The review, at a set date still within this decade, of the interaction of IED with the ETS and decarbonisation developments will be a key milestone in monitoring and evaluating this revamped and more holistic policy approach.

Perceptions on improvements to legal clarity will be monitored via the BREF process, through e-surveys addressed to the IED and E-PRTR stakeholder community.

Periodic publication of implementation information by Member States will complement this by providing readily-accessible, machine-readable, common-format information on key provisions via dynamic IT means. This will include information on:

For the E-PRTR measures, the key indicators will include the timeliness and the completeness of reporting, broken down by Member States, sector and by environmental media. Web statistics from the Industrial Emissions Portal will allow the measurement of progress, with regard to the public’s accessing of IED/ E-PRTR combined information.

The scale of progress in emissions reduction will depend on the technological progress, outcomes of INCITE, any more frequent BREF reviews, and any actions that may be triggered as a result. Understanding this requires monitoring of the pace of development and uptake of innovations and the resulting required transformation of IED sectors for meeting the EU’s 2030 and 2050 objectives. The harmonised permit summary will allow the quantification of the number of cases where new flexibilities supporting frontrunners in testing and deploying emerging techniques have been used. Wider impacts on innovation dynamics will be more complex to monitor. New indicators will be defined in an industrial transformation scoreboard published by INCITE that may include new indicators such as e.g.:

A central concern in the revision of the IED is to ensure that the whole range of BAT-AELs is used. Analysis of this issue has been complex due to the lack of transparency of, and difficult access to, permits. The future harmonised ‘permit summary’ will dramatically ease the harvesting of ELVs set in permits, through automated IT tools. This will allow analysis sector by sector of the distribution of ELVs within the BAT-AEL ranges, at the end of permit revision cycles triggered by adoption of BAT Conclusions and improve clarity of information contained in the permits to public.

These improvements will also help ensure that this monitoring can be effectively used in the wider Zero Pollution Monitoring and Outlook framework which will be published every two years from 2022 onwards . At the same time, the data on air, water and soil pollution available through the Zero Pollution Monitoring will help evaluate the impacts of emission reductions stemming from the installations falling under the IED/E-PRTR Regulation.

·More dynamic updating of the list of substances covered by E-PRTR will allow defining emission indicators of substances of emerging and current concern. This will enable the tracking of improvements in the use and management of such substances.

·The inclusion of reporting of resource use will allow defining new indicators on use of materials, water and energy, that will enable tracking of resource efficiency improvements;

·The increased granularity of reporting of pollutant emission at installation level will allow analysis of the main processes within sectors whose environmental performance is improving or is lagging behind;

The overall emissions of pollutants per sector, based on data reported by operators to the E-PRTR, will remain key indicators to track progress against the objectives of this initiative. The OECD has also identified that PRTR data can be used to evaluate progress towards achieving United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, especially SDG 12.4. The improved E-PRTR will also allow better monitoring of industry’s environmental performance at sector level:

Furthermore, actions under the innovation area will also contribute to a better understanding of how pollution reduction, decarbonisation and also a circular economy will be achieved. INCITE will provide a better mapping of innovative technologies that are relevant for depollution and decarbonisation. The requirement for IED operators to design, towards the end of this decade, their transformation plans will allow them to focus efforts towards achieving maximum beneficial synergies, based on technological innovation, between depollution, decarbonisation and circularity for the 2030-2050 horizon.

The preferred package will significantly support the EU’s decarbonisation agenda and promote synergies and consistency of the EGD policies. In the shorter term, the scope extension will amplify the current IED role in regulating non-ETS GHG emissions , in particular methane, thereby supporting the Effort Sharing Regulation. Furthermore, the proposals to make BAT on energy efficiency mandatory across all IED permits and to require all IED operators to include in their Environmental Management Systems the outcome of energy audits will support the Energy Efficiency Directive. In the medium to longer term, the progressive uptake of technologies which cut both pollutant and GHGs emissions implies that, over time, more synergies will occur between the IED and the ETS, as well as impacts on the carbon market. Hence, coherence issues and opportunities for enhanced synergies that may arise will be addressed by the review, proposed also as part of the FF55 package.

The total administrative burden is estimated within a range of €356-600 million/year for industrial operators and €265-509 million/year for public authorities. Administrative activities and costs estimated for the selected policy measures will necessarily have some overlaps (e.g., many measures require adjustments of permit reconsiderations and updates and, therefore, some efficiencies could be identified), resulting in over-estimation of the overall administrative costs.

Little evidence could be found on a potential impact on competitiveness and prices of final products. Past reports summarising the cumulative costs of EU regulation of the EU energy intensive industry indicate that environmental legislation is not a leading factor contributing to costs of operation. Within this picture, IED compliance costs are small compared to other costs (energy, carbon emissions allowances, workers safety) and it is very unlikely that sectors whose commodities are traded on global markets (e.g. aluminium, copper, meat) will pass IED compliance costs onto consumers.

Other scope increases bring under IED between 1 500 and 1 900 installations from other sectors covered by full IED permitting, i.e. an increase by 7% of the total of number of installations other than farms covered by the IED. As for industrial activities already within the IED scope, these are typically large, often multinational, companies. There is no evidence of an intrinsically differing economic viability for BAT among Member States. If for an individual installation this does not hold, then a derogation can be applied for.

Furthermore, the assessment shows in particular that the main scope extension, under PO5-a cattle and tailored permitting, is proportionate. Based on the assessment of setting the threshold at 50, 100, 125, 150, 300, 450 and 600 LSU (livestock unit), thresholds within the range of 50-150 LSU for cattle, pigs and poultry farms came out as proportionate and most effective. This covers (i) an additional between 161 000 and 517 000 livestock farms covered by a tailored permitting process (approximately between 84 000-330 000 cattle farms and 77 000-187 000 pigs and poultry farms, depending on the specific LSU threshold), resulting in the 10-40% largest farms of the sector being covered by the legislation, out of a EU’s existing c. 1.5 million non-subsistence farms. It would result in at least reducing the emissions of newly regulated farms by 12% for ammonia and 10% for methane. The monetised benefits from reducing methane and ammonia are valued at between €5 450 and €9 240 million/year, depending on the specific LSU threshold, while the compliance costs are €265-812 million and administrative costs for both operators and public administrations, are €270-758 million, i.e. a benefit to cost factor of between 5-10 for the whole livestock (from which 4-8 for pigs and poultry and 7-14 for cattle).

Under PO1-a, illustrative calculations, for NOX emission reduction by five sectors resulting from measure IED#5, have estimated health benefits to be at least between €860 million and €2 800 million/year, and CAPEX and OPEX for businesses to be €210 million/year.

The IED includes in its design safeguards to ensure that BAT requirements remain proportionate, i.e. that societal benefits are larger than economic costs incurred . This proportionality was confirmed whenever a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) could be conducted. Quantification has been achieved for the two measures having the most significant impacts.

The preferred policy package will generate significant and positive environmental impacts and incur limited negative economic impacts. Overall costs, will be largely outweighed by the benefits, whilst the problems identified by the IED and the E-PRTR Regulation evaluations would be comprehensively addressed, in addition to contributing to the EU’s general objectives embedded in the EGD, the Glasgow Global Methane Pledge, and to levelling the playing field at a high level of protection.

PO5-i-watch mechanism: Establish a dynamic system to identify and include emerging activities/sectors of concern, according to significance of pollutant emissions, and the potential to address these issues

PO5-h- align E-PRTR to other EU laws-partially: E-PRTR scope to cover medium combustion plants between 20 and 50 MW and urban waste water treatment plants between 20 000 and 100 000 person equivalents

PO5-b-expand existing IED activities: Extend the IED and E-PRTR sectoral scope by closing loopholes for smaller smitheries, regulating associated activities of textiles finishing, forging presses, cold rolling and wiredrawing; better coverage of the battery value chain by including the rapidly growing batteries gigafactories

PO5-a-cattle and tailored permitting: Broaden current sectoral coverage of the IED and E-PRTR Regulation in rearing of animals (include cattle farms above a threshold within the range of 50-150 LSU, expand coverage to pigs and poultry farms above a threshold within the range of 50-150 LSU), and introduce a tailored permitting process for the rearing of animals

PO4-b-IED/ETS interface-review: Plan a review by 2028 of the interface between the IED and the ETS to maximise synergise between the instruments in light of innovation dynamics

PO3-a-performance levels-binding and benchmarks: introduce both binding BAT-AEPLs AND performance benchmarks to be used in the Environmental Management System

PO2-a-frontrunners: Facilitate the development and testing of emerging techniques AND allow more time for implementing these more innovative technologies and techniques

PO1-d- simplification: clarify certain definitions and activity descriptions, delete the indicative list of pollutants in Annex II, compliance assessment rules under Chapter II of IED to take precedence over rules in other chapters and top-down reporting for livestock farms and aquaculture

PO1-c-rights of the public-enhanced public rights: improve and expand the public’s access to information, participation and access to justice (including effective redress) by making clear permit summaries publicly and digitally available, requiring systematic public participation in permit reviews, and more granular reporting of emissions to E-PRTR in an INSPIRE-compliant manner

PO1-b-implementation and enforcement: Empower competent authorities to suspend the operation of non-compliant plants, harmonise the rules to assess plants’ compliance with their permits, make the provisions on penalties more stringent and improve transboundary cooperation in permitting

PO1-a-achieving BAT-AELs-full BAT potential: Clarify rules on derogations, indirect releases of pollutants to water and on taking environmental quality standards into account, ensure transparent monitoring of related impacts on air and water quality, and require consideration of the full BAT-AEL range when setting ELVs

Table 13 lists the sub-options retained in the preferred policy package, as presented in section 7. Annex 3 presents the overall impacts of the preferred policy package. In case where the sub-options retained included a choice between two alternatives, the retained alternative is shown in italics as previously summarised in Section 7.

