Kratka predstavitev dogodka - EcoLex LIFE · Kratka predstavitev dogodka A brief Presentation of the Event Zlata Tavčar, Director of Tax-Fin-Lex, EcoLex Life Project Manager: Vloga

Kratka predstavitev dogodka

A brief Presentation of the Event

Zlata Tavčar, Director of Tax-Fin-Lex, EcoLex Life Project Manager:

Vloga Italije pri udejanjanju okoljske odgovornosti in sodelovanje s Slovenijo

The role of Italy in the Implementation of Environmental Liability and Cooperation with Slovenia

H. E. Paolo Trichilo, Ambassador of the Republic of Italy

Slovenija v kontekstu EU na področju okoljskeodgovornosti

Slovenia in the context of the EU in the field ofEnvironmental Liability

Irena Majcen, Minister, Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning:

Zelena prestolnica, odgovornost pri projektih in prirazvoju mesta

Green Capital, Project Responsibility and City Development

Nataša Jazbinšek Seršen, Head of Environmental Protection Department, City of Ljubljana:

Okoljska odgovornost –odgovornost vseh ali nikogar?

Environmental Liability - Responsibilityof everyone or no one?

dr. Hans Lopatta, Policy Officer for Legal Issues, European Commission - Directorate-General for Environment

Environmental Liability Directive: Table of content

• Background, purpose and principles

• Evaluation of the Directive, limitations

and weaknesses

• Conclusions and recommendations from

the evaluation, the Multi-Annual ELD

Work Programme 2017 – 2020

• Specific questions

© European Commission, European Environment Agency

Purpose and principles Background

• Major accidents, such as the Doñana disaster where on

25 April 1998 a holding dam burst at the Los Frailes

mine, near Aznalcóllar in the Seville Province in

Andalusia, releasing 4–5 million cubic metres of mine

tailings (slime, residue) – 240 million €

• Need to halt the continuing loss of biodiversity in the

EU

• Safeguarding the quality of European freshwaters

• Many contaminated sites in the EU posing health risks

• The one who pollutes should pay and not the general

tax payer (Polluter – Pays Principle, Article 191(2) TFEU)

Purpose and principles

• EU framework based on the polluter-pays principle onthe prevention and remedying of certain types ofenvironmental damage (nature, water, soil)

• Liable person: operators carrying out professionalactivities – obligation to prevent damage in case ofimminent threat and remedy damage if it occurredalready – and bear costs

• Competent authorities enforce and affected personsincluding NGOs have rights to request action and toreview decisions

• Create a level playing field across the EU to streamlinerequirements, to benefit from more efficiency(‘economy of scale’) and to ensure equal treatment, e.g.transboundary damage

Purpose and principles The basic features

• The Environmental Liability Directive

(ELD) follows an administrative liability

approach

Not: Civil liability

• Environmental damage (nature, water,

soil)

Not: Traditional damage (personal

injury, damage to property, economic loss)

Purpose and principles Background

Strict liability:

Fault based liability:

Damage to biodiversity

Damage to biodiversity, water, land

Causal link is always necessary element – cf. C-378/08

Dangerous occupational activities – Annex III ELD

Any other occupational activity

Purpose and principles Overview of the functioning of the ELD

Evaluation of the Directive, limitations and weaknessesELD Report and REFIT Evaluation

"The overall finding from the submitted information and data confirmed the conclusion from the previous Commission report on the ELD of October 2010 of a significant variance between Member States. Despite the efforts undertaken so far by the Commission and the stakeholder groups to create a better level field by non-legislative measures, not only the transposition of this framework directive but also the implementation still varies greatly. This is the reason why the topic of the remaining 'patchwork' situation as regards environmental liability was broadly discussed in several of the ELD implementation and evaluation studies."

Evaluation of the Directive, limitations and weaknessesELD implementation 2007 – 2013

Number of reported ELD cases per Member State vary considerably:

• 95 annual cases (HU)

• 85 annual cases (PL)

• 10 annual cases (DE),

• 3 annual cases (UK) to

• less than 1 annual case

Eleven Member States had no ELD cases reported

0102030405060708090

100

Number of ELD cases

Evaluation of the Directive, limitations and weaknessesREFIT Evaluation and Report

Principal reasons – besides the framework character of the Directivecontaining many options and allowing for different interpretations –explaining the high variance and under-use in many countries:

• Continued use of pre-existing national legislation instead of ELD legislation(in combination with)

• A high 'significance threshold' of environmental damage

• Lack of publicly accessible registers of ELD cases

• Varied access of interested parties to submit comments and to cooperatewith competent authorities

• Subsidiary obligation of competent authorities to carry out preventive andremedial action if the operator failed to do

• Level of awareness of the ELD (rights and obligations) by operators and thepublic

Evaluation of the Directive, limitations and weaknessesMain challenges

• Lack of data on ELD cases and national implementation

• Limited awareness of the Directive by main stakeholders and practitioners

• Ambiguities around key concepts and definitions, such as the 'significance threshold‘

• Insufficient financial security for ELD liabilities

• Exceptions and defences

Conclusions and recommendations from the evaluation, the Multi-Annual ELD Work Programme 2017 – 2020

• Support MS implementation with proactive information and capacity building actions such as

– awareness raising and information,

– stakeholder and practitioner exchange and communication at all levels,

– training seminars and an assessment centre or experts network ("Clearing house" function) for all practitioners

• Review the interpretation of key concepts and definitions of the Directive, in particular in relation to "significance", "favourable conservation status", "preventive action", "baseline condition" etc. with a view to promote more uniform interpretation and a more level playing field

Conclusions and recommendations from the evaluation, the Multi-Annual ELD Work Programme 2017 – 2020

• Establish an EU register of ELD cases to help practitioners in practical implementation (competent authorities, financial security providers, operators, NGOs, the Commission)

• Develop an agreed set of indicators for purposes of future regulatory monitoring and gather and publish data on the application of the Directive in the MS in view of the next REFIT evaluation (effectiveness, efficiency, coherence) in relation to the overall situation in the EU

Conclusions and recommendations from the evaluation, the Multi-Annual ELD Work Programme 2017 – 2020ELD Multi-Annual Work Plan (1)

• Establish an ELD Multi-Annual Work Plan 2017-2020 based on the conclusions and recommendations in the ELD report and REFIT evaluation (Action Plan) between the Commission and the Member States

• Adoption at the 17th ELD government experts meeting on 28 February 2017

• ELD MAWP is supported by external technical assistance

Conclusions and recommendations from the evaluation, the Multi-Annual ELD Work Programme 2017 – 2020 ELD Multi-Annual Work Plan (2)

Main working areas in MAWP 2017-2020:

• Improving the evidence base for the evaluation of the ELD: concept development 2017; testing 2017/2018; implementing the concept 2018

• Supporting tools and measures for more even and increasing implementation of the ELD: developing a better common understanding of key terms and concepts 2017; elaboration and implementation of an integrated capacity building concept including ELD training 2017, 2018

• Ensuring sufficient availability and demand for financial security to cover ELD liabilities: investigation on availability and demand of sufficient financial security for ELD liabilities 2018, 2019

Specific questions

• What is recommended for countries to resolve atnational level, which has not been solved by theDirective?

