Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-13-Speech-2-045"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-05-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Environmental liability2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030513.2.2-045"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-05-13-Speech-2-0462
lpv:speaker	lp:Paolo Bartolozzi2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (2001-06-14--2004-07-19)3 substitute; EMPL (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Slovak Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-09-19--2004-04-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America and Mexico (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Forza Italia (2001-06-14--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal for a directive on environmental liability provides for a balanced approach which will apply pressure on operators to avoid contamination and to remediate damage whilst suggesting only a light regulatory touch in order to achieve this. Any fundamental changes to this proposal for a directive would have produced an unworkable and impractical solution to what is already a complicated subject, and I feel that the work carried out by Mr Manders and others in committee represents the great possible convergence in view of this constraint. In fact, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has not made any fundamental changes to the Commission’s approach, but it has clarified a number of essential principles. The directive does not apply retroactively. The permit and 'state of the art' exceptions should be retained. There should be mandatory liability but not compulsory insurance – the guiding principle of the directive is that the polluter must pay for environmental damage caused by their actions. An awareness of the financial implications of such damage will also lead to greater efforts to prevent environmental damage occurring. The polluter pays principle therefore aims to address remediation and incentivise prevention. A mandatory financial security regime might destabilise this relationship: operators would know that their financial liabilities are covered by an insurance policy, fund or levy and, as a consequence, the incentive to prevent damage is removed. A mandatory system of financial security might well be described as the 'insurer pays principle' in that the risk of liability has been transferred from operator to financial security provider. We all must be socially responsible about protecting the environment because it is inherently a finite resource. Operators need to recognise that there are consequences to their actions and that they will pay for any damage that they cause with intent or by way of being reckless. The 'polluter pays principle' is acceptable on these terms. Thanks to the reasonable approach advocated by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, a Directive will have been created that reflects the interests of both industry and the environment."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph