EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 9.6.2017 SWD(2017) 230 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Fitness Check of Reporting and Monitoring of EU Environment Policy Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Actions to Streamline Environmental Reporting {COM(2017) 312 final}



Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Purposes of the evaluation 1.2. Scope of the evaluation 2. Background to the initiative 2.1. History of environmental reporting 2.2. Ongoing streamlining exercises 2.3. Intervention Logic 3. Evaluation Questions 4. Method 4.1. Information and data gathering 4.2. Costs of reporting obligations – methodology and limitations 4.3. Benefits of reporting obligations – methodology and limitations 5. State of play and Main Results 5.1. Inventory 5.1.1. General statistics 5.1.2. Content of reporting 5.1.3. Timing of reporting 5.1.4. Format and process requirements

5.2. Costs and benefits 6. Answers to the evaluation questions 6.1. Effectiveness 6.1.1. Overall approach 6.1.2. Reporting performance in relation to quality and timing 6.1.3. Delivering information on the state of implementation 6.1.4. Is the public properly informed 6.1.5. Gaining an insight for decision making 6.2. Efficiency 6.2.1. Justification and proportionality of costs 6.2.2. Factors influencing efficiency 6.2.3. Good examples for efficient reporting 6.2.4. Improving the efficiency of the process 6.2.5. Streamlining of timing of reporting 6.2.6. Promotion of active dissemination 6.3. Coherence 6.3.1. Report once and use many times 6.3.2. Coherence of reporting to the Commission 6.3.3. Coherence with reporting to the international level 6.4. Relevance

6.4.1. Relevance of the process 6.4.2. Relevance of the requirements 6.4.3. Relevance in relation to Better Regulation indicators 6.4.4. Relevance of technical solutions 6.5. EU Added Value 6.5.1. Added value of EU reporting 6.5.2. Replacing reporting with transparency and active dissemination 7. Conclusions 8. Annexes 8.1. Annex 1: List of environment legislation within the scope of the Fitness Check 8.2. Annex 2: Procedural information 8.3. Annex 3: History of environmental reporting 8.4. Annex 4: Synopsis report of stakeholder consultation 8.5. Annex 5: Methods and Analytical models used in preparing the Fitness Check 8.6. Annex 6: Overview of results of the Fitness Check evaluation in relation to the legal text 8.7. Annex 7: Best Practices - Findings of the evaluation which could be applied in other reporting areas 8.8. Annex 8: Overview of findings of the Fitness Check evaluation per legislation



1.INTRODUCTION

As part of its Better Regulation agenda the Commission launched a programme for Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT). REFIT makes sure that EU laws deliver their intended benefits for citizens, businesses and society while removing red tape and lowering costs. Environmental monitoring of EU environmental policy looks at compliance with legal obligations, and also helps us understand the causes and the extent of problems, and help us define the most cost-efficient responses. This evidence is usually transferred (reported) from the national or sub-national level to the EU level institutions, who use it for regulatory monitoring of whether legislation is working well or not. In this way, environmental monitoring, reporting and then regulatory monitoring play a fundamental role in providing information to citizens and policymakers on how well policy is delivering its environmental, economic and social objectives. The May 2015 Better Regulation package made the following commitments: – Launch a broad review of reporting requirements to see how burdens can be alleviated. This review will have a particularly strong focus on areas where stakeholders have recently indicated their concerns, such as agriculture, energy, environment and financial services. – Cooperate with Member States in examining the best ways to ensure compliance with EU law at national level, including those that have initiated a review of how well EU and Member State regulation combines to help protect the environment (as in the 'Make It Work' initiative). The objective is to identify solutions to enhance the efficient application of EU law at national and local level by reducing its complexity while maintaining its level of protection. Responding to this, in 2016 this Fitness Check was confirmed in the Commission's Work Programme 2016 and a Roadmap set out the way forward. The 2017 Work Programme of the Commission included it in a package of measures for better enforcement in the environmental area where a "proposal to simplify environmental reporting" was announced as a follow up to this evaluation. This Fitness Check is an evaluation that provides an evidence-based critical analysis of whether reporting obligations are proportionate and delivering as expected. Is the right information being made available, at the right time, in the right way and at as low a cost as possible? 1.1.Purposes of the evaluation Reporting is an essential element of the EU policy cycle. It provides the Commission with the data needed to assess the implementation of EU legislation and to inform the European Parliament, Council and the general public on the impacts on the ground. Reporting is also needed by the Member States to compare information in a cross-border context. However, the number of reporting obligations has grown over time (cf. section 2.1) in line with the increase in environmental legislation. This work on reporting in the environmental field is to: ·Further develop more modern, effective and efficient reporting for EU environment policy as a necessary step towards delivering a better environment. This will reduce pressure on the public and private sector contributing to reporting, whilst also filling information gaps; ·Contribute to the Commission's priority to create a Union for Democratic Change, making environmental information more visible and accessible to citizens, and achieving higher standards of transparency and accountability. Despite constant efforts to streamline reporting and reduce administrative burden (cf. section 2.2), there are perceptions that the current environmental reporting obligations are still causing unnecessary administrative burden whilst not providing the needed evidence base for EU and Member State policy making. In other words, a perception that some information that is not needed is collected: some information that is needed is not collected. Moreover, the existing obligations and their timing have developed without always considering overall coherence and relevance. Even where an obligation provides useful information, interactions with other obligations might not always have been taken into account, meaning there are potential synergies. There may also be some situations where the IT tools developed at national and EU level to report the information are not sufficiently efficient. 1.2.Scope of the evaluation Reflecting the fact this Fitness Check is one of the first to look at reporting across an area of the acquis, the scope could have been set in a number of ways. In practice, we wanted to be as ambitious as possible whilst, crucially, making it manageable and ensuring that we could deliver. This meant setting clear boundaries for the current work, whilst knowing that issues outside of scope may merit investigation at a later stage. These boundaries were set out in the Roadmap for the Fitness Check, and then were discussed with stakeholders. The legislation covered This Fitness Check covers the EU environment acquis under the remit of the Commission's Directorate General for Environment. Following an initial screening (see Annex 1), 58 pieces of legislation were included whilst six pieces have been excluded for example because they have no reporting obligations. As such, the exercise covers legislation in areas such as: waste, water, air quality, environmental governance, chemicals, industry, noise, chemicals and international agreements. Naturally, most external stakeholders do not know which legislation is controlled by which Commission Directorate General. An example of legislation out of scope is the Waste Statistics Regulation which is part of Commission DG EUROSTAT's acquis (and some stakeholders indicated their wish to see it evaluated following the adoption of the Circular Economy package). What is the reason for such a scope limitation? Essentially, going beyond these boundaries would have meant covering a much much longer list of legislation noticeably in the fields of climate, energy, agriculture, mritime policy, consumer health etc. Doing so would have been impractical in this exercise - you cannot do everything at once - diluting attention to the extent that analysis would all be superficial. In addition, this review is only one of many: for example, the Commission has already proposed a simplification of planning, reporting and monitoring obligations in the climate and energy areas. Other areas will also carry out their own reviews learning from this first wave. Environmentally relevant information under the control of other Directorate Generals is covered under the coherence evaluation questions (Section 7.3).

Which information flows are covered? Information at the European level usually starts locally: ·Environmental monitoring involves seeing at the local level what is happening to the environment 'on the ground' in terms of air pollution, state of nature, water quality etc. This information is usually needed to manage implementation, regardless of whether it is reported or not. ·This information then passes onwards through a range of bodies at the regional or national level and is reported to the EU level institutions and then actively reported on to the public. ·At the European level reported information is used for regulatory monitoring, in the sense of monitoring if the regulation is working well. The Roadmap for this Fitness Check was clear that this Fitness Check excludes environmental monitoring in EU environmental legislation (such as measurements of pollutants in air, water, soil or waste). This cut-off was made to ensure that the scope was manageable: only reporting is included in scope, including reporting for the purpose of regulatory monitoring (the monitoring in the title of this Fitness Check is regulatory monitoring). One potential confusion that came up in the stakeholder workshops was the difference between reporting and provision of information as the substantive requirement of the legislation. For example, REACH requires firms to prepare and submit registration dossiers – this is the substantive act of compliance. It is excluded from the scope of this Fitness Check as including such core acts of compliance would necessitate covering almost all the provisions in almost all the legislation, which would be unmanageable. However, in this example, note that such provisions are being considered as part of the REACH Review. Figure 1: Information flows from local to EU level As well as covering reporting to the EU level, the Fitness Check also considers how this information is reported onwards. The Access to Information Directive (2003/4/EC) provides for the active dissemination by Member States to the public of environmental information such as legislation, plans, decisions, reports, environmental monitoring data and impact assessment studies. In practice, this is done online through Member State web portals. The INSPIRE Directive gives an impetus to such online environmental information by providing for discovery, view and download services. What type of reporting obligations? By 'reporting obligations' we mean the legal provisions requiring the submission of data, information or reports to the European Commission or the European Environment Agency, that are identified in a piece of legislation. This covers obligations on the European Commission to monitor the application of EU legislation and document them in reports to the European Parliament and the Council. Thus, the Fitness Check covers what is termed 'regulatory monitoring' by the European Commission on how Member States implement EU environmental legislation. The Fitness Check covers the obligation on Member States and the Commission and their interaction and does not look explicitly at national obligations on different national administrations or businesses directly. Changes in reporting to the EU level can though lead to downstream changes for businesses and public authorities. Another issue is that not all reporting obligations covered by this Fitness Check are written into the secondary legislation (Directives, Regulations etc.). Many are specified only through Delegated or Implementing Acts (comitology in the jargon) or through guidelines or agreements between the Member States and the Commission. Conclusion on scope Overall, the scope of the exercise is wide and challenging. The challenge has been to keep the right balance between: a strategic exercise that steps back and takes an overview to learn across reporting streams; and, an exercise that appreciates and learns from the detail of the different reporting streams and the operational challenges they pose. 2.Background to the initiative 2.1.History of environmental reporting In 1991, the European Economic Community adopted the Standardised Reporting Directive (SRD-91/692/EEC), streamlined procedures and introduced a three-year reporting cycle for all covered legislation. The detailed content was then laid down in sector specific questionnaires. Consequently, a large number of implementing acts were adopted by the Commission over the years. The next milestone was the establishment of the European Environment Agency (EEA) in 1994. The EEA is to provide the EU and the Member States with objective information and plays an important role including through Reportnet - an infrastructure for supporting and improving data and information flows.