• How to make maximum use of the polluter-paysprinciple, when in many cases this role (of thepolluter) is assumed by the state? (e.g. in caseswhere the polluter is unknown or goes bankrupt)

• Further questions?

• http://ec.europa.eu/environment/liability/index.htm

E:mail: [email protected]

Thank you for your attention !

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/liability/index.htm

mailto:[email protected]

EU prakse – priložnosti in ovire

EU Practices -Opportunities and Barriers

Benjamin Bitterman, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, Germany

The German Implementation of the ELD

»S finančno podporo LIFE, finančnega mehanizma Evropske unije. With the contribution of the LIFE Programme of the European Union.«

Overview of the Presentation

I. Political and Administrative State

Structure in Germany

II. Environmental Damage Prevention and Remediation Act (EDA)

III. Benefits and Obstacles of the EDA

25

I. Political and Administrative State Structure in Germany

Division of Powers

• Vertical division of powers: three levels of government

• Horizontal division of powers: three branches of government

Important effect: most environmental legislation is adopted at the federal level, but it is enforced by the federal states and the local authorities

26


1. Basics of the EDA

• One to one implementation of the ELD

• Main objectives:

• Prevention of environmental damage

• In case of an environmental damage: remediation

• Based on the “polluter-pays principle”

• Subsidiarity

27


2. Scope of Application

• Significant environmental damages or imminent threat on water, soil and certain protected species and natural habitats

• The damage or immanent threat is caused by an occupational activity listed in Annex 1 (exception biodiversity damage)

28


3. Measures

• Obligations of the responsible party:

• Inform the competent authority

• Take necessary preventive measures

• and/or remediate the environmental damage

29


1. Benefits of the EDA

• Preventive effect

• Closure of liability gaps

• Liability for ecologic damages

• Special rights are granted to environmental associations

30


2. Obstacles of the EDA

• In general:

• EDA works fine

• Possibilities to improve the EDA:

• Consolidation of annexes

31

„However, I wish, for the sake of an

ecological industrial policy, that the

Environmental Damages Act will be

applicable only in very few cases.”

Sigmar Gabriel (former Federal Minister for Environment / Bundestag / March

2007)

32

33

Thank you for your attention!

National level implementation of ELD – a comparative approach

Dr. Sándor Fülöp, PhD, President, Environmental Management and Law Association (EMLA), lecturer at National University of Public Services, Budapest

Criteria of selection of ELD cases

• Collect data on implementation, learn the system!

• Differentiate the ELD cases and focus on the real ones!

• Filter out criminals and free riders!

• …and you will have a cheap and effective ELD implementation system that is not harming the market position of your industry

Collect data on implementation, learn the system!

• The legislator, the authorities, the NGOs, the experts and the general public need data (case specific, as well as aggregated and analysed)

• Disincentives vs. the Big Data (national collections, official homepages, EU sources, information from NGO and science networks)

• A priority content: legal collisions (pre-ELD liability systems; administrative, criminal, civil)

Differentiate the ELD cases and focus on the real ones!

• Small cases: 95 %; below 10.000 Euro; within a couple of hours or days; no legal problems

• Medium (ELD!) cases: 5 %; below 100.000 Euro; within several years; serious efforts for seeking (and mostly finding) legal loopholes

• Large cases: below 0,001 %, national or international level disasters, long lasting, inestimable damages

Go after the bad guys!

• Strict liability in civil law (no fault to prove)

• Strict liability in administrative law: in the complex, highly technical environmental cases we need more, the shift of burden of proof

• Removal of the corporate veil: cases where the managers and owners are responsible

• Criminal enforcement shall go hand in hand with the administrative one

The ‘Environmental liability Directive’ - DIRECTIVE 2004/35/CE”

and The Environmental crimes introduced by Italian Law 22 May

2015 n. 68

Danilo Margaroli, Directorate General, Ministry of Environment, Land and Sea, Italy

Law 22 May 2015 n. 68Main aspects:

-Introduction in the Italian Criminal Code of the following crimes:

a) Environmental pollution (art. 452 bis criminal code)

b) Environmental disaster (art. 452 quarter criminal code)

- Reparative functions of Law 68/2015: a) Active repentance (art. 452 decies criminale code)

b) Site restoration (art. 452 duodecies criminale code)

The crimes introduced by Italian Law 22 May2015 n. 68

Article 452 bis Italian Criminal Code.The crime of "environmental pollution”

It is punished with imprisonment from two to six years and with the finefrom 10,000 euros to 100,000 euros anyone who abusively causes asignificant and measurable impairment or deterioration of:1) water or air, or extensive or significant portions of the ground orsubsoil;2) of an ecosystem, biodiversity, even agrarian, flora or fauna.

When the pollution is produced in a protected natural area or subjectedto a landscape, environmental, historical, artistic, architectural orarchaeological constraint, or to the detriment of protected animal orplant species, the penalty is increased.

Article 452 quater Italian Criminal Code.The crime of "environmental disaster"

Outside the cases provided for in article 434, anyone who abusively causes anenvironmental disaster is punished with imprisonment from five to fifteen years.Constitutes an environmental disaster alternatively:

1) the irreversible alteration of the equilibrium of an ecosystem;

2) the alteration of the equilibrium of an ecosystem whose elimination isparticularly burdensome and achievable only with exceptional measures;

3) the offense to public safety because of the relevance of the fact for theextension of the compromise or its harmful effects, or for the number of peopleinjured or exposed to danger.

When the disaster is produced in a protected natural area or subjected to alandscape, environmental, historical, artistic, architectural or archaeologicalconstraint, or to the detriment of protected animal or plant species, the penaltyis increased.

Reparative functions of Law 22 May 2015 n. 68

Article 452 decies Italian Criminal CodeActive repentance

The penalties provided for the crimes referred to in this Title, for the crime of criminalassociation referred to in Article 416 aggravated pursuant to Article 452 octies, as well asfor the crime referred to in Article 260 of Legislative Decree 3 April 2006 , n. 152, andsubsequent amendments, are decreased from half to two thirds for those who work toprevent the criminal activity being brought to further consequences, or, before thedeclaration of opening of the trial of the first degree, concretely provides for site securing,soil remediation and, where possible, its restoration, and decreased by a third to the halfagainst the one who concretely helps the police authority or the judicial authority in thereconstruction of the fact, in the identification of the authors or in the removal of resourcesrelevant to the commission of crimes.

Where the judge, at the request of the defendant, before the declaration of opening of thetrial of the first degree, provides for the suspension of the procedure for a congruous time,in any case not exceeding two years and extendable for a maximum period of one moreyear, in order to allow the activities referred to in the previous paragraph in progress, theprescription course is suspended.

Article 452 duodeces Italian Criminal Code.Site restoration

When the judge pronounces the sentence or the application of thesentence at the request of the parties pursuant to article 444 of thecriminal procedure code for any of the crimes provided for in this title, thejudge orders the recovery and, where technically possible, the siterestoration, placing the execution against the condemned and the subjectsreferred to in Article 197 of this code.

To the site restoration referred to in the preceding paragraph, will applythe provisions of Title II of Part Six of Legislative Decree 3 April 2006, n.152, concerning environmental remediation.

