Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - On the Road to Sustainable Production - Progress in implementing Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control
Date: 2003-06-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU environmental policy, accession to the European Union, environmental law, mode of production, national implementing measure, pollution control measures, prevention of pollution, sustainable development

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 19.6.2003
COM(2003) 354 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,
THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

On the Road to Sustainable Production

Progress in implementing Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution
prevention and control

   
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Purpose of the Communication............................................................................................... 4

1.

2.

Introduction................................................................................................................ 6

Progress in implementation....................................................................................... 7

SECTION A

2.1.

Member States.............................................................................................................. 7

2.1.1.

Legal transposition (communication and conformity)................................................. 8

2.1.2. Application................................................................................................................... 9

2.1.3.

First Report of representative limit values ................................................................. 10

2.2.

Candidate Countries ................................................................................................... 10

2.2.1.

Legal transposition ..................................................................................................... 11

2.2.2. Application................................................................................................................. 11

3.

4.

5.

5.1.

5.2.

5.3.

5.4.

6.

6.1.

6.2.

6.3.

7.

7.1.

7.2.

7.3.

Socio-economic impacts ........................................................................................... 12

Sustainable production in a global context............................................................ 13

SECTION B

Key interpretation issues ......................................................................................... 14

Implementation of the best available techniques by 2007 ......................................... 14

The definition of ‘best available techniques’ ............................................................. 14

Determination of production capacity........................................................................ 15

General binding rules and national emissions trading schemes................................. 16

The “Sevilla process” ............................................................................................... 16

System set-up ............................................................................................................. 17

Assessment of progress .............................................................................................. 17

Next steps................................................................................................................... 18

Future development of the directive....................................................................... 19

Aarhus Convention .................................................................................................... 19

Greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading............................................................ 20

Activities covered....................................................................................................... 21

7.3.1. Review of thresholds.................................................................................................. 21

7.3.2.

The waste management sector ................................................................................... 22

7.3.3. Additional activities ................................................................................................... 22

2

8.

9.

9.1.

9.2.

Community emission limit values ........................................................................... 22

European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER).................................................... 23

Steps taken ................................................................................................................. 24

Next steps................................................................................................................... 24

SECTION C

10.

Relation with other directives and instruments .................................................... 24

10.1.

Traditional instruments of environmental policy....................................................... 25

10.1.1. Environmental Impact Assessment Directive ............................................................ 25

10.1.2. Large Combustion Plant, Waste Incineration and Solvents Directives ..................... 25

10.1.3. Seveso II Directive..................................................................................................... 25

10.1.4. Landfill Directive ....................................................................................................... 26

10.1.5. Water Framework Directive....................................................................................... 26

10.1.6. Chemicals Policy........................................................................................................ 27

10.1.7. National Emission Ceilings Directive........................................................................ 27

10.1.8. Air Quality Directives ................................................................................................ 28

10.1.9. Recommendation on inspections ............................................................................... 28

10.2.

Non-traditional and market-based environmental policy tools.................................. 28

10.2.1. EMAS......................................................................................................................... 29

10.2.2. Environmental agreements......................................................................................... 29

10.2.3. Emissions trading....................................................................................................... 30

10.2.4. Environmental taxes, charges and subsidies .............................................................. 30

10.2.5. Environmental liability............................................................................................... 31

10.2.6. Environmental Technology Action Plan.................................................................... 31

10.3.

The Common Agricultural Policy.............................................................................. 32

10.4.

The 6th Research Framework Programme................................................................. 32

11.

Conclusion................................................................................................................. 33

ANNEXE 1…………………………………………………………………………………...35

ANNEXE 2…………………………………………………………………………………...36

3

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,
THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

On the Road to Sustainable Production

Progress in implementing Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution
prevention and control

PURPOSE OF THE COMMUNICATION

This  Communication  is  about  Integrated  Pollution  Prevention  and  Control.  In  order  to
promote effective implementation of Council Directive 96/61/EC on Integrated Pollution
Prevention  and  Control  (the  “IPPC  Directive”),  the  Commission  reports  on  progress
made  so  far  in  the  Member  States  and  Candidate  Countries.  The  Sixth  Community
Environment  Action  Programme,  adopted  in  July  2002,  confirms  that  more  effective
implementation  and  enforcement  of  Community  legislation  on  the  environment  is  a
priority.

