Directive 2004/35 - Environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage

official title

 

Legal instrument	Directive
Number legal act	Directive 2004/35
Original proposal	COM(2002)17
CELEX number237	32004L0035

Avis juridique important

|

Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage

Official Journal L 143 , 30/04/2004 P. 0056 - 0075

Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council

of 21 April 2004

on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 175(1) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),

Having regard to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee(2),

After consulting the Committee of the Regions,

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty(3), in the light of the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee on 10 March 2004,

Whereas:

• (1) 

  There are currently many contaminated sites in the Community, posing significant health risks, and the loss of biodiversity has dramatically accelerated over the last decades. Failure to act could result in increased site contamination and greater loss of biodiversity in the future. Preventing and remedying, insofar as is possible, environmental damage contributes to implementing the objectives and principles of the Community's environment policy as set out in the Treaty. Local conditions should be taken into account when deciding how to remedy damage.

• (2) 

  The prevention and remedying of environmental damage should be implemented through the furtherance of the "polluter pays" principle, as indicated in the Treaty and in line with the principle of sustainable development. The fundamental principle of this Directive should therefore be that an operator whose activity has caused the environmental damage or the imminent threat of such damage is to be held financially liable, in order to induce operators to adopt measures and develop practices to minimise the risks of environmental damage so that their exposure to financial liabilities is reduced.

• (3) 

  Since the objective of this Directive, namely to establish a common framework for the prevention and remedying of environmental damage at a reasonable cost to society, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved at Community level by reason of the scale of this Directive and its implications in respect of other Community legislation, namely Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(4), Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(5), and Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy(6), the Community may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

• (4) 

  Environmental damage also includes damage caused by airborne elements as far as they cause damage to water, land or protected species or natural habitats.

• (5) 

  Concepts instrumental for the correct interpretation and application of the scheme provided for by this Directive should be defined especially as regards the definition of environmental damage. When the concept in question derives from other relevant Community legislation, the same definition should be used so that common criteria can be used and uniform application promoted.

• (6) 

  Protected species and natural habitats might also be defined by reference to species and habitats protected in pursuance of national legislation...

This text has been adopted from EUR-Lex.

This page is also available in a full version containing the summary of legislation, de geconsolideerde versie, the legal context, de Europese rechtsgrond, other dossiers related to the dossier at hand, the related cases of the European Court of Justice and finally consultations relevant to the dossier at hand.

• 1. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 2. 

  One can also refer to the heavy pollution of the Rhine river caused by a fire at the Basle Sandoz plant in 1986 and the collapse of a waste retention dam of the Aznalcollar mining complex, on 25 April 1998, in Spain, which has lead to a flow of toxic waters and mud towards the Doñana National Park. Oil spills caused by tankers wrecks are also numerous from the Torrey Canyon and Amoco Cadiz cases in 1967 and 1978 respectively to the Erika wreck in 1999.
  
   
• 3. 

  See Article 174(2) of the EC Treaty.
  
   
• 4. 

  COM(2001) 264 final of 15 May 2001, p. 13 :
   
• 5. 

  See Article 3(8) of the Common position adopted by the Council on 17 September 2001 with a view to the adoption of a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme.
  
   
• 6. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 7. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 8. 

  Management of contaminated sites in Western Europe, EEA, June 2000.
  
   
• 9. 

  Austria, EUR 1.5 billion, 300 priority sites ; Flandres, EUR 6.9 billion, total clean-up costs; Denmark, EUR 1.1 billion, total clean-up costs; Finland, EUR 0.9 billion, total clean-up costs; Ger./Bav, EUR 2.5 billion, total clean-up costs; Ger/SaA EUR 1.6-2.6 billion, large scale clean-ups; Ger/SchH EUR 0.1 billion, 26 priority sites; Ger/Thür EUR 0.2 billion, 3 large scale projects; Italy, EUR 0.5 billion, 1250 priority sites; Spain, EUR 0.8 billion, partial clean-up; Sweden, EUR3.5 billion, total clean-up costs; UK, EUR 13-39 billion, 10000 ha contaminated land (from Management of contaminated sites in Western Europe, EEA, June 2000).
  
   
• 10. 

  It is to be noted that the proposed regime being prospective only, cost associated with the clean-up of these sites will not fall under this proposal since these sites have been contaminated before the adoption of this proposal.
  
   
• 11. 

  Portugal and Greece are amongst the countries without specific legislation on contaminated sites.
  
   
• 12. 

  Sites where the responsible parties cannot be found or are insolvent.
  
   
• 13. 

  Were national competent authorities required to clean-up orphan sites, they would be encouraged to ensure that workable financial assurance mechanisms be put in place. Thus the mandate not only ensures clean-up but it also encourages the setting up of funding mechanisms consistent with the polluter pays principle.
  
   
• 14. 

  The absence of signs of such behaviour in the US (see the study on the Preventive Effect of Environmental Liability done in the context of the economic assessment of the draft proposal) can conceivably be explained by the existence in the U.S. of a harmonising federal law which, while allowing the states ample freedom to tackle local problems, also ensures the different States' approaches do not undermine or weaken each other.
  
   
• 15. 

  Council Directive Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7) and Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1).
  
   
• 16. 

  Although we did not attempt to perform a quantified cost-benefit test given that the proposal does not impose significant additional aggregate costs, there are reasons to believe that the benefits of cleaning up contamined land are quite significant. A recent assessment of the benefits of cleaning up the stock of contamined land in the Netherlands (see Howarth et al: Valuing the Benefits of Environmental Policy, the Netherlands, RIVM report 481505 024, March 2001) puts their annual value at between EUR 3.4 billion (2000 prices) and EUR 842 million. These estimates only measure owner benefits reflected in the change of land value and thus only capture some social benefits. This suggests that the estimates are a conservative value of the benefits of clean-up. For reference, the financial expenditures estimated for the present proposal for the whole of the EC (base case) are in the order of EUR 1.5 billion.
  
