forme de ddchets, ne cherchent-elles pas /l vendre une plus grande quantitd de ce produit? Une expertise de M. Jenny, professeur fi L'E.S.S.E.C. et 6conomiste

la commission de la Concurrence - chargd d'une dtude sur le marchd du sel en France et en Europe et les perspec- tives offertes sur ce marcM aux MDPA - r6v~le trois sdries de faits: (1) les pouvoirs publics ont mis des obstacles aux interventions des MDPA sur le marchd du sel; (2) celui-ci est domin6 par une entente entre les producteurs europ6ens; (3) les MDPA pourraient n~anmoins y 6couler au moins un million de tonnes de sel sans le perturber gravement et sans remettre en cause la situation de l'emploi chez les producteurs de sel, • sp6cialement en France.

En effet, le d6chet brut de sel des MDPA contient environ 15% d'argile et devrait ~tre raffin~ dans une saline pour 6tre aisdment commercialisable. Le pro- cdd~ thermique de production de la potasse employd par les MDPA leur per- mettrait d'int6grer une saline/i leurs ins- tallations, dans des conditions de com- pdtitivit~ exceptionnelles, mais l 'Etat a constamment refusd aux MDPA la possi- bilitd de construire cette saline.

De plus, un arr6t6 ministdriel du 16 mars 1952 interdit d'utiliser le sel des MDPA pour la consommation humaine. Cet arr~td n'a aucune justification tech- nique, un rapport de l'Acaddmie de m~decine du 2 jufllet 1955 le d6montre. Le seul secteur important du march6 actuellement accessible aux MDPA, en l'absence de saline, est celui du ddneige- ment des routes.

Les MDPA en contr61ent environ 55%, mais une instruction en cours de mise au point au minist~re de l'Environ- nernent et du Cadre de vie, recommande d'employer pour le salage d'une partie du rdseau routier un sel d'une puret6 supdrieure g celle atteinte par le sel brut des MDPA, et aurait pour effet de rd- duire cette part. Le Rapporteur a d~- "!ard que cette instruction allant exacte- ment/l l 'encontre des objectifs de rdduc- tion des rejets de sel dans le Rhin, il pa- raissait n~cessaire que le Ministre s'en explique devant le Parlement.

I1 a ajoutd que les grands producteurs europdens se rdpartissent les marchds: AKZO exerce un monopole de fait en Hollande, pays qui est en outre le prin- cipal exportateur europden de sel; BASF sur le marchd allemand et la Compagnie des Salins du Midi et des Salines de l'Est sur le marcM franqais, ddtiennent cha- curt une position dominante. Cette en-

Environmental Policy and Law, 5 (1979)

tente conceme le sel commercialisd, car les industriels utilisateurs peuvent pro- duire leur propre sel, mais non le vendre

l'ext6rieur de leur groupe. La consd- quence de ce cartel est que les MDPA, producteurs mais non utilisateurs, sont amen~es ~ jeter leur sel au Rhin, et au- jourdh'ui, conduites fi l'injecter dans le sous-sol de l'Alsace.

A condition de construire une saline, les MDPA peuvent ddjfi transf6rer 200.000 tonnes de sel en Belgique, l'usine de Tessenderloo, filiale - comme les MDPA - de I'EMC, car Tessenderloo importe son sel de Hollande.

Sur le marchd frangais du sel cristal- lisd, la croissance naturelle de 1,8% par an de la consommation devrait permet- tre aux MDPA de placer 100.000 tonnes clans un ddlai de quatre ans environ. Enfm, d~s le ddbut des anndes 1980, les MDPA pourraient accroitre d'au moins 220.000 tonnes leurs livraisons pour le ddneigement.

Au total, et sur le seul march6 fran- qais, ou contr61d par les int6r6ts fran~ais, les MDPA seraient en mesure d'6couler l'6quivalent de 10 kg/s d'ions-chlore dans un d61ai de quatre ans.