The  Commission  has  a  clear  message  to  send  to  Member  States  and  Candidate
Countries:  a  high  level  of  protection  of  the  environment,  which  is  the  overriding
objective  of  the  Directive,  can  only  be  achieved  if  the  authorities  in  charge  of
implementation  make  the  efforts  necessary  for  correct  implementation  and  engage  in
constructive interaction with plant operators and other stakeholders. A large number of
Member States need to accelerate progress towards this objective and the majority of the
Acceding Countries must continue to significantly enhance their efforts, as agreed in the
accession  negotiations.  The  final  deadline  for  existing  installations  to  apply  the  best
available techniques and meet all other requirements is October 2007.

Under the Directive, most decisions about binding environmental standards are taken by
the  Member  States  and  their  authorities  in  line  with  the  principle  of  subsidiarity.
However,  if  it  becomes  clear  that  their  efforts  to  implement  the  Directive  are
insufficient, it might be necessary to consider a higher degree of harmonisation to ensure
reasonable  consistency  between  permits  issued  by  different  authorities,  or  alternative
ways to achieve the Directive's objectives.

The Commission wishes to launch a broad European consultation on the current state of
play  and  possible  developments  in  those  areas  of  environment  policy  which  address
impacts  of  large  industrial  point  sources  on  the  environment.  The  Commission  is
interested in the views of all stakeholders and encourages them to play an active role in
the  debate  on  implementation  issues  as  well  as  future  developments.  To  that  effect,
seven  key  questions  are  raised  in  this  Communication  and  a  consultation  web  site  has
been  launched1.  The  EU  needs  to  constantly  strive  for  an  optimal  mix  of  environment
policy  instruments,  check  that  there  is  full  consistency  between  them  and  explore  the

1

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ippc/ippc_consultation.htm

4

                                                
possibility to use new approaches providing incentives to companies to further improve
their environmental performance.

This Directive is a key instrument in the EU for the promotion of sustainable production
patterns.  For  the  industries  concerned,  higher  competitiveness  can  be  achieved  at  the
same time as a higher level  of  environmental protection is achieved.  In  addition to the
environment  policy  instruments,  the  EU  has  a  number  of  instruments  concentrating  on
the economic and social pillars of sustainability.

The Directive is therefore part of a range of contributions of the EU to the global process
initiated  at  the  World  Summit  on  Sustainable  Development  in  Johannesburg,  where  the
decision  was  made  to  create  a  10-year  framework  of  programmes  on  sustainable
consumption  and  production.  The  EU  should  play  an  active  role  in  this  process  and
promote  the  European  information  exchange  on  best  available  techniques,  so  that  non-
European countries can also reap the benefits of that ambitious work.

5

1. 

INTRODUCTION

In 1996, the Council adopted the IPPC Directive2, the purpose of which is to achieve
integrated prevention and control of pollution arising from a wide range of industrial
and  agricultural  activities3  and  a  high  level  of  protection  of  the  environment  as  a
whole.

Integrated pollution prevention and control takes place within the context of a permit
system  for  installations.  In  accordance  with  the  principle  of  subsidiarity,  Member
States have exclusive responsibility for the implementation of the Directive. The role
of  the  Commission  is  to  facilitate  exchange  of  information  at  EU  level.  Most
Member States have decided to further delegate their obligations under the Directive
to regional or local authorities. The underlying principle of the Directive is that both
operators and regulators shall take an integrated, overall look at each installation, and
its  environmental  impacts,  before  making  decisions  on  any  cost-effective  measures
that are necessary to achieve a high level of environmental protection.

Since October 1999 the Directive has applied to new installations as well as existing
installations  where  the  operator  intends  to  carry  out  changes  that  may  have
significant negative effects on human health or the environment. Member States have
a transition period until October 2007 to ensure that other existing installations fully
comply with the Directive.

The  permit  system  aims  to  ensure  that  operators  of  installations  take  preventive
measures against pollution, in particular through the application of the best available
techniques, and that no significant pollution is caused, that the waste that cannot be
avoided  is  recovered  or  safely  disposed  of,  that  energy  is  used  efficiently,  that
accidents are prevented and their consequences limited and that the site of operation
is returned to a satisfactory state when the installation closes. This integrated, holistic
approach  should  ensure  that  the  large  number  of  environmental  issues  that  may  be
relevant  for  an  installation  are  all  considered  and  that  appropriate  priorities  are  set
and the costs and advantages of the different options taken into account. In concrete
terms, this means that the Directive addresses inter alia the following environmental
aspects:

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

acidification resulting from emissions to air;

eutrophication  of  land  and  waters  resulting  from  emissions  to  air  or
water;

oxygen depletion in water;

global warming;

stratospheric ozone depletion;

2 OJ L 257, 10/10/1996, p. 26-40
3 Energy  industries,  production  and  processing  of  metals,  mineral  industries,  chemical  industries,  waste
management sector, pulp and paper industry, pre-treatment of textiles, tanning of hides, slaughterhouses and
processing of food products, disposal or recovery of animal by-products, rearing of poultry or pigs, surface
treatment using organic solvents, production of carbon/electrographite (see Annex I to the Directive)

6

                                                
– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

emissions  of  particulate matter, including  micro-particles  and  metals,  to
the air;

photochemical ozone formation;

releases  of  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic  pollutants  to  water  or
land;

generation of hazardous and non-hazardous waste;

noise and odour;

consumption of raw materials and water.

With  such  an  impressive  number  of  issues  at  stake,  the  implementation  of  this
Directive is a formidable challenge for all installations concerned and for society as a
whole. It is also a key element of several thematic strategies being developed as part
of the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme4.

2.

PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTATION

The implementation of the Directive in the EU  is still  in its  early stages. There are
relatively few new installations in the EU. Furthermore, there has only been a limited
number  of  changes  in  existing  installations  which  the  authorities  deem  to  be
substantial, thus requiring an updated permit. Therefore, it is too early to make any
projections of the ecological results of the Directive. In the Candidate Countries, the
actual implementation is at a very early stage or has yet to start.

Since  there  are  many  difficult  implementation  issues,  it  is  important  to  have
structures  in  place  at  European  level  which  allow  exchanges  of  good  practice.  An
important example of this is the IMPEL5 network. Similarly, the central role of  the
concept of ‘best available techniques’ and the lack of absolute standards laid down in
the  Directive  imply  that  a  functional  structure  for  exchanging  information  on  best
available  techniques  and  monitoring  is  crucial  to  ensure  a  “soft  harmonisation”  of
environmental  standards  in  Europe.  Annex  1  lists  the  available  structures  for
exchange of information.

2.1.

Member States

Several  Member  States  have  experienced  delays  in  enacting  national  legislation
giving effect to the Directive.  In  spite  of  that,  the  Commission  has  indications  that
for new  installations  and  extended  or  altered  installations,  implementation  so  far  is
largely satisfactory. However, many Member States are behind schedule for ensuring
timely  implementation  in  all  existing  installations,  in  particular  since  it  is  highly
desirable to allow operators of installations time for meeting all conditions laid down
in the permit.

4 OJ L 242, 10/9/2002, p. 1-15
5 The Member States’ informal network of authorities responsible for implementation and enforcement of EU

environmental law

7

                                                
Member States are required to reply to a questionnaire6 containing detailed questions
about  their  implementation  of  the  Directive  by  September  2003.  That  exercise  will
allow a more thorough evaluation of Member States’ compliance with the Directive.

2.1.1.

Legal transposition (communication and conformity)

The  deadline  for  transposing  the  Directive  into  national  legislation  expired  on
30 October 1999. Very few Member States managed to meet this deadline. In April
2003  one  Member  State,  Luxembourg,  had  still  not  enacted  complete  national
legislation. In March 2002, the Court of Justice ruled against Greece, Spain and the
United Kingdom (for Northern Ireland). A case against Luxembourg is still pending.
Spain and Belgium completed transposition for the whole national territory in 2002,
and the United Kingdom and Greece did so in March 2003.

In addition, Ireland applies interim legislation as their transposition of the Directive
has been delayed and Italy has only transposed the Directive for existing installations
although they do apply the legislation in question to new installations on an interim
basis.

The  Commission  has  checked  the  conformity  of  national  legislation  with  the
provisions of the Directive for Finland, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands,
the  United  Kingdom,  France  and  Germany.  For  Portugal,  Spain  and  Belgium,  this
work has not yet been completed.

