2020/2027(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Deplores the lack of effective implementation of EU directives that aim to establish criminal liability of legal persons for environmental offences1 ; stresses the urgent need to update such legislation and to find more effective implementation means; calls on the Commission and the Member States to allocate appropriate financial and human resources to preventing, investigating and prosecuting environmental crimes; _________________ 1 Directive 2004/35/CE on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment through criminal law, and Directive 2009/123/EC amending Directive 2005/35/EC.

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Stresses the need to confiscate the proceeds of environmental crimes, and to use them for social purposes aiming at repairing the damage and improving the environment;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Stresses the need of a transparent, liable and ambitious internal environmental policy and governance in companies, as well as the importance of a reinforced and high skilled team monitoring and enforcing such environmental policy, stressing the focus on prevention measures;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to make full use of Article 83(2) TFEU and to consider the adoption of an overall framework directive on environmental offences; calls on the Commission to evaluate the possibility of a legislative proposal for the crime of ecocide and of including environmental crimes among the categories of offences in Article 83(1) TFEU; calls on the EU and the Member States to work to extend the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to include ecocide, making it clear that large-scale environmental crimes can be equated with deliberate human rights infringements or outright acts of war;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to make full use of Article 83(2) TFEU and to consider the adoption of an overall framework directive on environmental offences defining which behaviours to be punished, the nature of infrigements, the types of offences, the reparation regimes, the restoration measures and the sanctions, including overall liability of legal persons; calls on the Commission to evaluate the possibility of a legislative proposal for the crime of ecocide and of including environmental crimes among the categories of offences in Article 83(1) TFEU;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. CUrges the Commission and the Council to consider environmental crimes as a priority; calls on the Commission to make full use of Article 83(2) TFEU and to ~~consider~~propose the adoption of a~~n overall framework~~ comprehensive directive on environmental offences; calls on the Commission to evaluate the possibility of a legislative proposal for the crime of ecocide and of including environmental crimes among the categories of offences in Article 83(1) TFEU;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that environmental protection is a fundamental right according to Article 37 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; stresses that environmental crimes undermine the rule of law in the EU and seriously hamper the EU’s aim of establishing an area of freedom, security and justice;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to make full use of Article 83(2) TFEU and to consider the adoption of an overall framework directive on environmental offences and effective and proportionate sanctions; calls on the Commission to evaluate the possibility of a legislative proposal for the crime of ecocide and of including environmental crimes among the categories of offences in Article 83(1) TFEU;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Considers that ecocide should be internationally recognised as a crime, and as a core crime that can be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court (ICC);

Amendment 32 #

5. Recognises the direct or indirect connection between environmental offences and transnational organised crime and corruption2; _________________ 2 See the report for EFFACE ‘Organised Crime and Environmental Crime: Analysis of International Legal Instruments’ (2015), or the study ‘Transnational environmental crime threatens sustainable development’ (2019).such environmental offences, which generally take the form of 'corporate crimes', open the door wide to mafia infiltration into the legal economy; this risk is now heightened by the additional opportunities offered to businesses by European funding for post- pandemic recovery;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Recognises the direct or indirect connection between environmental offences and transnational organised crime and corruption2 ; expresses its concern about the high incidence of environmental crime with the combined estimates from the OECD, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), UNEP and INTERPOL on the monetary value of all environmental crime showing it as the 4th largest international crime; _________________ 2 See the report for EFFACE ‘Organised Crime and Environmental Crime: Analysis of International Legal Instruments’ (2015), or the study ‘Transnational environmental crime threatens sustainable development’ (2019).

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Recognises the direct or indirect connection between environmental offences and transnational organised crime and corruption2 ; urges, therefore, EU and Member States to provide competent authorities with adequate investigative powers to tackle environmental crimes _________________ 2 See the report for EFFACE ‘Organised Crime and Environmental Crime: Analysis of International Legal Instruments’ (2015), or the study ‘Transnational environmental crime threatens sustainable development’ (2019).

