ENVIRONMENT: GREENS QUICK OFF THE MARK TO CRITICISE ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY WHITE PAPER.

Alex de Roo, (Greens, Netherlands), Vice-Chairman of the European Parliament's Environment Committee, believes the White Paper is too vague and leaves too many questions unanswered. Yet he insists that environmental liability has a central role to play in the environment integration process and in preventing future catastrophes such as the Erika oil spill or the Do[currency]ana nature reserve disaster in Spain. The White Paper contains too many loopholes which will make the implementation of such a regime very difficult if not impossible, according to Hiltrud Breyer (Greens, Germany), who adds that this "toothless document" proves once again that the Commission has made too many concessions to industry. The Greens have highlighted the following "main weaknesses" in the Commission document:- lack of clarity regarding reversal of the burden of proof: the Greens regret the lack of any genuine reversal of the burden of proof, merely an "alleviation", a clear step backwards in relation to previous projects;- lack of clarity on financial security: a mandatory insurance obligation has not been introduced;- non-retroactivity: the Commission has abandoned to the Member States the difficult task of dealing with pollution from the past;- diffuse pollution: in the Commission's opinion, environmental liability is not appropriate for this form of pollution (e.g. air pollution or farming). This leaves unanswered many questions such as severe forest damage next to heavily-polluting industrial plants.- no liability in certain cases: the issue of "thresholds" and "ceilings" suggests that damage may not be covered if it is "not significant" or conversely if restoration costs are too high. In order not to weaken the liability regime, guidance on precisely what these restrictions mean...