We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
Civil liability for environmental damage is currently very much the centre of attention. Many countries and international organizations have recently adopted rules in this field or are in the process of doing so. Almost without exception, these rules concentrate on creating a liability regime for damage caused by pollution that is the result of incidents which took place before their entry into force. The problem of damage that is the result of so-called historic pollution — primarily cases of soil contamination — was mostly left outside the range of these regulations. Until recently that is. Last year specific legislation on liability in cases of historic soil contamination was adopted in the Flemish region of Belgium and in the United Kingdom. Other countries like, for example, Denmark are studying the subject. The Netherlands has much greater experience with this type of legislation. It goes back to the Interim Soil Clean-up Act of 1983. The experiences with this act are reflected in a new legal regime for cleaning up contaminated land that came into force in 1994. The objective of this article is to reflect on these Dutch experiences.
Dr. Bauw is a Legal Counsellor at the Private Law Legislation Section of the Dutch Ministry of Justice. This article is based on the author's published doctoral thesis: Buitencontractuele aansprakelijkheid voor bodemverontreiniging (1994).
1. In recent years legislation in this field has been enacted in, for example, Germany (1991) (see Schmidt-Salzer, J., Kommentar zum Umwelthaftungsgesetz (1992)Google Scholar), Denmark (1994) (see Pagh, P., ‘The New Danish Act on Strict Liability for Environmental Damage’, Environmental Liability (1995) pp. 15–19)Google Scholar, Finland (1995) and the Netherlands (1995). Currently, Austria is in the process of adopting such legislation (see Posch, W., ‘An Environmental Liability Statute for Austria: A History of Failures and Delays’, Environmental Liability (1995) pp. 106–108)Google Scholar.
2. Mention can be made of negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme to develop a protocol on liability within the framework of the Basel Convention on transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and other wastes. An Annex on liability for damage to the Antactic Environment is elaborated within the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. Close to completion is a procol to revise the Vienna Convention on Nuclear Liability.
Instruments that were adopted in recent years are the 1989 Convention on Civil Liability for damage caused during Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road, Rail and Inland Navigation Vessels, the 1992 Protocols to amend the CLC and Fund Conventions, and, the most noteworthy, the 1993 Council of Europe Convention on Civil Liability for Damage resulting from Activities Dangerous to the Environment. Finally, an International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (HNS Convention) has been adopted at a diplomatic conference in May 1996.
3. This is in line with Principle 13 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of 13 June 1992 which says: ‘States shall develop national law regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage, and shall also co-operate in an expeditious and more determined manner to develop further international law regarding liability and compensation for adverse effects of environmental damage caused by activities within their jurisdiction or control to areas beyond their jurisdiction’. See also the Report of the International Law Commission on International Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising out of Acts not Prohibited by International Law. The Eleventh Report of Special Rapporteur Julio Barboza is devoted entirely to harm to the environment (UN Doc.A/CN.4/468).
4. Decreet voor het Vlaamse Gewest betreffende de bodemsanering (1), 22 February 1995Google Scholar, Belgisch Staatsblad, 29 April 1995, p. 11527 et seqGoogle Scholar. See Ryckbost, D., ‘Het Decreet van 22 februari 1995 betreffendede bodemsanering’, TMR(1995) pp. 178–205Google Scholar and Uilhoorn, W.T.M., ‘Bodemsanering in Vlaanderen. Aansprakelijkheid voorhistorische en nieuwe bodemverontreiniging’, Tijdschrift voor Milieu-aansprakelijkheid (1995) pp. 141–147.Google Scholar
5. Sections 78A–78YC of the Environment Act 1995, which are expected to enter into force during 1996. See Jones, B., ‘The Identification and Remediation of Contaminated Sites: The United Kingdom's Environment Act 1995’, Tijdschrift voor Milieu-aansprakelijkheid (1995–1996) pp. 159–166Google Scholar and Layard, A., ‘Contaminated Land: Law and Policy in the United Kingdom. The Environment Bill, Clause 54’, Environmental Liability (1995) pp. 52–60.Google Scholar
