DOCSLIB.ORG

Application of the Polluter Pays and the Producer Responsibility Principle in Other Areas of EU Environmental

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Application of the Polluter Pays and the Producer Responsibility Principle in Other Areas of EU Environmental 1 Slide 2 Liability On 12 December 1999 the oil tanker Erika, flying the Maltese flag and chartered by Total International Ltd, sank about 35 nautical miles south-west of the Pointe de Penmarc’h (Finistère, France), spilling part of her cargo and oil from her bunkers at sea and causing pollution of the Atlantic coast of France. On 9 June 2000 the Commune de Mesquer brought proceedings against the Total companies in the Tribunal de commerce de Saint-Nazaire (Commercial Court, Saint- Nazaire), seeking inter alia a ruling that the companies should be liable for the consequences of the damage caused by the waste spread on the territory of the municipality and be ordered jointly and severally to pay the costs (some 70,000 €) incurred by the municipality for cleaning and anti-pollution measures. The Cour d’appel de Rennes accepted that the heavy fuel oil thus spilled and mixed with water and sand formed waste, but nevertheless considered that there was no provision under which the Total companies could be held liable, since they could not be regarded as producers or holders of that waste. The municipality appealed on a point of law to the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) which asked the following questions top the ECJ: Can the producer of the heavy fuel oil (Total raffinage [distribution]) and/or the seller and carrier (Total International Ltd) be regarded as the producer and/or holder of waste within the meaning of Article 1(b) and (c) of [Directive 2006/12] and for the purposes of applying Article 15 of that directive, even though at the time of the accident which transformed it into waste the product was being transported by a third party?’ Article 15 Waste Framework Directive regulates the polluter-pays principle. 2 Slide 3 ECJ answer on Erika case (liability) The application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle within the meaning of the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 174(2) EC and Article 15 of Directive 75/442 would be frustrated if such persons involved in causing waste escaped their financial obligations as provided for by that directive. The directive does not rule out the possibility that, in certain cases, the cost of disposing of waste is to be borne by one or more previous holders. If it happens that the cost of disposal of the waste produced by an accidental spillage of hydrocarbons at sea is not borne by a liability fund (here: international Liability Convention and the Fund Convention), or cannot be borne because the ceiling for compensation for that accident has been reached, and that, in accordance with the limitations and/or exemptions of liability laid down, the national law of a Member State, including the law derived from international agreements, prevents that cost from being borne by the shipowner and/or the charterer, even though they are to be regarded as ‘holders’ within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Directive 75/442, such a national law will then, in order to ensure that Article 15 of that directive is correctly transposed, have to make provision for that cost to be borne by the producer of the product from which the waste thus spread came. In accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, however, such a producer cannot be liable to bear that cost unless he has contributed by his conduct to the risk that the pollution caused by the shipwreck will occur. For the purposes of applying Article 15 of Directive 75/442, as amended by Decision 96/350, to the accidental spillage of hydrocarbons at sea causing pollution of the coastline of a MS: the national court may regard the seller of those hydrocarbons and charterer of the ship carrying them as a producer of that waste within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Directive 75/442, as amended by Decision 96/350, and thereby as a ‘previous holder’ for the purposes of applying the first part of the second indent of Article 15 of that directive, if that court, in the light of the elements which it alone is in a position to assess, reaches the conclusion that that seller-charterer contributed to the risk that the pollution caused by the shipwreck would occur, in particular if he failed to take measures to prevent such an incident, such as measures concerning the choice of ship; The polluter-pays principle is now regulated with a slightly different text in Article 14 Directive 2008/98/EC. 3 Slide 4 ECJ on Erika case (liability) answer part 2 If it happens that the cost of disposing of the waste produced by an accidental spillage of hydrocarbons at sea is not borne by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, or cannot be borne because the ceiling for compensation for that accident has been reached, and that, in accordance with the limitations and/or exemptions of liability laid down, the national law of a Member State, including the law derived from international agreements, prevents that cost from being borne by the shipowner and/or the charterer, even though they are to be regarded as ‘holders’ within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Directive 75/442, as amended by Decision 96/350, such a national law will then, in order to ensure that Article 15 of that directive is correctly transposed, have to make provision for that cost to be borne by the producer of the product from which the waste thus spread came. In accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, however, such a producer cannot be liable to bear that cost unless he has contributed by his conduct to the risk that the pollution caused by the shipwreck will occur. 4 Slide 5 Article 5 Nitrates Directive 1. Within a two-year period following the initial designation referred to in Article 3 (2) or within one year of each additional designation referred to in Article 3 (4), Member States shall, for the purpose of realizing the objectives specified in Article 1, establish action programmes in respect of designated vulnerable zones. 2. An action programme may relate to all vulnerable zones in the territory of a Member State or, where the Member State considers it appropriate, different programmes may be established for different vulnerable zones or parts of zones. 3. Action programmes shall take into account: (a) available scientific and technical data, mainly with reference to respective nitrogen contributions originating from agricultural and other sources; (b) environmental conditions in the relevant regions of the MS concerned. 4. Action programmes shall be implemented within four years of their establishment and shall consist of the following mandatory measures: (a) the measures in Annex III; Set of Measures are set in Annex III 5 Slide 6 (Standley Case, ECJ in paragraphs 46 – 53) So far as concerns the principle of proportionality, it should be observed first that under Article 5(3) of the Directive, the action programmes applicable to vulnerable zones are to take account of available scientific and technical data with reference to the respective nitrogen quantities originating from agricultural and other sources and of environmental conditions in the relevant regions. Next, the mandatory measures adopted under those programmes must take into account the characteristics of the vulnerable zone concerned (paragraph 1(3) of Annex III) and the Member States may fix amounts of livestock manure which maybe spread in the vulnerable zones that differ from those specified if they are justified on the basis of objective criteria and do not prejudice the attainment of the Directive's objectives (paragraph 2(b) of Annex III). Also, the MS are required to draw up and implement suitable monitoring programmes to assess the effectiveness of the action programmes (Article 5(6) of the Directive) and they are to review and, if necessary, revise their action programmes at least every four years (Article 5(7)). They can thus take account of changes of circumstance in relation to pollution from both agricultural and other sources. Finally, the codes of good agricultural practice adopted by the MS under Article 4(1)(a) of the Directive are to take account of conditions in the different regions of the Community (paragraph A of Annex II). It follows that the Directive contains flexible provisions enabling the MS to observe the principle of proportionality in the application of the measures which they adopt. It is for the national courts to ensure that that principle is observed. As regards the polluter pays principle, suffice it to state that the Directive does not mean that farmers must take on burdens for the elimination of pollution to which they have not contributed. As has been pointed out above, the MS are to take account of the other sources of pollution when implementing the Directive and, having regard to the circumstances, are not to impose on farmers costs of eliminating pollution that are unnecessary. Viewed in that light, the polluter pays principle reflects the principle of proportionality on which the Court has already expressed its view. The same applies to breach of the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source, since the arguments of the applicants in the main proceedings are indissociable from their arguments relating to breach of the principle of proportionality. 6 Slide 7 as regards WFD: The polluter pays principle says that industries, businesses and agriculture must pay for the cost of water supplies and also for any waste water treatment of the run-off from their plants, premises or farms. All such costs associated with maintaining water quality are to be built into users’ water charges.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lesson D3 ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS in WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
