Table of contents 1.Introduction 2.Background to the intervention 2.1. Description of the intervention and its objectives 2.2. Objectives of the IED and problems it is intended to solve 2.3. Key requirements and principles 8 2.4. Intervention logic 2.5. Industrial emissions policy context prior to 2010 2.6. Expected evolution of key variables under the baseline scenario 2.7. Main changes with respect to the IPPCD 3.Implementation / state of Play 3.1. Current situation 3.2. IED installations and overall emissions 3.3. Production of BREFs and implementation of BAT conclusions 3.4. Monitoring and reporting under the IED and E-PRTR 3.5. Compliance and enforcement 3.6. Innovation 4.Method

4.1. Short description of methodology 4.2. Limitations and robustness of findings 5.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions 5.1. Effectiveness 5.2. Efficiency 5.3. Relevance 60 5.4. Coherence 64 5.5. EU added value 67 6.Conclusions69 Annex 1: Procedural information79 Annex 2: Intervention Logic84 Annex 3: Summary evaluation matrix85 Annex 4: Stakeholder consultation95 Annex 5: Methods and analytical models106 Annex 6: Rating of robustness and stakeholder sentiment110 Annex 7: Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation113 Annex 8: Coherence with related EU legislation116 Annex 9: Summary of outstanding problems with the IED implementation (March 2020)118 Annex 10: List of relevant EU legislation119 Annex 11: Reference list (main sources)122

Glossary Term or acronym Meaning or definition Policies Circular Economy Action Plan https://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm Clean Air https://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/index_en.htm Industrial Emissions https://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/stationary/index.htm Water https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/index_en.htm Pollutants Cd Cadmium CO2 Carbon Dioxide Hg Mercury N Nitrogen NH3 Ammonia Ni Nickel NMVOC Non-Methane VOC NOX Nitrogen Oxides P Phosphorous Pb Lead PM Particulate Matter SO2 Sulphur Dioxide TiO2 Titanium Dioxide TOC Total Organic Carbon TSS Total Suspended Solids VOC Volatile Organic Compounds Abbreviations ACCESSA Association for Catalytic Control of Emissions from Stationary Sources BAT Best Available Techniques BATc BAT conclusions BAU Business as usual BAT-AEL BAT-Associated Emission Level BAT-AEPL BAT-Associated Environmental Performance Level BREF Best Available Techniques Reference Document CER Ceramic Manufacturing Industry CIRCABC Communication and Information Resource Centre for Administrations, Businesses and Citizens - a collaborative tool used to share information and resources on the internet CLM Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Production ECD Environmental Crime Directive EIPPCB European Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Bureau, part of the Joint Research Centre ELV Emission Limit Value EPPSA European Power Plants Suppliers Association E-PRTR European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register ESWET European Suppliers of Waste-to-Energy Technology ETS (EU) Emissions Trading System FDM Food, Drink and Milk Industries FMP Ferrous Metals Processing Industry GHG Greenhouse Gas GBR General Binding Rules GLS Manufacture of Glass IA Impact Assessment IED Industrial Emissions Directive INSPIRE Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community IPPCD Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive IRPP Intensive Rearing of Poultry or Pigs IS (I&S) Iron and Steel LCP Large Combustion Plant LCPD Large Combustion Plants Directive LOD Limit of Detection LVIC Large Volume Inorganic Chemicals LVOC Large Volume Organic Chemicals MS (EU) Member States NECD National Emission Ceilings Directive NFM Non-ferrous Metals Industries NGO Non-governmental organisations OPC Open Public Consultation PP (P&P) Production of Pulp, Paper and Board RAINS Regional Air Pollution Information and Simulation model REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals REF Refineries RSB Regulatory Scrutiny Board SA Slaughterhouses and Animals By-products Industries SE Solvent Using Activities SF Smitheries and Foundries SED Solvent Emissions Directive STM Surface Treatment of Metals and Plastics STS STS - Surface Treatment Using Organic Solvents TAN Tanning of Hides and Skins TNP Transitional National Plan TWG Technical Working Group UWWTD Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive WI Waste Incineration and Co-incineration Plant WT Waste Treatment WID Waste Incineration Directive WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant 1.Introduction This evaluation is being completed while the EU is working to implement the European Green Deal Communication adopted in December 2019. This Staff Working Document (SWD) provides therefore important elements for informing this work, in particular with regard to the Zero Pollution ambition for a toxic-free environment. The Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU (IED) is the main instrument in place at the EU level to control and mitigate the environmental and human health impacts from industrial emissions in the EU. The IED regulates around 52 000 of the largest industrial installations covering a range of agro-industrial sectors. These include: power plants, refineries, and production of steel, non-ferrous metals, cement, lime, glass, chemicals, pulp and paper, food and drink as well as waste treatment and incineration and the intensive rearing of pigs and poultry. The general objective of the IED is to prevent, reduce and eliminate as far as possible emissions into air, water and soil and remediate soil pollution arising from industrial activities. The IED installations account for about 20% of pollutant emissions by mass to air and a similar share of emissions to water. While IED sectors are large GHG emitters (around 40% of total EU GHG emissions), their CO2 emissions are mainly regulated under the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) and, as stipulated by the IED itself, their IED permit shall not include an emission limit value for that gas. Nevertheless, there are a number of IED installations whose CO2 emissions are not regulated by the ETS, and there are emissions of GHGs other than CO2 from IED installations, most of which are not regulated by the ETS. Altogether, it is estimated that around 10% of GHG emissions of IED plants are not covered by the ETS, representing around 4% of total EU GHG emissions. This evaluation provides a particularly timely opportunity to assess how well the current legal framework on industrial emissions is working, how relevant it remains in light of the stated EU policy ambitions, and the degree to which it achieved its intended impacts. It includes a review of the implementation of the IED based on Member States reports and complementary information held by the Commission. The evaluation has been carried out in line with the European Commission's Better Regulation guidelines. Evidence gathering and its analysis was carried out with the support of independent experts. This SWD was supported by their report. Other evaluations have recently been concluded for legislation with which the IED interacts strongly, notably on air quality, water management, and urban waste water treatment. The relevant aspects of those interactions have been considered in this evaluation. The general public, industrial stakeholders, public authorities, and representatives of civil society have been consulted throughout the process. The evaluation assesses the legislation against the five standard criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU-added value. It primarily covers the period from adoption of the IED, in 2010, to the present; however, in some aspects (e.g. emissions of large combustion plants), it was pertinent to look back further to its predecessor legislation. In terms of legislation, the evaluation covers the IED, including the information exchange process for elaborating Best Available Techniques Reference Documents (BREFs). It covers all activities within the scope of Annex I to the IED and the whole of the EU. It also covers the following main implementing decisions adopted under the IED that govern its implementation: ·the Commission Decision setting up the IED Forum; ·the BREF Guidance. The 17 implementing decisions containing the conclusions on Best Available Techniques (BAT conclusions) adopted so far under the IED are not individually assessed as part of the evaluation, but are indirectly addressed as a whole for the following reasons: ·The process to derive the BAT conclusions is analysed in detail and applies to all those adopted; ·The effectiveness of the IED is mainly the cumulative effectiveness of the implementation of the BAT conclusions; ·Most evaluation questions, e.g. on efficiency, apply to the BREF process, and consequently to the drawing up of all BAT conclusions. Where issues specific to individual BAT conclusions have been raised (usually by stakeholders) or assessed in studies, they have been documented. A number of other implementing acts adopted under the IED have not been included in the evaluation. These are the following ones: ·Implementing rules on the determination of start-up and shut-down periods for large combustion plants are not included because they cover a very specific technical issue; ·Implementing rules on transitional national plans for ensuring compliance of Large Combustion Plants (LCPs) with IED requirements are time-limited and all expire in 2020;

·Implementing rules for Member State reporting are not addressed, but they provide some of the data used in the evaluation. This evaluation will also feed into an Impact Assessment on the revision of the IED, seeking to ensure its fullest contribution to the Zero Pollution ambition and coherence with other policy objectives, such as industrial decarbonisation, also taking note of the Masterplan adopted by the High Level Group on Energy Intensive Industries, and a cleaner and more circular economy to the benefit of both public health and enhanced resilience of natural ecosystems, in line with the European Green Deal Communication. 2.Background to the intervention 2.1.Description of the intervention and its objectives Industry is responsible for a significant share of overall environmental impacts. The IED is the main EU legislation regulating the environmental impacts of large agro-industrial sources. It combines and strengthens requirements previously set under seven different EU Directives (see Annex 5 for details of legal instruments), namely: ·The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPCD) ·The Large Combustion Plants Directive (LCPD) ·The Waste Incineration Directive (WID) ·The Solvent Emissions Directive (SED) ·Council Directive 78/176/EEC on waste from the titanium dioxide industry ·Council Directive 82/883/EEC on procedures for the surveillance and monitoring of environments concerned by waste from the titanium dioxide industry ·Council Directive 92/112/EEC on procedures for harmonising the programmes for the reduction and eventual elimination of pollution caused by waste from the titanium dioxide industry As an example of better regulation, the IED was introduced following a review of the industrial pollution policy framework. The motivation was to further control industrial pollution, while simplifying regulations, lowering the administrative burden, and improving enforcement. It aimed to support innovation and provide better coherence with other aspects of EU environmental policy acquis (specifically concerning air, water, soil, waste, circular economy). 2.2.Objectives of the IED and problems it is intended to solve The IED is intended to respond to a number of needs. The first is to support a high level of protection of human health and the environment by preventing, reducing and eliminating, as far as possible, adverse impacts arising from industrial activities (e.g. emissions to air, water and soil, waste, resource consumption). The second is to ensure a level playing field for operators within sectors and across the EU for industrial pollution prevention and control. The third is to ensure access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice on industrial activities’ environmental permitting and performance. The fourth is to reduce unnecessary or excessive administrative costs for economic operators from previous legislation controlling industrial emissions. In response to these needs, the IED has a number of objectives. These include: ·to establish a framework for the control and permitting of the main industrial activities; ·to avoid distortion of competition by ensuring consistent environmental requirements for all economic operators within each sector; ·to ensure that permitting of industrial installations is based on best available techniques;

