Monday

26th Jun 2017

Member states vary in EU 'polluter pays' rules

  • Water pollution is included in the environmental liability directive, but some experts say there are too many loopholes (Photo: European Court of Auditors)

The polluter should pay, that is the simple principle underpinning the environmental liability directive.

But the legal text is riddled with loopholes and is not being implemented uniformly across the EU. This emerged at a hearing in the European Parliament on Tuesday (11 April).

Dear EUobserver reader

Subscribe now for unrestricted access to EUobserver.

Sign up for 30 days' free trial, no obligation. Full subscription only 15 € / month or 150 € / year.

  1. Unlimited access on desktop and mobile
  2. All premium articles, analysis, commentary and investigations
  3. EUobserver archives

EUobserver is the only independent news media covering EU affairs in Brussels and all 28 member states.

♡ We value your support.

If you already have an account click here to login.

  • Hungarian MEP Javor: It is, "in some member states, cheaper to pollute the environment" than in others (Photo: European Commission)

The directive went into force thirteen years ago this month, and member states were required to transpose it into national law a decade ago. However, it was not until mid-2010 that all EU members had done so.

Moreover, the environmental liability directive (ELD) has left a lot of room for interpretation, said Sandra Cassotta, associate professor of international environmental law at Denmark's Aalborg University.

"The text of the ELD is a result of different compromises at political level, and the text of the ELD is very diplomatic," said Cassotta, who noted that the definition of what constitutes environmental damage is too narrow.

At the same time, the directive contains exceptions that "are weakening the environmental liability regime", she said.

Kristel de Smedt is also an expert on liability in environmental damage at Maastricht University.

At the hearing, she showed that there is also no uniformity in the requirements for companies to insure themselves against the possibility of paying for damaging the environment.

The directive says that EU governments "shall take measures to encourage the development of financial security instruments and markets by the appropriate economic and financial operators", but according to De Smedt, this is too vague.

“The ELD does not specify the kind and or intensity of the required encouragement,” said De Smedt.

"Eight member states did set up mandatory financial security schemes at national level, other member states preferred voluntary market approach."

A consequence of companies not being insured against having to pay for environmental clean-ups, means that taxpayers may end up footing the bill.

The lack of uniformity is hindering a level-playing field, said Green Hungarian MEP Benedek Javor. He noted that there is a "complete patchwork" in terms of insurance requirements.

“This makes [it], in some member states, cheaper to pollute the environment, because you don't have to pay the obligatory or mandatory environmental insurances, than in other member states and it raises some competition law problems for me," said Javor.

There was some discussion at the hearing as to whether a directly applicable regulation would have been better, instead of a directive, which needs to be transposed by member states.

Marco Piredda spoke on behalf of an industry group. He said that the directive should be "given more time", but also noted that "companies are in favour of greater harmonisation".

"A regulation is something that would make us happy because it would give us very clear rules," said Piredda.

Air quality

The bill only covers environmental damage to protected species, natural habitats, water, and land.

It does not include air pollution, as was found out the hard way by the members of the parliament's inquiry committee into the Dieselgate emissions scandal.

The committee had asked the EU commission whether the ELD could be used to make car manufacturers pay for the reduction in air quality that results from diesel cars emitting far beyond the EU limits.

The commission assessed the option, but found that it was not possible.

"Regrettably the analysis showed that the directive only covers damage to biodiversity, water and land, and not to air or human health," wrote the environment director-general, Daniel Calleja Crespo, to the parliament last year.

But despite Calleja's use of the word "regrettably", the commission has still made no attempt to change this.

After an evaluation as part of the commissions' Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (Refit), the EU's executive decided last year that the directive does not need to be changed.

"The Refit evaluation indicated that the environmental liability directive may be reaching only a small part of its potential to prevent environmental damage and remedy it when it occurs," said Liam Cashman, a senior legal expert at the commission's directorate-general for the environment.

Yet the commission decided that it would take a soft approach and adopt non-legislative measures to nudge member states towards making better use of the directive.

"The evaluation suggested that without changing the directive, several positive actions could be undertaken to improve how it is used," said the commission's Cashman.

After EUobserver asked if the commission would like to include air quality in the directive, Cashman chose to ignore the question.

He did later say that the commission does not "exclude the possibility that at some point we might consider it would be useful to propose changes to the directive".

