Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Procedure : 2017/2705(RSP)
Document stages in plenary
Select a document: :

Texts tabled :

B8-0590/2017

Debates :

PV 15/11/2017 - 23
CRE 15/11/2017 - 23

Votes :

PV 16/11/2017 - 7.9

Texts adopted :

P8_TA(2017)0450

Debates
Wednesday, 15 November 2017 - Strasbourg Revised edition

23. Environmental Implementation Review (EIR) (debate)
Video of the speeches
PV
MPphoto
 

  Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana keskustelu

– Sirpa Pietikäisen, Simona Bonafèn, Mark Demesmaekerin, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandyn, Luke Ming Flanaganin ja Benedek Jávorin ympäristön, kansanterveyden ja elintarvikkeiden turvallisuuden valiokunnan puolesta neuvostolle laatimasta suullisesti vastattavasta kysymyksestä ympäristölainsäädännön täytäntöönpanon arvioinnista (O-000065/2017 - B8-0606/2017 ja

– Sirpa Pietikäisen, Simona Bonafèn, Mark Demesmaekerin, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandyn, Luke Ming Flanaganin ja Benedek Jávorin ympäristön, kansanterveyden ja elintarvikkeiden turvallisuuden valiokunnan puolesta komissiolle laatimasta suullisesti vastattavasta kysymyksestä ympäristölainsäädännön täytäntöönpanon arvioinnista (O-000066/2017 - B8-0607/2017.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Benedek Jávor, author. – Madam President, in February this year the Commission published its first edition of the Environmental Implementation Review (EIR) to give an overview of the implementation of EU environmental law in each Member State. The 28 country reports are accompanied by a summary document listing the common challenges, such as waste management, nature and biodiversity protection, air quality, noise pollution, water quality and management, to identify the root causes of problems, and providing policy proposals and recommendations for improvement.

I would like to stress that the EIR is a soft tool to shed light on implementation gaps, challenges and problems. In this sense it is a key to providing an early warning for the national and sub-national level policymakers which can take corrective actions and address the gaps in time. The EIR also aims to demonstrate success stories that can serve as an example for other Member States. The recently launched peer-to-peer tool facilitates this kind of exchange of knowledge or best practices. The exercise is to be repeated every two years, offering the possibility for iterative changes and improvements.

We, Members of the European Parliament, welcome the EIR and believe that this new review mechanism as a whole has the potential to improve compliance and policy implementation and thus also contribute to greater transparency and the credibility of the EU.

Yet, in order to fully realise this potential, we believe that the process could be further improved, including by broadening the scope of the review, as also expressed in the motion for a resolution adopted in October in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. There is also a need for targeted assistance to the Member States to overcome the barriers of proper, effective implementation, such as ineffective governance, inappropriate institutional framework, lack of capacity and an unclear responsibility of the authorities. My co-sponsors of the motion for a resolution and oral question – Ms Pietikäinen, Ms Bonafè, Mr Demesmaeker, Mr Gerbrandy, Mr Flanaganand I tabled on behalf of the Environment Committee the following questions, first to the Council, regarding the EIR.

Parliament wishes to highlight the need to address the root causes, in particular lack of policy coherence and insufficient financing. The same goes for covering additional issues in the coming review cycles such as climate change, chemicals regulations, industrial emissions and other systemic challenges linked, for example, to energy, transport and regional policies.

In order to demonstrate clear, strong political commitment, the Council could hold regular meetings dedicated to the implementation of EU environmental law which could facilitate monitoring the performance and progress of a Member State and ensure structured implementation dialogues as proposed by the Commission. For the latter, Member States should pay due attention to ensuring transparency and broad stakeholder participation.

In addition, we would see added value in joint Council meetings to address the implementation of cross-cutting issues and also the environmental challenges of a cross-border nature. We would also like to ask the Commission this oral question and we raise some concerns about the exact means of following up on the policy proposals and recommendations for better implementation put forward by the Commission.

