BETA


1998/0358(COD) Environment: implementation of the Community law, minimal criteria for inspections

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead DELE JACKSON Caroline (icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE)
Former Responsible Committee ENVI JACKSON Caroline (icon: PPE PPE)
Former Responsible Committee ENVI JACKSON Caroline (icon: PPE PPE)
Former Responsible Committee ENVI JACKSON Caroline (icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE)
Former Committee Opinion JURI
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
EC Treaty (after Amsterdam) EC 175-p1

Events

2007/11/14
   EC - Follow-up document
Details

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.

2007/11/14
   EC - Follow-up document
Details

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.

2001/04/27
   Final act published in Official Journal
2001/04/04
   CSL - Final act signed
2001/04/04
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2001/03/14
   EP - Text adopted by Parliament, 3rd reading
2001/03/14
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading
Documents
2001/03/13
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2001/02/26
   CSL - Decision by Council, 3rd reading
2001/02/26
   CSL - Council Meeting
2001/02/01
   EP - Report tabled for plenary by Parliament delegation to Conciliation Committee, 3rd reading
Documents
2001/02/01
   EP - Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading
Documents
2001/01/26
   CSL/EP - Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs
Documents
2001/01/26
   EP/CSL - Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs
Documents
2001/01/25
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2001/01/08
   EP/CSL - Final decision by Conciliation Committee
2000/11/22
   EP/CSL - Formal meeting of Conciliation Committee
2000/09/26
   CSL - Parliament's amendments rejected by Council
2000/09/26
   CSL - Council Meeting
2000/09/26
   EP - Responsible Committee
2000/08/04
   EC - Commission opinion on Parliament's position at 2nd reading
2000/07/06
   EP - Text adopted by Parliament, 2nd reading
2000/07/06
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
Documents
2000/07/05
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2000/06/19
   EP - Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading
2000/06/19
   EP - Vote in committee, 2nd reading
2000/06/19
   EP - Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading
Documents
2000/05/12
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2000/04/13
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
2000/04/07
   EC - Commission communication on Council's position
2000/03/30
   CSL - Council position
2000/03/30
   CSL - Council position published
Documents
2000/03/30
   CSL - Council Meeting
1999/12/13
   CSL - Council Meeting
1999/12/03
   EC - Modified legislative proposal published
1999/09/16
   EP - Text adopted by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
1999/09/16
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
1999/09/16
   EP - Former Responsible Committee
1999/09/15
   CofR - Committee of the Regions: opinion
1999/09/13
   EP - Debate in Parliament
1999/07/26
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
1999/07/26
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
1999/07/26
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
1999/07/19
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
1999/07/19
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
1999/07/19
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
1999/06/01
   EP - Former Responsible Committee
1999/04/28
   ESC - Economic and Social Committee: opinion, report
1999/02/24
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
1999/02/15
   EP - Former Responsible Committee
1998/12/16
   EC - Legislative proposal published