Organises ongoing monitoring of emerging concerns related to emissions from agro-industrial installations and inclusion of relevant activities within the scope of the IED and/or the E-PRTR, through delegated/implementing powers, based on clear criteria and full assessment of impacts.

E-PRTR is a useful instrument to establish reporting synergies with other EU law, in particular with the MCP Directive and the UWWTP Directive. Full alignment of scope would however require reporting by numerous SMEs. Partial alignment ensures proportionality of the measure.

A Commission proposal is forthcoming under the Methane Strategy to address methane emissions in the oil, gas and coal sectors (by far the main pollutant emitted from these activities).Whilst methane emission is a major environmental pressure from this upstream oil and gas operations, other emissions to water and soil pollution are considered significant. Hence, these activities are not at this stage retained for inclusion in the scope and would be monitored under the watch mechanism.

The sector is mainly comprised of micro-enterprises (around 80% of enterprises having less than 5 employees within the EU27 and are often ‘family-owned’). Though nutrient loading is an important pressure that could be addressed by the IED, some other main environmental pressures (use of pharmaceuticals, invasive species, antibiotic resistance, biodiversity) from the sector are not typically regulated by the IED.

Contributes to establishing a level playing field at a high level of protection for extraction activities forecast to grow fast and responsible for significant emissions of pollutants. Regulates the emissions from the most polluting non-energy mineral extraction activities (metallic and industrial minerals).

Removes legal obstacle preventing the updating of historic BAT requirements dating from the 1990’s, for landfills already falling under the IED.

Closes loopholes in sectors and activities already covered by the IED where sub-activities with high pollution potential were not covered, e.g. textile finishing. Addresses the potential negative environmental impacts of rapidly growing batteries gigafactories.

Steers the reduction of pollution from activities that have much less contributed to reducing emissions of pollutants than other sectors of society, in particular as regards ammonia and methane emissions. The scope increase results in the 10-40% largest farms being covered by the IED. The light tailored permitting regime allows proportionate regulation of the wide range of farm sizes.

Table 12 lists the sub-options on industrial scope retained in the preferred policy package. It also summarises the broad rationale for selecting or discarding sub-options. Retained sub-options/alternatives appear in bold.

Territorial distribution of activities is uneven across the Member States. Hence, Member States will not be equally impacted by the different PO5 sub-options. For example, EU aquaculture production is mainly concentrated in four Member States: Spain, France, Italy, and Greece; most of the upstream oil and gas activities are located in eight Member States: Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania; extraction of non-energy minerals mainly takes place in countries such as Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Finland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden.

·PO5-i-watch mechanism: As this is a mechanism that may trigger future decisions, it is only when future decisions are in the making that impacts can be assessed. The mechanism includes a requirement for assessing impacts, suggesting that sectors would only be included in the scope where the cost-benefits balance is favourable. In the meantime, this sub-options ensures transparent monitoring of the relevance of sectors for inclusion in the scope, thereby informing society and policy makers.

·PO5-h - align E-PRTR to MCPD and UWWTPD: Whilst there are weakly negative economic impacts from this measure, there are considerable benefits from improved data on the environmental performance of MCP and UWWTP, as well as enhanced coherence between the two instruments and their reporting mechanisms resulting. This will empower citizens and policy makers, and therefore drive improved performance.

·PO5-g align E-PRTR to IED: Although there is limited quantification of the benefits and costs, this measure would improve the coherence of the two instruments thus providing greater overall effectiveness.

·PO5-e-aquculture and PO5-f oil and gas: The balance of benefits and costs associated with this measure is uncertain and the scale of benefits, although uncertain, is unlikely to be significant when compared to the benefits that may accrue from PO5-a and even PO5-b.

·PO5-b-expand existing IED activities, PO5-c-landfills and PO5-d-mining: Potential benefits are likely to outweigh costs, although there is limited quantitative evidence available, especially with regards to the potential scope of option PO5-c and PO5-d.

·PO5-a-cattle and tailored permitting: Potential benefits are likely to be significant and outweigh costs. About 13-31% of pigs and poultry farms and 10-40% of cattle farms would be newly brought under the IED’s framework, representing an additional 161 000-517 000 farms added to the scope. This would result overall in about 10-40% of pigs, poultry and cattle non-subsistence farms being covered by the IED. Reductions in methane and ammonia emissions from widening the IED coverage of livestock farms are valued at between €5 450 and €9 240 million/year and the related compliance costs would be between €265-812 million/year. Challenges with the implementation of such a significant scope expansion, especially the administrative burden on competent authorities, would be mitigated by introducing the tailored permitting framework. This adjusted framework would improve the efficiency of permitting within the IED, whilst retaining its effectiveness. Cleaner livestock rearing would also help preserving and improving the quality of rural territories.

Overall, benefits are likely to outweigh costs for PO5-a, PO5-b, PO5-c, PO5-d, PO5-g, PO5-h and PO5-i. At this stage, it is, however, uncertain whether the benefits generated by PO5-e and PO5-f would outweigh the costs. In more detail:

All new legislative measures introduced by PO1-PO4 will have to apply to a larger number of installations proposed in PO5. Therefore, costs associated with PO1-PO4 are calculated and presented in the total costs of PO5. Activities newly brought within the IED scope would fall under the existing proportionate framework, i.e. BAT being defined as the most environmentally effective and economically viable techniques, with derogations being allowed in cases where EU-defined BAT implementation in an individual installation would lead to disproportionate costs. However, these activities more or less lend themselves to regulation via the IED.

Enables “future-proofing” of the IED and E-PRTR regarding dynamic scope extension possibilities, without the need for primary legislation changes.

A Commission proposal is forthcoming under the Methane Strategy to address methane leaks (by far the main pollutant emitted from these activities).

Whilst IED could help addressing nutrient loading (nitrogen and phosphorus), some key environmental pressures (use of pharmaceuticals, invasive species, diseases, antibiotic resistance) from the sector are not typically regulated by the IED (pollution prevention and control).

The demand for seafood is expected to increase and EU-based aquaculture can help to meet that demand.

The option, which would include metallic and industrial minerals and exclude quarrying, would include between 800-900 minerals extraction installations to be regulated under the IED.

Could facilitate a level playing field across the EU, and ensure confidence in pollution control post-EIA. The option could support one of the Commission’s priority actions in 2022, i.e. streamlining permitting procedures for battery raw material projects in Member States, in line with highest environmental standards.

The demand for critical minerals and base metals will continue to place demands on specific mining installations in the EU and outside the EU.

The option would bring in additional 725 to 1 000 installations under the scope of the IED (full IED permitting). This includes c. 20-95 battery factories.

Battery production is a growing sector surrounded by more uncertainty in terms of installations and their emissions profile. IED covers already many activities in the batteries value chain.

Ensures that certain loopholes in the scope of the IED are closed (smaller smitheries, textiles finishing, forging presses, cold rolling and wiredrawing).

The environmental impacts of these smaller and associated activities are well known and can be addressed by the IED approach.

Minimum expected reductions in methane and ammonia emissions are valued at between €5 450 and €9 240 million/year and the related compliance costs would be between €265-812 million/year.

The increased scope enhances IED coverage from 18 to 60-88% of emissions of ammonia by rearing of cattle, pigs and poultry and from 3% to 42-77% for methane emissions.

Brings under the scope additional 84 000-330 000 cattle farms and 77 000-187 000 pigs and poultry farms, resulting in the 10-40% largest EU non-subsistence farms to be covered by the legislation.

These activities are a main contributor to ammonia and methane emissions and have historically not contributed as much as other sectors of industry and society to emission reductions.

PO5 comprises nine sub-options that can all be combined. Table 11 compares the impacts of the sub-options.

PO4-c and PO4-d were considered as alternative measures. There were pros and cons to both and the preferred way only became apparent late in the impact assessment. The chosen measure, PO4-c, provides more useful information as emission data is obtained for each GHG, from which the CO2 equivalent can be calculated, as needed.

Provides better and low cost information on pollutants such as CFCs that are currently reported as combined totals.

The impacts of deleting or putting a sunset date on Art. 9(1) of the IED are unclear and may negatively affect the EU ETS carbon market. The review is consistent with the FF55 ETS revisions proposal and will allow revisiting, at a set date still within this decade, the coherence and potential for enhanced synergies between the IED and the ETS, in light of the dynamics of innovation.

Ends the situation where installations were subject to binding permit conditions on energy efficiency in some Member States, but not in others. Supports the Energy Efficiency Directive by ensuring that IED permitting authorities are mobilised to monitor implementation and enforce obligations.

Table 10 lists the sub-options addressing decarbonisation of industry retained in the preferred policy package. It also summarises the broad rationale for selecting or discarding sub-options. Retained sub-options/alternatives appear in bold.

·PO4-d- CO2 equivalent: Few benefits from this measure as CO2 equivalent can be calculated from the already provided raw data.

·PO4-c-disaggregated GHG: Knowledge benefits will accrue to all E-PRTR users from this refinement and the costs are minimal since the data readily exist.

·PO4-b-IED/ETS interface: The alternative measures ‘sunset clause’ (IED#29) and ‘delete immediately’ (IED#30) are expected to reduce GHG emissions, but the extent of these reductions is uncertain. It may interfere with the objective of the EU ETS to achieve GHG emission reductions in the most cost-effective manner. The alternative ‘future review’ (IED#28) secures consistency with the policy approach chosen by the European Commission in the recently tabled Fit for 55 package, strengthens the signal in terms of needed technological innovation tackling both decarbonisation and depollution, whilst granting sufficient time to identify concrete opportunities for strengthening the synergies between the IED and the ETS.