There are issues to be solved linked to data availability and comparability, especially in the context of the next review cycles that would hopefully run with a wider scope. We would like to hear the Commission’s views on how the EIR framework could be used as a means of assessing the implementation of the relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the 2030 Agenda and, in general, of shifting from the current sectoral approaches to a coherent, consistent and holistic solution.

We put on the table tools, including a publicly available scoreboard to monitor the performance and progress of each Member State and to improve transparency and raise public awareness and ensure proper public participation in each Member State.

Last but not least, we would like to better understand the linkage between the EIR process and the infringements and, in general, the exact actions taken by the Commission in the event of non-compliance.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Matti Maasikas, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank Parliament for the interest it is taking, through this question and its resolution, in the new environmental implementation review initiative. I can confirm that this interest is fully shared by the Council.

In terms of addressing implementation gaps in EU environmental legislation and policy, this initiative has a high potential. In addition to contributing to the environment ministers’ input into the European Semester, the environmental implementation review process is meant to become a distinct and consistent process. It would involve several important elements: the preparation of environmental implementation review country reports and bilateral discussions with the Member States, as well as the identification of common issues and their discussion in the Environmental Council.

On 28 February 2017, the Environment Council held its latest exchange of views on greening the European Semester. The economic system depends largely on the availability and sustainable use of limited natural resources. Keeping this in mind, greening the economy and advancing the transition towards a resource efficient circular economy becomes essential to secure future competitiveness and long-term sustainable and inclusive growth.

In this context, Ministers also discussed the Commission’s communication on the EU environmental implementation review. They welcomed this initiative as a useful tool to help improve implementation of EU environmental policy and legislation at national level and contribute to the greening of the European Semester.

In doing this, they underlined the need for national findings to be based on sound scientific data. Ministers also welcomed the opportunity for Member States to engage in dialogue and cooperation with the Commission and among themselves, peer to peer, with the aim of reflecting on their respective priorities, addressing common challenges and sharing best practices.

As regards the specific questions that you have raised at this early stage of the environmental implementation review process, I would like to limit myself to the following comments. We agree with the identified root causes of the implementation gaps and we are willing to address them further.

It is to be expected that the different strands of the implementation process of the environmental implementation review, and in particular the dialogue with the Member States on the basis of the country reports, will allow us to carry out a structured dialogue in Council.

Member States are generally responding positively to the environmental implementation review process. Bilateral dialogues have already taken place in five countries since March this year. These countries are Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Luxembourg and Slovakia.

I also encourage other countries to organise action-oriented country dialogues and to hold forward—looking debates on environmental challenges. I trust that these dialogues will be inclusive and that the relevant stakeholders get an opportunity to contribute as appropriate.

The current environmental implementation review cycle is already very ambitious and covers a large number of complex and very significant areas. In terms of broadening the scope of the environmental implementation review to other policy areas in the future, we find it essential that environmental challenges are tackled in a comprehensive manner and that all relevant policies are taken into account.

The real added value of the environmental implementation review will come from in—depth impartial analysis. However, if broadening the scope is considered, due attention should be given to avoiding a disproportionate administrative burden.

As regards the involvement of the Council – although I cannot speak on behalf of future presidencies – currently, the idea is to bring the structural problems and common challenges identified in the course of the two-year period to the attention of the Council. The Council would then discuss environmental implementation review-related issues at regular intervals in line with the cycle, also ensuring complementarity with the discussion on the greening of the European Semester and the relevant post—2020 strategies.

Lastly, in many areas environmental policy is interlinked with other domains. In addressing the cross-cutting issues, we should avoid working in silos and ensure that all relevant parties are involved in discussions. The respective dialogues should not be held at Council level only, but start from expert groups and other working formations. Hence the effort of engaging colleagues from other policy areas is welcome at all levels in order to achieve a coordinated and informed outcome.

I thank Parliament once again for these questions.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Phil Hogan, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I want to say how glad I am to take this point on behalf of Commissioner Vella. Commissioner Vella wishes to thank the author and all of the people involved in the interest in the environmental implementation review (EIR) and for your support for this important initiative.

