Nya finansieringsformer för efterbehandling av förorenad mark Redovisning av ett regeringsuppdrag. ISBN 978-91-620-6704-5. Dela Kontakt Lyssna Sidor108Utgiven2016-03Pris 92,00 kr. (exkl. moms)97,52 kr. (inkl. moms)ISBN 978-91-620-6704-5 Lägg i varukorg Ladda ner (pdf 814 kB) I Sverige finns ett stort antal förorenade områden för vilka det saknas eller riskerar att saknas finansiering för efterbehandling. Det gör att det finns en risk för att takten i efterbehandlingsarbetet inte går tillräckligt fort för att nå det långsiktiga miljökvalitetsmålet om giftfri miljö. Naturvårdsverket redovisar i den här rapporten ett regeringsuppdrag med två olika förslag som ska förbättra förutsättningarna för att det finns tillgängliga medel. Det ena förslaget handlar om att alla verksamhetsutövare som omfattas av förordning (1998:901) om verksamhetsutövares egenkontroll ska göra en så kallad saneringsplan med tidsbestämd planering för sanering av konstaterade föroreningar. Åtgärderna ska vara kostnadsuppskattade. Det andra förslaget är att alla anmälnings- och tillståndspliktiga verksamhetsutövare betalar in avgifter till en statligt administrerad fond. Fonden kan ge bidrag till efterbehandling när det saknas en ansvarig med betalningsförmåga. - - - Beställtryck, ej rabatt. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Summary from the publication The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) hereby reports the findings of the following commission: Investigate and propose new ways of financing remediation of contaminated sites where the polluter can be identified, but they lack the financial means required to conduct remediation. We need to increase the pace of remediation in order to achieve the national environmental objective of a non-toxic environment – responsible operators need to be held accountable As a rule, operators must finance the remediation of contamination caused by their activities. Remedial measures can, however, be very expensive, and there have been many examples where operators have been unable to absorb these costs. We anticipate this situation becoming more common in the future. The overall assessment of SEPA is therefore that new regulatory instruments are required to address both current problems and, more crucially, prevent future problems that are likely to reduce the pace of remediation. At the current rate, the national environmental objective of a non-toxic environment will not be achieved, and there is a risk that costs will increase for the state. The proposals put forward by SEPA create a framework that ensures the polluter pays SEPA hereby presents two proposals that will improve the availability of funds for remediation of contaminated sites. With these proposals, both (1) intermediate goals for remediation and (2) the long term objective of a non-toxic environment can be achieved in an economically efficient manner. The proposals are as follows: All operators that are subject to Regulation (1998:901) on operator self-monitoring, must establish a remediation plan that includes a timetable for remediating previously identified contamination and an estimation of costs. – All operators that are obliged to obtain relevant permits and report contamination must pay a fee to a publically administered fund that provides financial support in cases where the responsible operator lacks the ability to pay. Both proposals primarily address the same kind of operators, namely A-, Band C-installations. However, the proposals are complementary in the sense that they create different strategies for financing remedial action. Highlighting existing costs The first proposal requires that existing costs are made clear and accounted for in the remediation plan. Current legislation requires that operators have knowledge of, and bear the economic responsibility for, this contamination. The proposal requires that operator responsibilities are identified at an earlier stage and that costs are made more visible. Making the costs of remediation more visible in operators’ accounts increases awareness and strengthens the incentive to minimise them. The proposal therefore also encourages operators to prevent contamination, whilst it is also expected to reduce the frequency of operators being unable to pay as it forces them to account for remediation in their capital structure. Finally, the proposal requires that remediation costs are considered alongside operational costs, thus making environmental costs more apparent. The risks for society decrease The second proposal, which creates a fund for remediation, provides a means of incorporating the cost of potential remediation in the operational costs of operators. This proposal can therefore be seen as a form of insurance against operators’ inability to finance remediation. The fund will create a safeguard, for both society and operators that ensures that capital is available for remediation when the operator lacks the means to do so. A centrally administrated fund is expected to prove more effective than environmental damage insurance, primarily because the interests of thirdparty insurers are no-longer considered. Instead, achieving the most efficient use of these funds, in terms of socioeconomic benefits, will be prioritised. Received funds will be solely allocated to remediation measures. Voluntary action leads to fee exemption It should be noted that operators that are affiliated with a scheme that provides similar financing measures, for example in the form of voluntary sector agreements such as SPIMFAB, are not required to pay towards the centrally-administered fund. This exemption encourages operators to find affordable solutions that fund remediation. For the first proposal to be enacted, SEPA hereby propose regulatory changes. Following consultation with the Ministry of Environment and Energy, the second proposal is presented alongside several alternative solutions, and therefore specific changes in regulation are not provided. Information is important To ensure that the first proposal is implemented as efficiently as possible, action is required from various stakeholders. It is therefore important that information is communicated effectively to relevant stakeholders, such as county councils and auditors. Short terms costs – long term gains Both proposals increase costs for operators in the short term. However, operators will, to a varying extent, be able to compensate for higher operational costs by transferring them to alternative cost centres. In the short term, the proposal to establish remediation plans will cause an increased workload for monitoring authorities, but in the longer term the requirements of monitoring agencies will be made more efficient due to increased transparency. We also predict that the second proposal will reduce public revenue, given that fees paid to the publicly administered fund will be exempt from income tax. It is probable that the proposal of a publicly administrated fund will lead to increased costs for both operators and the authority responsible for administration. The proposal is expected to positively impact municipalities, given that contaminated sites that would not otherwise have been remediated (due to the operator lacking capital) will instead be remediated and can subsequently be used for alternative purposes. A better regulatory framework in focus SEPA has considered a number of different funding solutions but concluded that it is not possible to put forward proposals that steer towards a specific funding objective. Instead, the circumstances of operators and incentivising financial accountability for remediation have been the starting points. In order to ensure the proposals were cost-effective, the following assessment criteria were prioritised: The Polluter Pays Principle is considered throughout Incentives to minimise contamination are strengthened Proposals should be practically feasible Administrative and investigative costs are minimised. Different types of polluter create different kinds of risk There are two different types of risk relevant to this proposal: Firstly, the environmental and health risks that arise due to contamination. Secondly, there is a risk that the operator lacks the ability to finance remediation. The type and severity of risk depends largely upon the operator / sector involved, whilst there are often a number of other factors to be considered. In other words, the diverse nature of contamination can be problematic and must be taken into consideration. Another problem is access to information regarding the contamination itself; this is relevant for the operator, monitoring authorities and third parties such as those considering investment in the business responsible for contamination. Contributions to this proposal Two projects have been carried out by consultants in support of this assignment. The first considered the legal implications of making remediation costs more visible in financial reporting. The second report investigated alternative approaches towards the organisation and management of the publically administered fund described in the second proposal. Both reports are available on SEPA’s website. SEPA has also carried out a survey that established the number of category C-installations in Sweden.