·PO4-a-energy efficiency: The scale of benefits is likely to be relevant but small, especially dependent on how energy efficiency and reductions in emissions of associated GHG and other pollutants - incentivised via the IED - may interact with the EU ETS framework. This would include potential air quality and other benefits, depending on the measures taken by individual operators. The overall environmental benefits are expected to outweigh the associated costs.

The same objective could be met by including automated protocols in E-PRTR software to convert reported amounts of GHGs into CO2 equivalents.

Improves understanding and emission control of the sources of various types of GHGs and their fuller environmental impacts, e.g., for types of refrigerants.

May negatively affect effectiveness and efficiency of the ETS market mechanism. It could lead to more carbon allowances becoming available for trading, ultimately reducing carbon market-based incentives for emissions reductions across ETS sectors.

There is a limited understanding of how innovation and industrial transformation dynamics will affect coherence between the ETS and the IED in the medium- to long-term, also limiting the possibility to assess impacts of this option.

Sets the date at which both reviews are to be undertaken, thus strengthening the legal signal for innovation to increasingly tackle both decarbonisation and depollution challenges.

Mirrors the FF55 ETS revision proposal that includes a review of its interaction with the IED in light of industry decarbonisation evolution dynamics.

Supports the aim of the newly proposed revisions to Energy Efficiency Directive by ensuring that IED permitting authorities are mobilised to monitor implementation, and enforce obligations and actions.

Levels the EU playing field by ending the situation where installations were subject to binding permit conditions on energy efficiency in some Member States, but not in others.

PO4 comprises four sub-options that can all be combined. PO4-b includes three alternatives. Table 9 compares the impacts of these sub-options.

Gathering information on products in the E-PRTR would not be technically feasible. The EU’s Sustainable Products Initiative will better address public information on environmental characteristics of products.

Reporting more detail on waste transfers between installations (both within and between Member States) is unlikely to provide reliable data and would have high administrative costs.

Allows E-PRTR to better take into account substances of emerging concern. Thereby enhances coherence within relevant environmental polices (air, water, soil, chemicals).

However, action under the baseline to include in BREFs information on industrial symbiosis opportunities may support such local action.

National plans are not the right level of intervention for promoting industrial symbiosis, which rather requires local action tailored to the specificities of businesses and markets.

Strengthening the role of the already required EMS clarifies the legal status of BAT conclusions. It provides a means of implementation for those conclusions that require adaptation to the circumstances of individual installations, e.g. conclusions including resource efficiency benchmarks and a list of measures to be considered by operators to reach those benchmarks.

It will be possible to set binding resource efficiency performance levels only in a few cases where industrial processes are highly homogeny across the EU and the performance is directly related to well-defined techniques. Non-binding benchmarks will give valuable information to all relevant operators and competent authorities on the potential for improving resource efficiency performance also in cases where the processes are not so homogenous across the EU or the performance depends highly on local circumstances and technical characteristics of the installations. Therefore, both binding levels and non-binding benchmarks should be available in BREFs, as appropriate. Benchmarks would be particularly efficient when combined with option PO3-b-EMS.

Table 8 lists the sub-options contributing to a non-toxic and resource efficient circular economy retained in the preferred policy package. It also summarises the broad rationale for selecting or discarding sub-options. Retained sub-options/alternatives appear in bold.

·PO3-g report on products: Gathering information on products in the E-PRTR would not be technically feasible due to the diverse and complex nature of industrial products, and would mean a significant divergence from the E-PRTR’s core role, which would likely be better delivered by the Commission’s Sustainable Products Initiative and its concept of a product passport.

·PO3-f-tracking waste transfers: The more detailed reporting of waste transfers within between installations in a Member State would have significant economic costs for operators, since reporting obligation would apply to a large number of E-PRTR facilities. Benefits: a better understanding of waste flows and improved corporate accountability on waste management.

·PO3-e-report resource use: Adding requirements, for operators to report their use of energy, water and raw materials would have significant economic costs for operators since the reporting obligation could apply to every E-PRTR facility. This extra cost is particularly marked for the use of raw materials, since data gathering will depend on a number of factors, such as the types of products and processes. The environmental benefits are slightly positive, as it may enable benchmarking of the environmental performance of different industrial activities. However, this may be compromised by data sharing restrictions stemming from business confidentiality issues.

·PO3-d-pollutants list: Introducing a mechanism, most likely a delegated act, for dynamically updating the E-PRTR pollutant list would have economic costs for operators, as it will lead to a greater number of facilities having to monitor/assess/report data for air and water emissions. This would partly be offset by synergies and avoided costs related to monitoring efforts for surface water pollutants under EU water legislation and reduced need for reporting the same data under various instruments, as well as promotion of digital solutions. Significant benefits would also accrue via better aligning the E-PRTR with up-to-date information needs, thus better supporting associated policies such as REACH and EU water legislation.

·PO3-c-symbiosis plans: The evidence remains uncertain regarding technical feasibility, and whether benefits would outweigh the costs of requiring Member States to develop and implement national symbiosis plans, especially via the IED. In particular, the effectiveness of this measure is very uncertain. However, action under the baseline to include in BREFs information on industrial symbiosis opportunities may support such local action.

·PO3-b-EMS: The benefits that may be accrued from introducing Resource and Energy Efficiency Plans and Chemical Management Systems via the EMS could be significant, especially in improving energy and resource efficiency, and reducing waste and industrial sectors’ overall carbon footprint. These options would entail economic costs for operators and public authorities, but these are expected to be comparatively much lower in magnitude and they can be mitigated to some extent by promoting digital solutions, and there will be reduced cost of resources thanks to reduced use of resources and energy. The scale of these costs and benefits would depend upon the ambition and effective implementation, monitoring and enforcement of the plans outlined as part of the EMS.

·PO3-a-performance levels: The benefits of the alternative measures, clarifying explicitly binding BAT-AEPLs (IED#23) or for explicitly binding BAT-AEPLs and setting benchmark levels for inclusion in EMS (IED#24), are likely to outweigh costs. More flexibility for the TWG is provided by the latter option (IED#24) that would likely result in a more efficient and practical approach when compared to the “binding” option put forward by measure (IED#23). The scale of the benefits, however, would depend on the uptake of the binding BAT-AEPL and/or benchmark-setting options when compared to the baseline.

Overall, benefits are likely to outweigh costs for PO3-a and PO3-b, PO3-d and PO3-e. Doubts remain about the following measures: the introduction of national symbiosis plan requirements via the IED (PO3-c), more detailed reporting of waste transfers (PO3-f) and reporting on products (PO3-g). In more detail:

Other EU initiatives may be more effective and efficient in making information on products available to the public, in particular product passports that are being considered under the Sustainable Products Initiative.

The most important transboundary waste transfers are tracked under other EU law (waste shipment regulation). Tracking all intra-EU waste transfers between all operators would be even more complex.

Ensures continuous relevance of the E-PRTR, which can then be responsive to information needs regarding emerging (water) priority substances and other pollutants of concern.

However, action under the baseline to include in BREFs information on industrial symbiosis opportunities may support such local action

Industrial symbiosis requires action at the local level where supporting partnerships between businesses can take place. This limits the potential effectiveness of national plans.

Supports the proposed Energy Efficiency Directive by ensuring that relevant audits and plans required by the EED and integrated into the EMS are controlled by the IED competent authorities, and actions monitored.

Although the benchmarks are not binding, operators will have the obligation to monitor, analyse and report the concerned parameters.

Enables BREF TWGs to address both activities that are homogeneous across the EU (binding levels) and activities that vary depending on local conditions or installation specificities (benchmarks).

Setting at EU level meaningful binding BAT associated environmental performance levels (BAT-AEPLs) is only possible for activities that are highly homogenous across the EU. Industrial stakeholders emphasised that this could be economically inefficient.

PO3 comprises seven sub-options that can all be combined. PO3-a includes two alternatives. Table 7 compares the impacts of the sub-options.

The vast majority of IED operators will need to fundamentally transform their installations in response to the challenge of global warming. Transformation plans develop by 2030 meet this need and allow better predictability for operators and competent authorities. On the other hand, introducing more time for transformation required by BAT conclusions would only concern a limited number of operators acting upon their publication. Under two alternatives for developing Transformation Plans, the less costly was chosen.

Creates a permanent mechanism, the INnovation Centre for Industrial Transformation & Emissions (INCITE), to monitor innovation and trigger the review of BREFs when emerging techniques reach a high level of maturity. By contrast, shorter BREF cycles would be costly and cumbersome to implement and would not be sufficiently flexible to adapt to the dynamics of innovation.

Table 6 lists the sub-options supporting innovation retained in the preferred policy package. It also summarises the broad rationale for selecting or discarding sub-options. Retained sub-options/alternatives appear in bold.

·PO2-c-supporting transformation: Similarly, the benefits of the alternatives, allowing more time to implement BAT conclusions where deep transformation is required (IED#21) or Transformation Plans (IED#22), are likely to outweigh costs. The IED#22 is likely to gain more traction with IED operators, as it should improve the collective understanding of all IED industry sectors’ transformation needs and overall preparedness for industry to accelerate implementation and increase transparency and provide confidence that specific actions will be taken forward by industry. Within the IED#22, the alternative to integrate Transformation Plans in EMS allows for achieving those objectives at lower costs than the permit review alternative.

