BETA

16 Amendments of Bas EICKHOUT related to 2014/2150(INI)

Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Agrees in principle with the aim of cutting unnecessary red tape and removing unnecessary regulatory burdens; expresses, however, its strong concern about potentialREFIT serving also as a tool to achieve deregulation, in particular in the fields of the environment, food safety and health, under the guise of ‘cutting red tape’;
2015/02/05
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Agrees in principle with the aim of cutting red tape and removing unnecessary regulatory burdens; expresses, however, its concern about potential deregulation, in particular in the fields of the environment, food safety and health, under the guise of ‘cutting red tape’; urges the Commission to take the benefits environmental legislation has on citizens, the economy and the environment fully into account when assessing the administrative burdens of regulations;
2015/02/05
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Highlights the consistently strong support expressed by European citizens for EU action on the environment; stresses that the work of regulatory simplification (REFIT) in particular in the context of the Commission work programme, must not be taken as a pretext for lowering the level of ambition on issues of vital importance to the protection of the environment;
2015/02/05
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Is concerned that REFIT takes an unbalanced view of regulation as 'administrative burden', insufficiently acknowledging the positive aspects of regulation;
2015/02/05
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Recalls that four Members of the High Level Group on Administrative Burden, those representing the views of workers, public health, the environment and consumers, adopted a dissenting opinion with regard to the Final Report of the High Level Group of 24 July 20141a; ____________ 1ahttp://www.eeb.org/EEB/?LinkServID=9 3589C92-5056-B741- DBB964D531862603
2015/02/05
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Opposes the setting of a net target for reducing regulatory costs, as this unnecessarily reduces the range of instruments available for addressing new or unresolved issues, and ignores the corresponding benefits of regulation;
2015/02/05
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Opposes the concept of offsetting new regulatory 'burdens' by removing existing 'burdens'; if an existing rule creates an unnecessary burden or is outdated, it should be removed; if it is serving a useful purpose where the benefits outweigh the burden, it should not be removed, just because a new measure has been taken elsewhere;
2015/02/05
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines that when evaluations and fitness checks of environmental, food safety and health legislation are carried out, qualitative environmental and health considerations must be given the same weight as quantitative economic considerations, all the more as protection of health and the environment is often difficult or even impossible to quantify, unlike business costs; underlines also that costs and benefits are considered not only for the short term, but also for the long term;
2015/02/05
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Reiterates that the Commission has previously acknowledged that environmental standards and progressive regulation do not constitute a hindrance for the economy, but rather an advantage for economic growth and job creation;
2015/02/05
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Underlines that the EU's environment policy has stimulated innovation and investment in environmental goods and services, generating jobs and export opportunities;
2015/02/05
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Notes that the Commission is undertaking a Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives; underlines that these Directives are the cornerstone of Europe's efforts to halt the loss of biodiversity and restore degraded ecosystems and that their regulatory framework is both flexible and modern and is a framework within which business can adapt and operate successfully;
2015/02/05
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Opposes in this context the opening of the operational provisions of the Birds and Habitats Directives;
2015/02/05
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Notes with astonishment the Commission’s announcement that it intendsIs opposed to the Commission’s intention to withdraw the proposal on the revision of waste legislation in the name of 'better regulation' and to modify the proposal on the reduction of national emissions;
2015/02/05
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Recalls the findings of the High Level Group on Administrative Burdens' report "Cutting Red Tape in Europe" which does not list environmental legislation among the most burdensome; urges the Commission to keep these findings in mind when considering to withdraw or withhold further environmental proposals; stresses in this regard that the same report found that environmental regulation only contributes 1% to the total amount of unnecessary administrative burden;
2015/02/05
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls on the Commission not to do stand-alone and one-sided cumulative cost assessments in addition to REFIT, as intended for example for the most relevant EU legislation and policies relevant for the European chemicals industry, and instead integrate this aspect into the general Fitness Check so as to ensure a balanced approach that also takes into consideration the benefits of the legislation concerned;
2015/02/05
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
8. Deplores the fact that the Commission considered withdrawing its proposal for adid not act as a facilitator in the negotiations over a new directive on plastic bags, afternd even threatened publicly to withdraw its proposal shortly before the conclusion of an agreement by the co- legislators in the name of 'better regulation';
2015/02/05
Committee: ENVI