Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on 'The Proposal for a Council recommendation providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States'
Date: 1999-09-16
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: environmental impact, environmental monitoring, environmental protection, location of industry

C 374/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.12.1999

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘The Proposal for a Council recommendation
providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States’

(1999/C 374/12)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the proposal for a Council recommendation providing for minimum criteria for
environmental inspections in the Member States [COM(1998) 772 final — 98/0358 (COD) — formerly
98/0358 (SYN)];

having regard to the decision taken by the Council on 16 July 1999, under the first paragraph of
Article 265 and 175, first paragraph, of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the
Committee of the Regions on the matter;

having regard to the list of Commission proposals pending as at May 1999 for which the entry into force
of the treaty of Amsterdam entails a change of legal basis and/or procedure (SEC(1999) 580 final);

having regard to Commission 4 working programme for 1998, which was adopted by the Bureau on
15 July 1998, and which directs Commission 4 — Spatial Planning, Urban Issues, Energy and
Environment — to draw up the relevant opinion;

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 179/99 rev 1) adopted by Commission 4 on 28 June 1999 by
majority (rapporteur: Margaret Eaton, UK, EPP),

adopted the following opinion at its 30th plenary session on 15 and 16 September 1999 (meeting of
16 September).

1.

Introduction

The Committee of the Regions recognises the concern
1.1.
about the state of implementation and enforcement of Com-
munity legislation which has grown in recent years, and
recognises the necessity of ensuring minimum criteria for
inspections of industrial premises. It is important that practical
improvements are made to the existing inspection regime.

2. Scope of the opinion

2.1.
The opinion is orientated towards pollution to air,
water and land from point sources which are regulated under
Community law. It is intended that it should apply in the first
stage to environmental inspections of industrial installations
which are subject to authorisation, permit or licence under
Community law. Community environmental law obliges Mem-
ber States to ensure that certain emissions and discharges,
or activities which may lead thereto, are subject to prior
authorisation, permit or licensing requirements.
Industrial
installations and other enterprises and facilities (‘controlled
installations’) which are subject to these requirements are or
should be inspected by the competent authorities and the
establishment of minimum criteria in respect of such environ-
mental inspections will ensure that steps are taken towards
achieving a level standard of inspections which would have
the added effect of avoiding distortion of competition.

2.2.
The COR agrees the details set out as to the scope and
definitions for environmental inspections and supports the
ambition that environmental inspections shall aim to achieve
a high level of environmental protection. The COR also
supports the details relating to:

— the development of an inspection plan or plans available
to the public according to the provisions of Directive
90/313/EEC;

— the investigation of accidents, incidents and occurrences of

non-compliance when they are of a serious nature.

2.3.
The Committee considers that detailed criteria for site
visits should not be introduced and the reports and conclusions
following site visits should not be drawn up until action has
been taken, wherever possible in conjunction with the IMPEL
network, to establish:

— the exact data the Commission wishes to receive and the

purpose these could serve;

— the practical consequences of such a move, not only for
the Commission but also for the inspection organisations
in the Member States;

— the effects in terms of manpower required, both for the

Commission and the Member States;

— the alternatives available for accessing the desired data.

23.12.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374/49

In this context the Committee can well imagine the Com-
mission working with the IMPEL on an internationally practi-
cable format for environmental licences. This could establish
an important basis for the requisite reports. A transitional
period should be laid down for the introduction of such a
format.

3. General comments

3.1.
Having acknowledged the need for such minimum
criteria for environmental inspections, the COR believes that
the ambition of achieving consistency in standards across
Member States is critical and is in accord with the Com-
mission’s Communication and the Council’s resolution both
of which envisaged a role for IMPEL [The European Union
Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environ-
mental Law] in this context. The regions will participate and
collaborate in the IMPEL network in drawing up minimum
criteria for environmental inspections, and in their implemen-
tation.

The COR acknowledges that EC Directive 96/61/EC on
3.2.
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control will result in the
framing of indicative performance standards and more uniform
regulation of those enterprises which cause most pollution.

3.3.
The COR recognises that in some Member States
authorisation and control are traditionally carried out by
regional and local authorities in addition to the state authority.
The draft recommendation should allow these existing tried
and tested arrangements to be continued.

