Choisissez la langue de votre document :
- bg - български
- es - español
- cs - čeština
- da - dansk
- de - Deutsch
- et - eesti keel
- el - ελληνικά
- en - English
- fr - français
- ga - Gaeilge
- hr - hrvatski
- it - italiano
- lv - latviešu valoda
- lt - lietuvių kalba
- hu - magyar
- mt - Malti
- nl - Nederlands
- pl - polski
- pt - português
- ro - română
- sk - slovenčina
- sl - slovenščina
- fi - suomi
- sv - svenska
|
 Appointment of a new Commissioner |
| ||||||
The European Parliament, – having regard to the second paragraph of Article 246 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 106a of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, – having regard to point 6 of the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission(1), – having regard to the resignation of John Dalli as a Member of the Commission, tendered on 16 October 2012, – having regard to the Council's letter of 25 October 2012, whereby the Council consulted Parliament on a decision, to be taken by common accord with the President of the Commission, on the appointment of Tonio Borg as a Member of the Commission, – having regard to the hearing of Tonio Borg on 13 November 2012, led by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety with the association of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, and to the statement of evaluation drawn up following that hearing; – having regard to Rule 106 of, and Annex XVII to, its Rules of Procedure, 1. Approves the appointment of Tonio Borg as a Member of the Commission for the remainder of the Commission’s term of office until 31 October 2014; 2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council, the Commission and the governments of the Member States.
| |||||||
| Draft Amending Budget No 5/2012: Solidarity Fund response to earthquakes in Emilia-Romagna (Italy) and modification of the budget line for the preparatory action for the European Year of Volunteering 2011 |
| |||||||||||||||
The European Parliament, – having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular Article 314 thereof and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof, – having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities(1) (‘the Financial Regulation’), and in particular Articles 37 and 38 thereof, – having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012, as definitively adopted on 1 December 2011(2), – having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(3), – having regard to its resolution of 12 June 2012 on the Council position on Draft amending budget No 2/2012 of the European Union for the financial year 2012, Section III – European Commission(4), and in particular to its paragraph 2, – having regard to the Joint Statement on payment appropriations agreed by all three institutions in the framework of 2012 budgetary procedure; – having regard to Draft amending budget No 5/2012 of the European Union for the financial year 2012, which the Commission submitted on 19 September 2012 (COM(2012)0536), – having regard to the Council position on Draft amending budget No 5/2012, which the Council established on 20 November 2012 ( 16398/2012 – C7-0383/2012), – having regard to Rules 75b and 75e of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0381/2012), A. whereas Draft amending budget No 5/2012 relates to the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund (EUSF) for an amount of EUR 670 192 359 in commitment and payment appropriations relating to the series of earthquakes in Emilia-Romagna, Italy in May 2012, B. whereas the aim of Draft amending budget No 5/2012 is to formally enter this budgetary adjustment into the 2012 budget, and to modify the budget line 16 05 03 01 – Preparatory action – European Year of Volunteering 2011 to replace the ‘dash’ for payments on the line with a token entry (p.m.), in order to allow the final payments to be made, C. whereas Draft amending budget No 5/2012, as submitted by the Commission, proposed an increase in the level of payment appropriations, given the overall shortage of payment appropriations for 2012, D. whereas, in its resolution of 12 June 2012 on the Council position on Draft amending budget No 2/2012, relating to another mobilisation of the EUSF, Parliament greatly deplored for the specific case of mobilisation of the EUSF that the other branch of the budgetary authority had waited 8 weeks before adopting its position, sticking to its interpretation of Protocol 1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (deadline for informing national parliaments), 1. Takes note of Draft amending budget No 5/2012, as submitted by the Commission; 2. Considers of great importance the quick release of financial assistance through the EUSF for those affected by natural catastrophes, and therefore warmly welcomes the prompt submission by Italian authorities of their application for financial assistance from the EUSF, as well as the prompt presentation by the Commission of its proposal for mobilisation of the EUSF; 3. Calls on all involved parties in the Member States, both at local and regional level, and national authorities, to further improve assessment of needs and the coordination for future potential applications to the EUSF with a view to accelerating, as much as possible, the mobilisation of the EUSF; 4. Strongly reiterates its call to Council not to harm such efforts towards a more prompt delivery of Union assistance through any undue postponement of its decision on such a sensitive and pressing issue; 5. Recalls that for the previous mobilisation of the EUSF (Amending budget No 2/2012 concerning flooding in Liguria and Tuscany in October 2011), the budgetary authority did not need to provide fresh money, because some unexpected sources for redeployments appeared for the required amount; stresses that the current shortage of payment appropriations, which already affects a number of programmes, in particular those on which the Growth and Jobs Compact adopted by the European Council of 29 June 2012 relies heavily, strictly excludes any such redeployment to be envisaged for this case; 6. Approves, without amendment, Council's position on Draft amending budget No 5/2012; 7. Instructs its President to declare that Amending budget No 5/2012 has been definitively adopted and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union; 8. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
| ||||||||||||||||
| Mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund – earthquakes in Italy |
| |||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
The European Parliament, – having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0538 – C7-0300/2012), – having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(1), and in particular point 26 thereof, – having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund(2), – having regard to the Joint Declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, adopted during the conciliation meeting on 17 July 2008 on the Solidarity Fund, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0380/2012), 1. Approves the decision annexed to this resolution; 2. Instructs its President to sign the decision with the President of the Council and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union; 3. Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission. ANNEX DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, in accordance with point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision 2013/108/EU.)
| ||||||||||||
| Implementation of the agreements concluded by the EU following negotiations in the framework of Article XXVIII of GATT 1994 ***I |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading) The European Parliament, – having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0115), – having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 207(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0079/2012), – having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, – having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 19 November 2012 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, – having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0351/2012), 1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out; 2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text; 3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading 21 November 2012 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the implementation of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Brazil pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions with respect to processed poultry meat provided for in the EU Schedule annexed to GATT 1994, and of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Thailand pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions with respect to processed poultry meat provided for in the EU Schedule annexed to GATT 1994, and amending and supplementing Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff
(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) No 1218/2012.) | ||||||||
| Tariff-rate quotas applying to exports of wood from Russia to the EU ***I |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading) The European Parliament, – having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0449), – having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0215/2012), – having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, – having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 19 November 2012 to approve Parliament's position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, – having regard to Rules 55 and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0329/2012), 1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out; 2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text; 3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 21 November 2012 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the allocation of tariff-rate quotas applying to exports of wood from the Russian Federation to the European Union
(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) No 1217/2012.) | ||||||||
| Modification of concessions with respect to processed poultry meat between the EU, Brazil, and Thailand *** |
| ||||||
(Consent) The European Parliament, – having regard to the draft Council decision (07883/2012), – having regard to the draft Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Brazil pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions with respect to processed poultry meat provided for in the EU Schedule annexed to GATT 1994 (07884/2012), – having regard to the draft Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Thailand pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions with respect to processed poultry meat provided for in the EU Schedule annexed to GATT 1994 (07885/2012), – having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 207(4), first subparagraph, and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0171/2012), – having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0350/2012), 1. Consents to conclusion of the Agreements; 2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Federative Republic of Brazil and the Kingdom of Thailand. | |||||||
| Amendment of the Annexes to Protocols 1 and 2 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the EC and Israel *** |
| ||||||
(Consent) The European Parliament, – having regard to the draft Council decision (07433/2012), – having regard to the draft Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, amending the Annexes to Protocols 1 and 2 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part (07470/2012), – having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Articles 207(4), first subparagraph, and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0157/2012), – having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0318/2012), 1. Consents to conclusion of the Agreement; 2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the State of Israel. | |||||||
| EU-Russia Agreement on the administration of tariff-rate quotas applying to exports of wood *** |
| ||||||
(Consent) The European Parliament, – having regard to the draft Council decision (16775/1/2011), – having regard to the draft Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Russian Federation relating to the administration of tariff-rate quotas applying to exports of wood from the Russian Federation to the European Union (16776/2011), – having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 207(4), first subparagraph, and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0515/2011), – having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0177/2012), 1. Consents to conclusion of the Agreement and of the Protocol; 2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Russian Federation. | |||||||
| Migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) - (including the United Kingdom and Ireland) * |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Consultation - recast) The European Parliament, – having regard to the Council draft (11142/1/2012), – having regard to Article 74 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0330/2012), – having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts(1), – having regard to the letter of 12 October 2012 from the Committee on Legal Affairs to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in accordance with Rule 87(3) of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to Rules 87, 55 and 46 (2) of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0368/2012), A. whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question does not include any substantive amendments other than those identified as such in the proposal and whereas, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts together with those amendments, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance; 1. Approves the Council draft as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission and as amended below; 2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; 3. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend its draft; 4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) - (without the United Kingdom and Ireland) * |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Consultation - recast) The European Parliament, – having regard to the Council draft (11143/1/2012), – having regard to Article 74 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0331/2012), – having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts(1), – having regard to the letter of 12 October 2012 from the Committee on Legal Affairs to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in accordance with Rule 87(3) of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to Rules 87, 55 and 46 (2) of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0370/2012), A. whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question does not include any substantive amendments other than those identified as such in the proposal and whereas, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts together with those amendments, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance; 1. Approves the Council draft as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission and as amended below 2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; 3. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend its draft; 4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Monitoring the application of EU law (2010) |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
The European Parliament, – having regard to the 28th Annual Report on monitoring the application of European Union law (2010) (COM(2011)0588), – having regard to the report by the Commission entitled ‘EU Pilot Evaluation Report’ (COM(2010)0070), – having regard to the report by the Commission entitled ‘Second Evaluation Report on EU Pilot’ (COM(2011)0930), – having regard to the Commission communication of 5 September 2007 entitled ‘A Europe of results – applying Community law’ (COM(2007)0502), – having regard to the Commission communication of 20 March 2002 on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law (COM(2002)0141), – having regard to the Commission communication of 2 April 2012 entitled ‘Updating the handling of relations with the complainant in respect of the application of Union law’ (COM (2012)0154), – having regard to its resolution of 14 September 2011 on the 27th annual report on monitoring the application of European Union law (2009)(1), – having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2010 on the 26th annual report on monitoring the application of European Union law (2008)(2), – having regard to the Commission staff working documents SEC(2011)0193, SEC(2011)0194 and SEC(2011)1626, – having regard to its resolution of 14 September 2011 on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions during the year 2010(3), – having regard to Rules 48 and 119(2) of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Committee on Petitions (A7-0330/2012), A. whereas the Treaty of Lisbon introduced a number of new legal bases intended to facilitate the implementation, application and enforcement of EU law; B. whereas Article 298 TFEU states that in carrying out their missions the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union shall have the support of an open, efficient and independent European administration; C. whereas the environment, the internal market and taxation are the most infringement-prone policy areas and account for 52 % of all infringement cases; 1. Recalls that Article 17 TEU defines the fundamental role of the Commission as ‘guardian of the Treaties’; notes in this context that the Commission’s power and duty to bring infringement proceedings against a Member State that has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties(4) is a cornerstone of the Union legal order and as such is consistent with the concept of a Union based on the rule of law; 2. Emphasises the fundamental importance of the rule of law as a condition for the legitimacy of any form of democratic governance, and to fully guarantee citizens the enjoyment of their rights as provided by law; 3. Endorses the Commission’s ‘smart regulation’ approach which focuses on integrating the monitoring of the application of EU law into the wider policy cycle, which the Committee views as a key preventive measure; 4. Notes that the infringement procedure consists of two phases: the administrative (investigation) stage, and the judicial stage before the Court of Justice; considers that the role of citizens as complainants is vital in the administrative phase when it comes to ensuring compliance with Union law on the ground; 5. Welcomes the fact that the Commission uses a large number of tools to make the transposition process smoother (transposition checklists, handbooks or interpretative notes) and encourages the Commission to follow even more closely the transposition of directives before the end of the transposition deadline, particularly as far as Member States with a ‘bad record’ are concerned, in order to be able to intervene swiftly; 6. Draws attention to the direct applicability of the provisions of directives when they are sufficiently precise and unconditional (‘direct effect’), in accordance with the settled case law of the Court of Justice; 7. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to act jointly and consistently to tackle the problem of ‘gold-plating’; 8. Notes that the Commission has recently published a new communication on the handling of relations with the complainant in respect of the application of Union law (COM(2012) 0154), in which it has reviewed the conditions under which a complaint is registered and has therefore affected the infringement procedure as a whole; urges the Commission not to make use of soft law when dealing with the infringement procedure, but, rather, to propose a regulation(5), so that Parliament can be fully involved as co-legislator in this essential element of the EU legal order; 9. Views as regrettable, however, the enormous number of non-communication cases (470 pending in 2010); 10. Deplores the absence in the above-mentioned new communication of any reference to EU Pilot, which is, as defined by the Commission itself, a ‘well-established working method’(6) which it uses to deal with complaints as a first step in the infringement procedure wherever there might be recourse to that procedure(7); notes that EU Pilot is not even mentioned by name in the communication and that there is no reference to any of the rights or the protection accorded to the complainant under EU Pilot; concludes, therefore, that decisions taken by the Commission which precede or exclude the infringement procedure do not in these case obey the rules of transparency and accountability and are made at the Commission’s complete discretion alone; 11. Calls on the Commission to clarify the status of the EU Pilot system and to define clearly the framework and rules of its application in such a way that they will be understood by citizens; 12. Points out that the number of Member States participating in EU Pilot (18 by the end of 2010), and the large number of cases closed after the response from the Member State was assessed as acceptable (81% of cases); underscores the importance of the quality of these assessments, both in terms of valid and verified information and in terms of respect for the general principles of administrative law recognised by the Court of Justice; 13. Reiterates its view that the discretionary power conferred by the Treaties upon the Commission in dealing with the infringement procedure must respect the rule of law, the principle of legal clarity, the requirements of transparency and openness and the principle of proportionality, and that nothing must under any circumstances jeopardise the basic purpose of that power, which is to guarantee the timely and correct application of Union law(8); 14. Notes the encouraging figures indicating that 88% of infringement cases closed in 2010 ‘did not reach the Court of Justice because Member States corrected the legal issues raised by the Commission before it would have been necessary to initiate the next stage in the infringement proceedings’; takes the view, however, that it is essential to continue to monitor Member States’ actions carefully, as some petitions refer to problems that persist even after a matter has been closed (see, for example, petitions 0808/2006, 1322/2007, 0492/2010, 1060/2010 and 0947/2011); 15. Emphasises, overall that additional efforts must be undertaken to increase transparency and reciprocity in communication between Parliament and the Commission; notes, for example, that greater access to information on complaints, infringement files and other enforcement mechanisms could be provided without jeopardising the purpose of investigations, and that an overriding public interest might well justify access to this information, particularly in cases where danger to human health and irreversible damage to the environment may be at stake; 16. Notes that in order to make EU Pilot operational, the Commission has created a ‘confidential on-line database’ for communication between its services and Member State authorities; draws attention yet again to the lack of transparency vis-à-vis complainants in EU Pilot, and reiterates its request to be given access to the database where all complaints are collected, in order to enable Parliament to carry out its function of scrutinising the Commission’s role as guardian of the Treaties; 17. Deplores the absence of any follow-up to Parliament’s above-mentioned resolution on the 27th annual report, and in particular its call for a procedural law in the form of a regulation under Article 298 TFEU setting out the various aspects of the infringement procedure and the pre-infringement procedure, including notifications, binding time-limits, the right to be heard, the obligation to state reasons, and the right for every person to have access to her or his file, in order to reinforce citizens’ rights and guarantee transparency; 18. Calls therefore once again on the Commission to propose a ‘procedural law’ in the form of a regulation under the new legal basis of Article 298 TFEU; 19. Notes in this context the Commission’s reply to Parliament’s request for a procedural law, in which it expresses doubts regarding the possibility of adopting any future regulation based on Article 298 TFEU, because of the discretionary power conferred by the Treaties on the Commission ‘to organise the way in which it manages infringement proceedings and related work to ensure the correct application of EU law’; is convinced that such a procedural law would not in any way limit the discretionary power of the Commission, but would only guarantee that when exercising its power the Commission would respect the principles of an ’open, efficient and independent European administration’ as referred to in Article 298 TFEU and the right to good administration referred to in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; 20. Emphasises the importance of transparency in infringement procedures, not least in view of the possibility for Parliament to monitor the application of Union law; recalls in this context that in the revised Framework Agreement on relations with Parliament the Commission undertakes to ‘make available to Parliament summary information concerning all infringement procedures from the letter of formal notice, included, if so requested, (...) on the issues to which the infringement procedure relates’ and expects this clause to be applied in good faith in practice; 21. Points out that the petition is the proper instrument to be used by citizens, civil society organisations and enterprises to report on non-compliance with EU law by Member State authorities at different levels; calls on the Commission, in this context, to safeguard the transparency of ongoing infringement procedures by informing citizens in a timely and appropriate manner of the action taken in response to their request; 22. Points out that citizens and civil society organisations continue to use the petitions mechanism mainly to report on and complain about non-compliance with EU law by Member State authorities at different levels; emphasises, in light of this, the Committee on Petitions’ crucial role as the effective juncture between the citizen, Parliament and the Commission; 23. Welcomes the specific section on petitions contained in the 28th annual report, as requested by Parliament, in which the Commission gives a breakdown of new petitions received; welcomes the Commission’s report that ‘petitions to the European Parliament led to infringement proceedings’ in a number of areas; emphasises that, even when petitions do not concern infringements, they provide Parliament and the Commission with remarkable information about citizens’ concerns; 24. Highlights the significant number of petitions received on issues related to environmental legislation, and notably with regard to waste management provisions; recalls the points underscored by the Chair of the Commission’s Conference on the Implementation of EU Environment Law, held on 15 June 2011, which referred to the frequent lack of sound environmental impact assessments, disregard for public consultations and various other deficiencies in the operation of waste management systems; 25. Recalls that the original mandate for the Charter was to codify the fundamental rights enjoyed by EU citizens, and that the Heads of State and Government have on repeated occasions solemnly declared that the Charter sets out the rights of EU citizens; calls on all Member States to reconsider the necessity of Article 51 of the Charter and encourages them to unilaterally declare that they will not limit the rights of individuals within their jurisdiction on the basis of the provisions of that article; 26. Stresses that citizens, when submitting a petition to the European Parliament, expect to