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Recognises the direct or indirect connection between environmental offences and transnational organised crime and corruption2 ; calls on Europol to update the study made in 20152a and regularly provide updated data; _________________ 2 See the report for EFFACE ‘Organised Crime and Environmental Crime: Analysis of International Legal Instruments’ (2015), or the study ‘Transnational environmental crime threatens sustainable development’ (2019). 2a https://www.europol.europa.eu/publicatio ns-documents/report-environmental- crime-in-europe

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission, Europol and Eurojust to provide support and a more institutionalised structure for existing networks of practitioners such as the European Network of Prosecutors for the Environment (ENPE) and the European Union Forum of Judges for the Environment (EUFJE) with the participation of all EU Member States; calls for a reinforced action of the Europol EnviCrimeNet; calls on Europol and Eurojust to reinforce documentation, investigation and prosecution of environmental crimes;

Amendment 37 #

6. Calls on the Commission, Europol and Eurojust to provide further financial, human and technical support and a more institutionalised structure for existing networks of practitioners, cross- border law enforcement, environmental agencies and specialised prosecutors;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission, Europol and Eurojust to provide support and a more institutionalised structure for existing networks of practitioners and, at the same time, encourage improvement in the way Member States exchange information;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission, ~~Europol and Eurojust to provide support and a more institutionalised structure for existing networks of practitioners~~to strengthen compliance monitoring and enforcement by increasing training for enforcement staff, support for relevant networks of professionals, and by further approximating criminal sanctions throughout the EU;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Calls on the Commission to promote action by the EU, its Member States and the international community to step up efforts against environmental crime;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission, Europol and Eurojust to provide operational support and a more effective and institutionalised structure for existing networks of practitioners;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Calls on Member States to set up or reinforce specialised units within their national police services at the appropriate levels for the investigation of environmental offences and to provide them with sufficient human, financial and technical resources, with a view to reinforcing their inspection and enforcement capacity in combating environmental crime;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Underlines the importance of investing in adequate funding and staffing levels for Europol, Eurojust and EPPO;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Calls on the Member States to set up networks where prosecutors and judges specialised in environmental crime can exchange experience and assist one another, with a view to improving the effectiveness of combating this crime;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6 c. Calls on Europol to set up a dedicated unit competent to collect, store, process, analyse and exchange information to support and strengthen Member States in preventing, detecting and investigating environmental crime;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)

6 d. Stresses the importance of (e- )training for law enforcement actors in environmental crime, and calls on CEPOL to intensify its trainings in this field; recognises that sufficient resources must be made available to CEPOL;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 e (new)

6 e. Calls on Member States to encourage the use of Joint Investigation Teams in transnational environmental crime cases, which facilitates the coordination of investigations and prosecutions conducted in parallel across several Member States.

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

~~7. Calls on the Commission to explore the possibility of extending the mandate of the EPPO in future to cover such offences;~~deleted

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to explore the possibility of extending the mandate of the EPPO in future to cover such offences and to establish an environmental crimes section at the European Court of Justice with powers similar to those of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which enforces the 'polluter pays' principle, encompassing compensation for victims;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to explore the possibility of extending the mandate of the EPPO ~~in future to cover such offenc~~, once it is fully established and functional; recalls that EPPO must be equipped with the necessary means in order to be able to thoroughly investigate and prosecute cross-border criminal activities;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Recognises that Environmental damage has a relevant impact on human health and access to natural resources;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Deplores lack of awareness on the seriousness of the crimes involved in environmental criminality, among the public and within law enforcement; stresses in this respect the importance of raising public and law enforcement professionals awareness on the seriousness and increasing diffusion of environmental crimes in the EU; calls for systematic statistics and data collection on the environmental crimes in the EU;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to set up protection and support schemes for the victims of environmental damage and to ensure their full access to justice, information and compensation, especially for those who have to migrate as a consequence of an environmental damage; emphasises the key role of environmental NGOs in raising awareness and taking legal action and calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide them with the appropriate financial support; Reiterates the importance to enable individuals or environmental NGOs to seek remedies and injunctive reliefs if public authorities fail to act to address environmental violations.

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to set up protection and support schemes for the victims of environmental damage and to ensure their full access to justice, information and compensation; emphasises the key role of environmental NGOs in raising awareness and taking legal action and calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide them with the appropriate financial support in accordance with well- established criteria.

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to set up protection and support schemes for the victims of environmental damage and to ensure their ~~full~~ access to justice, information and compensation; emphasises the key role of Member States, as well as environmental NGOs, in raising awareness and ~~taking legal action and~~ calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide them with the appropriate financial support.

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Stresses the importance of the collection of systematic, reliable and up- to-date statistics on environmental crime; calls on the Commission to oblige Member States to provide all relevant statistics covering all reported environmental offences in a standardised form; calls on the Commission to publish a quantitative analysis of the provided data on environmental crimes, with a view to assessing the effectiveness of national systems and to provide recommendations on how to adapt them in order to fight environmental crime more effectively.

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Emphasises the crucial role of environmental human rights defenders striving for rights and fundamental freedoms as they relate to the enjoyment of a safe, healthy and sustainable environment, and strongly condemns any form of violence, harassment and intimidation perpetrated against them; calls on the Member States to ensure proper and effective investigation and prosecution of those acts.

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Calls of the Commission toset up a tool that would allow EU citizens to report, in an anonymous manner and without fear of retaliation, to the appropriate European or Member State regulatory authorities and investigative teams, potential environmental crimes;

Amendment 57 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8 b. Is convinced of the need of an international approach to environmental crime due to its global impact on societies; calls on the Commission to address environmental crimes in the relevant EU legislation including in the forthcoming mandatory due diligence legislation in global supply chains; calls furthermore, on the Commission and Member States to raise awareness and promote solutions in international fora including on the protection of human environmental rights defenders and the recognition of ecocide in international law; ; highlights, in this regards the example of the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime bringing together five international organisations;

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8 b. Stresses the importance of creating a centralised online repository with data related to environmental crimes and illegal conduct that harm the environment in the Member States, in order to help cross- border law enforcement in detecting, investigating and prosecuting such crimes;

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8 b. Calls on the Member States to set up dedicated reporting points for environmental crime, in order to encourage citizens to report possible environmental offences to the authorities;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Recalls that environmental crime is the fourth most lucrative crime in the planet according to UN Environment, being traffic and illegal waste management in the top of these environmental crimes.

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)

8 c. Considers that companies convicted for environmental crimes should not been allowed to benefit from any of the measures foreseen for registrants into the transparency register; suggests, to this end, to revise the scope and the code of conduct of the transparency register in order to include provisions on the removal from it of companies convicted for environmental crimes.

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)

8 c. Calls on the Member States to increase the level of expertise of prosecutors and judges in environmental crimes and its effects, with a view to more efficiently prosecuting and sanctioning environmental crime.

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1 c. Stresses that environmental crimes pose a growing threat to peace and security, sustainable development and environmental rule of law;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)

1 d. Recognises that unsustainable practices and lack of ambition for environmental protection within companies are a hindrance for reaching the objectives set in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), especially those set in goals 3, 9, 12,13, 14 and 15;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that today’s environmental degradation has far-reaching consequences for a wide range of human rights; considers that prevention and criminal sanctions are important deterrents against environmental damage; deplores that not all environmental crimes are currently recognised in Europe as such, which leads to inadequate and low sanctions; stresses that both corporations and individuals should be held accountable for criminal violations of environmental law;

source: 658.928

2020/11/13 DEVE 77 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas in recent years the European Parliament has adopted a proactive role in pushing for environmental liability regime for environmental and human right harms occurring in third countries; notably with the adoption of its resolution of 25 October 2016 on corporate liability for serious human rights abuses in third countries;

Amendment 10 #

Ádám KÓSA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that the global rise in environmental criminality is a growing threat to the achievement of the UN’s 2030 Agenda and is concerned that environmental crimes often go undetected due to the reticence or inefficiency of law enforcement; calls for the recognition of the right to a healthy and sustainable environment at the UN level;

Amendment 11 #

Catherine CHABAUD, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that the global rise in environmental criminality is a growing threat to the achievement of the UN’s 2030 Agenda; calls for the recognition of the right to a healthy and sustainable environment at the UN level, which shall subsequently entail the corresponding duty to prosecute those who violate those rights;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that the global rise in environmental criminality is a growing threat to the achievement of the UN’s 2030 Agenda, in particular in developing countries; calls for the recognition of the right to a healthy and sustainable environment at the UN level;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that the global rise in environmental ~~criminality~~damage is a growing threat to the achievement of the UN’s 2030 Agenda; calls for the recognition of the right to a healthy and sustainable environment at the UN level;

Amendment 14 #

Catherine CHABAUD, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls that the Union should not merely promote a high level of environmental protection on its own territory, but should also take all possible action to prevent environmental damage anywhere in the world caused by companies based in Member States; recalls that environmental damage is particularly frequent and serious in developing countries due to factors such as less stringent legislative frameworks for environmental protection or the industrial and extractive activity of multinational corporations in those countries;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls that, according to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Interpol, the monetary value of environmental crime is between USD 70 billion and USD 213 billion per year; stresses that illegal trade in animals and forest products mostly affects developing countries; calls on the EU to step up its support for these countries in combating illegal trafficking that affects the environment, deprives them of additional sources of income and hampers their social and economic development;

