History of Polluter Pays Principle
The polluter pays principle was first introduced in 1979 by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guiding Principles concerning International Economic Aspects of Environmental policies where under the polluter was held responsible for the environment damage and pollution.
Subsequently, the Rio-Declaration laid down the guidelines for sustainable development meaning thereby a strategy to cater the needs of the present generation without compromising the needs of the future generations.
In furtherance of the aim of sustainable developmen Rio-Declaration, Principle 16 of the Rio-Declaration enshrined the polluter pays principle stating that the polluter should bear the cost of pollution.
Concept of Polluter Pays Principle
The "Polluter Pays Principle" (PPP) is a basic concept in environmental economics and policy that states that those who create environmental pollution or degradation should bear the costs of mitigating that harm. This principle is intended to encourage individuals, businesses, and other organizations to consider the environmental impact of their activities and to take steps to reduce or eliminate any negative effects.
The core idea behind the PPP is simple: those who cause harm to the environment should pay for the damage they cause. This creates a financial incentive for polluters to reduce their environmental impact and encourages innovation in environmental protection and mitigation technologies. By internalizing the costs of environmental damage, PPP provides a way to make polluters responsible for the harm they cause and to ensure that they pay for the true cost of their activities.
PPP can be applied in a number of different ways, including through taxes, fees, and other financial mechanisms. For example, governments may impose a tax on companies that emit pollutants into the air or water, or charge fees for the extraction of natural resources. The funds collected through these mechanisms can then be used to finance environmental protection and mitigation efforts.
PPP can also be applied through market-based mechanisms, such as emissions trading systems. In these systems, companies that emit pollutants are required to hold permits for each unit of pollution they emit. If a company wants to emit more pollution than it is allowed under its permits, it must purchase additional permits from companies that have reduced their emissions. This creates a market for emissions reductions and encourages companies to reduce their pollution in order to sell their excess permits.
The polluter pays principle imposes liability on a person who pollutes the environment to compensate for the damage caused and return the environment to its original state regardless of the intent.
International Cases Law relating with Polluter Pays Principle
The Court held that once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity camed on.
The Court interpreted the meaning of the Polluter Pays Principle as the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of the pollution but also the cost of restoring the environment degradation. Remediation of the damage environment is part of the process of sustainable development and such the polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual suffered as well as the cost of ecology.
This case involved a gas leak from a chemical plant in Bhopal, India, that caused significant environmental damage and loss of life. The Indian Supreme Court applied the Polluter Pays Principle and held Union Carbide liable for the environmental harm caused by the gas leak, ordering the company to pay compensation for the damage.
Relevant Cases Law in the Context of Nepal
Ministry of Environment and Soil Conservation v. Himal Cement Industries (2017)
This case dealt with the polluter pay principle, which states that the polluter should bear the cost of cleaning up and mitigating the harm caused by their pollution. The Ministry of Environment and Soil Conservation sued Himal Cement Industries, alleging that the company was emitting harmful pollutants into the air and water and endangering the health and welfare of the local residents. The Nepalese court ruled in favor of the Ministry, ordering the company to take measures to reduce its emissions and to pay for the costs of cleaning up and mitigating the harm caused by its pollution.
Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation v. Chaudhary Group (2018)
This case dealt with the polluter pay principle, which states that the polluter should bear the cost of cleaning up and mitigating the harm caused by their pollution. The Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation sued Chaudhary Group, alleging that the company was engaging in illegal logging and deforestation, which was threatening the livelihoods of local communities and endangering the environment. The Nepalese court ruled in favor of the Ministry, ordering the company to cease its illegal logging practices, to pay compensation to the local communities, and to pay for the costs of cleaning up and mitigating the harm caused by its deforestation activities.
Federation of Community Forest Users v. Kathmandu Municipality (2015)
This case dealt with the polluter pay principle, which states that the polluter should bear the cost of cleaning up and mitigating the harm caused by their pollution. The Federation of Community Forest Users sued the Kathmandu Municipality, alleging that the municipality was failing to properly manage its waste and was thereby polluting the local rivers and streams. The Nepalese court ruled in favor of the Federation, ordering the municipality to take measures to properly manage its waste, to pay compensation to the local communities, and to pay for the costs of cleaning up and mitigating the harm caused by its pollution.
These cases demonstrate how the polluter pay principle has been applied in the context of Nepal, where the polluter has been held responsible for the costs of cleaning up and mitigating the harm caused by their pollution. This principle helps to ensure that the polluter bears the costs of their actions, rather than the general public, and incentivizes companies and organizations to take measures to prevent pollution and to protect the environment.
In Conclusion, Although the polluter Pays Principle has helped to mitigate the damage being caused to the environment to some extent, the provision remains an inadequate remedy as ambiguity persists regarding clear identification of the actual polluter. The polluter may a part of the "production chain" and it is difficult to impose the fiability on such polluter when the courts consider the parameters of extent and contribution of causing pollution.
Moreover, under this principle, the amount of compensation to be charged for the restoration of the damage caused to the environment remains to be inadequate in comparison to the loss actually caused.
More effective and unambiguous provisions with regards to the implementation of the Polluter Pays Principle would be beneficial in the longer run.