header-logo header-logo

18 January 2007 / Dominic Thomas
Issue: 7256 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

Environmental impact

Dominic Thomas explains why the demand for environmental insurance is on the increase

On 30 April 2007, the government is committed to implementing Directive 2004/35/EC on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage. The Directive is based upon the ‘polluter pays’ principle, whereby polluters bear the cost of remediating the damage they cause to the environment, or the cost of measures to prevent imminent threat of damage. Crucially, the proposed Directive does not cover economic losses resulting from the damage, such as personal injury or property damage.

Controversial consultation

The Directive has been controversial from the outset. Its original wording obliged the European Commission (the Commission) to submit proposals for a harmonised compulsory financial guarantee for water and soil damage. However, concerns over cost implications meant that the requirement was dropped, but the issue is to be revisited in 2010 and is likely to be introduced eventually.

Even without compulsory guarantees, the consultation process for the Directive proved divisive. The green lobby, for instance, was critical that the proposed Directive did not cover economic damage and that polluters would have

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll