REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2011/92/EU of the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment
22.7.2013 - (COM(2012)0628 – C7‑0367/2012 – 2012/0297(COD)) - ***I
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
Rapporteur: Andrea Zanoni
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2011/92/EU of the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment
(COM(2012)0628 – C7‑0367/2012 – 2012/0297(COD))
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0628),
– having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 192(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0367/2012),
– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 13 February 2013[1],
– having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 30 May 2013,[2]
– having regard to Rule 55 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 Transport and Tourism and the Committee on Petitions (A7-0277/2013),
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.
Amendment 1 Proposal for a directive Recital 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(1) Directive 2011/92/EU has harmonised the principles for the environmental assessment of projects by introducing minimum requirements (with regard to the type of projects subject to assessment, the main obligations of developers, the content of the assessment and the participation of the competent authorities and the public), and contributes to a high level of protection of the environment and human health. |
(1) Directive 2011/92/EU has harmonised the principles for the environmental assessment of projects by introducing minimum requirements (with regard to the type of projects subject to assessment, the main obligations of developers, the content of the assessment and the participation of the competent authorities and the public), and contributes to a high level of protection of the environment and human health. The Member States should be permitted to lay down more stringent rules to protect the environment and human health. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a directive Recital 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(3) It is necessary to amend Directive 2011/92/EU in order to strengthen the quality of the environmental assessment procedure, streamline the various steps of the procedure and enhance coherence and synergies with other Union legislation and policies, as well as strategies and policies developed by Member States in areas of national competence. |
(3) It is necessary to amend Directive 2011/92/EU in order to strengthen the quality of the environmental assessment procedure, streamline the various steps of the procedure, align the procedure with the principles of smart regulation and enhance coherence and synergies with other Union legislation and policies, as well as strategies and policies developed by Member States in areas of national competence. The ultimate purpose of amending this Directive is to bring about more effective implementation at Member State level. In many cases administrative procedures became too complicated and protracted, causing delays and creating additional risks for the protection of the environment. In this respect, simplification and harmonisation of the proceedings should be one of the aims of the Directive. The suitability of creating a one-stop shop is to be taken into account with a view to allowing coordinated assessment or joint procedures when several environment impact assessments (EIAs) are required, for instance in cases of cross-border projects, as well as to defining more specific criteria for mandatory assessments. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a directive Recital 3 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(3a) In order to guarantee harmonised application and equal protection of the environment across the Union, the Commission should in its role as the guardian of the Treaties ensure qualitative as well as procedural compliance with the provisions of Directive 2011/92/EU, including those on public consultation and participation. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a directive Recital 3 b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(3b) In the case of projects which could have cross-border effects on the environment, the Member States concerned should set up, on the basis of equal representation, a joint liaison body responsible for dealing with all the stages in the procedure. The consent of all the Member States concerned should be required for final authorisation of the project. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a directive Recital 3 c (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(3c) Directive 2011/92/EU should also be revised so in a way that ensures that environmental protection is improved, resource efficiency increased and sustainable growth supported in Europe. To this end, the procedures it lays down should be simplified and harmonised. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a directive Recital 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(4) Over the last decade, environmental issues, such as resource efficiency, biodiversity, climate change, and disaster risks, have become more important in policy making and should therefore also constitute critical elements in assessment and decision-making processes, especially for infrastructure projects. |
(4) Over the last decade, environmental issues, such as resource efficiency and sustainability, biodiversity protection, land use, climate change, and natural and man-made disaster risks, have become more important in policy making. They should therefore also constitute important elements in assessment and decision-making processes for any public or private project likely to have a significant impact on the environment, especially for infrastructure projects and as the Commission has not established guidelines for the application of Directive 2011/92/EU on conservation of Historical and Cultural Heritage, the Commission should propose a list of criteria and indications , including in relation to visual impact, with a view to a better implementation of the Directive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a directive Recital 4 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(4a) Stipulating that it is necessary to take greater account of environmental criteria in all projects could also prove counter-productive if it served to add to the complexity of the procedures involved and to lengthen the time needed to authorise and validate each stage. This could increase costs and even, in itself, come to pose a threat to the environment if infrastructure projects take a very long time to complete. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a directive Recital 4 b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(4b) It is essential that environmental issues relating to infrastructure projects do not divert attention from the fact that any project will inevitably have an impact on the environment. and it is necessary that the focus be on the balance between the value of a project and its environmental impact. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Proposal for a directive Recital 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(5) In its Communication entitled ‘Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe’, the Commission committed itself to including broader resource efficiency considerations in the context of the revision of Directive 2011/92/EU. |
(5) In its Communication entitled ‘Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe’, the Commission committed itself to including broader resource efficiency and sustainability considerations in the context of the revision of Directive 2011/92/EU. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 Proposal for a directive Recital 11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(11) Protection and promotion of cultural heritage and landscapes, which are an integral part of the cultural diversity that the Union is committed to respect and promote in accordance with Article 167(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, can usefully build on definitions and principles developed in relevant Council of Europe Conventions, in particular the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, the European Landscape Convention and the Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. |
(11) Protection and promotion of cultural heritage and landscapes, which are an integral part of the cultural diversity that the Union is committed to respect and promote in accordance with Article 167(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, can usefully build on definitions and principles developed in relevant Council of Europe Conventions, in particular the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, the European Landscape Convention, the Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society and the International Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas adopted in Nairobi in 1976 by UNESCO. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 11 Proposal for a directive Recital 11 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(11a) Visual impact is a key criterion in environmental impact assessment in terms of the preservation of historical and cultural heritage, of natural landscapes and of urban areas; this is another factor that should be applied in assessments. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Visual impact already exists as a criterion in the national legislation of Member States such as France, Italy and the United Kingdom. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 Proposal for a directive Recital 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(12) When applying Directive 2011/92/EU, it is necessary to ensure a competitive business environment, especially for small and medium enterprises, in order to generate smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, in line with the objectives set out in the Commission's Communication entitled ‘Europe 2020 – A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’. |
(12) When applying Directive 2011/92/EU, it is necessary to ensure smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, in line with the objectives set out in the Commission's Communication entitled ‘Europe 2020 – A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Simplification of the paragraph. Ensuring the competitiveness of undertakings and SMEs is always a positive thing, but can never take precedence over the environmental guarantees that projects must offer. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 13 Proposal for a directive Recital 12 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(12a) With a view to strengthening public access and transparency, a central portal providing timely environmental information with regard to the implementation of this Directive electronically should be made available in each Member State. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 14 Proposal for a directive Recital 12 b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(12b) In order to reduce the administrative burden, facilitate the decision‑making process and reduce project costs, the necessary steps should be taken towards standardisation of the criteria in line with Regulation (EU) 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on European standardisation1, with the aim of being able to support the use of best available technologies (BAT), improve competitiveness and prevent standards from being interpreted differently. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