·to stimulate innovation by encouraging the development and application of emerging techniques; ·to ensure simplification and clarity of the legal framework and reduce or avoid unnecessary administrative burden. 2.3.Key requirements and principles Scope of the Directive More industrial activities fall under the scope of the IED than under its preceding legislation, the IPPCD. In 2015, around 51 700 installations were reported as undertaking industrial activities within the scope of the IED. Implementation of the IED, while driven by EU actions, is therefore much decentralised. It depends on the correct and consistent implementation by a large number of competent authorities across the EU. The IED is based on several principles, in particular: an integrated approach to pollution prevention and control, the use of best available techniques in permitting, flexibility, inspections and monitoring, public participation and access to justice. Integrated Approach and Permitting The IED requires that emissions from industrial sources are dealt with in an integrated way and minimised. All installations conducting activities listed in IED Annex I are required to operate according to a permit issued by the competent authority of the concerned Member State, and reflecting the principles and provisions stipulated by the IED. These are the general requirements set out in Chapters I and II of the IED. The permit extends to all environmental aspects of an installation’s operating activities, including emissions of pollutants to air, water and soil, waste generation, resource use, noise, odour prevention of accidents and restoration of the site upon closure. For certain activities, i.e. large combustion plants (LCPs), waste incineration (WI) and co-incineration plants, solvent using activities (SE) and titanium dioxide production (TiO2), the IED also sets, in specific sectoral chapters, minimum requirements based on the predecessor Directives. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Permit conditions must be based on the use of Best Available Techniques (BAT), which are the most environmentally effective of the economically viable techniques available. EU wide BAT conclusions are adopted as sector specific implementing decisions that define BAT and the related environmental performance to be incorporated in permits issued by Member States’ competent authorities. In order to define BAT and the BAT-associated environmental performance at EU level, the Commission organises an exchange of information with experts from Member States, industry and environmental organisations. This work is co-ordinated by the European IPPC Bureau(EIPPCB) at the EU Joint Research Centre in Seville (Spain). This process results in BAT Reference Documents (BREFs). The BAT conclusions are a distinctive chapter of the BREFs. More information on the production of BREFs is contained in section 3.3. Figure 2-1 shows a schematic view of the IED. The setting of BAT and BAT-AEPLs at EU level is in general based on imbalances between installations with high environmental performance and those less performing ones. The BAT used in well performing installations can then be generalised across all installations through the BREF processes, creating a level playing field and a high level of environmental performance within each industrial sector. Market demand leads to continual innovation in techniques and improved performance at lower cost. This process continues independently of the BREF review process, ensuring that better performing techniques are available in a subsequent cycle. BREFs have a standard format, set out in the BREF Guidance, consisting of the following chapters: Preface Scope General information about the sector concerned Applied processes and techniques Current emission and consumption levels Techniques to consider in the determination of BAT Best Available Techniques (BAT) conclusions (BATc) Emerging techniques Concluding remarks and recommendations for future work References Glossary of terms and abbreviations Annexes (dependent upon relevance to the sector and availability of information) The BAT conclusions identify a non-exhaustive and non-prescriptive list of BAT, as well as the environmental performance levels achievable with the use of BAT. They can contain: ·BAT-Associated Emission Levels (BAT-AELs), i.e. a numerical range of emission levels for specific pollutants,

·BAT-Associated Environmental Performance Levels (BAT-AEPLs) other than emission levels, which usually address the consumption of raw materials, energy or water, as well as waste generation, and/or ·Descriptive BAT which are not associated with either BAT-AELs or BAT-AEPLs, e.g. concerning monitoring, site remediation, environmental management systems, or the limitation or ban of the use of hazardous substances. IED Article 14(3) makes BAT conclusions the mandatory reference for setting permit conditions. Article 15(3) makes BAT-AELs the binding requirements for pollutant emissions, usually to air and water. Their upper level is the upper boundary for the corresponding emission limit values set in permits, unless a derogation is granted by a competent authority subject to strict conditions set by the IED. BAT-AEPLs and descriptive BAT are not binding in the same way as BAT-AELs, but authorities must use them as a reference for setting permit conditions. Competent authorities must update installation permits to be in line with the content of the BAT conclusions, and operators must be compliant with them within 4 years of publication of the BAT conclusions in the Official Journal of the EU. This gives BAT conclusions a more prominent role than under the IPPCD, where they were not legally binding. In doing so, permitting authorities must also ensure compliance with relevant minimum requirements contained in IED Chapters III to VI. Flexibility The IED allows competent authorities some flexibility to set less strict emission limit values. Such derogations are possible only in specific cases, where an assessment shows that achieving the emission levels associated with BAT described in the BAT conclusions would lead to disproportionately higher costs compared to the environmental benefits due to the geographical location, local environmental conditions, or the technical characteristics of the installation, preventing the implementation of BAT. However, the use of this derogation procedure is strictly limited as the competent authority has to ensure that no significant pollution is caused and that a high level of protection of the environment as a whole is achieved. The competent authority shall always document its justification for granting such derogations. In the case of the sectors covered also by the specific Chapters IV, V, VI, VII, derogations cannot exceed those minimum requirements. At the same time, competent authorities must set stricter emission limits when an environment quality standard is exceeded. Figure 2-2 illustrates the different regimes for emission limits under the IED. Inspections and Monitoring The IED contains mandatory requirements on environmental inspections. Member States must set up a system of environmental inspections and draw up inspection plans accordingly. The IED requires a site visit to take place at least every 1 to 3 years, using risk-based criteria. Operators have to report to Member State authorities the results of the monitoring requirements set by BAT conclusions, and Member States are reporting to the EU on several aspects of the implementation of the Directive. This is described in more detail in Section 3.4. Access to Information and Access to Justice Access to information and public participation are key elements of the IED. They enable the public to have a right to participate in the decision-making process, and to be informed of its consequences in accordance with the Aarhus Convention. This requires, in particular, ensuring public information on applications for permits by industrial operators and access to permits issued by competent authorities and the results of emissions monitoring held by them. In view of the large number of IED installations, public involvement is also key to police the correct implementation of IED requirements in permits and their respect by operators. Access to justice is another aspect of the Aarhus Convention transposed in the IED. It aims to ensure that, where a problem arises, individuals affected or NGOs can take legal action to ensure the respect of the IED requirements. Figure 2-3 outlines the different roles and obligations of the Competent Authorities and operators of industrial installations in the permitting process.

The IED Forum

The IED requires the Commission to establish and regularly convene a Forum to support the information exchange. The Forum is composed of representatives of Member States, industry and environmental NGOs. It has been created as a formal expert group through a Commission decision, and is chaired by the Commission. New members of the Forum, who are not Member States, are appointed by the Director General of DG Environment. The IED Forum has so far held 14 meetings and all documents relating to them are publicly available on the internet on CIRCABC. The Commission is required to obtain the opinion of the Forum on the proposed content of BREFs and make it publicly available. The Commission must also take into account this opinion for the adoption of the BAT conclusions. The Commission also obtains the opinion of the Forum on the practical arrangements for the exchange of information including on the work programme for the revision of BREFs. This has, over the years, led to incremental improvements of the BREF process. Forum members nominate participants in the Technical Working Groups who carry out the detailed work on each BREF. 2.4.Intervention logic For illustrative purposes, the approach through which the IED operates can be described through a simplified sequence: → IED identifies sectors with large environmental impacts → IED creates a framework for BAT based permitting → BREF process identifies BAT and associated environmental performance levels → MS competent authorities issue BAT-based permits for installations → Industrial operators apply BAT to comply with permit conditions → MS competent authorities undertake inspection, compliance and enforcement actions → Emissions and environmental impacts decrease to levels prescribed → Civil society can access information and challenge permit decisions → IED contributes to the EU’s environmental quality objectives. Figure 2-4 shows a summary intervention logic for the IED, the elements of which are explained below. A more detailed version is presented in Annex 2.

