| Part of a series on |
| Environmental law |
|---|
 |
| Pollution control law |
| Natural resources law |
| Reference materials |
| Related topics |
|
Inenvironmental law, thepolluter pays principle is enacted to make theparty responsible for producingpollution responsible for paying for the damage done to thenatural environment. This principle has also been used to put the costs of pollution prevention on the polluter.[1] It is regarded as a regional custom because of the strong support it has received in mostOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) andEuropean Union countries,[2] and has a strong scientific basis ineconomics. It is a fundamental principle in US environmental law.[3]
According to the Frenchhistorian of the environment Jean-Baptiste Fressoz,financial compensation (not named "polluter pays principle" at that time) is already the regulation principle ofpollution favoured by industrials in the nineteenth century.[4] He wrote that: "This principle, which is now offered as a new solution, actually accompanied the process of industrialisation, and was intended by the manufacturers themselves."[4]
In modern times, the continued adherence to the polluter pays principle is supported scientifically by economics. One condition that must be satisfied in order to maximisePareto efficiency is the assignment of allcosts of a decision, such as the harm resulting from a decision to pollute, to the agent making the decision, effectively removing allexternalities.[5][6]
The polluter pays principle underpins environmental policy such as anecotax, which, if enacted by government, deters and essentially reducesgreenhouse gas emissions. This principle is based on the fact that as much as pollution is unavoidable, the person or industry that is responsible for the pollution must pay some money for the rehabilitation of the polluted environment.[1]
The state ofNew South Wales inAustralia has included the polluter pay principle with the other principles ofecologically sustainable development in the objectives of the Environment Protection Authority.[7]
TheCanadian Energy Regulator mandates that oil companies must pay for any environmental impacts from a spill. This mandate requires oil companies to pay for damages, regardless of whether or not the spill is their fault.[8]
The polluter pays principle is set out in theTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union[9] and Directive 2004/35/EC of theEuropean Parliament and of theCouncil of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage is based on this principle. The directive entered into force on 30 April 2004; member states were allowed three years to transpose thedirective into their domestic law and by July 2010 all member states had completed this.[2]
InFrance, the Charter for the Environment contains a formulation of the polluter pays principle (article 4):
Everyone shall be required, in the conditions provided for by law, to contribute to the making good of any damage he or she may have caused to the environment.[10]
InGhana, the polluter pays principle was adopted in 2011.[11]
The polluter pays principle is also known asextended producer responsibility (EPR). This is a concept that was probably first described by Thomas Lindhqvist for theSwedish government in 1990.[12] EPR seeks to shift the responsibility of dealing with waste fromgovernments (and thus,taxpayers and society at large) to the entities producing it. In effect, it internalised the cost of waste disposal into the cost of the product, theoretically meaning that the producers will improve the waste profile of their products, thus decreasing waste and increasing possibilities for reuse and recycling.
TheOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development defines extended producer responsibility as:
a concept where manufacturers and importers of products should bear a significant degree of responsibility for the environmental impacts of their products throughout the product life-cycle, including upstream impacts inherent in the selection of materials for the products, impacts from manufacturers’ production process itself, and downstream impacts from the use and disposal of the products. Producers accept their responsibility when designing their products to minimise life-cycle environmental impacts, and when accepting legal, physical or socio-economic responsibility for environmental impacts that cannot be eliminated by design.[13]
Part IIA of theEnvironmental Protection Act 1990 established the operation of the polluter pays principle. This was further built upon by The Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations 2009 (for England) and the Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) (Wales) Regulations 2009 (for Wales).[14]
The principle is employed in all of the major US pollution control laws:Clean Air Act,[15][16]Clean Water Act,[17]Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (solid waste andhazardous waste management),[3] andSuperfund (cleanup of abandoned waste sites).[3]
Some eco-taxes underpinned by the polluter pays principle include:
The USEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) has observed that the polluter pays principle has typically not been fully implemented inUS laws and programs. For example,drinking water andsewage treatment services aresubsidized and there are limited mechanisms in place to fully assess polluters for treatment costs.[19]
TheZimbabwe Environmental Management Act of 2002[20][full citation needed] prohibits the discharge of pollutants into the environment. In line with the "Polluter Pays" principle, the Act requires a polluter to meet the cost of decontaminating the polluted environment.[21]
Ininternational environmental law it is mentioned in the principle 16 of theRio Declaration on Environment and Development of 1992[22]
The polluter pays principle (PPP) has been doubted in cases where no one recognized that a type of pollution posed any danger until after the pollution began. An example occurs in thehistory of climate change science which shows that considerable carbon dioxide was emitted into the atmosphere by industrialized countries before there was scientific awareness or consensus that it could be dangerous.[23]
| Fields |  | |
|---|---|---|
| Related |
| |
| Applied | ||
Authority control databases: National |
|---|
