Dr. Jonathan Derham Office of Climate, Licensing and Resource Use

Remediation of Environmental Damage under the 

Environmental Liability Directive / Regulations:  

context, and a strategy for how such remediation 

may be legally and technically achieved

Dr. Jonathan Derham

Office of Climate, Licensing and 

Resource Use

Outline

■

Brief introduction to Environmental Liability legislation

■

_Scope

■

_{Other legislative synergies}

■

_etc,…

■

The regulators imperative

■

The legal obligations

■

_The methods

■

_{A logical procedure (for damage management)}

■

_Wrap

■

DIRECTIVE 2004/35/CE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

AND OF THE COUNCIL of 21 April 2004 on environmental 

liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of 

environmental damage      

(OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, p. 56)

■

_{Article 1:  The purpose of this Directive is to establish a} 

framework of environmental liability based on the ‘polluter­

pays’ principle, to prevent and remedy environmental damage.

■

_{Effective date 1}

st

 April 2009 & statute of limitations 30 yrs.

■

Hugely significant piece of legislation

Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) (2004­35­CE) 

■

_{The legislation applies to environmental damage caused by any of} 

the following occupational activities (Schedule 3 of Regulations):

■

_{All waste activities}

■

_Waste TFS

■

_{All IPPC activities}

■

_{All UWWD licensed facilities}

■

_{All licensed surface water discharges (WPA)}

■

_{All authorised groundwater discharges}

■

_{All APA authorised facilities}

■

_{Road, rail and vessel transport of dangerous goods}

■

_{Management of extractive waste (mines & quarries)}

■

_{GMO contained use & deliberate release}

■

_{Classification, packaging, labelling of dangerous substances & preparations}

■

_{Authorising & placing on the market of biocidal products}

Scheduled Activities under the Environmental 

Liability Directive / National Regulations  

■

Legislation 

also covers damage to protected species 

and natural habitats from 

any occupational activity 

where an operator acts or fails to act and he or she 

knows or ought to have known that his or her act or 

failure to act causes or would cause such damage or 

imminent threat of damage.

Activities covered by Environmental Liability 

Directive / National Regulations  

Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) (2004­35­CE) 

■

The fundamental aim of this Directive is to hold operators 

(public & private) whose operations have caused 

environmental damage financially, liable for 

remedying that 

damage.

■

_{The ELD also has elements dealing with} 

preventative 

actions in the event of an imminent threat of environmental 

damage.

■

_{Environmental Damage –} 

■

_{Damage to protected species and habitats}

■

_{Water Damage (scheduled activities only)}

■

_{Land Damage (in so far as risk to human health) (scheduled activities only)}

■

_{Damage – Measurable adverse change in natural resource or} 

impairment of natural resource service

■

Seeks to protect public goods only

Scope of Environmental Liability Directive / 

National Regulations  

­

Private Goods

■

_{Standard legal remedies via nuisance, private civil} 

action, etc.,

■

_{Potential / actual damages relatively easy to calculate} 

(loss of earnings, impact on health, loss of 

rights/ability to use, ..)

­

Public Goods

■

_{Air, groundwater (??), soil (??), surface water (??),} 

■

_{habitats, ecosystems, nature reserves, biodiversity}

Pure public goods

■

_non­rival

■

_{non­exclusive}

how to put an 

economic or 

liability value on 

these ?

Designated Areas

The three main types of designation are;

■

_{Special Area of Conservation (SAC)}

­  Habitats Directive

■

_{Special Protected Area (SPA)}

­  Birds Directive

■

Natural Heritage Area (NHA)

­  Wildlife Act, 1976­2000

Other Designations

■

_{Nature Reserve}

■

_{National Parks}

■

_{Refuge for Fauna or Flora}

■

_{Wildfowl Sanctuaries}

■

Management Agreements

Environmental Damage – 

Principal Regulatory/Legal Provisions 

■

_{IPPC & Waste Licensing (Directives & EPA Acts & Waste Mgt.} 

Acts)

■

_{Prevent, Limit & Remedy consequences of accidents}

■

_{SEVESO Directive & national Regulations}

■

_{Limit Consequences & ‘alleviate the medium and long-term effects’ of}

any accident 

■

_{Habitats Directive, Regulations & International Convention on} 

Biodiversity 

■

_{protect & restore damage to habitats/biodiversity}

■

_{Environmental Liability Directive & national Regulations}

■

_{Prevent damage & remedy damage}

■

_{National Major Emergency Management protocol}

■ _see   www.emergencyplanning.ie

The (horizontal) ELD is the common thread ..

… that binds various regulatory authorities into 

a shared purpose, with the consequent need 

to articulate collective understandings of the 

statutory & regulatory obligations, processes 

and expectations arising from environmental 

risks, and following environmental damage 

events.   