Several sectoral initiatives, e.g. in the field of water or biodiversity policy, have also contributed significantly to the next stage of modernising reporting. The Water Information System for Europe (WISE) covers environmental monitoring and reporting of all water-related legislation, and streamlines reporting with the EEA's state-of-the-environment data flows. Similarly, the Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE) is a single entry point for data and information on biodiversity. At the same time, the use of information technology (IT) has expanded and reporting has become increasingly electronic. Using electronic means for transmission and making reported data available online, e.g. through maps, triggered the need to define and harmonise electronic data standards. As a result, the INSPIRE Directive was adopted in 2007 to create a European Union spatial data infrastructure. The INSPIRE Directive sets technical standards for the interoperability of spatial data and for the online availability of data discovery and access services, therefore promoting comparability and data sharing. This history (set out in more detail in Annex 3) shows the long-standing effort to streamline reporting and reduce the administrative burden to collectors, reporters and users. 2.2.Ongoing streamlining exercises Dedicated initiatives on streamlining have also taken place over the past years. This section lists a number of more recent developments which have not yet fully shown their effect or which are only at the start of their implementation. The Fitness Check has tried to anticipate and factor in the streamlining potential of these initiatives. The inventory (see section 5.1) suggested that streamlining exercises were completed for six pieces of legislation, eight were ongoing and four were planned. An initial overview was provided in SWD(2016) 188 and a more comprehensive overview is compiled in table 1. Table 1: Overview of recent or ongoing streamlining initiatives in relation to environmental legislation Policy Streamlining action Expected timetable Expected benefits Waste Revision of the waste legislation put forward a substantial simplification of reporting requirements (repeal of provisions obliging Member States to produce implementation reports every three years) 2017-2020 Significant reduction of administrative burden (i.e. 75 working days per country). Water/ SoE Streamlining of the Water Framework Directive reporting with the State of the Environment reporting on freshwater 2015-2016 All spatial data on River Basin Districts and sub-units, water bodies and environmental monitoring sites is now managed jointly, having to be reported only once when it is common to the two reporting flows. Water/ Marine Link between Water Framework Directive reporting and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive which meant that the programmes of measures which benefit fresh and seawater alike only need to be reported once 2016 Re-use of reporting under other water directives for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Water (urban waste water) Streamlining in urban waste water reporting and data dissemination through the establishment of an open source national urban waste water website 2015-2017 Better assessment of reporting information. Acceleration of publication of technical data for the 28 MS. User friendly access to raw and aggregated urban waste water data. Implementation of the INSPIRE directive concerning INSPIRE services. Air quality Reporting and mutual exchange of information under the Ambient Air Quality Directives is organised via a dedicated internet interface, i.e. the so-called air quality portal 2016 This utilises a state-of-the-art electronic reporting approach by which air quality information is made available in a standardised, machine-readable and INSPIRE compliant form. The approach is explicitly geared towards streamlining the amount of information made available by Member States, to maximise the usefulness of such information and to reduce the administrative burden. Air emissions The new National Emission Ceilings Directive aligns the EU reporting requirements of emissions of air pollutants with the reporting process under the UNECE Convention on Long-Range Trans-boundary Air Pollution 2016 Reduced administrative reporting burden on MS: alignment of reporting dates and other requirements. Industrial emissions The Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) streamlined reporting for seven previous directives 2012-2016 The recast of seven previously existing directives and streamlined administrative aspects including cutting reporting requirements by around half. Industrial emissions Streamlining of reporting for IED, European Pollutants Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR), Seveso (Major Hazardous Accidents), Large Combustion Plants (LCP) and the Extractive Waste Directive 2017-2020 Building on the reporting of the IED, state of the art web-based reporting technology will be used and approaches between several related directives will be streamlined which reduces the administrative burden while increasing the added value of reporting. Nature Reporting under the Birds and Habitats Directive has been streamlined since the last reporting round 2013 The joint reporting has streamlined content and timing and allows now for joint analysis of the status of habitats and species. Reporting Repeal of Council Directive 91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991 standardizing and rationalizing reports on the implementation of certain Directives relating to the environment 2016-2017 Streamlining reporting obligations and ensuring a clear legal framework while repealing obsolete provisions.



2.3.Intervention Logic Reporting is an important information gathering process which provides the basic data on the state of the environment, implementation of measures and the effects of their environmental policies. This feeds the EU policy cycle of evaluation and Impact Assessment and revision as set out in the Better Regulation Guidelines (see figure 2). Figure 2: The EU Policy cycle (see page 6 of Better Regulation Guidelines) As the core of this Fitness Check are the provisions in the different legal acts of the EU environmental acquis that focus on reporting obligations. Hence, the intervention logic below only refers to these reporting obligations and not to the overall objectives of the legislation. Broadly, reporting obligations have five main objectives: ·to allow for an assessment of whether EU legal obligations are being met ·to allow stakeholders to understand the state of the environment and actions taken to maintain and improve it ·to indicate how well the legislation is working (i.e. costs and benefits) ·to ensure access to environmental information for citizens

·to allow sharing of best practice between Member States regarding how best to implement EU environment law Stakeholders responding to the public questionnaire found all five to be important given the overall high attribution of scores, but attached most importance to proving compliance with EU legal obligations (scoring 8.8 out of 10) and least importance to demonstrating performance including costs and benefits (scoring 7.3 out of 10). Amongst the reporting obligations in the acquis, the most common purpose is to provide information on implementation and measures taken in Member States, which allows for an assessment of EU level compliance. There are also many reporting obligations that more indirectly facilitate this and allow for the European institutions and the public more widely understanding how the acquis is working in practice and what it is delivering. A graphic representation of the general intervention logic for reporting obligations in the EU environment acquis is presented below. Figure 3: Intervention logic for reporting obligations in the EU environment acquis 3.Evaluation Questions This Fitness Check assesses the fitness of the reporting obligations according to the five Better Regulation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU-added value using specific evaluation questions that were set out in the mandate for the Fitness Check. A fifth effectiveness question was added during the process to look that the extent to which current environmental monitoring and reporting follows a certain consistent and corporate approach. In addition, the questions were slightly reworded to make clear the focus on reporting, including for regulatory monitoring and the exclusion of environmental monitoring. Regarding effectiveness, the questions are: ·Are environmental reporting requirements met and with good quality, timely data? ·Does environmental reporting provide sufficient information on the state and the effectiveness of implementation of the environmental acquis? ·Does environmental reporting allow for the public to be properly informed about the state of the environment? ·Does environmental reporting allow for evidence based decision making including evaluations of regulatory fitness and impact assessments? ·Additional question: "Is environmental reporting following a consistent corporate approach?" Concerning efficiency, the evaluation questions are: ·To what extent are the costs involved justified and proportionate? ·What factors influenced the efficiency with which environmental reporting takes place? ·Are there examples of good practice in environmental reporting at the national or regional level that imply it could be undertaken more efficiently, and if so how? ·Could improvements be made to the process for environmental reporting to cut costs?

·Could the timing of reports be better synchronised or streamlined to cut costs? ·Could the promotion of active dissemination of data (in the context of Directives 2003/4/EC and 2007/2/EC) alleviate the environmental reporting burden whilst improving access for public authorities, businesses and citizens? With regards to relevance, the questions are: ·Is the process of environmental reporting still relevant (as opposed to harvesting of data)? ·Are all environmental reporting requirements still relevant? ·Are environmental reporting requirements relevant for assessing progress with Key Performance Indicators (building on the indicators system introduced by the Better Regulation Guidelines)? ·Has the process of reporting taken advantage of technology: including advances in IT, increasing provision of data through Copernicus etc.?