   
• 17. 

  Details on the coverage being offered can even be found on the internet. For example, a well-known insurer active in the European market lists online the characteristics of its Environmental Impairment Liability offering, including its prices ("minimum for a USD 1,000,000 limit is USD 5,000").
  
   
• 18. 

  The depth and immense variety of the products offered by insurers specialised in environmental risks suggests that the market supply of insurance products quickly follows, and even anticipates, regulatory requirements in this field.
  
   
• 19. 

  Except, of course, for cases where the occurrence and timing of the contamination and associated liabilities are known in advance with certainty, as always with insurance products.
  
   
• 20. 

  U.S. law even requires financial assurance of part of the liabilities for natural resource damage. Our study shows that the private insurance market responded quickly to the introduction of the regulatory requirements with the supply of novel insurance products. Thus the regulatory requirements were successfully implemented and enforced.
  
   
• 21. 

  Though the limits are generally set for releases of hazardous substances or incidents involving a release. In practice, contamination and damages are often caused by more than one release which makes the U.S. liability limits less significant for individual operators than what it might appear to be the case.
  
   
• 22. 

  33 U.S.C. 40.
  
   
• 23. 

  42 U.S.C. 103. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) has been in operation for more than 20 years and there is a relative abundance of cost data on its implementation.
  
   
• 24. 

  Our model also includes cost data on the U.S. States' liability programmes based on CERCLA. For a comprehensive analysis of CERCLA see
  
   
• 25. 

  See footnote 24 below.
  
   
• 26. 

  When the responsible parties cannot be identified or are insolvent, the cost of clean-up was initially covered by funds raised from a trust fund created from excise taxes on petroleum and specified chemical feedstocks and a corporate environmental income tax (since 1996 the Fund has been fed only by general government revenues as the taxes were discontinued). It is this trust fund that explains why CERCLA is also know as 'Superfund'.
  
   
• 27. 

  Essentially derived from Footing the Bill for Superfund Clean-ups, Katherine Probst et al, Resources for the Future, 1995. RFF has also published a more recent study (July 2001) on the future of Superfund cost by Katherine Probst et al, Superfund's Future, What Will It
   
• 28. 

  A very high proportion of Superfund's costs is indeed associated with wastes deposited before its entry into force. There is little reason to believe that this would change materially in the near future in spite of the intuitive attraction of the assumption that the share of the expenditures associated with new sites is likely to increase significantly soon. This is explained by the way contaminated sites are discovered and (some of them) eventually included in Superfund. Katherine Probst et al put it this way in their 2001 book Superfund's Future: What Will It Cost: "Information pertaining to contaminated sites is incomplete and inconclusive for a number of reasons. In part, it is not in the interests of property owners to disclose information about site contamination to regulators; such information could reduce the value of their property and make them liable for clean-up costs. Nor is it in the interest of most federal or State program managers to help create a comprehensive and public list of contaminated sites if they do not have adequate resources to address them". This suggests that not only is the process of discovery of new contamination slow but also that, with roughly constant public funding for Superfund, many identified sites remain unlisted for clean-up for a long time. This overall picture appears to be corroborated by information provided in a General Accounting Office Report of November 1998, Hazardous Waste: Unaddressed Risks at Many Potential Superfund Sites, i.e. that at that time 85% of the sites potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Priorities List (Superfund) had already been discovered before 1990. 42% had been discovered before 1985. The same report considers that, as of October 1997, 1789 already identified sites were potentially eligible for placement on Superfund. RFF estimates that from 2001 through 2009 each year 23 to 49 sites will be added to Superfund. If we take the mid-point of this range (36) and assume that all the 1789 sites would eventually be placed on Superfund it would take almost 50 years just to clear this potential, already identified backlog.
  
   
• 29. 

  Except in the case of pesticides. However, much of the associated damage may well qualify as diffuse damage which is not covered by this proposal.
  
   
• 30. 

  The U.S. Department of the Interior has recently proposed changing Superfund's approach. Superfund's newly proposed valuation approach is more in line with the Commission's proposal and less controversial.
  
   
• 31. 

  For example, the existing Member States laws do not impose on public authorities a generalised obligation to clean-up and restore even when no liable party can be found or is able to pay. The proposal also covers environmental damage in a much more systematic way than existing national approaches
  
   
• 32. 

  Except for operators who can prove the part of the damage that they are responsible for. These operators can only be held liable for the costs associated with that part of the damage.
  
   
• 33. 

  All else is, however, rarely the same and the costs associated with environmental protection policies are often irrelevant in comparison with other cost differentials (e.g. labor costs, infra-structure availability).
  
   
• 34. 

  Chemicals, mining, primary metals, lumber and wood products, fabricated metal products excluding machinery and petroleum refinery.
  
   
• 35. 

  Profits data for 1991 and 1992.
  
   
• 36. 

  See Council Press Release No 486 of 18.12.2000 (Document No.: 14668/00).
  
   
• 37. 

  COM(2000) 66 final. The White Paper has elicited numerous comments from Member States and a wide range of interested parties alike (Summaries of those comments can be found at the following site: europa.eu.int/comm/environment/wel/main/index.cfm). The White Paper was also the subject of Opinions from the Economic and Social Committee (Opinion of 12 July 2000 (OJ C 268, 19.9.2000, p. 19) and the Committee of the Regions (Opinion of 14 June 2000 (OJ C 317, 6.11.2000, p. 28). The European Parliament has not adopted an official position on the White Paper but the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted on 12 September 2000 an Opinion for the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market on the White Paper on Environmental Liability (doc. PE 290.139). The Environment Council has also debated the issue of environmental liability in April and December 2000 (See Council Press Release No 486 of 18.12.2000) (Document No.: 14668/00).
  
