19th Mar 2018

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).

Thank you for reading EUobserver!

Subscribe now for a 30 day free trial.

  1. €150 per year
  2. or €15 per month
  3. Cancel anytime

EUobserver is an independent, not-for-profit news organization that publishes daily news reports, analysis, and investigations from Brussels and the EU member states. We are an indispensable news source for anyone who wants to know what is going on in the EU.

We are mainly funded by advertising and subscription revenues. As advertising revenues are falling fast, we depend on subscription revenues to support our journalism.

For group, corporate or student subscriptions, please contact us. See also our full Terms of Use.

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.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Counter BalanceConmtroversial Turkish Azerbaijani Gas Pipeline Gets Major EU Loan
  2. World VisionSyria’s Children ‘At Risk of Never Fully Recovering', New Study Finds
  3. Macedonian Human Rights MovementMeets with US Congress Member to Denounce Anti-Macedonian Name Negotiations
  4. Martens CentreEuropean Defence Union: Time to Aim High?
  5. UNESDAWatch UNESDA’s President Toast Its 60th Anniversary Year
  6. AJC Transatlantic InstituteAJC Condemns MEP Ana Gomes’s Anti-Semitic Remark, Calls for Disciplinary Action
  7. EPSUEU Commissioners Deny 9.8 Million Workers Legal Minimum Standards on Information Rights
  8. ACCAAppropriate Risk Management is Crucial for Effective Strategic Leadership
  9. EPSUWill the Circular Economy be an Economy With no Workers?
  10. European Jewish CongressThe 2018 European Medal of Tolerance Goes to Prince Albert II of Monaco
  11. FiscalNoteGlobal Policy Trends: What to Watch in 2018
  12. Human Rights and Democracy NetworkPromoting Human Rights and Democracy in the Next Eu Multiannual Financial Framework

Latest News

  1. Selmayr case symptomatic, warns EU novel author
  2. Russia poisoning is not EU concern, Germany says
  3. Kiev wants EU sanctions on former German chancellor
  4. North Korea: time to put the 'E' in engagement
  5. Brexit and trade will top This WEEK
  6. Dutch MPs in plan to shut EU website on Russian propaganda
  7. Four years on – but we will not forget illegally-occupied Crimea
  8. Evacuated women from Libya arrive newly-pregnant

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Mission of China to the EUDigital Cooperation a Priority for China-EU Relations
  2. ECTACompetition must prevail in the quest for telecoms investment
  3. European Friends of ArmeniaTaking Stock of 30 Years of EU Policy on the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: How Can the EU Contribute to Peace?
  4. ILGA EuropeCongratulations Finland!
  5. EUobserverNow Hiring! Sales Associate With 2+ Years Experience
  6. EUobserverNow Hiring! Finance Officer With Accounting Degree or Experience
  7. UNICEFCyclone Season Looms Over 720,000 Rohingya Children in Myanmar & Bangladesh
  8. European Gaming & Betting AssociationEU Court: EU Commission Correct to Issue Guidelines for Online Gambling Services
  9. Mission of China to the EUChina Hopes for More Exchanges With Nordic, Baltic Countries
  10. Macedonian Human Rights MovementCondemns Facebook for Actively Promoting Anti-Macedonian Racism
  11. Nordic Council of MinistersGlobal Seed Vault: Gene Banks Gather to Celebrate 1 Million Seed Collections
  12. CECEIndustry Stakeholders Are Ready to Take the Lead in Digital Construction