sou · GVB321 · 2008-01-01 00:00:00 — Vi föreslår sålunda att rätten till försäkringsersättning enligt reglerna i 33 kap. ändras till att i stället avse en motsva- rande rätt i vissa fall att utfå en av myndighet beslutad miljöskade- ersättning respektive ersättning för verkställighetskostnader. Dessa ersättningar föreslås utgå enligt regeringens närmare föreskrifter. Och vi lämnar ett förslag till en förordning med sådana före- skrifter. Två förslag lämnas också på myndigheter som bedöms redan ha den kompetens som behövs för att kunna fullgöra uppdraget som beslutsmyndighet för prövningen av ärenden enligt de nya ersätt- ningsregleringarna, nämligen och en avdelning inom SGU. Att en myndighet tar över uppgiften att pröva om ersättning skall utgå enligt dessa ersättningsregleringar innebär inte att staten på något sätt ger sig in i en form av försäkringsverksamhet. Det är här i stället uteslutande fråga om en återgång till precis samma slags myndighetshantering av dessa saneringsuppgifter och andra ären- den som tidigare skötte enligt sitt B 13-anslag. Enda skillnaden är att denna hantering nu är tänkt att avgifts- finansieras, helt enligt vad som gäller för de försäkringar som den ersätter, i stället för den tidigare anslagsfinansieringen. Det är alltså inte fråga om att myndigheten skall administrera ett försäk- ringsskydd av något slag och göra några riskbedömningar av försäkringsmässig karaktär. De skador som uppkommer, och som naturligtvis inte blir fler bara för att ersättningssystemet ordnas på ett annan sätt, skall betalas med avgiftsmedel och räcker inte de redan uttagna avgifterna till för detta får skadekostnaden regleras genom avgiftsuttag i efterhand. Avgiftsbetalarna skall inte behöva betala för något annat eller mer än för en reglering av de skador som faktiskt uppkommer, ingen riskpremie för skador som inte uppkommer. Staten bör enligt vår mening inte bedriva någon försäkringsverksamhet på det här området. The terms of reference of (Dir. 2004:159) and the supplementary terms of reference of (Dir. 2006:41) assigned a number of tasks to the government Inquiry on Environmental Liability. In the interim report Extended Environmental Liability (SOU 2006:39), we submitted proposals for legislative changes that we deemed necessary for the imple- mentation, in Swedish legislation, of European Parliament and Council Directive no. 2004/35/EC, subsequently referred to here as the Environmental Liability Directive. Besides amendments to the Environmental Code, this also involved some amendments to the Ordinance on Supervision under the Environmental Code (1998:900) and a completely new ordinance on determining reme- dial action in the event of serious environmental damage. We further proposed partially amended regulations in the issue of gua- rantees in the Environmental Code and the Mining (European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/21/EC). Finally, we presented a possible regulation on piercing the corpo- rate veil in the field of environmental law. The remaining task, according to the terms of reference, is to make a review of the regulations governing environmental damage insurance and environmental clean-up insurance in Chapter 33 of the Environmental Code. The supplementary terms of reference also tasked us with exami- ning what remedial action and damages can be required in the event of damage to biological diversity caused by genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and to propose the amendments to such requirements as may be needed to provide satisfactory protection for the environment. In this final report, we report our work on the remaining tasks of the Inquiry. We begin by discussing the issues in the supplemen- tary terms of reference concerning remedial measures and damages, primarily with respect to damage to biological diversity caused by GMOs. The legal analysis and investigation of these issues is namely of some importance in framing a view of the regulations for compensatory payments in the two types of insurance. In this respect, we propose clarification of the general rule of remedial action in Chapter 2 Section 8 of the Environmental Code, and an obligation for the operator in some cases to pay environmental value compensation to the state in the event of serious damage to biological diversity. After this, we report our review of environmental damage insu- rance and clean-up insurance. In this area, we propose some amendments to the compensation rules, the foremost of which is that they are no longer to be administered in an insurance system but rather by a government agency. Obligation to remedy GMO-caused damage to biological diversity Damage to biological diversity caused by GMOs can most likely not be grouped under pollution damage for which liability to carry out after-treatment can be asserted under Chapter 10 of the Environmental Code. It is more appropriate to assert liability for this type of damage under the general remedial rule in Chapter 2 Section 8 of the Environmental Code. However, it is doubtful whether this generally expressed legal basis provides sufficient scope for application against a liable operator for damage to biological diversity. A remedial liability of this type in public law requires a clear basis in legislation. Liability under Chapter 2 Section 8 of the Environmental Code is strict, and applies to damage or detriment to the environment. There is however no detailed description of what constitutes such environmental damage. It should really be possible to count damage to biological diversity caused by GMOs here, but the law does not contain any definition whatsoever of what is to be regarded as damage to biological diversity, or when such damage is to be deemed as caused by genetically modified organisms. The legal situation will be clarified by the introduction of the Environmental Liability Directives remedial regulations into Swedish law, as proposed by us in our interim report. This will provide us with an expressed regulation on the liability to remedy serious damage – including damage caused by GMOs – to the biological diversity of species and natural habitats protected in the Environmental Code or in regulations issued on the basis of the Code. This liability regulation is also supplemented by a legal determination of the applicable definition of damage that directly echoes the Directives definition of environmental damage. In this definition, damage to biological diversity consists of the negative impact on the possibility of achieving, or maintaining, favourable preservation status for the species and natural habitats involved. The definitions of the Directive show how these negative effects are to be assessed in more detail. We now propose that the general remedial liability in Chapter 2 Section 8 be clarified to expressly apply to named types of damage to the biological diversity of species and natural habitats caused by GMOs or in other ways, even if the damage is not covered by remedial liability for serious environmental damage introduced in the wake of the Environmental Liability Directive. Thanks to this clarification and the introduction of the term environmental damage in compliance with the Directive, there need no longer be any doubt that the supervisory authority, with the support of this regulation, can issue legal directives for the steps required in the individual case for reasonable remedy of damage that has occurred to biological diversity. This remedial liability, which is not limited to damage to specially protected species and natural habitats, will thus also apply to damage of this type that does not have such significant effects on preservation status that they are to be regarded as serious environmental damage. The Environmental Liability Directives remedial liability will apply in the first hand to the latter. What remedial liability means is that the party liable for damage to biological diversity is to investigate and thereafter carry out, or defray the cost of, all measures necessary to restore the environ- ment to its original condition, i.e. the condition that the natural resource or function would have been in if the environmental damage had not occurred. Such damage caused by e.g. GMOs or similar can be hard to discover and even to remedy, particularly when discovered too late. We therefore must expect that ecological damage of this type cannot in practice be remedied or meaningfully dealt with using measures that can feasibly be demanded. Since remedial liability cannot be demanded in such cases, we have proposed that in lieu of unfeasible remedial action, the liable party be obliged to pay a type of damages to the public purse – environmental value compensation – as reasonable compensation for environmental value that has been lost. A prerequisite for this liability must be that the case is one of serious damage to biological diversity and that it has been caused deliberately or through negligence. , as supervisory authority, is to have discretion as a first instance to demand environmental value compensation. It is proposed that any funds received as environmental value compensation are to be reserved for use for public environmental management measures. Damages liability for damage to biological diversity The present legal analysis of the wherewithal to demand damages has had its starting point in a definition of damages which includes not only actual damage to biological diversity, but also damage that simultaneously impacts on other interests than those