In  all  the  countries  investigated,  except  for  the  UK,  the  Commission  has  identified
major  suspected  or  confirmed  shortcomings  in  the  legislation.  Common  and/or
important shortcomings include the following:

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

no definition of ‘best available techniques’, which creates legal uncertainty as
to the basis for permit conditions;

no  ban  against  prescribing  technologies  in  the  permit,  which  could  severely
restrict the operator’s flexibility and innovation potential;

no requirement that  the  authority  take  account  of  the  technical  characteristics
of  the  installation  concerned,  its  geographical  location  and  the  local
environmental  conditions  when  it  determines  the  conditions  of  the  permit
decision;

insufficient  information  requirements  for  the  permit  application  and  no
obligation  on  the  operator  to  produce  a  non-technical  summary  of  the
application;

insufficient  content  requirements  for  the  permit  decision,  e.g.  with  regard  to
measures  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  obligation  to  return  the  site  of
operation to a satisfactory state upon definitive cessation of activities;

– 

inadequate requirements as regards monitoring and reporting of releases;

6 Commission  Decision  1999/391/EC  of  31  May  1999  concerning  the  questionnaire  relating  to  Council
Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC), OJ L 148, 15/06/1999, p.
39-43

8

                                                
– 

– 

incomplete list of activities covered;

no  provision  to  ensure  compliance  by  existing  installations  no  later  than
October 2007 and subsequent periodical review of permits.

The Commission has not yet brought any case to the Court of Justice for deficiencies
in Member States’ legislation. So far, Finland has accepted all the points made by the
Commission,  and  changed  their  legislation  accordingly,  and  Austria  and  Sweden
have  accepted  most  points.  Discussions  with  the  other  countries  are  at  an  earlier
stage.

2.1.2.

Application

A  study  carried  out  for  the  Commission  investigated  compliance  with  the
requirements  of  the  Directive  for  49  cases  where  permits  had  been  issued  in  2000
and 2001 in 11 Member States7. It reported that compliance was largely satisfactory.
The  study  covered  such  aspects  as  the  completeness  of  applications,  coordination
between authorities, monitoring requirements, review periods and consultation of the
public.

However,  certain  ambiguities  in  the  Directive  give  rise  to  difficulties  in  the
implementation,  unless  the  Member  State  has  adopted  more  specific  provisions.
Difficult issues include the following:

– 

– 

How should the threshold criteria in the list of activities be interpreted in order
to  assess  whether  or  not  an  installation  is  covered  by  the  provisions  of  the
Directive?

How  should  the  boundaries  of  an  installation  be  drawn,  given  that  the
definition includes all directly associated activities with a technical link?

–  When  should  a  change  be  considered  as  “substantial”?  (In  which  case,  an

update of the permit is required.)

– 

How should emission limit values be derived from the levels for best available
techniques  indicated  in  ‘BREF’  documents  (see  chapter 6),  which  are  often
expressed  as  ranges,  e.g.  10-100 mg/m3?  This  question  is  complicated  by  the
fact  that  the  Directive  does  not  harmonise  the  ways  in  which  emission  limit
values are expressed and enforced in the Member States.

–  What is meant by “return the site to a satisfactory state” and how should this

principle be applied in the context of the permit?

– 

– 

How should permit conditions be written for such aspects as accidents, waste
minimisation and energy efficiency?

How  and  how  often  should  inspections  be  carried  out  and  what  kind  of
information should be included in monitoring reports?

7 Not Austria, Greece, Italy and Portugal as no permits had been issued in accordance with IPPC legislation.

9

                                                
–  When should companies that exceed their limit values be prosecuted and what

other enforcement measures are effective?

Question 1a: Is  there a  need for  any  additional  action at  EU  level  to  address
implementation  difficulties  or  should  current  and  future  Member  States  deal
with them individually?

Question 1b: If there is such a need, what type of action would be appropriate?

2.1.3.

First Report of representative limit values

The Directive requires Member States to report representative limit values in permits
for new and existing installations every three years. These reports give an indication
of how the Directive is implemented in different countries. The first such reporting
exercise  took  place  in  2001.  To  facilitate  the  work  of  the  Member  States,  the
Commission  developed  a  questionnaire  that  included  a  selection  of  activities  and
pollutants.  No  Report  was  submitted  by  Luxembourg.  The  Belgian  Report  only
covered one part of the territory and the questionnaire was not used, which made it
impracticable for the Commission to process and analyse the data. The UK only used
the questionnaire for part of its Report.