·PO2-b-stimulate innovation: The benefits of the alternative measures, shorter BREF cycles (Alt 1 - IED#21) or establishing INCITE (Alt.2 – IED#22), are likely to outweigh costs. However, INCITE is expected to result in a more effective and efficient intervention, especially as it would be designed to monitor sectors and update BAT Conclusions and/or trigger BREF reviews, rather than following a shorter yet periodic cycle that substitutes or complements the existing BREF process. The magnitude of costs and benefits associated with INCITE is uncertain and depends on the output of INCITE’s work, as well as its future-oriented ability to efficiently encourage and/or trigger stricter environmental requirements in as many installations as possible.

·PO2-a-frontrunners: The overall scale of benefits is likely to be relatively small, albeit nevertheless beneficial and having particularly importance for the frontrunners concerned, to encourage the testing and uptake of emerging technologies, especially when coupled with other existing R&I incentives and available funding.

Makes the perspective of transformation (depollution and decarbonisation, in line with 2050 targets) concrete for all operators and competent authorities via an organised case-by-case approach.

The moment of technological readiness for deep transformation is unknown and will vary across sectors and installations and requires case by case planning.

Informs the European Commission on the best timing/prioritisation of BREFs reviews to harness innovation and accelerate transition to clean and decarbonised production.

Frequent updates would create too short or even overlapping investment cycles, negatively affecting economic costs and efficiency of policy as emphasised by Member States and industrial stakeholders.

Avoids investments in traditionally determined BAT when Emerging Techniques are expected to be available in short to mid-term.

PO2 comprises three options that can all be combined. PO2-b and PO2-c include two alternatives. Table 5 compares the impacts of the sub-options.

Ensures compliance with, and better implementation of, the EU’s international obligations under the Aarhus Convention and Kyiv Protocol.

Sub-option full BAT potential implements better the polluter pays principle than sub-option clarify flexibilities, resulting in significantly higher environmental and health benefits, in line with the recommendations of the European Court of Auditors.

Table 4 lists the sub-options addressing the effectiveness of the legislation retained in the preferred policy package. It also summarises the broad rationale for selecting or discarding sub-options. Retained sub-options/alternatives appear in bold.

PO1-d simplification introduces simplifications identified as needed by Member States and stakeholders. A codification after adoption of the revised act will allow eliminating provisions that have become obsolete.

PO1-c rights of the public will significantly empower the public through eased access to information and access to justice, and enhanced participation in permitting processes. The harmonised digital permit summary will solve serious problems in accessing information on permit provisions, such as emission limit values, which will also facilitate monitoring of compliance at all levels of government.

PO1-b implementation and enforcement will promote more consistent and proportionate Member States approaches and thereby promote a more level playing field and reduce any territorial divergence of environmental performance of industry across Member States.

PO1-a-achieving BAT-AELs-full BAT potential is the most significant sub-option as it contains measure IED#5 (requiring setting stricter ELVs within the BAT-AEL range). It is expected to generate significant health benefits. Whilst these could not be reliably quantified, as a partial illustration, potential reductions of NOX emissions from the implementation of IED#5 across five sectors were monetised to range from €860 million and €2 800 million per year while the corresponding CAPEX was estimated at €210 million per year.

Overall, benefits are likely to outweigh costs for all sub-options, in particular:

Ensures compliance with, and better implementation of, the EU’s international obligations under the Aarhus Convention and Kyiv Protocol.

Ensures compliance with, and better implementation of, the EU’s international obligations under the Aarhus Convention and Kyiv Protocol.

Implements better the polluter pays principle, in line with the recommendations of the European Court of Auditors

Clarifies the limits of flexibilities to ensure more consistent implementation by Member States and contributes to levelling the playing field at a high level of protection.

PO1 comprises four sub-options that can all be combined. PO1-a and PO1-c each include two alternatives. Table 3 compares the impacts of these sub-options.

This section compares the options per problem area. It seeks to highlight the key aspects of the impact assessment relevant for supporting decision-making on the choice of options and sub-options to include in the preferred package. In particular, it identifies which sub-options have a favourable cost-benefit profile. Furthermore, where sub-options include alternatives, their impacts are compared. The sub-options retained for inclusion in the preferred policy package are presented at the end of the section concerning each problem area.

Importantly, environmental impacts, especially the reduction on emissions to air, are likely to have positive impacts on public health in the EU, by reducing the risk of disease, especially respiratory and cardiovascular, and leading to reductions in health and social care costs across the EU. Significant benefits have been monetised for PO5-a-cattle and tailored permitting, as a result of air quality improvements from implementing a tailored permitting system for livestock farms.

PO5-a-cattle and tailored permitting, PO5-b-expand existing IED activities, PO5-c-landfills, PO5-d-mining, PO5-e-aquaculture, PO5-f-oil and gas and PO5-i are likely to have mixed effects on employment in the EU. Net impacts on employment are unclear. When costs towards business cannot be passed on through changes in prices of products sold, they may impact profitability and, therefore, employment. However, the costs incurred by farms newly brought into the scope of the IED are very limited, estimated at €2300 for an average farm, which would be unlikely to affect consumer prices.

PO5-i-watch mechanism. By monitoring emerging concerns related to emissions from agro-industrial installations and including relevant activities within the scope of the IED and/or the E-PRTR, this sub-option has the potential to enable an increased scope coverage over time and hence further emission reductions.

Sub-options PO5-g (align E-PRTR to IED) and PO5-h (align E-PRTR to other law) ensure that the coherence between the E-PRTR Regulation and the IED, as well as other instruments, is enhanced. These sub-options can have an indirect impact on the environment through for example enabling a better comparison of performance of activities across the EU as well as a greater engagement of citizens in environmental decision-making.

PO5-f-upstream oil and gas installations contribute to methane emissions, with fugitive emissions from these installations accounting for 54% of the emissions in the energy sector. Upstream oil and gas installations appear to contribute around 0.75% of NOx emissions and 1.75% of NMVOC covered by the IED. This sub-option is likely to have limited to weakly positive impacts on water and soil quality and resources; however, available evidence is limited, and the scale of impacts is uncertain.

PO5-e-aquaculture is unlikely to have any significant impact on air quality. PO5-e is likely to have weakly positive impact on water quality and resources. The main environmental issue caused by aquaculture which falls within the scope of the IED is nutrient loading, caused by excessive release of nitrogen and phosphorus into the natural environment. Nutrient releases could lead to changes in water chemistry, leading to eutrophication within water bodies. Including aquaculture under the scope of the IED could be equivalent to regulating an additional 3% of total industry releases of nitrogen and approximately 5% of total industry releases of phosphorus for the industry sectors reporting under the E-PRTR (data from 2018). Aquaculture however also contributes to other environmental issues that are not typically regulated by the IED, including pharmaceuticals contributing to antibiotic resistance, damaging wild fish populations by reducing genetic diversity, introduction of invasive species, and, finally, diseases with potential impacts on biodiversity. This sub-option is unlikely to have significant climate impacts.

PO5-d-mining. Minerals extraction activities may lead to substantial emissions of PM10, equivalent to around 4.4% of total industrial emissions covered by the IED (E-PRTR data). Therefore, this sub-option is likely to have a positive impact on air quality, though further work is needed to ascertain the extent to which dust suppression techniques are already deployed in the non-energy minerals extractive industry and associated potentials for further reductions. PO5-d will likely lead to weakly positive or positive impacts on water pollution, depending on the subsector, as different extracted materials can lead to different impacts on the water quality and the quantity used. Land is also affected by extractive activities, with land use change practices potentially contributing to a loss of soil functions and of biodiversity. This sub-option may also contribute to reducing GHG emissions, albeit significantly less than PO5-a. Evidence on the potential reduction of GHG has been limited and, therefore, could not be quantified.

PO5-c-landfills. Landfill installations contribute to 1.3% of total NMVOC from all IED industry sectors, 1.9% of ammonia totals, and 1.4% of SOX totals, part of which can be abated as a result of the BREF and permitting processes. This sub-option is likely to have limited to weakly positive impacts on water and soil quality and resources. In particular this sub-option could further improve the prevention or reduction of water pollution from leachate ending up in groundwater and/or surface water. However, available evidence is limited, and the scale of impacts is uncertain. This sub-option may also contribute to reducing GHG emissions, albeit significantly less than PO5-a. Evidence on the potential reduction of GHG emissions of activities has been somewhat limited and therefore, could not be quantified.

PO5-b-expand existing IED activities. The activities regulated under this sub-option may contribute to improving air quality, albeit this is expected to be significantly lower than PO5-a. This sub-option is likely to have limited to weakly positive impacts on water and soil quality and resources. Some activities under this sub-option consume large quantities of water (e.g. cold rolling of steel), and others such as textile finishing in particular, can lead to polluted water being discharged. Battery gigafactories that will be constructed will comprise energy-intensive processes and entail a number of complex manufacturing procedures using hazardous substances, potentially leading to impacts to air, water (use and quality) and waste generation. In addition to these impacts, it is expected that the BAT conclusions for these activities could be effective in addressing the use of resources, chemicals and in accident prevention (e.g. through an EMS). This sub-option may also contribute to reducing GHG emissions, albeit significantly less than PO5-a. Evidence on the potential reduction of GHG emissions of activities has been somewhat limited and, therefore, it has not been possible to further quantify these impacts.

This sub-option is likely to have limited to weakly positive impacts on water and soil quality and resources; however, available evidence is limited, and the scale of impacts is uncertain. Water pollution from these activities is mainly related to manure land runoff and/or seepage of pollutants to surface water or groundwater (organic matter, nutrients, pesticides).