Title II of Part Six of Legislative Decree 3 April 2006, n. 152

Transposition of the ELD Directive

Art. 305 Remedial action = Art. Article 6 ELD Directive1. Where environmental damage has occurred the operator shall, without delay, inform the competent authority of all relevant aspects of the situation and take:

(a) all practicable steps to immediately control, contain, remove or otherwise manage the relevant contaminants and/or any other damage factors in order to limit orto prevent further environmental damage and adverse effects on human health or further impairment of services and

(b) the necessary remedial measures, in accordance with Article 7.

2. The competent authority may, at any time:

(a) require the operator to provide supplementary information on any damage that has occurred;

(b) take, require the operator to take or give instructions to the operator concerning, all practicable steps to immediately control, contain, remove or otherwisemanage the relevant contaminants and/or any other damage factors in order to limit or to prevent further environmental damage and adverse effect on human health,or further impairment of services;

(c) require the operator to take the necessary remedial measures;

(d) give instructions to the operator to be followed on the necessary remedial measures to be taken; or

(e) itself take the necessary remedial measures.

3. The competent authority shall require that the remedial measures are taken by the operator. If the operator fails to comply with the obligations laid down inparagraph 1 or 2(b), (c) or (d), cannot be identified or is not required to bear the costs under this Directive, the competent authority may take these measures itself, asa means of last resort.

Annex 3 Part VI Legislative Decree 3 April 2006 n. 152 = Annex II ELD Directive

1. Remediation of damage to water or protected species or natural Habitats

2. Remediation of land damage

Thank you for your attention

Avv. Danilo MargaroliVia Cristoforo Colombo, 44 00147 Roma - Italytel: 06 5722 8261e-mail: [email protected]

Italian Ministry of Environment and for the Protection of Land and Sea

Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del MareDirezione Generale per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile, per il Danno Ambientale e per i rapporti con l'Unione Europea e gli Organismi Internazionali Div I – Interventi per lo sviluppo sostenibile, danno ambientale ed aspetti legali e gestionali

mailto:[email protected]

Kevin Motherway, inspector, Waste and Financial Provision Team

Office of Environmental Enforcement,Environmental protection agency (EPA), Ireland

The Irish ELD experienceHow we started

How we worked

What we learned

Questions…..

• What I have been asked:

• “Ireland has a very well-structured process of environmental liability regulations”…– Guidance Document

– How did you achieve this,

– how does your inspection work,

– how many cases of environmental damage did you have,

– where are the problems ...

– how are remedy measures defined by the competent authority?

• The distinction

– Environmental Liability

– ELD Environmental Liability

• Progress in consistent calculation of the cost of remediation incidents

• ELD remediation

• Progress in securing robust financial provision– CRAMP “CLOSURE”

– ELRA “EVENT”• ELD

Protecting the environment (and the taxpayer)

EPA Strategy

• EPA Strategy 2013 - 2015

• EPA Strategy 2016 - 2020

• Reduced environmental risks at EPA regulated facilities through tailored interventions and by ensuring appropriate financial provisions are in place.

Guidance on costings 2014

• Guidance on assessing and costing environmental liabilities (EPA, 2014)

• Divided between two types of costs:

– Closure & restoration/aftercare

– Incidents• ELD are a subset of these

http://www.epa.ie/pubs/advice/licensee/guidanceonassessingandcostingenvironmentalliabilities.html

Guidance on financial provision 2015

• Guidance on financial provision for

environmental liabilities (EPA, 2015).

• Principles

• Financial Provision Instruments– Funds

– Bonds

– Insurance

– parental guarantees

• Templates

http://www.epa.ie/pubs/advice/licensee/guidanceonfinancialprovision.html

ELD: How we started

• Transpose regulations – (Dept. of Environment)..effective date 30/4/2008

• EPA designated the sole Competent Authority– Smoother

– Challenges (biodiversity, Land Damage)

• New ELD Unit– 3 staff (training/knowledge)

• Governance– How we are notified of ELD incidents

– How we make decisions (authority/delegation)

– Workflow/administration/systems

ELD: How we got up to speed

• Active participation in working groups/conferences

• Visit colleagues in UK also starting out– transboundary issues

• Build relationships– Other state bodies– Key Experts (national/international)– Insurance Industry– Conferences/Speaking opportunities

• Guidance Document

http://www.epa.ie/pubs/advice/general/environmentalliabilityregulations.html

The challenge of Land Damage

• 1st time concept of Contaminated Land was set down in Irish Law– Covered by Water Pollution before this (problematic)

– Required to develop a framework for managing contaminated land & groundwater

– Guidance led to improvement and consistency in how sites were assessed/remediated

http://www.epa.ie/pubs/advice/waste/contaminatedland/contaminatedland/

ELD Cases

• 21 Notifications/Awareness of Potential ELD

• Majority of complaints not ELD

• 2 Notice Served– ELD120002-01 Dairy Processor – Fish Kill

• Environmental Damage

• Fisheries Authority guided us through remediation

– ELD130004-01 East Galway Landfill• Imminent Threat…served on liquidator at a bankrupt

landfill

• Intervention by the State

Benefits of ELD• Direct benefits quite limited based on the scenarios we have

encountered to date– Major incidents are very rare (waste fires an exception)

– Reflection of the success of BAT/IED licensing and enforcement

• However ELD was the key factor in:– Establishing an Environmental Liability Unit within EPA– Improving relationships with other key stakeholders in the area of

environmental liability– Developing expertise on costing environmental incidents and financial

provision– Reviewing and significantly improving our enforcement of general

environmental liability– Development of Framework on the management of Contaminated

Land & Groundwater – Modifying operator behaviour to protect their financial status

EU prakse – priložnosti in ovire

EU Practices -Opportunities and Barriers

Zavarovalništvo: dobre prakse in trendi

Insurance: Good Practices and Trends

Environmental Liability Insurance

Walter Roos, Senior Consultant, Casualty Risk Consulting,Munich RE

1. Exposures of insurance buyers

2. Liability aspects for environmental damage to the different subjects of protection

Shoreline, Lake, River, Ditch

Water Protection Area, Groundwater

Soil

FFH-Area

Nature-Sanctuary

Natura 2000

Bird Sanctuary

RISK

Protected Species

Riskindex: low, moderate, high, extreme

Soil Waters Biodiversity

2.1 Environmental Loss Sensitivity Map

3. Structure of environmental insurance

LIABILITY

ENVIRONMENTAL

DAMAGE

PUBLIC LAW LIABILITY

DAMAGED GOOD OR INTEREST

LOSS CAUSED BY

POLLUTION

THIRD PARTY LIABILITY

- PROTECTED SPECIES AND HABITATS

- WATER

- SHORE LINE

- SOIL

PERSONS:- BODILIY INJURY- OTHER PERSONAL DAMAGES

PROPERTIES:- PRIVATE OR PUBLIC OWNER

LOSS OF INCOME

3.1 Insurance solution in GermanyPublic Liability

Insurance

Basic cover

Complete exclusion for pollution liability (inclusive fire and explosion

events are defined as pollution condition).

Reintegration of a basic cover for residual risks, such as small quantities

of chemicals or fuels. Standard cover for small and medium sized

companies without a significant environmental hazard.

Environmental

Liability Insurance

(UHV-policy)

Cover for third-party damage, which arises from an “environmental

impact”. The damage have to be caused by materials, substances,

vibrations, noises, pressure, rays, gases, steam, heat, or other

phenomena that have been dispersed in soil, air, or water.

