Brussels, 23/12/2003 (Agence Europe) - The vote at the European Parliament on the Manders Report on the new Environmental Liability Directive has given rise to conflicting views (see Europe of 19 December, p.13).
Lucy Swan of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) comments in a press release that the CEMR had managed to apply pressure to the European Parliament because the plenary rejected a series of amendments proposed by the Legal Committee that would have 'considerably weakened' the polluter pays principle. Swan is also happy with the fact the EP rejected amendments that would have made local authorities responsible for proving companies are at fault in order to be compensated for the costs of environmental clean-up operations and congratulated the EP on its vote five years ago paving the way for a system of compulsory financial insurance. She described this as a crucial aspect of the directive since companies will have to take out insurance to guarantee they are able to pay for clean-up operations if they pollute the environment.
The Comité Européen des Assurances (CEA) says the outcome of the European Parliament vote in second reading 'is globally well-balanced'. CEA Director General Daniel Schanté, however, commented: 'Some have said that insurers are opposed to the draft directive> The truth is: we are not. As citizens, we all have an interest in leaving a safer and better environment to future generations. As insurers, we also have to look into the possibilities of insuring such risks,…to quantify the risk economically, the calculate premiums… However, the vote leaves open the prospect of a compulsory scheme in the future, which insurers fundamentally oppose as it could create difficulties for many businesses. At present, the insurance industry cannot evaluate the economic cost of all kinds of environmental damage, such as the disappearance of a species of bird.' The CEA is composed of 31 national associations representing more than 5000 insurance companies in Europe (see http://www.cea.assur.org for its views on the directive in question).
A series of environmental organisations (the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and BirdLife International) comment that the European Parliament, 'after adopting a strong first reading position on the directive in May' which was then watered down by the Environmental Council in June, had 'failed to strengthen a weak directive on environmental liability'. Rosanna Micciche of Greenpeace regrets that 'despite the fact that the 'polluter-pays' principle has been enshrined in the EC Treaty since 1987, European taxpayers will continue to foot the bill for environmental damage in most cases'. Victoria Phillips of BirdLife International comments that the stalemate 'rewards the attempts of those who have been trying to weaken the proposal throughout the legislative process and ensure the proposed liability regime, first conceived after the Seveso disaster in 1976, makes as little difference as possible to the status quo'. Sandra Jen of WWF adds it is 'a real shame that the European Parliament failed to uphold its position to support the adoption of a regime that would create real incentives for operators to avoid environmental damage.'