Figure 2-4: Simplified intervention logi Objectives The main objectives of the IED are described in Section 2.2. Inputs The inputs needed are essentially human and financial resources. These are made available by the European Commission, Member State authorities, economic operators and other stakeholders. EU inputs are primarily needed for the EU level actions, while Member States provide input at EU, national, regional and local levels. Activities The resources provided are used to undertake a range of activities at various different levels. The first of these, at EU level, was the preparation and adoption of the IED. From that time onwards the main actions of the Commission are to manage the production of BREFs and adoption of BAT conclusions, oversee implementation of the IED and report on it. Member States had to ensure that the necessary structures were in place at national and sub-national levels to implement the IED. Member States, industry and NGOs then participate together with the Commission in the development of BREFs and BAT conclusions. At installation level, Member State competent authorities have to engage with operators to grant permits, review them when necessary, ensure that permit conditions are respected, inspect installations and carry out enforcement action, if needed. Operators of installations must make investments, as needed, to reduce their environmental impacts and ensure that they are compliant with the permit requirements. NGOs and citizens are able to participate in permitting processes, access emissions monitoring information and bring complaints and information to the competent authorities when needed. Outputs There are a number of outputs. All installations covered by Chapter II of the IED should hold regularly updated and BAT-based permits. Permitting decisions should be guided by BREFs and BAT conclusions. The permits should be complied with by operators and compliance should be enforced by competent authorities. The public should be involved in permitting decisions and have access to information on the environmental performance of industrial installations. Innovative techniques may be deployed to reduce the environmental impacts of industrial activities. To ensure compliance and enforcement, appropriate monitoring and reporting systems should be in place at all IED installations. Member States’ competent authorities should collect accurate emissions data for all IED installations and make them publicly available. The European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) provides the legal framework for monitoring aggregate pollutant emissions from IED installations and making that information public, in line with the requirements of the Aarhus Convention. The IED should lead to the improvement of the environmental performance of industrial installations across the EU. Effects If the implementation of the IED is effective, this should lead to benefits in four areas: I.reduced impacts on human health and the environment through lower emissions to air, water and soil, reduced waste generation and higher resource efficiency; II.a contribution to increased industrial and technology innovation in the EU; III.reduced distortion of competition across the EU; IV.improved transparency for the public regarding information on the environmental performance of industrial activities. External factors

A number of external factors outside the intervention are relevant, as they may influence delivery of the stated objectives. Action is required by Member States to transpose and implement the IED and this is key to its effectiveness and efficiency. Implementation requires effective cooperation within Member States between national, regional and local authorities and other actors. General economic and social conditions and technological progress are also relevant. Implementation of the IED is also influenced by other EU policies. Relevant strategies and policies include in particular the thematic strategies for air, water, soil, waste, the energy efficiency agenda and the Circular Economy Action Plan. Other EU legislation of relevance include the Water Framework Directive and other related water legislation, EU Emission Trading System, National Emission Ceilings Directive, Air Quality Directive and the Waste Framework Directive, as well as their related legislation. Overlaid onto the Intervention Logic in Figure 2-4 are the five criteria which form the basis for any evaluation undertaken in line with the Better Regulation Guidelines: ·Effectiveness: are the impacts (outputs and effects) envisaged by the objectives achieved? This effectively considers whether the objectives themselves have been achieved in practice. ·Efficiency: how do the outputs compare to the inputs? Have they been achieved in an efficient manner? ·Relevance: are the objectives of the IED still relevant for the needs in society and problems to address? ·Coherence: is the IED internally coherent? Does it complement or conflict with other existing policies and strategies, as well as new ones? ·EU added value: how do outcomes (outputs and effects) compare with what would have been achieved in the absence of the IED (or any EU policy on industrial pollution control)? The intervention logic has been used to develop the individual evaluation questions under each of the evaluation criteria. These are described in Annex 3 and used in Section 5. 2.5. Industrial emissions policy context prior to 2010 Baseline and points of comparison To evaluate the impacts of the IED, a counterfactual baseline scenario was used assuming the IED had not been implemented. The baseline considers relevant external factors, for example, the evolution of the legal framework and the expected evolution of key variables relating to industrial emissions and production. The main reference for the baseline was the Impact Assessment (IA), completed in 2007 and accompanying the proposal for the adoption of the IED. This defined the problems with the existing legal framework and its expected evolution in the absence of any further intervention (business as usual scenario - BAU). The IA is the starting point for the definition of the baseline and has been supplemented by input from other relevant sources. A major weakness of the IA was that it only contained information on emissions to air, and no quantitative data on emissions to water or soil. It also contained little quantitative data on other aspects such as inspections, compliance or enforcement. While no ex-ante assumptions exist about these parameters, wherever possible, the evaluation uses other sources to provide an indication of the situation either before the IED or early in its implementation. Some illustrations of these alternative data sources are as follows: ·E-PRTR data is available for emissions to water, so the emissions since the Impact Assessment are compared to the situation in 2007 as shown in Figure 3-7. ·E-PRTR data is available for emissions to soil, so the change in emissions since 2008 are shown in Figure 3-9. ·Information on inspections was reported in 2012-13 and it was the only data available for comparison. ·There is no systematic information on enforcement, but for some Member States, available information on enforcement actions suggest there has been little change in their frequency. Main assumptions

Expected evolution of the legal framework In the absence of the IED, the pre-existing legal instruments would have continued to regulate industrial emissions. The IPPCD was the main instrument setting the overall framework for regulating industrial emissions. It gave a broad structure and set of principles for permitting. The sectoral Directives would have continued to drive the use of BAT to comply with their ELVs. Inconsistencies between the IPPCD, sectoral Directives and other legislation would have continued. Industrial emissions reporting would have continued to be regulated by the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR), thus supporting public access to emissions information from agro-industrial activities. There would have been limited integration between the IPPCD, LCPD, SED, WID, and E-PRTR reporting requirements. Reporting would have anyway needed to comply with the INSPIRE Directive. External relevant parameters/factors Industrial emissions would have been mitigated to varying degrees by other existing environmental legislation which would continue having an effect. The main policy areas and legislation from which these effects are expected are: ·Climate change and energy policies: the EU ETS, the Effort Sharing Regulation and the Monitoring and Reporting Regulation, as well as Member State planning via National Energy and Climate Plans; ·Industrial accidents: the Seveso Directive; ·Chemicals: REACH; ·Air Quality: National Emissions Reduction Commitments Directive, Ambient Air Quality Directive and Fourth Daughter Directive; ·Water quality: the Water Framework Directive, the Environmental Quality Standards, the Nitrates Directive, the Groundwater Directive; ·Waste: the Waste Framework Directive, the Circular Economy Action Plan, the Landfill Directive. Market developments also impact on industrial emissions. The economic downturn after 2008 had an impact on the level of both industrial production and therefore also its emissions. Nevertheless, as the market recovered, so did production and emissions levels. While that economic crisis decreased or slowed down investments, its impact was time limited. However, industry would not have been expected to invest in reducing their environmental impacts substantially beyond what they were legally obliged to do and therefore overall the crisis is not expected to have had any lasting effect on emissions intensity. Main problems prior to the adoption of the IED The IA identified a number of main problems with the predecessor legislation. Under the baseline scenario, these issues would be expected to continue. The main ones were: Insufficient BAT implementation The IPPCD included rather vague provisions on the role and meaning of BAT and gave considerable flexibility to competent authorities in the permitting process to deviate from the use of BAT described in the BREFs. An unclear role of the BREF in the permitting process led to disparities among Member States from different permitting approaches, which reduced the overall environmental benefits. Deviations from the use of BAT occurred without due consideration of the technical, geographical or local environmental conditions of the installation and transparency of the permitting process was limited. This often resulted in permits not based on BAT described in the BREFs and Member States often set ELVs in permits that were not sufficiently stringent. While there were a number of interacting policies, many of which could incentivise the uptake of BAT by industry, there was no basis to expect them to trigger a significant increase in uptake of BAT. As a result, emissions would not be expected to decrease. Limitations with regard to compliance and enforcement

Different approaches among Member States and varying levels of completeness of reporting would have led to continuing challenges in assessing compliance or enforcement. While some improvements were expected, the overall difference in the Member States approach to inspections, compliance reporting and enforcement would be expected to continue. Limited stimulation of innovation Divergences among Member States in the implementation of the IPPCD meant that there would not have been strong and consistent market signal to technology suppliers concerning the needed level of environmental performance. This would have limited the development and deployment of better techniques. Administrative burden The (combination of) legislation was complex, causing inconsistencies and uncertainties regarding interpretation of the requirements and unnecessary administrative burden. The administrative burden varied considerably among Member States and regions due to differences in implementation. Some degree of unnecessary administrative burden was related to permitting practices. Some requirements were redundant and the ELVs in sectoral Directives could not be updated as regularly as BAT conclusions. Insufficient scope The scope of the IPPCD was insufficiently clear, with a number of legal uncertainties and in some cases, too restricted. A number of polluting activities were not regulated, which would have been insufficient for Member States to meet environmental objectives set in EU law and policy. EU environmental objectives have further developed since then and the shortcomings would have even been greater now. Limited access to information and public participation The main instrument to facilitate public access to information on industrial emissions was the E-PRTR, which however only provided information on yearly pollution load from plants. Inspections and permit reviews and reporting requirements on compliance varied among Member States. There was limited evidence of public engagement in the permitting process. 2.6.Expected evolution of key variables under the baseline scenario There has been limited change in the number of permitted IED installations across the EU and this was not expected to change significantly for Member States in the future. Half of the IED installations received an inspection between 2012 and 2013. The average annual number of inspections ranged between 1 and 6 per installation. Across Member States, the share of permitted installations inspected ranged from 100% to less than 50%. Under business as usual (BAU) it is assumed that around 50% of IPPCD installations would have received an inspection each year and the disparity among Member States would have continued. Compliance costs to operators varied considerably by Member State, by sector and by BAT uptake under the IPPCD. Annual inspection frequencies would not have changed with, on average, a site inspection involving 3 days inspection time annually, at a total cost of €80 million per year to regulators. Differences among Member States and sectors would have been expected to continue with consequent risks of market distortion. It is assumed the administrative costs to regulators associated with permitting would have primarily concerned the reconsideration or update of permits. These were assumed to be approximately half the cost of issuing a new permit. If permits were updated every 10 years, then the cost would have been in the range of €11-40 million per year. BREF development administrative costs were estimated at €5-10 million per BREF and are expected to remain the same under BAU. The BAU emissions of pollutants of IPPC activities is expected to remain fairly constant assuming BAT application did not increase significantly and non-stringent ELVs were applied. IPPC sector emissions would have become a higher share of total emissions due to progress in cutting emissions in other sectors. 2.7.Main changes with respect to the IPPCD The following elements represent the main changes introduced by the IED compared to the preceding IPPC regime: ·Merger of seven preceding Directives; ·Expansion of the sectors covered by the Directive;