The  purpose  of  this  exercise  is  to  collect  comparable  data  in  order  to  verify  the
expected convergence of limit values within the Union. However, as the first reports
clearly showed, it is impossible in most cases to meet this aim. The reason is not that
Member States have not made a real effort, but rather that they all use very different
ways of expressing limits in permits, which they are perfectly entitled to do, since the
Directive does not require harmonisation of these diverse practices.

The  usefulness  of  the  limit  value  reports  is  thus  limited.  Possibly,  certain  trends
within Member States can be monitored and some data could be used as a basis for
future proposals for EU-wide limit values (see chapter 8). However, the Commission
is not in favour of imposing  a burden on  Member  States that is disproportionate to
the value of the exercise and will therefore seek to make this exercise better adapted
to the potential benefits.8

2.2.

Candidate Countries

Since ten Acceding Countries are to join the Union in May 2004, the development of
realistic  implementation  programmes  has  been  a  crucial  task  for  these  countries.
Particularly  important  elements  in  these  programmes  are  the  training  of  staff  at
competent authorities and raising awareness at the installations concerned.

For  the  competent  authorities  the  new  permit  system  generally  implies  radical
changes  compared  to  the  previous  system.  They  have  to  get  used  to  an  integrated
approach  where  all  environmental  aspects  are  considered  simultaneously  and  site-
specific  issues  are  taken  into  account.  They  also  have  to  engage  in  a  constructive
dialogue  with  operators  and  “negotiate”  the  conditions  of  the  permit.  For  this,  a

8

Increasing the usefulness of reported data is also the aim of the Commission’s ongoing review of the entire
system for reporting implementation of EU environmental legislation.

10

                                                
thorough  knowledge  of  industrial  processes  and  the  best  available  techniques  is
required. These changes are, however, not unique to Candidate Countries; they also
occur in several of the current Member States.

A  number  of  Candidate  Countries  have  increased  their  know-how  through
comprehensive twinning projects with Member States, either as bilateral cooperation
or within the EU Phare Programme.

Some Candidate Countries requested transition periods for the implementation of the
Directive  at  new  and/or  existing  installations.  In  the  negotiations,  the  Commission
and the Council insisted on compliance for new installations, i.e. installations which
came on stream in 2000 or later, upon accession.

However,  for  some  countries,  transition  periods  for  up  to  20%  of  the  existing
installations  have  been  accepted.  For  the  installations  concerned,  adaptation  is  a
major challenge but they do not cause any serious transboundary (environmental or
commercial) effects. These installations must receive a permit by the end of October
2007  but  they  will  not  be  obliged  to  meet  emission  limit  values  based  on  the  best
available techniques until 2008 – 2012 depending on the transition period agreed in
each  case.  The  countries  that  have  been  granted  transition  periods  are  Poland,
Slovenia,  Slovakia  and  Latvia.  Transition  periods  have  also  been  requested  by
Romania and Bulgaria.

2.2.1.

Legal transposition

As at February 2003, full transposition of the Directive has been achieved in eight of
the  thirteen  Candidate  Countries.  In  three  of  the  Acceding  Countries  –  Cyprus,
Slovakia and Slovenia – transposition has yet to take place. The Candidate Countries
have mostly opted for a system of integrated permits, with the exception of Cyprus
and  Malta. 
on
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ippc/ippc_cc.htm.

country-by-country 

overview 

available 

A 

is 

2.2.2.

Application

To date, only a limited number of pilot permits have been issued in some of the
Candidate Countries.

In the spring and summer of 2002, the Commission and the Council carried out “peer
reviews”  of  the  administrative  capacity  in  place  for  implementing  the  Directive  in
each of the ten Acceding Countries.  It  was found that the Candidate  Countries still
need to strengthen their administration, notably at regional and local level. Staff still
needs to be trained in issuing integrated permits and in several cases staff increases
may be necessary.

In  the  light  of  this,  it  was  concluded  that  some  Candidate  Countries  will  face
significant  problems  in  implementing  the  Directive  for  all  new  installations  by
accession.  The  peer  reviews  also  resulted  in  recommendations  for  steps  to  remedy
identified problems. The Commission monitors the progress in this respect, discusses
possible deficiencies with the Candidate Countries and regularly reports its findings
to the Council.