be protected by the provisions of the Charter, regardless of which Member State they reside in and whether or not EU law is being implemented; remains concerned, in this regard, that citizens feel misled about the actual scope of application of the Charter; considers it essential, therefore, to explain properly the principle of subsidiarity and to clarify the scope of application of the Charter from Parliament’s perspective on the basis of Article 51 of the Charter; 27. Stresses that a significant number of petitions relating to fundamental rights concern the free movement of persons and that – as is clear from the 2010 report on citizenship of the European Union – the rights arising from EU citizenship are an important prerequisite for citizens to be able to make full use of the internal market; emphasises that this increased use by citizens can unlock the significant growth potential of the internal market and therefore, given the current economic challenges facing Europe, reiterates its call to the Commission and the Member States to make greater efforts to ensure the full and prompt transposition of EU law in this area; 28. Further stresses that citizens similarly feel similarly misled about the applicability of Community law in instances of late transposition; points to the distressing reality that citizens to whom an applicable community law is unavailable because it has not yet been transposed by the Member State in question find themselves without recourse to any redress mechanism; 29. Endorses the view of the European Parliament’s Legal Service that, with regard to the admissibility of petitions, the fields of activity of the European Union are broader than its competences; underlines that this notion should serve as a basis for the handling of petitions by Parliament and the Commission; 30. Reiterates that individual complaints by businesses and members of the public remain the main source for the detection of breaches of European Union law and, subsequently, for the initiation of infringement proceedings; calls, for this reason, for the introduction of more effective, legally binding administrative provisions to safely and reliably define the procedural relationship between the Commission and complainants before, during and after the infringement proceedings, above all to strengthen the position of the individual complainant; 31. Welcomes the new element contained in Article 260 TFEU which allows the Commission to ask the Court of Justice to impose financial sanctions on a Member State for late transposition of a directive when bringing a case before the Court under Article 258 TFEU; 32. Welcomes the Commission’s undertaking to make use of Article 260(3) TFEU as a matter of principle in cases of failure to fulfil an obligation covered by this provision, which concerns the transposition of directives adopted under a legislative procedure; 33. Considers it of the utmost importance that the Commission make use of this possibility, together with all other possible means of guaranteeing that Member States transpose Union legislation in a timely and correct fashion; those who are lagging behind and have not implemented the laws on time should be named; 34. Draws attention to the fact that, since this report was issued, Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Member States have reached an agreement on the issue of explanatory documents setting out the relationship between the components of a directive and the corresponding parts of national transposition instruments (‘correlation tables’); notes that the three institutions and the Member States have agreed to include in directives a recital declaring that a correlation table should be delivered by the Member State concerned where, in a given case, this is necessary and proportionate; 35. Stresses that correlation tables are an invaluable tool to enable the Commission and Parliament to oversee the correct transposition and application of Union law by the Member States because the relationship between a directive and the corresponding national provisions is often very complex and sometimes almost impossible to trace back; 36. Calls on the Commission to transmit clear guidelines to the European Parliament on creating, incorporating and applying correlation tables in Community law, and also to carry out a transparent evaluation, which will significantly contribute to the assessment of the implementation of this law at Member State level; 37. Notes that the national courts play a vital role in applying EU law, and fully supports the EU’s efforts to enhance and coordinate judicial training for legal, judicial and administrative authorities and legal professionals, officials and civil servants in the national administrations as well as regional and local authorities at European level; 38. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the European Ombudsman and the Parliaments of the Member States.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Environmental impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction activities |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The European Parliament, – having regard to Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons(1), – having regard to Council Directive 92/91/EEC of 3 November 1992 concerning the minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers in the mineral-extracting industries through drilling(2), – having regard to Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries (Mining Waste Directive) and amending Directive 2004/35/EC(3), – having regard to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives(4), – having regard to Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(5), – having regard to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive)(6), – having regard to Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control)(7), – having regard to Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (Environmental Liability Directive, or ELD)(8), – having regard to Directive 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 (Water Framework Directive)(9), – having regard to Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (Drinking Water Directive)(10), – having regard to Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration (Groundwater Directive)(11), – having regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading (as amended)(12), and Decision 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the effort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community’s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020 (13), – having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency , amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (REACH Regulation)(14), – having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (aligning existing EU legislation with the United Nations Globally Harmonised System (GHS))(15), – having regard to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (Biocidal Products Directive)(16), – having regard to Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (Seveso II Directive)(17), – having regard to its resolution of 13 September 2011 on facing the challenges of the safety of offshore oil and gas activities(18), – having regard to the report on unconventional gas in Europe, of 8 November 2011, commissioned by the Directorate-General for Energy of the Commission(19), – having regard to the transmission note of 26 January 2012 from the Commission’s Directorate-General for the Environment to Members of the European Parliament on the EU environmental legal framework applicable to shale gas projects, – having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, entitled ‘Energy Roadmap 2050’ (COM(2011)0885), – having regard to Petitions 886/2011 (on the risks associated with shale gas exploration and extraction in Bulgaria) and 1378/2011 (on extraction of shale gas in Poland), – having regard to the study published by the Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy of the European Parliament in June 2011: Impacts of shale oil and shale gas extraction on the environment and on human health, – having regard to Articles 4, 11, 191, 192, 193 and 194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of European Union, – having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinions of the Committee on Development and the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0283/2012), A. whereas recent technological advancements have already spurred a rapid, commercial-scale extraction of unconventional fossil fuels (UFF) in certain parts of the world; whereas there is no commercial-scale exploitation in the EU yet and the potential of reserves and possible impacts on the environment and public health have to be further scrutinized; B. whereas the development of shale gas is not uncontroversial in the EU or worldwide, thereby necessitating a thorough examination of all the impacts (on the environment, public health and climate change) before developing this technology further; C. whereas the Energy Roadmap 2050 has identified that shale gas and other unconventional sources have become potential important new sources of supply in or around Europe; whereas substitution of coal and oil with gas in the short to medium term could help to reduce GHG emissions depending on their lifecycle; D. whereas gas can be used to serve base load power generation as well as provide reliable back-up power for variable power sources, such as wind and solar, and this reliability reduces the technical challenges of grid balancing; whereas gas is also an efficient fuel for heating/cooling and numerous other industrial uses which enhance EU competitiveness; E. whereas the two main techniques deployed in unleashing the UFF potential of shale gas and coal bed methane, horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking), have been used in combination for just a decade, and should not be confused with well stimulation techniques used for the extraction of conventional fossil fuels due to the combination of these two techniques and the scale of intervention involved; F. whereas the EU is committed to a legally binding target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase the share of renewable energy; whereas any decisions on exploitation of UFF should be seen in the context of the need to cut emissions; G. whereas to date there has been no EU (framework) directive for regulating mining activities; H. whereas there is insufficient data on fracturing chemicals and environmental and health risks associated with hydraulic fracturing; whereas important analysis is still ongoing and there is a growing need for further and continuous research; whereas the existence and transparency of data, sampling and tests is of paramount importance to high-quality research in support of proper regulation that will protect public health and the environment; I. whereas any type of fossil fuel and minerals extraction involves potential risks for human health and the environment; whereas it is essential that the precautionary and the polluter-pays principles are applied to any future decisions about the development of fossil fuel resources in Europe, taking into account potential impacts from all stages of the exploration and exploitation process; J. whereas EU Member States such as France and Bulgaria have already imposed a moratorium on shale gas extraction due to environmental and public health concerns; K. whereas shale gas exploitation projects are not generally subject to an environmental impact assessment despite the environmental risks of such projects; L. whereas the EU has the role of ensuring a high level of human health protection in all of the Union‘s policies and activities; M. whereas many governments in Europe, such as France, Bulgaria, North Rhine Westphalia in Germany, Fribourg and Vaud in Switzerland, as well as a number of US states (North Carolina, New York, New Jersey, and Vermont and more than 100 local governments) and other countries around the world (South Africa, Quebec in Canada, New South Wales in Australia) currently have a ban or moratorium in place on the use of hydraulic fracturing for the extraction of oil and gas from shale or other ‘tight’ rock formations; N. whereas a number of Member States, such as the Czech Republic, Romania and Germany, are currently considering a moratorium on the exploration and extraction of oil and gas from shale or other ‘tight’ rock formations; O. whereas the Environmental Liability Directive does not oblige operators to take out adequate insurance considering the high costs associated with accidents in the extractive industries; General framework – regulation, implementation, monitoring and cooperation 1. Understands shale gas exploration and extraction to refer to any unconventional hydrocarbon exploration and extraction using horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing methods utilised in fossil fuels industries worldwide; 2. Stresses that, notwithstanding the Member States’ exclusive prerogative to exploit their energy resources, any development of UFF should ensure a fair and level playing field across the Union, in full compliance with relevant EU safety and environmental protection laws; 3. Considers that a thorough analysis of the EU regulatory framework specifically regarding UFF exploration and exploitation is needed; welcomes, to this end, the upcoming conclusion of a number of Commission studies on: identification of risks, lifecycle GHG emissions, chemicals, water, land-use and effects of shale gas on EU energy markets; urges Member States to be cautious in going further with UFF until the completion of the ongoing regulatory analysis and to implement all existing regulations effectively as a crucial way of reducing risk in all gas extraction operations; 4. Calls on the Commission, following the completion of its studies, to conduct a thorough assessment on the basis of the European regulatory framework for the protection of health and the