The EIR puts implementation in a broader context with a view to finding practical solutions by looking at integration with other sectors and by identifying possible root causes for implementation challenges. This helps to improve the knowledge and sharing of good practice.

The main goal of the EIR was to draw attention to the need for improved implementation in order to attain the European Union’s environmental objectives. The environmental targets and deadlines which need to be achieved by the Member States are included in the legal obligations set out in the environmental aquis and are being monitored per directive and regulation.

The EIR encourages cooperation, dialogue and the search for solutions involving a wide range of stakeholders at national level. It is not feasible, but neither is it the Commission’s intention, to rely on a name-and-shame exercise. This could, at any rate, jeopardise the achievement of goals. The Commission has included in the country reports both good practices and good examples, as well as implementation challenges. The data used in the country reports are comparable.

The Commission’s ongoing initiative in streamlining reporting requirements in EU environmental law is expected to improve the quality and completeness of the data significantly.

The EIR takes a holistic approach, reflecting the spirit of the Sustainable Development Goals. and the Commission is taking steps to ensure that the second review cycle will be even more comprehensive by including chemicals, industrial emissions and the implementation of climate change policies. The nexus with climate change and other policies will also be developed as much as possible.

The Commission encourages Member States to organise national dialogues under the EIR in a cross-sectoral approach. The first five countries’ dialogues succeeded in doing so, and further dialogues are being planned.

The Commission has also asked Member States to involve all relevant stakeholders during their country dialogues. We firmly believe that discussions will result in tailored solutions and mount some pressure to fill in the implementation gaps that are identified in the EIR reports.

The EIR inspires learning from good practice. On 7 September 2017, the Commission launched a peer-to-peer tool with the Committee of the Regions. It is intended to support concretely the Member States at all administrative levels to share experience and expertise. This will lead to a database of good practices.

The EIR has not changed the Commission’s policy as regards infringements, and there is no formal relationship between the voluntary approach and the legal procedures. In most cases, the infringement procedures will run in parallel where necessary. However, if the EIR succeeds over time in improving implementation, as is expected, fewer infringement procedures will be needed and, therefore, fewer resources will have to be spent on legal proceedings, and we should have enhanced environmental protection due to upstream and systematic solutions.

I wish to conclude by thanking the author and all of the people that have been involved in drawing up this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Annie Schreijer-Pierik, namens de PPE-Fractie. – Commissaris Hogan, de Europese Unie heeft een sterke milieuwetgeving, uitgaand van het voorzorgsbeginsel. Onze ondernemers, boeren, wildbeheerders, overheden en burgers worden gehouden aan de sterkste eisen. Deze evaluatie toont aan dat de uitvoering door de EU-lidstaten, provincies, regio's en lokale overheden sterk uiteenloopt. Helaas neemt de ene lidstaat een loopje met de milieuwetgeving en is de andere lidstaat onnodig streng in bepaalde dossiers, terwijl diezelfde lidstaat andere milieuwetgeving weer aan zijn laars lapt.

Ik betreur het dat de waterkwaliteit en medicijnresten in het water te weinig aandacht krijgen in deze rapportage. Ook de inzet van grondeigenaren en provincies voor de verbeterde uitvoering van Natura 2000 mis ik. Boeren moeten opkrassen vanwege stikstofneerslag op natuurgebieden, eeuwenoude familiebedrijven moeten in Twente worden verplaatst. Maar hoe gaan we om met andere sectoren? Hoe anders gaan lidstaten als Nederland om met belangen van het grote geld, met olie- en gaswinning? Daar wil ik het over hebben. In de regio Twente in Overijssel wordt vervuild afvalwater van de oliewinning geloosd onder drinkwater- en Natura 2000-gebieden. Dit is toch de wereld op zijn kop. Uw reactie op mijn schriftelijke vragen was vorig jaar helder. Op grond van artikel 12 van de afvalstoffenrichtlijn moeten de lidstaten ervoor zorgen dat dergelijke lozingen (afvalverwijderingshandelingen) geen gevaar opleveren voor de volksgezondheid en zonder risico voor bodem en water zijn. De Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij en de rijksoverheid weigeren echter al jaren om afvalwater te laten zuiveren voorafgaand aan lozingen in de ondergrond van kwetsbare waterwin- en natuurgebieden. Dit terwijl hiervoor goede zuiveringstechnieken bestaan. Het is daarom de hoogste tijd dat de Europese Commissie in Nederland proactief ingrijpt, met alle juridische middelen waarover zij beschikt, in het belang van onze inwoners, onze omgeving en zeker ook de boeren die daar volop goed aan de slag zijn. Dank u wel.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Simona Bonafè, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, se c'è un settore nel quale l'Unione europea è all'avanguardia nel mondo questo è proprio la tutela ambientale, e quindi le normative che ci siamo dati per la qualità dell'aria, la salubrità delle acque, la gestione ottimale dei rifiuti, e potrei andare avanti.

