92002E2198

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2198/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(19 July 2002)

Subject: Proposal for a Directive on environmental liability impact on SMUs

Would the Commission kindly answer the following questions concerning the proposal for a directive on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage(1)?

Has it investigated the impact that the operation of the future market in environmental liability insurance under this directive will have on the competitive position of SMUs vis-à-vis large undertakings?

To what conclusions did the investigations come?

If the operation of the future market in environmental liability insurance results in a comparative disadvantage for SMUs vis-à-vis large undertakings, does the Commission take the view that measures would need to be taken in order to restrict that negative impact to a minimum? What measures would need to be taken to that end?

(1) COM(2002) 17, OJ C 151 E, 25.6.2002, p. 132.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2002)

The Commission has assessed the economic impact of the proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on enviromnental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage(1). The Honourable Member is referred in particular to section 4, entitled The economic assessment of the proposal, its benefits and costs, of the Explanatory Memorandum to the proposal, and to the Impact Assessment Form attached to the proposal.

No impact assessment has been specifically made for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) since environmental damage might be caused irrespective of the size of a business.

It does not seem that the operation of any future market in environmental liability insurance would result in a comparative disadvantage for SMEs vis-à-vis large undertakings. The level of the premium to be paid by the operator would depend on the level of risk presented by each undertaking. This level of risk should be assessed by the insurer on an individual basis. This assessment is likely to take into account the quality and efficiency of the risk aversion and prevention policy measures implemented by each operator. In other words, all efforts taken by an operator to prevent or at least minimise the risks of occurrence of accidents capable of causing environmental damage should reduce the amount of the premium to be paid. It should also be noted that it is common practice in the insurance industry to fix the premium as a function of the turnover of the insured undertaking. Such a practice appears to be in the interest of the SMEs.

On the basis of the above-mentioned considerations, the Commission is not of the opinion for the time being that particular measures specifically designed for SMEs are needed.

(1) COM(2002) 17 final, OJ C 151, 25.6.2002.