_______________ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1 OJ L 316, 14.11.2012, p.12. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 15 Proposal for a directive Recital 12 c (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(12c) Again with a view to further simplifying and facilitating the work of the competent administrations, guidance criteria should be drawn up that take into account the characteristics of the various sectors of economic or industrial activity. This should be based on the instructions under Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora1. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
_______________ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1 OJ L 206, 22.07.92, p.7. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 16 Proposal for a directive Recital 12 d (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(12d) In order to ensure the best possible preservation of historical and cultural heritage, guidance criteria should be drawn up by the Commission and/or the Member States. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In many instances, administrations are not fully aware of which criteria to apply or evaluate in relation to the preservation of historical and cultural heritage. This measure will bring greater certainty. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 17 Proposal for a directive Recital 13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(13) Experience has shown that in cases of civil emergency compliance with the provisions of Directive 2011/92/EU may have adverse effects, and provision should therefore be made to authorise Member States not to apply that Directive in appropriate cases. |
(13) Experience has shown that, as regards projects having as their sole purpose the response given to cases of civil emergency, compliance with the provisions of Directive 2011/92/EU may have adverse effects on that purpose, and provision should therefore be made to authorise Member States not to apply that Directive in those exceptional cases. In this respect, the Directive should take into account the provisions of the UN/ECE Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, which, in cases of cross-border projects, obliges the participating States to notify and consult each other. In such cross-border projects, the Commission should, where appropriate and possible, play a more pro-active and facilitating role. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 18 Proposal for a directive Recital 13 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(13a) Article 1(4) of Directive 2011/92/EU, which lays down that that Directive does not apply to projects adopted by a specific act of national legislation, provides for an open-door derogation with limited procedural guarantees and could substantially circumvent the implementation of that Directive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 19 Proposal for a directive Recital 13 b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(13b). Experience has shown that specific rules need to be introduced to avoid the conflict of interest that can arise between the developer of a project that is subject to environmental impact assessment and the competent authorities referred to in Article 1(2)(f) of Directive 2011/92/EU. In particular, the competent authorities should not also be the developer nor in any way be dependent on, linked to or subordinate to the developer. For the same reasons, an authority that has been designated as a competent authority under Directive 2011/92/EU should not be able to play that role in relation to projects that are subject to environmental impact assessment which the authority itself has commissioned. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Experience acquired in a number of Member States has shown that specific rules need to be introduced to put an end to the serious issue of conflicts of interest, in order to ensure that the aim of the environmental impact assessment procedure is effectively achieved. The competent authorities charged with carrying out assessments must not, under any circumstances, overlap with developers nor be dependent on or subordinate to them. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 20 Proposal for a directive Recital 13 c (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(13c) Proportionality is to be taken into account in the environmental impact assessment of the projects. The requirements that are asked for in the environmental impact assessment of a project should be proportionate with its size and stage. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 21 Proposal for a directive Recital 16 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(16) When determining whether significant environmental effects are likely to be caused, the competent authorities should identify the most relevant criteria to be considered and use the additional information that may be available following other assessments required by Union legislation in order to apply the screening procedure effectively. In this regard, it is appropriate to specify the content of the screening decision, in particular where no environmental assessment is required. |
(16) When determining whether significant environmental effects are likely to be caused, the competent authorities should define clearly and strictly the most relevant criteria to be considered and use the additional information that may be available following other assessments required by Union legislation in order to apply the screening procedure effectively and transparently. In this regard, it is appropriate to specify the content of the screening decision, in particular where no environmental assessment is required. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 22 Proposal for a directive Recital 16 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(16a) In order to avoid unnecessary efforts and expenditure, the projects under Annex II should include a statement of intent that never exceeds 30 pages and the projects' characteristics and information on the location of the project to be subject to screening, which should consist of an initial assessment of its viability. That screening should be public and reflect the factors set out in Article 3. It should show the significant direct and indirect effects of the project. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 23 Proposal for a directive Recital 17 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(17) The competent authorities should be required to determine the scope and level of detail of the environmental information to be submitted in the form of an environmental report (scoping). In order to improve the quality of the assessment and streamline the decision-making process, it is important to specify at Union level the categories of information on which the competent authorities should make that determination. |
(17) The competent authorities should, when they deem it necessary or if the developer so requests, issue an opinion determining the scope and level of detail of the environmental information to be submitted in the form of an environmental report (scoping). In order to improve the quality of the assessment, the simplification of the procedures and to streamline the decision-making process, it is important to specify at Union level the categories of information on which the competent authorities should make that determination. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 24 Proposal for a directive Recital 18 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(18) The environmental report of a project to be provided by the developer should include an assessment of reasonable alternatives relevant to the proposed project, including the likely evolution of the existing state of the environment without implementation of the project (baseline scenario), as a means to improve quality of the assessment process and to allow integrating environmental considerations at an early stage in the project’s design. |
(18) The environmental report of a project to be provided by the developer should include an assessment of reasonable alternatives relevant to the proposed project, including the likely evolution of the existing state of the environment without implementation of the project (baseline scenario), as a means to improve quality of the comparative assessment process and to allow integrating environmental considerations at an early stage in the project’s design, in order to enable the choice that is most sustainable and has the least environmental impact to be made. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The aim of the assessment of possible reasonable alternatives to the proposed project is to enable an informed comparative choice to be made of the most sustainable and environmentally friendly alternative. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 25 Proposal for a directive Recital 19 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(19) Measures should be taken to ensure that the data and information included in the environmental reports, in accordance with Annex IV of Directive 2011/92/EU are complete and of sufficiently high quality. With a view to avoiding duplication of the assessment, Member States should take account of the fact that environmental assessments may be carried out at different levels or by different instruments. |
(19) Measures should be taken to ensure that the data and information included in the environmental reports, in accordance with Annex IV of Directive 2011/92/EU are complete and of sufficiently high quality. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Developers must be prevented from excluding the mandatory inclusion in the environmental report of the alternatives to the proposed project simply on the grounds that the assessment of alternatives was supposed to have been conducted at the planning stage. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 26 Proposal for a directive Recital 19 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(19a) It should be ensured that the experts who check the environmental reports have, due to their qualifications and experience, the necessary technical expertise to carry out the tasks set out in Directive 2011/92/EU in a scientifically objective manner and in total independence from the developer and the competent authorities themselves. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The absolute independence of the experts appointed by the competent authorities to verify the information set out in the environmental report is a prerequisite for ensuring a quality EIA. Such verification must be scientifically objective and must not undergo any interference or undue influence. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 27 Proposal for a directive Recital 20 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(20) With a view to ensuring transparency and accountability, the competent authority should be required to substantiate its decision to grant development consent in respect of a project, indicating that it has taken into consideration the results of the consultations carried out and the relevant information gathered. |
(20) With a view to ensuring transparency and accountability, the competent authority should be required to substantiate comprehensively and in detail its decision to grant development consent in respect of a project, indicating that it has taken into consideration the results of the consultations carried out with the public concerned and all the relevant information gathered. Should that condition not be met, the public concerned should have the right to appeal against the decision. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 28 Proposal for a directive Recital 21 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(21) It is appropriate to establish common minimum requirements for the monitoring of the significant adverse effects of the construction and operation of projects to ensure a common approach in all Member States and to ensure that, after the implementation of mitigation and compensation measures, no impacts exceed those initially predicted. Such monitoring should not duplicate or add to monitoring required pursuant to other Union legislation. |
(21) It is appropriate to establish common minimum requirements for the monitoring of the significant adverse effects of the implementation and management of projects to ensure a common approach in all Member States and to ensure that, after the implementation of mitigation and compensation measures, no impacts exceed those initially predicted. Such monitoring should not duplicate or add to monitoring required pursuant to other Union legislation. Where the outcome of the monitoring indicates the presence of unforeseen adverse effects, provision should be made for appropriate corrective action to remedy the problem, in the form of additional mitigation and/or compensation measures. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The introduction of monitoring into the new EIA directive is very important. To prevent such ex-post monitoring from being an end in itself, it is, however, necessary to establish that, where the mitigation and compensation mechanisms are ineffective, the developer must take responsibility for further remedial action in order to correct any unforeseen adverse effects of the authorised project. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 29 Proposal for a directive Recital 22 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(22) Time-frames for the various steps of the environmental assessment of projects should be introduced, in order to stimulate more efficient decision-making and increase legal certainty, also taking into account the nature, complexity, location and size of the proposed project. Such time-frames should under no circumstances compromise the high standards for the protection of the environment, particularly those resulting from other Union environmental legislation, and effective public participation and access to justice. |