    EMW ATER E -LEARNING COURSE PROJECT FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION LESSON D 3: ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS IN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT Lesson D3 ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS IN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT Author: Annika Kramer and Julika Post Adelphi Reseach Berlin Revised by Dr. Yavuz Özoguz data-quest Suchi & Berg GmbH Keywords Cost Recovery, Demand Side Management, Polluter Pays Principle, Pollution Charges, Subsidies, Tariff Systems, Water Pricing Table of content EMW ATER E -LEARNING COURSE PROJECT FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION LESSON D 3: ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS IN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY .......................................................................................4 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................4 2. ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS IN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT..........................5 2.1 Objectives..........................................................................................................5 2.1.1 Raise revenues and recover costs....................................................................5 2.1.2 Set incentives for water conservation and pollution prevention ........................5 2.1.3 Awareness raising and economic efficiency .....................................................5 2.2 Mechanisms ......................................................................................................6 3. POLLUTION CHARGES ...........................................................................................7 3.1 Pollution Charges
    [Show full text]
  • The Polluter Pays Principle: Guidelines for Cost Recovery and Burden Sharing in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice
    This article is published in a peer-reviewed section of the Utrecht Law Review The Polluter Pays Principle: Guidelines for Cost Recovery and Burden Sharing in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice Petra E. Lindhout Berthy van den Broek* 1. Introduction On the occasion of the launch of the Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law we would like to use this opportunity to contribute to the development of a normative framework for sustainable water management. We regard the polluter pays principle as an important foundation underlying such a normative framework. The core of the principle that ‘the polluter should pay’ is easy to understand: polluters are responsible for the pollution they have caused. Therefore, polluters should bear the cost of measures aimed at preventing and reducing pollution.1 Over the years, the polluter pays principle has developed into a basis for EU environmental policy.2 Nowadays, the polluter pays principle is referred to in many provisions of EU directives concerning cost recovery, liability or the obligation to take compensatory measures in cases of environmental damage. These provisions are meant to be an incentive for the polluter to prevent or reduce pollution. However, in practice, problems arise in the application of the polluter pays principle.3 One of the current issues is the definition of ‘pollution’ or ‘polluter’. It is generally recognized that negative environmental impacts of the use of our resources consist of both pollution and depletion of natural resources.4 Therefore, sustainable water management should not only concern the prevention and remediation of pollution caused by emissions of pollutants, but also encourage a prudent use of scarce water resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Polluter-Pays Principle and the Regulation of Environmental Pollution in Nigeria: Major Challenges
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE): E-Journals Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3240 (Paper) ISSN 2224-3259 (Online) Vol.70, 2018 Polluter-Pays Principle and the Regulation of Environmental Pollution in Nigeria: Major Challenges Jude O. Ezeanokwasa 1 Department of International Law and Jurisprudence, Faculty of Law, Nnamdi Azikiwe Universty, Awka, Anambra State, Nigeria Abstract Recognizing the internationally acclaimed efficiency of the Polluter-Pays principle (PPP) in achieving environmental protection and improvement, Nigeria adopted it as one of its principles in achieving environmental protection. The principle holds polluters responsible for the environmental degradation and pollution caused by them by getting them pay for them (pollution). To achieve the desired goal the PPP is embodied in major environmental regulations statutes, instruments and institutions in Nigeria such as the 1999 National Policy on Environment, as revised in 2016, National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) (Establishment) Act, National Oil Spill Detection and Response (NOSDRA) (Establishment) Act, Environmental Guidelines and Standards for the Petroleum Industry in Nigeria (EGASPIN), and Mining and Minerals Act 2007. Despite the length of time that has passed from the time Nigeria adopted PPP as a key driving principle of its policy on environment, environment pollution and degradation have not abetted. They are rather on the increase as can be attested by the mountains of solid wastes littering our cities and pollution-related restiveness in the Niger Delta. This led this paper to critically inquire into the efficacy of the PPP in Nigeria.
    [Show full text]
  • Polluter Pays Principle As the Key Element to Environmental Law
    International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 11, Issue 3, March 2021 274 ISSN 2250-3153 Polluter Pays Principle As The Key Element To Environmental Law Ashmita Barthakur DOI: 10.29322/IJSRP.11.03.2021.p11137 http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.11.03.2021.p11137 Abstract- Environmental law is one amongst the rapidest be paid polluter and not by the authorities.1 This principle is developing facets of law. It is generally agreed upon that those taken into account to be the foremost adequate environmental that cause harm or damage should be paying in a method or strategy and has been constituted in numerous international and another for such harm. Such harm may be to the society or to our regional agreements regarding pollution. This conception of surroundings or to our body at an intimate level. Due to lack of Polluter pays has been breathing even prior to the Organization sanctions in environmental law, it became very difficult to keep for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) approved an eye on the hazardous activities. This required the initiation of it as a recognized percept of environmental law. Nevertheless, a penalty to punish the folks that caused damage or harm to the the devil lies in comprehending the concept, pros and cons and environment. This gave ascent to what we all know today as the challenges of the Polluter Pays Principle. Hence, this research ‘Polluter Pays Principle’. This principle implies that the value of paper will endeavour at clearing the air concerning five concepts pollution should be paid polluter and not by the authorities.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Instruments for Environmental Management and Sustainable Development
    ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (UNEP) Environment and Economics Unit (EEU) ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT by Theodore Panayotou International Environment Program Harvard Institute for International Development Harvard University December, 1994 Prepared for the United Nations Environment Programme's Consultative Expert Group Meeting on the Use and Application of Economic Policy Instruments for Environmental Management and Sustainable Development, Nairobi, February 23-24, 1995 Environmental Economics Series Paper No. 16 The views and interpretation reflected in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect an expression of opinion on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme Preface and Acknowledgements The plea for a sustainable development path and the need to cope with transboundary and global pollution issues requires the development of new and effective policies in which economic instruments have an important role to play. The importance of economic instruments for environmental policy is emphasized in both the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21, where it was stressed that the use of economic instruments represents a tool for national authorities to promote the internalization of environmental costs and to apply the polluter-pays principle in the most efficient manner. They provide a means of enhancing the capacity of governments to deal with environmental and development issues in a cost effective manner, promoting technological innovation, influencing consumption and production patterns, as well as providing an important source of funding. This volume presents a comprehensive state-of-the-art on economic instruments for environmental management and sustainable development and reviews the experience of developed countries and its relevance to developing countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Report 12/2021: the Polluter Pays Principle: Inconsistent
    EN 2021 121 Special Report The Polluter Pays Principle: Inconsistent application across EU environmental policies and actions 2 Contents Paragraph Executive summary I-V Introduction 01-14 The origins of the Polluter Pays Principle 03-05 The PPP in the EU 06-14 Policy framework 06-09 EU funding 10-14 Audit scope and approach 15-18 Observations 19-68 The PPP underlies EU environmental legislation 19-41 The PPP applies to the most polluting installations but the cost of residual pollution to society remains high 20-25 Waste legislation reflects the PPP, but does not ensure polluters cover the full cost of pollution 26-31 Polluters do not bear the full costs of water pollution 32-38 No overall EU legislative framework to protect against soil pollution 39-41 The Commission’s action plan to improve the operation of the ELD did not achieve the expected results 42-62 Following the evaluation of the ELD, the Commission adopted an action plan to address the gaps identified 43-48 Key ELD concepts remain undefined 49-55 Some Member States require industrial companies to insure against environmental risks 56-62 The EU has financed environmental remediation projects 63-68 EU funds have been used to clean orphan pollution 65-66 EU funds were also used when national authorities failed to enforce environmental legislation and make the polluters pay 67 Lack of financial security to cover environmental liability increases the risk that costs are borne by taxpayers 68 3 Conclusions and recommendations 69-74 Annex Annex I – Sectors covered by the Industrial Emissions Directive Acronyms and abbreviations Glossary Replies of the Commission Audit team Timeline 4 Executive summary I The Polluter Pays Principle is one of the key principles underlying the European Union’s (EU) environmental policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Physico-Chemical Parameters and Health Risk Analysis of Groundwater Quality
