To recall, the 2001 Recommendation providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States, contains non-binding criteria for the planning, carrying out, follow-up and reporting on environmental inspections. Its main objective is to strengthen compliance with Community environmental law and to contribute to a more consistent implementation/enforcement of EU environmental legislation in all of the Member States. Under the terms and conditions of this Recommendation, the Member States were asked to report on their implementation of the Recommendation and on their experiences with its application. These reports were then forwarded to the Commission for further analysis. A thorough and complete report describing the implementation and application of the Recommendation is annexed to this Communication.

The purpose of this Communication is to set out the Commission’s views on the further development of the Recommendation and to launch a broad-based discussion with stakeholders on its future direction. In the course of 2007, the Commission will hold meetings with interested parties as well as carrying out an internet consultation exercise with interested parties.

Implementation of the Recommendation in the Member States:

All of the EU Member States submitted a report to the Commission regarding the Recommendation’s implementation. However, in many cases the information submitted was either incomplete or difficult to compare. In some cases, where the environmental responsibility lies with the regions, it was impossible for the Commission to draw any conclusions at a national level. Most information relates to 2002-2003. In spite of these gaps, the report notes that almost all Member State have, partially, implemented the Recommendation. All but a few have managed to implement it in full. Large disparities still exist in the way environmental inspections are being carried out within the Community – meaning that the full implementation of Community wide environmental legislation can not be guaranteed. This trend could lead to competitive distortion at a business level. There also appear to be large differences in the political priority being given to environmental inspections in the Member States.

Areas for improvements:

Scope : Based on the reports received, the Commission feels that the scope of the Recommendation needs to be improved. The scope has been interpreted in different ways by the Member States, resulting in large differences in the number of installations subject to environmental inspections and large difference between the percentages of installations inspected per year. The difference in interpretation is particularly relevant for the waste sector. A further challenge concerns the number of environmental activities that are subject to Community-wide legislation but which are not covered by the scope of the Recommendation. Definitions: Similarly, many definitions set out in the Recommendation are being interpreted in different ways by the Member States. They refer, specifically, to the following terms: inspection, control, audit; Inspection authority; Inspection plan; Inspection programme; cross border mechanism; and routine/non-routine inspections. Planning inspections: None of the planning inspection criteria have been fully implemented in all of the Member States, with many of the “inspection plans” failing to include strategic elements. In many cases a planning inspection plan consists of mere lists of installation or sectors to be inspected. Some Member States have, however, established advanced systems to plan inspections and the use of risk based management approaches to plan inspections has been proposed as a useful method for achieving good practice in inspections. Evaluation of inspection plans: Evaluating the success of inspection plans has been recognised as an important tool to improve the planning of inspections. Some Member States have sophisticated systems into place with which to evaluate their inspections plans, which in turn has helped them to define their future plans. Reporting: The first reporting exercise has produced a large amount of information showing how the Recommendation is implemented and applied in the Member States. The information is not, however, always comparable and does not allow clear conclusions on the efficiency of the inspection systems to be drawn. One possibility would be the drafting of simpler, more targeted, reporting systems. Access to information: Information forwarded to the Commission by the Member States indicates that several do not make the inspection plans and reports available to the public in spite of obligations to do so. Several reasons are given for this. The release of information, prior to an inspection, could jeopardise their success. Also, many reports contain confidential commercial information and the obligation to provide environmental information already exists under Directive 2003/4/EC. Ways, therefore, need to be found to make the strategic part of the inspection plan public, without making public the information on the list of installations to be inspected.

Proposed way forward:

In the Commission’s view, the lack of full implementation requires the establishment of legally binding requirements for environmental inspections. The following actions are, as a result, being proposed:

Revision of the Recommendation : The Recommendation should be amended. Attention should be given to broadening its scope so that it covers, as far as possible, all environmentally significant activities. Definitions relating to inspections should be reconsidered as should the criteria for the planning of inspections. A simple reporting system that is as clear as possible should be established in order to provide for comparable information on how inspection systems are working and whether they achieve the Recommendations core objective: improved environmental legislation compliance. Sectoral inspection requirements: Specific, legally binding requirements, for the inspection of certain installations and activities should be included in sectoral legislation. This would have the advantage that requirements can be adapted to the specific nature and risks of the installations or activities covered and be more precise as well as better targeted than general criteria. Sectoral inspection requirements can be either complementary to the Recommendation or concern themselves with installations or activities that are not covered by the Recommendation. The report gives the example of the Seveso II Directive for the control of major-accident hazards. Further, the Commission is considering proposals that would specially target rules for the inspection of waste shipments. Other pieces of environmental legislation that are currently under review/preparation include: a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community; substances that deplete the ozone layer; the quality of water intended for human consumption; the approximation of laws, regulation and administrative provisions regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes; waste electrical and electronic equipment; the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein; and a possible future Directive on the injection and sub-surface storage of carbon.