Documents

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

activities
  • date: 1998-12-16T00:00:00 docs: url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=1998&nu_doc=772 title: COM(1998)0772 type: Legislative proposal published celexid: CELEX:51998PC0772:EN body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/environment/ title: Environment type: Legislative proposal published
  • date: 1999-02-24T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: DELE date: 2000-09-26T00:00:00 committee_full: DELE EP Delegation to Conciliation Committee rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-06-01T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-02-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-09-16T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health, Consumer Policy rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Legal Affairs, Citizens' Rights committee: JURI
  • body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: DELE date: 2000-09-26T00:00:00 committee_full: DELE EP Delegation to Conciliation Committee rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-06-01T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-02-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-09-16T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health, Consumer Policy rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Legal Affairs, Citizens' Rights committee: JURI docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A4-1999-251&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading title: A4-0251/1999 date: 1999-07-19T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 1999-07-26T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: DELE date: 2000-09-26T00:00:00 committee_full: DELE EP Delegation to Conciliation Committee rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-06-01T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-02-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-09-16T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health, Consumer Policy rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Legal Affairs, Citizens' Rights committee: JURI docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A5-1999-2&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading title: A5-0002/1999
  • date: 1999-09-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=19990913&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 1999-09-16T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P5-TA-1999-18 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T5-0018/1999 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 1999-12-03T00:00:00 docs: url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=1999&nu_doc=652 title: COM(1999)0652 type: Modified legislative proposal published celexid: CELEX:51999PC0652:EN body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/environment/ title: Environment type: Modified legislative proposal published
  • date: 1999-12-13T00:00:00 body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Environment meeting_id: 2235
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 2253 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=ADV&RESULTSET=1&DOC_ID=5684%2F00&DOC_LANCD=EN&ROWSPP=25&NRROWS=500&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC type: Council position published title: 05684/1/2000 council: Environment date: 2000-03-30T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • date: 2000-04-13T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: DELE date: 2000-09-26T00:00:00 committee_full: DELE EP Delegation to Conciliation Committee rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-06-01T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-02-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-09-16T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health, Consumer Policy rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline
  • body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: DELE date: 2000-09-26T00:00:00 committee_full: DELE EP Delegation to Conciliation Committee rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-06-01T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-02-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-09-16T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health, Consumer Policy rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A5-2000-164&language=EN type: Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading title: A5-0164/2000 date: 2000-06-19T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 2nd reading
  • date: 2000-07-05T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20000705&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2000-07-06T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P5-TA-2000-321 type: Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading title: T5-0321/2000 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
  • date: 2000-09-26T00:00:00 body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Culture meeting_id: 2287
  • date: 2000-11-22T00:00:00 body: EP/CSL type: Formal meeting of Conciliation Committee
  • date: 2001-01-08T00:00:00 body: EP/CSL type: Final decision by Conciliation Committee
  • date: 2001-01-26T00:00:00 docs: type: Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs title: 3603/2001 body: EP/CSL type: Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs
  • date: 2001-02-01T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A5-2001-41&language=EN type: Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading title: A5-0041/2001 body: EP type: Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading
  • date: 2001-02-26T00:00:00 body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Agriculture and Fisheries meeting_id: 2332
  • date: 2001-03-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20010313&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2001-03-14T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P5-TA-2001-132 type: Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading title: T5-0132/2001 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading
  • date: 2001-04-04T00:00:00 body: CSL type: Final act signed
  • date: 2001-04-04T00:00:00 body: EP type: End of procedure in Parliament
  • date: 2001-04-27T00:00:00 type: Final act published in Official Journal