6. Act of 30 November 1994, Stb. 1994 No. 846.
7. See Arts. 175–178 of Book 6 and sections 8.6.4, 8.11.4, 8.14.1 and 8.19.4 of Book 8 of the Civil Code.
8. Art. V of the Act of 30 November 1994.
9. Wet bodembescherming, as amended, Stb. 1994 No. 374. See in general Betlem, G., ‘The Dutch Soil Protection Act’, European Env. L Rev. (1995) p. 232Google Scholar et seq. and Bauw, E., ‘Publieken privaatrechtelijke aansprakelijheid in de gewijzigde Wet bodembescherming’, Ars Aequi (1994) pp. 810–820.Google Scholar
10. See for some more historic background: Bauw, E., Buiten-contractuele aansprakelijkheid voor bodemverontreiniging (1994) Ch. 2.Google Scholar
11. Contamination is regarded as serious when its presence constitutes a severe risk for public health or the environment.
12. See more elaborately van Acht, R.J.J. and Bauw, E., Milieuprivaatrecht, 2nd edn. (1996) p. 131Google Scholar et seq., and Bauw, op. cit. n. 10, Chs. 3, 4 and 6.
13. See Bauw, op. cit. n. 10, at p. 103 et seq.
14. See on this issue Wubs, B.D., ‘Het “state of the art” verweer in procedures krachtens art. 21 lid 1 Interimwet bodemsanering’, Tijdschrift voor Milieuaansprakelijkheid (1992) pp. 89–97Google Scholar
15. For more detail on these factors see van Dam, C.C., Zorgvuldigheidsnorm en aansprakelijkheid (1989)Google Scholar.
16. Hoge Raad 9 February 1990, NJ 1991, 462 (Netherlands State v. Van Amersfoorf), note by Brunner. See also Administratiefrechtelijke Beslissingen 1990, 406, note by Wijnobel, Kleijs and Tijdschrift voor Milieu en Recht 1990, no. 27, note by Rode, Gerritzen.Google Scholar
17. Hoge Raad 24 April 1992, NJ 1993, 642 and 643 (Netherlands State v. Akzo Resins and Van Wijngaarden v. Netherlands State), note by Brunner. See also Tijdschrift voor Milieu en Recht 1994, 112, note by Kottenhagen-Edzes, and Bouwrecht 1995, 420, note by Bauw, Google Scholar.
18. Hoge Raad 30 September 1994, NJ 1996,196–198 (Netherlands State and the Municipality of Ouderkerk v. Shell, Netherlands State v. Solvay Duphar and Netherlands State v. Fasson), note by Brunner. See also Tijdschrift voor Milieu en Recht 1992,411, note by Gerritzen-Rode, ; Bouwrecht 1992, 556, note by Bauw, ;Google Scholar Betlem, G., ‘It's No Use Crying Over Spilt Chemicals’, 2 Maastricht J European & Comp. L (1995) no. 3, p. 289 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. See also Bauw, op. cit. n. 10, at pp. 110–117 and Betlem, loc. cit. n. 18, at pp. 293–294.
20. See infra section 5.
21. Act of 10 May 1994, Stb. 1994 No. 332.
22. See Betlem, loc. cit. n. 9, at p. 236.
23. See in more detail Bauw, E., ‘Nieuw verhaal van oud zeer. Aansprakelijkheid volgens de Novelle bodemsanering’, Weekblad voor Privaatrecht, Notariaat en Registratie (1994) nos. 6149 (Part I) and 6150 (Part II)Google Scholar.
24. For other types of damage the long prescription period is normally 20 years.
25. See Art. 43 of the Soil Protection Act (1994).
26. Commissie bodemsanering in gebruik zijnde bedrijfsterreinen, Report of June 1991, see Bauw, E., ‘Afspraken over (on)vrijwillige sanering van bedrijfsterreinen’, in Aalders, M.V.C. and van Acht, R.J.J., eds., Afspraken in het milieurecht (1992) pp. 111–124Google Scholar.