environment and to propose, as soon as possible and in line with Treaty principles, appropriate measures, including legislative measures, if necessary; 5. Stresses that UFF extraction, like conventional fossil fuel extraction, has risks; believes that these risks should be contained through pre-emptive measures including proper planning, testing, use of new and best available technologies, best industry practices and continuous data collection, monitoring and reporting conducted within a robust regulatory framework; considers it crucial, before the start of UFF operations, to require measuring for baseline levels of naturally occurring methane and chemicals in groundwater in aquifers and current air quality levels at potential drilling sites; considers, furthermore, that regular involvement of the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) or equivalent equipment manufacturers could ensure that the critical safety and environmental equipment continues to perform effectively and meet safety standards; 6. Notes the Commission‘s preliminary assessment on the EU environmental legal framework applicable to hydraulic fracturing; urges the Commission to use its powers regarding proper transposition and application of key EU environmental acts in all Member States, and issue without delay guidance on the establishment of baseline water monitoring data necessary for environmental impact assessment of shale gas exploration and extraction, as well as criteria to be used for assessing impacts of hydraulic fracturing on groundwater reservoirs in different geological formations, including potential leakage, and cumulative impacts; 7. Calls on the Commission to introduce an EU-wide risk management framework for unconventional fossil fuels exploration or extraction, with a view to ensuring that harmonised provisions for the protection of human health and the environment apply across all Member States; 8. Calls on the Commission, in cooperation with Member States and the competent regulatory authorities, to introduce ongoing monitoring of developments in this area and take the necessary action to complement and extend existing EU environmental legislation; 9. Notes that methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, the emissions of which must be fully accounted for under either Directive 2003/87/EC (ETS) or Decision No 406/2009/EC (the ‘Effort Sharing Decision’); 10. Stresses that the effectiveness of regulation of UFF exploration and extraction – in full compliance with existing EU legislation – ultimately depends on the willingness and resources of the relevant national authorities; calls on Member States, therefore, to ensure sufficient human and technical capacities for monitoring, inspection and enforcement of permitted activities, including proper training for the staff of the competent national authorities; 11. Notes the importance of the work undertaken by reputable institutions, notably the International Energy Agency (IEA), to prepare guidance on best practice regarding regulations for unconventional gas and hydraulic fracturing; 12. Calls for the development of a comprehensive European Best Available Techniques Reference (BREF) for fracking based on robust scientific engineering practice; 13. Calls on those national authorities which have authorised UFF exploration to review existing state regulations on well construction for conventional fossil fuels and to update those provisions covering the specifics of UFF extraction; 14. Recognises that the industry bears primary responsibility for preventing and reacting effectively to accidents; calls on the Commission to consider including operations related to hydraulic fracturing in Annex III of the Environmental Liability Directive and on the relevant authorities to require sufficient financial guarantees by operators for environmental and civil liability covering any accidents or unintended negative impacts caused by their own activities or those outsourced to others; considers that the polluter-pays principle should apply in case of environmental pollution; welcomes the progress made by the industry in setting high environmental and safety standards; stresses the importance of monitoring the industry‘s compliance by means of regular inspections carried out by trained and independent specialists; 15. Calls on the energy companies active in the field of UFF extraction to invest in research into improving the environmental performance of UFF technologies; urges EU-based undertakings and academic institutions to develop relevant cooperative R&D programmes leading to greater understanding about safety and risks in UFF exploration and production (E&P) operations; 16. Reiterates its call to the Commission and the Member States, expressed in its resolution of 15 March 2012 on a Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050, to push for a faster implementation of the G-20 agreement on removing fossil fuel subsidies; considers that exploration and exploitation of fossil fuel sources, including unconventional sources, must not be subsidised from public funds; 17. Considers that mutual non-disclosure agreements regarding damage to environmental, human and animal health, that have been practised between landowners in the vicinity of shale gas wells and shale gas operators in the US, would not be in line with Union and Member State obligations under the Aarhus Convention, the Access to Information Directive (2003/4/EC) and the Environmental Liability Directive; Environmental aspects of hydraulic fracturing 18. Recognises that shale gas exploration and extraction may possibly result in complex and cross-cutting interactions with the surrounding environment, in particular owing to the hydraulic fracturing method employed, the composition of the fracturing liquid, the depth and construction of the wells and the area of surface land affected; 19. Acknowledges that the types of rocks present in each individual region determine the design and method of extraction activities; calls for mandatory baseline analysis of groundwater and geological analysis of the deep and shallow geology of a prospective shale play prior to authorisation, including reports on any past or present mining activities in the region; 20. Stresses the need for scientific studies regarding the long-term impact on human health of fracking-related air pollution and water contamination; 21. Calls on the Commission to ensure the effective implementation of laws on mining environmental impact assessment in national legislation; stresses at the same time that each impact assessment should be carried out as an open and transparent process; 22. Recalls that the ‘Guidance note on the application of Directive 85/337/EEC to projects related to the exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbon’ (Ref. Ares (2011)1339393), issued by the Commission, DG Environment, on 12 December 2011, confirms that Council Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended and as codified by Directive 2011/92/EU, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (known as the Environmental Impact Assessment or the EIA Directive) covers exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons; recalls, furthermore, that any hydraulic fracturing method used is part of the overall conventional and unconventional hydrocarbon exploration and extraction activities covered by the above-mentioned EU environmental legislation and by Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons; 23. Calls on the Commission to bring forward proposals to ensure that Environmental Impact Assessment Directive provisions adequately cover the specificities of shale gas, shale oil, and coal bed methane exploration and extraction; insists that prior environmental impact assessment includes full life-cycle impacts on air quality, soil quality, water quality, geological stability, land use and noise pollution; 24. Calls for the inclusion of projects including hydraulic fracturing in Annex I of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive; 25. Notes that there is a risk of seismic tremors as demonstrated by shale gas exploration in the north-west of England; supports the recommendations of the UK Government commissioned report that operators be required to meet certain seismic and microseismic standards; 26. Recalls that the sustainability of shale gas is not yet proven; calls on the Commission and Member States to assess thoroughly greenhouse gas emissions during the entire process of extraction and production to prove its environmental integrity; 27. Considers it appropriate, in the context of liability, to provide for the reversal of the burden of proof for shale gas operators, where, in view of the nature of the disturbance and its adverse effects, other possible causes and any other circumstances, the balance of probability indicates that shale gas operations were the cause of the environmental damage; 28. Calls on the Commission to bring forward proposals to explicitly include fracking fluids as ‘hazardous waste’ under Annex III of the European Waste Directive (2008/98/EC); 29. Recognises the relatively high water volumes involved in hydraulic fracturing given that water is a particularly sensitive resource in the EU; highlights the need for advance water provision plans based on local hydrology with consideration for local water resources, the needs of other local water users and capacities for wastewater treatment; 30. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the relevant European environmental standards are met in full, particularly with regard to the water used in hydrofracking, and that breaches are appropriately penalised; 31. Recalls that the Water Framework Directive requires Member States to implement the measures necessary to prevent the deterioration of the status of all bodies of groundwater, including from point sources such as hydrocarbon exploration and extraction; 32. Calls on the industry, in transparent collaboration with national regulatory bodies, environmental groups and communities, to take the measures needed to prevent the status of relevant bodies of groundwater from deteriorating, and thereby maintain good groundwater status as defined in the Water Framework Directive and the Groundwater Directive; 33. Recognises that hydraulic fracturing takes place at a depth well below groundwater aquifers; therefore believes that, as drilling operations cross drinking water sources, the main concern regarding groundwater contamination is often well integrity in terms of the quality of its casing and cementing and its ability to resist the high pressure of the liquid injected and low-magnitude earth tremors; 34. Calls for a blanket ban on hydrofracking in certain sensitive and particularly endangered areas, such as in and beneath drinking water protection areas and in coal mining areas; 35. Stresses that effective prevention requires consistent monitoring of strict adherence to the highest standards and practices in well-bore construction and maintenance; considers that well completion reports should be submitted by operators to the competent authorities; underlines that both industry and competent authorities should ensure, at all stages, regular quality control for casing and cement integrity, as well as baseline groundwater sampling to control the quality of drinking water, conducted in close cooperation with drinking water providers; points out that this requires significant human resources and technical expertise on all levels; 36. Calls on the Commission to issue guidance, without delay, on the establishment of both the baseline water monitoring data necessary for an environmental impact assessment of shale gas exploration and extraction and the criteria to be used for assessing the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on groundwater reservoirs in different geological formations, including potential leakage and cumulative impacts; 37. Recommends that standardised emergency response plans be prepared jointly by operators, regulators and emergency services and that specialised emergency response teams be set up; 38. Believes that on-site closed-loop water recycling, using steel storage tanks, offers the most environmentally sound way of treating flow-back water by minimising water volumes, the potential for surface spills and costs/traffic/road damage relating to water treatment transportation; believes that this type of recycling should be applied as far as possible; rejects the injection of flow-back waste waters for disposal into geological formations in accordance with provisions of the Water Framework Directive; 39. Calls for strict implementation of existing waste water treatment standards and compulsory water management plans by operators, in cooperation with the drinking water companies and the competent authorities; stresses, however, that existing treatment plants are ill-equipped to treat hydraulic fracturing waste water and may be discharging pollutants into rivers and streams; considers, to this end, that a full assessment of all the relevant water treatment plants in the Member States concerned should be carried on by the competent authorities; 40. Stresses that a minimum safety distance should be maintained between drilling pads and water wells; 41. Believes that many of the current controversies over UFF have partly resulted from an initial refusal by the industry to disclose the chemical content of fracturing fluids; maintains that full transparency is required, with a mandatory obligation for all operators to fully disclose the chemical composition and concentration of fracturing fluids and to fully comply with existing EU legislation under the REACH regulation; 42. Considers that mutual non-disclosure agreements regarding damage to environmental, human and animal health, such as those which have been in force between landowners in the vicinity of shale gas wells and shale gas operators in the US, would not be in line with EU and Member State obligations under the Aarhus Convention, the