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  indications  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  operators
concerned in these countries are relatively well-informed of their future obligations.

11

3.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS

The  implementation  of  the  Directive  could  have  considerable  socio-economic
impacts.  The  Commission  has  made  a  study  of  the  impact  of  best  available
techniques on the competitiveness of individual plants9, which found, inter alia, that

– 

– 

– 

there is no evidence that best available techniques prevented those companies
using  them  and  achieving  good  environmental  standards  from  remaining
competitive both nationally and internationally;

many plants that perform well on the environmental front are able to use this as
a competitive strength;

it does not follow, however, that early introduction of best available techniques
by  other  plants  in  the industries studied  would  also  have  little  or  no  negative
impact on their competitiveness.

One  of  the  main  conclusions  of  the  study,  and  of  a  stakeholder  workshop  held  in
May 200210, is that investment cycles are a key factor for the competent authority to
take into account. It is clear that a planned renewal of plant machinery is an optimal
moment  to  make  environmental  investments.  However,  industries  with  relatively
long  investment  cycles  have  less  flexibility  in  combining  these  investments
compared to industries with  shorter investment cycles.  Authorities  should  therefore
discuss  the  planning  of  investments  with  operators  and  balance  any  economic  or
financial  disadvantages  against  the  needs  of  the  environment,  bearing  in  mind  that
installations must operate in full compliance with the provisions of the Directive no
later than 30 October 2007 (see also chapters 5.1 and 5.2).

The  study  also  found  that  implementation  of  the  best  available  techniques  is
facilitated  by  a  number  of  skill  factors  characterising  well  performing  installations,
including training, innovation and management.

There can be specific cases where the operator does not have the necessary means to
upgrade the installation  to  the  best  available  techniques.  This  might  be  a  particular
problem in regions whose development is lagging behind, or in declining industrial
regions.  When  operators  are  not  able  to  meet  the  environmental  standards  required
by  the  Directive,  Member  States  should  be  encouraged  to  actively  promote
environmentally  and  economically  beneficial  industrial  conversion,  using  the
Structural Funds available in certain parts of the Union for this purpose.11

The Directive mainly covers large industrial and agricultural installations. However,
even if the Commission has no precise figures it is clear that small and medium-sized
enterprises  (SMEs)  make  up  a  significant  part  of  all  IPPC  installations  in  Europe.

9 The Impact of Best Available Techniques (BAT) on the Competitiveness of European Industry (case studies of
the cement, non-ferrous metals and pulp and paper industries), David Hitchens et. al, Institute for Prospective
Technological  Studies,  November  2001.  Available  on 
internet:  http://www.jrc.es/pages/f-
publications.html

the 

10 The Economic Consequences of the IPPC Directive,

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/environment/index_home/ippc/bat_conference.htm

11 The  European  Regional  Development  Fund,  for  example,  is  intended  to  help  to  redress  the  main  regional
imbalances in the Community through participation in the development and structural adjustment of regions
whose development is lagging behind and in the conversion of declining industrial regions.

12

                                                
Making  SMEs  comply  with  environmental  legislation  is  a  major  challenge12  and
therefore Member States may need to give special assistance to operators  who lack
the  resources  to  cope  with  the  administrative  burden  and  the  environmental
challenges.  Any  assistance  provided  must  of  course  comply  with  competition  rules
(see also chapter 10.2.4).

Question 2: What support measures should be taken at EU, national, regional
or local level to facilitate compliance by installations, in particular SMEs?

4.

SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT

When  the  Directive  was  conceived,  legislators  expected  that  the  development  and
exchange of information at EU level about best available techniques would promote
the worldwide dissemination of pollution prevention and control techniques used in
the Union.13 The Commission has also noticed  that  interest  from  outside the  EU in
the ‘BREF’ documents published on the Internet is already quite high.

It is of paramount importance that the EU continues to work for high environmental
standards in industry located in other parts of the world, since many environmental
problems are global or regional and most of the industries concerned by the Directive
are exposed to fierce  competition from production sites outside the Union.  In some
sectors, a degree of “eco-dumping” might take place  and  any such  tendencies must
be  avoided  in  order  to  achieve  environmentally,  economically  and  socially
sustainable development.