(22) Reasonable and predictable time-frames for the various steps of the environmental assessment of projects should be introduced, in order to stimulate more efficient decision-making and increase legal certainty, also taking into account the nature, complexity, location and size of the proposed project. Such time-frames should under no circumstances compromise the high standards for the protection of the environment, particularly those resulting from other Union environmental legislation, and effective public participation and access to justice, and any extensions should be granted only in exceptional cases. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A clear determination of the time-frame is important to ensure legal certainty for all those involved in the environmental impact assessment process. It is therefore advisable to specify that any extensions to the time-frame may be granted only exceptionally. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 30 Proposal for a directive Recital 22 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(22a) One of the objectives of the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Århus Convention), which the Union has ratified and transposed into Union law1, is to ensure the right of the public to participate in decision‑making in environmental matters. Therefore, that participation, including participation by associations, organisations and groups, in particular non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection, should continue to be fostered. Moreover, Article 9(2) and (4) of the Århus Convention provides for access to judicial or other procedures for challenging the substantive or procedural legality of decisions, acts or omissions involving public participation. Elements of this Directive should also be strengthened in cross-border transport projects, making use of existing structures for the development of transport corridors and of tools to identify the potential impact on the environment. ______________________ 1 Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 (OJ L 124, 17.5.2005, p. 1). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Restates, in summary form, the content of recitals 17, 19, 20 and 21 of the old directive. The precepts of the Århus Convention should continue to be included in the recitals to the new directive. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 31 Proposal for a directive Recital 23 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(23a). The production thresholds laid down for crude oil and natural gas in Annex I to Directive 2011/92/EU do not take into account the specificity of daily production levels of non-conventional hydrocarbons, which are often highly variable and lower. Accordingly, despite their environmental impact, projects concerning such hydrocarbons are not subject to compulsory environmental impact assessment. In accordance with the precautionary principle, as called for by the European Parliament resolution of 21 November 2012 on the environmental impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction activities, it would be appropriate to include non-conventional hydrocarbons (shale gas and oil, 'tight gas, 'coal bed methane'), defined according to their geological characteristics, in Annex I to Directive 2011/92/EU, regardless of the amount extracted, so that projects concerning such hydrocarbons are systematically made subject to environmental impact assessment.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The current directive does not take account of the daily production levels of non-conventional hydrocarbons. This means that despite their environmental impact, the relevant projects are not subject to mandatory EIA. In accordance with the precautionary principle, and as requested by Parliament in its resolution of 21 November 2012, it is proposed that non-conventional hydrocarbons (shale gas and oil and 'tight gas in the first paragraph, 'coal bed methane' in the second paragraph), be included in Annex I, so that the relevant projects are systematically made subject to EIA. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 32 Proposal for a directive Recital 24 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(24 a) Member States and other project promoters should ensure that assessments of cross border projects are carried out efficiently, avoiding unnecessary delays. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 33 Proposal for a directive Recital 26 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(26) In order to adjust the selection criteria and the information to be provided in the environmental report to the latest developments in technology and relevant practices, the power to adopt acts, in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, should be delegated to the Commission in respect of Annexes II.A, III and IV of Directive 2011/92/EU. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. |
(26) In order to adjust the selection criteria and the information to be provided in the environmental report to the latest developments in technology and relevant practices, the power to adopt acts, in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, should be delegated to the Commission in respect of Annexes II.A, III and IV of Directive 2011/92/EU. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure the simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and Council. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(See amendment to Recital 27) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A technical amendment, to bring the wording of the recital into line with latest practice. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 34 Proposal for a directive Recital 27 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(27) The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure the simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and Council. |
deleted | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(See amendment to Recital 26) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 35 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point a Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a – indent 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 36 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point a a (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a – indent 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Extraction of mineral resources falls already within the meaning of a project. Research for mineral resources is added in order to cover exploratory actions. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 37 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point a b (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point c | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mendment 38 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 39 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point g | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 40 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point g a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 41 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point g b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In order to make this Directive more coherent with the Espoo convention and the new TEN-T regulation, the same wording and definitions are needed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 42 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point g c (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Definition from Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 on European standardisation. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 43 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point g d (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 44 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point g e (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 45 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point g f (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Visual impact is essential when referring to coasts, wind farms, historical buildings among other issues. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 46 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point g g (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 47 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point g h (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 48 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point c Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 49 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point c Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 50 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point c a (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 4 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Experience acquired in a number of Member States has shown that specific rules need to be introduced to put an end to the serious issue of conflicts of interest, in order to ensure that the aim of the environmental impact assessment procedure is effectively achieved. The competent authorities charged with carrying out assessments must not, under any circumstances, overlap with developers nor be dependent on or subordinate to them. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 51 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 a (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Article 2 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article 2, paragraph 1 is aligned with the new text of Article 8, paragraph 2 where measures to monitor significant adverse environmental effects and mitigation and compensation measures are provided for. Moreover, public participation is enhanced. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 52 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 2 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 2 – paragraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 53 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 2 a (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Article 2 – paragraph 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 54 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 55 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 4 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 56 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 5 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 5 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 57 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 5 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 5 – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 58 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 5 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 5 – paragraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 59 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 5 a (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Article 5 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In the case of transport infrastructure projects, joint use should be made of the RTE-T and Natura 2000 IT tools to avoid potential problems at an early stage. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 60 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 6 – point -a (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Article 6 – paragraph -1 (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 61 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 6 – point -a a(new) Directive 2011/92/EU Article 6 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It is worth noting that the authorities concerned by a project subject to EIA which have to be consulted also include the local authorities in whose territory the project is located, if those authorities and the competent authority or authorities are not one and the same. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 62 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 6 – point -a b (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Article 6 – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
With a view to strengthening access and transparency, a central portal providing timely environmental information electronically should be made available in each Member State. Moreover, new points (g a) and (g b) provide for access to information with regard to the revision or modification of the environmental report as well as the additional mitigation or compensation measures, which are laid down in the new text of Article 8 paragraph 2. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 63 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 6 – point -a c (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Article 6 – paragraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