Amendment 16 #

Catherine CHABAUD, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Stresses that people in developing countries are directly dependent on biodiversity for their food-, health- and economic security; deplores the fact that the degradation of biodiversity due to environmental crime and the resulting loss of resources increase their vulnerability;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls on the Commission to consider a proposal for a reform of the Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law in order to broaden the list of types of conduct classified as environmental offences and to establish a minimum framework of penalties to ensure that it has a deterrent effect throughout the EU; Urges the EU to make the fight against environmental crime an overriding strategic political priority in international judicial cooperation and for the EU institutions and COPs, notably by promoting compliance with MEAs through the adoption of criminal sanctions, through exchanges of best practices and by promoting the enlargement of the scope of the International Criminal Court to cover criminal acts that amount to ecocide;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. UPoints out that, while international environment law has evolved through the adoption of treaties and conventions, criminal law remain insufficient to prevent significant ecological harm; urges the EU to make the fight against environmental crime an overriding strategic political priority in international judicial cooperation and for the EU institutions and COPs, notably by promoting compliance with MEAs through the adoption of criminal sanctions, through exchanges of best practices and by promoting the enlargement of the scope of the International Criminal Court to cover criminal acts that amount to ecocide; calls on the Commission and the Member States to allocate appropriate financial and human resources to preventing, investigating and prosecuting environmental crimes;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Urges the EU to ~~make~~ensure accountability in the fight against environmental crime an ~~overriding strategic political~~d to make it a key priority in international judicial cooperation and for the EU institutions and COPs, notably by promoting compliance with MEAs ~~through the adoption of criminal sanctions, through exchanges of best practices and by promoting the enlargement of the scope of the International Criminal Court to cover~~by enhancing environmental good governance and the establishment of a fair compliance mechanism and by promoting best practices on environmental protection through a dialogue with the private and public sector, local authorities in third countries and civil society, so as to find the best possible outcome and to criminalize acts that amount to ecocide;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)

Ab. whereas Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration and Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration recognise the sovereign right of states to exploit their own natural resources, but equally the responsibility, or obligation, not to cause damage to the environment of other states or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;

Amendment 20 #

María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Catherine CHABAUD, Charles GOERENS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Urges the EU to make the fight against environmental crime a~~n overriding~~ strategic political priority in international judicial cooperation and for the EU institutions and COPs, notably by promoting compliance with MEAs ~~through the adoption of~~with the potential for criminal sanctions, through exchanges of best practices and by ~~promoting the enlargement of the scope of the International Criminal Court to cover criminal acts that amount to ecocide~~working with the International Criminal Court through its power of investigation to advance inquiries into corporate complicity resulting in widespread environmental destruction;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Urges the EU to make the fight against environmental crime an overriding strategic political priority in international judicial cooperation and for the EU institutions and COPs, notably by promoting compliance with MEAs through the adoption of criminal sanctions, through exchanges of best practices and by promoting the enlargement of the scope of the International Criminal Court to ~~cover~~recognise criminal acts that amount to ecocide under the Rome Statute;

Amendment 22 #

Catherine CHABAUD, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Urges the EU to ~~mak~~include the fight against environmental ~~crime an overriding strategic political priority~~damage in international judicial cooperation and for the EU institutions and COPs, notably by promoting compliance with MEAs ~~through the adoption of criminal sanctions,~~ through exchanges of best practices and by promoting the enlargement of the scope of the International Criminal Court to cover criminal acts that ~~amount to ecocid~~cause irreversible damages and have the most devastating effects on environment, biodiversity and climate;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Welcomes the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the priority given to the protection of fauna and flora in the negotiation of trade agreements with developing countries; recalls the European Commission’s commitment to revise the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking, notably illegal ivory trafficking; calls, in this connection, for the African elephant, threatened with extinction as a result of the illegal ivory trade, to be included in Annex 1 to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES);

Amendment 24 #

María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Catherine CHABAUD, Charles GOERENS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to set up protection schemes for the victims of environmental damage and to ensure their full access to justice, compensation and assistance;

Amendment 25 #

María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Catherine CHABAUD, Charles GOERENS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Stresses that the EU environmental liability regime shall respect policy coherence for development (PCD) and the do-no-harm principle;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Welcomes the European Commission’s proposal to improve the implementation of the Aarhus Convention and to address the concerns expressed by the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee regarding the EU’s compliance with its international obligations under the Convention;

Amendment 27 #

María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Catherine CHABAUD, Charles GOERENS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Calls on the European Commission and the Member States to promote the ratification of the Aarhus Convention with third countries (Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters) and to play an active role in the Task Force on Access to Justice for sharing of information, experiences and good practices of relevant jurisprudence with third countries;

Amendment 28 #

María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Catherine CHABAUD, Charles GOERENS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)