As far as coherence is concerned, the questions are: ·Is some data reported multiple times, when it could be reported once and then used for multiple purposes? ·Is data reported (including to other parts of the Commission) but then full use not made of it? ·Is there coherence between reporting to the EU level and to other international levels? And with respect to EU-added value, the questions are: ·What is the additional value resulting from reporting to the EU intervention(s), compared to what could be achieved by Member States at national and/or regional levels? ·What would be the most likely consequences of stopping or repealing the existing EU reporting requirements and replacing them by increased transparency and active dissemination?

4.Method The Fitness Check has quantitatively and qualitatively assessed the impact, administrative burden and costs as well as the benefits resulting from the reporting obligations enshrined in the EU environment acquis. It looked at three areas in more detail, the timing, the content and the process of reporting. The evaluation is underpinned by a comprehensive support study prepared by ICF, IEEP and Denkstatt (2017): "Support to the Fitness Check of monitoring and reporting obligations arising from EU environmental legislation". The study report documents the method, data and evidence in more detail. Figure 4: Overall approach to analyse environmental monitoring and reporting obligations looking at three different areas

4.1.Information and data gathering For each reporting obligation, the inventory (see section 6.1) covers systematically data on the content, timing and process along with some information, e.g. on the usefulness of the reporting. The inventory was validated by the policy units in charge of the respective reporting obligations. Moreover, the European Environment Agency was consulted and information available there, such as the Reporting Obligation Database, was used systematically. The existing obligations were also evaluated using the five Better Regulation evaluation criteria and the information gathered in the first two steps. For the administrative burden assessment, a general review of relevant literature was followed by an assessment of the costs and benefits of reporting obligations. The Commission launched a dedicated public consultation to underpin the Fitness Check and collected the views, evidence, ideas and expertise of the various stakeholders (MS, local and regional administrations, industry and business associations, individual companies and SMEs, research institutions, think tanks and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) as well as interested citizens). Moreover, four Stakeholder Workshops took place between November 2015 and December 2016 which collected evidence and views from experts of Member States, business associations and NGOs. The preliminary findings of the support study were also presented and reviewed by the Stakeholder Workshops allowing stakeholders the chance to provide additional input. Either as part of the general stakeholder consultation, or in parallel, discussions took place with the Member States through the "Make it Work" initiative, which is a grouping of environment ministries. As outcome of their work, drafting principles for reporting were adopted. Moreover, the Commission engaged in exchanges with the Committee of the Regions which, as a contribution to the Fitness Check, adopted an Outlook Opinion entitled "EU environment law: improving reporting and compliance". And, finally, the Commission undertook in-house qualitative and quantitative research and interviews in order to validate the findings and gather additional information. 4.2.Costs of reporting obligations – methodology and limitations The costs of the reporting obligations were calculated using the methodology of the Standard Cost Model as described in tool 53 of the Better Regulation Toolbox. This model involves estimating the time required per obligation and the frequency and then multiplying this by average earnings adjusted to include non-wage labour costs plus an additional 25% for overheads. The information for the calculation of the man-days needed in order to fulfil each reporting obligation came from various sources but was mainly based on discussions with experts and practitioners backed up by desk research of relevant studies (such as Impact Assessments of the legislation). Estimates were validated with stakeholders as a further cross-check of the data, and in particular with the EEA given their involvement in the process. In general, the analysis of costs of reporting seems sensible and proportionate to the benefits of undertaking the analysis. Despite the uncertainties and lack of data that exist, the analysis is considered broadly right and more in-depth accurate analysis would not seem to be justified as it would be very challenging to undertake and would not change the conclusions of the Fitness Check. For example, one weakness is that the analysis does not include any allowance for differences in efficiency between and within Member States. In the stakeholder workshops comments were made about 'gold plating' or inefficiencies in the provision of data within Member States. Notably, federally orientated collection and reporting multiplies the number of actors involved, and is seen by many as increasing the complexity of reporting and hence also the costs. A further issue is that costs vary over time. For example, the EEA has invested heavily in the IT infrastructure for collecting data on air quality. This leads to a short term increase in costs but savings in the longer run, whilst also delivering more up-to-date data to the public. These up-front costs, where known, are included in the analysis, but in practice excluding them would probably not change the banding of different legislation. Finally, on costs, it is complicated to gather cost estimates from a range of experts who will understand and respond to questions in different ways. This issue was dealt with through cross-checking the draft analysis to provide as harmonised a view as possible. In the end, the legislation was put into bands that reflect the wish to avoid spurious accuracy in costings, but the need to show costs broadly. 4.3.Benefits of reporting obligations – methodology and limitations If the assessment of costs is a challenge, the assessment of benefits stemming directly from reporting in a quantified (monetised) manner is nigh on impossible. As mentioned earlier, reporting is an integral part of the implementation process and hence they contribute to the benefits resulting from the implementation of the legislation. However, these wider benefits have not been analysed, as in practice it would not tell us what need to change. Instead, a more targeted and qualitative assessment was carried out focussing on the issues that need to be understood in practice to gauge the fitness-for-purpose of the reporting obligations. In particular, all reporting obligations went through a categorisation of their purpose, their benefits and a discussion of whether there was additional information that would be beneficial or if any information currently collected was of less benefit. This discussion involved all the different stakeholders and allowed for a picture to be built up of what is useful and what is not. However, it was not quantifiable and no other sources or references have been found where such a quantification of benefits resulting from reporting obligations has been carried out. Another limitation was the representativeness of the stakeholder feedback. Despite the efforts to capture a wide input from experts and interested public through an online consultation, only 150 responded. Moreover, not all Member State responded and some did in a more consolidated way than others. During the stakeholder workshops, not all participants contributed in the same active way. Feedback and additional evidence was only received from very few experts and only four made an effort to coordinate their input in their Member State. Consequently, the feedback from these consultations does not provide necessarily the weight of evidence envisaged but is presented as useful indications which could be explored further. Finally, in many cases the 'devil is in the detail' and needs thorough examination through the established mechanisms for specific piece of legislation, such as expert groups bringing together the Member States and the European institutions and other stakeholders. 5.State of play and Main Results In this section we present the main results of the inventory of reporting obligations. In addition, the costs and the benefits produced are assessed and their performance is evaluated. The detailed results are presented in the support study. These general results illustrate the current status quo and, for example, changes proposed by the Commission but not yet adopted by the co-legislator (e.g. in the case of the waste legislation) have not been considered in the factual part of the inventory and the evaluation of administrative burden. 5.1.Inventory

One of the initial tasks of this Fitness Check was to establish a basic inventory of environmental reporting obligations. As a first step, the EU environmental legislation which under the responsibility of the European Commission (DG Environment) was screened. Some pieces of legislation are excluded (see section 1.2) leaving 58 pieces of legislation (see Annex 1) retained. As a second step, the legislation and other relevant information (such as the EEA’s Reporting Obligations Database and other legislation-specific literature) were reviewed. Then the inventory was validated through the experts in the Commission services responsible for the different pieces of legislation. Also other Commission services as well as the European Environment Agency (EEA) were consulted. Finally, the draft inventory was published on the EUROPA webpage and presented at the third Stakeholder Workshop (see Annex 2 and 4 for details) for a review for national and other experts. The inventory was divided into sections, in particular: A. Reference information B. DPSIR Coverage (driving forces, pressures, state, impact and responses) C. Type of content D. Timing of reporting E. Format and process requirement F. Relevance to 3rd parties and the public G. Use of information H. Links to other reporting requirements I. REFIT and other streamlining activities 5.1.1.General statistics The inventory identified a total of 181 reporting obligations (ROs) stemming from the 58 pieces of EU environmental legislation. 82 ROs of these 181 are regular reports whereas 99 are one-off or ad hoc ROs. Many of the legal instruments only have one reporting obligation but there are a small number of legal instruments which have multiple obligations. In most cases, there is one major obligation and the others are just one-off or small additional reporting requirements. For instance, there are six reporting obligations in each of five instruments, including the Noise Directive and the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive . The greatest number of reporting obligations relate to waste. The second largest group is water related issues while reporting obligations covering broader governance issues came third. At the other end of the scale, only one soil related reporting obligation was identified in the Sewage Sludge Directive (see figure 5). Figure 5: Number of reporting obligations per environmental theme or media The ROs were assessed according to whether they are included in the European Environment Information and Observation Network’s (EOINET) Reporting Obligations database (ROD) . Only 69 of the 181 reporting obligations were separately included in the EOINET ROD, reflecting in large part the identification of a range of ad hoc and one-off reporting obligations (where there is little value in including the information in the ROD), and also some sectoral coverage issues (for example, chemicals legislation is for the European Chemicals Agency). 5.1.2.Content of reporting The content of environmental reporting is diverse and dictated by the legislation in question. First, the ROs were categorised by the primary type of information transmitted, i.e. either numerical or geospatial data or textual information. A large majority of ROs result in text-based information being submitted by Member States (see figure 6). This can include, e.g. summary of measures, plans or programmes as well as other descriptions of administrative processes or the way exemptions and derogations have been applied.