With a view to strengthening access and transparency, a central portal providing timely environmental information electronically should be made available in each Member State. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 64 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 6 – point -a d (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Article 6 – paragraph 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
With a view to strengthening access and transparency, a central portal providing timely environmental information electronically should be made available in each Member State. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 65 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 6 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 6 – paragraph 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 66 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b a (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Article 6 – paragraph 7 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 67 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 a (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Article 7 – paragraph 5 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Use should be made of those coordinating Trans-European Transport Network corridors in public consultation processes so as to identify at an early stage any potential problems that may arise, bearing in mind the added difficulties involved in cross-border projects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 68 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 8 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 69 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 9 – point a Directive 2011/92/EU Article 9 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 70 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 9 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 9 – paragraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 71 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 9 – point b a (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Article 9 – paragraphs 3 a and 3 b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 72 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 9 a (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Article 10 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The provisions of this Directive, as regards access to information during the environmental impact assessment, need to be coordinated with the provisions of Directive 2003/4/EC on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 73 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 9 b (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Article 10 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Based on experience, to ensure the harmonised and effective application of the Directive, the legal systems of the Member States need to provide for effective and dissuasive penalties where national provisions are infringed, in particular with regard to cases of conflict of interest or corruption. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 74 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 9 c (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Article 11 – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 75 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 9 d (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Article 11 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 76 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 11 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 12 b – paragraph 5 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 77 Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [DATE] at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a document explaining the relationship between them and this Directive. |
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by ...[3]+ at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a document explaining the relationship between them and this Directive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
[4]+ OJ: please insert date: 24 months from the entry into force of this Directive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Given the complexity of the provisions laid down in this Directive, an adequate transposition time-frame of two years is necessary. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 78 Proposal for a directive Article 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Projects for which the request for development consent was introduced before the date referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) and for which the environmental impact assessment has not been concluded before that date shall be subject to the obligations referred to in Articles 3 to 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU as amended by this Directive. |
Projects for which the request for development consent was introduced before the date referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) and for which the environmental impact assessment has not been concluded before that date must be executed within eight months of the approval of the amended Directive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 79 Proposal for a directive Annex – point -1 (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Annex I | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 80 Proposal for a directive Annex – point -1 a (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Annex II | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 81 Proposal for a directive Annex – point 1 Directive 2011/92/EU Annex II.A | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 82 Proposal for a directive Annex – point 2 Directive 2011/92/EU Annex III | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 83 Proposal for a directive Annex – point 2 Directive 2011/92/EU Annex IV | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
While apparently modest, Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (EIA Directive) is actually the 'jewel in the crown' of Union environmental policy. Around 200 types of project fall within its scope – from the building of bridges, ports, motorways and landfill sites to the intensive rearing of poultry or pigs[1]
.
The EIA Directive establishes the simple yet fundamental principle of 'informed decisions': before granting development consent for public or private projects that are likely to have an impact on the environment, the competent authorities of the Member States are legally required to acquire all the information necessary in order to carry out an environmental impact assessment.
The Directive 2011/92/EU currently in force, while being of an essentially procedural nature, aims to ensure the environmental sustainability of projects that fall within its scope. Those projects are divided into two categories: those for which, in view of their specific characteristics, an EIA is mandatory (Annex I) and those which have to undergo a project screening procedure (Annex II).
In its 28 years of application, this legislation has been relatively successful as regards the harmonisation of the principles of environmental assessment at Union level, but has undergone only three minor amendments[2], while the political, legal and technical background has evolved considerably. Meanwhile, a number of weaknesses have been identified, which have given rise to a large number of legal disputes, both nationally and before the EU Court of Justice. Lastly, in recent years, the Court has clarified the interpretation of a number of provisions, for instance by specifying that demolitions must fall within the definition of a 'project' (Case C-50/09).
To remedy the problems identified and to bring the text of the directive into line with the new policy priorities of the EU, such as the Soil Thematic Strategy, the Roadmap to a Resource-Efficient Europe and the Europe 2020 strategy, the Commission has drawn up this proposal for a revised EIA Directive.
In keeping with the EU's priorities, the proposal includes biodiversity, the use of natural resources, climate change and natural and man-made disaster risks among the factors in relation to which the impact of a project has to be assessed. The proposal also calls for projects to be considered by taking into account any cumulation with other projects and activities, to avoid the damaging practice of splitting the work into separate lots in order to reduce its environmental impact.
As regards the screening procedure, the proposal seeks to ensure that only those projects which have a significant impact on the environment are subject to EIA, on the basis of specific information which the developer must supply to the competent authority (Annex II.A). The Commission also proposes expanding the list of selection criteria on which screening decisions are based and fixing the time limit for the adoption of a decision at three months (which may be extended by another three months).
With regard to the quality of information, the Commission proposes that the competent authorities, in consultation with the developer, determine the scope and level of detail of the information to be included in the environmental report (the so-called scoping phase). In addition, the proposal introduces the mandatory assessment of reasonable alternatives to a project and a post-EIA monitoring requirement where a project has significant adverse effects on the environment.
As far as administrative simplification is concerned, with the aim of establishing a clear time-frame for all the stages of EIA, the Commission proposes establishing minimum and maximum periods of time for public consultation and for the final decision, and introducing an EIA ‘one-stop shop’ in the Member States, to coordinate the procedure with any environmental assessments required by other legislation, such as the directive on industrial emissions, the Water Framework Directive or the Habitats Directive.
Your rapporteur is convinced of the need to pursue a truly sustainable model of development throughout the Union and gives his full and firm support to the Commission proposal. The proposed amendments are thus essentially designed to enhance the proposal, by including some measures aiming to make it even more effective and easier to transpose into national legislation and to help it to achieve its environmental protection objectives more effectively. The key issues addressed in the proposed amendments are summarised below.
Public involvement
In compliance with the Aarhus Convention, the proposal seeks to strengthen the role of the public concerned at all stages of the procedure. Good governance calls for dialogue between all parties involved and a clear and transparent procedure that encourages the timely awareness of the public concerned that an important project might be executed. This potentially strengthens support for decisions taken and reduces the number and cost of the legal disputes that systematically occur in the Member States where there is no genuine consensus over a project.
Conflicts of interest
The credibility of the entire EIA procedure is undermined unless there are clear rules to prevent the serious issue of conflicts of interest. Your rapporteur has personally been able to note that, in some cases, in spite of the formal separation between competent authority and developer, in particular where the latter is a public entity, there is often an improper merging of the two parties, which adversely affects the objectivity of the judgment. The absolute independence of the competent authority from the developer must therefore be ensured.
Corrective action
Your rapporteur fully endorses the Commission's proposal with regard to the ex-post monitoring of projects that have significant adverse effects on the environment, but takes the view that it is absolutely necessary to supplement it with a requirement to take the appropriate corrective action where monitoring shows that the mitigation and compensation measures required for an authorised project are not effective.
Drawing up and verification of environmental reports
Your rapporteur is of the view, first and foremost, that it is vital to ensure that environmental reports are verified by experts who are totally independent and have appropriate technical competence in environmental matters. As regards the system of accreditation of experts proposed by the Commission, whilst agreeing with the aim of ensuring the quality of monitoring, your rapporteur believes that such a system would be extremely difficult for the Member States to implement and therefore proposes that it be abolished.