   
• 38. 

  The integral text of the submissions received (in principle in their original language), for which no request for confidentiality has been made, can be found at the following site: europa.eu.int/comm/environment/liability/followup.
  
   
• 39. 

  See the study dedicated to review recent developments in environmental liability law in the Member States and on environmental liability in some OECD countries (europa.eu.int/comm/environment/liability), which highlights that, in most countries, contaminated sites and, where it exists, damage to biodiversity have up to now been mainly matters for public/administrative law, while harm to persons and property is subject to private, civil law adjudication. The Commission is of the opinion that it might be difficult to provide for a common legal framework both for civil and public/administrative liability. This reason also explains why the proposal does not cover traditional damage.
  
   
• 40. 

  There is one sectoral instrument that has been signed but is not in force yet: the 1999 Basle Protocol on Liability and Compensation for Damage resulting from Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. There are several other ongoing or future initiatives: a potential joint liability instrument under the 1992 Helsinki Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents (TEIA Convention) and 1992 Helsinki Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Water Protection Convention) and (a) possible (in the medium term) liability instrument(s) under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. For the sake of completeness, reference can be made to the only existing horizontal international environmental liability regime, which is the 1993 Lugano Convention on Civil Liability for Damage resulting from Activities dangerous to the Environment. This Convention is, however, not yet in force and there is no likelihood that the Community would adhere to it in the near future.
  
   
• 41. 

  It is to be noted that similar questions are raised within the context of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (see the Note by the Executive Secretary on 'Liability and redress for damage resulting from the transboundary movements of living modified organisms. Review of existing relevant instruments and identification of elements'
   
• 42. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 43. 

  See COM(2000) 802 final of 6.12.2000.
  
   
• 44. 

  See Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26) and Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ L 10, 14.1.1997, p. 13).
  
   
• 45. 

  OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1.
  
   
• 46. 

  OJ L 210, 7.8.1985, p. 29. Directive amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999 (OJ L 141, 4.6.1999, p. 20).
  
   
• 47. 

  Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety (OJ L 228, 11.8.1992, p. 24).
  
   
• 48. 

  That is the prevention effect attached to liability from an economic viewpoint (see section 2 above).
  
   
• 49. 

  One can also refer to the heavy pollution of the Rhine river caused by a fire at the Basle Sandoz plant in 1986 and the collapse of a waste retention dam of the Aznalcollar mining complex, on 25 April 1998, in Spain, which has lead to a flow of toxic waters and mud towards the Doñana National Park. Oil spills caused by tankers wrecks are also numerous from the Torrey Canyon and Amoco Cadiz cases in 1967 and 1978 respectively to the Erika wreck in 1999.
  
   
• 50. 

  COM(2000) 66 final.
  
   
• 51. 

  See Council Press Release No 486 of 18.12.2000 (Document No.: 14668/00).
  
   
• 52. 

  Summaries of those comments can be found at the following site: europa.eu.int/comm/environment/wel/main/index.cfm.
  
   
• 53. 

  Opinion of 12 July 2000 (OJ C 268, 19.9.2000, p. 19).
  
   
• 54. 

  Opinion of 14 June 2000 (OJ C 317, 6.11.2000, p. 28).
  
   
• 55. 

  The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted on 12 September 2000 an Opinion for the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market on the White Paper on Environmental Liability (PE 290.139).
  
   
• 56. 

  See Council Press Release No 486 of 18.12.2000 (Document No.: 14668/00).
  
   
• 57. 

  See Article 3(8) of the Common position adopted by the Council on 17 September 2001 with a view to the adoption of a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme.
  
   
• 58. 

  The integral text of the submissions received (in principle in their original language), for which no request for confidentiality has been made, can be found at the following site: europa.eu.int/comm/environment/liability/followup.
  
   
• 59. 

  Article 6 of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances as amended by Council Directive 92/32/EEC of 30 April 1992.
  
   
• 60. 

  That is until such time where the chemicals concerned have been introduced into Annex I to Council Directive 67/548/EEC as amended.
  
   
• 61. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 62. 

  OJ C
   
• 63. 

  OJ C
   
• 64. 

  OJ C
   
• 65. 

  OJ C
   
• 66. 

  One can also refer to the heavy pollution of the Rhine river caused by a fire at the Basle Sandoz plant in 1986 and the collapse of a waste retention dam of the Aznalcollar mining complex, on 25 April 1998, in Spain, which has lead to a flow of toxic waters and mud towards the Doñana National Park. Oil spills caused by tankers wrecks are also numerous from the Torrey Canyon and Amoco Cadiz cases in 1967 and 1978 respectively to the Erika wreck in 1999.
  
   
• 67. 

  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 97/49/EC (OJ L 223, 13.8.1997, p. 9).
  
   
• 68. 

  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. Directive amended by Directive 97/62/EC (OJ L 305, 8.11.1997, p. 42).
  
   
• 69. 

  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.
  
   
• 70. 

  OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1.
  
   
• 71. 