·The obligation on installations to use BAT; ·BAT conclusions as the mandatory reference for permit conditions; ·The obligation to set ELVs in permits within the BAT-AEL range; ·Formalised procedure for the exchange of information to draw up and review BREFs; ·Elements relating to emerging techniques; ·Conditions for the granting of derogations; ·Minimum requirements for specific industry sectors in Chapters III, IV, V and VI; ·Compulsory inspection plans and inspection frequencies; ·Stronger provisions on public access to information, participation and access to justice. 3.Implementation / state of Play 3.1.Current situation The IED had to be transposed by 7 January 2013. In the absence of timely transposition by 20 Member States, the Commission pursued non-communication infringements in the period 2013-2016. All concerned Member States have by now adopted the necessary measures transposing the IED into their national legal order and all Commission enforcement procedures have been closed. On the basis of conformity checking studies, the Commission has assessed the quality of Member States’ transposition of the IED. Following this, there remain active EU Pilots for 15 Member States (an overview is provided in Annex 8). Of these, a few remaining issues are being clarified with three Member States; infringement action for incorrect transposition has already been launched against two other Member States and additional action may be launched in 2020 against ten additional Member States. In addition, with regard to IED implementation, infringement action has been launched against two Member States for bad application. In general these concern specific issues rather than systemic problems. Some of the pending transposition issues relate to the fact that, in the case of federal Member States, the IED has to be transposed not only at federal level but also at the level of regions, states or sub-entities, in a consistent manner. Other transposition issues touch upon some technical definitions or processes, which require equally precise and comprehensive transposition measures. A few remaining issues stem from the fact that some IED provisions are not entirely clear. Feedback obtained through implementation reports and workshops with Member States over the period covered by this evaluation have identified a number of IED implementation topics causing problems for competent authorities or industries. Efforts have been made to tackle these on an ongoing basis, and this evaluation takes stock of the current situation. Some challenges concerned BAT conclusions: interpretation, timely inclusion in permits; the role of so-called “horizontal” BAT conclusions, implementation through general binding rules, granting of derogations and application of stricter emission limit values in permits where exceedance of local environmental quality standards (air/water) so require, and indirect releases to water through centralised water treatment plants. Transboundary pollution seems rarely addressed. Other important issues concerned monitoring of emissions, measurement uncertainties and compliance assessment. In addition, some Member States still seem to struggle with ensuring transparency of information and public participation in permitting procedures. The Commission has engaged with Member States to address those implementation challenges, for example in workshops on specific topics, such as implementation of derogations, compliance assessment and emissions to water. Regular meetings involving the Commission and Member States in the Industrial Emissions Expert Group, as well as in the Article 13 IED Forum, that also involves industry and NGO representatives, provided further opportunities for addressing these challenges. The Commission has also prepared a compilation of responses it has provided to stakeholder questions on IED implementation, which is posted on CIRCABC. Moreover, the Commission cooperates with the European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL) to exchange on IED implementation and develop relevant tools. The Commission also participates in the Academy of European Law training of Member States judges on topics related to industrial emissions legislation. Finally, the Commission has launched a process to support implementation and compliance promotion through the sampling of IED permits from installations across the EU. The Commission intends to pursue this effort and possibly complement it with other tools to further inform on implementation and compliance assessment.

3.2.IED installations and overall emissions Number of IED installations Almost 51 700 installations were permitted under the IED in 2015. The breakdown of these is shown in Figure 3-1. The largest share of installations permitted is for the intensive rearing of poultry or pigs (IRPP). Other sectors with a significant share of permitted installations include waste management, production and processing of metals, and the chemical industry. Industrial emissions to air and water have generally decreased under the IED and its predecessors. Moreover, since 2007, reductions of key air pollutants have been achieved at the same time as overall economic growth, indicating that there has been a decoupling of industrial activity from emissions to air. This is illustrated by Figure 3-3 and Figure 3 ‑ 4 which show, for a set of key pollutants, how overall indexed emissions to air from industry have changed over the last decade. Figure 3‑3: Release of air pollutants and gross value added for industry42 (EEA-33) Figure 3 ‑ 4 shows, for the four dominant pollutants in terms of overall damage, how the annual damage costs (in €) from IED sector emissions to air have changed over the same period. Total damage is dominated by SOX and NOX and the reductions are dominated by the change of emissions from Large Combustion Plants (LCP). The total has more than halved over the period to just below €100 billion in 2017. An important driver for this are the ELVs set in the LCPD and effective from 2008 (as shown in Figure 3-5) with transitional provisions until 2016 when the IED ELVs for LCPs became effective. While other factors could contribute, like for example the change in energy use in LCPs shown for comparison, full decomposition analysis indicates that the ELVs are the main driver in emission reductions. A similar picture can be seen for most IED sectors with only different rates of change. Figure 3-6 below shows the evolution of damage costs from emissions to air for 21 IED sectors.

For only two sectors (Waste Incineration and Intensive Rearing of Pigs or Poultry) has damage from emissions increased over the time period. For all other sectors damage from emissions has decreased by up to 73% compared to 2008. While they have not been shown separately in the previous figures, ammonia (NH3) emissions to air are a specific case and compared to 2008, overall NH3 emissions have remained fairly static. In 2017 around 92% of these emissions came from agriculture. However, only a few percent of this is emitted by agro-industrial activity regulated under the IED (mainly from intensive rearing of poultry or pigs). Emissions to water Figure 3-7 shows, for a number of pollutants, an absolute decoupling of the total mass emissions to water from industry Gross Value Added (GVA). There is a visible declining trend for heavy metals (Cd, Hg and Pb). In the case of Nitrogen (N), Phosphorous (P) and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) releases have declined since 2007 as well, although to a lesser extent. Figure 3‑7: Release of water pollutants and gross value added for industry42 (EEA-33) Figure 3-8 shows the contribution that industry makes to total emissions to air and water for all sources, based on 2017 data. This demonstrates that, despite the significant reductions seen to date in emissions from industrial activities, they still contribute a significant proportion of total EU emissions for some important pollutants. Air emissions Water emissions Figure 3-8: Industrial air and water emissions as a percentage of total EU28 pollution by sector, 2017 Emissions to soil In contrast to emissions to air or water, emissions to soil and groundwater are much harder to ameliorate once they have occurred. The IED therefore focuses on measures to prevent emissions. This requires the use of techniques such as impermeable floors, avoidance of leaks and secondary containment for vessels. These techniques have been included as BAT in relevant BAT conclusions and should have been required in permit conditions where appropriate. Figure 3-9: Trend in selected pollutant emissions to soil from IED sectors Emissions to soil from IED installations are also reported under E-PRTR and the same thresholds apply as for emissions to water. Very few installations report any emissions as illustrated for the average of a number of pollutants in Figure 3-9 and the amount of emissions has also decreased dramatically over the period. Furthermore, operators of installations are responsible for remedying any contamination of the soil that took place during their operation. Evidence of the initial condition of the soil at the installation comes from baseline reports required under Article 22 of the IED, which must be produced at the start of operation or before the first permit update after January 2013. The status of baseline reports has been reported under the Second IED Reporting Decision. Operators will be obliged to return the soil to the existing condition on cessation of activities and therefore have a strong interest to avoid polluting it. Article 16 of the IED requires periodic monitoring of soil and groundwater to verify there are no releases. On cessation of activities, IED Article 22 requires the soil and groundwater condition to be checked again and remediated, if necessary. It should be borne in mind that IED installations cover a very small proportion of total EU land area and represent a very small proportion of polluted sites in the EU.