Using EEA damage costs, the reductions of ammonia and methane are valued at between €5 450 and €9 240 million per year. Around half these reductions estimated to accrue in France, Germany and Spain.

In the EU, overall, the rearing of cattle, pigs and poultry emits each year 6100kt of methane, which represents the overwhelming majority of GHG emitted by those activities. The IED already covers a number of pigs and poultry farms representing 3% of those emissions. The scope extension raises that coverage to 42-77%, as the farms newly covered by the IED emit 2 500-4 740kt methane per year. Conservative estimations, based on a limited set of techniques very likely to be included in BAT requirements, suggest reducing methane emissions by the newly regulated farms by at least 260-460kt each year, i.e. a reduction by at least 10% of their emissions. These 260-460kt of methane emissions would represent an annual saving of around 1.6-2.8% of all EU-27 agricultural sector GHG emissions. This has particular relevance for the 2030 and 2050 EU climate objectives, as methane is a GHG having a higher global warming potential (GWP) in the 20-year timescale (84) than in the 100-year timescale (28 – used in the above calculations).

PO5-a-cattle and tailored permitting. In the EU, overall, the rearing of cattle, pigs and poultry emits each year 2138kt of ammonia to air. The IED already covers a number of pigs and poultry farms representing 18% of those emissions. The scope extension raises that coverage to 60-88%, as the farms newly covered by the IED emit between 950-1 548kt ammonia per year, depending on the specific LSU threshold (50-150 LSU). Conservative estimations, based on a limited set of techniques very likely to be included in BAT requirements, suggest reducing ammonia emissions by the newly regulated farms by at least 115-185kt each year, i.e. a reduction by at least 12% of their emissions. These 115-185kt of ammonia emissions would represent an annual saving of 3-5% of total EU-27 ammonia emissions.

Level playing field: PO5-a-cattle and tailored permitting, PO5-b-expand existing IED activities, PO5-c-landfills, PO5-d-mining, PO5-e-aquaculture, and PO5-f-oil and gas will improve the level playing field EU-wide, especially in the case of PO5-a and PO5-d; experience shows that that bigger pig or poultry farms were being artificially split into smaller farms, to escape the IED regime. In addition, available evidence suggests that cattle farming has been regulated differently across the EU; as such, the introduction of cattle farming under the scope of the IED should address these differences and level the EU regulatory playing field.

Competitiveness: PO5-a-cattle and tailored permitting, PO5-b-expand existing IED activities, PO5-c-landfills, PO5-d-mining, PO5-e-aquaculture, and PO5-f-oil and gas will lead to an increase in the cost of the doing business in the EU and, as a result, these policy options may negatively affect competitiveness. Nevertheless, little information is available on the potential impact on competitiveness in the international meat or dairy products markets. Whilst production costs of newly covered farms are expected to increase to meet the requirements, available estimations suggest that compliance and administrative costs are very small compared to turnover , representing indicatively about €2300 for an average farm. It is therefore clear that there are significantly stronger factors affect the competitive position of the EU producers, such as disease outbreaks, costs of feed, changing consumption habits (e.g. growing sales of meat substitutes) or growing meat/diary production capacities in other parts of the world. The 2014 study which looked into farmers’ costs of compliance with the EU legislation concludes that any effect on competitiveness under PO1-a is likely to be overshadowed by more significant forces than environmental legislation such as movements in exchange rates, shifts in consumer demand, differences in labour costs, health and safety standards or trade policies. Moreover, the IED evaluation concluded that there was no evidence that the IED so far materially impacted the EU’s competitiveness in the global context. This should hold in particular also for the expanded scope under PO1-a to f, and any potential negative impact on business competitiveness is, therefore, likely to be limited.

Innovation and research: PO5-a-cattle and tailored permitting, PO5-b-expand existing IED activities, PO5-c-landfills, PO5-d-mining, PO5-e-aquaculture, and PO5-f-oil and gas are likely to encourage some innovation and research. The IED evaluation concluded that the IED, BREFs and BAT conclusions had stimulated innovation, albeit that more could be done. Hence, inclusion of these sectors may have a similar limited positive impacts on innovation and research. However, any sub-options addressing problem area 2 on innovation retained in the preferred policy package would contribute to amplifying this promotion of innovation.

While the IED typically covers large, complex and capital intensive activities, PO5-a may affect SMEs as the livestock farms tend to be more often smaller installations. A clear breakdown of farms by employment level and turnover is not available to determine the SMEs population within the sector. There is extremely limited information available on whether farms meet the SME defining criteria. It is however likely that the scope increase will capture a number of the bigger SMEs of the sector (much bigger than subsistence farms). Therefore, PO1-a implements the tailored permit to mitigate any impacts on the SMEs, with less complex regulatory means and focussing on a smaller number of key issues. Furthermore, as livestock installations are not complex, typical compliance costs are significantly lower than for other IED activities.

Operating costs and the conduct of businesses: All options would lead to substantial compliance costs, both one-off and recurring, for operators, when compared to the baseline. PO5-a-cattle and tailored permitting would likely have significant compliance costs on businesses. Ricardo (2021) identified two key environmental issues for the sector of rearing of animals, that is, the reduction of emissions to air of ammonia and methane. The total EU-27 compliance costs are estimated to be around €265-812 million per year for applying abatement techniques tackling ammonia and methane emissions. Overall compliance costs are likely to be higher in practice after all BAT are defined and implemented, not just on techniques tackling ammonia and methane emissions. PO5-b-expand existing IED activities, PO5-c-landfills, PO5-d-mining, PO5-e-aquaculture and PO5-f-oil and gas would also yield substantial compliance costs. Although fewer installations would be affected by these, PO5-b through to PO5-f sub-options, these installations could have more complex and costly BAT requirements. The scale of impact on operating costs and the conduct of businesses across the sectors covered by these sub-options is highly dependent upon the stringency of the adopted BAT requirements.

Industrial installations newly brought into the scope will differ in size and activity significantly, also covering a wide range of industrial sectors, which will impact their administrative costs. These will be significantly lower for the tailored permitting system applied to farms than to other industrial installations newly brought into the scope. Furthermore, administrative cost were estimated in Annex 8 taking a fictitious baseline of zero IED-like controls being currently applied by Member States. As at least part of such controls will in fact already be applied at national level on part of all of these installations, the estimated administrative costs are over-estimated.

Administrative burden on public authorities: All PO5 sub-options would lead to additional administrative activity by public authorities, when compared to the baseline. These costs would be driven primarily by the BREF and permitting processes, although other related activities such as enforcement and inspections would also be relevant. PO5-a-cattle and tailored permitting would have the relatively highest burden on public authorities, reaching €182-595 million per year (range of 50-150 LSU) for full IED permitting of farms over a period of 20 years, including the cost of engaging with the BREF and permitting processes for hundreds of thousands of farms, and related compliance and enforcement activities. A tailored regulatory process may require significantly less input from public authorities, reducing this burden significantly by €63-232 million per year (range of 50-150 LSU). PO5-b-expand existing IED activities, PO5-c-landfills, PO5-d-mining, PO5-e-aquaculture and PO5-f-oil and gas could yield an administrative burden on public authorities of €30 million per year over a 20-year period, primarily from the relevant BREF and permitting processes, as well as carrying out inspections. PO5-h, depending on the measure will cost €5.5 million (E-PRTR#29) or €3.5 million (E-PRTR#30) for operators and €0.3 or €0.2 million for the authorities. The E-PRTR elements of PO5 would have an administrative burden in the range of €2.8 to €3 million per year for public authorities.

Administrative burden on businesses: All nine sub-options entailed by PO5 would lead to additional administrative activity by operators, when compared to the baseline. IED permit review and compliance with permit conditions (i.e. implementation of BAT) occur within four years of publication BAT conclusions. PO5-a-cattle and tailored permitting would affect the highest number of installations which could amount to an additional 84 000-330 000 cattle farms and 77 000-187 000 extra pig and poultry farms; resulting in IED covering the largest and most polluting cattle, pigs and poultry farms existing in the EU representing 10-40% of all non-subsistence farms. These additional operators would then need to apply for permits, and implement BAT as defined in BAT conclusions, as well as address permit (re)considerations and reporting under E-PRTR. Implementation by Member States of the tailored permitting included in this sub-option results in lower administrative costs. The full IED permitting process would amount to €2182-595 million per year (depending on the specific threshold within the range of 50-150 LSU). The tailored approach reduces this by €63-232 million for farms newly brought under the IED scope; there would be additional reductions should Member States opt for also applying the tailored permit to the farms already covered by IED. The new CAP promotes more sustainable, including less polluting, farming. Hence, until the new IED introduces binding EU standards, Member States may include, in their CAP strategic plans, measures to support emissions reductions also at relevant farms. Once they will become binding EU standards, compliance with them will however be seen as compliance cost, in principle no longer eligible for EU co-funding. Given the number of potential installations per sector and despite significant uncertainties, PO5-b-expand existing IED activities, PO5-c-landfills, PO5-d-mining, PO5-e-aquaculture and PO5-f-oil and gas could yield a total administrative burden on businesses of around €43million per year, primarily from engaging with the relevant permitting processes following the publication of BAT conclusions (assuming publication of two BAT conclusions and thus two permit reviews within 20 years), as well as related monitoring and reporting requirements, and inspections. The E-PRTR elements of PO5 (g-align to IED and h-align to other law) are expected not to exceed €37 million per year for businesses.

A short description of the measures is provided in Section 5.2.5 whilst Annex 7 provides more detail. Annex 10 includes a table summarising the key information underpinning the assessment of Policy Option 5.

