Presentación de Nívea Berrios, de la Junta de Apelaciones Ambiental de la Agencia de Protección Ambiental, en el marco de la“Mesa Redonda: Visión Comparada de la Reforma Institucional Ambiental en Materia de Cumplimiento y Sanción: Rol de la Judicatura”
6. OBJETIVO DE LAS SANCIONES = CUMPLIMIENTO DE LA LEY IMPONER UN CASTIGO RECHAZO DE LA COMUNIDAD HACIA EL COMPORTAMIENTO DEL INFRACTOR DISUADIR CONDUCTAS ERRÓNEAS SIMILARES OBJETIVOS DE LA APLICACIÓN DE LA LEY
Beneficio Economico del Incumplimiento Este factor require atencion especial. Como minimo las sanciones monetarias deben recuperar el beneficio economico del incumplimiento. De hecho, el manual para jueces de la UNEP (o PNUMA- Programa de de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente) indica que como mínimo el juez deberia considerar el valor disuasorio ofreciendo multas y penalidades que como minimo desalienten el beneficio economico que un contaminador provoco en virtud de su no cumplimiento. Elimina Ganancias – y tiene efecto disuasivo: Recuperar el costo economico del incumplimiento asegura que el infractor no devengue ganacias por su incumplimiento. Si el infractor percibe que va a ahorrar dinero al no cumplir tendra un incentivo economico para no cumplir con la ley. Entonces, para dicho infractor la sancion que no recupera el beneficio economico se convierte en meramente otro “costo de hacer negocios.” “ Nivela el Campo de Juego.” Elimina la desigualdad en el mercado entre aquellos que han cumplido y quienes han tenido que internalizar el costo del cumplimiento en los bienes y servicios que ofrecen, y aquellos que no han cumplido y tiene la ventaja entonces de ofrecer mismos productos y servicios a menor costo. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 2. Economic Benefit of Non-Compliance The statutory factor “economic benefit of non-compliance” deserves special attention. At a minimum financial sanctions should recover the “economic benefit of noncompliance.” Recapturing the economic benefit of non compliance through the assessment of fines and penalties accomplishes two principal objectives: Deterrence. It ensures that the violating entity did not profit by noncompliance. If violators perceive that, even if apprehended, they will save money through their noncompliance, then they will have a financial incentive not to comply with the law. The sanctions will become just another “cost of doing business;” Levels the Playing Field. Eliminates distortion and unfairness in the market place between those who comply with the law, thereby internalizing the cost of environmentally responsible behaviors in their goods and services, and those who do not comply, thereby offering the same goods and services at a lower cost of production that does not reflect internalized environmental costs. However, to achieve deterrence a penalty must do more than remove any economic benefit of noncompliance. The removal of the economic benefit only places the violator in the same position as he would have been if compliance had been achieved on time. The violator could still consider this a “cost of doing business” (and, indeed, discount that cost by his perception of the likelihood of being caught). Deterrence and fundamental fairness require that the penalty include an additional amount to ensure that the violator is economically worse off than if it had obeyed the law. This additional amount (which we refer to as the “gravity” factor) should reflect the seriousness of the violation. CALCULATING ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE (EBN) Deferred cost + Avoided costs = Total EBN EBN works like this. There are certain costs that are “deferred” costs or costs that are paid late. These most commonly relate to capital expenditures on pollution control equipment or devices that have been deferred through noncompliance. If a mining company was required by law to construct in year 1 a settling pond to allow separation and sedimentation of heavy metals before discharge to a river, but ignored the legal obligation until forced to adhere to it through an enforcement action in year 6, then the cost of constructing the pond would be a deferred cost. The EBN realized through a deferred cost like this is basically the investment value of the money during the period of violation. Money that should have been spent on environmental improvements was presumptively invested elsewhere, earning a rate of return on an annual basis. The annual rate of return will be a number specific to the country or province in question, but is often in the range of 5-10%. The formula then for calculating a deferred cost EBN is Amount deferred x annual rate of return x years of violation = deferred cost EBN The other element of EBN is avoided costs. Avoided costs are costs that a violator saved for all time because of its violation. If, for example, after the construction of the settling pond, the mining company was required by law periodically to sample and analyze effluent discharged from the pond into receiving river and periodically to remove and properly dispose of the sediment in the pond, then, by virtue of its noncompliance, it is has avoided the costs of monitoring and sediment disposal altogether during the period of violation. These savings should be recaptured as avoided cost EBN. The formula, then, for calculating Total EBN is: Deferred cost EBN + Total Avoided costs = Total EBN
![Leyes Ambientales Modernas ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()