The competence of the inspection is a fundamental
3.4.
plank for the whole consideration. The use of secondments
and other measures to ensure exchange of experience between
the different enforcing agencies and between Member States
would assist the efforts needed to achieve conformity of
standards. An effective training regime throughout the Member
States is essential if conformity of standards is to be achieved.
This carries with it additional resource implications.

that

The COR considers

3.5.
the Community eco-
management and audit scheme not only provides a useful
source of information in the context of environmental inspec-
tions, it also provides a framework to enable the controlled
installation to address their significant environmental aspects
in a systematic way which supports the ambition of striving
for a conformity of approach across Member States. The
eco-management and audit scheme can never replace environ-
mental inspections. Rules must be established governing the
objectivity of delegated inspections as well as the way in which
the authorities would supervise the inspection.

The COR considers that there should be an inspection
3.6.
plan for each controlled activity and type of installation and
this plan should contain both a minimum frequency of visit as

well as a maximum period between thorough process reviews.
Over-prescription should rightly be avoided but, at the same
time, every authorised process must be subject to a thorough,
regular review or the authorisation and conditions would be
meaningless (as both the process and the standards to be
achieved change over time). The maximum review periods
should be considered as a backstop because the review of the
conditions associated with authorisation by regulators is
needed to be ongoing.

The COR believes that maximum review period
3.7.
between thorough process reviews should also be established
for different industrial sectors. The COR envisages a role for
the European Environment Agency in this regard — perhaps
IMPEL could also advise. The following criteria could be used
for setting maximum review periods for a particular sector:

— the expected rate of technological change;

— the likelihood of operators in a sector undertaking

improvements on their own initiative;

— the risk and level of environmental impacts associated with

the sector;

— the cost

to the regulators and regulated industry of

undertaking the review;

— the need for the combination of different review periods
for different sectors to fit together in such a way as to
avoid unmanageable peaks in terms of workload;

— the ongoing review of the BAT reference documents;

— sectoral investment cycles;

— whether or not the operator has in place an environmental

management system such as EMAS or ISO 14001.

3.8.
At present, there is no requirement to make infor-
mation from inspections publicly available, although the
Freedom of Access to Information on the Environment,
Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 does allow for it. The
COR welcomes the proposal to make available to the public
details of the inspection and acknowledges this would greatly
increase public confidence in the regulatory regime.
It is
recognised that some inspections will result in information
being gathered which is regarded as either commercially
sensitive or that which, if disclosed, would cause potential
problems in relation to national security. In the cases where
businesses wish to exercise their right to privacy they would
be expected to provide evidence to the regulator to support
their position. Appeals against decisions would need to be
considered through independent arbitration, perhaps through
a judicial system.

C 374/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.12.1999

3.9.
The COR acknowledges that it is local authorities that
are the first point of contact for members of the public seeking
information about industrial installations. Where it is the case
that there is more than one enforcement agency carrying out
inspections, arrangements are needed to be made between
those agencies to ensure that local authorities can respond to
all reasonable requests for environmental information as set
out in Directive 90/313/EEC, irrespective of whether that local
authority is the enforcing agency or not.

3.10. Member States should ensure that the investigation
incidents and occurrences of non-compliance
of accidents,
with EC legislation, when they are of a serious nature, whether
these come to the attention of the authorities through a
complaint or otherwise,
is carried out by the relevant
inspecting authority in order to:

a) clarify the causes of the event and its impact on the
environment, and as appropriate, the responsibilities and
possible liabilities for the event and its consequences, and
to forward conclusions to the authority responsible for
enforcement, if different to the inspecting authority;

b) mitigate and, where possible, remedy the environmental
impacts of the event through a determination of the
appropriate actions to be taken by the operator(s) and the
authorities;

c) determine action to be taken to prevent further accidents,

incidents and occurrences of non-compliance; and

d) enable enforcement action or sanctions to proceed,

if

appropriate.

Brussels, 16 September 1999.

4. Costs to local authorities

The COR considers that even the adoption of these
4.1.
minimum standards will result in additional costs for respon-
sible authorities. It supports the suggestion for the Commission
to review the matter of financial support when the reports
from the Member States are considered for appropriate action.
The COR suggests that the polluter-pays principle should be
considered in the range of possible funding options at this
time.

5. Final comments

5.1.
The COR acknowledges that these controlled instal-
lations are important ‘wealth creators’ for the Member States
and the introduction of agreed standards for inspections
should be considered as a positive measure to ensure fair
compliance with Community-wide legislation. A further con-
sideration of installation visits should be to persuade operators
to use EMAS or a similar system.

5.2.
The COR applauds the Commission’s determination to
achieve continual improvement in the standards for environ-
mental inspections and offers its future support in this ongoing
and important area of work.

5.3.
The COR invites the European Commission to present
future recommendation(s) applicable to other areas of econ-
omic and administrative activity which impact on the environ-
ment.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Manfred DAMMEYER