Figure 6: Number of reporting obligations with the primary type of information reported is either textual, geospatial or numeric data The second indicator uses the DPSIR (Driver, Pressure, State, Impact and Response) framework. Figure 7 shows that two-thirds of the identified ROs primarily address the ‘Response’ category (so, typically measures taken by public authorities to address environmental problems) while the remaining ROs are largely concerned with either the ‘State’ of the environment, or 'Pressures'. The socioeconomic and environmental ‘Impact’ category is marginal, and no reporting obligations primarily address 'Drivers' (although some do as a secondary issue). This in fact shows the trend in EU reporting, namely to identify and provide information on the nature of Member State reactions to environmental issues and their implementation of legal obligations. Figure 7: Number of reporting obligations with the primary type of a certain DPSIR35 category There are limitations to this categorisation, in that many ROs require a combination of types of information. However, this simple categorisation matches with the observation above in that over half of the reporting obligations concern “Response”, which will typically require a text description of action taken. One consequence of the findings from these two indicators is that the reports are less easy to automate, and require more effort to overview. The challenge of dealing with textual inputs across the full range of EU languages can also be considerable. 5.1.3.Timing of reporting 82 ROs required the Member States to regularly report to the Commission while 99 ROs were either one-off or ad-hoc requirements. A one-off RO is, for instance, a requirement to transmit the list of competent authorities, or to notify the Commission on exemptions or penalties. Examples of ad-hoc RO include where the reporting is linked to a specific event: for instance, if a Member State decides to limit any incoming shipments of waste destined to incinerators that are classified as recovery under the Waste Framework Directive it needs to notify the Commission. These 99 ROs do not have significant costs associated to them and are not considered further in the assessment of timing. Leaving aside the ad hoc or one-off ROs, there is significant diversity as regards the frequencies. Figure 8 shows the range from monthly reporting cycles up to six years. Out of the 82 regular ROs the largest category is annual reporting obligations, but more than half have reporting periods of more than two years, including a significant number (particularly in the water legislation) with a 6-year cycle. The periodicity of reporting varies with the nature of the environmental medium and issue covered by the legislation. In general, lower frequencies of reporting reduce the burden on Member States but may also lead to a lack of staff familiarity in Environment Ministries with the requirements of reporting. Figure 8: Frequency of reporting obligations 80 ROs are linked to a Commission report, in other words the legislation requires the Commission to publish a report. It is noticeable that some ad hoc and one off obligations require the preparation of such a report whereas some repetitive reporting (for 13 ROs) is not associated with a Commission report. The inventory also recorded the time needed from the deadline of reporting to the presentation of these Commission reports. This analysis is presented and used in section 6.2.5. 5.1.4.Format and process requirements Generally, the process steps are similar for all reporting obligations (see figure 9). The Member State submits a report to the European Commission or its Agencies. Following a validation and quality assurance step where questions for clarification may be asked back to the Member State, the responsible EU body processes the data, analyses and evaluates it and publishes a report which is mostly addressed to the other EU Institutions and the public. Figure 9: Simplified process for centralised reporting Figure 10 shows that almost half of the identified ROs have no format requirements. When the ad hoc and one off categories are ignored, only 19 of the remaining regular ROs have no format requirements. The second largest group are those ROs where a reporting template, which needs to be used by the Member States, exists. In third place are those ROs which require a direct data input. Other format requirements include for instance questionnaires. It was also found that more than two-thirds (124) of the ROs are not electronically facilitated or done via an electronic platform. Figure 10: Number of reporting obligations with particular format requirements

Another aspect is the arrangements for the process which are linked to the service provider for reporting. Overall, there are three main categories: ·The lead Commission services (in this case DG Environment) receives the reports and manages the entire reporting process; ·The European Environment Agency (EEA) is fully or partially conducting the process on behalf of the Commission; ·Other Commission services (in particular Eurostat) manage the reporting process on behalf of the lead service. Figure 11 gives an overview on the use of each category. Figure 11: Overview of service provider for the process of reporting (EEA: European Environment Agency, Other: Usually DG Environment with or without the help of outsourcing) As set out above, there are 78 ROs where the Commission (or the EEA) produces a report on the basis of information reported to them. In more than half (38 ROs indicated as other), DG Environment handles these processes (receiving the information and then reporting onwards). In most cases, DG Environment has no in house capacity to handle substantial environmental reports (e.g. due to the lack of certain language capacities or specific technical knowledge) which leads to substantial outsourcing. Except for six cases under the waste legislation where Eurostat handles the reporting, the other main environmental reporting processes rely on the support from the EEA to a larger or lesser extent. In 19 cases, the EEA manages the process from the beginning to the end publishing a technical report as well as other reporting products such as map viewers (e.g. on the Habitats and Birds Directives, the Bathing Water Directive or the National Emissions Ceiling Directive). In 11 cases (e.g. on the Urban Wastewater or the Nitrates Directive), the EEA makes the Reportnet infrastructure available and Member States can submit their files to the "Common Data Repository" (CDR). Thereafter, however, the quality assurance, analysis and evaluation of the data are then handled under the responsibility of DG Environment often through outsourcing (i.e. with the help of an external consultant). 5.2.Costs and benefits The analysis of costs and benefits was done through a screening analysis of all ROs with some in-depth evaluation for the most relevant obligations. The detailed assumptions and findings are documented in fiches for each of the 181 reporting obligations. Table 2 below sets out the estimated costs in bands, in line with the proportionality of the analysis. As stated previously, the scope of the costings relates to the reporting obligations and captures only the additional costs over and above the costs incurred for compliance with the substantive requirements of the legislation. Overall, the costs for Member States (including costs for competent authorities, businesses etc.) are roughly EUR 13 million per annum. The most costly obligations tend to be those with direct reporting obligations for a large number of businesses or entities. For a large number of reporting obligations, costs are generated by the need to frequently compile extensive information, which may already exist in the Member States. The results of this exercise need to be treated with caution given the lack of some data and the sensitivity of the methodology to the assumptions applied (see also section 4.2 and support study). However, they appear to be in the right order of magnitude since similar results have emerged from the Fitness Check evaluation carried out by the European Commission on the planning, reporting and monitoring obligations within the EU energy acquis. This Fitness Check assessed a total of 91 obligations in 31 different legal acts of the energy acquis and estimated the costs related to planning and reporting obligations to be around EUR 20 million per year. As well as costs for Member States of, the annual costs for the European Environment Agency are estimated at around EUR 4.5 million yearly and there are costs for the Commission (DG Environment) of approximately EUR 5 million per annum on average. A reasonable estimate for the costs of reporting obligations is therefore roughly EUR 22 million per annum.



Table 2: Assessment of administrative burdens (without IT and system costs at EU level) by item of legislation (reference numbers in brackets, see Annex 1 for detailed name of legislation). Source: "Study to Support the Review of Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Obligations", 2017 (forthcoming) Type Approximate annual administrative burden attributable to Reporting Incidence of burden Items of legislation falling into this category (and reference number) Regular reporting with direct obligation for large numbers of businesses / operators as well as MS authorities Large More than EUR 1 million Business, MS, EC Packaging Waste Directive (31), WEEE Directive (34) Regular reporting by MS of very detailed and extensive information that should already (e.g. through on the ground environmental monitoring) be available but requires significant time to compile Fairly Large EUR 100,000 to 1 million p.a. MS, EC Ambient Air Quality Directive (1)** + Arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel and PAH in ambient air (2)**; Environmental Noise Directive (3), Water Framework Directive (4)*, MSFD (7), Drinking Water Directive (8), Habitats Directive (10), Birds Directive (11), EPRTR Regulation (13)***, Industrial Emissions Directive (14); National Emissions Ceilings Directive (16), Urban WW Treatment Directive (17), Nitrates Directive (18), EMAS Regulation (19), Landfill Directive (20), Extractive (Mining) Waste Directive (21), Waste Framework Directive (27), Waste Shipments Regulation (29), Batteries and Accumulators Directive (30), End of Life Vehicles Directive (33), REACH Regulation (39), INSPIRE Directive (45), Regulation on Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora (47), FLEGT Regulation (51), Timber Market Regulation (52) Reporting by MS of detailed information that should already be available Moderate EUR 30,000 – 100,000 p.a. MS, EC EQS Directive (5), Floods Directive (6), Bathing Water Directive (9), IAS Regulation (12), Sulphur content of liquid fuels Directive (15), Fracking Recommendation (25), Sewage Sludge Directive (26), Mercury Regulation (36), VOCs Directive (37), CLP regulation (40), EIA Directive (43), SEA Directive (44), Access and Benefits Sharing Regulation (50), Ship Recycling Regulation (53), Medium Combustion Plant Directive (54), Asbestos Directive (56) Regular or ad hoc reporting by MS of a limited amount of available information; or more detailed information by EC only Small Zero – EUR 30,000 p.a. MS, EC VOC emissions Directive (22), Petrol vapour recovery Directive (23), Seveso Directive (24), Ecolabelling Regulation (28), RoHS Directive (35), POPs Regulation (38), Regulation on Export and Import of Hazardous Chemicals (41), Regulation on Trade in Seal Products (55), EEA/ EIONET Regulation (57) No further reporting required Zero - PCBs Directive (32), Environmental Liability Directive (42), Directive on Public Access to Environmental Information (46), Regulation on Imports of Whale Products (48), Regulation on Trade in Seal Skins (49) Notes for table 2:

* For the Water Framework Directive, the actual costs of the last reporting exercise of 2016 are likely to amount to several million Euro due to the setting up of the reporting systems but the costs of future 6-year reporting is expected to be considerably lower due to stabilisation of the reporting model. ** There is a shared reporting system for the Directives on Ambient Air Quality and Arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel and PAH in ambient air, and costs are therefore shared between them. *** The majority of this burden stems from internationally-derived obligations (in this case the UNECE Kiev protocol) and thus the RO for E-PRTR does not stem from the EU legislation and the Commission is not empowered to alter the requirements. Most ongoing reporting obligations are seen to provide clear benefits, though these are beyond quantification. However, there is clear evidence that such obligations are an important part of policy compliance and make an important contribution to the achievement of the environmental policy objectives. In qualitative terms, the benefits are numerous, however. They include: ·Checking and verifying compliance with legislation and making sure that the agreed objectives are being met; ·Supporting implementation at the national and EU level; ·Informing citizens and stakeholders of the state of the environment and the implementation of environmental legislation; ·Enabling compilation of environmental information at EU level, thereby providing information about the state of Europe’s environment, trends, pressures and responses; ·Providing up to date information about arrangements for implementation, including responsible authorities, methods of implementation, enforcement arrangements and penalties for non-compliance; ·Aiding the identification and resolution of problems in implementing EU legislation as well as triggering improvements in the environmental performance of economic sectors boosting innovation that can increase the competitiveness of the sectors; and ·Informing the regulatory monitoring and evaluation of EU environmental legislation (as set out in the Better Regulation Guidelines). An attempt was made to identify the qualitative benefits for each RO in the above-mentioned fiches (see footnote 40). This shows that all ROs aim to fulfil the compliance checking purpose and, in many cases, some of the additional purposes mentioned above. However, the purpose and benefits varies by reporting obligation. The use of environmental reporting in compliance verification is also providing information and arguments for potential subsequent enforcement action. A study of 244 infringement cases concluded that the potential beneficial monetary value of compliance with EU law achieved through enforcement is very high. Some ROs (e.g. those relating to bathing water and air quality) also provide important environmental information to the public. Other ROs help demonstrate that a particular industrial sector is innovative and environmentally friendly by publicly disseminating emission data of individual facilities (e.g. under the E-PRTR) or that some agricultural practices are more beneficial (less polluting) for the environment than others (e.g. under the Nitrates Directive). The potential benefits from providing environmental information are considerable. Reported information is also essential for wider, cross-cutting and integrated environmental assessment such as the EEA's State-of-the-Environment report. Many assessments show that reporting and regulatory monitoring plays an important part in ensuring proper implementation of environmental legislation: the benefits of environmental policy depend on high quality reporting. At the same time, better reporting can avoid time- and resource-consuming legal proceedings by allowing swifter and targeted intervention both at national and EU level. Further details on benefits issues are provided in Annex 5. It is reasonable to say that overall the costs of reporting are proportionate, forming a small part of the overall costs of policy but being essential to allow for implementation and the periodic review of legislation. Where there are indications that some specific elements of reporting obligations are not proportionate, and this is investigated further in section 7. Finally, it is worth putting the overall costs into perspective. Compared to the huge benefits resulting from successful environmental protection policy, the costs of reporting obligations are marginal. Total national environmental protection expenditures in the EU – not all of which relate to legislation, let alone EU legislation was EUR 297 billion in 2014. It is impossible to say with any level of precision how much is currently spent on environmentally related compliance assurance (including monitoring, inspections, enforcement and permitting costs), but it could be a figure in the range of half to a billion Euros per annum. 6.Answers to the evaluation questions The following chapter answers the evaluation questions concerning the five central evaluation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value presented in chapter 3. A more detailed analysis of these five criteria can be found in the respective chapters of the underlying study supporting the Commission's evaluation.

6.1.Effectiveness The evaluation of effectiveness looks at the extent to which environmental reporting fulfils the objectives it is meant to achieve by producing the needed information to a high level of quality. Based on the intervention logic, the main purposes (or objectives) for carrying out environmental reporting are: 1)to allow for an assessment of whether EU legal obligations are being met; 2)to allow stakeholders to understand the state of the environment and actions taken to maintain and improve it; 3)to indicate how well the legislation is working (i.e. costs and benefits); 4)to ensure access to environmental information for citizens; 5)to allow sharing of best practice between Member States regarding how best to implement EU environment law. 6.1.1.Overall approach Additional assessment question: "Is environmental reporting following a consistent corporate approach?" Overall response: A more consistent and corporate approach to reporting could be followed. There are a number of very good examples and quality is improving, but best practices still need to be systematically spread. A risk-based approach to reporting offers a possible corporate approach, with more tiered reporting building on the implementation of key indicators or benchmarks. What is the issue? This question relates to whether reporting differs for good reasons between ROs, or whether a more corporate approach could be introduced with a more strategic and harmonised approach. A corporate approach would involve sharing best practice across ROs and having a reason why some RO are, for example, dealt with by the EEA, primarily textual, are timely completed etc. In other words, a standard approach that makes sure ROs are well designed and managed to improve effectiveness, efficiency etc. What are the findings? There are some very good examples of indicators such as: ·The indicators on air quality, drinking and bathing water quality or nature favourable conservation status giving a quantitative picture on whether and to what extent the core objectives in the respective legislation is met. ·The emission data collected under the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register or the compliance figures with emission limit values under the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. What is common amongst the best examples is that the objectives and quantifiable obligations are laid down in a sufficient level of detail that you can define meaningful quantitative indicators. In other words, the legislation has already set out a harmonised and quantifiable objective which then is translated into the reporting process. A large part of EU environment legislation does, however, not include a high degree of harmonisation but sets out a framework and general rules which can be adapted by Member States and applied in different ways. It is therefore not straightforward to determine what constitutes a compliant situation. Example of environmental obligations which are difficult to monitor in a comparable manner - the Marine Strategy Framework Directive requires Member States to ensure that "good environmental status" is reached in marine waters. However, the definition of what "good environmental status" is and how it is monitored is left to the Member States. The Commission has demonstrated in its report that the range of definitions in Member States is so significant that no comparative analysis is possible. As a result, the Commission reviewed the criteria and methods for establishing "good environmental status" in order to improve comparability. - earlier EU emission legislation such as the directives regulating urban wastewater treatment or large combustion plants have laid down numeric emission limit values which determine whether a certain installation complies with the law. When the Industrial Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPC) Directive was adopted in 1996, a concept of permits based on "Best Available Techniques" (BAT) was introduced across all industrial sectors covered by the Directive. It was up to the Member State to define BAT on a case-by-case basis taking account of non-binding reference documents which were elaborated at EU level. Implementation of the IPPC Directive showed that this flexible approach had advantages and disadvantages but did not allow for an easy reporting and regulatory monitoring of whether the Directive's objectives had been reached. The new subsequent Industrial Emission Directive of 2010 aims to overcome some of these deficiencies and a new reporting system is now being introduced.