Environmental

Damage Insurance

(USV-policy)

Coverage for governmental actions due to public law liabilities. The cover

of activities on owned premises is restricted o sudden and accidental

incidents. Basic cover for offsite environmental damage. Additional “first

party” cover can be purchased for cleanup costs and restoration costs on

the policyholder’s property.

4. Risk assessment

Insured

Site C

Site B

Site ASewage

Risk factors :Previous

lossesPast pollution

Natural hazardsLocal

conditionsManagement

Fire protectionSecurity

Substances

Emissions

Safety measures

Production plants

Storage facilities

Other facilties

similarto A

similarto A

Site C

4.1 Risk indication

4.2 Overview and risk indication

RC1 – low risk, RC 4– high riskRCel: EIL TPL RiskRCe: ELD or Ecological RiskRCf: Fire/Explosion Risk RCn: Gradual or normal Operation Risk

Conclusion

Environmental Liability Insurance

Insurance: Good Practices and TrendsRisk Assessment & Product Development

Jürg Busenhart, Senior Product Manager, Vice President, Casualty Underwriting, Swiss Reinsurance Company

• Operator

• Environmental impact of their activities

• Identify key hazards

• Implement adequate risk protection measures

• Government

• Protect environment and public health

• Permits and licenses

• Insurance Industry

• Risk selection

• Risk quantification

• Underwriting

• Avoid underestimation of losses

Environmental Risk AssessmentEqually important for all stakeholders

77

ELD Conference Slovenia | May 22, 2018 | Juerg Busenhart

Environmental Risk vs Environmental Impact AssessmentSimplified process for insurance purposes

78


Environmental Impact Assessment

• Risk identification

• Risk analysis (probability/severity)

• Risk evaluation (ranking/prioritization)

• Risk treatment to mitigate risks

• Identification, quantification and costing of a plausible worst case scenario for financial provision

Environmental Risk Assessment

• Average Industry Environmental Risk Rating

• Individual Environmental Exposure and Quality Rating relative to the industry standard

• Individual Receptor Assessment (probability/severity of impact)

– Environmental Damage Potential

– Population and property values

Industry Environmental Risk RatingHazards Analysis: Process and Substance Assessment

79


Low Lowmedium Medium Moderate Considerable High Out of scope

Environmental Damage Assessment Geographical Information Systems (e.g. SPACE)

80


Environmental Damage Assessment GIS Tools: Google, MORA, ZüRS, HORA, CatNet, others

81


Environmental Liability Insurance Product DevelopmentFocus Areas

82


• Risk assessment process– Understanding of environmental risk

– Appropriate risk selection

– Risk assessment tools and procedures

• Underwriting process– Experienced environmental liability underwriter

– Shift from actuarial historical data processing to forward looking scenario based underwriting

• Scope of cover/Wording– Alignment with operator's need, legal environment and insurance requirements (e.g. risk

based solvency requirements)

– Clear and unambiguous wording language reflecting different legal set-up for civil liability and statutory/administrative liability, and coverage intention

• Costing– Adequate estimation of frequency and severity of expected loss

• Claims handling– Capability to proper manage environmental claims

Environmental Damage Insurance Markets

83


• General Third Party Liability Insurance (public liability)

– Individual endorsement: Remediation of environmental damage after risk assessment

– Unbinding model policies developed by Insurance Associations (e.g. Germany, Austria, Switzerland)

– Market Standard

• Environmental Impairment Liability Insurance (stand-alone)

– Pool solutions in France, Italy, Spain

– Individual comprehensive EIL solutions focusing on unintended and unexpected pollution conditions

• Clean-up expenses (first party/third party)

• Remediation of environmental damage (biodiversity/natural resources damage)

Individual niche insurance market (no market standard)

84


Legal notice

85

©2018 Swiss Re. All rights reserved. You are not permitted to create any modifications or derivative works of this presentation or to use it for commercial or other public purposes without the prior written permission of Swiss Re.

The information and opinions contained in the presentation are provided as at the date of the presentation and are subject to change without notice. Although the information used was taken from reliable sources, Swiss Re does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy or comprehensiveness of the details given. All liability for the accuracy and completeness thereof or for any damage or loss resulting from the use of the information contained in this presentation is expressly excluded. Under no circumstances shall Swiss Re or its Group companies be liable for any financial or consequential loss relating to this presentation.

Okoljska odgovornost je moja odgovornost

Environmental Liability is my Responsibility

Ana Grabnar, Lawyer, Law Firm Rojs, Peljhan, Prelesnik & Partners

ELD v Sloveniji – zakonodajni okvir in praksa

Prenos v pravni red RS

• ZVO-1B (Ur. L. RS, št. 70/08)

• Pravilnik o podrobnejših merilih zaugotavljanje okoljske škode (Ur. L. RS, št.46/09)

• Uredba o vrstah ukrepov za sanacijo okoljskeškode (Ur. L. RS, št. 55/09).

Izhodišča

• odgovornost povzročitelja obremenitve (9.člen ZVO-1)

• načelo plačila za obremenjevanje okolja (10.člen ZVO-1)

Pojmi

• OKOLJSKA ŠKODA:

je večja škoda, povzročena posebnim delomokolja.➢ Škoda je merljiva negativna sprememba posebnega dela okolja ali

večja merljiva prizadetost njegove funkcije, povzročena neposredno aliposredno.

➢ Posebni deli okolja so vode in tla ter s predpisi o ohranjanju naraveposebej določene mednarodno varovane in zavarovane prosto živečerastlinske in živalske vrste („zavarovane vrste“), njihovi habitati inhabitatni tipi, ki se prednostno ohranjajo v ugodnem stanju popredpisih o ohranjanju narave.

Pojmi

• POVZROČITELJ OBREMENITVE:

je pravna ali fizična oseba, ki neposredno aliposredno, izključno ali hkrati onesnažuje okolje, rabinaravne dobrine ali povzroča tveganje za okolje alipovzroči okoljsko nesrečo ali okoljsko škodo.

• UPRAVLJAVEC:

je povzročitelj obremenitve okolja, ki ima v posestinapravo ali obrat ali izvaja določeno dejavnost.

Odgovornost za okoljsko škodo

• OBJEKTIVNA ODGOVORNOST:

Povzročitelj obremenitve je v zvezi z opravljanjemsvoje dejavnosti odgovoren za preprečevanjeneposredne nevarnosti za nastanek okoljske škode inza preprečevanje oziroma sanacijo okoljske škode neglede na krivdo.

➢Samo določene dejavnosti.


• KRIVDNA ODGOVORNOST:Povzročitelj obremenitve, ki izvaja dejavnost, ki nidoločena v [2. odst. 110.a. čl. ZVO-1], je odgovorenle za povzročitev neposredne nevarnosti za nastanekokoljske škode oziroma za nastanek okoljske škodena zavarovanih vrstah in habitatnih tipih, če je bilastorjena namenoma ali iz malomarnosti.

➢Vse ostale dejavnosti.


• SOLIDARNA ODGOVORNOST:

Če je povzročiteljev okoljske škode več in se ne daugotoviti odgovornosti posameznega povzročitelja,so odgovorni solidarno.


• Ni urejena pravica do odškodnine zaradiokoljske škode ali neposredne nevarnosti zanastanek te škode.