Cooperation between the Member States:

The Commission has actively participated in, and supported, projects that encourage Member State cooperation including:

The IMPEL Review Initiative (IRI), which sends teams of senior inspectors from different countries to explore the regulatory system of the candidate inspectorate. The IMPEL Cluster Transfrontier Shipments of Waste, which has carried out several projects concerning the prevention of illegal shipments of waste.

Numerous guidance documents have been developed by IMPEL on how to plan and carry out inspections. Exchanges of information and experiences between inspectors have been organised. All initiatives have had a positive impact on the strengthening of inspections in the Community. IMPEL should receive continuous support for such projects.

COM(2007)0707
EUR-Lex

To recall, in 2001 the Community adopted Recommendation 2001/331/EC providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections (RMCEI), the purpose of which is to strengthen compliance with, and to contribute to a more consistent implementation and enforcement of Community environmental law in all of the EU’s Member States. The minimum criteria set out in the Recommendation are:

Establishing plans for environmental inspections. Performing inspections. Reporting on inspections. Investigating serious accidents, incidents and occurrences of non-compliance.

Further provisions in the Recommendation specify that the Commission should present a report reviewing the implementation of the Recommendation. This report summarises the information made available to the Commission on the situation in the Member States. It also sets out some conclusions on the degree of implementation of RMCEI as well as areas in need of further development.

Reporting Standards:

All Member States, acceding countries and candidate countries submitted their implementation reports. Some were complete though in may reports information gaps were found. Almost all of the reports were based on IMPEL Guidance, other that those stemming from Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, and Spain. This helped facilitate their completeness and consistency. Nevertheless, a number of information gaps have been reported in almost all of the reports submitted. Thus, the reports of Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy were considered incomplete. In Italy and Spain replies were missing from some regions resulting in the impossibility of drawing “national” conclusions.

Implementation in the Member States:

Scope and definitions: The RMCEI applies to all industrial installations and other enterprises. Facilities whose air emissions and/or water discharges and/or waste disposal or recovery activities are subject to authorisation, permit or licensing requirements under Community law. Not all of the Member States had transposed all of these requirements given that some of the new Directives are yet to be transposed into national law. Definition of environmental inspection: Many countries reported that a link to compliance with individual Directives is not possible. Type of inspection activities: The Recommendation specifies that activities should include: site visits; monitoring environmental quality standards; consideration of environmental audit reports; consideration and verification of self monitoring by operators; assessing activities and operations carried out at the controlled installations; checking the premises, relevant equipment and adequacy of environmental management; and checking relevant records kept by the operators of controlled installations. In Austria, Belgium (Brussels, Flanders), the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Malta, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom all of these activities were carried out. Cyprus, France and Latvia undertook all of these activities other than environmental audit reports and statements. Italy undertook all bar the checking of premises, relevant equipment and the adequacy of environmental managements. Wallonia listed site visits, monitoring and control of self-monitoring. In Finland the inspection system for IPPC installations was based mainly on self-monitoring and by the monitors Routine versus non-routine inspections: All Member States carry out routine and non-routine inspections, although in some countries other terms are used for these. Cooperation between Member States: The Recommendation invited Member States to consider establishing a scheme, in cooperation with IMPEL, under which Member States report and offer advice on inspectorates and inspection procedures in other Member States, and report to the Member States concerned on their findings. Such a scheme was developed by IMPEL. The projects are to be continued and further volunteer Member States are being sought. Plans for environmental inspections: All environmental inspection activities should be planned in advance and cover the entire territory of the Member State. Each inspection plan should: define a geographical area which it covers; cover a defined time period; include specific provisions for its revision; identify the specific sites or types of controlled constellations covered; perceive the programmes for routine inspections; and provide for coordination between the different inspecting authorities. Based on the data forwarded to the Commission by the Member States it appears that only the Netherlands and Ireland fully comply with all the criteria. In Sweden and France inspection planning seems to comply with most of the criteria. The Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, the United Kingdom and Romania have annual inspection plans that partially fulfil the criteria. In Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece and Bulgaria annual inspection plans or programmes are established but not all, or incomplete, information has been given. In Austria, Cyprus, Germany, Italy and Malta plans exit for certain sectors only and no, or only partial, information is provided on the fulfilment of the criteria. Public access to information: As regards the availability of inspection plans to the public: in Estonia and Lithuania , plans are published on the internet. In the Netherlands, the plans are accessible to public pursuant to the Law on Administrative Openness and in Sweden pursuant to the Freedom of Press Regulation. In France, Ireland, Romania and Bulgaria inspection programmes are not published but made available upon request. In Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia, Poland and Slovakia, plans are not generally made available to the public. Site visits: According to the report, the information forwarded to it from the Member States was not sufficiently detailed to be able to assess the degree to which site visits fulfil the set criteria. Only a few countries replied that the full impact of installations on the environment is considered during site visits (Belgium, Czech Republic, Ireland, Malta, Slovenia and Sweden). Very little information was provided on the use of the results of site visits. In France, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom cooperation between the different authorities for site visits is described as “good”. Reports and conclusions following site visits: In most countries the results of inspections are systematically documented and communicated to the operators. France has developed a methodology for site visits, which details the content of the reports and Germany has established a data format for reports on site visits. Investigation of serious accidents, incidents and occurrences of non-compliance: Very little information was forwarded on how these requirements have been implemented. In Cyprus the cause of responsibilities of accidents are not systematically determined although the actions to correct the problems are. In Germany, Ireland and the Netherland cases of serious accidents, incidents or occurrences of non-compliance are usually followed up by a site visit to investigate the causes and limit the negative consequences to the environment.