Hence, comparable, let alone harmonised, indicators can often not be established (easily). Member States often argue that a country-specific or case-by-case assessment should take place instead. Moreover, a large part of currently reported information is still "text-based" (see figure 6 and 7 in section 5.1.2). This means that Member States do not report numeric or spatial data which are easier to compare and process. Instead, the reports contain significant amounts of textual information on processes (e.g. the administrative structures in a Member State or public consultation processes which were carried out), plans and programmes which include the actions and measures (such as issuing permits or authorisations) that are being taken at a national level or justifications for derogations or lack of implementation regarding specific provisions. Experience shows that analysing this type of information is more difficult and time consuming. Interpreting and assessing such reports requires specific legal, technical and linguistic skills. The quality and timeliness of the information provided by the Member States as well as the results presented by the Commission vary considerably and parts are often only accessible to an expert audience. Example of streamlining reporting on measures Learning from the first reporting exercise, the second round of reporting under the Water Framework Directive has introduced the concept of 25 pre-defined "Key Types of Measures (KTMs)". It was developed in 2012 to simplify reporting. This approach was the consequence of the large differences in level of detail reported in 2010. Some Member States reported 10-20 measures whilst others reported hundreds or even thousands. KTMs are groups of measures identified by Member States in their programme which target the same pressure or purpose. The approach has been applied successfully in the 4th Implementation Report and has since been developed further and used in other legislation, such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Another approach is a more "risk-based" and tiered reporting. Rather than requesting information on all provisions of the Directive and to a sufficient level of detail to allow for an in-depth and legally sound compliance assessment, a risk-based reporting is used. Such risk-based reporting identifies the key provisions of the legislation which can give an overall indication of whether the objectives are being met or whether implementation gaps exist. Building on this analysis, quantitative indicators or qualitative criteria are established which can also be presented and communicated in overviews or scoreboards. Once reporting has been analysed, the Member States are put into different risk groups according to the risk of poor implementation. For the group with the highest risk of failing compliance additional information can then be requested, in order to evaluate the risks in more detail or specific action can be taken to help Member States reduce that risk. Such an approach has been carried out successfully in the area of municipal waste management. An overall report showed how municipal waste is managed by grading Member States via 18 criteria using green, orange and red flags. The Commission used the report to prepare fact sheets – a diagnosis of the situation - and roadmaps – including recommendations - for the ten lowest classified Member States. These roadmaps were discussed with national authorities at bilateral seminars. This two-stage, risk based approach is now applied also in other areas. It requires the systematic identification of implementation benchmarks (or key performance indicators, KPIs). With such an approach, risk-based reporting can then be combined with targeted compliance promotion or assistance efforts which are now also promoted through the Environment Implementation Review. It has the advantage that less and more focused information is needed in comparison to a more comprehensive compliance reporting and such information is easier and faster to process. However, such a high level approach will often not allow a detailed legal assessment of whether any of the provisions are breached. For this, additional information could still be gathered in a second step (outside the regular reporting, e.g. through an EU pilot) and only for those Member States where there are indications of breaches. These developments and good practices are achieving promising results in relation to improving the effectiveness of reporting on compliance. However, they are not used systematically throughout environmental reporting (yet) although there are ongoing efforts to apply such best approaches in a systematic and consistent way (e.g. through guidance, checklists or good practice exchanges). They improve effectiveness by making sure that the information really needed is reported, and also improve efficiency by avoiding reporting of excessive information. 6.1.2.Reporting performance in relation to quality and timing Assessment question: "Are environmental reporting requirements met and with good quality, timely data?" Overall response: Member States have problems in delivering complete, good quality and timely reports; but the situation is improving. The reporting performance is influence by a wide variety of factors (e.g. sufficiency of quality control/assurance, language regime, clarity and frequency of reporting, time available and sequencing as well as maturity of reporting). They all have in common that they are influenced by the resources available, which are often insufficient. What is the issue? For reporting obligations to satisfy the objectives for which they have been designed, they must be fulfilled and the data reported must be of sufficient quality and sufficiently up-to-date to serve its required purpose. The most important criteria are the quality of the reports, i.e. the completeness and accuracy, and the timeliness (i.e. that the data are up-to-date and the report is delivered on time). What are the findings? The results of the inventory on the delays for reporting and the timeliness of delivery clearly show that there is an issue to address (see section 5.1.3). Whilst there are many good examples, at the slowest it can also take three and a half years from the reporting deadline until the Commission publishes its findings. As shown in this analysis, one important factor for this delay is the late submission from Member States. According to analysis of the EEA's priority data flows, the overall average score was 78% in 2015, with some variation across the EU28 countries (0% means that no data have been delivered at all and 100% means that complete datasets for all areas have been delivered on time) see Figure 12 below. In a similar vein, an internal survey in the DG Environment revealed that around a third of Member State reporting (out of a sample of 30 pieces of legislation) is deemed to have quality problems. Both reports recognise that the situation was improving with time, e.g. as demonstrated by the positive trends in recent years in the EEA priority data flows scoring. Figure 12: Overall performance of countries reporting EEA priority data flows (over May 2014-April 2015) Such issues have already become apparent in the development of the Shared Environment Information System, which finds that "Where monitoring criteria have been laid down explicitly, such as in the areas of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and bathing water monitoring, the comparability and other quality aspects of the monitoring information have significantly improved. This suggests that improvement is indeed achievable and that there may well be a need for clearer guidance from either the EU or from national authorities, setting out agreed quality criteria for information and the supporting data." It is also recognised that there is a trade-off between quantity and quality of reporting. Similarly, within the Commission there have been 92 infringements or EU pilot cases linked to the failure of Member States to comply with reporting obligations since 2010 (for example, non-reporting of programmes of measures, incomplete reports etc.). These cases support the analysis elsewhere in this Fitness Check. There are numerous factors which seem to influence the quality and timeliness in the reporting process in addition to the potential difficulties in generating the necessary information in the first place. These factors are:

·Adequacy of data checking procedures; ·Language; ·Clarity of purpose, adequacy of guidelines and format; ·Time to conduct reporting / sequencing of reporting; ·Frequency of reporting; and ·Maturity of legislation and/or reporting obligations. In particular the resourcing of reporting is relevant for all other factors. The current pressure on national public budgets is often leading to budget cuts that could undermine the effectiveness of current reporting, unless resources are used more efficiently. This pressure occurs despite reporting being only a very small part of overall policy costs. 6.1.3.Delivering information on the state of implementation Assessment question: "Does environmental reporting provide sufficient information on the state and the effectiveness of implementation of the environmental acquis?" Overall response: The information reported is broadly sufficient but with a few cases where information may not be needed. In some reporting areas, the focus is more on administrative and legal questions rather than the effectiveness of implementation, and there is even less information reported on the state of the environment. Often, the reported information is sufficient to make a general but not an in-depth judgement, which would require either more detail or a tiered approach. The situation has improved over time, but needs to improve further on the basis of a rolling programme of evaluations and the Environmental Implementation Review. What is the issue? Many reporting obligations focus on giving an overall picture of the state of the implementation, establishing the "distance to target" and, in case of gaps in implementation, the measures taken to close these gaps. In some cases, such an assessment of effectiveness is easier to do than in others. But this issue also relates to whether we have a systemic assessment of the state of environment and whether information can be inter-connected. Often the uncertainty linked to the effects that certain measures may have or the multi combination of measures that can be taken where the combined effect is difficult to establish, make an assessment of effectiveness complex. To allow for a sound assessment, a significant amount of data would need to be collected which would then result in increased administrative burden. What are the findings? Section 5.1.2 showed that the focus of reporting obligations is on the measures being implemented to address environmental problems ("response") and to a lesser extent on the state-of-the-environment and the positive and negative impacts on the environment and on the measures implemented. Moreover, reported information is largely text based as it looks more at the implementation processes and procedures rather than the state-of-the-environment and the objectives to be reached through EU environmental legislation. In the public consultation, the majority of respondents agreed strongly with the assertion that reporting should allow for an assessment of whether EU legal obligations are being met. On a scale from 1 to 10, 50% assigned a score of 10 to this objective and 80% a score of 8 and higher (see figure 7 in the report). On average, this was the highest score amongst the questions asking about the main purpose of reporting. Public consultation respondents also indicated that the amount of information reported was appropriate (see figure 5 in the report). A strong majority of respondents felt that existing amounts of information collected in the air quality and pollution, chemicals, noise and waste were ‘about right’ to meet policy objectives. Respondents generally felt that more information was required in relation to biodiversity and nature protection, natural resources and soil, whilst respondents with knowledge of water policy were divided on whether existing information requirements were appropriate or too demanding, with some suggesting that this represents the heterogeneity of water resources across the EU. Through the inventory and internal surveys, the experts in the Commission's DG Environment were asked about the sufficiency and usefulness of the information reported. The picture is mixed: in most cases the reported information (79 out of 180) and the resulting Commission reports (58) are considered 'very useful'. However, there are also cases where either the reported information (25), the Commission report (24) or both (18) are considered to have 'low' usefulness. Reflecting this, there are already proposals and plans to amend or replace a number of reporting obligations with low usefulness, e.g. through the 2015 Commission proposals on waste legislation. These results broadly mirror the feedback from the public consultation, which found that most people felt the amount of information reported was appropriate but with some people feeling there was too much, and similar numbers feeling it is too little. It is interesting to look at the reasons for low usefulness which included, in particular: ·Member States have little to report unless significant changes occur e.g. reporting on the structure of relevant competent and other authorities;

·Member States have little to report as the article being reported on is not / seldom used and hence the information is of little use; ·Insufficient information is required on which to make useful analyses; ·Problems with the quality of reported information inhibit its usefulness; and ·Timing of reporting. The Commission experts also made a number of suggestions for improvements, including: ·Improving the underlying evidence base through more systematic and comprehensive capturing of relevant information and subsequent improvement in analysis and interpretation; ·Collation of quantitative or qualitative key indicators on progress towards objectives (see also 6.4.3); ·Improved accessibility of the report (e.g. via online resources and web viewers). Specific feedback from public consultation, the stakeholder workshops and the 'Make It Work' project highlighted that not all reporting is currently allowing for an effective assessment of compliance (e.g. on environmental liability) or sometimes more information would be helpful, e.g. under the E-PRTR it would be useful if more information on the actual capacity threshold/output levels was available and compared with emissions data and if (basic) emission data would be transmitted to the authorities for all facilities in the specified categories of economic activity regardless of the cumulative release thresholds for pollutants. In this context, performance scoreboards to publicise compliance levels (such as the Natura 2000 barometer) were mentioned as a good instrument which could be used more widely. It was also suggested that traditional compliance reporting might be replaced or supplemented by alternatives, such as air quality modelling (instead of only relying on environmental monitoring) or using other available information (e.g. from remote sensing using Copernicus). Moreover, the potential of involving citizens to collect data (e.g. through citizens science) was highlighted as having great potential. The biggest problem with the reports that the Commission makes publicly available is with their timelines e.g. COM's triennial report on shipments of waste includes outdated information. Another issue which is common across several reporting obligations is the lack of information provided by (some) Member States. For example, a significant percentage of “unknown” assessments are reported by Member States under the Habitats Directive. Such data gaps are often a result of lack of appropriate environmental monitoring at national level. Positively, the situation has improved over time and this process of improvement seems to be supported by the rolling programme of evaluations (often under REFIT). In addition, the Commission’s Environmental Implementation Review (EIR) will provide a new focus on what type of information and data are needed to best identify the "distance-to-target" and gain a better understanding of implementation challenges from a cross-cutting perspective.