L'importance des marchds du sel cris- tallisd de la Belgique, de la R.F.A et des Pays-Bas est telle (8.4 millions de tonnes en 1977) que les MDPA pourraient y placer, /t l'dchdance de trois ans,

500.000 tonnes de sel en jouant unique- ment sur l'expansion naturelle de ces marchds de l'ordre de 2% par an, sans que les producteurs aUemands et n~er- landais aient ~ rdduire leur activitd. Le rapporteur a soulignd que les saliniers europdens avaient ddmontr~ leur capa- cit6 g s'entendre. Ainsi, la construction d'une saline, et la vente d 'un million de tonnes de sel par an, 6quivalant aux quantit~s que l'on se propose d'injecter, dviteraient les coots et les inconvdnients de cette op&ation, rapporteraient des devises ~ la France, et autofinanceraient en quelques ann6es le prix de cet inves- tissement, contrairement aux d@enses ndcessaires pour l'injection qui n'appor- teraient qu'une solution que pour dix ans et seraient fi fonds perdus.

Le transport de la saumure vers les soudi~res de Lorraine, d~jfi ~tudi6 par le Gouvernement, et dvoqu~ par la Com- mission, permettrait de satisfaire la ma- jeure partie des exigences de la seconde dtape de la convention. Ce transport pourrait se faire soit par saumoduc (pro- jet du Gouvernement) soit par chemin de fer (solution suggdrde par le Rappor- teur) qui ne n~cessite pas la construc- tion d'infrastructures nouvelles. La r~- duction de la pollution du Rhin par le sel est un objectif souhaitable, mais l'in- jection projet~e pour y parvenir est tout

fait inutile, a-t-il conclu." []

INTERVIEWS

Environmental Policy in the Netherlands:

Dr. Leendert Ginjaar, Minister of Public Health and Environmental Hygiene EPL: All countries have different experi- ences in finding appropriate adminis- trative arrangements for the conduct o f environmental policy. Do you consider the present situation in the Netherlands satisfactory ? Ginjaar: The answer is yes. I should like to make some comment on it. In the

Netherlands, we include only the health of man, flora and fauna, in relation to the environment in the definition of environment. What we always say is that environmental policy and environmental protection is directed towards the health of man, and flora and fauna. We do not take into account all other aspects, for

41

instance housing as such. We don' t take into account the social environment, the cultural environment and so on, only the physical environment.

We try to have at least three basic guidelines for environmental policy. In the first place we say that environmental policy requires limits, you can call it standards, or boundaries of pollution, that can be, that should be, adhered to. Such limits are an absolute necessity. Secondly, we say that every activity must be conducted in conformity with certain prescriptions. For instance, one should not produce in such away that a certain amount o f sulfur dioxide is emit- ted. Thirdly, we say that when a govern- ment body sets limits and gives prescrip- tions, then it should also create the pos- sibility to conform. I might add that we try to apply these three principles in such a way that all activities are in accor- dance with ecological requirements.

Finally, actual policy is conducted at that level of government most suited to it, from the point of view of democracy and from the point of view of know- how. For example, our general law - The Hindrance Act which was established about 1870 - is carried out at the local level, but the law against air pollution is executed at the provincial level and the law on chemical wastes at national gov- ernment level. We feel that with these starting points we have an adequate basis for good government policy. We also have nature and landscape policy which is separately organized. Here again, I think that the actual instruments that we have are fairly sufficient.

EPL: You specifically mentioned flora and fauna & addition to human health. Does thatmean that this also falls within the competence o f your ministry ?

Ginjaar: In the matter of nature and landscape protection, we have, I think, two different aspects. The first is the protection of nature and landscape against environment pollution - that belongs to my department - and the second is the protection against certain activities, for instance the building of a road. That belongs to the department which is responsible for nature and land- scape policy. Actually, we work very closely together.

EPL: Do the standards which are pres- ently in force already refect ecological concerns, or should they be changed?

42

Ginjaar: What we have in force now are not standards in the strict sense of the word, rather guidelines for water and air pollution. These reflect the thinking about ecological standards to a large extent. Personally I think this is not always sufficient. For instance, for water pollution we have discussions in the Common Market about whether iso- lated waters and lakes can have their own standards, but international rivers can- not be treated in this way. I think it is very essential that standards be harmo- nized in international cooperation. Our present air pollution guidelines are based on the health o f man and not o f flora and fauna. I can imagine that for sulfur dioxide, generally speaking, we can accept what we have until we also think about the acidification of lakes, which may require more stringent standards. But in the case of, say, fluorides or nitrogenous oxides we cannot limit our- selves to standards for the health of man. We have to establish standards concern- ing chemicals in the environment and I personally think they should be most stringent because so many compounds interact and become so widely distri- buted that they cannot be controlled once they are released. Therefore, these must be considered more dangerous than sulfur dioxide. Whether standards are set in terms of man or of flora and fauna depends on the pollutant and the situa- tion.