Information on the application of RMCEI:

Staffing and resources of inspectorates: All Member States, other than Spain, provided data on the staffing and resources of inspecting authorities though it should be noted that important differences emerged in the way this information was reported. Role of the inspectorates in establishing inspection plans: All Member States, other than Germany, Greece and Hungary, provided information on the level at which inspection plans are established and implemented. Summary details of inspections carried out: Once again, a complete assessment of the inspections carried out, is hampered by the differing set of data provided by the Member States. Some countries provided information that covered all controlled installations, whilst other countries differentiated according to sectors of legislation such as air, water, waste or the type of Directive that applies. Austria and Finland even distinguished between the different sectors of the IPPC Directive (energy, metal processing, mineral processing, chemical industry, waste treatment and other industrial installations). Several countries did not submit complete data or submitted data that could not be aggregated. Degree of compliance: Member States were asked for data on the degree of compliance by controlled installations with relevant environmental requirements set out in Community legislation as transposed into national legislation. A problem mentioned by most Member States concerns distinguishing between EC requirements and national requirements. Member States transpose a Directive in several national laws or transpose several Directive in one national law. Thus, the link between inspections and the implementation of EU Directives can be difficult to make. Where information was available on individual Directives, it mainly concerned the IPPC and the Seveso Directive. Some countries did, however give more detailed data on non-compliance: In Brussels, the percentage of non-complying installations in 2002 was 6,5%; in Estonia 102 operators were found operating without a permit and 64 non-compliances were recorded; in France the estimated percentage of non-complying installations was 13% in 2002; in Greece violations were found in 14% of the controls carried out; in Ireland notifications of non-compliance were issued to 35% of the IPPC and VOC facilities and 75% of waste treatment installations; in Italy a 98% compliance rate carried out be the ARPAs was recorded – but levels of illegality found by the Environment Police varied from 32% for waste water treatment plants to 565 for waste disposal plants; and in Slovakia violations of legislation were found in 30% of the inspections in the waste sector and in 35,5% of the inspections in the water sector. Actions taken as a result of complaints, accidents, incidents and occurrences of non-compliance: In most of the Member States administrative orders and sanctions were imposed and some cases of criminal prosecution instigated. Civil or administrative court actions were used in a few Member States. In Latvia no criminal prosecutions were instigated whilst Denmark and Ireland do not impose administrative fines. Differences in judicial systems across the Member States make detailed assessment difficult. Evaluation of the inspection plans: The Member States were asked to report on the success or not of plans for inspections and setting out any recommendations they may have for future plans. Few Member States reported on this element. The information that was provided, however, varied considerably. This is linked to the general problem that inspections are subject to differing interpretations.

Conclusions:

The report finds that some countries have already achieved a high level of RMCEI implementation, whilst others have some way to go. Belgium, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom do appear to have reached a high level of implementation where as Austria, Luxembourg, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia as well as Bulgaria and Romania have only partially implemented the Recommendation. Site visits reached a high degree of implementation whilst investigations of accidents, incidents and occurrences reached the lowest levels of compliance.

Although very few countries appear to fully apply the Recommendation, the report nevertheless concludes that it seems to have had a positive impact on the inspection systems in most countries. Many countries have begun to reform their inspection system based on criteria set out in the Recommendation. This, the Commission argues, is a starting point for a process leading to more efficient inspection systems in all the Member States.

SEC(2007)1493
EUR-Lex

T5-0132/2001
OJ C 343 05.12.2001, p. 0103-0153

T5-0132/2001

Debate in Parliament

A5-0041/2001

A5-0041/2001

3603/2001

3603/2001

EUR-Lex
COM(2000)0526

T5-0321/2000
OJ C 121 24.04.2001, p. 0165-0386

T5-0321/2000

Debate in Parliament

A5-0164/2000
OJ C 121 24.04.2001, p. 0009

A5-0164/2000

EUR-Lex
SEC(2000)0576

05684/1/2000
OJ C 137 16.05.2000, p. 0001

05684/1/2000

EUR-Lex
COM(1999)0652

EUR-Lex
COM(1999)0652

T5-0018/1999
OJ C 054 25.02.2000, p. 0056-0089

T5-0018/1999

CDR0179/1999
OJ C 374 23.12.1999, p. 0048

Debate in Parliament

A5-0002/1999
OJ C 054 25.02.2000, p. 0010

A5-0002/1999

A4-0251/1999
OJ C 279 01.10.1999, p. 0008

A4-0251/1999

CES0448/1999
OJ C 169 16.06.1999, p. 0012

EUR-Lex
COM(1998)0772

EUR-Lex
COM(1998)0772