involving the preservation of biological diversity. The analysis shows that it is already possible to apply Chapter 32 of the Environmental Code as well as the Swedish Tort Liability Act to this type of damage. However, for damages to be payable for material and financial injury in such cases, it must be possible to point to some type of pecuniary loss. We have found that the issue of damages for indi- rect injury of this type is too broad in scope to be able to be resolved in this context. will such damages liability have any practical importance in creating satisfactory protection for the environment. On this basis, then, there is no reason to propose any change in current regulations on damages. Environmental damage insurance and clean-up insurance Chapter 33 of the Environmental Code provides for environmental damage insurance and clean-up insurance with terms approved by the Government to compensate certain types of damage and costs related to environmentally hazardous activities. Those pursuing environmentally hazardous activities that require a permit or notification are to pay contributions to the insurance at sums specified by the Government in an ordinance. Environmental insu- rance can be used to compensate an injured party for environ- mental damage (material damage or bodily injury) referred to in Chapter 32 of the Environmental Code if the compensation cannot be obtained from the party that was liable for the damage. The supervisory authorities are to be able to receive compensation for some clean-up costs through the clean-up insurance when the liable party cannot pay. This report proposes some changes to the compensation regulations for these types of insurance, or the compensation system that we propose the insurance be replaced by. In the matter of regulation of compensation for current environmental damage insurance, the deduction for excess for damage to moveable property is raised to the same as that for damage to fixed property, namely ,000, and the statue of limitations regulation is given the same wording as the current regulation in the Act (2005:104). Furthermore, only individual physical persons are to be eligible for environmental damage com- pensation. Material damage suffered by such a person in his business is however to be eligible for compensation, even if the activity is not run as a sole trading entity but by a legal person of some sort. One prerequisite is that it is a small company for which the damage could have severe financial consequences. Evaluation of the environmental damage insurance shows that its application has been very limited. The Inquiry has only been able to speculate on the reasons. So far in 2006, there have only been three cases of compensation paid, amounting to just over ,000. the first ten years, fees amounting to million were levied to fund the environmental damage insurance; in the same period, the insurance made one payment of in a claim involving a polluted well. This background of course begs the question of whether this insurance meets any actual need that must be met by public fees. It is, in any event, clear that this compensation system needs to be arranged in a more cost-effective form. The clean-up insurance has not had the broad application that seems to have been expected, either. In the eight years it has existed, a total of just over ,109,000 has been paid out from the clean-up insurance. The fee-funded cost of this insurance and environmental damage insurance has in the same period amounted to almost million. The fact that compensation has not been paid from the insurance does not, however, seem to be due to any lack of clean-up cases; supervisory authorities have instead said that the narrow framing of some insurance terms and over-strict application of these terms has made it difficult to obtain funds from the insurance, and that this has sometimes led to supervisory authorities thinking that applying for compensation is not even worth the trouble. This criticism seems primarily to have applied to the insurances limits on what are compensable clean-up measures. We now propose a significant broadening of the compensation regulations for clean-up insurance in the latter respect with the aim of allowing the insurance in future to apply to compensation for execution costs regarding investigations and after-treatment under Chapter 10 of the Environmental Code, and measures designed to prevent the imminent environmental damage. The reference to Chapter 10 also includes remedial liability under the Environ- mental Liability Directive, as proposed by us in earlier in the inte- rim report, for serious environmental damage to water and to biological diversity of protected species and natural habitats. The organisation of the insurance