➢ Obligacijski zakonik

➢Zakon o kolektivnih tožbah

Preprečevalni ukrepi

• Ravnanje pri neposredni nevarnosti zanastanek okoljske škode.

• Dolžnosti povzročitelja:

➢ izvesti vse preprečevalne ukrepe.

➢obvestiti ARSO.

➢kriti stroške.

Preprečevalni ukrepi

• Ukrepi ARSO:

➢zahtevati predložitev informacij.

➢odrediti preprečevalne ukrepe.

➢zahtevati zavarovanje plačila stroškov izvedbepreprečevalnih ukrepov.

Sanacijski ukrepi

• Ravnanje v primeru, ko je nastala okoljskaškoda.

• Dolžnosti povzročitelja:

➢ izvesti vse sanacijske ukrepe.

➢obvestiti in informirati ARSO.

➢kriti stroške.

Sanacijski ukrepi

• Ukrepi ARSO:

➢odrediti izvedbo najustreznejših sanacijskih ukrepov.

➢zahtevati predložitev informacij.

➢odrediti izvedbo sanacijskih ukrepov.

➢zahtevati zavarovanje plačila stroškov izvedbeukrepov.

• Možnost sodelovanja oseb, ki so ali bi lahko bileprizadete zaradi nastanka okoljske škode in NVO.

Časovna veljavnost

• Izključena je odgovornost za:

➢ škodo, od katere je preteklo več kot 30 let oddneva vzroka njenega nastanka, in v tem časuproti povzročitelju ni bil sprožen noben postopekugotavljanja njenega nastanka.

➢škodo, nastalo pred 30. 4. 2007.

➢plačilo stroškov ukrepov, za katere je preteklo večkot 5 let od njihove izvedbe oziroma od dnevaugotovitve povzročitelja škode.

Izključitev uporabeOdgovornost za nastanek nevarnosti ali okoljsko škodoizključena:

▪ ob oboroženem spopadu, sovražnosti, državljanski vojni,vstaji ali izjemnem, neizogibnem in neustavljivem naravnempojavu;

▪ odgovornost in odškodnina urejeni z ratificirano in objavljenomednarodno konvencijo ali pogodbo;

▪ razpršeno onesnaževanje, razen če je mogoče ugotovitivzročno zvezo med okoljsko škodo in dejavnostjoposameznega povzročitelja;

▪ škoda je nastala zaradi dejavnosti, katere glavni namen jeobramba države ali mednarodne varnosti ali varstvo prednaravnimi nesrečami.

Prekrški in globePrekršek:• opustitev obvestila ARSO o neposredni nevarnosti za

nastanek okoljske škode;• ne-izvedba vseh potrebnih preprečevalnih ukrepov;• opustitev obvestila ARSO o nastanku okoljske škode;• ne-izvedba vseh potrebnih sanacijskih ukrepov.

Globa:• pravna oseba: 40.000 – 75.000 EUR• s.p.: 30.000 – 50.000 EUR• odgovorna oseba: 2.000 – 3.500 EUR

Praksa

• Omejena

➢industrijska cona Laze

➢Kemis

• Razlogi

„Prekrivanje“ z drugimi instituti

• določitev preprečevalnih ukrepov vdovoljenjih

• odškodninska odgovornost

• ukrepi v primeru okoljske nesreče

• subsidiarno ukrepanje države

Uporaba

• pravni skrbni pregledi

• svetovanje

• obrazložitev sodnih in upravnih odločb

Ana GrabnarOdvetniška družba Rojs, Peljhan, Prelesnik & partnerji, o.p., [email protected]

Hvala!

Saša Hojker, Senior Liability Underwriter for Corporate Clients,

Triglav Insurance Company

Mednarodna konferenca o okoljskiodgovornosti, Zavarovalnice Triglav d.d., Maj 2018

ZAHTEVKI V ČASU

Pollution Start Date

Stan

je o

kolja

Čas

1970-taSprožilec:• Stanje onesnaženostiZahtevek:• Civilno pravo

• Odškodninski zahtevek 3. osebe



• Javno pravo• kazni

2010-taSprožilec:• Stanje onesnaženosti

Okoljska škodaZahtevek:• Civilno pravo


• Javno pravo• Kazni• Preiskave• Čiščenje• Nujni stroški• Obnova habitata• Okoljske kompenzacije• Bio diverziteta

£100,000

£4,000,000



• Javno pravo• kazni• Preiskave• Čiščenje

Strošek = 40 x povečanje

Vir: © 2017, XL Catlin companies, Marco Sonntag, Environmental Insurance Overview

PREDPOGOJ ZA ZAGOTOVITEV ZAVAROVANJA:

✓DOLOČLJIVOST OKOLSKE ŠKODE

✓SLUČAJNOST DOGODKA

✓VZAJEMNOST

✓EKONOMSKA UPRAVIČENOST


ZAVAROVANJE


PODROČJE ODGOVORNOSTI

EKOLOŠKAODGOVORNOST- POŠKODOVANJE OSEB- POŠKODOVANJE STVARI- FINANČNE IZGUBE

→ ZASEBNO(CIVILNO) PRAVO

KAZENSKO PRAVO

EU EKOLOŠKA DIREKTIVA

EKOLOŠKA ZAŠČITA- PREPREČEVANJE

ŠKODE- SANACIJA

→ JAVNO PRAVO

Vir: Swiss RE, Edward Ben, Challenges and opportunities of the new EC ELD


POGODBENEGA ODNOSA NI:•DOLOČBE OZ

ACTIO DIRECTA

OŠKODOVANEC ODŠKODNINSKO –ODGOVORNOSTNO RAZMERJE

Izpolnjeni predpogoji odškodninske odgovornosti

POGODBEN ALI NEPOGODBEN ODNOS:•DOLOČBE OZ

•DOLOČBE SPECIFIČNE POGODBE

PODROČJE ODŠKODNINSKE ODGOVORNOSTI

POGODBENI ODNOS:•DOLOČBE ZAVAROVALNE POGODBE

• DOLOČBE OZ

ZAVAROVANEC

ZAVAROVALNICA


POGODBENEGA ODNOSA NI:•DOLOČBE OZ

ACTIO DIRECTA (???)

