EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 18.1.2018 COM(2018) 10 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS EU actions to improve environmental compliance and governance {SWD(2018) 10 final}



COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS EU actions to improve environmental compliance and governance 1.Introduction and background This Communication presents an Action Plan to increase compliance with EU environmental law and improve environmental governance. It involves the Commission working hand in hand with Member States and professionals such as inspectors, auditors, police officers and prosecutors in order to create a smart and collaborative culture of compliance with EU environmental rules on activities such as industrial production, waste disposal and agriculture. The EU already has an extensive body of mature environmental legislation. However, there are major challenges to its implementation, as highlighted in the Commission’s Environmental Implementation Review (EIR). These are linked to persistent environmental problems such as diffuse water pollution, poor urban air quality, unsatisfactory waste treatment, and species and habitats in decline. There is also a serious incidence of environmental crime, and a high number of environmental complaints to the Commission and petitions to the European Parliament. The costs of non-implementation are estimated at 50 EUR billion per year. Many benefits can be obtained through improved implementation without creating new legislation. This requires, amongst other things, compliance with environmental rules on the ground, i.e. industry, utilities, landowners and other ‘duty-holders’ fulfilling environmental obligations concerning their activities. Obligations may be in the form of prohibitions, general binding rules, permits and other measures put in place to protect the environment, public health and society’s long-term resource needs. Weak mechanisms for securing compliance and effective governance at national, regional and local level are among the causes of implementation failure. They are also a factor in unfair competition and economic harm such as loss of tax revenue, and undermine public confidence in the effectiveness of EU laws. This Communication aims to strengthen such mechanisms. It complements the Communication ‘EU law: Better results through better application’ in which the Commission set out how it will step up its efforts on the application, implementation and enforcement of EU law in general. 2.The need for environmental compliance assurance Member States are bound by a duty to co-operate in good faith on the achievement of EU objectives. The Court of Justice has derived from this a requirement on Member State authorities to redress the unlawful consequences of a breach of EU law and a requirement that enforcement be effective, proportionate and dissuasive . Member States must therefore have appropriate mechanisms in place to ensure compliance with EU-derived obligations. Non-compliance may occur for different reasons, including confusion, poor understanding or lack of acceptance of rules, lack of investment, opportunism and criminality. Its impacts on the environment, human health and the economy will depend on the nature, scale and persistence of breaches. In practice, mechanisms for securing compliance involve Member States using three broad classes of intervention (collectively referred to as ‘environmental compliance assurance’): ·compliance promotion helps duty-holders to comply through means such as guidance, ‘frequently asked questions’ and help-desks; ·compliance monitoring identifies and characterises duty-holder conduct and detects and assesses any non-compliance, using environmental inspections and other checks; ·follow-up and enforcement draw on administrative, criminal and civil law to stop, deter, sanction and obtain redress for non-compliant conduct and encourage compliance. These interventions are carried out by different kinds of Member State authorities. Bodies with inspection roles typically carry out routine or ad hoc checks and promote compliance. Police officers and prosecution services have important roles in investigating and prosecuting serious wrong-doing. Different bodies may be linked across an ‘environmental compliance assurance chain’, as where inspectors, customs and police officers and prosecutors co-operate in evidence-gathering and prosecution. Audit bodies can exercise a valuable function in looking at problems of generalised non-compliance or the performance of particular authorities. Environmental compliance assurance mitigates the risk of some duty-holders not respecting their obligations and therefore negatively impacting the state of water, air, biodiversity, human health and the economy. It does so by assessing the causes and impacts of non-compliance and by using an adaptable combination of the three classes of intervention to influence duty-holder conduct. The concept has developed over time in exchanges with experts, e.g. from Member States and practitioner networks. 3.Challenges Member State authorities responsible for environmental compliance assurance face numerous challenges, in particular:

·the extent and diversity of EU environmental rules on activities with environmental impacts, ·the fact that they cover the whole territories of Member States, rural as well as urban areas, ·the existence of recognised problems with water and air pollution, waste disposal and nature in decline, ·the expectations of the public, ·the number and diversity of those who must comply with environmental rules, ·the many different kinds of compliance problems that can present themselves, ·the difficulties with detecting and addressing these, in particular environmental crimes. Capacity can be added to this list as well, as responsibilities are often allocated to smaller bodies with limited financial resources, low staff numbers or a lack of specialist knowledge. In many Member States, the budgets of environmental inspectorates stagnated or decreased due to the financial crisis. In the face of these challenges, even large, well-resourced authorities can find it difficult to independently develop knowledge of the best ways to ensure compliance. The challenges faced by these authorities have resulted in a demand for and the emergence of different forms of support at EU level. These types of support are summarised in Table 1 below, together with their specific benefits. Table 1: Forms of support for ensuring environmental compliance and their benefits Type of support Benefits EU networks for practitioners Enable practitioners to exchange knowledge and experience and together develop some of the other forms of support included in this table EU-level evaluation of Member State environmental compliance assurance systems Enables comparison and identification of strengths and weaknesses Generally accessible information portals on compliance assurance Enable learning, sharing of good practices and easy comparison, and strengthen transparency and accountability Mechanisms to facilitate cooperation, coordination, knowledge and experience-sharing and working together across the EU and input on compliance assurance from other Member States and authorities Enable greater effectiveness by working together Enables learning from specialist knowledge that has been developed elsewhere Cross-compliance under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Contributes to ensuring farmers’ compliance with environmental obligations Information and guidance on good practices Enables learning from knowledge that has already been gained Reduces the need to develop good practices from scratch (efficiency gains) Training programmes, training materials and guidance on skills Enables skills to be developed and maintained Accessibility of EU-generated data sources, such as satellite imagery Extends possibilities for effective compliance assurance EU financial support Helps compliance assurance authorities to better deliver their objectives Inspectors, police officers, customs officials, prosecutors, judges and auditors have already formed separate networks at European level to share and build knowledge on compliance assurance. They and others offer positive examples of the different kinds of support summarised above. Allowing for their current limitations in coverage and scope, these examples point the way towards how, with the Commission’s contribution, more can be done to strengthen environmental governance and increase compliance. 4.Rationale for actions The Commission has considered a number of options to improve environmental compliance assurance, including legislative ones, and in 2014 prepared a draft impact assessment report to inform its decision-making. It has concluded that an action plan with targeted support measures to address practical needs is the option most likely to deliver results across several priority areas already in the short term. The preparatory phase, including consultation of Member States and practitioner networks , confirmed the value of the forms of support summarised in Table 1 and identified ways of strengthening these and developing new tools. Practitioner networks stressed the value of sharing expertise and of having more coordinated efforts across Member States. They pointed to the importance of professional training and effective knowledge-sharing. Consultations also identified a number of sectors in which there is a significant demand for good practice reference material and new tools. Waste and wildlife crime were singled out as especially deserving of attention. The common agricultural policy (CAP) 2014-2020 prioritises the ‘sustainable management of natural resources and climate action’ through a variety of complementary policy instruments, including cross-compliance. The Commission’s staff working document on ‘Agriculture and sustainable water management in the EU’ has already referred to the initiative being presented here as offering a means of improving national compliance assurance systems for water legislation in relation to farming activities. Similarly, the Commission's Action Plan for nature, people and the economy identifies the need to strengthen compliance . Other themes that have featured in the consultations are the contribution that technology can make to detecting non-compliance and the important role that citizens play in making complaints and submissions to national authorities. Some existing EU environmental legislation explicitly foresees the role of guidelines or guidance on inspections and it is opportune to make a start on delivering these. Work on the first EIR country-specific reports highlighted the scope for improving the Commission’s feedback to Member States on compliance assurance and other aspects of public administration. Finally, consultations have identified a desire for high-level dialogue between environmental compliance assurance practitioners and senior managers within environmental administrations. 5.Actions The Action Plan consists of nine actions tailored to the above needs identified in the preparatory phase. They are summarised in Table 2. Table 2: Overview of actions