MEP Javor said he wants air quality to be covered by the ELD, and called its omission "one of the major shortcomings".

"We are arguing for including air quality and air pollution into the scope of ELD, but that is not an easy issue. We experience quite strong resistance," said Javor, a member of the Greens, the sixth-largest group in the EU parliament.

Javor has written a draft opinion on behalf of the parliament's environment committee about the implementation of the directive.

Once adopted by his committee, the Javor text, like Tuesday's debate, would feed into the development of a resolution by the parliament's legal affairs committee.

That text would then go on to the plenary, although it's legal power would be non-binding.

Council and NGOs criticise EU environment proposal

Ministers from the 15 member states, and environmental NGOs, are concerned that a key clause added in the draft EU environmental liability proposal, would exempt polluters from the "polluter pays" principle if they comply with environmental permits.

EU to scrutinise environmental action

Modelled on the EU's economical monitoring mechanism, bi-annual reports should ensure that member states correctly implement the environmental acquis.

Aviation industry attacks mandatory 'polluter pays' principle

The aviation industry has reacted angrily to a fresh deal between the European Parliament and EU governments to make airlines a part of a pollution-reducing scheme from 2012, saying that policymakers have "completely disregarded the future" of the sector.

Column / Crude World

Nord Stream 2: The elephant in the room

The European Commission should provide a thorough impact assessment of Nord Stream 2, a project that appears to go against all of its Energy Union objectives.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. EPSUOn Public Services Day, Stop Austerity! Workers Need a Pay Rise!
  2. EGBAOnline Gambling: The EU Court Rejects Closed Licensing Regimes In Member States
  3. World VisionFaces of Today, Leaders of Tomorrow: Join the Debate on Violence Against Girls - 29 June
  4. ECR GroupThe EU Must Better Protect Industry from Unfair Competition
  5. Malta EU 2017Better Protection for Workers From Cancer-Causing Substances
  6. EPSUAfter 9 Years of Austerity Europe's Public Sector Workers Deserve a Pay Rise!
  7. Dialogue PlatformGlobalised Religions and the Dialogue Imperative. Join the Debate!
  8. UNICEFEU Trust Fund Contribution to UNICEF's Syria Crisis Response Reaches Nearly €200 Million
  9. EUSEW17Bringing Buildings Into the Circular Economy. Discuss at EU Sustainable Energy Week
  10. European Healthy Lifestyle AllianceCan an Ideal Body Weight Lead to Premature Death?
  11. Malta EU 2017End of Roaming Charges: What Does It Entail?
  12. World VisionWorld Refugee Day, a Dark Reminder of the Reality of Children on the Move

Latest News

  1. Macron’s investment screening idea watered down by leaders
  2. Leaders unimpressed by May’s offer to EU citizens
  3. New Irish PM praises unscripted nature of EU summits
  4. EU extends sanctions on Russia
  5. UK's universities set 'Brexit wish list'
  6. Decision on post-Brexit home for EU agencies postponed
  7. May's offer on citizens’ rights dismissed as ‘pathetic’
  8. 'Historic' defence plan gets launch date at EU summit

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. European Social Services ConferenceDriving Innovation in the Social Sector I 26-28 June
  2. Dialogue PlatformMuslims Have Unique Responsibility to Fight Terror: Opinon From Fethullah Gülen
  3. EUSEW17Check out This Useful Infographic on How to Stay Sustainable and Energy Efficient.
  4. Counter BalanceEuropean Parliament Criticises the Juncker Plan's Implementation
  5. The Idealist QuarterlyDoes Europe Really Still Need Feminism? After-Work Chat on 22 June
  6. EUSEW17Create an Energy Day Event Before the End of June. Join the Call for Clean Energy
  7. UNICEF1 in 5 Children in Rich Countries Lives in Relative Income Poverty, 1 in 8 Faces Food Insecurity
  8. International Partnership for Human Rights26 NGOs Call on Interpol Not to Intervene Versus Azerbaijani Human Rights Defenders
  9. Malta EU 2017Significant Boost in Financing for SMEs and Entrepreneurs Under New Agreement
  10. World VisionYoung People Rise up as EU Signs Consensus for Development at EU Development Days
  11. ILGA-EuropeLGBTI Activists and Businesses Fighting Inequality Together
  12. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Prime Ministers Respond to Trump on Paris Agreement