12 Economic and administrative consequences
The proposals in this white paper will add to knowledge of and information on chemicals, which will be of benefit to all users of chemicals during production, in the working environment, and in everyday life. Consumers will gain through a higher level of protection for health and the environment, primarily because the products they buy will contain fewer hazardous substances. Firms will benefit from a lower level of risk for their employees, and because of greater public confidence. It is difficult to measure benefits of these types in monetary terms, but they will nevertheless bring about improvements in welfare.
Costs will rise for certain firms as a result of the proposal for a unilateral Norwegian ban on the sale and use of some priority ecological toxins. However, these costs will be relatively small if safer alternatives exist. If they do not, the negative impacts of applying various policy instruments on the firms in question must be weighed up against their benefits in terms of better protection of health and the environment.
The economic consequences of each proposal to introduce a tax or other form of regulation will be calculated, and it is a requirement that measures to achieve the goals are cost-effective. Measures will only be implemented if the benefits to society of the measures are greater than the costs.
The action plan for contaminated sediments will require a substantial increase in resources allocated for this purpose. Remediation operations will result in a cleaner environment, lower health risks and better opportunities for economic activity based on a clean environment. In many cases, actors such as ports are not responsible for the pollution. Nor do ports have the financial resources to pay for remediation of contaminated sediments. Some Government funding will therefore also be needed for investigations and remediation of contaminated sediments and harbours. This principle has previously been set out in the white paper Protecting the Riches of the Seas (Report No. 12 (2001 – 2002) to the Storting) and the most recent white paper on the Government’s environmental policy and the state of the environment in Norway (Report No. 21 (2004–2005) to the Storting). The Government therefore emphasised in its policy platform that the costs of cleaning up contaminated sediments in harbours and other areas are to be split between the polluters and the state.
As described in the action plan for remediation of contaminated soil in day care centres and playgrounds, it is as a general rule the person or entity responsible (polluter, property owner, day care centre owner) who must arrange for the necessary remediation measures. In cases where it would be unreasonable to make the person or entity responsible bear the full costs, some Government funding may nevertheless be contributed. In the budget proposal for 2007, the Government has allocated NOK 10 million to this work.
If a requirement to register cosmetic products in the Product Register is introduced, this may result in higher costs for the cosmetics industry and the Product Register. At the same time, this step would improve information on the contents of cosmetic products, making it easier for distributors and users to avoid products that may entail a risk to health or the environment. The benefits and costs will be further studied before a decision is made to widen the scope of the duty to declare products to the Product Register.
Proposals that involve a higher level of activity on the part of the environmental authorities will involve greater administrative costs in some areas. This applies to the proposal for greater Norwegian activity under the new EU chemicals legislation, REACH, and also the proposal to expand the environmental authorities’ inspection and enforcement regime. However, the latter will not involve indirect costs for other administrative sectors; in fact, it is more likely to provide benefits in other inspection and enforcement areas as well. Expanding the inspection and enforcement regime may result in a heavier case load and more use of resources by the police and justice system in this area.
The budgetary consequences of the proposed measures will be clarified in the budget process and included in the usual way in the ministries’ annual budget proposals. Follow-up and implementation of measures in the years to come will depend on economic developments and the budget situation. The Government will evaluate the measures proposed here in relation to other priorities in the ordinary budget processes.