2d. Calls on the Commission and the Member States promote the principles of the Aarhus Convention in international organizations and international processes relating to the environment;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) is crucial to the implementation of the ‘polluter pays’ principle; deplores the fact that liability rules have largely not been applied and are unable to fulfil their compensatory and preventive functions; believes that, in order to ensure effective compliance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the Environmental Liability Directive should establish a strict liability regime for any kind of environmental damage or situation of imminent danger to the environment, including in situations where damage is the result of explicitly authorised activities or where the potential damage of such actions could not have been known when the actions took place, and provide for the non- applicability of statutory limitations to penalty proceedings;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Recital A c (new)

Ac. whereas human rights abuses and environmental harms have been observed in many developing countries, including expropriation of land from indigenous people and local communities, modern slavery, ecosystems destruction, water pollution or overexploitation of natural resources;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Recalls that the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) is crucial to the implementation of the ‘polluter pays’ principle; d~~Deplores the fact that liability rules have largely not been applied and are unable to fulfil their compensatory and preventive functions;

Amendment 31 #

Pierfrancesco MAJORINO, Udo BULLMANN, Maria NOICHL, Carlos ZORRINHO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) is crucial to the implementation of the ‘polluter pays’ principle; deplores the fact that liability rules have ~~largely~~ not been applied in some Member States and are unable to fulfil their ~~compensato~~recovery and preventive functions;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. 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 this commitments should be connected to mandatory obligations towards sustainable value creation, including the enforcing of non-financial reporting obligations, also through sanctioning mechanisms;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Considers that, in order to achieve a high level of environmental protection, the scope of the Environmental Liability Directive should be extended to include any type of conduct that is harmful to or creates an immediate risk for the environment, especially any type of imminent risk for, or damage to, water and soil;

Amendment 34 #

Pierfrancesco MAJORINO, Udo BULLMANN, Maria NOICHL, Carlos ZORRINHO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Recalls that ex-post liability rules should complement ex-ante safety regulation and market-based instrument (such as environmental taxation) aiming at the reduction of environmental harm to fulfil the objectives of prevention and compensation;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. 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 and the environment and to carry out due diligence; stresses that such legislation should follow a cross-commodity approach, apply to all economic actors in the supply chain, including financial actors, both upstream and downstream, be accompanied by a robust reporting, disclosure and enforcement mechanism, including effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for non-compliance;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Reiterates the need to strengthen standards in terms of mandatory disclosure of information by undertakings in the remit of the revision of Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on non-financial reporting, notably by including an enforcement and sanctioning mechanism to support the reporting requirements;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights the barriers to holding companies liable for environmental harm, such as the regime of limited liability, insolvency, barriers to access to justice, latency and causal uncertainty; in particular, reminds that the liability mechanism often remains ineffective as “limited liability” enables de facto companies not to pay for the harm they have caused through their activities due to insolvency;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights the barriers to holding companies ~~lia~~responsible for environmental harm, ~~such as the regime of limited liability, insolvency, barriers to access to justice, latency and causal uncertainty~~including insolvency for example, can be reduced through common application of co-existing criminal, civil or administrative proceedings;

Amendment 4 #

Jan-Christoph OETJEN, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS

Draft opinion
Recital A d (new)

Ad. whereas there is an increasing number of cases where victims of pollution caused by subsidiaries of European companies try to bring environmental liability lawsuits against parent companies before courts in the EU;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Welcomes the efforts made by some leading enterprises and corporations on implementing voluntary measures on upholding human rights and environmental standards; Recognizes, however, that voluntary efforts do not suffice and that a comprehensive framework is vital to tackle environmental criminality and protect and uphold universal environmental standards;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Considers that all Member States should establish strict civil liability regimes to determine the redress to be provided for any direct damage caused to individuals as a result of environmental damage caused by an operator; calls on the Commission to present a legislative proposal to that effect.