  Austria, EUR 1.5 billion, 300 priority sites ; Flandres, EUR 6.9 billion, total clean-up costs; Denmark, EUR 1.1 billion, total clean-up costs; Finland, EUR 0.9 billion, total clean-up costs; Ger./Bav, EUR 2.5 billion, total clean-up costs; Ger/SaA EUR 1.6-2.6 billion, large scale clean-ups; Ger/SchH EUR 0.1 billion, 26 priority sites; Ger/Thür EUR 0.2 billion, 3 large scale projects; Italy, EUR 0.5 billion, 1250 priority sites; Spain, EUR 0.8 billion, partial clean-up; Sweden, EUR3.5 billion, total clean-up costs; UK, EUR 13-39 billion, 10000 ha contaminated land (from Management of contaminated sites in Western Europe, EEA, June 2000).
  
   
• 72. 

  See Article 174(2) of the EC Treaty.
  
   
• 73. 

  COM(2001) 264 final of 15 May 2001, p. 13 :
   
• 74. 

  See Article 174(2) of the EC Treaty.
  
   
• 75. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 76. 

  One can also refer to the heavy pollution of the Rhine river caused by a fire at the Basle Sandoz plant in 1986 and the collapse of a waste retention dam of the Aznalcollar mining complex, on 25 April 1998, in Spain, which has lead to a flow of toxic waters and mud towards the Doñana National Park. Oil spills caused by tankers wrecks are also numerous from the Torrey Canyon and Amoco Cadiz cases in 1967 and 1978 respectively to the Erika wreck in 1999.
  
   
• 77. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 78. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 79. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 80. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 81. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 82. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 83. 

  OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.
  
   
• 84. 

  OJ L 188, 16.7.1984, p. 20.
  
   
• 85. 

  OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.
  
   
• 86. 

  OJ L 20, 26.1.1980, p. 43.
  
   
• 87. 

  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.
  
   
• 88. 

  OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39. Directive as last amended by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996 adapting its Annexes IIA and IIB (OJ L 135, 6.6.1996, p. 32).
  
   
• 89. 

  OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20. Directive as amended by Council Directive 94/31/EC of 27 June 1994 (OJ L 168, 2.7.1994, p. 28).
  
   
• 90. 

  OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1.
  
   
• 91. 

  OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 91.
  
   
• 92. 

  OJ 196, 16.8.1967, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2001/59/EC of 6 August 2001 adapting to technical progress for the 28th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ L 225, 21.8.2001, p. 1).
  
   
• 93. 

  OJ L 200, 30.7.1999, p. 1. Commission Directive 2001/60/EC of 7 August 2001 adapting to technical progress Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations (OJ L 226, 22.8.2001, p. 5).
  
   
• 94. 

  OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2001/103/EC of 28 November 2001 (OJ L 313, 30.11.2001, p. 37).
  
   
• 95. 

  OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2001/87/EC of 12 October 2001 (OJ L 276, 19.10.2001, p. 17).
  
   
• 96. 

  OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 7. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2001/7/EC of 29 January 2001 (OJ L 30, 1.2.2001, p. 43).
  
   
• 97. 

  OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 25. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2001/6/EC of 29 January 2001 (OJ L 30, 1.2.2001, p. 42).
  
   
• 98. 

  OJ L 247, 5.10.1993, p. 19. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 98/74/EC of 1 October 1998 (OJ 276, 13.10.1998, p. 7).
  
   
• 99. 

  OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 1. Directive as amended by Council Directive 98/81/EC of 26 October 1998 (OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 13).
  
   
• 100. 

  OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1.
  
   
• 101. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 102. 

  Management of contaminated sites in Western Europe, EEA, June 2000.
  
   
• 103. 

  Austria, EUR 1.5 billion, 300 priority sites; Flandres, EUR 6.9 billion, total clean-up costs; Denmark, EUR 1.1 billion, total clean-up costs; Finland,EUR 0.9 billion, total clean-up costs; Ger./Bav, EUR 2.5 billion, total clean-up costs; Ger/SaA EUR 1.6-2.6 billion, large scale clean-ups; Ger/SchH EUR 0.1 billion, 26 priority sites; Ger/Thür EUR 0.2 billion, 3 large scale projects; Italy, EUR 0.5 billion, 1250 priority sites; Spain, EUR 0.8 billion, partial clean-up; Sweden, EUR 3.5 billion, total clean-up costs; UK, EUR 13-39 billion, 10000 ha contaminated land (from Management of contaminated sites in Western Europe, EEA, June 2000).
  
   
• 104. 

  It is to be noted that the proposed regime being prospective only, cost associated with the clean-up of these sites will not fall under this proposal since these sites have been contaminated before the adoption of this proposal.
  
   
• 105. 

  Portugal and Greece are amongst the countries without specific legislation on contaminated sites.
  
   
• 106. 

  Sites where the responsible parties cannot be found or are insolvent
  
   
• 107. 

  Were national competent authorities required to clean-up orphan sites, they would be encouraged to ensure that workable financial assurance mechanisms be put in place. Thus the mandate not only ensures clean-up but it also encourages the setting up of funding mechanisms consistent with the polluter pays principle.
  
   
• 108. 

  The absence of signs of such behaviour in the US (see the study on the Preventive Effect of Environmental Liability done in the context of the economic assessment of the draft proposal) can conceivably be explained by the existence in the U.S. of a harmonising federal law which, while allowing the states ample freedom to tackle local problems, also ensures the different States' approaches do not undermine or weaken each other.
  
   
• 109. 

  Council Directive Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7) and Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1).
  
   
• 110. 

  COM(2000) 66 final.
  
   
• 111. 

  See Council Press Release No 486 of 18.12.2000 (Document No.: 14668/00).
  
   
• 112. 

  Summaries of those comments can be found at the following site: europa.eu.int/comm/environment/wel/main/index.cfm.
  
   
• 113. 

  Opinion of 12 July 2000 (OJ C 268, 19.9.2000, p. 19).
  