3.3.Production of BREFs and implementation of BAT conclusions BREFs are produced through a highly participative process of exchange of information managed by the European Commission. This exchange involves the Commission, Member States, the industries concerned and environmental non-governmental organisations, as shown in Figure 3-10, and is hereafter referred to as the BREF process. An early step in the process is the agreement by the Technical Working Group (TWG) of the environmental aspects that will form the focus of the BREF. These are known as the Key Environmental Issues (KEIs). This decision is guided by suggestions from TWG members and other data that they are able to provide in support. A number of factors is taken into consideration by the TWG in arriving at its decision. These include factors such as the significance of the impact, the contribution of the sector to overall impacts and the availability of data. The BREF production process involves gathering information on the performance of installations and techniques in terms of short and long term emissions, consumption of raw materials, water and energy and the generation of waste. It then assesses the techniques used, monitoring, cross-media effects and their economic and technical viability and developments. The process results in the identification of best available and emerging techniques and their associated performance levels. The resulting BREF describes for defined activities, applied techniques, emission and consumption levels, techniques considered for the determination of BAT as well as BAT conclusions and any emerging techniques. An important part of the process consists in identifying BAT-Associated Emission Levels (AELs) ranges, taking into account the effectiveness of the techniques used and any information on the cost of those techniques made available by TWG members. To support the TWG analysis and discussions, emissions concentrations per pollutant collected from reference installations are plotted together with information on the technique(s) used. An example is shown in Figure 3-11 from the chemical sector for releases of total suspended solids (TSS) to water. Figure 3-11: Example of analytical output from the EIPPCB for total suspended solids (TSS) emitted to water from the chemical sector The drawing up and review of BREFs is an intensive and demanding process. Six to eight BREFs are worked on simultaneously with the resources available to the EIPPCB and Technical Working Groups (TWGs). Figure 3-12 shows the current status of the different BREF reviews. For the 16 BREF reviews that have been finalised by the end of the evaluation support contract, the yellow bar shows the four year period within which the permits must be updated in line with the BAT conclusions. Timings after the start of 2020 are shown indicatively. By June 2020, 10 of the finalised BREFs have been implemented in permits. It is expected that the last BREF reviews in the current cycle will start in 2021. In view of this, reflections have started about scheduling review work beyond 2021. A workshop with the Article 13 Forum took place in June 2020 to discuss this. 3.4.Monitoring and reporting under the IED and E-PRTR The emission limits set in permits under the IED are primarily expressed in pollutant concentrations and are accompanied by corresponding monitoring obligations for operators. Operators must provide Member State authorities with appropriate monitoring results so that they can verify compliance. The results of emissions monitoring are held by the competent authority which shall make this data publicly available. There is no further reporting of emission concentrations required to EU bodies. Industrial operators have at the same time the obligation under the E-PRTR to determine the annual quantity of released pollutants using measurements, calculations or estimations, and report them to Member State authorities, which in turn report them to the European Environment Agency (EEA). These data are the basis for assessing the environmental impacts of industry. Although there is a large overlap in scope, not all IED installations are under the E-PRTR scope and vice-versa. Member State authorities have additional reporting obligations under the Second IED Reporting Decision. These have been simplified in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of the Fitness Check of EU Environmental reporting obligations. All narrative reporting has been converted into reporting of factual data generated by Member States as they implement the IED. This includes a range of administrative data (e.g. relating to location, permit, activities carried out) and specific information for each IED installation (e.g. on permit updates, derogations or inspections). Furthermore, IED reporting has been streamlined with E-PRTR reporting to ensure better consistency and increase the value and usefulness of the reported data. All non-confidential information is made public.

3.5.Compliance and enforcement In view of the very large number of installations and the hundreds of competent authorities overseeing them, it is essential for the checking of compliance with IED permit conditions and enforcement action, if needed, to be taken in a decentralised manner. The IED therefore requires permits to contain the measures necessary for checking compliance with the relevant conditions. This includes requiring operators to provide the necessary information to the competent authorities for them to verify compliance with the permit conditions. The emissions monitoring information provided by operators to the competent authorities must be made available to the public. Competent authorities are required to carry out inspections of installations at a frequency that depends on the environmental risk posed. Inspections may involve non-routine visits as appropriate. The IED also enlists the support of the public and environmental NGOs who may file complaints about environmental problems related to an installation. If these relate to serious environmental problems, the authority would normally be expected to carry out an inspection and also has the power to suspended operations. Where operators are found to not be respecting permit conditions, it is for the relevant competent authority to take enforcement action. It would normally be expected that, once operators are informed by a competent authority of any shortcoming in their compliance with permit conditions, they would rectify those within the period required. It is only in case of recalcitrant operators or very serious pollution incidents that action before a court might be needed. Since there is no obligation for Member States to report information on such compliance problems, very limited information is available about enforcement action or court cases. The available information suggests that there might annually be court cases affecting less than a few tenths of a percent of all IED installations. Little information is available on penalties actually imposed as a result of those cases, due to the lack of a central register. However, data gathered on the type and scale of penalties that may be imposed under IED Article 79 shows a significant variation in these among Member States and that these have changed little from those under the IPPCD. 3.6.Innovation Innovation was stated as one of the objectives in the Impact Assessment accompanying the proposal for the IED. As the IED is primarily focused on “available” techniques, its influence on innovation is mainly indirect. However, the Directive provides for an explicit mechanism to identity and promote the use of emerging techniques. Indirect promotion of innovation Permitting of large agro-industrial installations is at the core of the IED. Permit conditions are based on BAT and BAT-AELs. The definition in the IED states that “available techniques” means those developed on a scale which allows implementation in the relevant industrial sector, under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into consideration the costs and advantages, […] as long as they are reasonably accessible to the operator. Under the IED, BAT conclusions aimed at reducing emissions and containing BAT-AELs are prescriptive. They are the main lever to trigger operators' investments in techniques, necessary to enable them to meet the emission levels required by the permits. To ensure a level playing field and impact emission reduction across the whole sector, the IED requires performance levels that are achievable using “best available” techniques, as opposed to emerging techniques, whose effectiveness and economic viability is by definition unproven. The IED neither prevents competent authorities from setting more stringent limits, e.g. in situations where air quality requires it, nor operators from choosing to achieve lower concentration of pollutants. On the contrary, as soon as an operator has an economic or strategic reason to deploy innovative techniques beyond the IED requirements, it benefits from the IED mechanism, as these techniques would be taken into account in the following BREF review, paving the way for subsequent standard-setting across the sector. Although available evidence shows that emission limit values in permits are usually set at the least stringent limit of the BAT-AEL range, in most cases this is more stringent than the previously permitted levels, thus progressively reducing emissions. Hence, the IED does stimulate innovation indirectly. IED provisions on emerging techniques The IED includes an explicit mechanism to support innovation in the IED through the concept of “emerging techniques”. It is the role of the TWG to identify emerging techniques, in particular to inform competent authorities through BREFs about developments that may have subsequently emerged. The basis for this is described in the BREF Guidance (2012/119/EU) point “1.2. Procedure for the drawing up and reviewing of BREFs” – “The reviewing of BREFs is a continuing process, due to the dynamic nature of BAT. For example, new measures and techniques may emerge, science and technologies are continuously developing, and new or emerging processes are being successfully introduced into the industry. In order to reflect such changes and their consequences for the BAT, BREFs have to be periodically reviewed and, if necessary, updated accordingly. […]” Moreover, the IED Article 15(5) includes provisions to facilitate the testing and use of emerging techniques through a nine month permit derogation. Since experience showed that the TWG was not very effective at identifying emerging techniques, in 2017 DG Environment set up a pilot Innovation Observatory to reinforce this objective. Participation of technology suppliers in the BREF process Efforts have also been made to encourage technology suppliers to participate in the work of the TWGs, as they are key to technology development and innovation. Participation in TWGs is limited to EU level organisations and ESWET (European Suppliers of Waste-to-Energy Technology) and EPPSA (European Power Plants Suppliers Association) have been present for a long time. More recently, ACCESSA (Association for Catalytic Control of Emissions from Stationary Sources) has fulfilled that requirement and now participates in the TWGs. 4.Method