Però non dobbiamo solo vantarci di avere normative ambiziose, dobbiamo poi essere anche in grado di farle rispettare queste norme, cosa che, ahimè, purtroppo non sempre succede. Questo è fondamentale non solo per la credibilità dell'Unione, ma anche per la salvaguardia dell'ambiente e per la salute dei nostri cittadini e anche per le ricadute economiche. Lo vediamo molto bene, per esempio, con l'impact assessment sull'economia circolare quali vantaggi in termini di occupazione e di crescita economica può portare una gestione efficace ed efficiente dei rifiuti.

Bene, allora, ha fatto la Commissione a predisporre uno strumento per valutare le performance degli Stati membri nell'attuazione delle normative ambientali. Avere una mappatura ci permette di capire quanto la realtà ci separa dagli obiettivi fissati per legge, i settori nei quali siamo ancora indietro, il perché siamo ancora indietro, e quindi individuare le cause, e quali strumenti mettere concretamente in campo per raggiungere gli obiettivi.

Capite bene che, prima di tutto, è necessario che i dati siano maggiormente comparabili per favorire lo scambio di best practice, come chiediamo nella risoluzione. Dobbiamo inoltre avere un quadro più preciso possibile, inserendo nella valutazione anche altri elementi. Pensiamo nella risoluzione all'efficienza energetica, al settore dei trasporti, al cambiamento climatico. Mi fa piacere sentire che c'è già un'apertura, come ha detto il Commissario, anche perché non è pensabile oggi non considerare l'impatto del cambiamento climatico.

Ed ora mi rivolgo al Consiglio. Tutto questo non può essere solo un esercizio di stile, ma gli Stati membri si devono poi impegnare concretamente a raggiungere gli obiettivi, e chiediamo al Consiglio un impegno concreto ad aderire quindi pienamente al riesame e a prendere questo strumento molto sul serio.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mark Demesmaeker, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Commissaris, onze sterke Europese milieuwetgeving staat vaak in schril contrast met de zwakke uitvoering ervan. Dat heb ik in mijn werk op het vlak van biodiversiteitsbeleid, de afvalwetgeving en uitstootnormen in de praktijk ervaren. We moeten dus verhoogd inzetten op een betere implementatie, want anders blijken onze strikte normen in de realiteit alleen maar papieren tijgers. Het nieuwe EIR-instrument dat de Commissie lanceerde, kan daarbij een belangrijke rol spelen en verdient alle steun.

Alles kan natuurlijk altijd beter. Vanuit de milieucommissie doen we daarvoor enkele aanbevelingen. Ten eerste mag de EIR geen louter technisch instrument zijn. Ze moet ook de politieke discussie voeden. Een vast agendapunt op de Raad over de uitvoering van de milieuwetgeving zou bijvoorbeeld een stap vooruit zijn. Ten tweede is het essentieel dat regionale en lokale overheden voluit worden betrokken. Als Vlaams Europarlementslid kan ik dat niet genoeg benadrukken. Ten slotte breek ik nogmaals een lans voor de uitwisseling van beste praktijken. We moeten het warm water niet altijd opnieuw uitvinden, maar de bestaande expertise en innovatieve oplossingen voluit benutten.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Luke Ming Flanagan, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Madam President, one of the biggest problems we have with implementing directives when it comes to the environment is the fact that governments do not actually take ownership of these directives, even though they themselves transpose them into law.

