Expenditure on remediation of contaminated sites

Transcription

1 Expenditure on remediation of contaminated sites Netherlands United Kingdom Denmark Belgium (a) Liechtenstein Austria Bulgaria France Finland Hungary Sweden Germany (b) Spain (c) Romania (d) Germany (b) Spain (c) Romania (d) 0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00 25,00 30,00 35,00 annual expenditures per capita (Euro) Figure 1: Annual expenditures for contaminated sites remediation in selected countries (EUR per capita and year), partly estimations (b) Germany: projection from estimates of expenditures from some of the Länder. (c) Spain: data only complete for public investment, not much information regarding the private sector. (d) Romania: data from 1997 and Sources: For EU countries and Liechtenstein, pilot EIONET data flow, January 2002; for accession countries, data request to new EEA member countries, February Key message Although the polluter pays principle is generally applied, a huge sum of public money has to be provided to fund necessary remediation activities, which is a common factor across Europe. However, annual expenditures vary from 35 to under EUR 2 per capita in the various countries. Even though considerable amount of money has been spent on remediation activities already, the share compared to the total estimated remediation costs is relatively low (8 % maximum). 1

2 Results and assessment (level of the indicator) Relevance of the indicator for describing developments in the environment In principle, the larger the expenditures for the remediation of contaminated sites, the bigger the minimisation of environmental deterioration and its associated risks. Studies undertaken over time allow an analysis of acceleration or delay in the management process. Policy relevance and policy references The polluter pays principle can only be applied partially to historic pollution since many legally entities have disappeared or the polluter cannot be identified or because of insolvency of the polluter. Therefore, a considerable share of the total remediation costs has to be provided by public funds. Several countries attempted to calculate total national remediation costs. The results of such calculations are not directly comparable; however, they serve as: baselines for the analysis of the management process for tackling local soil contamination; indicators for the amount of public and partly private money provided for remediation activities; indicators for the attention paid to and the economic burden of the problem of contaminated sites by each country. Figure 2: Expenditure for contaminated sites remediation in selected countries in 1999 in of the gross domestic product (GDP) Bulgaria Netherlands United Kingdom Hungary Belgium (a) Denmark Austria Finland France Liechtenstein Sweden Germany (b) Romania Spain 0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 of GDP 2

3 (b) Germany: projection from estimates of expenditures from some of the Länder. Sources: For EU countries and Liechtenstein, pilot EIONET data flow, January 2002; for accession countries, data request to new EEA member countries, February Figure 3: Expenditure in 1999 and 2000 compared to the estimated total remediation costs Denmark Finland Spain Austria Netherlands (b) %spent of total 1999 %spent of total 2000 Belgium (a) Sw eden [%] (b) Netherlands: average value (EUR million). Source: For EU countries and Liechtenstein: Pilot EIONET data flow, January 2002; for accession countries: data request new EEA member countries, February 2002; estimated total costs from EEA Topic Report No 13/1999. Assessment Data show that: considerable sums of (public and private) money have to be provided to comply with existing environmental standards; the priority given to the management of contaminated sites is different in each country (assuming that the problems are more or less the same); annual remediation expenditures in the various countries have almost been constant in the years ; on average, annual expenditure for the remediation of contaminated sites amongst the countries surveyed is approx. 0.8 of their GDP (see Figure 2); annual expenditures are on average about 2.5 % of the estimated total remediation costs (data from six countries); with a maximum of 7.9 % of the total in Denmark (see Figure 3). In general, all countries apply the polluter pays principle to different extents. The polluter pays principle cannot fully be applied to historic pollution since many legally responsible entities have disappeared or the polluter cannot be identified or because of insolvency of the polluter. Therefore, a considerable share of the total remediation costs has to be provided by public funds. Estimations on public expenditure are readily available, however, information on private expenditure is scarce and depends on rough estimations. 3

4 There is a more than a hundred-fold difference in annual remediation expenditures (public and private) per capita amongst the reporting countries (see Figure 1). These differences reflect not just the varying degrees of awareness, but also the different environmental standards applied in each country, the different hydrological conditions and degree of industrialisation. Remediation costs are on average 10 times higher than site investigations costs. Links between environmental merit and invested budgets are highly dependent on national standards, in terms of remediation targets and local site conditions. Data Table 1: Annual expenditure for contaminated sites remediation in selected countries (million EUR) Country Expenditure Expenditure Population Gross domestic Estimated Remarks (million inhabitants) product 1999 total costs Austria Belgium (a) Bulgaria Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Italy priority sites Liechtenstein Netherlands (b) Norway priority sites Romania Data from Spain (c) priority sites Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom ha cont land (b) Netherlands: expenditures are partly estimated. (c) Spain: data only complete for public investment, not much information regarding the private sector. Sources: For EU countries and Liechtenstein, pilot EIONET data flow, January 2002; for accession countries, data request to new EEA member countries, February 2002; Eurostat Yearbook 2001 and Eurostat international statistics (Recent demographic developments in Europe, 2000); estimated total costs from EEA Topic Report No 13/1999. Table 2: Breakdown of remediation costs 1999 in selected European countries (million EUR) Country Site investigation Remediation measures Total Austria 7 (10 %) 60 (90 %) 67 Belgium (a) 14 (17 %) 65 (83 %) 78.6 France 152 (64 %) 87 (36 %) 239 Hungary 4 (10 %) 35 (90 %) 39 Liechtenstein 0.03 (9 %) 0.3 (91 %)

5 Romania 1 (66 %) 0.5 (33 %) 1.5 Sweden 3 (13 %) 20 (87 %) 23 Sources: For EU countries and Liechtenstein, Environmental Signals 2001, EEA Environmental Assessment Report No 8; for accession countries, data request to new EEA member countries, February Metadata: remediation expenditures Technical information 1. Data source The main source of the data is the pilot EIONET data flow, last updated in January Data for new EEA member countries were obtained from the EEA-ETC/TE data request of February Socioeconomic data have been extracted from: Eurostat data in the EIONET Data Service (recent demographic developments in Europe 1999/2000); world development indicators database, World Bank, Description of data Purpose: background information for the development of indicators within the ETC/TE. 3. Geographical coverage Selected European countries. 4. Temporal coverage Historical time series 1997/1999 and Data refer to the most recent year. In most cases, the expenditures refer to the year 1997/99 and Methodology and frequency of data collection The priority EIONET data flows on soil contamination from localised sources are partly an answer to the requests for a more systematic data collection made by the EIONET partners at the EIONET workshop in Vienna, January Regular annual deliveries are requested on a limited set of national data at this early stage of development and in particular on: annual expenditure on remediation of contaminated sites; progress in the management of contaminated sites. The results were encouraging: 14 countries provided data during the pilot survey by 31 January 2002, one country in August 2002, while only three countries did not reply. The new EEA member countries were not included in the first stage of the pilot survey. A separate data collection for new EEA member countries was launched in February Methodology of data manipulation Total annual remediation expenditures per country converted into expenditures per capita and put in relationship to GDP. Qualitative information 1. Strength and weakness (at data level) Strengths: cost estimations are available; extrapolation of representative regional data to national scale is possible; high expressiveness for policy-makers. 5

6 Weaknesses: high dependence on cost estimations (no exact data available); access to real data is often not possible (e.g. regarding private investments); clear definition of the expenditures is missing, country information may include different kinds of activities (research, remediation, redevelopment costs, etc.). 8. Reliability, accuracy, robustness, uncertainty (at data level) The reliability of input data highly depends on the quality of data survey (investigation method) at national level. Quality of collected data increases when the organisation of data management, financing and funding is centralised. 9. Further work required (for data level and indicator level) distinguish between public and private expenditures if possible; more precise definition of the indicator; if possible: more detailed breakdown of the expenditure to separate the actual remediation costs from site investigation costs, follow-up costs for monitoring, the installation of contaminant control systems and/or change of land use; include additional countries in data collection; extrapolation of regional data to a national scale (where national data are not available) by using appropriate methods. 6