system as such has been called into question on several points during the inquiry. This has primarily concerned the procurement procedure, how the terms of the insurance have been negotiated, shortcomings in the possibility of appeal and the lack of insight into the private legal entities (the payment association, the insurance broker and the insurer) which – apparently with the sanction of the Government – seem to have in practice managed the entire operation by themselves. It is difficult to see whether or not circumstances have permitted it, but there does not in fact seem to have been any of the control and reporting of the activity that a publicly fee-funded activity should require. It is possible to debate the continued existence of the environ- mental damage insurance, but in any event, the Inquiry has shown that there is a great need for the regulations on compensation for the execution costs of the supervisory authorities to remain in place and be improved upon. If these regulations are to be retained in their present insurance form – which we do not recommend – we propose a number of improvements that aim to lead to a firmer government grip on the insurances, above all by procuring them and negotiating the terms of the insurance, thereby creating an arrangement which allows the necessary public access, control and reporting of this activity. The collection of charges and maintenance of a register over those obli- ged to pay them is to be the responsibility of central government. should be converted into a government body that is completely independent of the insurance provider. The Boards authority should be exten- ded to also include the consideration of compensatory cases under clean-up insurance that are important matters of principle and/or under dispute. In the first hand, however, our recommendation is that the compensation regulations that should remain – and this applies, as already described, without a doubt to the supervisory authoritys possibility of obtaining compensation for its execution expenses – would benefit greatly in a number of respects from being able to be administered by a government agency with the requisite skills. Claims could then be settled using high standards of legal consistency, specialist knowledge, rapidity and cost-effectiveness, all in the public view and with the possibility of appeal. The charges would solely be used for the purposes for which they are levied. Additionally, an agency solution of this type has development potential and can be easily adapted to changed conditions. We therefore propose that the right to obtain insurance compen- sation under Chapter 33 of the Environmental Code be altered, to instead refer to corresponding rights in some cases to receive envi- ronmental damages compensation, or compensation for execution costs, after decision by an agency. It is proposed that this compen- sation be paid according to detailed regulations decided by the Government. We submit a proposal for an ordinance containing such regulations. We also submit two proposals for public agencies that we think already possess the necessary know-how for performing the assignment of decision-making authority in the consideration of cases under the new compensation regulations: these are the and a section within the Geological Survey of . The fact that a public agency takes over the task of considering whether compensation is to be paid under these compensation regulations does not mean that central government in any way is entering into any type of insurance activity. It is instead solely an issue of a return to exactly the same type of agency-led manage- ment of these clean-up tasks and other cases that the Environ- mental previously handled under the B13 section of its budget. The only difference is that this management is now envisaged as being fee-funded, in accordance with what currently applies to the insurance it replaces, instead of as before being financed via a budget allocation. It is, then, not a case of the agency administering insurance protection of some sort and making insurance risk assessments. Occurrences of damage that do take place – and there will of course not be more of these just because the compensation system is otherwise arranged – will be paid using the fee funds, and if the fees already levied are insufficient to cover this, the cost of the damage can be met by levying fees after the event. Fee-payers will not need to pay for anything else, or more than to settle damage that in fact occurs; there will be no risk premium for damage that does not occur. Central government should not, in our view, be conducting insurance activity in this field. lag om ändring i (1998:808) Härigenom föreskrivs i fråga om (1998:808) dels att 33 kap. 4 § skall upphöra att gälla, dels att 2 kap. 8 §, 10 kap. 1 §, 16 kap. 12 §, 33 kap. 1 3 §§ samt rubrikerna till 10 och 33 kap. skall ha följande lydelse, dels att det i lagen skall införas nya bestämmelser, 10 kap. 2 a §, 26 kap. 8 a § och 26 kap. 22 a §, av följande lydelse. 