The

 ‘Re

med

ying

’

­ Re

stor

e

Pollution incident imperatives under the ELD

    

These accident related environmental damage 

imperatives can be articulated thus:­

    

To devise a common understanding of the scope and 

meaning of;

         ­  environmental damage risk assessment,

         ­  environmental damage prevention / management  

      / mitigation, 

         ­  damage consequence assessment, and 

         ­  damage recovery management.

If damage has occurred ….

■

_{The language of the Remedying ­ Remediation ­ Restoration} 

imperatives

IELA Dublin 21­4­09 The ‘Re medying ’ ­ Restor e Pollution incident imperatives under the ELD These accident related environmental damage  imperatives can be articulated thus:­ To devise a common understanding of the scope and  meaning of; ­ environmental damage risk assessment, ­ environmental damage prevention / management      / mitigation,  ­ damage consequence assessment, and  ­ damage recovery management.

Restoration Options under ELD (Annex II)  

■

Primary Restoration/Remediation

■

Restoration to baseline conditions / favourable 

conservation status

■

Degree of intervention to be selected (full, limited, 

none)

■

Complementary Restoration

■

Return to baseline not possible

■

Upgrade or improve other sites or develop new

■

Compensatory Restoration

■

interim losses

Relationship between Primary, Complementary & 

Compensatory Remediation

Time Value Resource Baseline Value Primary Remediation Pollution Incident Interim Losses Compensatory  Remediation Complementary  Remediation

Restorative Options under ELD (Annex II)  

■

Emphasis in the ELD is on the Primary Restorative 

option

■

The choice as to which option has to be made by the 

competent authority(ies) 

■

_{Competent Authority is the EPA.  However, other State} 

bodies such as the OPW, the Heritage Service 

(Duchas), Fisheries, Teagasc, Local Authorities, the 

HSA, etc., will all have a role in advising and informing 

the competent authority in relation to selection of the 

optimum solution. 

Restoration to Baseline,  & Equivalency

■

_{Remedying of environmental damage, in relation to water or} 

protected species or natural habitats is achieved through 

restoration of the environment to baseline conditions (Primary 

Remediation)

Where this is not possible …

■

_{Then in determining the scale of Complementary and} 

Compensatory remedial measures, the use of Resource and 

Service Equivalence approaches shall be considered first.

■

_{Where these equivalency approaches are not possible then} 

value equivalency should be used 

For Interim losses or when Primary 

Remediation is not possible …



 Habitat Equivalency Analysis



 Resource Equivalency Analysis

■

 Resource to Resource

■

 _{Service to Service}

■

 Value to Value

Value Equivalency Analysis

Selection of an appropriate surrogate 

or Metric is crucial

Resource/Habitat Equivalency Analysis Methods

■

_{Methods used to determine the type and amount of remediation} 

needed to make the public whole for past, current, and 

anticipated future losses related to an incident. 

■

_{Equivalency analyses take into account the chemical, physical,} 

biological and, sometimes, social and economic, nature of an 

environmental impact and remediation options. 

■

_{The three main approaches to equivalence are commonly applied} 

thus:

■

_{service­to­service (mainly habitat equivalency analysis),} 

■

_{resource­to­resource (mainly resource equivalency analysis), and} 

■

_{value­to­value (mainly value equivalency analysis) approaches.} 

■

_{The objective of each of these methods is to determine the} 

appropriate amount of complementary and/or compensatory 

remediation necessary to fully compensate the public for an 

environmental damage.

Equivalency

■

_{There are four main measures for environmental} 

ecosystems/resources: 

■

_Type

■

_Quality

■

_Quantity 

■

_Value  

■

_{Assuming that the default position for environmental trustees} 

is that the ultimate goal is to generate a remedial strategy 

that delivers a solution which is of equivalent Value, then the 

defining factors for differentiating between Primary and 

Complementary remediation can be thought of as Type, 

Quality and Quantity. 

Equivalency Basics

 

 

TYPE

(of remediated

ecosystem/resource)

Same

Different

QUALITY

(of remediated

ecosystem/

resource)

Same

_Remediation

Primary

(same Quantity)

Complementar

y

Remediation

*

Differe

nt

Complementar

y

Remediation

*

Complementar

y

Remediation

*

■

Quality

■

_{Objective is ‘Replacement} 

in kind’ – i.e. of a type and/

or quality, and in the 

quantity, that was lost.