    applied sciences Article Physico-Chemical Parameters and Health Risk Analysis of Groundwater Quality Alina Soceanu 1, Simona Dobrinas 1,*, Corina Ionela Dumitrescu 2 , Natalia Manea 3 , Anca Sirbu 4 , Viorica Popescu 1 and Georgiana Vizitiu 1 1 Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Department, Faculty of Applied Chemistry and Engineering, “Ovidius” University of Constanta, 900527 Constanta, Romania; [email protected] (A.S.); [email protected] (V.P.); [email protected] (G.V.) 2 Department of Economics, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, Business Engineering and Management, University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest, 060042 Bucharest, Romania; [email protected] 3 Department of Economic Engineering, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, Business Engineering and Management, University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest, 060042 Bucharest, Romania; [email protected] 4 Department of Fundamental Sciences and Humanities, Constanta Maritime University, 900663 Constanta, Romania; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Groundwater pollution is a very common problem worldwide, as it poses a serious threat to both the environment and the economic and social development and consequently generates several types of costs. The analysis of pollution control involves a permanent comparison between pollution costs and the costs associated with various methods of pollution reduction. An environmental policy based on economic instruments is more effective than an environmental policy focused on command and control tools. In this respect, the present paper provides a case study showing how anthropogenic factors such as wastewater, industrial, agricultural, and natural factors are able to Citation: Soceanu, A.; Dobrinas, S.; change the physical and chemical parameters of groundwater in the study area, thus endangering Dumitrescu, C.I.; Manea, N.; their quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Use of Pesticides Recommendations on the Review of Directive 2009/128/EC
    8 April 2021 Sustainable Use of Pesticides Recommendations on the review of Directive 2009/128/EC Background The Farm2Fork (F2F) Strategy announced the evaluation of Directive 2009/128/EC establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the Sustainable Use of Pesticides - SUD. The principles enshrined in article 191.2 of the TFEU, namely the precautionary principle, the principles that preventive actions should be taken and that the environmental damage should, as a priority, be rectified at the source, as well as the polluter-pays principle, must guide not only the EU environmental policy but all the Strategies of the Green Deal. In order to fulfil water services’ mission of safeguarding public health and the environment, the protection of water resources is of utmost importance: article 11 of the SUD contains specific measures to protect the aquatic environment and drinking water. Although the wording of the article refers to the Water Framework Directive provisions (especially relevant is art.7.3 WFD), these general obligations on Member States have failed to deliver. Water utilities have not witnessed a significant decline in the presence and in the concentration of pesticides in water resources over the past decade. That is why EurEau fully supports the ambition of the F2F Strategy and the Commission’s proposed reduction goal for pesticide use of 50% by 2030, stresses the importance of reduction of emissions in drinking catchment areas, as well as the provision (art.8) of the new Drinking Water Directive that obliges competent authorities to carry out a risk assessment of the catchment area. The less drinking water resources are polluted, the less technical, energy intensive water treatment is necessary and drinking water can be delivered as a real natural foodstuff.
    [Show full text]
  • Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) Was First Mentioned in the Recommendation of the OECD of 26Th May 1972 and Reaffirmed in the Recommendation of 14Th November 1974
    Slide 1 Session on the oldest environmental principle to start with. 1 Slide 2 Outline of the presentation 2 Slide 3 • The polluter pays principle (PPP) was first mentioned in the recommendation of the OECD of 26th May 1972 and reaffirmed in the recommendation of 14th November 1974. • In the 1972 Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm the principles did not feature, but in 1992 in Rio PPP was laid down as Principle 16 of the UN Declaration on Environment and Development. • The European Community took up the OECD recommendation in its first Environmental Action Program (1973-1976) and then in a Recommendation of 3 March 1975 regarding cost allocation and action by public authorities on environmental matters. Since 1987 the principle has also been enshrined in the Treaty of the European Communities and in numerous national legislations world-wide 3 Slide 4 As a main function of the principle the OECD recommendations specify the allocation “of costs of pollution prevention and control measures to encourage rational use of scarce environmental resources and to avoid distortions in international trade and investment.” The polluter should bear the expense of carrying out the measures “decided by public authorities to ensure that the environment is in an acceptable state” (OECD 1972). 4 Slide 5 The principle as laid down in the Rio Declaration. If environmental costs are not internalized (or if state subsidies are given to polluting industries or if preventive measures are paid by the state) this could lead to distortion of international trade and investment.
    [Show full text]
  • Conclusions and Recommendations*
    OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF SWITZERLAND ISBN 92-64-03053-0 © OECD 2007 1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS * This report examines Switzerland’s progress since the previous Environmental Performance Review by the OECD in 1998, and the extent to which the country has met national objectives and honoured international commitments. The report also reviews Switzerland’s progress in the context of the OECD Environmental Strategy.** Some 46 recommendations are made that could contribute to further environmental progress in Switzerland. Switzerland’s environment is subject to severe pressures (pollution, extraction of natural resources, spatial restructuring), due in particular to industry, agriculture, transport and tourism. These pressures stem from very high population densities and a high level of economic activity, and from Switzerland’s location at the heart of Europe. For over 30 years, the ambitious environmental policies promoted by the Confederation have been implemented by the cantons and the communes. They have been based on a prescriptive approach, sustained government funding and active public opinion that is deeply concerned about the environment (especially following certain major industrial accidents, the environmental impact of intensive farming, the deforestation debate and the 1987 floods). These policies have yielded remarkable results in combating pollution and natural hazards. More recently, and during the period under review, environmental policies have focused on partnerships with economic interests and civil society as a whole, on application of the polluter pays principle and on prevention (e.g. in risk management and management of natural resources). Despite the progress made in factoring the imperatives of sustainable development into sectoral policies, including energy, transport and agricultural policies, it is still difficult to translate the concept of sustainable development into consumption patterns, e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Unclassified ENV/EPOC/EAP(2012)10
    Unclassified ENV/EPOC/EAP(2012)10 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 11-Sep-2012 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE ENVIRONMENT POLICY COMMITTEE Unclassified ENV/EPOC/EAP(2012)10 TASK FORCE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROGRAMME FOR CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE, CAUCASUS AND CENTRAL ASIA STRENGTHENING THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL DIMENSION OF INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN ARMENIA, AZERBAIJAN AND GEORGIA Case study on the Kura river basin Annual EAP Task Force meeting, 24-25 September 2012, Oslo, Norway Agenda item: 5 ACTION REQUIRED: For information Please contact Ms. Tatiana Efimova by e-mail [email protected] or phone +33 1 45 24 14 34 for any additional information. English JT03326071 Complete document available on OLIS in its original format - This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of Or. English international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. ENV/EPOC/EAP(2012)10 2 ENV/EPOC/EAP(2012)10 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1. Description of framework conditions in the region and demands for project activities ....................... 5
    [Show full text]
  • Waste Incineration and Particulate Pollution: a Failure of Governance
    Waste Incineration and Particulate Pollution: A failure of governance • Incinerators exceed pollution-reporting thresholds but public not told • We reveal emissions of PM and NOx from English incinerators - see overleaf • Incinerator pollution costs £billions: ‘Polluter pays’ principle must apply Particulate matter (PM) is the minute particles emitted by many industrial processes; in this case we are concerned with waste incineration. PM comes in various sizes: PM10 is all particles whose average diameter is less than 10 micrometres (a micrometre is 1/1000 of a millimetre). PM2.5 is all particles that measure up to 2½ micrometres in diameter, and PM0.1 is particles up to one-tenth of a micrometre. They are invisible and dangerous to health. Public kept in the dark DEFRA Minister Thérèse Coffey MP has told Parliament that the Environment Agency (EA) is ‘required’ to set ‘limit PARTICULATE POLLUTION: THE HEALTH EFFECTS values’ for PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, and that a ‘strict monitoring system’ is in place to enforce these rules.1 What the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants says: The EA has set a reporting threshold for PM10 and PM2.5 ‘Particles [particulate matter] emitted directly from a range of pollution sources…and those formed by emissions at one tonne per year.2 This means that if chemical reactions in the atmosphere are associated with adverse effects on health and the current emissions reach those levels then this information should consensus is that these associations are, at least in part, causal. Hence, reductions in concentrations of both 8 be made public via the EA’s Pollution Inventory.
    [Show full text]