1.2.2 Polluter-Pays Principle (versus community-pays principle)

‘The polluter-pays principle states that the one causing environmental impact is principally held responsible—materially and financially—for protecting the environment and is required to prevent, correct, or financially compensate such impact’ (Knopp 2008: 7). But a problem arises in cases of inherited pollution where the responsible parties often cannot be held liable and—if no other party can be held responsible—the general public must bear the cost. In such cases the polluter-pays principle would be replaced by the community-pays principle.

In environmental law, the polluter-pays principle is enacted to make the party responsible for producing pollution responsible for paying for the damage done to the natural environment. It is regarded as a general custom because of the strong support it has received in most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and European Community (EC) countries. In international environmental law it is mentioned in Principle 16 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992).

The polluter-pays principle is an important element of environmental policy and influences, for example, political measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Often this principle will be applied as the so-called ‘extended polluter responsibility’ (EPR). This concept was probably first formulated by the Swedish government in 1975. For instance, EPR can help to shift the responsibility for dealing with waste from governments and taxpayers to the real producers of the waste. OECD defines EPR as: a concept where manufacturers and importers of products should bear a significant degree of responsibility for the environmental impacts of their products throughout the product life-cycle, including upstream impacts inherent in the selection of materials for the products, impacts from manufacturers’ production process itself, and downstream impacts from the use and disposal of the products. Producers accept their responsibility when designing their products to minimise life-cycle environmental impacts, and when accepting legal, physical or socio-economic responsibility for environmental impacts that cannot be eliminated by design.