PO4-a-energy efficiency and PO4-b-IED/ETS interface are unlikely to have any significant impacts on employment in the EU. Moreover, environmental impacts, especially the reduction on emissions to air, are likely to have positive impacts on public health in the EU, by reducing the risk of disease, especially respiratory disease, and leading to reductions in health and social care costs across the EU. Any reductions in GHG emissions would contribute to climate change mitigation.

Reporting hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) as individual pollutants (PO4-c-disaggregated reporting) would provide a better understanding of GHG contributions, since HFCs and PFCs are currently reported as total masses, even though component species have different global warming potentials. The costs of doing so should be limited, since the required data should be already available to operators. Reporting individual HFCs and PFCs via their mass of CO2 equivalent (PO4-d- CO2 eq. reporting) would also give a better understanding of GHG contributions compared to the current aggregated data. This measure is likely to have limited economic impact as it involves a relatively simple additional step before reporting data to the E-PRTR.

PO4-b-IED/ETS interface could have a wide range of impacts, depending on the selected alternative: review clause (IED#28), sunset date for deletion (IED#29) or immediate deletion of Article 9(1) (IED#30). Immediate deletion would likely result in GHG emission reductions at the specific installations, depending on the stringency of GHG emission limits derived under IED. This may also have other positive environmental impacts, such as on air quality and resource use, as decarbonisation techniques may have also positive impacts on overall depollution, and hence environmental protection. Introducing a review (IED#28) or sunset (IED#29) clause into Article 9(1) may delay potential positive impacts.

PO4-a-energy efficiency would likely have positive environmental impacts, by requiring that industrial operators improve their energy efficiency. The scale of this impact will likely vary by sector, with those operating bespoke energy systems, such as iron and steel installations, likely to see less savings than those sectors using a more standard energy boiler/generator system, although the evidence is limited. This option should also have positive knock-on effects on air quality and other environmental categories via reduced fuel use and combustion.

Operating costs, and the conduct of businesses: PO4-a-energy efficiency and alternatives within PO4-b-IED/ETS interface that delete Article 9(1) later (IED#29) or immediately (IED#30) will also lead to an increase in CAPEX and OPEX for IED operators, who would be required to increase decarbonisation and energy efficiency efforts. This, however, could lead to more carbon allowances becoming available for trading in the ETS, which could impact the carbon price and affect incentives for emissions reductions in other ETS sectors. The scale of impact will depend on whether measures are taken to address potential impacts on the carbon price, e.g. through the Market Stability Reserve, the timing of measures, derogations allowed, speed of technological advancement, technology cost curves, and energy efficiency gains achieved. Subsequent to the initial investment, operators’ life cycle costs would diminish. Given the evidence available and significant uncertainties, it has not been possible to quantify these impacts. The alternative requiring a review (IED#28) would not have impacts until action has been implemented subsequently to the review

Innovation and research: PO4-a-energy efficiency and alternatives within PO4-b-IED/ETS interface (IED#29, IED#30) will likely encourage more investment in developing and testing innovative techniques and technologies, to help operators comply in a cost-efficient manner with potentially more stringent energy efficiency and GHG requirements.

Administrative burden on businesses and public authorities: The four sub-options under PO4 would lead to increased administrative activity by IED operators and public authorities overall, when compared to the baseline, although this would be very limited for the alternative of PO4-b-IED/ETS interface review (IED#28). PO4-a-energy efficiency, as well as the more ambitious alternatives within PO4-b-IED/ETS interface sub-options to introduce a sunset date for Article 9(1) IED (IED#29) and immediately delete Article 9(1) (IED#30), will require adjustments to the BREF and permitting processes, which are likely to increase the frequency and duration of administrative activities for businesses and public authorities. The sub-option of a future review of Article 9(1) PO4-b-IED/ETS interface (IED#28) would have a very limited administrative burden primarily on public authorities, although operators may be consulted. The IED elements would entail an administrative burden of €100 million per year for operators and €72 million per year for public authorities, over the next 20 years. The E-PRTR elements would have an administrative burden of around €0.004 million per year for operators and about €0.006 million per year for public authorities.

The PO3 group of policy options are unlikely to have any significant impacts on employment in the EU. The reduction and/or recovery of waste and the use of safer chemicals could have positive social and public health impacts across the EU. These impacts have not been quantified due to limited availability of evidence.

Climate: Energy, water and materials efficiency measures and improvements should result in reductions in industrial GHG emissions, and support adaptation to climate change. PO3-a-performance levels will encourage or require BAT-AEPLs on energy use/efficiency, and/or materials consumption, with consequent reductions in environmental footprints. PO3-b-EMS would require Resource Efficiency and Circular Economy Plans, decreasing consumption of resources per unit of production, including fossil energy carriers, and consequent indirect GHG emissions. Adopting measures oriented towards resource efficiency will likely have knock-on, positive impacts on GHG emissions, particularly on installations within the most energy-intensive production chains. PO3-c-symbiosis plans may also lead to direct and indirect reductions of emissions of GHGs, although with greater uncertainty, depending on national plans and local conditions.

Waste production, generation and recycling: Energy, water and materials efficiency improvements (PO3-a-performance levels and PO3-b-EMS) will indirectly have significant positive effects, by reducing waste production and generation and/or increasing material re-use and recycling. National plans (PO3-c-symbiosis plans) may increase the uptake and implementation of industrial symbiosis, avoiding waste generation when compared to the baseline. There is, however, very limited evidence regarding the potential uptake of industrial symbiosis based on national plans; industrial symbiosis is rather dependent on local conditions, such as proximity of symbiosis partners and by-products that instead of becoming waste are used as a “circular” input to other processes.

·Resource Efficiency and Circular Economy Plans, and Chemical Management Systems (PO3-b) set by operators are ambitious, effectively implemented by operators, and monitored and enforced by competent authorities.

·Binding BAT-AEPLs or benchmark are taken forward by IED operators, although evidence suggests that the introduction of the sub-option to introduce the possibility of both binding BAT-AEPLs and benchmark levels (IED#24) could be more effective in encouraging a more efficient use of resources when compared to the baseline.

Efficient use of resources: PO3-a-performance levels, PO3-b-EMS and PO3-c-symbiosis plans would likely result in an improved and more efficient use of energy, water and materials by industry. This could in particular contribute to combating increasing water scarcity. Efficiency measures encouraged by the proposed policy options, especially PO3-a-performance levels and PO3-b-EMS, would aim to decrease consumption of resources per unit of production, both in-house and upstream or downstream in the production chain. It would also ensure that chemicals risk management is appropriately addressed in the operator’s EMS resulting in use of safer substances, the use of which is not prohibited under REACH, and reduced toxic emissions. The use of materials can be (i) minimised, by producing less waste per unit of production output; (ii) eliminated, referring particularly to the use of toxic and hazardous substances, which should thus reduce the hazardousness and increase the recyclability of the installation’s production residues; (iii) substituted, e.g. by recycled, waste-based, or less resource intensive materials; or (iv) better managed, by implementing measures that reduce material losses over the production process. These strategies will particularly affect industrial installations of the most material-intensive production chains. The scale of these impacts would depend upon the extent to which:

Although administrative and compliance costs will marginally increase for all businesses, those costs will be more significant for SMEs. Energy and resource efficiency strategies, as well as the use of less toxic chemicals or alternatives are likely to increase operating costs at the installation level, which might pose challenges, particularly for smaller businesses with more restricted access to the technological and financial resources needed to innovate and optimise processes. However, resource efficiency is one of the main drivers of companies' competitiveness as they spend, on average, 40% of their costs on raw materials, with energy and water pushing this to 50% . Therefore, improving the resource efficiency of SMEs offers enormous potential for reducing production cost and increasing productivity while, at the same time, making a significant contribution to addressing environmental and climate challenges. Furthermore, 25% of EU SMEs work on green products or services , and might particularly benefit from increased focus on energy, resource efficiency and safer chemicals. Improved water use and reuse practices contribute to enhanced resilience to climate change, as recognised and called for in the EU Climate Adaptation Strategy . There is limited evidence available to conclude on the overall net effect.

Innovation and research: PO3-a-performance levels, PO3-b-EMS and PO3-c-symbiosis plans are likely to encourage innovation and research. An explicit binding status of BAT-AEPLs could further encourage businesses to identify innovative processes and techniques that would enable them to meet BAT-AEPLs at the lowest possible cost. This impact may be limited, however, since BAT-AEPLs are already implemented in this way in some Member States. Any increase in focus on research and innovation is likely to indirectly benefit the implementation of strategies and plans focussed on improving energy and resource efficiency, resource circularity and a transition to less toxic chemicals as these will necessarily require new or adjusted process technologies, eco-design, and cross-sectoral collaboration (e.g. industrial symbiosis). These conclusions are also supported by findings from the IED evaluation (Ricardo et al, 2020), which showed that a majority of stakeholders (>75%) somewhat or strongly agreed that the IED, BREFs and BAT conclusions stimulated innovation, with BAT conclusions being indicated as the most important driver.

Competitiveness: The available evidence is unclear as to what extent this option will impact competitiveness. Whilst increased operating costs may affect it negatively, increased transparency on overall performance generates confidence, facilitates cross-sectoral and cross-value chain collaboration; and would lead to efficiency-based cost reductions. Transparency will not involve sharing confidential and sensitive, which would negatively affect business.