Amendment 42 #

Pierfrancesco MAJORINO, Udo BULLMANN, Maria NOICHL, Carlos ZORRINHO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls on the Commission to adopt an ambitious legislation on an EU mandatory due diligence framework; recalls, however, that such a legislation must complement the legislation setting out a binding framework on environmental liability for EU companies operating in third countries;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Underlines that the environmental liability of companies should be connected to the global dimension of production processes and of value creation and that this perspective requires further efforts to define broader and more effective rules;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Recalls that the regulatory framework of Multinational Corporations (MNCs) is flawed, as the rules enshrined in Multilateral Environmental Agreements do not bind multinational corporations under international law; recalls that there is no EU legal instrument addressing the possibility of prosecuting European companies abroad for environmental crimes or activities causing environmental damage; therefore, stresses that the current system of reliance on national laws is likely to underestimate the gravity of corporate environmental damage; on this ground, calls on the EU and its Member States to provide for access to justice by allowing victims to take the parent company to Court in the EU, notably in a context where many host state legal systems are inadequate;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Reiterates the need for a common regulatory framework that holds companies accountable but at the same time enables companies and consumers to make transparent decisions and has the ability to make use of the mechanisms of the free market in order to minimize violations of human rights and ecological and social standards in the future;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4c. Recognises that the feasibility of a judicial framework for the criminalisation, penalisation and redress of environmental damages and crimes is linked to the technical ability of EU businesses and companies (including those operating from within the EU) to ensure that environmental standards are upheld throughout the entirety of their supply chain and in their partnership with companies and local authorities in third countries; Believes, therefore, that the EU must develop an inclusive approach to corporate liability, which regards the feasibility of seamless monitoring supply chains of companies and businesses of all particular sizes; insists on the necessity to create a level playing field for businesses and companies to uphold human rights and environmental standards which allows for the best possible freedom of action while ensuring accountability and due diligence; Considers it therefore vital to adopt a size-, risk based and sector- specific approach in the evaluation of further liability of companies for environmental damages;

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Notes~~Recalls that under the current ELD, there is no room for imposing parent company liability; points out, however, that companies may abuse their limited liability to invest in hazardous industries through separate legal entities in order to externalise environmental costs; recalls the governance gap in global value chains; calls for the scope of strict liability to be extended to parent companies to avoid the risk of moral hazard, in line with/and in complement to the principle that EU undertakings have a duty of care and due diligence to prevent environmental harm caused by its subsidiaries active outside of the EU;

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that companies may abuse their limited liability to invest in hazardous industries through separate legal entities in order to externalise environmental costs; recalls the governance gap in global value chains; calls for the scope of strict liability to be extended to parent companies to avoid the risk of moral hazard; stresses the importance of free trade agreements signed by the EU incorporating clauses ensuring a high level of environmental protection in connection with industrial production in developing countries;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that companies may abuse their limited liability to invest in hazardous industries through separate legal entities in order to externalise environmental costs; recalls the governance gap in global value chains; calls ~~for the scope of strict liabil~~on the EU to further ensure that and encourage parent companies to take sustainable and responsible approaches to their cooperation wityh t~~o be extended to parent companies to avoid the risk of~~hird countries, in line with international human rights and environmental standards and to refrain from undertaking investment strategies that lead directly to morally hazardous outcomes;

Amendment 5 #

Pierfrancesco MAJORINO, Udo BULLMANN, Maria NOICHL, Carlos ZORRINHO

Draft opinion
Recital A e (new)

Ae. whereas human rights abuses and environmental harms are often deeply linked and need accordingly be tackled through an holistic approach;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that some companies may ~~abuse their limi~~seek to establish separated l~~iability~~egal entities to invest in hazardous industries ~~through separate legal entities~~, in order to externalise environmental costs~~; recalls the governance gap in global value chains~~, thereby limiting their legal and public relations exposure; calls ~~for~~on the ~~scope of strict liability to be extended to parent companies to avoid the risk of moral hazard~~Commission to assess whether it would be appropriate to introduce parental and chain liability for damage caused to environment;

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Notes that companies play an important role in the system of ELD, however, given the administrative nature of the ELD, there is a crucial role for the administrative authorities to take the initiative, reacting rapidly, in case of a detected environmental harm, as well as taking adequate actions to prevent future harms;

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. CRecalls that insolvency seriously undermines the deterrent effect of the ELD to prevent environmental harm; reminds that so far, there is no formal duty to provide financial guarantees under the ELD; against this background, calls for the development of mandatory solvency guarantees to cover the ELD liabilities of companies in the event of insolvency and to search for an optimal mix between future EU legislation on mandatory environmental due diligence, and administrative, civil and criminal enforcement regimes aiming to address environmental harm;

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for the examination of the development of ~~mandatory~~ solvency guarantees to cover the ELD liabilities of companies in the event of insolvency and to search for an optimal mix between future EU legislation on mandatory environmental due diligence, and administrative, civil and criminal enforcement regimes aiming to address environmental harm, including administrative measures, financial penalties and in some cases criminal prosecution as potential remedies;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for the development a harmonised framework of mandatory solvency guarantees to cover the ELD liabilities of companies in the event of insolvency to boost the preventive effect of said directive and to search for an optimal mix between future EU legislation on mandatory environmental due diligence, and administrative, civil and criminal enforcement regimes aiming to address environmental harm;