DRŽAVA JAVNOPRAVNO RAZMERJE

NAČELO “OZNAŽEVALEC PLAČA”

POGODBEN ALI NEPOGODBEN ODNOS:•DOLOČBE DIREKTIVE EU IN RESORNE

ZAKONODAJE

PODROČJE JAVNEGA PRAVA

POGODBENI ODNOS:•DOLOČBE ZAVAROVALNE POGODBE

• DOLOČBE OZ

ZAVAROVANEC

ZAVAROVALNICA


ZAVAROVANJE ODGOVORNOSTI ZARADI POVZROČITVE NENADNEGA ONESNAŽENJA

Vir: Zavarovalnica Triglav, Klavzula oza zavarovanje odgovornosti zaradi povzročitve nenadnega onesnaženja, KL-odg-eko/15-1


ČASOVNA OMEJITEV VELJAVNOSTI

Škoda na naravnih virih (javno dobro)

Stanje onesnaženosti

Nenadno&nepričakovano in postopno

onesnaževanje

PO,PS 3.oseb

Obveznost čiščenja-

javno pravo

Okoljskadirektiva

Preteklo &

M&A

Transport

Gradnja

Obratovalni zastoj

zavarovanca

D&O

Vir: © 2017, XL Catlin companies, Marco Sonntag, Environmental Insurance Overview


PRIMERJAVA KRITJA

Klavzula v okviru

splošne civilne

odgovornosti

ELD kritje

Možno kritje

Nenadno in nepričakovano onesnaženje

Zakonska odgovornostPoškodovanje stvari/Poškodovanje oseb

Uvedeni stroški sanacije

vključujočPrimarno

Dopolnilno(Kompenzacijsko)

Sanacijo

Zaščitene vrste in naravni habitati

Vode / Tla

Naravni viri

Preventivni stroški

Stroški čiščenja (on site)

Vir: CHUBB limited , Tom Hillier, Environmental Liability

IZHODIŠČA PRI ODLOČANJU UVEDBE OBVEZNEGA ZAVAROVANJA:

✓HOMOGENOST TVEGANJ

✓ZADOSTNO ŠTEVILO ZAVAROVANIH RIZIKOV

✓VEČJE ŠTEVILO ZAVAROVALNIC, KI BI NA TRGU NUDILE TOVRSTNO KRITJE

✓SPOSOBNOST PLAČILA PREMIJE

✓SAMOSTOJNA OCENA RIZIKA IN DOLOČITEV ZAVAROVALNE PREMIJE

✓FAKULTATIVNO ZAVAROVANJE ZA ZAVAROVALNICE

✓NADZOR NA IZVAJANJEM ZAVAROVANJA


OBVEZNO ZAVAROVANJE

Mag. Miha Skubic, Advisor to the Director, Slovenian Environment Agency

Vloga ARSO kot pristojnega organa- nekaj lekcij iz primera Kemis -

Pristojnost ARSO

položaj ARSO

postopek po uradni dolžnosti

preiskovalna(kvazi-inšpekcijska)

pooblastila?

ZUP

Postopek

Povzročitelj:

ARSO:

Začetek izvajanjatakojšnjih ukrepov

Notifikacija

Predlog sanacijskih ukrepov

„VEČJA“ / „SIGNIFICANT“

maj 2017 julij 2017

voda, tla, biotska raznovrstnost

Ali gre za ELD primer?

Kaj naj merimo?

Kaj je referenčno stanje?

Ali obstaja standard kakovosti, ki pravno utemeljuje relevantnost večje spremembe?

Ali obstaja vzročna zveza (stopnja dokazanosti)?

Določitev ukrepov sanacije

Določitev ukrepov sanacije

omejitve pri izboru

– strokovno-varstvene

– pravne

Stroški - jih znamo privatizirati?

• intervencija

• ugotavljanje škode

• postopek

• sanacija

• nadzor nad sanacijo

• spremljanje učinkov sanacije

Zavarovanje izvedbe:

• zastavna pravica

• bančna garancija

• …

Kaj smo se naučili?

Hvala za pozornost.

Jernej Kosmač, General Manager, Slovenian Solid Waste Association (SISWA)

Municipal Solid Waste Management in Eastern Europe and the Impact on the

Environmental Protection

CONTENT

1. Information about ISWA2. Information about Regional Development Network Eastern Europe, Middle East and Mediterranean -SEMEM3. Information about the state of municipal waste in RDN4. Conclusions

ISWA MISSION

ISWA• The world‘s leading network promoting professional and

sustainable waste management,• Mission:

“To Promote Sustainable Waste Management Worldwide “• ISWA, founded in 1970, a unique worldwide network in waste

management with more than 1,400 Members in more than 90Countries and additionally some 100,000 members associatedwith our National Member Organizations

ISWA achieves its mission through:- Promoting resource efficiency through sustainable production and consumption- Support to developing and emerging economies- Advancement of waste management through education and training- Promoting appropriate and best available technologies and practices- Professionalism through its programme on professional

qualifications.

Regional Development Network (RDN) is a network of at least 3ISWA National Members who work together on the promotion ofsustainable waste management in regions outside ISWA’straditionally strong areas (a RDN can only be established outsideof Western Europe and North America).

ISWA RDN SEMEM – ISWA NM - 11 MembersBosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Greece, Israel, Macedonia, Moldova, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia and Turkey

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENTPUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION• Waste management is one of the essential utility services underpinningsociety in the 21st century, particularly in urban areas, is a a basic humanneed and can also be regarded as a ‘basic human right’.• In the absence of waste regulations and their rigorous implementation andenforcement, a generator of waste will tend to opt for the cheapest availablecourse of action.• Unfortunately, the consequences of doing little or even nothing to addresswaste management can be very costly to society and to the economy overall.• Waste management activities are a net financial cost to the public, sojustifying investments in waste management need to use an economic costbenefit analysis, factoring in costs for environmental protection and forsafeguarding public health.• Costs for action/costs of inaction…

EFFECTS

• Public health impacts, including diarrhoeaand gastroenteritis from direct contact;respiratory diseases and dioxin poisoninglinked to open air burning of waste; infectiousoutbreaks and spread of vector-bornediseases when drains are blocked by waste;flooding; risks to animals feeding andhazardous substances entering the foodchain; and health impacts from uncontrolledhazardous waste disposal.• Environmental pollution, includingsurface, groundwater and marinecontamination, greenhouse gas emissions,impacts on fisheries and agriculture, loss ofbiodiversity and amenity losses to residentsand impacts on tourism

COSTS OF ACTION

COSTS OF INACTION (USD/CAPITA/YEAR)

The available evidence base is very weak but is sufficientalready to demonstrate the point that action is cheaperthan inaction.

• Health and illness costs due to solid waste-related pollution – 36

• Groundwater contamination – 4-20• Pollution of beaches by solid waste and marine litter –

26-50• Impact on residents and tourism from loss of aesthetic

values – 20-100• Loss of near-shore fish catch from water pollution due to

solid waste dumping – 5-10

WASTE – RESOURCEComparing global prices of primary and secondary resources

Specific Objectives for MSW Management

• Position waste management as an area requiring urgentaction, and call for policy and decision makers to take suchaction. Is not about waste, is about people!

• Expand the concept of ‘waste management’ to become ‘wasteand resource management’, including waste prevention andminimization and also aspects of resource efficiency andsustainable consumption and production (SCP).

• Demonstrate the relation of waste and resource managementto other global challenges such as sustainable development,water and energy balance and security, sound chemicalsmanagement, climate change, food security, resource scarcityand security and poverty alleviation; establish the links towider health and environmental policy challenges.

• Identify policies and governance strategies for sound wastemanagement, considering the varying levels of economic andhuman development between countries, their needs and thepractices in use; provide a critical overview of what instrumentshave been deployed towards which goals and have workedunder which circumstances.

• Examine the available approaches to waste managementfinancing and set out a framework for establishing a sustainablefinancing model in a particular local situation; consider thedirect costs and revenues, the costs of inaction and the indirectbenefits of environmentally sound waste management;

• Assemble sets of standardized performance indicators on wastemanagement that allow benchmarking exercises and facilitatebetter analysis of the state of waste management around theworld and provide a standardized means for monitoringprogress.

