The Austrian Contaminated Sites Policy Financial Issues

Transcription

1 The Austrian Contaminated Sites Policy Financial Issues ICCL Conference in Melbourne, H. Kasamas (Environment Ministry Austria) :25 Seite

2 Seite

3 Seite

4 Seite

5 AUSTRIA Total area: km 2 60% mountains 8,5 mio. inhabitants 100 persons per km 2 Vienna: 1,8 mio. inhabitants Vienna VICTORIA Total area: km 2 (almost 3 times larger) 5,9 mio. inhabitants (almost 1/3 less) 26 persons per km 2 Melbourne: 4,3 mio. inhabitants

6 The Contaminated Land Map C S e x i s t i n g C S r e m e d i a t e d C S e x p e c t e d 1 7 % C S i d e n t i f i e d Seite

7 Prolog End of the 80 s approx m 3 mixed MSW/hazwaste Threatened drinking water supply for Vienna Owner not liable permit from local authorities public outrage urgent political solution Seite

8 Uuups, we have a Problem Who pays? historic contam. polluter doesn t exist anymore not liable if environmental regulation didn t exist not liable if permit for contam. activities existed polluter fights liability public money for lawyers? polluter is unable to pay bankruptcy Solutions needed from public sector Seite

9 The Legal Basis Contaminated Sites Cleanup Act (ALSAG 1989) Procedures/responsibilities/financing/enforcement Environmental Funding Act (UFG 1993) Goals and procedure for environmental funding Guideline for Funding (FRL 2015) (versions 1991, 1997, 2002, 2008) Sets the conditions for funding procedure (e.g. how much? who can apply? which costs are eligible?) Seite

10 Definition of Contaminated Sites Contaminated sites are old waste dumps and industrial estates which pose a serious threat to human health and the environment Seite

11 What are we speaking about? historic contamination before 1989!!! most risky sites tip of the iceberg public concern groundwater protection responsibilities: fed (historic.), prov. (new) legal culture administrative law Seite

12 FUNDING - INPUT ALSAG 1989 = Federal Law! waste tax (as proposed) residual, mass or hazardous waste... Earmarked for CLM 30,00 /t soil excavation, demolition and construction waste... 15,00 /t waste incineration or waste export ,00 /t Incentives for better waste management Seite

13 FUNDING - INPUT

14 FUNDING - INPUT Total Income in 25 years: mio (2.000 mio AU$) 52 mio per year (81 mio AU$ per year) Exchange Rate 100 AU$ ~ 64 6,1 per Austrian per year (9,5 AU$ per Austrian per year) Seite

15 FUNDING - OUTPUT federal FUNDS 15% for inventory, risk assessment and prioritisation of contam. sites 85% to fund or perform cleanup operations at high-risk sites country-wide uniform procedure Seite

16 FUNDING Allocation ( ) type of funding number of projects env. related invest. funding vol. AU$ AU$ remediation mio mio 793 mio mio research mio 30 mio 15 mio 23 mio TOTAL mio mio 808 mio mio average rate of public aid: 77 % annual amount of public aid: 37 mio (60 mio AU$) Seite

17 Who can apply? Municipalities Waste organisations Provinces Site owner / user Responsible parties PRECONDITION: site is listed in ALSAG ordinance contamination occured before authority permit/order for remediation project exists Seite

18 How much money? 3 Key Questions: Is the applicant responsible party? Is the applicant competitor on the free market? How urgent is the remediation? priority class Seite

19 What is a responsible party? Someone who caused a contamination after 1959 and before except a legal permit existed... Therefore: a polluter can be non-liable and can receive maximum funding rates! Seite

20 How much money? max. funding rates are 55 95% of the eligible costs responsible party is competitor no funding responsible party is no competitor (e.g. municipality) max. 65 % No responsible party available max. 95 %, regardless if competitor or non-competitor. BUT: if a competitor would receive > 7,5 mio. public funding approval from European Commission needed (competition rules) Seite

21 How urgent is the remediation? Priority 3 max. 65% Priority 1 max. 95% historic industrial estates Priority 2 max. 80% historic waste deposits Seite

22 Land value How to deal with an increased value of land after remediation? 1. Value of the property has to be assessed before and after remediation. 2. Is the increased value of the property after remediation more than the own contribution of the applicant the amount of funding gets decreased by this difference. (EC guidelines on State aid for environmental protection) Seite

23 Funding RTD Projects towards cost-effective and innovative rem. technologies RTD Priorities Nanotechnologie Chemical insitu remediation Combinations of insitu technologies Seite

24 Towards sustainable solutions selection of remediation options Cost-Effectiveness Analysis implement principles of sustainability hierarchy of goals and its weighting stakeholder groups Three Level-1-goals: Ecology (weight 60) Local development (weight 20) Project stability (weight 20) Seite

25

26 Environmental Effects 50 Mio. m³ groundwater quality improved 250 t of CHC removed from groundwater 14 Mio. t of contaminated soil treated 150 ha of remediated properties reused Reduction of greenhousgases from 3,4 Mio. t CO 2 - equivalents (1990) to 0,7 Mio. t CO 2 -equivalents (2005) (Datenbasis ) Seite

27 CONCLUSION For historical contamination, the enforcement of a strict Polluter-Pays-Principle is often not possible because there is no polluter existing anymore or not liable or not able to pay the remediation costs. A well balanced funding mechanism to stimulate voluntary remediation activities without compromising the PPP is an essential part for an efficient Contaminated Sites Policy. However, it needs a strong political commitment to establish a public funding system in accordance with country-specific legal, social and economical parameters. Seite

28 More information: Harald Kasamas, M.Sc.: Seite