Access to Information Directive (2003/4/EC) and the Environmental Liability Directive; 43. Notes that multi-horizontal well-bores from one drilling pad minimise land use and landscape disturbance; 44. Notes that the production volumes of shale gas wells in the United States are characterised by a sharp decline after the first two years, which leads to a high intensity of continuous drilling for new wells; notes that the storage tanks, compressor stations and pipeline infrastructure further add to the land use impact of shale gas activities; 45. Calls on those Member States which decide to develop shale gas or other unconventional fossil fuel reserves to send national plans to the Commission detailing how the exploitation of these reserves fits in with their national emission reduction targets under the EU Effort Sharing Decision; 46. Recognises that constant technological improvements in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling may help improve the safety of UFF and to limit potential environmental effects; encourages industry to continue efforts to advance technology and to use the best technological solutions in developing UFF resources; 47. Calls upon the competent national geological surveys to carry out baseline seismic monitoring in seismically vulnerable areas where permissions for shale gas extraction are granted in order to establish background seismicity which would allow assessment for the possibility and potential impact of any induced earthquakes; 48. Points out that any favourable comparison of lifecycle GHG balance between shale gas and coal is dependent on a one-hundred-year atmospheric lifetime assumption; considers that the necessity to peak global emissions by 2020 would warrant examination over a shorter period, e.g. 20 years, as more appropriate; calls for further scientific research into fugitive methane emissions to improve accounting for such emissions under Member States‘ annual inventories and targets under the EU Effort Sharing Decision; 49. Urges the Commission to bring forward legislative proposals to make the use of completion combustion devices (‘green completions’) mandatory for all shale gas wells in the EU, to limit flaring to cases where there are concerns about safety and to completely forbid venting of all shale gas wells, in an effort to reduce the fugitive methane emissions and volatile organic compounds linked to shale gas; Public participation and local conditions 50. Recognises that drilling activities can worsen living conditions; calls, therefore, for this issue to be taken into account at the time of the necessary authorisation for the sourcing and exploitation of hydrocarbon resources and for all the necessary measures to be taken, in particular by the industry through the implementation of best available techniques, and by the public authorities through the application of strict regulations, to minimise the adverse consequences of such activities; 51. Calls on the industry to engage local communities and discuss shared solutions to minimise the impact of shale gas developments on traffic, road quality, and noise where development activities are being carried out; 52. Calls on Member States to ensure that local authorities are fully informed and involved, particularly when examining requests for sourcing and exploitation permits; calls, in particular, for full access to impact assessments regarding the environment, residents’ health and the local economy; 53. Believes that public participation should be ensured through adequate public information and through public consultation before each stage of exploitation and exploration; calls for greater transparency with regard to impacts and to chemicals and technologies used, as well as greater transparency of all inspections and control measures in order to ensure public understanding and confidence in the regulation of these activities; 54. Recognises that in order to address all issues related to UFF a much better exchange of information among industry, regulators and the public is required; 55. Welcomes in this regard the 2012 EU budget appropriation for such a public dialogue and encourages the Member States to make use of this funding so as to ensure that citizens living in potential UFF development areas are better informed and can effectively participate in decision-making in their local and national governance structures; International aspects 56. Considers that the use of shale gas and other fossil fuels must be consistent with Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which calls for the ‘stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’ and underlines that substantial lock-in to fossil fuel infrastructures such as shale gas could put this international objective out of reach; 57. Considers that increased shale gas exploration and production worldwide will lead to a considerable increase in fugitive methane emissions and that the overall greenhouse warming potential (GWP) of shale gas has not been evaluated; stresses, therefore, that the exploitation of unconventional oil and gas resources could hamper the achievement of UN Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 7 – ensuring environmental sustainability – and undermine the latest international climate change commitments enshrined in the Copenhagen Accord; notes that climate change already affects poor countries the most; stresses, furthermore, that in addition to the direct effects on health and the environment, the impact of unconventional gas or oil extraction on people’s livelihoods poses a particular threat, particularly in African countries where local communities largely depend on natural resources for agriculture and fisheries; 58. Insists that lessons must be drawn from the USA on the exploitation of shale gas; notes with particular concern that shale gas extraction necessitates very large volumes of water, which may make it difficult to achieve the MDG 7 targets concerning access to clean water and food security, especially in poor countries that already face a severe scarcity of water; 59. Underlines that land acquisitions for oil and gas mining are a major driver of land-grabbing in developing countries, which can pose a significant threat to the world’s indigenous communities, farmers and poor people in terms of access to water, fertile soil and food; notes that, following the 2008 collapse of financial markets, there has been a marked acceleration of global investments in extractive industries from hedge and pension funds, with the effect of encouraging more extraction; underlines, therefore, that all European economic entities should always act in a transparent manner and in close consultation with all appropriate government bodies and local communities on issues of land leases and/or acquisitions; 60. Notes that because it is unclear whether the current regulatory framework of EU legislation provides an adequate guarantee against the risks to the environment and human health resulting from shale gas activities, the Commission is undertaking a series of studies, expected later this year; considers that the lessons learnt from these studies on shale gas exploitation and recommendations related to it must be fully taken into account by European companies in developing countries; is concerned about the effects of oil companies’ activities on the environment, health and development, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, given the limited capacity for implementing and enforcing environmental and health protection laws in some countries there; further states that European companies should employ responsible industry standards everywhere they operate; 61. Is worried about potential investment by European companies in unconventional oil or gas resources in developing countries; 62. Stresses that the EU’s obligation to ensure policy coherence for development, enshrined in Article 208 TFEU, must be respected; takes the view that, in hosting companies investing in extractive activities, the EU should influence their behaviour to encourage more sustainable practices, such as by strengthening corporate governance standards and regulations applied to the banks and funds that finance them, including by enforcing the Equator Principles, the principles of responsible investment, and the rules of the European Investment Bank and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision; 63. Recalls that in addition to regulations in the countries where they operate, international oil companies are also subject to the jurisdiction of the courts in the countries on whose stock exchange they are listed; considers that home country regulation should provide an effective means of protecting human rights in situations where accountability gaps exist, on the model of the United States Alien Tort Claims Acts; 64. Notes that many instruments exist that could address the negative social and environmental impact of the activities of extractive industries, such as the Global Reporting Initiative, the UN Global Compact and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises; points out, however, that voluntary guidelines are insufficient to mitigate the negative impact of extraction; 65. Notes that the EU Accounting and Transparency Directives are currently being revised, which is an opportunity to prevent tax evasion and corruption by extractive industries; 66. Urges the Commission to identify new options for strengthening standards on the responsibilities of transnational corporations with regard to social and environmental rights and possible means of implementation; 67. Is concerned that some unconventional oil and gas companies operate to different safety standards worldwide; calls for Member States to require companies whose headquarters are in the EU to apply EU standards in all their operations worldwide; o 68. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission and the parliaments of the Member States.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Industrial, energy and other aspects of shale gas and oil |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The European Parliament, – having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular Article 194 thereof, which states that application of its provisions establishing Union measures in the field of energy is, inter alia, without prejudice to the application of the other provisions of the Treaties, including in particular Article 192(2), – having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2010 entitled ‘Towards a new Energy Strategy for Europe 2011-2020’(1), – having regard to its resolution of 29 September 2011 on developing a common EU position ahead of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20)(2), – having regard to Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons(3), – having regard to Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply and repealing Council Directive 2004/67/EC(4), – having regard to the EU environmental legislation relevant to the development of shale gas, including: Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(5); Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment(6); Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries(7); Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy(8); Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals(9); Directive 98/8/EC on the placing of biocidal products on the market(10); Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances(11); Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage(12); Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control)(13); Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within The Community(14); and Decision No 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the effort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community’s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020(15), – having regard to the European Council conclusions of 4 February 2011, – having regard to the Council conclusions of 24 November 2011 on strengthening the external dimension of the EU energy policy, – having regard to the Commission communication on the Energy Roadmap for 2050(16), – having regard to the Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing Decision 1364/2006/EC(17), – having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0284/2012), A. whereas the International Energy Agency estimates that global liquefaction capacity will increase from 380 billion cubic metres (bcm) in 2011 to 540 bcm in 2020; B. whereas according to the EU Treaties, Member States have the right to determine their own energy mix; C. whereas shale gas development can have a significant impact on the natural gas market in terms of dynamics and prices, as well as on power generation; D. whereas chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing have to be registered with the European Chemicals Agency and cannot receive approval unless it is ensured that they do not cause damage to the environment or that such damage is mitigated (under the REACH regulation); E. whereas unconventional gas in the form of tight gas, shale gas and coal bed methane already contributes to more than half of gas production in the US, with shale gas showing the largest increase; F. whereas oil is already produced from oil shales in Estonia and exploration for oil from shale formations has taken place in the Paris basin; Energy aspects 1. Notes that various estimates of shale gas resources in Europe have been made, among them those by the US Energy Information Administration and by the International Energy Agency (IEA), and that several Member States have reserves; recognises that although these estimates are, by their very nature, imprecise they point to the existence of a potentially considerable indigenous energy resource, not all of which, however, might be economically viable in extraction terms; notes also that some Member States have oil shale reserves and that other sources of unconventional oil have yet to be explored on a wider scale; 