On many occasions, the statement is made at home that ‘the EU made us do it’, a similar sort of excuse that Bart Simpson comes up with when he has obviously done something wrong: ‘someone else made them do it’. What chance is there of real committed implementation if the state itself is not really committed? The result in implementation tends to be shabby and imposed on people, rather than carried out through consultation and dialogue.

A perfect example of this is the Birds and Habitats Directive. As Commissioner Hogan knows himself, I would not be here if it were not for the mess that was made of that. The directive itself is excellent. However, how it was implemented when it came to turf cutters and farmers has left a bitter taste which will not be removed for a long time.

No real consultation took place, and also implementation costs ordinary people money, whether that be septic-tank inspections or training in pesticide spraying. These costs should be borne by the state and not by the individual, because it’s really important that we do this. If it’s that important then let those who can afford it pay for it.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Julia Reid, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Madam President, the Environmental Implementation Review (EIR) is an EU instrument designed to monitor the implementation of EU environmental law and policy. The EIR affords the Commission a more proactive role, enabling it to monitor the implementation of EU environmental law in Member States. This scheme would diminish the discretionary margin of Member States when implementing the directives and would transfer additional powers to EU institutions.

In my opinion, it would be far better to provide a mechanism which would engage with EU citizens directly and which would promote awareness, increase involvement and educate the general public about the environment. I do not think that a new EU legislative instrument monitoring the application of unilaterally imposed legislation is the answer to the improvement of environmental policies in the EU. I believe that Member States should have the freedom to set their own targets rather than being forced to comply with those set by the unelected Commission.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D). –Încep prin a le a mulțumi colegilor pentru că au ridicat aceste întrebări importante în discuția cu Consiliul și Comisia. Aș vrea să subliniez două aspecte în această discuție.

Primul e legat de finanțare. Ca raportor pentru al șaptelea program general al Uniunii de acțiune pentru mediu, cunosc mai multe cazuri în care fondurile cheltuite pentru obiective de mediu nu au adus și rezultatele dorite.

În unele state membre lipsesc banii, dar la nivelul Uniunii Europene nu absența fondurilor este problema, ci proasta administrare a acestora. S-au făcut investiții utile pentru unele proiecte, cum ar fi îmbunătățirea calității apei potabile, dar în multe alte cazuri banii au fost pur și simplu irosiți. Acest lucru rezultă foarte clar din rapoartele Curții de Conturi. Comisia trebuie să acționeze pentru a asigura o folosire mai responsabilă a fondurilor pe care le distribuie pentru proiectele de mediu.

Al doilea aspect este legat de societatea civilă. Multe ONG-uri cu care m-am consultat pentru realizarea raportului mi-au transmis că evaluarea punerii în aplicare a politicilor de mediu este limitată fiindcă implică doar statele membre și Comisia.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Piernicola Pedicini (EFDD). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, noi appoggeremo questa risoluzione del Parlamento perché crediamo che il riesame dell'attuazione sia uno strumento essenziale per trarre il massimo beneficio dalle politiche ambientali in Unione europea, ma anche per definire e tracciare quel percorso, quelle tappe che ci servono a raggiungere il futuro sostenibile in Europa.

Tuttavia, crediamo che tutto questo possa avvenire soltanto se si affronta davvero quel paradosso che vede, da una parte, una legislazione europea solidissima in materia ambientale ma, dall'altra, una sua attuazione completamente inefficace. Allora per noi bisogna fare tre cose.

Prima cosa: introdurre delle sanzioni che siano davvero efficaci per quegli Stati membri che però non riescono a far valere, ad imporre il principio "chi inquina paga".