2 kap. Allmänna hänsynsregler m.m. Alla som bedriver eller har bedrivit en verksamhet eller vid- tagit en åtgärd som medfört ska- da eller olägenhet för miljön ansvarar till dess skadan eller olä- genheten har upphört för att den- na avhjälps i den omfattning det kan anses skäligt enligt 10 kap. I den mån det föreskrivs i denna balk kan i stället skyldighet att ersätta skadan eller olägenheten uppkomma. Alla som bedriver eller har bedrivit en verksamhet eller vid- tagit en åtgärd som skadat den biologiska mångfalden av arter eller naturliga livsmiljöer eller som medfört annan skada eller olägenhet för miljön, ansvarar till dess skadan eller olägenheten har upphört för att denna avhjälps i skälig omfattning. I den mån det föreskrivs i denna balk kan i stället skyldighet att ersätta ska- dan eller olägenheten uppkom- ma. Om ansvar för att avhjälpa vissa miljöskador finns särskilda regler i 10 kap. Föroreningar och vissa andra Ansvaret för utredning och Ansvaret för utredning och Detta kapitel skall tillämpas på mark- och vattenområden samt byggnader och anläggningar som är så förorenade att det kan medföra skada eller olägenhet för människors hälsa eller miljön. Detta kapitel skall tillämpas 1 sådana föroreningar i mark- eller vattenområden, grundvat- ten, byggnader eller anläggningar som utgör allvarliga miljöskador eller som annars kan medföra sk- ada eller olägenhet för männi- skors hälsa eller miljön, och 2. allvarliga skador av annat slag på ytvatten eller grundvatten eller på den biologiska mångfal- den av arter och naturliga livs- miljöer som skyddas i denna balk eller enligt föreskrifter som har meddelats med stöd av balken. Med allvarlig miljöskada avses i detta kapitel varje markföro- rening som utgör en betydande risk för skada på människors hälsa, skador på ytvatten eller grundvatten som ekologiskt, ke- miskt eller kvantitativt har en betydande påverkan på vattnet samt alla skador på biologisk mångfald som i betydande om- fattning hindrar eller motverkar att en gynnsam bevarandestatus kan uppnås eller bibehållas för sådana arter och livsmiljöer som avses i första stycket. 3. en central arbetstagarorga- nisation enligt lagen (1976:580) om medbestämmande i arbets- livet, motsvarande organisation på arbetsgivarsidan samt en sammanslutning av konsumen- ter, såvitt avser beslut som en länsstyrelse eller en central för- valtningsmyndighet har medde- lat med stöd av bemyndigande enligt 14 kap., förutsatt att be- slutet inte avser ett särskilt fall,3 a. en branschorganisation el- ler annan liknande sammanslut- ning av företagare som är skyl- diga att betala avgifter enligt 33 kap. 3 §, såvitt avser beslut om ersättning enligt 33 kap. 1 eller35 I den mån en allvarlig miljö- skada på den biologiska mång- falden som avses i 1 § inte kan avhjälpas med sådana åtgärder som rimligen kan krävas enligt denna balk är den som orsakat skadan med uppsåt eller genom vårdslöshet skyldig att betala skä- lig miljövärdesersättning till det allmänna för de miljövärden som gått förlorade. 12 § Överklagbara domar eller beslut får överklagas av 1.den som domen eller beslutet angår, om avgörandet har gått honom eller henne emot, 2.en lokal arbetstagarorganisation som organiserar arbetstagare i den verksamhet som avses med beslutet, såvitt avser domar och beslut i frågor om tillstånd till miljöfarlig verksamhet, 3. en central arbetstagarorga- nisation enligt lagen (1976:580) om medbestämmande i arbets- livet, motsvarande organisation på arbetsgivarsidan samt en sammanslutning av konsumen- ter, såvitt avser beslut som en länsstyrelse eller en central för- valtningsmyndighet har medde- lat med stöd av bemyndigande enligt 14 kap., förutsatt att be- slutet inte avser ett särskilt fall, och 2 § som har meddelat enligt förordningen (0000:000) om ersättning i vissa fall för skador och verkställighets- kostnader enligt , och 4. den myndighet, kommunala nämnd eller annan som enligt vad som är särskilt föreskrivet i balken eller i föreskrifter meddelade med stöd av balken har rätt att överklaga. Denna paragraf innebär inte någon inskränkning av rätten att överklaga enligt bestämmelser i . Uppkommer sådan allvarlig miljöskada som avses i 10 kap. 1 § skall tillsynsmyndigheten fastställa vilka åtgärder som behövs för att avhjälpa skadan. Därvid skall i första hand väljas åtgärder som undanröjer alla betydande risker för människors hälsa och som vid skada på vatten eller biologisk mångfald medför att miljön återställs till tillståndet vid tiden för skade- tillfället.