29.10.2024 | Fundamental right
The polluter pays? The costs of the PFAS remediation for Oosterweel are for the taxpayer.
The costs of the Oosterweel project continue to rise, and in the meantime Flemish taxpayers are in danger of being presented with the bill for the remediation of the soil and groundwater, polluted by the spread of PFAS substances by the chemical company 3M in Zwijndrecht.
The polluter pays? The costs of the PFAS remediation for Oosterweel are for the taxpayer.
The costs of the Oosterweel project continue to rise, and in the meantime, Flemish taxpayers are in danger of being presented with the bill for the remediation of soil and groundwater, polluted by the spreading of PFAS substances by the chemical company 3M in Zwijndrecht. This seems to be in direct contradiction to the principle of “the polluter pays” – a guideline that the government uses to ensure that not society, but the polluters bear the financial burden. But what is going on here? And why is this promise not being kept?
PFAS pollution: a problem for millions
The problems surrounding PFAS – forever chemicals that have been used for decades in all kinds of industrial processes – have made the Oosterweel project more complex and more expensive. The most recent estimate by Lantis, the project’s client, shows a cost of over 10 billion euros. More than 3 billion more expensive, of which a considerable 1.8 billion euros is for the account of the Flemish government and the other 1.2 million must be paid by us with extra tolls to be allowed to use Oosterweel. Of this, no less than 810 million euros is attributed to the purification of the groundwater contaminated with PFAS.
Where is the “polluter pays” guarantee?
The contamination at the Oosterweel site originates from 3M, which is held responsible for the PFAS emissions in the region. The company profited from the production and distribution of PFAS for years, but currently pays a mere 500 million euros. This is in stark contrast to the current policy that aims to make companies take responsibility for the environmental damage they cause. If the costs for such a large-scale clean-up are passed on to the taxpayer, this not only affects the citizen's wallet, but also the credibility of the government.
What are the possible consequences?
The additional costs resulting from the PFAS remediation and other adjustments threaten to further increase the Flemish government debt. Europe offers some relief by keeping these Oosterweel investments outside the balance, but the long-term burdens will of course remain.
Can the Flemish government not do more to hold 3M liable for the PFAS pollution?
If the “polluter pays” policy is taken seriously, everything should be done to make 3M pay for the environmental costs resulting from their own activities. This means legal pressure. One solution could be that the remediation of the Oosterweel site is carried out with official soil remediation projects, whereby OVAM designates a party responsible for remediation who must then also pay the costs of the entire remediation project, which in this case would be 3M.
An appeal for transparency and responsibility
Grondrecht and Climaxi denounce the passing on of the costs of pollution to the taxpayer. If society pays for the costs of environmental pollution, it is logical that citizens will lose confidence in both the project and the principle of environmental justice. The issue calls for transparency from the government and for action to be taken to hold companies accountable for their actions. The polluter pays, not the taxpayer.
English 
Nederlands (België)