ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE The neverending story Argentina´s Comprehensive Environmental Law N° 25.675 (LGA), enacted in 2002, contains a broad definition of environmental harm, and requests environmental insurance to any party carrying out environmentally sensitive activities. However, the quest for environmental insurers has been elusive as of today. To date, only one insurance policy has been approved by the Argentine Superintendency of Insurance (SSN). However such insurance has a limit of U$D 400.000 and has no reinsurance coverage. The minimum insurance coverage requested by the implementing regulations of the LGA varies according to the complexities of the insured company. The above mentioned limit is insufficient for medium sized or large companies, for which the LGA´s environmental insurance request cannot be complied. A SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT AFFECTS 18 OIL COMPANIES The environmental damage regime In August, 2008, the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice (CSJN) issued a decision in the lawsuit “ASSUPA vs. YPF et al” that affects 18 oil companies. ASSUPA is an NGO which accused the oil companies of causing environmental harm in the so-called “Neuquen Basin”. The Neuquen Basin comprises the Argentine oil-rich province of Neuquen, as well as portions of 4 other provinces. The oil companies stated that ASSUPA´s accusation was drafted in vague terms, which affected their right of defense. The CSJN, in a divided decision, stated that such broad terms did not affect sued companies´ right of defense, since they where able to answer the complaint. The ASSUPA case shall enter now in the discovery stage. The amount claimed reaches U$S 550 million. THE RIACHUELO CASE Argentina´s most important environmental lawsuit The lawsuit “Mendoza vs. National State and others” involves 44 companies, 15 municipalities, the National State, the Province of Buenos Aires and the City of Buenos Aires (the Argentine capital). It was brought by a group of neighbors of the “Riachuelo-Matanza Basin”, which comprises some of the most populated areas of the Province of Buenos Aires and the City of Buenos Aires. The amount claimed reaches U$S 3.500 million. The Argentine Supreme Court of Justice (CSJN) issued on July 2008 a judgement dividing the case in three parts: one concerning prevention; another concerning remediation and the third one concerning repair. Such judgement was final with regard prevention and remediation: the CSJN imposed a Plan and ordered the National State, through the Riachuelo - Matanza Basin Authority (ACUMAR), to prevent any further damages and to restore the affected environment. The question about repair remains pending. The sued companies find the joint liability scheme established by the Argentine Comprehensive Environmental Law (LGA) disquieting, while most of them stated that they did not contribute to the pollution of the Basin. THE PULPMILL DISPUTE Between Argentina and Uruguay Botnia, the Finnish pulp giant, erected an industrial plant for timber processing in the Uruguayan city of Fray Bentos, which stands in front of the Argentinean city of Gualeguaychú. Both cities are separated by the Uruguay River. The use of the Uruguay River is regulated by an International Treaty executed by the two countries. The population of Gualeguaychú resented Botnia´s project and blockaded the international Fray Bentos - Gualeguaychú bridge. The Uruguay River Treaty does not forbid the erection of industrial plants near the River, but contains provisions regarding water pollution. The Argentine government sued Uruguay before The Hague International Court. In order to win the dispute, Argentina must demonstrate that Botnia´s plant pollutes the Uruguay River. Uruguay has just released the results of the environmental monitoring carried out under the standards of its highest Environmental Authority (DINAMA). Argentina has performed its own environmental monitoring but is yet to release them.
Abogados.com.ar agradece la colaboración al Estudio Bec - Abogados Consultores en Legislación Ambiental http://www.estudiobec.com.ar/
Opinión
Noetinger & Armando
opinión
ver todosBrons & Salas
Alfaro Abogados
Kabas & Martorell