6.1.4.Is the public properly informed Assessment question: "Does environmental reporting allow for the public to be properly informed about the state of the environment?" Overall response: There have been significant improvements in the ability for the public to be informed about the state of the environment. The European Environment Agency plays a strong role for the reporting obligations it covers. Further progress can be made by developing further open data policies and better applying the legal requirements on making available information to the public about the state of the environment that are in the Directives on Access to Environmental Information and INSPIRE. What is the issue? One objective of reporting is to ensure that the public has access to environmental information regarding the state of the environment. In practice, the issue is wider than just the state of the environment as there is an obligation on the EU to inform the public on the progress of implementation, the state of the environment and actions being taken. For the public to be considered properly informed, the indicators should be appropriate and meaningful to them, and should be readily accessible. What are the findings? The European Environment Agency (EEA) that has the lead role at the EU level on providing public access to information on the state of the environment, having been set up precisely for the above-mentioned purpose. To this end, the EEA publishes a "State-of-the-Environment Report" every five years and collects information thorough its European Environment Information and Observation Network (EIONET). For some reporting obligations (e.g. air quality, state of nature or bathing water), the EEA is the main service provider. When the EEA deals with reporting obligations, public access to the information is usually ensured and subject to high demand (e.g. in relation to the bathing water report). There have been efforts to streamline the reporting streams between those collected through EIONET and those stemming from environmental legislation (e.g. in the field of water policy or protected areas). Presently more than 70 environmental data flows are reported through EIONET Reportnet, around 80% of which are as a result of EU legal requirements. The same is true for the EEA's EIONET priority dataflows. However, there are still inconsistencies and duplications which could be addressed. A particular issue is the fact that the EEA does not carry out the reporting process for the majority of obligations (see also section 5.1.4) and that the 'state of the environment' needs to look more into the systemic interaction between individual pieces of legislation.





In the public consultation, the majority of respondents agreed strongly with the assertion that reporting should allow stakeholders to understand the state of the environment and the actions taken to maintain and improve it. On a scale from 1 to 10, 46% assigned a score of 10 to this objective and 79% a score of 8 and higher (see figure 8 in the report). On average, this was the second highest score amongst the questions asking about the main purpose of reporting. In addition, the public consultation showed strong agreement for the statement that reporting should generate reliable environmental information and ensure access to environmental information for citizens. On a scale from 1 to 10, 35% assigned a score of 10 to this objective and 70% a score of 8 and higher (see figure 10 in the report). There was even stronger support that reported information should be fully available to the general public, after due consideration of the appropriate level of aggregation and subject to appropriate confidentiality constraints. On a scale from 1 to 10, 47% assigned a score of 10 to this objective and 79% a score of 8 and higher (see figure 16 in the report). In the stakeholder events, experts highlighted that such information can help identify front-runners and good practices which could then be shared with those having similar implementation issues. Reporting can also be an important tool for industry and other sectors to improve their environmental performance and promote eco-innovation by sharing best practices. Feedback was also made that some important and relevant information is not collected (sufficiently) such as e.g. air quality information based on modelling or nature reporting on screening results and outcomes of Appropriate Assessment which would be necessary to assess the effectiveness of the Directives in achieving their objectives. With regard to REACH, the ECHA’s new dissemination portal was highlighted as best practice in regulatory monitoring, and thought to have made information more easily accessible to the public. For the reporting obligations not dealt with by the EEA, the picture is more mixed as to whether the public is informed. Firstly, a key route for public accessibility is the publication of Commission reports or a general requirement for Member States and the Commission to make this information publically available through other means. The inventory records that, of 181 identified reporting obligations, there is a specific legal obligation for public provision of information in 68 cases. In addition, information is also made available from other reporting obligations. Directive 2003/4/EC on access to environmental information requires Member States authorities to publish at regular intervals reports on the state of the environment and to promote active and systematic dissemination of environmental information to the public. This is underpinned by the INSPIRE Directive which facilitates public access to spatial information in an easy to use manner. There are also initiatives such as SEIS and SIIFs that are improving electronic access to certain information relevant for environmental legislation held by public bodies. A specific example is the study on "Active dissemination of environmental information in relation to the Birds and Habitats Directive" , which formulated recommendations on active dissemination of environmental information. Taken together, there is a framework for sharing environmental information, including data obtained from environmental monitoring. This framework is already leading to more active dissemination, but could be used more widely especially as the technology develops. However, there are some issues that need to be addressed such as data quality and comparability (see also section 7.5.2). Partial onward dissemination could be justified. Indeed, many reporting obligations are of an administrative nature (e.g. notifications of competent authorities). Several other obligations such as the reporting on drinking water, invasive species, waste and chemicals include important information on the state of environment and the measures taken under these instruments. Moreover, there are a number of obligations which relate to measures (e.g. inspections) or which relate to cross-cutting instruments such as the European Liability Directive, the Environmental Impact Assessment or the Strategic Environment Assessment Directives which need to be assessed regarding their effectiveness. The reporting across these pieces of legislation is diverse and may not convey the information that the public wishes on them. As such, whilst it can be concluded that there is information available for the public that can allow them to be properly informed about the state of the environment, care must be taken in ensuring that the specific needs of citizens, particularly around non-technical interpretation and ease of access, are addressed. Information to the public should be presented in a way that it can be easily understood. Public information requirements need to be better captured and the often large amounts of information available need to be better tailored to the public need. The idea of providing the public access to the underlying datasets was identified in the stakeholder workshops – in such instances ensuring that the data is tailored to and navigable by the public is clearly important.



6.1.5.Gaining an insight for decision making Assessment question: "Does environmental reporting allow for evidence based decision making including evaluations of regulatory fitness and impact assessments?" Overall response: Reporting obligations are widely used to generate part of the evidence base, providing data on key issues in a comparable manner. However, reporting obligations are not the only source. For some legislation, making more use of reporting obligations to underpin evaluations and Fitness Checks would be appropriate but this would place additional demands on Member States who may not readily have such information (for example on costs and benefits). What is the issue? The Better Regulation Guidelines highlight that a regulatory monitoring and reporting system is a "necessary and an integral part of Better Regulation helping to: ·Identify whether a policy is being applied on the ground as expected; ·Addressing implementation problems of an intervention; and/or ·Identifying whether further action is required to ensure that it can achieve the intended objectives." The Better Regulation agenda is about designing and evaluating EU policies and laws transparently, on the basis of an evidence base. Evaluations (such as this Fitness Check) assess what is working and what is not, and then Impact Assessments look at the economic, social and environmental impacts of options for change. Reporting obligations are one important way for Member States provide the information needed to enable this evidence-based regulation.

