# C_2007097EN.01001201.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 97/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 97/12

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (Codified version)

COM(2006) 543 final — 2006/0170 (COD)

(2007/C 97/04)

On 11 October 2006 the European Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 175(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 25 January 2007. The rapporteur was Mr Osborn.

At its 433rd plenary session, held on 15-16 February 2007 (meeting of 15 February), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 188 votes to 2 with 8 abstentions.

1.   Introduction

| 1.1 | The purpose of the Commission's proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control and a number of subsequent amendments of that Directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.1

The purpose of the Commission's proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control and a number of subsequent amendments of that Directive.

| 1.2 | The Committee strongly supports the regular codification of EU law in all areas. It agrees with the Commission and the other institutions that such codification makes the legislation more transparent and accessible to all those needing to use it and more comprehensible to the public. |
| --- | --- |

1.2

The Committee strongly supports the regular codification of EU law in all areas. It agrees with the Commission and the other institutions that such codification makes the legislation more transparent and accessible to all those needing to use it and more comprehensible to the public.

2.   General comments

| 2.1 | In the present case codification has an additional benefit since it will bring all the European legislation on integrated pollution prevention and control together in a single Directive in good time before any new proposals arising from the current review of the pollution prevention and control are brought forward. It will thus facilitate consideration of any new proposals by the European institutions and by other interested parties. |
| --- | --- |

2.1

In the present case codification has an additional benefit since it will bring all the European legislation on integrated pollution prevention and control together in a single Directive in good time before any new proposals arising from the current review of the pollution prevention and control are brought forward. It will thus facilitate consideration of any new proposals by the European institutions and by other interested parties.

| 2.2 | In this context the Committee recalls its own previous Opinion commenting on progress in implementing integrated pollution prevention and control delivered in December 2003 (1). At that time the Committee expressed concern about a number of problems that had already been identified in the implementation of the Directive. These included delays and confusion in transposition, delays and lack of transparency in the conditions imposed on sites subject to IPPC control, difficulties in securing consistent standards of inspection of sites in operation and of enforcement of permit conditions and a number of other concerns. |
| --- | --- |

2.2

In this context the Committee recalls its own previous Opinion commenting on progress in implementing integrated pollution prevention and control delivered in December 2003 (1). At that time the Committee expressed concern about a number of problems that had already been identified in the implementation of the Directive. These included delays and confusion in transposition, delays and lack of transparency in the conditions imposed on sites subject to IPPC control, difficulties in securing consistent standards of inspection of sites in operation and of enforcement of permit conditions and a number of other concerns.

1

| 2.3 | Since then the Commission has developed an Action Plan to assist in making faster progress throughout the Union, and the Committee are glad to see from the current studies being undertaken by the Commission on implementation that there does appear to have been some acceleration of action on implementation in many parts of the Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.3

Since then the Commission has developed an Action Plan to assist in making faster progress throughout the Union, and the Committee are glad to see from the current studies being undertaken by the Commission on implementation that there does appear to have been some acceleration of action on implementation in many parts of the Union.

| 2.4 | The Committee does however remain concerned about a number of aspects of implementation. It is particularly concerned that a number of member states seem likely to face considerable difficulties in bringing all their sites under the IPPC control regime by the end of 2007 as required by the Directive. (Most countries in Europe have had ten years to achieve full implementation and even the new member states have had about three years to achieve at least the basic framework of control for installation sites). It also remains concerned about the lack of transparency about the reasons which have led some competent authorities to grant permits to operations that fall a long way short of the achievable emission values set out in the BREF documents. The basic concept of integrated assessment so as to allow sensible trade-offs between emissions to different media is not always carried through effectively. Varying practices as regards frequency and robustness of inspection procedures are also a cause for concern. |
| --- | --- |

2.4

The Committee does however remain concerned about a number of aspects of implementation. It is particularly concerned that a number of member states seem likely to face considerable difficulties in bringing all their sites under the IPPC control regime by the end of 2007 as required by the Directive. (Most countries in Europe have had ten years to achieve full implementation and even the new member states have had about three years to achieve at least the basic framework of control for installation sites). It also remains concerned about the lack of transparency about the reasons which have led some competent authorities to grant permits to operations that fall a long way short of the achievable emission values set out in the BREF documents. The basic concept of integrated assessment so as to allow sensible trade-offs between emissions to different media is not always carried through effectively. Varying practices as regards frequency and robustness of inspection procedures are also a cause for concern.

| 2.5 | EESC looks forward to playing its part in commenting further at later stages of the review process on the IPPC legislation. Meanwhile it would encourage the Commission and the other Institutions to be ready to consider significant new measures to secure more effective implementation of the legislation in the light of the very mixed state of implementation revealed by the current studies by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.5

EESC looks forward to playing its part in commenting further at later stages of the review process on the IPPC legislation. Meanwhile it would encourage the Commission and the other Institutions to be ready to consider significant new measures to secure more effective implementation of the legislation in the light of the very mixed state of implementation revealed by the current studies by the Commission.

| 2.6 | IPPC has the potential to bring about a steady improvement in the standards of operation of businesses across Europe in a sensitive way that takes account of local conditions and circumstances. But it is taking a long time to establish itself as a significant force for change and improvement in environmental performance of operation. If it is to retain the confidence both of businesses and of the rest of civil society it is essential that it be implemented transparently and enforced consistently across Europe. Otherwise it will fail to establish a dynamic framework for steady improvement of performance as the investment cycle provides opportunities, will prejudice fair competition, and will lead to growing distrust in the whole system as a means of improving environmental performance and better environmental quality across Europe. |
| --- | --- |

2.6

IPPC has the potential to bring about a steady improvement in the standards of operation of businesses across Europe in a sensitive way that takes account of local conditions and circumstances. But it is taking a long time to establish itself as a significant force for change and improvement in environmental performance of operation. If it is to retain the confidence both of businesses and of the rest of civil society it is essential that it be implemented transparently and enforced consistently across Europe. Otherwise it will fail to establish a dynamic framework for steady improvement of performance as the investment cycle provides opportunities, will prejudice fair competition, and will lead to growing distrust in the whole system as a means of improving environmental performance and better environmental quality across Europe.

| 2.7 | Codification of existing legislation in the present Directive is a useful step in itself. But it should be regarded as doing no more than paving the way for the further measures that are likely to be needed to improve implementation following the current review. |
| --- | --- |

2.7

Codification of existing legislation in the present Directive is a useful step in itself. But it should be regarded as doing no more than paving the way for the further measures that are likely to be needed to improve implementation following the current review.

Brussels, 15 February 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 30.3.2004, pp. 29-34.

1

---