At the World Summit on Sustainable Development that took place in Johannesburg,
South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002, participating countries agreed on
an EU proposal for a 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption
and  production.  The  industrialised  countries  agreed  to  take  the  lead  in  this  global
effort to correct current unsustainable patterns and help developing countries put in
place  policies  and  tools  to  this  end.  The  Directive  and  the  dissemination  of  best
available techniques could play a role in this context.

Question 3: What role can the Directive and its exchange of information on best
available  techniques  play  in  the  international  arena  to  promote  sustainable
production?

In order to raise global awareness of the EU policy addressing pollution from major
industrial  point  sources,  with  emphasis  on  the  IPPC  Directive  and  the  exchange  of
information  on  best  available  techniques,  and  to  obtain  information  on  policies
applied  outside  Europe,  the  Commission  and  the  Spanish  Presidency  organised  an

12 According  to  the  report  European  SMEs  and  Social  and  Environmental  Responsibility  (Observatory  of

European SMEs, 2002, available on the internet:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/enterprise_policy/analysis/observatory.htm),  the  majority  of  SMEs  are
‘vulnerably compliant’ as far as the existing legislation and regulations are concerned, in the sense that they
do not know enough about environmental legislation to ensure that they are always compliant (p. 35).

13 This aspiration was reflected in one of the recitals to the Directive

13

                                                
international  conference 
for  policy-makers  at  Environment  Ministries  and
Environment  Protection  Agencies  in  April  2002  in  Seville.14  A  brief  summary  of
information  presented  at  the  conference  by  representatives  of  the  USA,  Canada,
Japan, China and India is given in Annex 2.

5.

KEY INTERPRETATION ISSUES

The implementation of the Directive in Member States and Candidate Countries has
revealed  several  ambiguities.  A  number  of  recurrent  legal  issues  need  to  be
uniformly interpreted and applied in the EU and in the Candidate Countries, some of
which are described below.

5.1.

Implementation of the best available techniques by 2007

The  Directive  states  that  by  30  October  2007  existing  installations  must  operate  in
accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  Directive.  This  is  a  clearly  formulated
obligation. It is therefore not sufficient to simply issue a permit by 30 October 2007,
giving  the  installation  additional  time  before  operating  in  full  compliance  with  the
Directive. The basic obligations of operators include above all the duty to take all the
appropriate  preventive  measures  against  pollution,  in  particular  through  application
of the best available techniques.

When  setting  the  permit  conditions  based  on  best  available  techniques  (BAT),  the
competent  authority  shall  take  into  account  the  technical  characteristics  of  the
installation  concerned,  its  geographical  location  and  the  local  environmental
conditions.  The  notion  of  BAT  and  the  ‘BREF’  documents  are  by  nature  dynamic
and sufficiently flexible to allow the operator and the authorities to take into account
constraints resulting from basic choices in the production process or plant layout and
to respect cost efficiency considerations. (See also chapter 5.2)

In  order  to  achieve  full  compliance  with  the  Directive  no  later  than  30  October
200715,  both  operators  and  competent  authorities  have  to  bear  in  mind  the  time
needed  for  the  upgrading  of  existing  installations  and  take  appropriate  action  at  a
sufficiently early stage.

5.2.

The definition of ‘best available techniques’

Over the years, various definitions of BAT have been used in the framework of EU
legislation  as  well  as  in  other  contexts  such  as  international  conventions.  The
Directive  includes  a  comprehensive  definition  that  is  supplemented  by  12  specific
considerations listed in an annex. It provides for the determination of BAT not only
in a general sense (i.e. the aim of the “Sevilla Process” – see below) but in specific
cases as well.

This means that BAT can actually vary from one plant to another because costs and
benefits  can  obviously  vary.  The  fact  that  costs  and  benefits  are  elements  in  the
definition  of  BAT  also  means  that  BAT  inevitably  is  a  balance  between  different

14 Proceedings available on the internet: http://eippcb.jrc.es/pages/doc/PCIPsevilla/mainpage.htm
15 The exception being those installations in Candidate Countries that have been given an extra transition period

beyond 2007.

14

                                                
environmental impacts and associated costs. Therefore, techniques may very well be
better  than  BAT  in  terms  of  their  overall  environmental  performance  or  for  one
particular environmental aspect.

The definition of BAT requires that the technique is developed on a scale that allows
implementation in the sector. The evidence to support a technique as BAT can come
from  one  or  more  plants  applying  the  technique  somewhere  in  the  world.  In  some
rare cases, even pilot projects can provide a sufficient basis.