What is the finding? The Regulatory Scrutiny Board provides quality checks of Commission evaluations and Impact Assessments, and its findings suggest that the evidence base whilst adequate for developing policy could be stronger. The Board's opinions raise: ·[regulatory] monitoring and evaluation as a structural issue in around two fifths of cases; ·the need for environmental information on options in around a third of cases; ·the need for further quantification in most cases. The experience of the Commission is that reporting is a crucial part of the evidence base for most evaluation and Impact Assessments. Indeed, reporting on implementation is normally the first step before the preparation of the evaluation report and subsequent Impact Assessment of options for change. So, reporting provides the base on which the analytical pyramid is built. However, the analytical base provided through reporting is never wide enough or even consistent enough to allow for the full analysis. A typical evaluation requires information on the state of the environment, the drivers and pressures, the responses taken and their impacts. Parts of this information may be provided by reporting from Member States, however, never all of it. Respondents to the public consultation (see section 2.2 in the report) highlighted the importance of reporting in assessing whether legal obligations are being met, improving stakeholder understanding of the state of the environment, and providing environmental information for citizens. All of these objectives are relevant for evaluations and Impact Assessments. One of the issues is that not all of the necessary information is held by Member States: no Member State systematically evaluates implementation in their own country and then reports this information to the Commission. The result is that almost all evaluations and Impact Assessments need to be complemented by additional primary data collection. The weakest element of reporting is on the costs and benefits of measures undertaken. The environmental legislation where this should be mostly available are those that require analysis in the Member States (River Basin Management Plans under the Water Framework Directive, Noise Action Plans under the Environmental Noise Directive, and analysis under the SEA Directive etc.). However, even Commission evaluations of these Directives suffer from a lack of data on the costs and benefits of implementation, as it is not usually collected by Member States or reported. Even for the INSPIRE Directive, where there is an explicit obligation for Member States to report costs and benefits, it is not possible to make an evaluation of costs and benefits across the EU mainly because many Member States do not collect such information systematically. However, simply because all information needed for evaluations and Impact Assessments is not reported, does not imply that reporting is the right channel to receive all the needed information. Indeed, stakeholders ranked the objective most closely associated with this as lowest. Discussions with stakeholder indicated that such information was a 'nice to have [or give]' but not the priority. On the other hand, some Member States state they have systematic evaluation practices in place (such as UK, NL, DE). Effectiveness would be improved by these countries transparently sharing their evaluations and Impact Assessments on a regular basis with the Commission. Moreover, such information would be useful in the context of the Environmental Implementation Review (EIR). 6.2.Efficiency The evaluation of efficiency looks at whether effectiveness could be improved, in particular whether costs could be cut without reducing effectiveness or whilst improving quality. In terms of costs, the focus is on the administrative costs of reporting. 6.2.1.Justification and proportionality of costs Assessment question: "To what extent are the costs involved justified and proportionate?" Overall response: In overall terms, the costs are moderate and a small proportion of the implementation costs of legislation. Most individual reporting obligations are justified and proportionate in comparison with the benefits and have benefited from past or ongoing streamlining exercises. Nevertheless, some reporting obligations go beyond what is legally required or do not appear proportionate to some stakeholders. Whilst the trend is positive, further evaluations of specific pieces of legislation need to investigate more detailed changes and check that good practices are being applied to deliver further simplification and burden reduction. What is the issue?

The question of proportionality essentially asks if the benefit of the information reported is greater than the cost of that reporting. What are the findings? The evidence from the costs and benefits (see section 5.2 and section 6 of support study) provided a discussion of this at an aggregated level. Costs appear to be around EUR 22.4 million per annum, with around EUR 13 million of this being met by Member States directly. It is not possible to estimate the benefits of reporting obligations in quantified terms but, clearly, the benefits far exceed the costs overall as demonstrated in section 6.2. Without reporting obligations there can be no confidence in implementation and as to whether legislation is working or not. In the public consultation, respondents were asked about their perceptions of the efficiency of the reporting process (with regard to cost and administrative burden) in the policy domains with which they were most familiar. There was a spread of opinion in all policy domains about whether or not current reporting arrangements are efficient, generally with a higher percentage of respondents considering it as efficient (see figure below). In all areas, a small but significant proportion of respondents (between 14% - 30%) viewed that there is potential for significant improvements to be made (see figure 6 in the report). As identified also by the stakeholders, there are some specific reporting obligations where the potential for improving proportionality has been identified (e.g. INSPIRE Directive). The stakeholder consultation identified a number of good practices where reporting is particularly efficient (e.g. some reporting asks for web links to existing documents to be provided rather than writing summary text only for the purpose of reporting). However, many suggestions were made on very specific improvements which would result in higher efficiency, such as the need to avoid regular changes and updating of reporting guidance which triggers time consuming follow up at national level (see contribution from France on Water Framework Directive, page 93 of support study). Moreover, the justification and use made by reported dated can be communicated better in some areas which would alter the perception on proportionality (see contribution from Germany, page 92 of support study). It is also very clear that many specific reporting obligations are best challenged through evaluations of the specific reporting obligations. This horizontal exercise has identified stakeholder concerns for some obligations, but many of these now need to be validated through more in-depth evaluations of the specific legislation, benefiting from the insights of this horizontal exercise. Where clearly obsolete or out-of-date, changes can be made on an ongoing basis such as the proposal to repeal the Standardised Reporting Directive (91/692/EEC). This can be achieved through connecting the results of this Fitness Check and its understanding of best practice and the ideal corporate structure with the ongoing and planned evaluations for particular pieces of legislation (some of which are under REFIT, others are not). Overall, most environmental legislation covered by this Fitness Check has or will undergo an evaluation. Where evaluations were ongoing, the link has been made (see e.g. INSPIRE) or it will be factored in future exercises. Annexes 6 to 8 already identify issues that merit further attention to see how reporting can better deliver, and to make specific changes in the interests of further simplification and burden reduction. Annex 8 sets out a number of indicators of quality that are discussed throughout this Fitness Check report: usefulness, indicators, textual, coherence, delays and process, and format. For example: ·whilst two-fifths of reporting is considered as of high usefulness, one-fifth is considered as of low usefulness implying the potential to simplify; ·one quarter of reporting suffers delays that indicate the potential to improve the efficiency of the process and also the quality (timeliness) of the final report; ·three quarters of reporting is mainly textual information, which can often be of lower quality (use) than indicators and numeric information. Moreover, there is a need to promote good practices and standardise tried-and-tested approaches across all environmental policy domains including the improvement of communication on what happens with the reported data and how they are used. 6.2.2.Factors influencing efficiency Assessment question: What factors influenced the efficiency with which environmental reporting takes place? Overall response: Efficiency is affected by the complexity of the obligations, whether they are complied with and the processes. Examples exist where these factors have been optimised. Identifying these good practices can help improve efficiency of other reporting obligations through simplification, burden reduction and improved quality. Any changes should look at factors addressing both costs and benefits and analyse what influence they have on one another in case of changes. What is the issue? This question looks at the factors that determine the efficiency, i.e. the relationship between costs and benefits of reporting and how it can be improved. On the cost side, the main factors are included in the Standard Cost Model (i.e. number of entities reporting, time required, frequency and hourly costs as well as the costs of outsourcing). On the benefits side, the quality, timeliness, relevance and use of the data play an important role. What are the findings? As regards the costs, there are a number of factors where there is potential for improving efficiency. The number of reporting entities is mostly addressing Member State authorities. However, in cases where business or other operators need to be involved in the reporting, the administrative burden increases. This may be justified and proportionate but needs to be validated. The frequency of reporting appears mostly streamlined. However, in the water policy area there are questions about the timing and frequency of reporting of legislation which is interrelated (see more details in section 6.2.5).

The time taken for reporting is influenced by the content, format and process of reporting. It varies considerably between different reporting obligations. In particular, the introduction of IT tools and electronic reporting can enhance the efficiency but requires initial investment which has not taken place across all Member States (see more details in sections 6.2.4, 6.2.5 and 6.4.4). A stakeholder identified specific factors in the context of Water Framework Directive reporting which influence their costs from their country's perspective, e.g. the changes in guidance, code list and new formats, delays and additional checks in QA/QC procedures (although these could reduce costs over time) as well as the constraints caused by capacity problems of the EEA's Reportnet (see contribution from France on Water Framework Directive, page 93 of support study). It was recognised in the Stakeholder Workshops, however, that the reporting under the Water Framework Directive has undergone significant changes from the first to the second round of reporting as a result of feedback from Member States and after extensive consultation and agreement with Member States. Reporting under this new approach is still ongoing but during a first reflection on the experiences at the last meeting of Working Group Data Information and Sharing (DIS) under the Common Implementation Strategy of the Water Framework Directive (October 2016), the Member States reiterated the need for a stable reporting mechanism. In other words, for future reporting obligation, the Member States collectively are not in favour of changing the current schema as described in the revised WFD Guidance. The factors influencing the benefits are more difficult to analyse but are addressed throughout the rest of Section 7. Overall, there could be greater emphasis on users which includes the EU institutions but also the Member State authorities, businesses and citizens relying on reporting for one reason or another. There is a wide range of approaches in the different ROs and there are some good examples where the benefits are high and factors such as relevance, timeliness, quality etc. seemed to be "optimised" (e.g. bathing water or air quality). In other areas, there seem to be some deficiencies which could be addressed at reasonable cost would help to enhance the overall efficiency of reporting. However, any potential changes designed to reduce the costs of reporting also need to be viewed in the light of these factors that influence benefits. For example, reducing the frequency of reporting will reduce costs, but an assessment of efficiency needs to examine the potential effects on the benefits of having current and up-to-date information. Finally, there is some data that could be usefully reported, that is not the case at present. 6.2.3.Good examples for efficient reporting Assessment question: "Are there examples of good practice in environmental reporting at the national or regional level that imply it could be undertaken more efficiently, and if so how? Overall response: Many good examples were identified which included the enhanced use of IT systems, the integration of information systems, the use of centralised dashboards, databases or web portals and the coordination of reporting processes between Member States at a regional level. Wider adoption of efficient implementation would improve the efficiency at the EU level, perhaps through a more “corporate” (EU coordinated) approach to facilitate sharing of information across domains. What is the issue? Illustrative examples on how to improve the efficiency of reporting can be identified at the EU, regional and Member State level, and be more widely applied. There were a number of actions aiming to streamline and rationalise (national) reporting procedures. Such reforms reduce the administrative costs and increase benefits. Good practices can help improv