Shale gas
Your rapporteur considers it necessary, in accordance with the precautionary principle and as called for by Parliament in its resolution of 21 November 2012 on the environmental impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction activities, to include so-called non-conventional hydrocarbons in Annex I to the Directive, so that the relevant exploration and extraction projects are systematically required to undergo EIA. The production thresholds laid down in the current Directive do not, in fact, take into account daily production levels of these gases and oils, which means that such projects are not subject to mandatory EIA.
* * *
Achieving a true 'green economy' also means ensuring the sustainability of projects to be completed in our territory, in addition to designing them and implementing them in accordance with their impact on resource efficiency, climate change and loss of biodiversity, in particular with regard to large infrastructure projects.
Adopting the new EIA Directive as soon as possible means following up words with deeds and equipping the European Union with an operational tool that is vital in order to meet the global challenges of the 21st century.
* * *
Your rapporteur has welcomed the suggestions received from the shadow rapporteurs and colleagues in Parliament. He and his staff have received the positions of: AK EUROPA, WKÖ, Justice and Environment, BUSINESSEUROPE, UEPC, EWEA, EDF, EDISON, OGP, EURELECTRIC and NEEIP and have had a series of meetings with representatives of the Lithuanian and Netherlands governments, the rapporteurs of the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee, representatives of organisations such as Friends of the Earth Europe, Confindustria, ENEL, MEDEF, Birdlife International, EPF, Eurochambres, IMA-Europe and TERNA. Your rapporteur wishes to thank in particular Mr Matteo Ceruti, lawyer, Mr Stefano Lenzi, of WWF Italy, and Mr Marco Stevanin. The rapporteur is solely responsible for the proposals that he has chosen to include in his draft report.
- [1] According to the Commission's impact assessment, each year in the EU 15 000-26 000 EIAs, 27 000-33 800 screening procedures and 1370-3380 positive screenings take place.
- [2] The original Directive 85/337/EEC was amended by Directives 97/11/EC, 2003/35/EC and 2009/31/EC and codified by Directive 2011/92/EU.
OPINION of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (18.6.2013)
for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment
(COM(2012)0628 – C7‑0367/2012 – 2012/0297(COD))
Rapporteur: Joseph Cuschieri
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
Commission's proposal
Directive 2011/92/EU (EIA Directive) requires an environmental impact assessment of projects likely to have significant environmental effects prior to their authorisation.
Although amended several times since its adoption in 1985, the Directive has not changed significantly enough to reflect ongoing changes in policy, legal and technical context. During the last 25 years the European Union has grown bigger and so have the scope and seriousness of environmental issues to be tackled as well as the number of major EU-scale infrastructure projects (e.g. transboundary projects in the field of energy or transport). To respond to these changes the proposal for amending Directive brings new important updates into the legislative framework by addressing shortcomings in screening procedure, quality and analysis of the environmental impact assessment and risks of inconsistencies within the assessment process. Last but not least, it leaves the possibility of not applying the Directive to projects having national defence or response to civil emergencies as their sole purposes.
Rapporteur's point of view
The rapporteur supports the changes in the Directive proposed by the Commission as he believes that, due to the transboundary nature of environmental issues (e.g. climate change, disaster risks) and of some of the projects, action at the European level is necessary to ensure a level playing field and to bring added value as compared to individual national actions. Nevertheless, he finds that certain aspects of the Directive could be further improved by a few minor adjustments. These include underlying the impact that the environmental assessment process can have on the protection of historical heritage or on tourism and recognising a special nature of cross-border projects, so vital to the European transport policy, as opposed to projects having transboundary effects. In his view only by making this distinction it is possible to ensure maximum coordination of actions in order to meet often stringent deadlines and expectations of numerous public and private stakeholders. Finally, to make European legal framework more coherent, the Rapporteur proposes some minor alignments with the legislation on TEN-T guidelines.
These views are reflected by the following amendments:
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Transport and Tourism calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:
Amendment 1 Proposal for a directive Recital 21 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
(21 a) All necessary measures should be taken to ensure that the projects are carried out in compliance with relevant Union and national rules and procedures, in particular with Union legislation on the environment, climate protection, safety, security, competition, state aid, public procurement, public health and accessibility. | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a directive Recital 21 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
(21 b) For cross-border projects the Member States and neighbouring countries involved should take all measures necessary to ensure that respective competent authorities cooperate in order to provide jointly for one integrated and coherent cross-border environmental impact assessment from an early planning stage, in accordance with applicable legislation on Union co-funding. | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a directive Recital 22 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
(22a) One of the objectives of the Århus Convention, which the Union has ratified and transposed into Union law, is to ensure the right of the public to participate in decision-making in environmental matters. Therefore, that participation, including participation by associations, organisations and groups, in particular non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection, should continue to be fostered. Elements of this Directive should also be strengthened in cross-border transport projects, making use of existing structures for the development of transport corridors and of tools to identify the potential impact on the environment. | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a directive Recital 24 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
(24 a) Member States and other project promoters should ensure that assessments of cross border projects are carried out efficiently, avoiding unnecessary delays. | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point g a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
In order to make this Directive more coherent with the Espoo convention and the new TEN-T regulation, the same wording and definitions are needed. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point c Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
Historical heritage is an important part of collective identity and for this reason it should be possible for the projects aiming at protecting it to be exempted from the application of this Directive | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 2 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 2 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
In the TEN-T projects, the main corridors include key cross-border projects where the EIA has to be carried carefully fulfilling all the requirements of the existing Union legislation. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 3 – point b | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
(See amendment to Article 3 - point ea (new)) | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 3 - point c | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
(See amendment to Article 1 - paragraph 3) | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 3 - point eb (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
Implementation of certain projects can have a negative effect on the touristic activity which, in turn, can have a detrimental effect on the economy of Member States, especially where the economy of a Member State depends largely on tourism. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 11 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 4 – point a Directive 2011/92/EU Article 4 – paragraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 5 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point e | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