Operating costs and the conduct of businesses: PO3-a-performance levels and PO3-b-EMS will likely require upfront CAPEX from operators (although PO3-b should already be partly established by operators in all IED sectors). These may include energy and resource efficiency measures, including water reuse, which may reduce OPEX in the longer term. Other operational measures may introduce additional costs into production processes, such as the use of less-toxic chemical alternatives as an input to production. The scale of these economic impacts would vary across Member States; however, it is expected that the net economic impact would be somewhat negative in the shorter term, and the long-term trend is hard to anticipate. It will depend in large part on how the investment costs decline due to technological advances, and the evolution of resource costs. PO3-c-symbiosis plans could also have impacts on operating costs and the conduct of business in the EU, although these will depend on the nature and approach taken by national authorities to produce and implement industrial symbiosis plans.

Similarly, the additional reporting requirements on waste transfers under PO3-f-tracking waste transfers would require significant additional administrative efforts by operators and a cautious estimations due to the numerous and complex waste flows indicate that they should not exceed €0.7 million/year. The PO3-g-report on products would create significant administrative impact for competent authorities required to gather information on environmental releases via products and also significantly diverge from the E-PRTR’s core role. It also has the potential to overlap with other initiatives, notably the product passport under the Sustainable Products Initiative that would, contain inter alia similar information. Because of the complexity of implementing PO3-g, these costs could not be quantified.

PO3-e-report resource use would require additional administrative efforts by operators (€35 million/year) to gather data on progress made in achieving enhanced resource efficiency. There are also likely to be issues regarding confidential business information, which could restrict data usefulness.

PO3-d-pollutants list entailing the dynamic updating of the list of pollutants to be reported, would make the E-PRTR more responsive to emerging environmental issues. It would lead to a greater number of facilities having to report data for air, water and soil emissions, but this could be offset, to some extent, by the corollary ‘sunset’ list for removing the need to report on other pollutants. The estimated burden for operators should not exceed €3.9 million a year.

PO3-c-symbiosis plans would require public authorities to develop and implement a plan of action related to industrial symbiosis. The scale of this impact is unknown, although this is likely to be limited in the shorter term, and it would likely have both highlight new opportunities whilst required supplementary administrative activity from businesses.

Both PO3-a-performance levels and PO3-b-EMS will require additional enforcement-related activity from public authorities, including managing confidential business information issues, monitoring and enforcing binding BAT-AEPLs, and the evaluation and control of the EMS of each installation, including of how benchmarks contained in BAT conclusions are addressed in the EMS.

PO3-b-EMS would require operators to produce, implement and/or monitor a Resource Efficiency and Circular Economy Plan and a Chemical Management System (CMS) as part of the Environmental Management System (EMS). Both may require additional administrative efforts by operators, to assemble the information and/or plans as well as to maintain the EMS periodically. The scale of these costs would depend on the complexity of the plans and systems, and thus their maintenance and audit requirements; this is estimated to be €46 million a year for business and €23 million for the administration.

PO3-a-performance levels would essentially require operators to provide measurable information as regards resource efficiency, waste prevention and circular economy performance levels (BAT-AEPLs) when seeking a new permit/updating an existing one, as well to carry out related reporting and compliance activity. BAT conclusions already include specific plans to monitor and manage resource efficiency of water, energy, and certain materials, and operators subject to these requirements will face a limited increase in admin burden compared to the baseline. Evidence collated suggests that 20-40% of IED operators may not be currently subject to any permit conditions based on BAT-AEPLs and could, therefore, be affected by an increase in their administrative costs associated with permit reconsideration and compliance/reporting activities. The measure privileging binding BAT-AEPLs (IED #23) will result in €7 million/year (around 540 EUR/year per installation) for business above the baseline and €6 million/year for administration; for the alternative allowing use of either binding BAT-AEPLs or benchmarks used in the operator’s EMS (IED#24), the estimate is €16 and €12 million accordingly.

Administrative burden on businesses and public authorities: All seven sub-options envisaged by PO3 (see Table 2) would increase administrative activity by operators and public authorities, when compared to the baseline.

Moreover, environmental impacts, especially the reduction in emissions to air, are likely to have positive impacts on public health in the EU by reducing the risk of disease, especially respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and by leading to reductions in health and social care costs across the EU.

PO2-a-frontrunners, PO2-b-stimulate innovation and PO2-c-supporting transformation are unlikely to have any significant impacts on employment in the EU. On the one hand, some measures entailing additional Research and Innovation and other, possibly including administrative, activities, may require additional staff.

The scale of environmental impacts across the selected categories would depend on technological progress and the outcomes of INCITE, together with any more frequent BREF reviews and resulting actions triggered.

PO2-a-frontrunners, PO2-b-stimulate innovation and PO2-c-supporting transformation would be likely to have positive environmental impacts by encouraging innovative technologies with improved environmental performance. PO2-b-stimulate innovation and PO2-c-supporting transformation are likely to have more significant positive impacts on air, water and soil quality and resources, especially if INCITE (IED#20) triggering BREF reviews to take account of the availability of high maturity emerging techniques and the permit review obligation (IED#22) are taken forward. PO2-c-supporting transformation would also have positive impacts on the climate by encouraging GHG emission reductions from industrial sectors covered by the IED.

Competitiveness: The available evidence is unclear as to what extent PO2-b-stimulate innovation and PO2-c-supporting transformation may affect the competitiveness of businesses in a global context. The main drivers of a deep transformation of industry are the carbon neutrality policies, the IED would accompany such transformation rather than trigger it. On the one hand, these options may increase the cost of doing business relative to competitors in the global context and thus reduce the competitiveness of EU industry. On the other hand, these options could put the EU’s industry in the vanguard of transformation, potentially gaining first-mover advantage and even exporting any acquired know-how or innovative techniques. In addition, a low environmental footprint and resulting compliance with criteria under the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities will facilitate access to green finance putting the industry in an advantageous position on the financial market. Finally, through introducing a price on carbon in imports of specific products the carbon border adjustment mechanism may mitigate some of the impacts of these options on competitiveness, where they are related with higher CO2 emission abatement.

Operating costs and the conduct of businesses: PO2-c-supporting transformation may lead to an increase in and/or bring forward costs for IED operators, especially CAPEX, by encouraging industrial transformation and favouring innovative and emerging technologies. The scale of impact will depend on the speed of technological advancement and technology cost curves. For example, CAPEX and OPEX from operators would depend upon the Transformation Plans and/or novel techniques selected to contribute to their “deep transformation”. Cost that could be brought forward are linked to earlier retrofits to existing heavy industry installations; this would concern one-off investments ranging from €0.5 to €200 million per IED site, based on expert opinion. The plan would ensure alignment of investments required for pollution reduction and decarbonisation. PO2-a-frontrunners and PO2-b-stimulate innovation could have similar effects, although evidence available and expert opinion suggest that these are likely to be less significant than the impacts from PO2-c.

Innovation and research: PO2-a-frontrunners, PO2-b-stimulate innovation and PO2-c-supporting transformation are likely to encourage more investment in the development and testing of innovative techniques and technologies. This will bring a push for a higher uptake of low-emission techniques becoming then a benchmark for taxonomy criteria, documented in BREFs. There is limited quantified evidence, and substantial uncertainties regarding the positive impacts of these measures on innovation and research. However, as part of the consultation activities, the majority of stakeholders also agreed that these policy sub-options may contribute, from moderately to significantly, to increasing the uptake of innovative technologies by IED operators. When these options were explored through focus groups and interviews, including of experts, it was highlighted that, for the IED to encourage operators to invest in innovative technologies, these options should be complemented by financial and policy incentives, as well as clear legal requirements. This would be, e.g. funding via Horizon Europe or the Innovation Fund, and potential avenues of incentives via pending policies currently being revised, e.g. EU Taxonomy decisions and state aid guidelines. It is also intended that the revised IED/ E-PRTR framework should serve to improve the provision of information on sustainable industry practices, mainly technologies, to then be useful in the development of future initiatives under EU funding instruments and sustainable finance policy.

Administrative burden on businesses and public authorities: All three PO2 options would increase administrative burden for IED operators and public authorities overall, when compared to the baseline. PO2-a-frontrunners would primarily include a number of installations seeking flexibility to develop and/or test innovative emerging techniques that are additional to the baseline. This is expected to entail additional administrative cost for business of around €1 million a year for business as well as of around €0.5 million a year for the competent authorities. PO2-b-stimulate innovation would require managing and engaging with more frequent BREF processes that may not completely substitute, but rather complement, the baseline. Both alternatives would trigger additional or more demanding permit reconsiderations and updates. Systematic short BREF cycles (IED#19) would likely cause more frequent permit reviews than BREF reviews triggered by INCITE (IED#20). This option would also yield further costs for public authorities, via the set up and operation of INCITE. Finally, PO2-c-supporting transformation would require that operators demonstrate to competent authorities that they need more time, as part of a derogation (IED#21), for deep transformation or that they develop Transformation Plans (IED#22) as either a part of a permit review or they will integrate Transformation Plans in the EMS. The administrative burden will depend on the number of derogation or permit review procedures they will drive; derogations would concern a limited number of operators, whilst transformation plans would be required from all operators. The central estimate is €0.6 million a year for businesses and €0.3 million for competent authorities in IED #21. Making Transformation Plans (IED#22) part of a permit review will cost €50 million for both operators and competent authorities, and integrating them in EMS (PO3-b) would limit the admin burden for operators to €20 million p.a and would relieve competent authorities from having to review the permit (there will be no permit review).

When costs towards business cannot be passed on through changes in prices of products sold, they may impact profitability and, therefore, employment. However, the illustrative calculation of costs potentially incurred under the most onerous measures retained (IED#5) suggest that additional costs would be of the order of magnitude of less than 0.1% of annual turnover. Hence, it is unlikely that this would perceivable impacts on consumer prices.