Seconda cosa: il meccanismo delle procedure di infrazione non funziona. Non possono essere i cittadini che pagano due volte: una prima volta in termini di salute perché non viene tutelato l'ambiente in cui vivono e la seconda volta in termini economici perché ricevono una procedura di infrazione. Debbono pagare i responsabili, che sono molto spesso i ministeri dell'Ambiente dei singoli Stati membri, che invece restano lì nelle loro poltrone pur essendo responsabili.

Terza cosa: bisogna interrompere quel triangolo infernale che vede l'industria che inquina che finanzia anche i rappresentanti nelle istituzioni europee e nelle istituzioni locali e regionali che poi nominano però i direttori degli istituti di controllo. Se non si fanno queste tre cose, l'Europa non avrà mai un futuro sostenibile.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já naváži na své kolegy, všichni v sále asi cítíme, že environmentální evropské právo, aquis, je mimořádně důležitou součástí evropského práva a není důležité právo pouze přijmout, ale následně kontrolovat, na kolik to právo je implementováno v národních právních režimech a na kolik tedy je fakticky realizováno. A je dobře, že dneska tady kolegové vznesli tuto otázku, protože sám z vlastní zkušenosti vím, že často přijímáme právní předpisy, které potom na té národní úrovni ne vždycky jsou dobře implementovány a ne vždycky jsou dobře užívány. A v oblasti životního prostředí já toto téma považuji za zvláště důležité. Vítám tady informaci ze strany Komise, že budou připravovány a jsou připravovány hodnotící zprávy o stavu environmentálního aquis.

Chci zdůraznit a doporučuji, aby vedle kritizování nedostatků u jednotlivých členských států byly vyzdvihovány i pozitivní příklady, aby s jednotlivými členskými státy byl více veden dialog, než jenom aby bylo kritizováno, pokud se objeví nějaké nedostatky, protože pak nám v jednotlivých členských státech bude vznikat přirozený odpor vůči environmentálnímu aquis a to asi nikdo nechceme.

Jsem také rád, že tady zástupci Komise hovořili o tom, že na Radě pro životní prostředí bude právě otázka implementace těchto předpisů do budoucna více debatována. Já to považuji za správné, protože je mnohem lepší, když jednotlivé státy mezi sebou si vyměňují zkušenosti o tom, jaké mají konkrétní poznatky s implementací těchto právních předpisů, a když si jaksi sdělují vlastní zkušenosti. Je to možná ještě vhodnější, než když Komise stojí v roli toho, kdo kárá jednotlivé členské státy. To si myslím, že není až tak efektivní. Takže to je důležité a jsem rád, že tento bod zde projednáváme.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mireille D’Ornano (EFDD). – Madame la Présidente, l’examen de la mise en œuvre de la politique environnementale décline 28 rapports analysant les performances des États membres dans la mise en œuvre de cette législation.

Or des spécificités et des différences profondes existent entre chacun des pays en matière juridique, environnementale ou en ce qui concerne l’action publique.

Il est donc illusoire de vouloir améliorer la comparabilité des données entre des pays qui ne sont pas comparables.

La question orale au Conseil demande aux États de soutenir l’extension du champ d’application de l’examen de la mise en œuvre de la politique environnementale au règlement sur les substances chimiques, aux émissions industrielles et au changement climatique, tout en pointant un manque de financement.

Pourtant, d’après le site de la Commission, 180 milliards d’euros sont déjà consacrés à l’action pour le climat, soit 20 % du budget 2014-2020 de l’Union.

Je m’oppose donc à ce que l’examen de la mise en œuvre de la politique environnementale devienne un gouffre pour les pays contributeurs nets, qui devront probablement financer ces milliards supplémentaires.

 
  
 

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Madam President, there is no doubt that EU environmental legislation has yielded results. We have better environments than if Europe had not acted collectively. There are issues on implementation by Member States, and that is why this review is very important, but there are also conflicts in our policy.

I was struck last week, watching a television programme called Ear to the Ground, by a major report on Japanese knotweed, an invasive alien species that we have tried to get rid of because it is causing havoc to buildings and roads and is spreading like wildfire. The product being used was glyphosate – Roundup – to kill this invasive alien species. Yet, in this House, there are many who would clamour for the removal of this product, and indeed the Member States are refusing, or failing, to come forward with a proposal to re-license it.