   
• 114. 

  Opinion of 14 June 2000 (OJ C 317, 6.11.2000, p. 28).
  
   
• 115. 

  The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted on 12 September 2000 an Opinion for the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market on the White Paper on Environmental Liability (doc. PE 290.139).
  
   
• 116. 

  See Council Press Release No 486 of 18.12.2000 (Document No.: 14668/00).
  
   
• 117. 

  See Article 3(8) of the Common position adopted by the Council on 17 September 2001 with a view to the adoption of a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme.
  
   
• 118. 

  The integral text of the submissions received (in principle in their original language), for which no request for confidentiality has been made, can be found at the following site: europa.eu.int/comm/environment/liability/followup.
  
   
• 119. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 120. 

  One can also refer to the heavy pollution of the Rhine river caused by a fire at the Basle Sandoz plant in 1986 and the collapse of a waste retention dam of the Aznalcollar mining complex, on 25 April 1998, in Spain, which has lead to a flow of toxic waters and mud towards the Doñana National Park. Oil spills caused by tankers wrecks are also numerous from the Torrey Canyon and Amoco Cadiz cases in 1967 and 1978 respectively to the Erika wreck in 1999.
  
   
• 121. 

  See Article 174(2) of the EC Treaty.
  
   
• 122. 

  COM(2001) 264 final of 15 May 2001, p. 13 : ' Action at EU level : (...) EU legislation on strict environmental liability in place by 2003. '
  
   
• 123. 

  See Article 3(8) of the Common position adopted by the Council on 17 September 2001 with a view to the adoption of a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme.
  
   
• 124. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 125. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 126. 

  Management of contaminated sites in Western Europe, EEA, June 2000.
  
   
• 127. 

  Austria, EUR 1.5 billion, 300 priority sites ; Flandres, EUR 6.9 billion, total clean-up costs; Denmark, EUR 1.1 billion, total clean-up costs; Finland, EUR 0.9 billion, total clean-up costs; Ger./Bav, EUR 2.5 billion, total clean-up costs; Ger/SaA EUR 1.6-2.6 billion, large scale clean-ups; Ger/SchH EUR 0.1 billion, 26 priority sites; Ger/Thür EUR 0.2 billion, 3 large scale projects; Italy, EUR 0.5 billion, 1250 priority sites; Spain, EUR 0.8 billion, partial clean-up; Sweden, EUR3.5 billion, total clean-up costs; UK, EUR 13-39 billion, 10000 ha contaminated land (from Management of contaminated sites in Western Europe, EEA, June 2000).
  
   
• 128. 

  It is to be noted that the proposed regime being prospective only, cost associated with the clean-up of these sites will not fall under this proposal since these sites have been contaminated before the adoption of this proposal.
  
   
• 129. 

  Portugal and Greece are amongst the countries without specific legislation on contaminated sites.
  
   
• 130. 

  Sites where the responsible parties cannot be found or are insolvent.
  
   
• 131. 

  Were national competent authorities required to clean-up orphan sites, they would be encouraged to ensure that workable financial assurance mechanisms be put in place. Thus the mandate not only ensures clean-up but it also encourages the setting up of funding mechanisms consistent with the polluter pays principle.
  
   
• 132. 

  The absence of signs of such behaviour in the US (see the study on the Preventive Effect of Environmental Liability done in the context of the economic assessment of the draft proposal) can conceivably be explained by the existence in the U.S. of a harmonising federal law which, while allowing the states ample freedom to tackle local problems, also ensures the different States' approaches do not undermine or weaken each other.
  
   
• 133. 

  Council Directive Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p.
  
  7) and Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p.
  
  1).
  
   
• 134. 

  Although we did not attempt to perform a quantified cost-benefit test given that the proposal does not impose significant additional aggregate costs, there are reasons to believe that the benefits of cleaning up contamined land are quite significant. A recent assessment of the benefits of cleaning up the stock of contamined land in the Netherlands (see Howarth et al: Valuing the Benefits of Environmental Policy, the Netherlands, RIVM report 481505 024, March 2001) puts their annual value at between EUR 3.4 billion (2000 prices) and EUR 842 million. These estimates only measure owner benefits reflected in the change of land value and thus only capture some social benefits. This suggests that the estimates are a conservative value of the benefits of clean-up. For reference, the financial expenditures estimated for the present proposal for the whole of the EC (base case) are in the order of EUR 1.5 billion.
  
   
• 135. 

  Details on the coverage being offered can even be found on the internet. For example, a well-known insurer active in the European market lists online the characteristics of its Environmental Impairment Liability offering, including its prices ("minimum for a USD 1,000,000 limit is USD 5,000").
  
   
• 136. 

  The depth and immense variety of the products offered by insurers specialised in environmental risks suggests that the market supply of insurance products quickly follows, and even anticipates, regulatory requirements in this field.
  
   
• 137. 

  Except, of course, for cases where the occurrence and timing of the contamination and associated liabilities are known in advance with certainty, as always with insurance products.
  
   
• 138. 

  U.S. law even requires financial assurance of part of the liabilities for natural resource damage. Our study shows that the private insurance market responded quickly to the introduction of the regulatory requirements with the supply of novel insurance products. Thus the regulatory requirements were successfully implemented and enforced.
  
   
• 139. 

  Though the limits are generally set for releases of hazardous substances or incidents involving a release. In practice, contamination and damages are often caused by more than one release which makes the U.S. liability limits less significant for individual operators than what it might appear to be the case.
  
   
• 140. 

  33 U.S.C. 40.
  
   
• 141. 

  42 U.S.C. 103. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) has been in operation for more than 20 years and there is a relative abundance of cost data on its implementation.
  