4.1.Short description of methodology An evaluation matrix (Annex 3) was prepared based on the twelve areas for assessment set out in the evaluation roadmap, with some minor adjustments. This identified sub-questions, assessment criteria, indicators, data sources, data collection and data analysis methods. Various data sources have been used. Desk research has comprised literature and evidence assessment and quantitative assessments related to emission reductions and administrative burden. The assessments of changes in emissions have looked at absolute emissions, as well as emission factors (per unit of product). A substantial amount of field research has been conducted to gather stakeholder views. This has comprised five activities: public consultation, targeted survey, stakeholder interviews, focus groups discussions and stakeholder workshops. Their outcome is recorded in the report of the study supporting this evaluation3. The public consultation was published on the Commission’s Better Regulation portal. It gave the opportunity to all interested parties to give their views on broad questions relating to the IED. Responses were analysed by stakeholder group and a factual summary report was published in September 2019. The targeted survey was addressed to stakeholders with a good understanding of the implementation of the IED. The survey comprised 50 questions, as well as free text boxes. Responses were analysed qualitatively and quantitatively. In view of the number of responses, it was possible to separate Member State responses into national and sub-national level. Telephone interviews were used to complement the targeted survey. Some addressed groups not covered by the survey, such as EU bodies, and others were to follow up with survey respondents. Two focus groups were organised to discuss the BREF process. They provided an opportunity to explore conflicting opinions. Workshops open to all stakeholders were held at the start and end of the consultation process. The first one at the start informed stakeholders about the consultation and provided an overview of the information available. The second and last one, at the end, enabled a presentation and discussion of preliminary findings and the opportunity to bring further relevant evidence. 4.2.Limitations and robustness of findings The evaluation has proceeded in line with the roadmap. Extensive consultations have been organised and to simplify the presentation of the results, they are shown for four groupings of respondents. These were: Member State responses at national level, Member State responses at sub-national level, industry and “Others”, a category which included environmental NGOs, consultancies and respondents that do not fit in the other categories. The impacts of the IED are on-going and yet to be realised for some sectors (as illustrated by Figure 3-12), so it is not feasible to quantify the impacts across all industries. This limitation is inherent to the rolling nature of BREF reviews where at any moment some sectors are more impacted than others. One of the main difficulties has been to separate the impacts of the IED from those of its preceding legislations and of other EU policies regulating industrial installations. Another challenge has been the lack of a comprehensive baseline in the underlying impact assessment and that, at the same time, some of the evidence used instead has different baselines. Where effects could not be disentangled or clearly attributed, they are documented as such. The E-PRTR data documents the quantity of released pollutants and is the main source of information for assessing the effectiveness of the IED on pollutant emissions, complementing the Member States implementation reports. Therefore, there are good data-sets available regarding the quantity of pollutants released to air and, to a lesser extent to water, as well as other information required to be reported. Limited emissions to soil are reported, which is in line with the expectation that these mostly should not occur. However, for other aspects little information is available. In contrast to the E-PRTR data, the emission limit requirements for installations are expressed in pollutant concentrations. Responsibility for verifying compliance with emission limits set in permits rests with Member States and no data on compliance with permit conditions is available at EU level. Given that the sites are to be inspected regularly and the public has the possibility to file complaints, it is assumed that facilities do comply with the requirements. Information, such as how permit conditions have been set, administrative cost and burden, number of inspections, enforcement, compliance assessment, public participation and the costs and benefits of implementing BAT conclusions is scarcely available from industry or public authorities. Furthermore, Member States have varying approaches; where in some cases permits are issued centrally, in more regionalised counties it is often at regional level and in some cases at local level. Therefore, specific approaches have been designed to address these limitations, including the following: ·Data on inspections is required to be reported under the Second IED Reporting Decision. Provisional data from this reporting has been used in the evaluation and fuller information will become available in the near future. ·To better understand permitting practices, a permit sampling study has been done for cement kilns and electric arc furnaces in steel-works to understand the level at which emission limit values have been set, and the degree to which permits are publicly available. This data has been used in this evaluation and has been supplemented with interviews with permitting authorities.

·Costs and benefits were assessed ex-ante for LCPs and ex-post for the Iron and Steel sector. Such assessments could not be carried out for additional sectors due to a lack of data, in particular on the detailed cost of techniques, and the disproportionate effort which would have been required to this end. ·Where other evidence was lacking, stakeholder views have been sought. The main mechanism for this was the very detailed targeted questionnaire. . Where appropriate there has been follow up for specific issues, such as sub-national implementation, through interviews with relevant stakeholders to explore the topic in greater detail. Another constraint is the limited range of experts who are knowledgeable about the topic, which results in a limited amount of independent research or literature. This is relevant because of the wide scope of the IED and the fact that relevant experts are often knowledgeable about a specific sector rather than about general issues of implementation. Furthermore, a significant share of the literature is provided by interested parties, principally industry or environmental NGOs. In some cases, responses to questionnaires may be polarised, i.e. industry may have been generally positive to prevent any change and environmental NGOs generally negative to claim stricter requirements. It is also clear that a number of concerted responses (as indicated in Annex 4) have been provided to the surveys by groups of stakeholders. This is presumably intended to give a higher profile to these comments or responses. To provide insight into these limitations when formulating conclusions, an assessment of certainty has been indicated for each aspect of the responses to the evaluation questions (as explained in Annex 5). Findings based on literature and data have been cross-checked with survey responses as far as possible. Where solid data is available, the findings are considered robust. If the data are weak, but survey responses provide a similar picture, then there is also reasonable certainty. Where the assessment had to rely only on survey responses, then the findings become weaker, particularly if stakeholder opinions diverge between groups. The process of proportionate triangulation has been applied in the assessment of results.

5.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions The evaluation is structured around the five better regulation criteria. These have been split, where appropriate, into different questions for which one or more evaluation sub-questions are identified. The following sections give an overview of the assessment at the level of each of the criteria, followed by the assessment for each sub-question. It is noteworthy that, for virtually all stakeholder responses, it is observed that industry was most positive about the Directive, followed by national authorities then by sub-national authorities, whereas the least positive was the category “Others”, which includes environmental NGOs. Findings are accompanied by indications of robustness e.g. [High] as well as stakeholder sentiments as shown on the right for the 4 stakeholder groups with strongly positive as ++, positive +, neutral 0, negative - and strongly negative --. The methods used are explained in Annexes 5 and 6. 5.1.Effectiveness



What is the issue? The IED is intended to reduce the environmental impacts of the most polluting industrial sectors. Because there are a number of different steps in the overall process and different elements that may impact on the effectiveness of the intervention, it is necessary to split this criterion into a number of sub-elements. Assessing whether these have been effective requires a number of sub-questions to be answered. These are: 1(a)To what extent has the IED contributed to reducing and (as far as possible) eliminating pollution arising from industrial activities? 1(b)Are there any industrial activities that fall outside the scope of the IED (partially or fully) which generate high levels of pollution? 1(c)Have there been any pollutants that have been omitted/fallen outside the scope of the Directive? 1(d)Has the IED strengthened provisions on enforcement and environmental improvement? 1(e)Has the IED stimulated innovation in the prevention and control of pollution from industrial activities? 1(f)Has the IED led to simplification of the legislation and cut unnecessary administrative burden?

1(g)Has the IED strengthened public access to information? 1(h)Has the IED strengthened public access to justice? 1(i)To what extent does the BREF process identify the techniques that are the most effective techniques (and identify the most appropriate associated emission or performance levels) for achieving a high level of environmental protection? 1(j)Does the BREF process sufficiently consider both costs and benefits in identifying the best available techniques? 1(k)To what extent has the IED supported Member States in implementing BAT-based permitting? 1(l)To what degree are exceptions taken up that result in permits not being based on BAT? 1(m)To what extent does the emissions monitoring and reporting system facilitate the assessment of compliance under IED, and of the quantity of released emissions? 1(n)Are monitoring requirements fit for purpose? 1(o)Are there significant differences between Member States and sectors in implementation? EFFECTIVENESS: To what extent have the IED’s objectives been achieved? Evaluation sub-question 1(a): To what extent has the IED contributed to reducing and (as far as possible) eliminating pollution arising from industrial activities? Overall response: In relation to emissions to air, there have been significant reductions from the industrial activities within the scope of the IED. The degree of reduction varies by pollutant, but aggregate indicators, such as overall damage cost, have also reduced strongly, demonstrating that the reduction efforts have been well targeted. While it may not be the sole factor, the IED has definitely contributed to reducing pollutant emissions to air from industrial activities in its scope. [High] In relation to emissions to water, the reported evidence is less robust, but shows a reduction too. The IED has also contributed to reducing emissions to water from activities in its scope. [Medium] Reported emissions to soil are very low and expected to be minimised by application of BAT. [Medium] In relation to resource use in industry or of changes over time, there is little quantitative information available about how the IED has affected this other than qualitative stakeholder views. Overall, the IED has not been very effective in addressing resource efficiency and circular economy aspects. [Medium] What are the findings? To assess the extent to which the IED has contributed to reducing and (as far as possible) eliminating pollution arising from industrial activities, it is necessary to look at data on emissions from them, as well as causal links to the IED. While the IED itself has been in force since 2012 and 2016 for the LCP ELVs, so far 17 BAT conclusions have been adopted and the four year implementation window has concluded for the first eight. Therefore, the impacts of the IED are ongoing and yet to be realised for some sectors. It is thus not feasible to quantify the full impacts. This limitation is inherent to the rolling nature of BREF reviews where, at any moment, some sectors are more impacted than others. Data show that reported emissions to air of several pollutants from industrial activities have dropped relatively consistently over the past 10 years. The IED is very likely to have contributed to this, but there may also be several other factors, in particular the effects of the preceding legislation or structural changes such as changing fuel use. Available assessments demonstrate the impact that the IED has had, or is likely to have, on emissions to air. Large combustion plants are a major contributor to emissions to air from IED sectors. Whilst their emissions have been reduced significantly, given a number of time-limited flexibilities granted to Member States under the IED, this has been slower than what would have been achieved if BAT had been applied earlier. However, the decreasing trend is very encouraging and the main time-limited flexibilities are coming to an end at the time when the 2017 BAT conclusions for large combustion plants will become applicable. For emissions to water, reported emission data are less complete or robust, but generally show some reduction. Data on direct and indirect releases reported by IED industry, which are reported separately under the E-PRTR, show that direct releases have been significantly reduced, especially heavy metals, but that indirect releases going to centralised waste water treatment plants including urban waste water treatment plants have remained rather stable over the last 10 years. As the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) is focused on a limited set of pollutants linked to domestic pollution, it is assumed that they do not abate all pollutants from IED installations to levels consistent with the use of BAT. As indirect releases from industrial installations would become part of the emissions reported by urban waste water treatment plants under the E-PRTR, together with those from other origins, it is difficult to judge to what extent the IED has impacted emissions to water. Whilst this is a limitation in the evidence available, reductions are nonetheless expected where BAT-AELs for emissions to water have been included in BAT conclusions, which should lead to tightening of permit ELVs and therefore to reduced actual emissions. There is little evidence on emissions to soil, but as explained in Section 3.2 these ought to be largely eliminated by the use of BAT. There is little evidence on the IED’s impacts on aspects such as energy use, raw materials consumption and waste generation. The less binding nature of these aspects of BAT conclusions could be expected to have contributed to them having less impact. Regarding the circular economy, robust evidence on the direct impacts of BAT conclusions is not available. This is partly due to the non-binding nature of the IED requirements in this area, the economic interest of the operator and concerns over commercial confidentiality that limit the amount of information industrial operators make available in the BREF process. Furthermore, the IED applies to the operation of plants and not to the entire value chain. For some IED sectors, it is likely that any untapped potential is limited because many installations covered by the IED recycle materials (for example glass, paper and metals). Furthermore, in some cases, there is virtually no waste (e.g. slaughterhouses) because all potential “waste” is turned into a “resource” for another industry. Stakeholders: While the reaction was generally positive regarding the IED’s impacts in reducing emissions to air and to a lesser extent to water, some questioned whether the current pollution reductions are sufficient. The reaction was less positive in relation to resource efficiency aspects with a general view that the IED makes a small contribution to the circular economy. Some stakeholders considered it was under delivering whilst others emphasised limitations inherent to using permitting of process industry to regulate circularity.