commission
  • body: EC dg: Environment commissioner: --
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
EP Delegation to Conciliation Committee
committee
DELE
date
2000-09-26T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: JACKSON Caroline group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats abbr: PPE-DE
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
True
committee
DELE
date
2000-09-26T00:00:00
committee_full
DELE EP Delegation to Conciliation Committee
rapporteur
group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline
committees/1
type
Former Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection
committee
ENVI
date
1999-06-01T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: JACKSON Caroline group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
True
committee
ENVI
date
1999-06-01T00:00:00
committee_full
Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection
rapporteur
group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline
committees/2
type
Former Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection
committee
ENVI
date
1999-02-15T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: JACKSON Caroline group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/2
body
EP
responsible
True
committee
ENVI
date
1999-02-15T00:00:00
committee_full
Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection
rapporteur
group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline
committees/3
type
Former Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Environment, Public Health, Consumer Policy
committee
ENVI
date
1999-09-16T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: JACKSON Caroline group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats abbr: PPE-DE
committees/3
body
EP
responsible
True
committee
ENVI
date
1999-09-16T00:00:00
committee_full
Environment, Public Health, Consumer Policy
rapporteur
group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline
committees/4
type
Former Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs, Citizens' Rights
committee
JURI
opinion
False
committees/4
body
EP
responsible
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs, Citizens' Rights
committee
JURI
council
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Agriculture and Fisheries meeting_id: 2332 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2332*&MEET_DATE=26/02/2001 date: 2001-02-26T00:00:00
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Culture meeting_id: 2287 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2287*&MEET_DATE=26/09/2000 date: 2000-09-26T00:00:00
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Environment meeting_id: 2253 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2253*&MEET_DATE=30/03/2000 date: 2000-03-30T00:00:00
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Environment meeting_id: 2235 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2235*&MEET_DATE=13/12/1999 date: 1999-12-13T00:00:00
docs
  • date: 1999-04-28T00:00:00 docs: url: https://dm.eesc.europa.eu/EESCDocumentSearch/Pages/redresults.aspx?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:0448)(documentyear:1999)(documentlanguage:EN) title: CES0448/1999 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:1999:169:TOC title: OJ C 169 16.06.1999, p. 0012 type: Economic and Social Committee: opinion, report body: ESC
  • date: 1999-07-19T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A4-1999-251&language=EN title: A4-0251/1999 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:1999:279:SOM:EN:HTML title: OJ C 279 01.10.1999, p. 0008 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 1999-07-26T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A5-1999-2&language=EN title: A5-0002/1999 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2000:054:TOC title: OJ C 054 25.02.2000, p. 0010 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 1999-09-15T00:00:00 docs: url: https://dm.cor.europa.eu/CORDocumentSearch/Pages/redresults.aspx?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:0179)(documentyear:1999)(documentlanguage:EN) title: CDR0179/1999 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:1999:374:SOM:EN:HTML title: OJ C 374 23.12.1999, p. 0048 type: Committee of the Regions: opinion body: CofR
  • date: 1999-09-16T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P5-TA-1999-18 title: T5-0018/1999 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2000:054:TOC title: OJ C 054 25.02.2000, p. 0056-0089 summary: type: Text adopted by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2000-03-30T00:00:00 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=ADV&RESULTSET=1&DOC_ID=5684%2F00&DOC_LANCD=EN&ROWSPP=25&NRROWS=500&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC title: 05684/1/2000 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2000:137:TOC title: OJ C 137 16.05.2000, p. 0001 summary: type: Council position body: CSL
  • date: 2000-04-07T00:00:00 docs: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=SECfinal&an_doc=2000&nu_doc=576 title: EUR-Lex title: SEC(2000)0576 summary: type: Commission communication on Council's position body: EC
  • date: 2000-05-12T00:00:00 docs: title: PE290.110 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2000-06-19T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A5-2000-164&language=EN title: A5-0164/2000 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2001:121:TOC title: OJ C 121 24.04.2001, p. 0009 type: Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading body: EP
  • date: 2000-07-06T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P5-TA-2000-321 title: T5-0321/2000 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2001:121:TOC title: OJ C 121 24.04.2001, p. 0165-0386 summary: type: Text adopted by Parliament, 2nd reading body: EP
  • date: 2000-08-04T00:00:00 docs: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2000&nu_doc=526 title: EUR-Lex title: COM(2000)0526 summary: type: Commission opinion on Parliament's position at 2nd reading body: EC
  • date: 2001-01-25T00:00:00 docs: title: PE287.584/ type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2001-01-26T00:00:00 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=ADV&RESULTSET=1&DOC_ID=3603%2F01&DOC_LANCD=EN&ROWSPP=25&NRROWS=500&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC title: 3603/2001 type: Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs body: CSL/EP
