| Author (Person) | Davies, Eric | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Publisher | ProQuest Information and Learning | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Series Title | In Focus | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Series Details | 15.5.03 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Publication Date | 15/05/2003 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Content Type | News, Overview, Topic Guide | In Focus | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 14 May 2003, Members of the European Parliament voted to support and significantly strengthen a Commission proposal for a Directive on environmental liability. Incidents such as the oil spills off the coasts of France and Spain from the tankers Erica and Prestige, the cyanide pollution in Hungary's River Tisza, and damage caused by leaks from Spain's Donana metal mine are cited as cases where those responsible - and not ordinary tax payers - should pay for cleaning up environmental damage. Whilst generally welcoming the Commission's proposal for a 'Directive on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage', MEPs adopted a large number of amendments which - if accepted - will create a stricter legislative framework than that drafted by the Commission. Many amendments focused on definitions used in the proposed Directive. For example:
Five years after coming into force, the Directive would apply 'to all environmental damage caused or likely to be caused by the operation of any occupational activity ... or by any substance used in any such occupational activity, and to any imminent threat of such damage occurring by reason of any of such activity or substance.' Where incidents of pollution are covered by international conventions - as are nuclear and sea pollution - MEPs want to see the Directive applied where the relevant convention has not yet been implemented. Businesses responsible for damaging the environment should also, according to MEPs, take the initiative in tackling pollution incidents without waiting for the authorities to ask them to take action. When deciding on the level of compensation to be claimed from a company, Parliament would like to see account taken of mitigating factors, such as 'the fact that an emission or activity was specifically and explicitly allowed in applicable laws and regulation or was not considered to be harmful according to the scientific and technical knowledge [at] the time'. However, the fact that a harmful emission or activity was legally allowed or was not considered to be harmful according to scientific and technical knowledge of the time, would not exempt a company from responsibility. Indeed, attempts to provide companies with two significant exemptions from liability - operating under an official permit and using state-of-the-art technology - failed, with MEPs voting against them. There will, however, be a number of exemptions, including armed conflicts, acts of terrorism, and 'natural phenomena of exceptional and inevitable character'. Under the amended text, Member States would be required, within three to six years of the Directive entering into force, to ensure that provisions were in place to cover costs in cases where no operator could be held responsible for environmental damage. The amended proposal was adopted by 310 votes to 177, with 23 MEPs abstaining. Parliament's support was welcomed by environmental groups, but the BBC reported that 'business leaders say if the draft directive becomes law the survival of many European companies is at stake.' The proposal now returns to the Commission for revision and for further discussions by Parliament and Council. Links:
Eric Davies Members of the European Parliament gave their approval to a European Commission proposal for a Directive on environmental liability on 14 May 2003. Keywords: environmental liability |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Subject Categories | Environment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