   
• 142. 

  Our model also includes cost data on the U.S. States' liability programmes based on CERCLA. For a comprehensive analysis of CERCLA see
  
   
• 143. 

  See footnote 24 below.
  
   
• 144. 

  When the responsible parties cannot be identified or are insolvent, the cost of clean-up was initially covered by funds raised from a trust fund created from excise taxes on petroleum and specified chemical feedstocks and a corporate environmental income tax (since 1996 the Fund has been fed only by general government revenues as the taxes were discontinued). It is this trust fund that explains why CERCLA is also know as 'Superfund'.
  
   
• 145. 

  Essentially derived from Footing the Bill for Superfund Clean-ups, Katherine Probst et al, Resources for the Future, 1995. RFF has also published a more recent study (July 2001) on the future of Superfund cost by Katherine Probst et al, Superfund's Future, What Will It
   
• 146. 

  A very high proportion of Superfund's costs is indeed associated with wastes deposited before its entry into force. There is little reason to believe that this would change materially in the near future in spite of the intuitive attraction of the assumption that the share of the expenditures associated with new sites is likely to increase significantly soon. This is explained by the way contaminated sites are discovered and (some of them) eventually included in Superfund. Katherine Probst et al put it this way in their 2001 book Superfund's Future: What Will It Cost: "Information pertaining to contaminated sites is incomplete and inconclusive for a number of reasons. In part, it is not in the interests of property owners to disclose information about site contamination to regulators; such information could reduce the value of their property and make them liable for clean-up costs. Nor is it in the interest of most federal or State program managers to help create a comprehensive and public list of contaminated sites if they do not have adequate resources to address them". This suggests that not only is the process of discovery of new contamination slow but also that, with roughly constant public funding for Superfund, many identified sites remain unlisted for clean-up for a long time. This overall picture appears to be corroborated by information provided in a General Accounting Office Report of November 1998, Hazardous Waste: Unaddressed Risks at Many Potential Superfund Sites, i.e. that at that time 85% of the sites potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Priorities List (Superfund) had already been discovered before 1990. 42% had been discovered before 1985. The same report considers that, as of October 1997, 1789 already identified sites were potentially eligible for placement on Superfund. RFF estimates that from 2001 through 2009 each year 23 to 49 sites will be added to Superfund. If we take the mid-point of this range (36) and assume that all the 1789 sites would eventually be placed on Superfund it would take almost 50 years just to clear this potential, already identified backlog.
  
   
• 147. 

  Except in the case of pesticides. However, much of the associated damage may well qualify as diffuse damage which is not covered by this proposal.
  
   
• 148. 

  The U.S. Department of the Interior has recently proposed changing Superfund's approach. Superfund's newly proposed valuation approach is more in line with the Commission's proposal and less controversial.
  
   
• 149. 

  For example, the existing Member States laws do not impose on public authorities a generalised obligation to clean-up and restore even when no liable party can be found or is able to pay. The proposal also covers environmental damage in a much more systematic way than existing national approaches
  
   
• 150. 

  Except for operators who can prove the part of the damage that they are responsible for. These operators can only be held liable for the costs associated with that part of the damage.
  
   
• 151. 

  All else is, however, rarely the same and the costs associated with environmental protection policies are often irrelevant in comparison with other cost differentials (e.g. labor costs, infra-structure availability).
  
   
• 152. 

  Chemicals, mining, primary metals, lumber and wood products, fabricated metal products excluding machinery and petroleum refinery.
  
   
• 153. 

  Profits data for 1991 and 1992.
  
   
• 154. 

  See Council Press Release No 486 of 18.12.2000 (Document No.: 14668/00).
  
   
• 155. 

  COM(2000) 66 final. The White Paper has elicited numerous comments from Member States and a wide range of interested parties alike (Summaries of those comments can be found at the following site: europa.eu.int/comm/environment/wel/main/index.cfm). The White Paper was also the subject of Opinions from the Economic and Social Committee (Opinion of 12 July 2000 (OJ C 268, 19.9.2000, p. 19) and the Committee of the Regions (Opinion of 14 June 2000 (OJ C 317, 6.11.2000, p. 28). The European Parliament has not adopted an official position on the White Paper but the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted on 12 September 2000 an Opinion for the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market on the White Paper on Environmental Liability (doc. PE 290.139). The Environment Council has also debated the issue of environmental liability in April and December 2000 (See Council Press Release No 486 of 18.12.2000) (Document No.: 14668/00).
  
   
• 156. 

  The integral text of the submissions received (in principle in their original language), for which no request for confidentiality has been made, can be found at the following site: europa.eu.int/comm/environment/liability/followup.
  
   
• 157. 

  See the study dedicated to review recent developments in environmental liability law in the Member States and on environmental liability in some OECD countries (europa.eu.int/comm/environment/liability), which highlights that, in most countries, contaminated sites and, where it exists, damage to biodiversity have up to now been mainly matters for public/administrative law, while harm to persons and property is subject to private, civil law adjudication. The Commission is of the opinion that it might be difficult to provide for a common legal framework both for civil and public/administrative liability. This reason also explains why the proposal does not cover traditional damage.
  
   
• 158. 

  There is one sectoral instrument that has been signed but is not in force yet: the 1999 Basle Protocol on Liability and Compensation for Damage resulting from Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. There are several other ongoing or future initiatives: a potential joint liability instrument under the 1992 Helsinki Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents (TEIA Convention) and 1992 Helsinki Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Water Protection Convention) and (a) possible (in the medium term) liability instrument(s) under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. For the sake of completeness, reference can be made to the only existing horizontal international environmental liability regime, which is the 1993 Lugano Convention on Civil Liability for Damage resulting from Activities dangerous to the Environment. This Convention is, however, not yet in force and there is no likelihood that the Community would adhere to it in the near future.
  