  • date: 2001-02-01T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A5-2001-41&language=EN title: A5-0041/2001 type: Report tabled for plenary by Parliament delegation to Conciliation Committee, 3rd reading body: EP
  • date: 2001-03-14T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P5-TA-2001-132 title: T5-0132/2001 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2001:343:TOC title: OJ C 343 05.12.2001, p. 0103-0153 summary: type: Text adopted by Parliament, 3rd reading body: EP
  • date: 2007-11-14T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2007/0707/COM_COM(2007)0707_EN.pdf title: COM(2007)0707 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2007&nu_doc=707 title: EUR-Lex summary: 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. type: Follow-up document body: EC
  • date: 2007-11-14T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2007/1493/COM_SEC(2007)1493_EN.pdf title: SEC(2007)1493 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=SECfinal&an_doc=2007&nu_doc=1493 title: EUR-Lex summary: 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. type: Follow-up document body: EC
events
  • date: 1998-12-16T00:00:00 type: Legislative proposal published body: EC docs: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=1998&nu_doc=772 title: EUR-Lex title: COM(1998)0772 summary:
  • date: 1999-02-24T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 1999-07-19T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP summary:
  • date: 1999-07-19T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A4-1999-251&language=EN title: A4-0251/1999
  • date: 1999-07-26T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 1999-07-26T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A5-1999-2&language=EN title: A5-0002/1999
  • date: 1999-09-13T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=19990913&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 1999-09-16T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P5-TA-1999-18 title: T5-0018/1999 summary:
  • date: 1999-12-03T00:00:00 type: Modified legislative proposal published body: EC docs: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=1999&nu_doc=652 title: EUR-Lex title: COM(1999)0652 summary:
  • date: 2000-03-30T00:00:00 type: Council position published body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=ADV&RESULTSET=1&DOC_ID=5684%2F00&DOC_LANCD=EN&ROWSPP=25&NRROWS=500&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC title: 05684/1/2000 summary:
  • date: 2000-04-13T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading body: EP
  • date: 2000-06-19T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 2nd reading body: EP summary:
  • date: 2000-06-19T00:00:00 type: Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A5-2000-164&language=EN title: A5-0164/2000
  • date: 2000-07-05T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20000705&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2000-07-06T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P5-TA-2000-321 title: T5-0321/2000 summary:
  • date: 2000-09-26T00:00:00 type: Parliament's amendments rejected by Council body: CSL
  • date: 2000-11-22T00:00:00 type: Formal meeting of Conciliation Committee body: EP/CSL
  • date: 2001-01-08T00:00:00 type: Final decision by Conciliation Committee body: EP/CSL summary:
  • date: 2001-01-26T00:00:00 type: Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs body: EP/CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=ADV&RESULTSET=1&DOC_ID=3603%2F01&DOC_LANCD=EN&ROWSPP=25&NRROWS=500&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC title: 3603/2001
  • date: 2001-02-01T00:00:00 type: Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A5-2001-41&language=EN title: A5-0041/2001
  • date: 2001-02-26T00:00:00 type: Decision by Council, 3rd reading body: CSL
  • date: 2001-03-13T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20010313&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2001-03-14T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P5-TA-2001-132 title: T5-0132/2001 summary:
  • date: 2001-04-04T00:00:00 type: Final act signed body: CSL
  • date: 2001-04-04T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
  • date: 2001-04-27T00:00:00 type: Final act published in Official Journal
other
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Former Council configuration
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/environment/ title: Environment
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
CODE/5/13721
New
  • CODE/5/13721
procedure/final/title
Old
OJ L 118 27.04.2001, p. 0041
New
OJ L 118 27.04.2001, p. 0041
procedure/final/url
Old
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2001:118:TOC
New
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:118:SOM:EN:HTML
procedure/subject
Old
  • 3.70 Environmental policy
New
3.70
Environmental policy
links/European Commission/title
Old
PreLex
New
EUR-Lex
activities
  • date: 1998-12-16T00:00:00 docs: url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=1998&nu_doc=772 celexid: CELEX:51998PC0772:EN type: Legislative proposal published title: COM(1998)0772 type: Legislative proposal published body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/environment/ title: Environment
  • date: 1999-02-24T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: DELE date: 2000-09-26T00:00:00 committee_full: DELE EP Delegation to Conciliation Committee rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-06-01T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-02-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-09-16T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health, Consumer Policy rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Legal Affairs, Citizens' Rights committee: JURI