EFFECTIVENESS: To what extent have the IED’s objectives been achieved? Evaluation sub-question 1(b): Are there any industrial activities that fall outside the scope of the IED (partially or fully) which generate high levels of pollution? Overall response: There are a small number of agro-industrial activities not covered by the IED that may generate high levels of pollution. [High] What are the findings? With regard to the coverage of highly polluting industrial activities, there are a relatively small number of these not already within the scope of the IED. This includes various intensive livestock activities (cattle, aquaculture, mixed farms, poultry farms below IED activity thresholds), and mining, which either emit relevant pollutants (e.g. ammonia) or have grown in importance (e.g. aquaculture). The previous Impact Assessment concluded that the full IED permitting process was not appropriate for some of these activities (e.g. cattle) due to the administrative burden Stakeholders: There was general agreement that the IED addresses the most polluting sectors. Various stakeholders identified industrial activities outside the scope of the IED. Whether these generate “high levels of pollution” requires further investigation. This includes some activities covered by the IED below the prescribed activity thresholds. EFFECTIVENESS: To what extent have the IED’s objectives been achieved? Evaluation sub-question 1(c): Have there been any pollutants that have been omitted/fallen outside the scope of the Directive? Overall response: No pollutants are outside the scope of the IED. However, in relation to GHGs, while the integrated approach encompasses them, IED Article 9 forbids competent authorities to set ELVs for them for installations falling under the ETS. Limited attention has been given to GHG emissions in BREFs and BAT conclusions, affecting installations not covered by the ETS. There may be indirect effects on GHG emissions through BAT on energy efficiency including in some cases BAT-AEPLs. [High] Other concerns relate to coherence with other EU legislation and Technical Working Group choices of Key Environmental Issues for a BREF. The data-driven approach to BAT-AELs limits the ability to address pollutants for which little emission monitoring data is available, e.g. a range of water pollutants. [Medium] What are the findings? IED Annex II provides a non-exhaustive list of pollutants. The BREF process is not limited to these and has covered additional pollutants. Member State competent authorities are also obliged to establish ELVs in permits for polluting substances which are likely to be emitted from the installation concerned in significant quantities, having regard to their nature and their potential to transfer pollution from one medium to another. This is neither limited to the list of pollutants in Annex II to the IED nor the list of pollutants with BAT-AELs in BAT conclusions. With regard to GHGs, IED sectors are responsible for around 40% of total EU GHG emissions. Most of these sectors are regulated under the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) and ELVs for GHGs may not be set in IED permits for these sectors, as stipulated by Article 9 of the IED. Nevertheless, there are some IED sectors whose CO2 emissions are not in the ETS scope and there are other GHG emissions that are not regulated by it. It is estimated that around 10% of GHG emissions of IED plants are not covered by the ETS, representing around 4% of total EU GHG emissions. Due to the provisions of Article 9 of the IED and the fact that most of the GHG emissions from IED installations are regulated under the ETS, BAT-AELs for GHG emissions have been set in BREFs in very few cases only. The BREF coverage of GHG emissions has largely been limited to techniques to increase energy efficiency and related BAT-AEPLs. In a few cases, BAT to reduce GHG emissions originating from processes other than combustion have been set. The fact that an increased energy efficiency also means reduced emissions of air pollutants and GHGs has always been recognised during the BREF development. However, little attention has been given to date to the synergies that may be achievable through decarbonisation techniques other than those related to energy efficiency. Stakeholders: Stakeholders largely agree that the most relevant pollutants are addressed. Regarding omitted pollutants, a number of stakeholders (Member State authorities and environmental NGOs) referred to GHG emissions from installations covered under the EU ETS. The need for better coherence of substances addressed by other EU legislation, such as the Water Framework Directive and related water quality legislation, as well as REACH, was generally stressed. EFFECTIVENESS: To what extent have the IED’s objectives been achieved? Evaluation sub-question 1(d): Has the IED strengthened provisions on enforcement and environmental improvement? Overall response: The IED environmental inspections provisions are more explicit than under the IPPCD and the provisions relating to environmental permits have been strengthened. [High] Penalties applied by the Member States vary significantly. [Medium] Although hard data is not available, the strengthening of these provisions together with views expressed by stakeholders suggest that enforcement has to a degree been strengthened. [Medium] What are the findings? The provisions relating to environmental permits have been significantly strengthened under the IED – namely by establishing BAT conclusions and the BAT-AELs, associated BAT on monitoring and their other aspects as the mandatory basis for setting permit conditions. One important aspect related to enforcement is the IED requirement for periodic environmental inspections of installations and an inspection plan. These provisions are more explicit than under the IPPCD. Whilst the IED includes a standard provision on penalties, Member States have a large margin of appreciation on how to implement this provision, resulting in significant variation among Member States. Initial information on these aspects is contained in the IED Member State implementation reports covering the 2013-16 period and more detailed information on inspections that has been provided in their 2017 and 2018 implementation reports. There is however no pre-IED baseline data on inspections and information on the frequency of IED non-compliance is neither reported nor publicly available. Stakeholders: The majority of responses, across all stakeholder types, agree that, compared to the state of play under the IPPCD, the entry into force of the IED requirements on use of BAT conclusions and permits has led to better control over environmental impacts. Most stakeholders, except “Others”, also agree that enforcement has been strengthened. EFFECTIVENESS: To what extent have the IED’s objectives been achieved? Evaluation sub-question 1(e): Has the IED stimulated innovation in the prevention and control of pollution from industrial activities? Overall response: The IED has to some degree stimulated innovation, in particular through provisions for identifying and deploying BAT, expansion of markets for BAT, and identification of emerging techniques. [Medium] BAT are inherently “backward looking” featuring techniques which are already commercialised: this means their ability to stimulate innovation is limited. [High] The pilot IED Innovation Observatory has led to an increase in emerging techniques documented in the concerned BREFs. [High] What are the findings? The IED has, to some degree, stimulated innovation in the prevention and control of pollution from industrial activities through its provisions for identifying BAT and related BAT-AELs and for identifying emerging techniques described in Section 3.6. The main impact has been the deployment of BAT. The market for relevant techniques is larger in the EU than it would otherwise have been, and the market outside the EU is also stimulated, to the degree other jurisdictions take inspiration from aspects of the IED or BREFs. Some identified emerging techniques have become BAT in the subsequent BREF review. Due to resource constraints, the BAT information exchange process focuses less on gathering information on emerging techniques. Relevant types of stakeholders working on emerging techniques do not necessarily participate in TWGs. In 2017, work started on a pilot dedicated mechanism to better reach appropriate stakeholders and identify emerging techniques through an Industrial Emissions Innovation Observatory. This may stimulate innovation further. In addition, there are very few cases of operators having been granted a derogation under Article 15(5) from ELVs to facilitate the testing of emerging techniques. Stakeholders: While stakeholders generally consider that the IED has stimulated innovation, many view the emerging techniques chapter of the BREF as having had less impact on innovation than other parts of the BREF process and the IED. Some think innovation has not been stimulated to its maximum potential. A major reason for this is that the BREF process identifies techniques already commercially in use, rather than those not yet commercialised. Limited information has been included in the emerging techniques chapter of BREFs. The limited time allowed for derogations under Article 15(5) from BAT-AEL-based emission limits to test emerging techniques was also cited as a barrier. EFFECTIVENESS: To what extent have the IED’s objectives been achieved? Evaluation sub-question 1(f): Has the IED led to simplification of the legislation and cut unnecessary administrative burden? Overall response: The merger of the predecessor Directives has clarified and, to a lesser extent, also simplified the requirements. Nonetheless, some complexities remain. [High] What are the findings? As regards simplification of the legislation and unnecessary administrative burden, the key difference is that seven Directives were replaced with one. The same IED requirements relating to a permit apply to installations in all covered sectors. Some aspects of the differences between the preceding directives remain in the IED. Despite this, there remain some unclear aspects, such as which installations are covered by BAT conclusions as well as by specific IED chapters. Some challenges relate to interactions between the texts of the specific sectoral IED chapters with that of the BAT conclusions which must be aligned with the requirements of IED Chapter II. The large numbers of requests for clarifications is a strong indicator that some uncertainties and complexities remain. Stakeholders: The majority of survey respondents agreed that the IED has contributed to simplification of the provisions relative to the previous regime.

