Bjerregaard sets out options for making polluters pay

Date: 04/03/1999

By Renée Cordes

Environment Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard will next week unveil a long-awaited report exploring ways to ensure polluters across the Union pay for the environmental damage they cause.

In a White Paper on Civil Responsibility which is due to be adopted by the full Commission next Tuesday (9 March), Bjerregaard raises the possibility of making those who harm areas protected under existing EU directives on habitats and wild birds strictly liable for the damage. However, she stresses in the draft communication that the Commission is open to discussions on other options.

Bjerregaard suggests, for example, that the Union could sign up to the Lugano convention, which requires polluters to repair the damage they cause. Six EU member states have signed the convention, but none of them have yet ratified it.

She also floats the idea of introducing EU laws which would only cover pollution in areas such as nature parks on the borders of more than one member state.

“We are trying to find a workable solution,” said an aide to the Commissioner. The aide added that while introducing the concept of strict liability would be the most effective option, it could only be done if companies could take out insurance to cover the cost of repairing any damage to the environment for which they were responsible.

Officials say it is far from certain at this stage that Bjerregaard will follow up next week's communication with proposals for new EU legislation incorporating strict liability. The important thing, said the aide, was that the paper would put the issue on the table.

Under the strict liability regime discussed in the communication, which will be sent to EU governments after it has been approved by the full Commission, authorities would have to provide evidence of a link between the alleged polluter's activities and the environmental damage but would not have to show actual fault.

Aides to the Commissioner say that she envisages a system which would only cover future damage and would not be retroactive, allaying one of industry's fears about the move. But EU companies remain opposed to the idea of a Union-wide strict liability system, warning that it would be difficult to insure themselves against the risk of potentially enormous bills for repairing environmental damage.

“We really fear the proposal is very bad for business,” said Erik Berggren, an environmental liability expert at the European employers' federation UNICE. “We are very concerned that it might be uninsurable.”

However, non-governmental organisations which have been pressing for such a regime are worried that the Commissioner is bowing to industry pressure by shying away from legislative proposals.

“If industry is taking preventative measures, they will have an economic dividend,” insisted Christian Hey, of the European Environmental Bureau, who dismissed industry's arguments against the move as “silly”.