   
• 159. 

  It is to be noted that similar questions are raised within the context of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (see the Note by the Executive Secretary on 'Liability and redress for damage resulting from the transboundary movements of living modified organisms. Review of existing relevant instruments and identification of elements'
   
• 160. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 161. 

  See COM(2000) 802 final of 6.12.2000.
  
   
• 162. 

  See Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26) and Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ L 10, 14.1.1997, p. 13).
  
   
• 163. 

  OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1.
  
   
• 164. 

  OJ L 210, 7.8.1985, p. 29. Directive amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999 (OJ L 141, 4.6.1999, p. 20).
  
   
• 165. 

  Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety (OJ L 228, 11.8.1992, p. 24).
  
   
• 166. 

  That is the prevention effect attached to liability from an economic viewpoint (see section 2 above).
  
   
• 167. 

  One can also refer to the heavy pollution of the Rhine river caused by a fire at the Basle Sandoz plant in 1986 and the collapse of a waste retention dam of the Aznalcollar mining complex, on 25 April 1998, in Spain, which has lead to a flow of toxic waters and mud towards the Doñana National Park. Oil spills caused by tankers wrecks are also numerous from the Torrey Canyon and Amoco Cadiz cases in 1967 and 1978 respectively to the Erika wreck in 1999.
  
   
• 168. 

  COM(2000) 66 final.
  
   
• 169. 

  See Council Press Release No 486 of 18.12.2000 (Document No.: 14668/00).
  
   
• 170. 

  Summaries of those comments can be found at the following site: europa.eu.int/comm/environment/wel/main/index.cfm.
  
   
• 171. 

  Opinion of 12 July 2000 (OJ C 268, 19.9.2000, p. 19).
  
   
• 172. 

  Opinion of 14 June 2000 (OJ C 317, 6.11.2000, p. 28).
  
   
• 173. 

  The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted on 12 September 2000 an Opinion for the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market on the White Paper on Environmental Liability (PE 290.139).
  
   
• 174. 

  See Council Press Release No 486 of 18.12.2000 (Document No.: 14668/00).
  
   
• 175. 

  See Article 3(8) of the Common position adopted by the Council on 17 September 2001 with a view to the adoption of a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme.
  
   
• 176. 

  The integral text of the submissions received (in principle in their original language), for which no request for confidentiality has been made, can be found at the following site: europa.eu.int/comm/environment/liability/followup.
  
   
• 177. 

  Article 6 of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances as amended by Council Directive 92/32/EEC of 30 April 1992.
  
   
• 178. 

  That is until such time where the chemicals concerned have been introduced into Annex I to Council Directive 67/548/EEC as amended.
  
   
• 179. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 180. 

  OJ C
   
• 181. 

  OJ C
   
• 182. 

  OJ C
   
• 183. 

  OJ C
   
• 184. 

  One can also refer to the heavy pollution of the Rhine river caused by a fire at the Basle Sandoz plant in 1986 and the collapse of a waste retention dam of the Aznalcollar mining complex, on 25 April 1998, in Spain, which has lead to a flow of toxic waters and mud towards the Doñana National Park. Oil spills caused by tankers wrecks are also numerous from the Torrey Canyon and Amoco Cadiz cases in 1967 and 1978 respectively to the Erika wreck in 1999.
  
   
• 185. 

  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 97/49/EC (OJ L 223, 13.8.1997, p.
  
  9).
  
   
• 186. 

  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. Directive amended by Directive 97/62/EC (OJ L 305, 8.11.1997, p. 42).
  
   
• 187. 

  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.
  
   
• 188. 

  OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1.
  
   
• 189. 

  Austria, EUR 1.5 billion, 300 priority sites ; Flandres, EUR 6.9 billion, total clean-up costs; Denmark, EUR 1.1 billion, total clean-up costs; Finland, EUR 0.9 billion, total clean-up costs; Ger./Bav, EUR 2.5 billion, total clean-up costs; Ger/SaA EUR 1.6-2.6 billion, large scale clean-ups; Ger/SchH EUR 0.1 billion, 26 priority sites; Ger/Thür EUR 0.2 billion, 3 large scale projects; Italy, EUR 0.5 billion, 1250 priority sites; Spain, EUR 0.8 billion, partial clean-up; Sweden, EUR3.5 billion, total clean-up costs; UK, EUR 13-39 billion, 10000 ha contaminated land (from Management of contaminated sites in Western Europe, EEA, June 2000).
  
   
• 190. 

  See Article 174(2) of the EC Treaty.
  
   
• 191. 

  COM(2001) 264 final of 15 May 2001, p. 13 : ' Action at EU level : (...) EU legislation on strict environmental liability in place by 2003. '
  
   
• 192. 

  See Article 174(2) of the EC Treaty.
  
   
• 193. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 194. 

  One can also refer to the heavy pollution of the Rhine river caused by a fire at the Basle Sandoz plant in 1986 and the collapse of a waste retention dam of the Aznalcollar mining complex, on 25 April 1998, in Spain, which has lead to a flow of toxic waters and mud towards the Doñana National Park. Oil spills caused by tankers wrecks are also numerous from the Torrey Canyon and Amoco Cadiz cases in 1967 and 1978 respectively to the Erika wreck in 1999.
  
   
• 195. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 196. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 197. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 198. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 199. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 200. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 201. 

  OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.
  
   
• 202. 

  OJ L 188, 16.7.1984, p. 20.
  
   
• 203. 

  OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.
  