Amendment 56 #

Pierfrancesco MAJORINO, Udo BULLMANN, Maria NOICHL, Carlos ZORRINHO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Calls for the development of mandatory solvency guarantees to cover the ELD liabilities of companies in~~Encourages the development of ~~insolvency and to search for~~ an optimal mix between future EU legislation on mandatory environmental due diligence, and administrative, and civil ~~and~~, criminal enforcement ~~regimes~~ aiming to address environmental harm;

Amendment 57 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Calls for setting up or improving protecting mechanisms and specific legal measures defining environmental defenders, recognising their work and guaranteeing their protection; retains it essential to define regulatory frameworks that ensure early and constant involvement of local communities and accessible channels for reporting environmental risks;

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Recalls that a major problem with violations of environmental regulations is that the probability of detection is low; against this background, calls for the introduction of punitive damage for environmental liability under the ELD; believes that corporate liability should be combined with individual liability to fight corporate crime effectively;

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Recalls that a system of corporate liability for human rights abuses is currently being negotiated in the UN, within the UNHRC’s open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises concerning human rights (OEIGWG); but deplores that the Commission has no mandate from the Council to conduct negotiations on behalf of the EU concerning its participation in the OEIGWG; urges once more the EU and its Member States to engage actively and constructively in the process, with the view to adopt a binding and enforceable UN Treaty on business and human rights;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that the global rise in environmental criminality is a growing threat to the achievement of the UN’s 2030 Agenda; calls for the recognition of the right to a healthy and sustainable environment at the UN level; Recalls that due diligence is primarily a preventative mechanism and companies should be first and foremost required to identify risks or adverse impacts and adopt policies and measures to address them; emphasises that if an undertaking causes or contributes to an adverse impact it should provide for a remedy and should be subject to corporate accountability for such impacts; stresses that corporate accountability, including for harms linked to an undertaking’s operations, is necessary to ensure undertakings are incentivised to undertake due diligence and for due diligence to be effective;

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses the need to improve access 7. to justice for victims of environmental harm, i.e. through collective actions and redress mechanisms, primarily under a binding and enforceable UN treaty on business and human rights; emphasises the key role of environmental NGOs in raising awareness and taking legal actions; accordingly, stresses the need to improve access to justice for NGOs, notably in case of wide-spread pollution, including by removing financial litigation barriers to initiate legal actions under the ELD; more broadly, deplores that most of the major multilateral environmental agreements between States do not include provisions for international environmental liability; on this ground, calls on the Union and its Member States to push for the creation of an international independent authority in the field of environmental liability.;

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses the need to improve access to justice for victims of environmental harm, i.e. through collective actions and redress mechanisms, primarily under a binding and enforceable UN treaty on business and human rights; recalls in this regard the exemplary role that the future mandatory due diligence directive should play in connection with the establishment of mechanisms to ensure that victims of environmental damage in third countries have effective access to justice in Member States when the harmful activities have been carried out by companies based in an EU Member State or by legal persons under the control of such companies; calls on the Union and its Member States to push for the creation of an international independent authority in the field of environmental liability.

Amendment 62 #

María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Catherine CHABAUD, Charles GOERENS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses the need to improve access to justice for victims of environmental harm, i.e. through collective actions and redress mechanisms, primarily under a binding and enforceable UN treaty on business and human rights~~; calls on the Union and its Member States to push for the creation of an international independent authority in the field of environmental liability~~.

Amendment 63 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses the need to improve access to justice for victims of environmental harm, i.e. through collective actions and redress mechanisms, ~~primarily~~in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and including under a binding and enforceable UN treaty on business and human rights; calls on the Union and its Member States to push for the creation of an international independent authority in the field of environmental liability.;

Amendment 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses the need to improve access to justice for victims of environmental harm, i.e. through collective actions, representative actions and redress mechanisms, ~~primarily under~~including through a binding and enforceable UN treaty on business and human rights; calls on the Union and its Member States to push for the creation of an international independent authority in the field of environmental liability.

Amendment 65 #

Catherine CHABAUD, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses the need to improve access to justice for victims of environmental harm, i.e. through collective actions and redress mechanisms, primarily under a ~~binding and~~n enforceable UN treaty on business and human rights; calls on the Union and its Member States to push for the creation of an international independent authority in the field of environmental liability.