  • body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: DELE date: 2000-09-26T00:00:00 committee_full: DELE EP Delegation to Conciliation Committee rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-06-01T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-02-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-09-16T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health, Consumer Policy rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Legal Affairs, Citizens' Rights committee: JURI docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A4-1999-251&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading title: A4-0251/1999 date: 1999-07-19T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 1999-07-26T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: DELE date: 2000-09-26T00:00:00 committee_full: DELE EP Delegation to Conciliation Committee rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-06-01T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-02-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-09-16T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health, Consumer Policy rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Legal Affairs, Citizens' Rights committee: JURI docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A5-1999-2&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading title: A5-0002/1999
  • date: 1999-09-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=19990913&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 1999-09-16T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P5-TA-1999-18 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T5-0018/1999 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 1999-12-03T00:00:00 docs: url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=1999&nu_doc=652 celexid: CELEX:51999PC0652:EN type: Modified legislative proposal published title: COM(1999)0652 type: Modified legislative proposal published body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/environment/ title: Environment
  • date: 1999-12-13T00:00:00 body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Environment meeting_id: 2235
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 2253 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=ADV&RESULTSET=1&DOC_ID=5684%2F00&DOC_LANCD=EN&ROWSPP=25&NRROWS=500&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC type: Council position published title: 05684/1/2000 council: Environment date: 2000-03-30T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • date: 2000-04-13T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: DELE date: 2000-09-26T00:00:00 committee_full: DELE EP Delegation to Conciliation Committee rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-06-01T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-02-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-09-16T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health, Consumer Policy rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline
  • body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: DELE date: 2000-09-26T00:00:00 committee_full: DELE EP Delegation to Conciliation Committee rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-06-01T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-02-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-09-16T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health, Consumer Policy rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A5-2000-164&language=EN type: Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading title: A5-0164/2000 date: 2000-06-19T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 2nd reading
  • date: 2000-07-05T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20000705&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2000-07-06T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P5-TA-2000-321 type: Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading title: T5-0321/2000 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
  • date: 2000-09-26T00:00:00 body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Culture meeting_id: 2287
  • date: 2000-11-22T00:00:00 body: EP/CSL type: Formal meeting of Conciliation Committee
  • date: 2001-01-08T00:00:00 body: EP/CSL type: Final decision by Conciliation Committee
  • date: 2001-01-26T00:00:00 docs: type: Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs title: 3603/2001 body: EP/CSL type: Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs
  • date: 2001-02-01T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A5-2001-41&language=EN type: Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading title: A5-0041/2001 body: EP type: Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading
  • date: 2001-02-26T00:00:00 body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Agriculture and Fisheries meeting_id: 2332
  • date: 2001-03-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20010313&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2001-03-14T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P5-TA-2001-132 type: Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading title: T5-0132/2001 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading
  • date: 2001-04-04T00:00:00 body: CSL type: Final act signed
  • date: 2001-04-04T00:00:00 body: EP type: End of procedure in Parliament
  • date: 2001-04-27T00:00:00 type: Final act published in Official Journal
committees
  • body: EP responsible: True committee: DELE date: 2000-09-26T00:00:00 committee_full: DELE EP Delegation to Conciliation Committee rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline
  • body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-06-01T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline
  • body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-02-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: PPE name: JACKSON Caroline
  • body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 1999-09-16T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health, Consumer Policy rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: JACKSON Caroline
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Legal Affairs, Citizens' Rights committee: JURI
links
European Commission
other
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Former Council configuration
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/environment/ title: Environment
procedure
dossier_of_the_committee
CODE/5/13721
reference
1998/0358(COD)
instrument
Recommendation
legal_basis
EC Treaty (after Amsterdam) EC 175-p1
stage_reached
Procedure completed
subtype
Legislation
title
Environment: implementation of the Community law, minimal criteria for inspections
type
COD - Ordinary legislative procedure (ex-codecision procedure)
final
subject
3.70 Environmental policy