Moreover, the environmental impacts outlined earlier, especially the reduction in pollutants emission to the environment resulting from PO1-a-achieving BAT-AELs – alternative full BAT potential (IED#5), are likely to have positive impacts on public health in the EU by reducing the exposure to pollutants and the subsequent risk of disease, especially respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and by leading to reductions in health and social care costs affecting EU citizens, residents and public authorities primarily. Health damage costs are provided in the environmental impacts section.

All sub-options under PO1-effectiveness are unlikely to have any significant impacts on employment in the EU. On the one hand, some measures will require additional staff to carry out additional, or more intensive, administrative activities and enforcement/compliance-related, when compared to the baseline. On the other hand, overall increases in the costs of doing business and any additional, albeit limited, temporary closures of installations may put pressure on businesses to increase their operating efficiency, including by reducing the numbers of staff employed in the EU-27. There is limited evidence available to conclude on the overall net effect. There are however other social impacts that PO1-a-achieving BAT-AELs (IED#4) and PO1-c-rights of the public bring in, namely improving transparency on permitting and emissions monitoring, and contributing to empower the public. For example, this would allow researchers and concerned organisations and citizens to make informed criticisms and requests relating to the state of industrial emissions.

Similarly, by clarifying and simplifying legal requirements PO1-d- simplification would likely have indirect positive impacts on compliance with the legislation, which would result in indirect positive impacts on the natural systems and public health. There is limited available evidence, thus limiting the quantification and monetisation of these benefits.

Indirectly, we would also expect that PO1-c-rights of the public – alternative public rights would improve the public’s access to information, participation and justice (including effective redress) (IED#11, #12, #13, E-PRTR #1, #3, #4) and increase the public’s leverage and ability to influence the environmental performance ambitions, which may result in marginal reductions in emissions over time, when compared to the baseline. These impacts would be slightly stronger for PO1-c-rights of the public – alternative public rights that introduces more disaggregate reporting (E-PRTR#2); this would provide policy relevant very information for allowing to better track improvements in environmental performance.

PO1-effectiveness is expected to have positive impacts especially on air, water and soil quality with co-benefits for biodiversity and enhanced climate-resilience. These impacts would result from PO1-a-achieving BAT-AELs introducing shorter and/or fewer derogation (IED#1, #2) and encouraging or setting stricter environmental performance requirements (IED#3, #4, #5), and from PO1-b-implementation and enforcement ensuring stepped up enforcement of, and compliance with, the IED regulatory framework (IED#6, #7, #8, #9). The most significant environmental impacts are likely to result from PO1-a-achieving BAT-AELs – alternative full BAT potential specifying that the starting point for setting emission limit values should be closer or at the most stringent limit of the BAT-AEL range (IED#5). This alone is expected to generate significant health and environmental benefits from reduced emissions. Whilst these could not be reliably quantified, as a partial illustration for one pollutant, monetised health and environmental benefits accruing from estimated potential reductions of NOX emissions from the implementation of IED#5 across five sectors range from €860 million to €2 800 million per year. Setting stricter ELVs in permits will also result in lowered pollutants emission to water and may encourage phasing out the use of substances of concern.

Level playing field: PO1-effectiveness would have a positive impact on the level playing field in the EU, primarily by homogenising and clarifying the requirements that businesses must comply with and expected enforcement practices and more effective access to justice and redress.

Furthermore, the overall improved environmental performance is also expected to have operational and competitiveness benefits in the medium to longer term, for example, through increased energy efficiency. Improved air quality would improve productivity through reduced number of lost working days due to health impacts of air pollution. Finally, the IED measure IED#6 may lead to the (temporary) closure of installations, which might also affect the costs of doing business in the EU; but suspension of activities is not expected to be a common occurrence.

Competitiveness: Whilst uncertain, PO1 costs are expected to remain limited compared to the overall costs and the turnover of installations in the concerned sectors. Again, as an illustration of the relative impact on costs of doing business: the Iron and Steel BAT conclusions ex-post assessment estimated total annualised compliance costs of the sector at around €134 million per year, the annual turnover at around €123 billion and its annual investment costs to be €3.9 billion. This sector includes about 300 installations and the illustrative additional investment for NOx abatement of €15 million, representing 0.1% of annual turnover. Hence, it is unlikely that IED#5 would have a significant impact on sector’s global competitiveness. Furthermore, a growing number of non-EU countries around the world are implementing legislation based on the BAT concept or using EU BREFs to provide information for setting emission limit values, further mitigating any impact on international competitiveness. The OECD is organising an exchange of information between international experts on BAT-like legislation, which help to reduce differences in environmental requirements at international level.

PO1-a-achieving BAT-AELs – alternative full BAT potential includes measure IED#5, encouraging the most stringent end of the BAT-AEL range for setting ELVs, which could entail significant capital (CAPEX) and operational expenditures (OPEX) for installations across the EU. Whilst the specific investments and operating costs of IED#5 could not be reliably quantified, as a partial illustration for one pollutant (NOX) and only five IED activities , it was assumed that about 10% of installations would be affected by this measure, and each of these installations might be required to invest at least €0.5 million additional or earlier than in the baseline. This would bring the potential EU-wide CAPEX at €210 million per year. However, the scale of these substantive compliance costs remains uncertain, especially in this example where the measure would not mandate but encourage, where possible, a more ambitious approach (by default) - to setting ELVs.

Operating costs and the conduct of businesses: PO1-effectiveness may also lead to an increase in and/or bring forward costs of doing business for IED operators, primarily by introducing more stringent requirements and limiting the duration and/or reducing the likelihood of approval of derogations from implementing BAT conclusions. Here it should be recalled, that as safeguard for future competitiveness concerns, the IED definition of BAT in Article 3 requires that it is cost-effective and during the drawing up and reviews of BREFs , economic viability is evaluated at the sector level. Usually, the economic viability of a technique is established by noting that it is used in various installations across various countries, under competitive market conditions.

Once the initial time and resources investment has been made in modernising private and public administrations and maximising the use of the latest digital technologies for data management, this should reduce significantly over time. The E-PRTR elements of PO1 are estimated to bring an administrative saving of some €10.2 million per year for operators and costs of about €0.9 million per year for public authorities.

·PO1-c-rights of the public offers two Alternatives: with or without the E-PRTR#2 introducing reporting on installation’s level. This translates into €0.5 or €0.56 million of admin costs per year for operators and doesn’t change for public administration: €2.9 million per year in both alternatives;

·PO1-a-achieving BAT-AELs €1.4 million per year for operators and €0.89 million per year for public administration in the Alternative 1 and €9.4 million and €7.89 million per year in the Alternative 2;

Administrative burden on businesses and public authorities: PO1-effectiveness would lead to increased administrative activity by IED operators and public authorities. This would include under PO1-a-achieving BAT-AELs employing more resources due to increased frequency and/or depth and breadth required in producing, collecting and reporting large and/or new amounts of data and evidence; permit reconsiderations; derogations; and enforcement activities under PO1-b-implementation and enforcement. PO1-a-achieving BAT-AELs and PO1-c-rights of the public would require that operators and public authorities spend marginally more resources bringing together and sharing data and information online or otherwise. However, this additional administrative burden from the IED elements would be limited. This corresponds per option to:

This impact assessment is one of the pilot cases for the one-in-one-out principle announced by the European Commission on 1 December 2019 . Therefore, particular attention has been paid to providing comprehensive information on administrative burden. Those costs are systematically presented under each option (with totals in the tables in Section 7), whereas a more in-depth discussion can be found in Annexes 8 and 10. For ease of presentation, costs provided in this report combine one-off and recurrent costs foreseen for 20 years, which then are presented per annum. The former are linked mainly to BREF revisions, issuing, reconsidering and updating a permit, application for a derogation or exemption, drafting reports or plans. The latter involves monitoring, reporting and inspections that are an important component of a number of measures. In addition, for the preferred policy package, a detailed table on the calculation of administrative costs, broken into one-off and recurrent costs, is included in Annex 3. Underlying assumptions behind the calculations are provided in Annex 4.

An iterative process (see Annex 4) was used to obtain these point ratings, on a scale of “-10 to +10”, with 10 crosses representing the maximum negative impacts, and 10 ticks representing the maximum positive impacts. This scale has more divisions than the more usual scale of from “-5 to +5”, and was used owing to the wide disparities in the impacts, and the need to represent impacts progressively from individual measures, to amalgamating them into packaged options/sub-options. Each policy area was addressed by a dedicated independent expert team, within the consultant team supporting this impact assessment, and then the iterative process explained in Annex 4 was used to ensure coherence and consistency between the scores given by individual teams for individual measures. This allowed comparisons within and across policy areas. E-PRTR measures were rated in a similar manner, enabling IED and E-PRTR scores also to be combined; note that the majority of E-PRTR measures represent smaller, incremental positive or negative impacts, and thus often score one, occasionally two ticks or crosses, compared to larger IED measures.

Colour coding is used to summarise the assessment of impacts referring to the direction (positive or negative) and magnitude (small or large) of any expected impacts (see Table 3).

As options and sub-options are packages of measures, the impact assessment builds on the assessment of the impacts of the individual measures, which is available in Annexes 8 (IED measures) and 9 (E-PRTR measures). Where some individual measures dominate in the impact assessment, the summary of the impacts of those individual measures is provided in Annex 10.

Policy sub-options PO5-a to PO5-i (sectoral scope expansion) are a notable exception and their assessment could, to a degree, include quantitative elements where data was available, such as the number of installations concerned and the related environmental impacts of the activities concerned . Furthermore, where assumptions could be made on what could likely be defined as BAT, potential environmental and economic impacts could be quantified. However, this has been limited by the availability of data and infor