EPL: All o f the areas you have discussed touch upon the work o f the European Community. WouM you comment about the development o f environmental policy in the European Community and what you view as Community priorities at the present time?

Ginjaar: First, ! have noticed with some astonishment that not all subjects that have to do with environmental protec- tion come before the Council of Envi- ronment Ministers. For instance, certain production standards, such as those for noise protection in factories, come before the Council of Economic Minis- ters and are prepared outside the envi- ronmental offices. I find this strange and I think that these matters should be dealt with, at least in addition, by the environment ministers.

Priorities for the European Commu- nity are very difficult to put forward because all countries have their own organization, their own laws and their own policies. This makes it nearly im- possible to formulate an overall policy

including priorities. I have the feeling that often the discussions are held up because the results and economic aspects of the measures are different in different countries.

EPL: Do you refer to a specific proposal. at the present time ?

Ginjaar: Yes, the birds for instance, or the proposed directive on chemicals in the environment. Our goals are the same but the actual conditions in the different countries are such that economic con- siderations are predominant. In each country we try to make some compro- mise or synthesis between environmen- tal protection and economics. And then we go to Brussels with our point of view already set. I think this is the main problem.

EPL: Do you think it also plays a role in relation to the proposed sulfur dio- xicle directive which has been before the Council o f Ministers for over two years ?

Ginjaar: Yes, you are right. Each coun- try has compromised between the envi- ronmental and economic aspects, and these compromises are discussed.

With regard to sulfur dioxide, we have in the Netherlands the same problems as other countries. Presently, the interna- tional thinking is that we should set a certain standard and then allow indivi- dual countries to have more stringent standards. I don' t think this is the right approach. I would prefer that the more stringent standard be set, with excep- tions allowable for certain periods and for certain areas. As an example of what I mean, using hypothetical figures, say one country prefers a standard of 1000 micrograms per cubic meter for sulfur dioxide, and other countries can go as low as 100 or even 50 micrograms, then I would say set a standard of 250 micro- grams and allow other countries to go higher, for instance to I000 micrograms for certain regions for certain periods. The overall goal would be 250 micro- grams. Now of course, that goal can't be reached in one day or one year or even five years, but the goal that we have concluded to work for as a Com- munity is still 250 micrograms. And that also means that international co- operation in setting standards is not suf- ficient if we don ' t take into account the harmonization of measures that are to be carried out for reaching that goal, because only in this way can we talk

Environmental Policy and Law, 5 (1979)

about minimizing differences in econo- mic outcome from country to country.

EPL: What do you think are the major strengths o f environmental policy in the Netherlands and what wouM you view as the priorities for specific action in the next few years ?

Ginjaar: We have in this country as in most countries a situation in which we are still developing environmental law and the instruments to conduct environ- mental policy. We have a law for air pollution and a law against the pollution of surface water; both of these are al- ready in effect. But we also have a law on waste and chemical waste which we are now trying very hard to put into effect. A law against noise hindrance is presently in Parliament; the next step is to translate it into action and that will take 7 to 10 years. A law on the protec- tion of soil is in preparation now, as well as the law on chemicals and the law of what we call external safety of indus- tries.

I think three problems are most im- portant for any environmental policy in this country. The first is to harmonize the laws that we have and those that are in preparation. Because they were drawn up at different times, under different conditions and with different insights, there are a lot of differences. We are trying to harmonize them into one large framework so they are all operating along the same lines. Connected with this is the harmonization of the respon- sibilities of the lower governmental bodies, the local and provincial govern- ments, particularly as regards licencing authority. I think this is a very large problem with a very high priority.

The second problem that we have is the financing of environmental measures. The polluter-pays principle says that the man who is causing the pollution has to pay for the protection measures. Well, that occurs in the normal day to day life of society. But government administra- tion costs must also be paid, particularly the costs to local government bodies. According to the polluter-pays principle, we can achieve that only by levies or charges - a highly political topic. The question that must be resolved is should these costs be paid by special charges or by general taxation.