Sometimes, on environmental policies, we need coherence at political level and at Commission level, so that we can continue to use these products to improve the environment.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Mulțumesc, doamna președintă, domnule comisar, și eu vreau să felicit colegii care au formulat întrebările legate de evaluarea punerii în aplicare a politicilor de mediu EIR.

Întrebările sunt concrete și eu cred că dacă le citiți foarte bine veți vedea că aveți și răspunsuri. Sunt deja și propuneri în aceste întrebări și dau două exemple. În una din întrebări vă întreabă dacă vă gândiți să aveți un tabel de bord. Apoi, în altă întrebare este exemplificat dacă nu vă gândiți să faceți un exemplu de bune practici între state.

Problema este că statele sunt inegal dezvoltate, există bugete insuficiente, și locale și naționale, și, dacă vă gândiți, asta ar fi întrebarea mea, dacă vă gândiți să acordați sprijin acolo unde nu din rea credință nu se poate aplica politica de mediu, ci din lipsă de resurse financiare și poate găsim cu fondul strategic de investiții, cu alte surse de finanțare să sprijinim statele care nu pot, nu că nu vor.

Și, în final, aș vrea să vă spun că sunt de acord să existe o accesibilitate din partea publicului pentru a cunoaște ce se întâmplă în statele membre.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η προστασία του περιβάλλοντος πρέπει να αποτελεί θεμέλιο λίθο της πολιτικής μας, διότι ο πλανήτης καταστρέφεται και προκαλούνται θεομηνίες και φυσικές καταστροφές με πολλά θύματα, όπως ακριβώς συνέβη σήμερα τα ξημερώματα στην Ελλάδα, όπου τουλάχιστον 15 συμπατριώτες μου έχασαν άδικα τη ζωή τους από τις καταστροφικές πλημμύρες που έπληξαν τη Δυτική Αττική.

Έτσι, για άλλη μια φορά μια υποβαθμισμένη περιοχή, όπως η Μάνδρα, θρηνεί θύματα. Δυστυχώς, για άλλη μια φορά, αποδείχθηκε περίτρανα η έλλειψη αντιπλημμυρικών έργων. Εκφράζουμε την οδύνη μας για τον άδικο χαμό των συμπατριωτών μας, εκφράζουμε τα θερμά συλλυπητήριά μας στους οικείους τους, εκφράζουμε την πλήρη συμπαράστασή μας και τις ευχές μας για ταχεία ανάρρωση των δεκάδων τραυματιών και ζητούμε, κ. Hogan, από την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή να δρομολογήσει τις αναγκαίες διαδικασίες για την οικονομική ενίσχυση της Ελλάδας, προκειμένου να αποκατασταθούν οι ζημιές και να αποζημιωθούν πλήρως οι πλημμυροπαθείς.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Kateřina Konečná (GUE/NGL). – Paní předsedající, v obecné rovině vítám přezkum právních předpisů Evropské unie v oblasti životního prostředí jako potřebný nástroj. Obzvláště pak vítám výzvu ke společnému zasedání Rady, na níž by se mělo jednat o nových problémech s možnými přeshraničními dopady. To je přesně ta problematika, která by se měla řešit primárně. Nikoliv však pouze co se týče nových problémů, ale i těch stávajících. Jsou prostě v EU regiony, kde ať už kvůli špatné implementaci evropské legislativy nebo její ignoraci vznikají velmi silné lokální třenice mezi členskými státy, zejména pak co se týče emisí. Dlouho se nad tímto problémem zavíraly v evropských institucích oči a já budu jenom ráda, když tento problém začneme konečně řešit.

Nesouhlasím však s tvrzením, že nedostatky v oblasti administrativní kapacity a veřejné správy jsou hlavními příčinami neuspokojivého provádění. Neustále zde administrativní zátěž totiž jenom zvyšujeme. Vždyť jenom se podívejte, jak členské státy administrativně decimujeme v posledním klimatickém balíčku. O zimním energetickém balíčku se radši ani nebavím. Zamysleme se.