The scope and level of detail of the information in the environmental report should not be limited only to environmental features. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 13 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 5 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 5 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
In the case of transport infrastructure projects, joint use should be made of the RTE-T and Natura 2000 IT tools to avoid potential problems at an early stage. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 14 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 7 – paragraph 5 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
Use should be made of those coordinating Trans-European Transport Network corridors in public consultation processes so as to identify at an early stage any potential problems that may arise, bearing in mind the added difficulties involved in cross-border projects. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 15 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 8 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
Article 6(8) of the Aarhus Convention requires "due account" to be taken of the outcome of the public participation procedure: the less compelling requirement under the current Directive to ensure that the decision of the competent authority "takes into consideration" the public participation procedure therefore is not consistent with the requirements of the Aarhus Convention. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 16 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 8 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
Sub-paragraphs (c) and (d) will deliver the necessary information to inform the developer and the public about how the findings of the environmental assessment (undertaken by the developer), consultation responses and other relevant matters have led the competent authority to their decision. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 17 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 8 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
To ensure that monitoring covers the construction and operational phases, that are very relevant in implementing transport projects. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 18 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 8 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
To ensure that monitoring covers the construction and operational phases, is submitted to the competent authority and the results are made publicly available | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 19 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 9 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 9 – paragraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
To be consistent with par. 1 of art 9 | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 20 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 11 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 12 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 21 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 12 b – paragraph 2 (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 22 Proposal for a directive Annex 1 – point 1 Directive 2011/92/EU Annexe II a – point 3 – subpoint b | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
Air is to be included as a natural resource too | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 23 Proposal for a directive Annex 1 – point 2 Directive 2011/92/EU Annex III – paragraph 1 – point c | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
Air is to be included as a natural resource too | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 24 Proposal for a directive Annex 1 – point 2 Directive 2011/92/EU Annex III– paragraph 1 – point i | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 25 Proposal for a directive Annex 1 – point 2 Directive 2011/92/EU Annex III – paragraph 3 – point b | |||||||||||||||||||
|
PROCEDURE
Title |
Amendment of Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment |
||||
References |
COM(2012)0628 – C7-0367/2012 – 2012/0297(COD) |
||||
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
ENVI 19.11.2012 |
|
|
|
|
Opinion by Date announced in plenary |
TRAN 18.4.2013 |
||||
Rapporteur Date appointed |
Joseph Cuschieri 9.4.2013 |
||||
Discussed in committee |
29.5.2013 |
|
|
|
|
Date adopted |
18.6.2013 |
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
34 4 0 |
|||
Members present for the final vote |
Magdi Cristiano Allam, Georges Bach, Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, Philip Bradbourn, Antonio Cancian, Michael Cramer, Joseph Cuschieri, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Saïd El Khadraoui, Ismail Ertug, Carlo Fidanza, Knut Fleckenstein, Jacqueline Foster, Mathieu Grosch, Jim Higgins, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Georgios Koumoutsakos, Bogusław Liberadzki, Eva Lichtenberger, Gesine Meissner, Mike Nattrass, Hubert Pirker, Dominique Riquet, Petri Sarvamaa, David-Maria Sassoli, Brian Simpson, Keith Taylor, Silvia-Adriana Ţicău, Giommaria Uggias, Dominique Vlasto, Artur Zasada, Roberts Zīle |
||||
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Phil Bennion, Spyros Danellis, Eider Gardiazábal Rubial, Gilles Pargneaux, Alfreds Rubiks, Sabine Wils |
||||
OPINION of the Committee on Petitions (27.6.2013)
for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment
(COM(2012)0628 – C7-0367/2012 - 2012/0297(COD))
Rapporteur: Nikolaos Chountis
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
The Petitions Committee has, over the years, received a very large number of petitions which concern the weaknesses and widespread discrepancies in the application of the existing EIA Directive. Many of these petitions have been incorporated by the Commission into their own infringement procedures launched against Member States who failed to respect the current provisions. The Committee therefore welcomes the opportunity to place the many complaints received and assessed to good use by using them as a basis for its work in trying to provide a clearer and more effective Directive for the future.
The EIA Directive has been a crucial tool in the protection of Europe's environment for many years, but is not yet well implemented in all Member States nor fully applied to all local projects. There are quite a few areas which require some reinforcement, notably as regards the involvement of the public during all project phases, an increased degree of transparency, the necessity of independent and objective reporting, clearer provisions concerning the protection of national heritage, a clear mechanism, which prefers the most environmentally friendly variant, legal protection with suspensive effect, as well as a clear ban on prohibiting serious environmental impacts, and above all a strengthened prioritisation of environmental imperatives.
It is indeed too often the case that powerful financial interests involved in large infrastructure projects unduly influence political decision making at local, regional and national level at the expense of the environment. In this context, a reinforcement of the EIA Directive is essential in order to guarantee to European citizens that their rights are fully respected and that the European Union is able to meet its commitments, which citizens expect, in terms of improving bio-diversity, preventing the onslaught of dramatic changes to the climate, and ensuring a better balance between infrastructure improvement and the demands of nature. The EIA Directive has a natural linkage with other Directives notably the Birds and Habitats Directive as well as with the Directives related to waste management. The annexes need to be fully re-assessed with regard to priorities in these areas in particular.
The draftsman welcomes the holistic approach of the EIA as which in the future would include other related policy areas such as biodiversity and climate change. For clarity and strengthening reasons, he proposes a number of amendments so as to ensure the highest level of environmental protection:
- deletion of derogations due to specific acts of national legislation;
- the public should have the right to participate in the screening and scoping procedures;
- screening and scoping decisions should be subject to direct and timely judicial review;
- whole projects must be subject to EIA (not part projects known as "salami-slicing");
- mandatory use of independent "accredited and technically competent experts" either by the developer or the competent authority;
- ensure that monitoring covers the construction and operational phases, it is submitted to the competent authority and the results are made publicly available;
- the developer shall be required to take corrective action, where monitoring indicates that there are unforeseen adverse impacts.
A successful revision of the existing EIA must bear in mind the need to ensure that the regulation and effective assessment of the environmental impact and the administrative costs of this should be seen as an investment in the future of our environment and in the health and well-being of European citizens.