2. Believes that policymakers should have at their disposal more accurate, up-to-date and comprehensive scientific data to enable them to make informed choices; agrees, therefore, with the European Council that Europe’s potential for the sustainable extraction and use of shale gas and shale oil resources, without putting the availability and quality of water resources at risk, should be assessed and mapped in order to potentially enhance security of supply; welcomes the assessments made by Member States and encourages them to continue this work, and asks the Commission to contribute to assessing the potential of shale gas and shale oil reserves in the EU by assembling results from Member States’ assessments and available results from exploration projects, as well as by analysing and evaluating the industrial, economic, energy and environmental and health aspects of domestic shale gas production; Energy markets 3. Points out that the shale gas boom in the US has already had a significant positive impact on the natural gas market and on gas and electricity prices, in particular by causing liquefied natural gas that was intended for the US market to be redirected elsewhere; observes that US spot prices have fallen to a historic low, thus widening the price gap between the US and a Europe bound by long-term contracts, and having an impact on the competitiveness of Europe’s economies and industry; 4. Notes that according to the US Energy Information Administration, domestic production in the US is projected to provide 46 % of gas supply by 2035; 5. Notes that gas prices in the US are still falling, which poses additional competitiveness challenges for the EU; 6. Notes that, as the gas market becomes ever more global and interconnected, the development of shale gas will increase global gas-to-gas competition and will therefore continue to have a major effect on prices; points out that shale gas will help to strengthen the position of customers vis-à-vis gas suppliers and should therefore lead to lower prices; 7. Notes, on the other hand, that significant investments are needed for the establishment of all the necessary infrastructures related to the drilling and to the storage, transport and reprocessing of gas and fracking fluid, which have to be entirely covered by the industry; 8. Calls on the Commission, in the face of gas market evolution and the growth of hub-based pricing in Europe, to address, at the next meeting of the EU-US Energy Council, the potential impact of worldwide shale gas development on the LNG market and the lifting of possible restrictions to global LNG trade; 9. Stresses that at EU level the principle of subsidiarity in terms of energy mix solutions applies to shale gas exploration and/or extraction; notes, however, that shale gas exploration may have a crossborder dimension, especially when drilling is conducted near a land border with another Member State or when it affects the underground waters, air or soil of more than one country; calls for full disclosure of all technical and environmental issues relating to shale gas exploration and appropriate cooperation with all stakeholders before and during concessions; 10. Observes that the global consumption of natural gas is currently on the rise, and that Europe remains among the regions with the highest gas import needs; notes that according to the International Energy Agency, domestic gas production in Europe is projected to decline and demand to increase, pushing up imports to around 450 bcm by 2035; recognises, therefore, the important role of worldwide shale gas production in ensuring energy security and diversity of energy sources and suppliers in the medium to long term; is aware that domestic production of shale gas could offer an opportunity for some Member States to further diversify their natural gas supply sources, bearing in mind Member States’ dependence on natural gas imports from third countries; recognises that as a result of the growth of production of natural gas from shales in the US, more LNG supplies are now available for Europe, and that a combination of increased domestic supply of natural gas and greater LNG availability provides attractive options for gas supply diversity; 11. Stresses, however, that it is crucial to adopt other security-of-supply measures and policies with long-term perspectives, such as significantly increasing the takeup of renewable energy sources and improving energy efficiency and energy savings whilst ensuring sufficient infrastructure and storage facilities, diversifying supplies and transit routes, and building reliable partnerships with supplier, transit and consumer countries on a basis of transparency, mutual trust and non-discrimination, in accordance with the principles of the Energy Charter and the EU Third Energy Package; 12. Reiterates its call on the Commission to come forward, by the end of 2013, with an analysis of the future of the global and EU gas market, including the impact of the gas infrastructure projects already planned (such as those developed in the context of the Southern Corridor), new LNG terminals, the impact of shale gas on the US gas market (notably on LNG import needs), and the impact of possible shale gas developments in the EU on the future of security of gas supply and prices; believes that the analysis should reflect, and take as a starting point, the current state of infrastructure development and the EU’s 2020 CO2 targets; stresses that all relevant stakeholders should be consulted; 13. Stresses that a fully functioning, interconnected and integrated internal EU energy market is also essential, inter alia from the viewpoint of taking full advantage of possible shale gas production in the EU, which should not adversely affect the environment and the local communities close to this type of operation; calls on the Commission and the Member States to pursue this objective vigorously, in particular by ensuring a smooth transition and application of the requirements of the EU third internal energy market package and the energy infrastructure package, with a view to harmonising and fully liberalising the European wholesale energy markets by 2014; Transition to a decarbonised economy 14. Agrees with the Commission that gas will be significant for the transformation of the energy system, as stated in the Energy Roadmap 2050, since it represents a quick, temporary and cost-efficient way of reducing reliance on other, dirtier fossil fuels before moving to fully sustainable low-carbon power generation, thereby lowering greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in those Member States that currently use large amounts of coal in power generation, should the impact studies conclude that these operations do not adversely affect either the environment, particularly groundwater, or the adjoining local communities; 15. Calls on the Commission’s Joint Research Centre, given the lack of comprehensive European data on the carbon footprint of shale gas, to swiftly finalise its full life-cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from shale gas extraction and production, with a view to ensuring that they are correctly accounted for in future; 16. Remarks also that certain forms of renewable energy – for example wind power – are variable and need to be backed up or balanced by a reliable and flexible energy technology; expresses the view that natural gas – including shale gas – could be one of the options available for that purpose among several other solutions such as increased interconnection, better system management and control via smart grids at all network levels, energy storage and demand side management; recognises the importance of CCS in ensuring the long-term sustainability of gas as an energy source; 17. Calls on the Commission to analyse the economics of CCS for gas in order to speed up the development and deployment of this technology; also calls on the Commission to examine the likely impact of CCS technology on the flexibility of gas power generation, and therefore on its role as back-up for renewable energy sources; 18. Calls on the Commission, in line with the EU Energy Roadmap 2050 strategy, to evaluate the economic and environmental impact of and prospects for unconventional gas in the EU, taking into account what can be learnt from the USA’s experience and regulation in this field, whilst recognising that the extent of unconventional gas use in the EU will ultimately be decided by the market and the decisions of the Member States acting within the framework of the EU’s long-term climate and energy policy objectives; 19. Calls on public authorities to produce an underground regional impact assessment in order to optimise resource allocation between geothermal energy, shale gas and other underground resources, and therefore maximise the benefits for society, 20. Calls on the Commission to ask the European Environment Agency (EEA) to prepare a full-scale scientific environmental analysis of shale gas and shale oil exploitation and the potential impact of available techniques; Industrial and economic aspects of unconventional oil and gas 21. Recalls that the massive increase in US shale gas production has been supported by an established industrial environment, including sufficient numbers of rigs, the necessary manpower and an experienced and well-equipped service industry; is aware that in the EU it will take time for the necessary service sector to build up adequate capacity and for companies to acquire the necessary equipment and experience, and that this is also likely to contribute to higher costs in the short term; encourages cooperation between relevant EU and US companies with a view to applying green completions, Best Available Technologies and environment-friendly industrial processes while reducing costs; believes that expectations about the pace of shale gas development in the EU should be realistic and that any potential commercial extraction should be gradually phased and paced, in order to avoid boom-and-bust economic cycles with their significant adverse local impacts; 22. Points out that a stable regulatory framework is essential both to create the right environment for gas companies to invest in much-needed infrastructure and research and development, and to prevent market distortions; 23. Urges the Member States interested in developing shale gas to introduce the necessary skills required into their mainstream education and training systems, in order to prepare the necessary skilled labour force; 24. Points out that the exploration of shale gas and oil potential is not unique to Europe and that there is a vast interest in developing new oil and gas resources as a means of improving energy and economic competitiveness in various countries and regions in Asia, North America, Latin America, Africa and Australia; underlines the need to include shale gas and oil in bilateral EU dialogue and partnerships with countries that are already developing unconventional resources or interested in their development and/or use, in order to exchange expertise and best practice; 25. Emphasises the need to remain open to all new future technologies in the field of energy research; calls for further research and development activity relating to tools and technologies, including CCS, so as to explore the possibility of a more sustainable and safe development of unconventional gas; recognises, therefore, the wider role that technology and innovation in the gas sector can contribute to the EU’s skills base and competitiveness; 26. Notes the technological developments in Austria, where the industry is proposing the use of fracking fluids containing only water, sand and cornstarch; recommends that other Member States and the Commission examine the possibility of extracting shale gas without the use of chemicals, and calls for further research and development activity relating to such techniques and/or practices that would mitigate potential impacts on the environment; 27. Urges the Commission to put forward recommendations for all shale gas wells in the EU for reducing fugitive methane emissions; Licensing framework 28. Calls on the Member States to put in place a robust regulatory regime and ensure the necessary administrative and monitoring resources for the sustainable development of all shale gas-related activities, including those required by EU environmental and climate protection legislation; recalls that in accordance with the subsidiarity principle each Member State has the right to decide for itself on the exploitation of oil and shale gas; 29. Notes that the current licensing procedure for shale gas exploration is regulated by general mining or hydrocarbon legislation; notes that according to the Final Report on Unconventional Gas in Europe of 8 November 2011 prepared for the Commission and the Transmission Note on the EU environmental legal framework applicable to shale gas projects of 26 January 2012 prepared by the Commission, the EU legislative framework adequately covers all aspects of shale gas licensing, early exploration and production; notes, however, that large-scale extraction of shale gas may require the comprehensive adaptation of all the EU’s relevant existing legislation, including REACH, to cover the specificities of unconventional fossil fuel extraction; calls on the Commission and public authorities in the Member States, without delay, to check and, if necessary, improve the regulatory frameworks in order to ensure their adequacy for shale gas and shale oil projects, especially with a view to being prepared for possible future commercial-scale production in Europe as well as for addressing environmental risks; 30. Stresses the importance of transparency and fully consulting the public, particularly in the context of the introduction of a new approach togas exploration; points out that in certain Member States there is a lack of public consultation in the authorisation phase; calls on the Member States to evaluate their legislation to see whether proper account is taken of this aspect, including the full application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention and the corresponding provisions in Union law; 31. Expresses the view that Member States undertaking shale gas projects should adopt a one-stop-shop approach to authorisation and licensing and the examination of compliance with environmental regulations (including mandatory environmental impact assessment), which is the usual practice in certain Member States for all energy projects; 32. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that the modifications to the legal framework necessary for the licensing of shale gas exploration require the mandatory approval of the local authorities affected; Public opinion and best practice 33. Is well aware that public attitudes to shale gas development vary between Member States, and that negative attitudes might be caused by lack of information or misinformation; calls for improving and better provision of public information on shale gas operations to be provided in a transparent and objective manner, and supports the creation of portals providing access to a wide range of public information on such operations; urges companies considering extraction of shale gas in the EU to provide full information on their activities, to consult with local communities and local authorities prior to drilling, and to publicly disclose all chemicals used by them in hydraulic fracturing, including the concentrations used, following the assessment of the shale formation; 34. Believes that the best way of ensuring the meaningful and timely engagement of local communities is through mandatory environmental impact assessment, a high level of transparency, and public consultation on proposed shale gas projects, regardless of project duration and scale; 35. Notes that it is particularly important for EU shale gas operators to engage with and build strong relationships with local communities at every stage of their operations, given that the EU has a higher population density than the US and landowners in Europe do not own underground resources and so do not benefit directly from extraction as in the US; calls, in this regard, for the establishment of frameworks which are competitive for industry but at the same time allow national and local communities to benefit from shale gas resources; also calls on shale gas companies to establish responsible community practices, ensure that local communities benefit from shale gas development, ensure application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle, and cover the costs of any direct or indirect damage they might cause; 36. Recognises that there should be an emphasis on a transparent and open dialogue with civil society during both the ex ante and the monitoring phases, based on the scientific evidence available and clearly tackling the issues of gas leaks and the impact of shale gas extraction on groundwaters, the countryside, agriculture and the tourist industry; recalls that the 2012 EU budget includes an appropriation intended to fund pilot projects and other support activities with a view to encouraging such a dialogue; considers that this should be organised in a neutral manner and in close cooperation with the Member States, including national authorities, local communities, the general public, businesses and NGOs; 37. Emphasises the importance of transparent corporate governance of the oil and gas companies involved in shale gas and oil shale activity; Best practice 38. Stresses the importance of applying the highest safety standards, the best available technologies and the best operational practices in shale gas exploration and production, and of continuously improving technologies and practices and minimising adverse effects; stresses, in this respect, the importance of ensuring significant levels of R&D investment on behalf of the industry; welcomes initiatives by the IEA and oil and gas producers’ associations in defining best practices in shale gas and oil exploration and production; 39. Believes that concerns over the potential of shale gas development to damage water supplies through leakage from wells can be addressed through the adoption of best practices in well development and construction, especially casing, cementing, and pressure management, together with pressure testing of cemented casing and state-of-the-art cement bond logs to confirm formation isolation; invites the Member States to ensure that these practices are followed in shale gas development, inter alia by means of site inspections; 40. Stresses that by developing better technologies and practices based on robust regulations, operators and service industries will not only improve public acceptance of shale gas projects but will also gain business opportunities and improve export opportunities, given the worldwide environmental challenges of unconventional gas exploration; recommends, therefore, that Member States take into account the recommendations of the IEA comprehensive Best Available Techniques (BAT) reference document on hydraulic fracturing, as soon as it is available; 41. Highlights the need for the highest safety and environmental standards and regular inspections at safety-critical stages of well construction and hydraulic fracturing; stresses, in particular, that operators should reduce flaring and venting and should recover gas, capture fugitive emissions and re-use/treat waste water; calls on the EU to follow the US lead in shale gas environmental standards for fracking that require companies to capture methane and other pollutant gas emissions, as introduced by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); 42. Calls, in addition, on shale gas operators to test domestic water wells close to their wells both before and during production, and to disclose the resulting information to the public in an accessible, understandable and transparent manner; 43. Underlines the importance of operators reclaiming and restoring the land used and conducting post-operational monitoring on completion of their activities; 44. Urges the exchange of best practices and information between the EU Member States, but also between the EU, the US and Canada; in particular, encourages the pairing of European and North American cities and municipalities which have discovered shale gas; stresses the importance of the transfer of knowledge about shale gas development from industry to local communities; 45. Urges the shale gas and oil industry to employ, on a uniform basis, the highest environmental and safety standards wherever in the world companies are operating; calls on the Commission to examine what mechanisms might be appropriate to ensure that EU-based companies operate globally according to the highest standards; believes that corporate responsibility should also be a key driver in this area, and that Member States’ licensing regimes could take global incidents involving companies into consideration when awarding licences, provided those incidents are accompanied by thorough reviews; 46. Highlights the importance of supporting and co-funding activities that aim to create independent platforms composed of industry and science representatives aiming to provide opinions and establish good practices related to clean shale gas extraction technologies; 47. Recalls that the ‘polluter pays’ principle must be consistently applied to shale gas and shale oil operations, particularly regarding waste water treatment, and that companies must be fully liable for any direct or indirect damage they might cause; urges the Commission to assess the need to put forward proposals for specifically including hydraulic fracturing and other activities related to shale gas extraction in the Environmental Liability Directive and to oblige shale gas operators to provide compulsory financial security or insurance requirements in case of any environmental damage linked to their activities, in order to provide legal certainty for the populations concerned; o 48. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the Governments of the Member States.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Activities of the Committee on Petitions (2011) |
| |||||||||||||||||
The European Parliament, – having regard to previous resolutions on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions, – having regard to Articles 10 and 11 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), – having regard to Articles 24, 227, 228, 258 and 260 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), – having regard to Rules 48 and 202(8) of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Petitions (A7-0240/2012), A. whereas, subject to Protocol 30 of the Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has already acquired legally binding force through the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon; and whereas the same Treaty also establishes the legal basis for the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the European Citizens’ Initiative; B. whereas the Regulation on the European Citizens’ Initiative(1) entered into force on 1 April 2012, and whereas Parliament has the responsibility for the organisation of public hearings for successful initiatives which have secured more than one million signatures from a minimum of seven Member States; C. whereas the Committee on Petitions has a duty to constantly review and, where possible, to enhance its role, notably with regard to the development of democratic principles, such as the increased participation of citizens in the EU decision-making process and the enhancement of transparency and accountability; and whereas in its regular activity the Committee works closely with Member States, the Commission, the European Ombudsman and other bodies in order to ensure that EU law is fully respected in both letter and spirit; D. expresses its satisfaction concerning the creation of a single service for citizens looking for information or wanting to lodge an appeal or lawsuit via the ‘Your Rights in the European Union’ portal; E. welcomes the case law of the European Court of Justice on the interpretation of Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which in the ERT ruling, emphasises that the institutions of the Member States shall be bound by the overriding fundamental rights of the Union even if they wish to use national measures to restrict the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by TFEU; F. whereas European citizens and residents have legitimate expectations that the issues that they raise with the Committee on Petitions may find a solution without undue delay within the legal framework of the European Union, which they look upon to uphold their rights as citizens of the Union, and in particular to defend their natural environment, health, freedom of movement, dignity and fundamental rights and freedoms; G. whereas the European institutions ought to supply more information and be more transparent with regard to EU citizens; H. whereas 998 petitions were declared admissible, and of those 649 were forwarded to the Commission for further investigation pursuant to Articles 258 and 260 of the Treaty; and 416 petitions were declared inadmissible; I. whereas the petitions process can be complementary to other European instruments available to citizens, such as the option to address complaints to the European Ombudsman or to the European Commission; J. whereas the number of inadmissible petitions continued to be significant in 2011, once more indicating that Parliament should increase its effort to inform citizens of the limits of its field of action with regard to the right of petition; whereas considering that individuals, local communities, and voluntary, charitable and professional associations are well placed to assess the effectiveness of European legislation as it applies to them, and to signal to citizens possible loopholes that need to be analysed in order to ensure better and more comparable implementation of EU law in all the Member States; K. whereas, regarding the statistical analysis contained in this report, German citizens continue to submit the highest number of petitions, though decreasing proportionally, followed by Spanish and Italian petitioners; L. whereas the field of action, and the modus operandi, of the right to petition granted to all EU citizens and residents under the terms of the Treaty differs from other remedies available to citizens, as for instance the submission of complaints to the Commission or to the Ombudsman, and whereas the Member States, using the crisis as a pretext, are increasingly choosing to neglect this right, which is an important concern for European citizens; M. whereas main concerns relating to the general theme of the environment are the poor and often misguided application by Member States and their sub-national entities of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive(2) and the Waste Framework Directive(3); whereas petitions alleging breaches of the Birds and Habitats Directives often raise concerns of serious biodiversity loss as a result of major projects planned in Natura 2000 sites, and petitions on water management have revealed grave cases of pollution as well as raised concerns over possible impacts of projects on the sustainability and quality of aquatic resources; N. whereas the EIA Directive is presently under review and that the report by the Committee on Petitions on waste issues exposes serious shortcomings in several Member States, whereas the implementation of this Directive remains insufficient and whereas this problem will not be solved by a review but by more effective control by the Commission; O. whereas the right of European citizens and residents to their legitimately acquired property continues to be an issue of grave significance for many thousands of people, as demonstrated by the petitions which are still being received on this subject, and whereas without a resolution of this problem by the competent authorities there is no