 
  
 

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Phil Hogan, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank the Members of the House for their support and for highlighting the issues that have been raised. I will convey these concerns and suggestions back to Commissioner Vella.

The Environmental Implementation Review is an example of how the Commission can work with Member States and other institutions to address the weak implementation of environmental rules and policy. As many of you have said, this is necessary in order to increase the European Union’s credibility.

Ms Schreijer-Pierik mentioned issues in relation to water quality in the Netherlands. These are very important issues, and I see that, if water quality in a Member State is an issue where the spirit and content of the legislation in relation to our Water Framework Directive is not being implemented, infringement proceedings can be taken if necessary. I would, of course, agree that farmers should be seen as part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

I would say to Mr Flanagan that 31 European Court of Justice judgments against Ireland were on the desk of a certain Minister of the Environment in 2011, and that number was reduced in three years to nine because a dedicated unit was set up and human and financial resources were assigned to it. In other words, it was given political priority. This subsequently saved an enormous amount of money for the country. So implementation is a matter for the Member State, and it is in the interest of the Member State, if it wants to eliminate the possibility of expensive legal proceedings and fines, to take action. It is in the interest of our citizens that full implementation is actually achieved as quickly as possible. But I also agree with Mr Pospíšil that, sometimes, the manner of implementation of environmental law in Member States needs a lot of attention and monitoring, and I think Mr Flanagan was right in that regard as well. There can be gold-plating, in certain cases, and we have evidence and some examples of where that has been the case in some Member States.

Ms McGuinness, you have certainly come at the glyphosate debate from a different angle and it is an interesting one.

Ms Grapini, again, it is a matter for Member States to decide if they want to implement support packages and financial support with assistance from EU programmes, like the LIFE Programme, for example, which can offer financial assistance, if necessary, with the implementation of certain environmental law that has to be transposed and implemented by the Member States on behalf of the European Union.

Thank you again to all the contributors. I think it would also be useful if Members of the European Parliament would engage in promoting the Environmental Implementation Review in their national constituencies, in order to get feedback.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Matti Maasikas, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, I would like once again to thank Parliament for the interest shown in this important initiative and for the questions and comments that have been made. We are at the beginning of a long-term process. We are embarking on a new, long road together and I am sure that we will have further opportunities to discuss these issues in this House and in other forums.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Puhemies. – Olen vastaanottanut yhden päätöslauselmaesityksen1.

Keskustelu on päättynyt.

Äänestys toimitetaan huomenna torstaina 16.11.2017.

Kirjalliset lausumat (työjärjestyksen 162 artikla)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paloma López Bermejo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. – Aunque se requieren nuevas propuestas legislativas —como la de una directiva de suelos— para completar el acervo europeo en materia de protección ambiental, no hay duda de que el marco actual es un estándar exigente en la protección del medio ambiente. La implementación del mismo, sin embargo, difiere mucho entre los Estados miembros y es especialmente poco rigurosa en mi país, España. No es aceptable que la transposición de la Directiva marco sobre el agua no contenga todavía planes hidrológicos para las Islas Canarias, ni medidas que garanticen realmente la sostenibilidad de la gran mayoría de cuencas peninsulares. Tampoco es de recibo que, a pesar de numerosas sentencias del TJUE, el problema de los vertederos ilegales siga vigente, como nos recuerdan tragedias como la de Chiloeches. Las políticas neoliberales han agravado, sin duda, la sobreexplotación estructural de nuestra naturaleza. Pero incluso en los márgenes de las políticas económicas comunitarias, las Administraciones españolas, y especialmente el actual Gobierno del PP, no han demostrado más que indiferencia ante la protección del medio ambiente. Es indispensable, por lo tanto, mayor firmeza, y que la Comisión actúe frente a las numerosas denuncias por infracción de la normativa medioambiental que se acumulan en España.

 
Last updated: 1 February 2018Legal notice