The third topic is the integration of environmental policy with total govern- ment policy. I feel that it is not suffi- cient to have laws against air pollution, water pollution, and so on. Govern-

Environmental Policy and Law, 5 (1979)

ment policies should be such that from the beginning environmental issues play a role in the decision process. I think that for the next 10 or 20 years, the most important issue is this integration

of environmental policy at all levels of government policy. And I think that the environmental impact statement and the setting of standards are most impor- tant in accomplishing this. []

BOOK NOTES

Heribert Rausch: Die Umweltschutz- gesetzgebung. Aufgabe, geltendes Reeht trod Konzepte.

Schulthess Polygraphischer Verlag, Zfirich 1977. 284 pp.

LYtude est une "publication d'habi- litation" ~ la Facult6 de Science Juri- dique de Zurich, ce qui correspond une th~se de professorat. L'auteur s'en- gage dans une nouvelle vole pour locali- set le droit de la protection de l'eenvi- ronnement d'une mani~re syst4matique. Rausch proc~de d'abord h l'analyse du droit ancien et actuel de la protection de l'environnement Suisse. Apr~s cette mise au point, il avance des arguments qui surtout grfice ~ la comparaison juridique au 36me chapitre,-tracent des pens6es originales susceptibles d'animer les programmes internationaux de Fen- vironnementl

Apr~s la d~monstration de la fonc- tion de la protection de l'environnement sur cinq modules de pens6e, Rausch se penche sur le concept dogmatique du droit de la protection de l'environne- m en t e t arrive ~ la conclusion qu'une base de r4glement unitaire de la protec- tion de l'environnement (p.e. sous forme de d6fmition) ne peut gu~re 6tre d6termin6e d'une mani4re satisfaisante.

Dans la 24me partie de l'6tude, l'auteur donne un excellent r6sum6 de la r6glementation de la protection de Fen- vironnement actuellement en vigueur en Suisse. I1 pose la question de la classifi- cation juridique de l'article 24 septies de la constitution f6d&ale soit en rant que r~gle de comp6tence, soit r~gle de pro- gramme ou m6me comme droit fonda- mental. Tout compte fait Rausch re- connaft que ce r4glement rev6t un carac- t~re similaire au droit fondamental. I1 constate que ceci cr6e une obligation plus grande qu'avant pour les organes 16gislatifs en vue de rendre plus efficace la 14gislation en mati~re de protection de l'environnement. Ce sont d'ailleurs

les derniers efforts de l'Institut pour une Politique Europ6enne de l'Environ- nement qui reflbtent ces probl~mes de la raison d'6tre de la garantie constitu- tionnelle et ~ caract~re de droit fonda- mental au profit de l'individu d'un en- vironnement sain et plus 6quilibr&

Dans le 3~me chapitre, l'auteur d6ve- loppe, en guise d'une comparaison juri- dique intense, une s6rie de concepts strat6giques du droit de l'environne- ment. Voici ~ titre d'exemple les con- cepts suivants: la dilution et la concen- tration, la meilleure technologie, les cir- culations ferm6es, le recensement juri- dique de la conduite individuelle (la res- ponsabilit6 civile et le droit p6nal inclus) l'internalisation des charges (Internalisi- rung der Kosten), d4limitation de l'ac- croissement, le r~glement des valeurs de la qualit6 de l'environnement et le prin- cipe de la pers6v6rance. L'auteur sou- ligne ~ trOs juste titre que les diff6rents concepts se croisent et qu'ils devraient se compl4ter dans l'application. Du point de rue syst6matique, le concept de la fixation des valeurs de la qualit6 de l'environnement devrait 6tre mis au point d'urgence par les sciences naturel- les ~ leur tour. Le concept mentionn6, de m6me que le principe de la pers6v6- rance, doivent remplir d'ailleurs une fonction d'ordre t616ologique, alors que les autres concepts servent principale- ment d'aide de d6cision. C'est une id6e bien originale, que d'envisager une fois l'analyse du droit de l'environnement par les objectifs strat6giques et non seulement ~ travers los institutions exi- stantes de l'environnement.

En r6sum6 nous sommes en pr6sence d'une 6tude fort bien document6e et digne d'6tre lue par cbaque juriste de l'envirorlnement. L'ouvrage devrait 6galement animer d'autres Etats ~i pro- c6der ~ une comparaison juridique. De cette mani~re, la discussion sur le droit de l'environnement pourrait 6tre essen- tiellement enrichie aussi sur le plan des programmes internationaux.

Dr. Alfred Rest, Universitd Cologne

43