likelihood of legal certainty of, or trust in, assurances that cross-border housing markets will be restored, which has serious consequences for the prospects of economic recovery, and whereas in particular in 2011 there were 70 petitions outstanding relating to the Spanish Ley de Costas, with 51 petitions identifiable as coming from Spanish citizens or groups of Spanish citizens and the remaining 19 coming from citizens of other nationalities; P. whereas in its previous Annual Report, the Committee on Petitions highly appreciated the cooperation with the Commission and the European Ombudsman with regard to the treatment of petitions and complaints, and whereas the Committee on Petitions repeatedly requested that it be kept informed by the Commission of developments in pending infringement proceedings, the subject of which is also covered by petitions; Q. whereas many petitions claim that EU funds have been misused or misappropriated while others allege malfunctioning in the EU’s administration, including conflicts of interest within influential agencies, or call for changes in EU policies; R. whereas the shortcomings and problems faced by people as a result of the malfunctioning of the internal market, as illustrated by petitions, are confirmed by the Commission’s European Citizenship Report 2010(4) , in particular as regards free movement of EU citizens and their family members, provided they are completely legitimate, access to social security entitlements, mutual recognition of qualifications, obstacles faced by the disabled, family law issues and mass expulsions on the basis of ethnic or national origin such as those affecting the Roma, including also double-taxation issues; S. whereas also in 2011, a significant number of petitions were submitted by citizens pointing to the importance of preventing irreparable losses in biodiversity, with regard to Natura 2000 sites, as well as of ensuring the protection of areas defined under the Habitats Directive; T. whereas the judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2011 in case T-308/07 upheld the petitioner’s complaint against the Committee’s decision to declare his petition inadmissible, and in doing made it clear that in declaring petitions inadmissible, Parliament must give good reasons for doing so; U. whereas the efficiency of the Committee’s work is largely the result of swiftness and thoroughness, but could be improved further, in particular by optimising the time taken to process petitions and by systematising the procedure for their assessment; 1. Notes that the petitions received in 2011 continued to focus on alleged breaches of EU law in the fields of the environment, justice and the internal market, reflecting citizens’ views on whether European legislation, as transposed and implemented by the Member States, actually delivers the expected result and responds to EU law; 2. Notes the increasing number of petitions and other submissions from citizens seeking legal and financial redress on issues that fall outside the EU’s area of competence pursuant to Article 227 of the Treaty as well as Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, such as, for example, requests to review the calculation of national pensions, overrule decisions by national courts, support proposals to re-draw Europe’s frontiers, force a bank to grant a personal loan, etc.; fully supports the action taken by Parliament’s responsible Directorates-General to find a solution for dealing with these submissions from citizens while taking into account Parliament’s obligations with regard to its correspondence with citizens; 3. Believes that the role and responsibilities of the Petitions Committee would be best performed, and its visibility, efficiency, accountability and transparency best enhanced, if its means of being able to bring issues of importance to European citizens to plenary were improved, and if its abilities to call witnesses, conduct investigations and organise on-site hearings were enhanced; 4. Recalls that, as regards the procedures for organising public hearings on successful European Citizens’ Initiatives, as set down in Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011, Parliament has decided that the Committee on Petitions is automatically associated with each hearing alongside the lead Committee with legislative competence for the subject concerned; considers this a confirmation of its role as the body with the most experience of direct contacts with citizens, ensuring a uniform procedure for all successful Citizens’ Initiatives; calls on the Conference of Presidents to approve a clarification of the Committee’s competences in this respect in Annex VII, point XX of the rules of procedure; emphasises, at the same time, that the difference between a petition according to Article 227 TFEU and a Citizens’ Initiative must be clearly explained to the public; 5. Welcomes Parliament’s decision to develop a much more practical and visible petitions portal on its website, which will facilitate, within the limits of Article 227 of the Treaty and Article 202 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, access for citizens to the petitions process, provide them with information and allow them to submit petitions in a more user-friendly environment and sign electronically in support of petitions; considers that this portal should also provide practical links to other forms of redress which are available at European and national or regional level, as well as a comprehensive overview of the competence of the Petitions Committee, and should at the same time set a framework of practices for public administrations based on the CURIA portal, the official portal for ECJ judgments; 6. Confirms its determination to continue to promote and defend citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms by making use of its political influence regarding such admissible cases as may be raised with the Committee, in close cooperation with the Commission and relevant authorities within the Member States of the Union; 7.Calls on the Committee on Petitions to examine the effects of the ERT case law on the reliability of petitions, and to investigate the question of what actual obstacles lie in the way for EU citizens applying for a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice in order to obtain reliable interpretations of central issues under European legislation in cases before the national courts; 8. Considers it important to enhance cooperation with Member States’ parliaments and governments, based on reciprocity, and, where necessary, to encourage Member States’ authorities to transpose and apply EU legislation in full transparency; 9. Stresses the importance of the Commission cooperating with the Member States, and deplores the negligence of some Member States with regard to transposing and enforcing European environmental legislation; 10. Considers that the petitions procedure should not be exploited and used to achieve objectives on the political agenda in Member States, but should be carried out objectively, reflecting the position of the European Parliament; 11. Welcomes the constructive cooperation between the Petitions Committee and the services of the European Ombudsman, and reaffirms its determination to support the Ombudsman in identifying maladministration by and acting against EU institutions; 12. Calls upon the Commission to provide the Petitions Committee with details, and a statistical analysis, of the complaints it investigates from European citizens, including the results obtained and the place of origin of the complainant; 13. Believes that, as regards the functioning of the infringement procedures under Article 258 and 260 of the TFEU, the Commission should ensure that petitions to the Parliament and complaints to the Commission are treated with equal consideration; 14. Considers that more precise, written procedural rules in relation to the preparation, implementation and evaluation of delegation visits within the Committee could lead to greater efficiency and consistency in the work of the Committee on Petitions; 15. Considers the correct implementation of the Waste Framework Directive in all Member States to be of the utmost importance, and asks, therefore, Member States with waste management trouble spots to act decisively and swiftly; 16. Reiterates its numerous calls on the Member States to comply with their obligations under the Free Movement Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the EU; reminds Member States of their obligation to facilitate entry and residence without any discrimination, including for same-sex couples and their children, Roma people, and other minority groups; 17. Supports wholeheartedly the underlying objective of the Ley de Costas, namely that the environment of the Spanish coast be protected from overdevelopment so as to preserve it for wildlife and for future generations; notes with concern, however, that the issue of that law continues to be a problem for petitioners, and for Spanish citizens in particular; supports the efforts of petitioners to resolve the problems surrounding the law and its application, taking note in particular of the decision of the Committee on Petitions to establish a working group to consider the issue in more depth; 18. Believes that it is in the current economic interest of everyone to ensure the resolution of the legal uncertainty which surrounds property potentially affected by the Ley de Costas; welcomes the Spanish Government’s announcement that it intends to revise the Ley de Costas in order to reconcile the future protection of the Spanish coastline with economic growth, and thus to provide greater legal certainty for property owners; urges the Spanish Government to reassure the interests of those who have acquired property in good faith and of those communities which have always shared a sustainable coexistence with the sea; urges them, in particular, to address the specific question of the application of the law, so that it does not encourage decisions that are arbitrary, retrospective or asymmetric, but instead ensures due process, a right of appeal, proper compensation and access to information; 19. Recalls that Parliament has held(5) that the Ley de Costas has had a disproportionate impact on individual property owners while at the same time having insufficient impact on the real perpetrators of coastal destruction, who have been responsible in many instances for excessive urban development along the coasts; urges the Spanish Government to ensure that those whose fraudulent actions have put numerous EU citizens in an intolerable situation through the loss or risk of loss of their homes are duly pursued and required to pay for the damage they have caused; 20. Invites the Commission to ensure that the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive is strengthened by providing clearer parameters as regards the independence of expert studies, common EU thresholds, a maximum timeframe for the process, including effective public consultation, the requirement to justify decisions, the mandatory assessment of reasonable alternatives and a quality control mechanism; 21. Calls on the Commission, furthermore, to ensure implementation and enforcement of the Habitats and Birds Directives by the Member States as well as the better transposition and application of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of EU citizens and their families to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States; 22. Recalls the large number of petitioners who contact the Committee on Petitions with their individual complaints regarding youth and family welfare matters in Germany in general, and Germany’s youth welfare offices in particular, and emphasises the determination of the Committee to make a constructive contribution to the investigation of the complaints between the petitioners and the authorities within its own area of competence and that of the European Union; points out that this must not involve any intervention in internal independent administrative procedures in Member States; 23. Is determined to make the petition procedure more efficient, transparent, and impartial, while preserving the participatory rights of the Members of the Committee on Petitions, so that the handling of petitions will stand up to judicial review even at a procedural level; 24. Emphasises the need for continuity in processing petitions, despite changes in legislative periods and the resulting changes in personnel; 25. Regards the participation of Members of Parliament in fact-finding missions not just as a participatory parliamentary right, but also as an obligation in relation to petitioners; 26. As part of the efforts to improve the work of the Committee, calls for a procedure involving fact-finding missions that, on the one hand, ensures the right of all members of a fact-finding mission to present the facts from their point of view while, on the other hand, guarantees all Committee Members the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process in regard to the conclusions to be drawn by the Committee on Petitions; 27. Emphasises that the Committee on Petitions, along with other institutions and bodies, such as the committees of inquiry, the European Citizens’ Initiative and the European Ombudsman, play an independent and clearly defined role as points of contact for each individual citizen; 28. Calls on the Conference of Presidents to examine the extent to which an amendment to the Rules of Procedure would seem appropriate for the implementation of these formal requirements in relation to the petitioning procedure; 29. Instructs its President to forward this resolution and the report of the Committee on Petitions to the Council, the Commission and the European Ombudsman, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States, their committees on petitions and their ombudsmen or similar competent bodies.
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Legal notice - Privacy policy |