PLANNING – ISWA MODEL

“Technologies may be donor/funded but they will be operated with local waste, maintained, paid and supported by local resources, markets and citizens.”

Where we need to get to: Resource management within acircular economy

SLOVENIA WILL REACH THE TARGETS FOR 2025 and 2035

Some of the aims are similar with the aims of the projectECOLEXLIFE

• Awareness of all key stakeholders relevant to theimplementation of the legislation on responsibility forwaste management

• Raising awareness among key stakeholders to reduce therisks

• The establishment of a dialogue key stakeholders• Increase, strengthening the capacity of the administration• The transfer of good practices from the rest of the world.

HOW WE CAN DO IT IN WASTE MANAGEMENT?

“A STRONG GOVERNMENT, WORKING IN THE COMMUNITY INTEREST, WILL HAVE COMPANIES AND THE PEOPLE PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE TO KEEP THEIR ENVIRONMENT CLEAN!”

29/31, May, 2018

THANK YOU FOR YOUR [email protected]

mag. Senka Šifkovič Vrbica, Legal Advisor, Legal-Informational Centre for NGOs

Narava nima svojega glasu, zato potrebuje dobre varuhe in zagovornike.

To so tudi osveščeni in angažirani posamezniki sami ali združeni v nevladne organizacije.

Vloga nevladnih organizacij

Nevladne organizacije s statusom v javnem interesu

➢ 31 NVO s statusom v javnem interesu na področju varstva okolja (Zakon o varstvu okolja) ima pravico sodelovanja v določenih postopkih;

➢ 38 NVO s statusom v javnem interesu na področju ohranjanja narave (Zakon o ohranjanju narave) ima pravico zastopati interese ohranjanja narave v vseh upravnih in sodnih postopkih.

Pravice v postopku odgovornosti za okoljsko škodo

- pravne ali fizične osebe, ki so zaradi nastanka okoljske škode prizadete ali bi bile lahko prizadete,

- nevladne organizacije s statusom delovanja v javnem interesu na področju varstva okolja

imajo pravico, da- ARSO obvestijo o primerih okoljske škode in zahtevajo, da

ARSO ukrepa v skladu z zakonom- so stranski udeleženec v postopku odreditve sanacijskih

ukrepov.

Postopek za obvestilom in zahtevo: Obvestilo ARSO o primeru okoljske škode z zahtevo za ukrepanje je treba priložiti podatke, ki utemeljujejo zahtevo. ARSO:

- preuči obvestilo in zahtevo, če ta prepričljivo dokazuje, da okoljska škoda obstaja,

- da „povzročitelju“ možnost, da prestavi svoja stališča,

- čim prej obvesti pobudnike o določitvi ali bo zahtevi ugodil ali jo zavrnil.

Stranska udeležba v postopku odreditve sanacijskih ukrepov: poteka v skladu z Zakonom o splošnem upravnem postopku (pravica podajanja stališč in uporaba pravnih sredstev); ni potrebno posebej izkazovati pravnega interesa.

Prijava primera – velika sova uharica

• Habitat velike uharice v vasi Loka nad Koprom je bil ogrožen zaradi plezalnih aktivnosti v steni, kjer je 2013 nastalo 21 plezalnih smeri domnevno v okviru delovanja Planinske zveze Slovenije (status območja Natura 2000, naravna vrednota in ekološko pomembno območje).

• Gibanje v steni je vznemirjalo veliko uharico, sledila je neuspešna gnezditev in upad števila osebkov.

Argumenti prijave/obvestila ARSO o primeru okoljske škode:• prijava Zavoda za varstvo narave inšpektoratu.• za plezalne smeri bi bilo potrebno pridobiti posebno dovoljenje za poseg,

ki ni bilo pridobljeno.

ARSO je zadevo obravnaval, pridobil stališče Planinske zveze in mnenje Zavoda za varstvo narave in zavrnil obravnavo okoljske škode (inšpekcijski postopek je vmes dosegel zaprtje plezalnih, po zaprtju ni večje škode.

Kje vidimo težave?

• aktivno vlogo s pravicami pri obveščanju o okoljski škodo in sanacijskih ukrepih imajo samo NVO s statusom okolje (ne pa tudi NVO s statusom narava)

• nizka osveščenost med NVOji o Direktivi o okoljski odgovornosti – niso vse degradacije okolja tudi okoljska škoda

• pri prijavljanju primerov škode v naravi zato naletimo na ovire:

– lahko ne gre za škodo po definiciji okoljske škode– lahko gre za razpršeno onesnaževanje– lahko gre za kontinuirano onesnaževanje ki se nalaga desetletja– škodo na vodi in tleh je težko izkazovati – potrebne so meritve

strokovnih/akreditiranih institucij (strošek)– Škodo na zavarovanih vrstah je težko dokazovati ker je za malo

živalskih vrst ugotovljeno referenčno stanje

Kaj lahko NVO prispevajo k boljšemu izvajanju ELD direktive?

• ozaveščanje NVO in javnosti• v sodelovanju z ministrstvom in ARSO lahko tudi pomoč pri evidentiranju

primerov okoljske škode na terenu• prijavljanje primerov okoljske škode in aktivno nastopanje v postopkih

Podpiramo:• zakonske rešitve, ki bodo omogočile sanacijo starih okoljskih bremen (pred

uveljavitvijo direktive)• ustanovitev posebnega sklada za to sanacijo, ki se bo polnil iz dela

okoljskih dajatev, ki jih onesnaževalci že plačujejo za onesnaževanje okolja in se ne vračajo v okolje

Tako se bo v polni meri udejanjil „polluter pays principle“.

Jurij Kočar, Product Manager, Slovenian Automobile Association AMZS

AMZS – Pravi prijatelj

Varnost. Mobilnost. Šport.

• Avto-moto zveza Slovenije: 78 društev

• AMZS d. d.: 28 Poslovnih enot

Avtomobilska industrija za servisiranje inpopravila motornih vozil igra pomembnovlogo pri zmanjševanju onesnaževanja.

Zmanjšanje negativnega vpliva na okolje je izziv.

Izboljšanje okoljske učinkovitosti ima poslovne koristi.

AMZS smo odgovorno podjetje:do narave in družbe

Okoljska odgovornost je moja odgovornost

Environmental Liability is my Responsibility

EcoLexLife: sodelovalna platforma

EcoLex Life: Platform for Collaboration

Zlata Tavčar, Director of Tax-Fin-Lex,EcoLex Life Project Manager

Predstavitev projekta EcoLex Life

• ECOLEX Life projekt je osnovan na

iniciativi LIFE, podlaga zanj pa je EU

direktiva o okoljski odgovornosti (ELD,

direktiva 2004/35/EC).

• Ključna vsebina direktive je opredelitev

odgovornosti tako glede preprečevanja

kot tudi sanacije okoljske škode. Plačnik

škode je onesnaževalec.

• Izvajalci projekta:

– TAX-FIN-LEX d.o.o.

– Pristop Media d.o.o. – komunikacijski partner

• Trajanje projekta:

– začetek: 15/07/2017

– konec: 31/12/2019

• Proračun projekta:

– Skupni znesek: 1.303.848 €

– Sofinanciranje EK: 59,97%

– Sofinanciranje MOP: 10%

Razlogi za projekt EcoLex Life

1. Nepoznavanje zakonodaje o odgovornosti za okoljsko škodo.

2. Zaradi nepoznavanja zakonodaje, podjetja tudi ne izvajajo preventivnih ukrepov za

odpravo tveganj za nastanek okoljske škode.