27. Supra section 2.2.
28. See Art. 46 of the Soil Protection Act 1994.
29. See Koeman, N.S.J., ‘Milieuaansprakelijkheid op bevel’, in van Acht, R.J.J. and Sicking, G.C., eds., Privaatrecht en Milieu (1994) pp. 71–79Google Scholar.
30. See in more detail on this legislation Bauw, op. cit. n. 10, Ch. 5 and Messer, E. A., Risicoaansprakelijkheid voor milieuverontreiniging in het BW (1994)Google Scholar
31. Lugano, 21 06 1993, ETS 150. See C. de Sola, ‘The Council of Europe Convention on Environmental Damage’, Review of European Community & International Environmental Law (1992) pp. 411–415;Google Scholar Robinson, J., ‘Council of Europe Convention and the EC’, Review of European Community & International Environmental Law (1992) pp. 416#421;Google Scholar Ouwerkerk, W.J., ‘Environmental Liability from the Perspective of an Operator: Council of Europe Draft Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Resulting from Activities Dangerous to the Environment’, in Kröner, R.P., ed., Transnational Environmental Liability and Insurance (1993) pp. 85–128Google Scholar; and van Acht, R.J.J. and Bauw, E., ‘Het milieuaansprakelijkheidsrecht volgens de Raad van Europa’, Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Burgerlijk Recht (1994) pp. 47–53Google Scholar.
32. Geneva, 10 10 1989, Transport, p. IV–81 et seqGoogle Scholar. See R. Cleton, ‘The CRTD Convention on Civil Liability and Compensation’, in Kröner, ed., op. cit. n. 31, pp. 205–236 (with the text of the convention on pp. 219–236).
33. London, 3 05 1996. See the contributions of ,Cleton, R. and Wiswall, F. Jr, in de la Rue, CM., ed., Liability for Damage to the Marine Environment (1993)Google Scholar.
34. From that moment Art. 6:176 applies.
35. See Bauw, op. cit. n. 10, p. 170 et seq.
36. See on this topic ‘Towards Sustainability, A European Community Programme of Policy and Action in Relation to the Environment and Sustainable Development’ (Fifth Action Programme of the European Commission), p. 64 et seq. and Wagner, G., Kollektives Umwelthaftungsrecht auf genossenschaftlicher Grundlage (1990) pp. 47–50Google Scholar.
37. See on the preventive function of liability law von Wilmowsky, P. and Roller, G., Civil Liability for Waste, Studies of the Environmental Law Network International Vol./Bd. 2 (1992) pp. 36–39Google Scholar, and van Acht, R.J.J., ‘Het civiele aansprakelijkheidsrecht als financiële prikkel?’, in van Acht, R.J.J. and Uylenburg, R., eds., Financiële instrumenten in het milieurecht (1993) pp. 95–11Google Scholar
38. The method that apparently has the most support is the Contingent Valuation Methode (CVM), see R.C. Bishop and T. A. Heberlein, ‘The Contingent Valuation Method’, in Johnson, R.L. and Johnson, G.V., eds., Economic Valuation of Natural Resources (1990) pp. 81–104Google Scholar; Hoevenagel, R., The Contingent Valuation Method: Scope and Validity (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wilde, L.L. and Andersen, A., ‘Natural Resource Damage Assessment under the Revised United States DOI Regulations’, Environmental Liability (1995) p. 87 et seqGoogle Scholar.; Stewart, R.B., ‘Liability for Natural Resource Damage: Beyond Tort’, in Foquée, R. et al. , eds., Geïntegreerde rechtswetenschap (1994) pp. 447–478Google Scholar.
39. CERCLA in para. 9607 imposes strict liability for response costs on owners, operators, certain arrangers for disposal and certain transporters. See Shea, E., Introduction to U.S. Environmental Law (1994) p. 42Google Scholar.
40. Koeman, loc. cit. n. 29.