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Petitions calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:
Amendment 1 Proposal for a directive Recital 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(1) Directive 2011/92/EU has harmonised the principles for the environmental assessment of projects by introducing minimum requirements (with regard to the type of projects subject to assessment, the main obligations of developers, the content of the assessment and the participation of the competent authorities and the public), and contributes to a high level of protection of the environment and human health. |
(1) Directive 2011/92/EU has harmonised the principles for the environmental assessment of projects by introducing minimum requirements (with regard to the type of projects subject to assessment, the main obligations of developers, the content of the assessment and the participation of the competent authorities and the public), and contributes to a high level of protection of the environment and human health. The Member States may lay down more stringent rules to protect the environment and human health. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a directive Recital 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(3) It is necessary to amend Directive 2011/92/EU in order to strengthen the quality of the environmental assessment procedure, streamline the various steps of the procedure and enhance coherence and synergies with other Union legislation and policies, as well as strategies and policies developed by Member States in areas of national competence. |
(3) It is necessary to amend Directive 2011/92/EU in order to strengthen the quality of the environmental assessment procedure, streamline the various steps of the procedure and enhance coherence and synergies with other Union legislation and policies, as well as strategies and policies developed by Member States in areas of national competence. The ultimate purpose of amending this Directive is to bring about more effective implementation at Member State level. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In many cases administrative procedures became too complicated and extended, causing delays and creating additional risks for the protection of the environment. In this respect, simplification and harmonization of the proceedings shall be one of the aims of the Directive. The suitability of creating a one-stop shop is to be taken into account with a view to allow coordinated assessment or joint procedures when several EIA's are required, for instance in cases of cross-border projects, as well as to define more specific criteria mandatory assessments. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a directive Recital 3 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(3a) In the case of projects which may have a cross-border impact on the environment, the Member States involved should set up a joint one-stop shop where they should be represented on the basis of parity, which should be responsible for all procedural steps. For the final project approval, the consent of all Member States concerned must be obtained. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a directive Recital 3 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(3b) The revised Directive 2011/92/EU should also ensure that environmental protection is improved, resource efficiency increased and sustainable growth supported in Europe. To this end, it is necessary to simplify and harmonise the prescribed procedures. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a directive Recital 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(4) Over the last decade, environmental issues, such as resource efficiency, biodiversity, climate change, and disaster risks, have become more important in policy making and should therefore also constitute critical elements in assessment and decision-making processes, especially for infrastructure projects. |
(4) Over the last decade, environmental issues, such as resource efficiency and sustainability, biodiversity protection, land use, climate change, and natural and man-made disaster risks, have become more important in policy making.They should therefore also constitute important elements in assessment and decision-making processes for any public or private project likely to have a significant impact on the environment, especially for infrastructure projects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As the Commission has not determined guidelines for the application of the Directive on conservation of Historical and Cultural Heritage, the Commission shall propose a list of criteria and indications with a view to a better implementation of the Directive. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a directive Recital 4 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(4a) Stipulating that greater account must be taken of environmental criteria in all projects may also prove counter-productive if it serves to add to the complexity of the procedures involved and to lengthen the time needed to authorise and validate each stage. This may increase costs and may even in itself come to pose a threat to the environment if infrastructure projects take a very long time to complete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a directive Recital 4 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(4b) Environmental issues surrounding infrastructure projects must not divert attention from the fact that any project will inevitably have an impact on the environment and that the focus must be on the balance between the value of a project and its environmental impact. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a directive Recital 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(5) In its Communication entitled ‘Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe’, the Commission committed itself to including broader resource efficiency considerations in the context of the revision of Directive 2011/92/EU. |
(5) In its Communication entitled ‘Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe’, the Commission committed itself to including broader resource efficiency and sustainability considerations in the context of the revision of Directive 2011/92/EU. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Proposal for a directive Recital 9 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(9) Climate change will continue to cause damage to the environment and compromise economic development. Accordingly, the environmental, social and economic resilience of the Union should be promoted so as to deal with climate change throughout the Union’s territory in an efficient manner. Climate change adaptation and mitigation responses need to be addressed across many of the sectors of Union legislation. |
(9) Climate change will continue to pose a threat to the environment and compromise the predictability of economic development. Accordingly, the environmental, social and economic resilience of the Union should be promoted so as to deal with climate change throughout the Union’s territory in an efficient manner. Climate change adaptation and mitigation responses need to be addressed now across many of the sectors of Union legislation. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 Proposal for a directive Recital 13 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(13) Experience has shown that in cases of civil emergency compliance with the provisions of Directive 2011/92/EU may have adverse effects, and provision should therefore be made to authorise Member States not to apply that Directive in appropriate cases. |
(13) Experience has shown that in cases of civil emergency compliance with the provisions of Directive 2011/92/EU may have adverse effects, and provision should therefore be made, in exceptional cases, to authorise Member States not to apply that Directive to projects having as their sole purpose the response to civil emergencies, under the condition that appropriate information is timely supplied to the Commission justifying the choice, the public concerned, and provided that any other feasible alternatives have been considered. In cases of cross-border projects, the Commission should, where and when appropriate and possible, play a more pro-active and facilitating role. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 11 Proposal for a directive Recital 16 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(16) When determining whether significant environmental effects are likely to be caused, the competent authorities should identify the most relevant criteria to be considered and use the additional information that may be available following other assessments required by Union legislation in order to apply the screening procedure effectively. In this regard, it is appropriate to specify the content of the screening decision, in particular where no environmental assessment is required. |
(16) When determining whether significant environmental effects are likely to be caused, the competent authorities must define clearly and strictly the most relevant criteria to be considered and use the additional information that may be available following other assessments required by Union legislation in order to apply the screening procedure effectively and transparently. In this regard, it is appropriate to specify the content of the screening decision, in particular where no environmental assessment is required. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 Proposal for a directive Recital 17 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(17) The competent authorities should be required to determine the scope and level of detail of the environmental information to be submitted in the form of an environmental report (scoping). In order to improve the quality of the assessment and streamline the decision-making process, it is important to specify at Union level the categories of information on which the competent authorities should make that determination. |
(17) The competent authorities should be required to determine the scope and level of detail of the environmental information to be submitted in the form of an environmental report (scoping). In order to improve the quality of the assessment, the simplification of the procedures and streamline the decision-making process, it is important to specify at Union level the categories of information on which the competent authorities should make that determination. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 13 Proposal for a directive Recital 18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(18) The environmental report of a project to be provided by the developer should include an assessment of reasonable alternatives relevant to the proposed project, including the likely evolution of the existing state of the environment without implementation of the project (baseline scenario), as a means to improve quality of the assessment process and to allow integrating environmental considerations at an early stage in the project’s design. |
(18) The environmental report of a project to be provided by the developer should include an assessment of all reasonable alternatives relevant to the proposed project, including the likely evolution of the existing state of the environment without implementation of the project (baseline scenario), as a means to improve quality of the assessment process and to allow integrating environmental considerations at an early stage in the project’s design. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 14 Proposal for a directive Recital 20 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(20) With a view to ensuring transparency and accountability, the competent authority should be required to substantiate its decision to grant development consent in respect of a project, indicating that it has taken into consideration the results of the consultations carried out and the relevant information gathered. |
(20) With a view to ensuring transparency and accountability, the competent authority should be required to substantiate comprehensively and in detail its decision to grant development consent in respect of a project, indicating that it has taken into consideration the results of the consultations carried out with the public concerned and all the relevant information gathered. Should that condition not be met, the public concerned should have the right to appeal against the decision. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 15 Proposal for a directive Recital 21 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(21) It is appropriate to establish common minimum requirements for the monitoring of the significant adverse effects of the construction and operation of projects to ensure a common approach in all Member States and to ensure that, after the implementation of mitigation and compensation measures, no impacts exceed those initially predicted. Such monitoring should not duplicate or add to monitoring required pursuant to other Union legislation. |