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7c. Stresses the crucial role of environmental defenders and civil society organisations in developing countries in preventing and combating environmentally damaging actions; recalls that these actors can face physical and psychological violence in many forms intended to suppress their actions; calls on the European Commission to strengthen the framework for their protection, in particular through financial instruments for development aid, in order to guarantee their rights and highlight their fight for the protection, preservation and restoration of the environment;

Amendment 67 #

Jan-Christoph OETJEN, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Emphasises the need for good governance to uphold and enforce applicable laws on liability of companies for environmental damages; Calls for an increased support to local authorities and governments of developing countries to harmonize domestic legislation and policies with international environmental standards in an effort to strengthen national enforcement relating to due diligence and corporate liability in third countries; Urges the need to tackle corruption and to hold governments, that use development or investment funding to tolerate or endorse environmental damages by state owned and private companies to account;

Amendment 68 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Underlines that international law has evolved to embrace new concepts such as “the Common heritage of humanity”, “Sustainable Development”, “Future Generations”; but stresses that there is no permanent international mechanism to monitor and address environmental damage/destruction that significantly and durably alter the global commons or ecosystem services; to this end, calls on the EU and its Member States to support a paradigm shift to include ecocide and the right of future generations in international environmental law;.

Amendment 69 #

María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Catherine CHABAUD, Charles GOERENS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Stresses that the ELD sets out a closed list of activities that can give rise to companies' liability for environmental damage besides damage to biodiversity; underlines that this approach seriously limits the application of the “polluter pays” principle; calls for the provision of liability for all companies and for any environmental damage regardless of the activities performed, in particular when the damage was due to the company's fault or serious negligence;

Amendment 7 #

1. Recalls that the global rise in environmental criminality is a growing threat to the achievement of the UN’s 2030 Agenda~~; calls~~, Paris Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity and regrets the low prosecution rate for environmental cases; Supports the call of the UN, along with other international organisations, for the global recognition of the right to asafe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment ~~at the UN level~~; calls for the Union, in this regard, to introduce the right to a safe and healthy environment in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU;

Amendment 70 #

María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Catherine CHABAUD, Charles GOERENS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Recalls that environmental liability should be properly implemented and enforced to better preserve biodiversity resources, and make sure that any unlawful habitat conversion is reversed, and restoration costs are borne by the responsible entity;

Amendment 71 #

Catherine CHABAUD, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Recalls that there is but one ocean and that in terms of the services it provides to all humanity, it is a common good; recalls that Part 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea confers sovereign rights on States over their exclusive economic zones and freedom of navigation beyond areas under jurisdiction; recalls, however, that this does not relieve states, and consequently national actors, in particular companies acting at sea, of their responsibility for the preservation of marine and coastal ecosystems; stresses, in this regard, the importance of ensuring the environmental liability of companies for the risks associated with the exploitation of marine resources and maritime transport in the waters of developing countries;

Amendment 72 #

Jan-Christoph OETJEN, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Underlines the role of civil society organisations and individuals in the protection of the environment; notes that the ELD doesn’t allow for civil society organisations nor individuals to file claims against companies for alleged violations of the directive; calls for the right of affected physical and legal persons to file claims against companies on the basis of the ELD; further calls for the facilitation of representative actions by NGOs against breaches of environmental norms by companies;

Amendment 73 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Stresses the need to strengthen civil society and local actors in third countries and developing countries to hold government authorities accountable for state-tolerated or endorsed environmental damage by private and state-owned companies;

Amendment 74 #

María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Catherine CHABAUD, Charles GOERENS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Calls the establishment of clear liability rules for importers, processors and retailers to ensure full legality and transparency of the supply chain of all agricultural commodities to prevent natural habitats destruction in and outside of the EU;

Amendment 75 #

María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Catherine CHABAUD, Charles GOERENS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)

7c. Notes that the definition of environmental damage set out in the ELD hampers the effective protection of the environment by artificially separating damage to protected species and natural habitats, water damage and land damage; calls for the definition of environmental damage to be modified in order to take a more holistic approach;

Amendment 76 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)

7c. Supports the correct implementation of the ELD, by encouraging member states to record data on ELD incidents and publish ELD registers and gather the necessary data that can document that the application of the Directive in their country is effective and efficient;

Amendment 77 #

Pierfrancesco MAJORINO, Udo BULLMANN, Maria NOICHL, Carlos ZORRINHO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 d (new)

7d. Notes that the threshold of “significance” required for a damage to fall under the scope of application of the directive has proved too high in practice to allow for sufficient protection of the environment; calls for the removal of this threshold or its clarification in order to remove barriers to the protection of the environment;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that the global rise in environmental criminality is a growing threat to the achievement of the UN’s 2030 Agenda; calls for ~~the~~global recognition of the right to a healthy and sustainable environment at the UN level; urges the EU and MS to increase their efforts in the realisations of the SDGs in the light of Decade of Action by 2030, the Green Deal and the EU2030 Biodiversity Strategy;

Amendment 9 #