   
• 204. 

  OJ L 20, 26.1.1980, p. 43.
  
   
• 205. 

  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.
  
   
• 206. 

  OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39. Directive as last amended by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996 adapting its Annexes IIA and IIB (OJ L 135, 6.6.1996, p. 32).
  
   
• 207. 

  OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20. Directive as amended by Council Directive 94/31/EC of 27 June 1994 (OJ L 168, 2.7.1994, p. 28).
  
   
• 208. 

  OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1.
  
   
• 209. 

  OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 91.
  
   
• 210. 

  OJ 196, 16.8.1967, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2001/59/EC of 6 August 2001 adapting to technical progress for the 28th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ L 225, 21.8.2001, p.
  
  1).
  
   
• 211. 

  OJ L 200, 30.7.1999, p. 1. Commission Directive 2001/60/EC of 7 August 2001 adapting to technical progress Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations (OJ L 226, 22.8.2001, p.
  
  5).
  
   
• 212. 

  OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2001/103/EC of 28 November 2001 (OJ L 313, 30.11.2001, p. 37).
  
   
• 213. 

  OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2001/87/EC of 12 October 2001 (OJ L 276, 19.10.2001, p. 17).
  
   
• 214. 

  OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 7. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2001/7/EC of 29 January 2001 (OJ L 30, 1.2.2001, p. 43).
  
   
• 215. 

  OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 25. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2001/6/EC of 29 January 2001 (OJ L 30, 1.2.2001, p. 42).
  
   
• 216. 

  OJ L 247, 5.10.1993, p. 19. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 98/74/EC of 1 October 1998 (OJ 276, 13.10.1998, p.
  
  7).
  
   
• 217. 

  OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 1. Directive as amended by Council Directive 98/81/EC of 26 October 1998 (OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 13).
  
   
• 218. 

  OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1.
  
   
• 219. 

  See the Report of the International task Force for Assessing the Baia Mare Accident (December 2000).
  
   
• 220. 

  Management of contaminated sites in Western Europe, EEA, June 2000.
  
   
• 221. 

  Austria, EUR 1.5 billion, 300 priority sites; Flandres, EUR 6.9 billion, total clean-up costs; Denmark, EUR 1.1 billion, total clean-up costs; Finland,EUR 0.9 billion, total clean-up costs; Ger./Bav, EUR 2.5 billion, total clean-up costs; Ger/SaA EUR 1.6-2.6 billion, large scale clean-ups; Ger/SchH EUR 0.1 billion, 26 priority sites; Ger/Thür EUR 0.2 billion, 3 large scale projects; Italy, EUR 0.5 billion, 1250 priority sites; Spain, EUR 0.8 billion, partial clean-up; Sweden, EUR 3.5 billion, total clean-up costs; UK, EUR 13-39 billion, 10000 ha contaminated land (from Management of contaminated sites in Western Europe, EEA, June 2000).
  
   
• 222. 

  It is to be noted that the proposed regime being prospective only, cost associated with the clean-up of these sites will not fall under this proposal since these sites have been contaminated before the adoption of this proposal.
  
   
• 223. 

  Portugal and Greece are amongst the countries without specific legislation on contaminated sites.
  
   
• 224. 

  Sites where the responsible parties cannot be found or are insolvent
  
   
• 225. 

  Were national competent authorities required to clean-up orphan sites, they would be encouraged to ensure that workable financial assurance mechanisms be put in place. Thus the mandate not only ensures clean-up but it also encourages the setting up of funding mechanisms consistent with the polluter pays principle.
  
   
• 226. 

  The absence of signs of such behaviour in the US (see the study on the Preventive Effect of Environmental Liability done in the context of the economic assessment of the draft proposal) can conceivably be explained by the existence in the U.S. of a harmonising federal law which, while allowing the states ample freedom to tackle local problems, also ensures the different States' approaches do not undermine or weaken each other.
  
   
• 227. 

  Council Directive Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p.
  
  7) and Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p.
  
  1).
  
   
• 228. 

  COM(2000) 66 final.
  
   
• 229. 

  See Council Press Release No 486 of 18.12.2000 (Document No.: 14668/00).
  
   
• 230. 

  Summaries of those comments can be found at the following site: europa.eu.int/comm/environment/wel/main/index.cfm.
  
   
• 231. 

  Opinion of 12 July 2000 (OJ C 268, 19.9.2000, p. 19).
  
   
• 232. 

  Opinion of 14 June 2000 (OJ C 317, 6.11.2000, p. 28).
  
   
• 233. 

  The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted on 12 September 2000 an Opinion for the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market on the White Paper on Environmental Liability (doc. PE 290.139).
  
   
• 234. 

  See Council Press Release No 486 of 18.12.2000 (Document No.: 14668/00).
  
   
• 235. 

  See Article 3(8) of the Common position adopted by the Council on 17 September 2001 with a view to the adoption of a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme.
  
   
• 236. 

  The integral text of the submissions received (in principle in their original language), for which no request for confidentiality has been made, can be found at the following site: europa.eu.int/comm/environment/liability/followup.
  
   
• 237. 

  Deze databank van de Europese Unie biedt de mogelijkheid de actuele werkzaamheden (workflow) van de Europese instellingen (Europees Parlement, Raad, ESC, Comité van de Regio's, Europese Centrale Bank, Hof van Justitie enz.) te volgen. EURlex volgt alle voorstellen (zoals wetgevende en begrotingsdossiers) en mededelingen van de Commissie, vanaf het moment dat ze aan de Raad of het Europees Parlement worden voorgelegd.
   
• 238. 

  EUR-lex provides an overview of the proposal, amendments, citations and legality.