 

■

Type

■

Quantity

■

Value

* 

Assumes Quantity matched to value of loss

Determination of Value of a Habitat, Species 

or Public Resource

Economic Value strongly linked to People’s Preferences

■

Use Values

■

_Direct

■

_Indirect 

■

_Option

■

_{Non­Use Values}

■

_Altruistic

■

_Bequest

■

_Existence

■

 _{Ecological value  (Intrinsic value)}

■

 _{Human service value (recreation, bequest, future potential, …)}

Total Economic Value =

  Use Values 

+ 

Non­use Values

(Revealed or Stated)

■

The ‘reasonable’ remedial option should be evaluated, 

using best available technologies, based on the following 

criteria:

■

_{The effect of each option on public H & S}

■

_{The cost of implementing the option}

■

_{The likelihood of success of each option}

■

_{Negative impacts potential of option}

■

_{Degree of benefit of options to elements of resource or service}  

■

_{Social, economic and cultural concerns and other local concerns}

■

_{Length of time for remedial solution to be achieved}

■

_{The extent to which each option achieves the restoration of the} 

damaged site

■

_{The geographical linkage of the damaged site}

Choosing the Remedial Options 

■

Central to the decision as to which or whether, Primary, 

Complimentary or Compensatory remedial measures should 

be adopted are the economic principles of 

Cost Benefit 

Analysis and Cost Effectiveness Analysis

■

_{The ELD specifically identifies the role of} 

economic 

valuation techniques in informing decision making.

■

For example the ELD states that ‘… the competent authority 

is entitled to decide that no further remedial measures 

should be taken if the cost of the remedial measures that 

should be taken to reach baseline or similar level would be 

disproportionate to the environmental benefits obtained. 

Economic Evaluation 

Cost Effectiveness Analysis (i.e. what is the most cost efficient way of achieving the objective?)  Cost Benefit Analysis (i.e. is a given objective worth achieving?) 

Economic Valuation Techniques for 

Environmental Damage to Public Goods 

■

_{The Directive does not specify any particular} 

technique for economic valuation of damage to 

habitats, species or resources

■

Irish Legal & Technical professionals and Regulators 

need to develop technical capacity to put a value on 

public environmental goods/resources, and 

■

_{to apply CBA / CEA principles to decision making on} 

restoration choices

■

There is a need to avoid spending money on 

restoration that is disproportionate to the value of 

damage 

A Logical Procedure for post 

Damage Management

Phased Approach to Incident Remediation Planning (1)

ACTIVITIES

-Quantification of needs / scoping

­Team establishment

­Legal requirements

­Scheduling

-Deployment of Technical Experts

-Consultation with relevant competent agencies 

(standards, designations, etc)

-Data collection 

-Gather data on ‘expectations’ of environmental 

trustees, as well as those of public and political 

representatives

­Assess injury/damage

-Report findings

-Assess damage

-Select ‘metric’

-Scale damage

-Assess/scale against baseline

Phase I ­  Damage 

Assessment Initiation

Phase IIA ­  Damage 

Assessment

Phase IIB ­  Damage 

Reporting

PHASES

Phased Approach to Incident Remediation Planning (2)

Phase III ­  Remediation 

Planning

Phase IV ­  Remediation 

Implementation

Phase V ­  Remediation 

Monitoring & Validation 

­Define remediation objectives / requirements / Expectations 

­Develop remediation alternatives

­Undertake HEA / REA on alternatives

­Apply CBA / CEA /  VEA on alternatives as appropriate

­Select preferred remediation solution

­Select compensatory solution (for interim losses)

­Ensure acceptance by environmental trustees & interested 

parties 

­Assign resources

­Scheduling

­Implement agreed remediation plan

­Contracting & supervision

­Finance

­Establish monitoring and reporting programme 

for remediation plan

­Report to technical expert steering group (incl. 

competent authority)

­Re­evaluate remediation objectives and refine 

remediation plan as necessary

CEA STEP CEA STEP Pollution Incident  PHASE I  PHASE II  PHASE III activities Remediation Planning Not Technically  Possible C B A   ST E P _Cost  Excessive H E A  /  R E A  S T E P Define Remediation Plan H E A /R E A   ST E P V E A   ST E P PHASE V activities C B A   ST E P Cost  Excessive Technically  Possible Primary 

Remediation  Compensatory Remediation 

Using scaling of service /  resource losses (PHASE II),  define the service / resource  gains required C B A   ST E P Not Technically  Possible Estimate value  of damage Complementary  Remediation Not Cost  Excessive Cost Not  Excessive Cost  Excessive Not Cost  Excessive PHASE IV activities

Concluding Comments

■

_{Ex Ante assessment for Env. Risk Assessment (indemnity)}

■

_{Use worst case predictions, i.e.TEV of a protected habitat/ species} 

_{is the primary restorative} 

cost (because of standing regulatory obligations)

■

_{Necessary for high risk operations that may impact on a protected habitat, species or on a} 

public resource

 

■

_{We looked at the relationship between REA/HEA – CBA/CEA – Phased} 

Damage Assessment processes

■

_{Complex task:  Skills required – legal, technical & economic & socio­political}

■

_{Knowledge of conservation status (baseline) of all protected resources, sites} 

or species would help, but not essential

■

_{Close cooperation between regulatory authorities essential}

■

_{Clear resolution pathway for operators & stakeholders necessary}

■

_{HEA/REA, choice of metric and valuation essential for cost recovery actions}

■

_{Processes employed under the ELD are equally applicable to the} 

quantification of private damages / costs  

Thank You !