(21) It is appropriate to establish common minimum requirements for the monitoring of the significant adverse effects of the construction and operation of projects to ensure a common approach in all Member States and to ensure that, after the implementation of mitigation and compensation measures, no impacts exceed those initially predicted. Such monitoring should not duplicate or add to monitoring required pursuant to other Union legislation. Where monitoring indicates that there are unforeseen adverse impacts, provision should be made for appropriate corrective action. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 16 Proposal for a directive Recital 22 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(22a) Public involvement, according to Aarhus Convention, in decision-making from an early stage is critical to ensure that the decision-maker will take account of opinions and concerns which may be relevant to those decisions, thereby increasing the accountability and transparency on the decision making process, improving the substantive quality of decisions and contributing to public awareness of environmental issues. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 17 Proposal for a directive Recital 28 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(28)Since the objective of this Directive, namely to ensure a high level of protection of the environment and of human health, through the establishment of minimum requirements for the environmental assessment of projects, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scope, seriousness and transboundary nature of the environmental issues to be addressed, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective. |
(28) Since the objective of this Directive, namely to ensure a high level of protection of the environment, the quality of life and of human health, through the establishment of minimum requirements for the environmental assessment of projects, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scope, seriousness and transboundary nature of the environmental issues to be addressed, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 18 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1, paragraph 2, point a, indent 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 19 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b – introductory part Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 2 – points f a and f b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 20 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point g a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 21 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point g b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 22 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 23 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1– paragraph 2 – point f b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 24 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b – point 1 (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point f c (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 25 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1– paragraph 2 – point f d (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 26 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point c Directive 2011/92/EU Article 1 – paragraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 27 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – introductory part Directive 2011/92/EU Article 2 – paragraphs 3 and 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 28 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 2 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 2 – paragraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 29 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 3 – points a, b, c, ca and d | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 30 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 4 – point -a (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Article 4 – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 31 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 4 – point a Directive 2011/92/EU Article 4 – paragraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 32 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point a Directive 2011/92/EU Article 4 – paragraph 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 33 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 4 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 4 – paragraph 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 34 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 4 – paragraph 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 35 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 5 – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 36 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 5 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 37 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 5 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 38 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 39 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point b | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 40 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 41 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 42 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b – introductory part 2012/0297 Article 6 – paragraphs 7 and 8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 43 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 6 – paragraph 7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 44 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 6 – paragraph 7 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 45 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 8 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 46 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 8 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 47 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 8 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 4 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 48 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 8 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 49 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – point a Directive 2011/92/EU Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 50 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 9 – point b Directive 2011/92/EU Article 9 – paragraphs 3 b and 3 c (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 51 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Article 9 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 52 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Article 11 – paragraphs 5 a and b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 53 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2011/92/EU Article 12 a and Article 12 b | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 54 Proposal for a directive Annex 1 – point -1 (new) Directive 2011/92/EU Annex I – paragraph 4 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(This amendment automatically removes 'open-cast mining' from point (a) of paragraph 2 ('EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRY') of the Annex II of the directive 2011/92/EU) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 55 Proposal for a directive Annex 1 – point 1 Directive 2011/92/EU Annex II.A – paragraph 1 – point a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 56 Proposal for a directive Annex – point 1 Directive 2011/92/EU Annex II.A – paragraph 3 – point b | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 57 Proposal for a directive Annex – point 2 Directive 2011/92/EU Annex III – paragraph 1 – point c | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 58 Proposal for a directive Annex 1 – point 2 Directive 2011/92/EU Annex III – paragraph 1 – point f | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 59 Proposal for a directive Annex 1 – point 2 Directive 2011/92/EU Annex III – paragraph 1 – point j | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 60 Proposal for a directive Annex – point 2 Directive 2011/92/EU Annex III – paragraph 2 – point c – point ii | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 61 Proposal for a directive Annex 1 – point 2 Directive 2011/92/EU Annex III – paragraph 2 – point c – subpoint viii a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 62 Proposal for a directive Annex 1 – point 2 Directive 2011/92/EU Annex III – paragraph 2 – point c – subpoint viii b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 63 Proposal for a directive Annex – point 2 Directive 2011/92/EU Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 64 Proposal for a directive Annex – point 2 Directive 2011/92/EU Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point b | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 65 Proposal for a directive Annex – point 2 Directive 2011/92/EU Annex IV – paragraph 5 – point c | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 66 Proposal for a directive Annex – point 2 Directive 2011/92/EU Annex IV – paragraph 5 – point d | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 67 Proposal for a directive Annex – point 2 Directive 2011/92/EU Annex IV – paragraph 5 – point f | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 68 Proposal for a directive Annex – point 2 Directive 2011/92/EU Annex IV – paragraph 7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PROCEDURE
Title |
Amendment of Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment |
||||
References |
COM(2012)0628 – C7-0367/2012 – 2012/0297(COD) |
||||
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
ENVI 19.11.2012 |
|
|
|
|
Opinion by Date announced in plenary |
PETI 19.11.2012 |
||||
Rapporteur Date appointed |
Nikolaos Chountis 6.11.2012 |
||||
Date adopted |
19.6.2013 |
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
25 0 1 |
|||
Members present for the final vote |
Marta Andreasen, Margrete Auken, Heinz K. Becker, Victor Boştinaru, Philippe Boulland, Nikolaos Chountis, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Carlos José Iturgaiz Angulo, Peter Jahr, Lena Kolarska-Bobińska, Erminia Mazzoni, Judith A. Merkies, Ana Miranda, Chrysoula Paliadeli, Nikolaos Salavrakos, Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa, Angelika Werthmann, Rainer Wieland, Tatjana Ždanoka |
||||
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón, Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo, Cristian Dan Preda |
||||
Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote |
Pilar Ayuso, María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora, João Ferreira, Gabriel Mato Adrover, Luis de Grandes Pascual |
||||
PROCEDURE
Title |
Amendment of Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment |
||||
References |
COM(2012)0628 – C7-0367/2012 – 2012/0297(COD) |
||||
Date submitted to Parliament |
26.10.2012 |
|
|
|
|
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
ENVI 19.11.2012 |
|
|
|
|
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s) Date announced in plenary |
TRAN 18.4.2013 |
REGI 19.11.2012 |
CULT 19.11.2012 |
LIBE 19.11.2012 |
|
|
PETI 19.11.2012 |
|
|
|
|
Not delivering opinions Date of decision |
REGI 27.11.2012 |
CULT 6.11.2012 |
LIBE 27.11.2012 |
|
|
Rapporteur(s) Date appointed |
Andrea Zanoni 21.11.2012 |
|
|
|
|
Discussed in committee |
6.5.2013 |
19.6.2013 |
|
|
|
Date adopted |
11.7.2013 |
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
49 13 3 |
|||
Members present for the final vote |
Martina Anderson, Kriton Arsenis, Sophie Auconie, Pilar Ayuso, Paolo Bartolozzi, Sergio Berlato, Franco Bonanini, Biljana Borzan, Milan Cabrnoch, Martin Callanan, Nessa Childers, Tadeusz Cymański, Chris Davies, Esther de Lange, Anne Delvaux, Bas Eickhout, Edite Estrela, Jill Evans, Elisabetta Gardini, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Matthias Groote, Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines, Satu Hassi, Jolanta Emilia Hibner, Christa Klaß, Holger Krahmer, Jo Leinen, Corinne Lepage, Peter Liese, Zofija Mazej Kukovič, Linda McAvan, Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė, Vladko Todorov Panayotov, Gilles Pargneaux, Antonyia Parvanova, Pavel Poc, Frédérique Ries, Anna Rosbach, Oreste Rossi, Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, Kārlis Šadurskis, Bogusław Sonik, Glenis Willmott, Sabine Wils |
||||
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Julie Girling, Romana Jordan, Marusya Lyubcheva, Judith A. Merkies, James Nicholson, Vittorio Prodi, Giancarlo Scottà, Renate Sommer, Alda Sousa, Struan Stevenson, Vladimir Urutchev, Kathleen Van Brempt, Anna Záborská, Andrea Zanoni |
||||
Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote |
Fabrizio Bertot, Jean-Paul Besset, Tarja Cronberg, Isabelle Durant, Ingeborg Gräßle, María Irigoyen Pérez, Csaba Őry |
||||
Date tabled |
22.7.2013 |
||||