5 – paragraph 1
‘1. Where an environmental impact assessment must be carried out in accordance with Articles 5 to 10, the developer shall make use of the services of an accredited independent expert to prepare an environmental report. The environmental report shall be based on the determination pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Article and include the information that may reasonably be required for making informed decisions on the environmental impacts of the proposed project, taking into account current knowledge and methods of assessment, the characteristics, technical capacity and location of the project, the characteristics of the potential impact, alternatives to the proposed project and the extent to which certain matters (including the evaluation of alternatives) are more appropriately assessed at different levels including the planning level, or on the basis of other assessment requirements. The detailed list of information to be provided in the environmental report is specified in Annex IV.
2013/05/13
Committee: PETI
Amendment 125 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
2011/92/EU
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The competent authority may also seek assistance fromust ensure that the report has been drafted or verified by accredited and technically competent experts referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article. Subsequent requests to the developer for additional information may only be made if these are justified by new circumstances and duly explained by the competent authority.
2013/05/13
Committee: PETI
Amendment 131 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
2011/92/EU
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
The detailed arrangements for the use and selection of accredited and technically competent experts (for example qualifications required, assignment of evaluation, licensing, and disqualification), shall be determined by the Member States. The Commission reserves the right to verify the independence of such experts and ensure that the selection process is carried out properly.
2013/05/13
Committee: PETI
Amendment 136 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b
2011/92/EU
Article 6 – paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. In order to ensure the effective participation of the public concerned in the decision-making procedures, as referred to in paragraph 4, the competent authority or authorities must show that due attention has been paid to the comments made and opinions expressed by the public. A genuine debate must be held and the competent authority or authorities must answer all questions from the public concerned.
2013/05/13
Committee: PETI
Amendment 137 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8
2011/92/EU
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) a summary of the comments, opinions, questions and answers received pursuant to Articles 6 and 7;
2013/05/13
Committee: PETI
Amendment 138 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8
2011/92/EU
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
For projects likely to have significant adverse transboundary effects, the competent authority shall provide information for not having taken into account comments received by the affected Member State during the consultations carried out pursuant to Article 7.
2013/05/13
Committee: PETI
Amendment 148 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – point a
2011/92/EU
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) the public concerned must be able to challenge the information provided, and the Member State must ensure that there is an effective procedure for appealing against the decision made;
2013/05/13
Committee: PETI