EU Commission (2001). Study on the Valuation and Restoration of Damage to Natural Resources for the Purpose of Environmental Liability. Report prepared for EU Commission by MacAlister Elliot & Partners and EFTEC, reference B4-3040/2000/265781/MAR/B3. Brussels. Refer also web site at http://europa.eu

/environment/liability/index.htm

EU Commission (2005). Guidance on the preparation of a safety report to meet the requirements of Directive 96/82/EC as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC (SEVESO II). EU Commission, Brussels. EPA (2006). Guidance on Environmental Liability Risk Assessment, Residuals Management Plans and Financial Provision. Irish Environmental Protection Agency. www.epa.ie

EU REMEDE (2007a). Deliverable #6A: Review Report on Resource Equivalence Methods and Applications. Report prepared under the EU Commission 6th _{Framework Programme by Status Consulting Inc., in support}

of the implementation of the EU Environmental Liability Directive. Published on the EU funded website

www.remede.eu

EU REMEDE (2007b). Deliverable #8: Draft Toolkit Document (outline). Document prepared under the EU Commission 6th _{Framework Programme by consultants Eftec in support of the implementation of the EU}

Environmental Liability Directive. Published on the EU funded website www.remede.eu

EU REMEDE (2007c). Deliverable #6B: Use of Natural Resource Equivalency Methods in Environmental Damage Assessment in the EU with respect to the Habitats, Wild Birds and EIA Directives. Report prepared under the EU Commission 6th Framework Programme by consultants Eftec in support of the implementation

of the EU Environmental Liability Directive. Published on the EU funded website www.remede.eu

Hampton, S. & Zafonte, M. (2002). ‘Calculating Compensatory Restoration in Natural Resource Damage Assessments: Recent Experiences in California’. Proc. 2002 World Oceans Conference, California, USA. Hanley, N. (2002). ‘The Economic Value of Environmental Damage.’ In, Environmental Damage in International and Comparative Law, Eds., M Bowman & A. Doyle. Oxford University Press.

Irish Government (1984). Framework for Co-ordinated Response to Major Emergency. Interdepartmental Committee led by the Dept. of Environment.

Irish Government, 2002. National Biodiversity Plan. Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Dublin. [Heritage subsequently moved to the Department of the Environment, see www.environ.ie/en/Heritage ]

Irish Health & Safety Authority (2006). Guidance Document: Safety Report Assessment. Dublin. Also www.hsa .ie

Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Leamer, E., Radner, R., and Schumann, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58: 4601-4614, January 15th 1993. [the Blue Ribband Panel]

Carson, R., Mitchell, R., Hanemann, W.M., Kopp, R., Presser, S., and Ruud, P. (1992). A Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Report to the Attorney General of the State of Alaska.

Carson, R.T., Wright, J.L., Csrson, N.J., Alberini, A., and Flores, N.E. (1995). A Bibliography of Contingent Valuation Studies and Papers. La Jolla, California: Natural Resource Damage Assessment Inc.

Carson, R.T. and Flores, N.E. (1996). Another look at “does Contingent Valuation Measure preferences?”- Experimental Evidence. How Compelling is the Evidence? Discussion Paper 96-31, Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego.

Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E. and Meade, N.F. (2001). ‘Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence’. Environmental Resource Economics, 19(2), pp 173-210.

Haab, T.C. and McConnell, K.E. (2002). Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources – the economics of non-market valuation. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

Bockstael, N.E. and McConnell, K.E. (2007). Environmental and Resource Valuation with Revealed Preferences – A theoretical guide to empirical models. The Netherlands: Springer press.

Habitat Equivalency Analysis:

http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/heaoverv.pdf

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/coastal/economics/habitatequ.htm

Clinch, J.P. and Convery, F.J. (1999). Evaluation and the Environment, in Economic and

Financial Evaluation. M Mulreaney (ed). Dublin: Institute of Public Administration Publishers.

Environment Canada (1999). Environmental valuation Reverence Inventory. Published on

the web at

www.evri.ec.gc.ca/

evri

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

http://www.envliability.eu/

http://www.envliability.eu/docs/D13MainToolkit_and_Annexes/REMEDE_D13_Toolkit_310708.

pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/stationary/ippc/index.htm

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

Selected References 3/3