3. Nepoznavanje, da odgovornost za okoljsko škodo vključuje škodo povzročeno vodi,

tlem in biodiverziteti – zavarovanim rastlinskim in živalskim vrstah in njihovim habitatom.

4. Kompleksnost zakonodaje na področju varstva okolja.

5. Slaba komunikacija med ključnimi deležniki, zavezanci za zakonodajo na področju

odgovornosti za okoljsko škodo.

2/3 malih in srednje

velikih podjetij ne pozna/

ni seznanjena z

zakonskimi podlagami o

odgovornosti za okoljsko

škodo

1/3 malih in srednje velikih

podjetij je prepričanih, da jih

zakonodaja ne zavezuje k

preprečevanju+sanaciji

okoljske škode

2/3 SME 1/3 SME

66.7%

33.3%

66.7%

33.3%

EcoLex Life Rezultati ankete

1/3 izjavlja, da

nimajo potrebe

po zavarovanju+

ni ustreznih

produktov

1/3 pravi, da še

razmišlja o

zavarovanju,

vendar se zanj še

niso odločile

za 1/10 je

zavarovanje

odgovornosti

prevelik strošek

1/2 SME svoje odgovornosti za preprečevanje +

sanacijo okoljske škode nima zavarovane oz. jo

enačijo z zavarovanjem za škodo na premoženju

1/2 SME50%

50%

Kaj želi projekt EcoLex Life doseči?

1. Ozaveščanje vseh ključnih deležnikov, pomembnih za izvajanje zakonodaje o odgovornosti za

okoljsko škodo:

- podjetja, ki opravljajo tako dejavnost, ki lahko povzroči neposredno nevarnost za

povzročitev okoljske škode ali okoljsko škodo,

- Ministrstvo za okolje in prostor,

- Agencija RS za okolje,

- GZS in gospodarska združenja,

- nevladne organizacije,

- zavarovalnice.

2. Vzpostavitev dialoga ključnih deležnikov preko organiziranih delavnic po ključnih vsebinskih sklopih.

3. Z ozaveščanjem ključnih deležnikov zmanjšati tveganja za nastanek okoljske škode.

4. Povečanje, krepitev zmogljivosti administracije.

5. Prenos dobrih praks iz tujine preko mednarodnih konferenc.

Kako želi projekt EcoLex Life doseči zastavljene cilje ?

1. Organizacija delavnic, mednarodnih konferenc in webinarjev za ozaveščanje/informiranje in

prenos dobrih praks iz tujine.

2. Vzpostavitev on-line platforme za okoljsko zakonodajo:

- spremljanje novosti - obveščanje o spremembah in novostih okoljske zakonodaje, novih vsebinah in

okoljskih novicah,

- ažurna okoljska zakonodaja + obrazložitve ključnih predpisov posebej še s tistim delom, ki se

nanaša na odgovornost za preprečevanje nastanka okoljske škode oziroma izvedbo sanacijskih

ukrepov v primeru nastanka le-teh.

3. Vzpostavitev orodja za podjetja za vodene razlage (okoljski vodič) pri izvajanju njihove dejavnosti.

4. Izdelava vzorčnih primerov za oceno tveganja (in s tem zavarovanje) za nastanek okoljske škode za

posamezne sektorje.

5. Priprava podrobnejših Smernic za izvajanje zakonodaje s področja odgovornosti za nastanek

okoljske škode.

Koledar delavnic

Portal EcoLex Life (www.ecolexlife.si)

http://www.ecolexlife.si/

Glavni moduli portala EcoLex Life

EcoClipping

• Tedenski mailing + arhiv na portalu

• Obveščanje o:• Spremembah okoljske zakonodaje (sprejete,

v pripravi, v postopkih sprejemanja)

• Novo dodanih vsebinah v EcoLexu

• Okoljskih novicah (STA, nevladne

organizacije, drugi viri)

• Aktivnostih na projektu EcoLex Life

(delavnice, konference)

• Novostih LIFE programa

• Eko-misli, zanimiva dejstva, nasveti, kolumne

Status: NAREJENO

Zakonodaja• Register predpisov s področja varovanja

okolja

• Vsa veljavna zakonodaja v obliki čistopisov

• Povezave na ostale dokumente

• EU zakonodaja

• Predpisi v pripravi

• Sodna praksa

Status: v zaključni fazi

Okoljski vodič• Komentarji (razlage) zakonodaje

• FAQ (o okoljski odgovornosti, ELD direktivi,

postopkih v primeru nesreč)

• Okoljski vodiči - vodene razlage na osnovi

uporabnikovih vhodnih podatkov (npr. uporabnik

izbere dejavnost „avtoprevozništvo“, sistem mu

predlaga zakonodajo in ostale ukrepe glede

odgovornosti za nastanek okoljske škode)

• Napotitve na dobre prakse od drugod

Status: pričetek razvoja

Orodje za ocenjevanje tveganja

• Izdelava 150 profilov ocen tveganja (po

30 na področje: odpadki, podnebne

spremembe, zrak, vode, kemikalije)

• Vključitev zavarovalnic – razvoj

zavarovalnega produkta za zavarovanje

okoljske odgovornosti

• Povabilo k sodelovanju:

• v razpravo Task Force

• posredujte nam vaše predloge za

določanje in merjenje tveganj!

Status: pričetek razvoja

www.ecolexlife.si, www.ecolex.si

http://www.ecolexlife.si/

http://www.ecolex.si/

Hvala za vašo pozornost!

Povabilo k podpori Pobude zapovezovanje in sodelovanje na področju

okoljske odgovornosti v Sloveniji

Initiative for integration and cooperation in the field of Environmental Liability in Slovenia

Okrogla miza: Skupaj za preboj!Potenciali regije

Round table: Hand-in-hand for Breakthrough!

Opportunities of the region

Okrogla miza: Skupaj za preboj! Potenciali regijeRound table: Hand-in-hand for Breakthrough! Opportunities of the region

Dr. Pavel Gantar, Professor of Sociology of Space and Environmental Sociology in retirement, Former Minister of the Environment and Spatial Planning

Danilo Margaroli, Directorate General, Ministry of Environment, Land and Sea, Italy

Dr. Sándor Fülöp, PhD President, Environmental Management and LawAssociation (EMLA), Hungary, Lecturer, National University of Public Services, Budapest

Daniela Beroš, Expert Adviser, Ministry of Environment and Energy, Croatia

Karin Huber Heim, Academic Programme Director of Sustainability and Responsible Management, University of Applied Sciences IBF Vienna, Austria

Povzetki dneva

Summary of the day

Hvala!

Thank you!

Mednarodna konferenca o okoljski

odgovornosti je bila omogočena s

finančno podporo LIFE, finančnega

mehanizma Evropske unije.

The International Conference on Environmental

Liability was enabled

with the financial contribution of the LIFE

Programme of the European Union.

Documents

Kratka predstavitev dogodka - EcoLex LIFE · Kratka predstavitev dogodka A brief Presentation of the Event Zlata Tavčar, Director of Tax-Fin-Lex, EcoLex Life Project Manager: Vloga