However, they believed more strongly that the provisions had been clarified compared to the previous legislation. EFFECTIVENESS: To what extent have the IED’s objectives been achieved? Evaluation sub-question 1(g): Has the IED strengthened public access to information? Overall response: Access to information has improved but there remain some failings in implementation by Member States. [High] What are the findings? As regards public access to information, whilst there has been improvement under the IED, there remain deficiencies: not all permits are publicly available online, information available online is sometimes very difficult to locate and in at least one Member State, authorities have initially requested fees for access to permits. Stakeholders: Most stakeholder groups consider that access to information has improved, except “Others”, who believe there is insufficient information available and that the situation has not improved. EFFECTIVENESS: To what extent have the IED’s objectives been achieved? Evaluation sub-question 1(h): Has the IED strengthened public access to justice? Overall response: Access to justice has somewhat improved, but limitations remain. [Medium] What are the findings? With regard to public access to justice, the IED did not include any specific new provisions. Changes made to improve and strengthen public access to information and participation in permitting procedures were expected to lead to greater capacity of the public to challenge new or revised permits and other issues. While there continue to be limitations in knowledge (see previous section on public access to information) and no clear baseline for comparison, public access to justice appears to work, at least to some extent, where new permits are considered. The main limitation seems to be, at least in some Member States, 1) the ability of the public or environmental NGOs to challenge revisions to existing permits and 2) the interpretation of what constitutes “substantial change” in IED Article 24 (in combination with uncertainty over whether the public can challenge a decision if the change is declared to be non-substantial). Other issues relate to the ability of the public and environmental NGOs to challenge omissions to act by competent authorities, e.g. where permits have not been issued for an installation. In its draft findings in an ongoing case against the EU (case ACCC/C/2014/121), the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee has expressed a view that the IED provisions on public participation in permitting do not cover all cases where the Convention requires such participation, and therefore, are not fully compliant with the provisions of the Aarhus Convention. Stakeholders: Responses are fairly consistent across different groups with over half the responses indicating there has been no change, while the remainder mostly believe there has been some improvement compared to the preceding situation. EFFECTIVENESS: How effective is the BREF elaboration process? Evaluation sub-question 1(i): To what extent does the BREF process identify the techniques that are the most effective techniques (and identify the most appropriate associated emission or performance levels) for achieving a high level of environmental protection? Overall response: The definition of BAT and the collaborative process with Member States, industry and environmental NGO experts to draw up and review BREFs has in general allowed the most effective techniques for achieving a high level of environmental protection to be identified. [Medium] The BREF process identifies in general the BAT that are most effective for achieving a high level of environmental protection. The effectiveness of the determination of BAT has varied among BREFs and may have been affected by the composition of the TWGs and scarcity of data among other reasons. [Medium] The BREF process identifies appropriate BAT-AE(P)Ls. [Medium] There are some limitations identified, including whether it has always targeted the most relevant environmental issues and pollutants. Cross-media effects have been sufficiently considered in identifying BAT but there is room for improvement in the integrated approach. [Medium] What are the findings? The information exchange process established under the IED to draft BREFs has involved the collaboration of Member State, industry and environmental NGO experts. It provides for continual improvement of this process in the Article 13 IED Forum and procedural issues are also identified and discussed in specific BREF TWGs. There have also been specific workshops held on the topic. The process for deriving BAT-AELs has been discussed extensively within TWGs for specific BREFs and some changes have been implemented as a result. Many of these previous discussions have addressed topics raised at this stage by stakeholders. Since BAT conclusions have been drafted with the involvement of Member States, the Committee votes for their adoption have always been positive reaching up to 100% support in comitology votes. This high degree of support largely exists across all stakeholder groups. An ex-post assessment of the Iron and Steel BAT conclusions concluded that only about 20% of processes in that sector had been impacted. The choice of sectors at the time of the analysis was limited, since there were only seven sectors where BAT conclusions had been fully implemented in permits. This sector was selected as there are a manageable number of installations that are relatively homogeneous and cover reasonably well the entire EU. Unfortunately, the iron and steel sector mainly chose not to collaborate with the assessment, which increased the uncertainty of the findings. While this may explain the relatively low proportion of processes assumed to have been impacted, there may be other reasons. For example, the Iron and Steel BAT conclusions were among the first ones published under the IED, however most of the work was carried out prior to adoption of the IED and of the BREF Guidance. This less rigorous approach may have impacted the stringency of the requirements. In contrast, an ex-ante assessment for large combustion plants (LCPs) of over 300 MWth firing solid fuels found that the BAT Conclusions for LCPs are likely to lead to emission reductions at a large proportion of plants (impacting about 72% of the LCPs). Stakeholders: Half of industry respondents consider that the BREF review process has rarely, or never, sufficiently considered the costs of techniques. The majority of “Others” thought that the costs were sufficiently considered some or most of the time. Member State responses were in between the two. The majority of industry and, to a lesser extent, Member State national authorities agree that the BREF process identifies the most effective BAT. Around one third of “Others” disagree. Furthermore, specific stakeholders raised potential issues, e.g. data collection (burden, scope or representativeness), TWG composition, consideration of cross-media effects and innovation. Concerns were raised on the focussed approach towards key environmental issues which may have led to a less integrated approach among all pollutants and their cross-media impacts. Stakeholders broadly agree that the BREF process has identified the most appropriate BAT‑AE(P)Ls. However, some respondents questioned whether the BAT-AEL derivation process is sufficiently systematic and transparent. Regarding cross-media effects, around 75% of stakeholders believe that they are addressed some, most or all of the time. However, only about 25% believe they are addressed most of the time. Just over half of most stakeholder groups indicated the length of the BREF process is about adequate with the industry being most positive. Meanwhile, Member States and “Others” tended to think it is too long, while industry tended to think it too short. EFFECTIVENESS: How effective is the BREF elaboration process? Evaluation sub-question 1(j): Does the BREF process sufficiently consider both costs and benefits in identifying the best available techniques? Overall response: As BAT are techniques already applied by operators in competitive market conditions, they are inherently considered economically viable. The BREF process provides sufficient opportunity to provide and consider costs in identifying BAT. [High] In practice, industry has generally not provided much cost data. Whilst the BREF process does not itself quantify the human health and environmental benefits of implementing BAT, the separate Commission cost-benefit assessments that have been carried out concluded that the benefits significantly exceeded costs. [High] Feedback on the composition of the TWG includes: a need for broader representation; that it can sometimes be dominated by industry participants; and that Member States should not be represented by third parties (industry, consultants). What are the findings? With regard to the consideration of costs and benefits within the identification of BAT, cost is a relevant factor for consideration. In principle, where techniques are operated in existing plants, these are assumed to be economically viable without the need for further assessment by the TWG. Where the TWG provides appropriate cost data, it is included in the BREF. However, there have been challenges around obtaining cost data from industrial operators as part of the BREF process. This is also due to confidentiality aspects. There is no quantification of total avoided emissions or avoided damage costs at a sectoral level.

EFFECTIVENESS: How effective is the BREF elaboration process? Evaluation sub-question 1(k): To what extent has the IED supported Member States in implementing BAT-based permitting? Overall response: BAT-based permitting has significantly increased under the IED. ELVs are set in line with BAT conclusions, though mainly at the least stringent end of the BAT-AEL range. [High] There is little information on how the IED has influenced other permit provisions, for example where BAT conclusions contain BAT-AEPLs or descriptive techniques. [Low] Stakeholders: Stakeholders generally consider that the BREF process has sufficiently considered the benefits of techniques some, most or all of the time; industry were the most positive, followed by Member States and then “Others”. What are the findings? The degree to which the IED has supported BAT-based permitting in Member States is easier to assess for ELVs in permits, since they must be based on BAT-AELs. ELVs have mostly been set at the least stringent level of the BAT-AEL range. This approach has even been set out in national guidance or general binding rules in some Member States. Evidence from sampling of permits across the EU for specific sectors shows that about 15% of ELVs are set at more stringent levels. In relation to BAT-AEPLs other than BAT-AELs, there is limited evidence of their use. However, this points to some variation in implementation across the Member States regarding whether the BAT‑AEPLs are interpreted as binding, and thus included in permits, or not. EFFECTIVENESS: How effective is the BREF elaboration process? Evaluation sub-question 1(l): To what degree are exceptions taken up that result in permits not being based on BAT? Overall response: A limited proportion of installations have been granted derogations. While IED Article 15(4) does allow Member States to derogate, in certain circumstances, from BAT-based permitting this allows more cost effective implementation. There is however limited understanding of the variability of approaches across the EU and insufficient knowledge as to whether all derogations are fully justified. Civil society has chall