| Author (Person) | Carstens, Karen |
|---|---|
| Series Title | European Voice |
| Series Details | Vol.9, No.42, 11.12.03, p14 |
| Publication Date | 11/12/2003 |
| Content Type | News |
|
By Karen Carstens Date: 11/12/03 A PROPOSED directive on environmental liability has become so riddled with loopholes after a surprise vote in the European Parliament's legal affairs committee that it runs the risk of becoming an utterly useless piece of legislation, green campaigners claim. BirdLife International and Greenpeace are calling on MEPs to reject the latest additions to the proposal, which has been a cause for concern to a wide range of industries, in a second-reading plenary vote on 17 December. They are especially worried about exemptions that would release companies from the draft directive's provisions and undermine the 'polluter pays principle' that Parliament wants as EU law. The 2 December legal affairs committee vote widened the scope of a crucial 'permit defence' clause and a reference to the use of 'state-of-the-art' technologies. As worded by EU environment ministers in a common position reached with Parliament last June, it states that national authorities "may allow the operator not to bear the costs" of environmental clean-ups if it can demonstrate it was not at fault and had complied with an official pollution permit or used 'state-of-the-art' techniques. Now, however, the scope of these two exemptions has been widened by the committee to allow companies to be freed up entirely from the draft environmental liability directive. Moreover, it has added a third exemption to the proposal: "good agricultural and forestry practices". This means that if firms can prove that they engaged in such "good practices", they would also be exempt from the directive. "This is something new that is very undefined and wide-ranging," said Victoria Phillips, European Parliamentary liaison manager for BirdLife International. "It could introduce a serious loophole into the directive," she added. "It was never really seriously considered [last June] by the Council [of Ministers], so we are surprised that it has crept in now." The "severely weakened" draft directive, Phillips suggested, is the result of a "lobbying frenzy" over the past few months, adding that the draft law affects "farmers, the insurance industry, big business, small business, freight and the transport sector", to name but a few. As an alternative, BirdLife suggests that companies' compliance with permits and use of state-of-the-art technology "could be taken into consideration on a case-by-case basis", allowing for a more flexible approach. Greenpeace spokeswoman Katharine Mill said that, as it stands now, "anyone operating a landfill with a permit" where an environmental disaster had occurred could be exempt from the directive. Two environmental catastrophes, 1998's toxic waste dam-burst in Do-ana, Spain, and the 2000 Baia Mare gold mine cyanide disaster in Romania, are among Europe's worst mining accidents on record. Mill warned that the draft directive had been watered down so much by the legal affairs committee that firms responsible for such calamities could now escape clean-up costs. Moreover, Mill said the current proposal "could actually undermine national legislation" that is far more stringent. "It would only be an obligation to clean," she said of the directive. The draft covers damage to land and water, as well as to habitats and species protected under the EU's habitats' and wild birds' directives, including the EU's network of protected Natura 2000 sites. These cover about 10% of the current 15 member states' territory. BirdLife International and Greenpeace are calling on MEPs to turn down the latest additions to the proposed directive on environmental liability, in a second-reading plenary vote on 17 December 2003. |
|
| Related Links |
|
| Subject Categories | Environment |