It is expected that process-integrated measures will generally have a positive or more
or less neutral impact on the profitability of enterprises. “End-of-pipe” measures, on
the  other  hand,  often  have  a  negative  short-term  impact  on  profitability.  It  is
inevitable that some BAT will not have any payback at all, but their societal benefits
outweigh  the  costs  incurred  by  the  operator,  in  keeping  with  the  polluter  pays
principle.

The  determination  of  BAT  involves  an  assessment  of  the  estimated  net  costs  of
implementing a technique in relation to the environmental benefits achieved through
its implementation. A second economic test relates to whether the technique can be
introduced  in  the  relevant  sector  under  economically  viable  conditions.  This
affordability test can only be legitimately applied on a European sectoral16 level, not
to  individual  installations.  If  the  techniques  are  considered  too  expensive  for  the
sector as a whole, then they are not BAT. However, by taking the sector and not the
individual installation as a basis for this test, there can be no perverse effect whereby
installations  in  a  difficult  financial  situation  are  allowed  to  continue  to  pollute
because they cannot afford to take the required measures.

5.3.

Determination of production capacity

In  the  list  of  activities  covered  by  the  Directive  (Annex  I  to  the  Directive),
production capacity, expressed for instance as tonnes per day, is frequently  used as
the decisive criterion for  determining  the  scope of  the  Directive.  It  is  important  for
there to be a common understanding of how the production capacity of an installation
is to be calculated.

In sectors such as the textiles and leather industries, most installations do not operate
continuously for 24 hours a day. Many smaller units do however operate flexibly on
the basis of current market demand, with the result that normal working hours may
be exceeded at very short notice. Declared  working  practice, or  output,  is therefore
an unreliable guide to the real capacity of an installation and does not fully reflect the
pollution potential of the installation.

The  only  technically  coherent  meaning  of  “capacity”  is,  therefore,  the  capacity  at
which  the  installation  is  capable  of  being  operated.  That  is  to  say,  it  is  the  rated
capacity of the installation to operate 24 hours a day, provided that the equipment is
capable of being operated in that way.

(See also chapter 7.3.1.)

16 “Sector” should be understood as a relatively high level of disaggregation, e.g. the sector producing chlorine

and caustic soda rather than the whole chemical sector.

15

                                                
5.4.

General binding rules and national emissions trading schemes

The Directive offers Member States the possibility of using “general binding rules”
for certain sectors instead of including requirements in individual permits. However,
it is important to note that the general binding rules approach is limited to particular
permit  requirements,  such  as  emission  limit  values  or  equivalent  parameters  and
technical measures that are identical for several or all installations within a sector.

National emissions trading schemes are therefore compatible with the Directive only
in  so  far  as  they  allow  nothing  more  than  trade  in  emissions  that  remain  after  the
implementation  of  BAT  (by  2007  for  existing  installations).  This  means  that  the
requirement to operate in accordance with BAT-based emission limit values applies
to all operators including buyers of emission allowances.

Further  consideration  on  the  relationship  between  this  Directive  and  emissions
trading is presented in chapters 7.2 and 10.2.3.

6.

THE “SEVILLA PROCESS”

The information exchange on best available techniques and monitoring, provided for
in  the  Directive,  is  sometimes  called  the  “Sevilla  process”  due  to  the  fact  that  the
work is co-ordinated and facilitated by the European IPPC Bureau, which is part of
the  Institute  for  Prospective  Technological  Studies  at  the  Commission’s  Joint
Research Centre, based in Seville.

This exercise is a key driver for improved environmental performance as it involves
systematic  sector-by-sector  benchmarking  and  comprehensive  screening  and
assessment  of  techniques  applied.  The  information  exchange  is  also  a  highly  cost-
effective  activity,  as,  in  its  absence,  each  Member  State  would  be  required  to  do  a
corresponding  identification/determination  of  BAT  in  order  to  fulfil  its  obligations
under the Directive.

The main result of the information exchange are the so-called ‘BREF’ documents (as
in BAT Reference documents). These documents are referred to in the annex to the
Directive which outlines the considerations that are relevant in the determination of
BAT. They are to be taken into account by competent authorities when considering
permit  applications  and  establishing  permit  conditions.  Irrespective  of  this  legal
aspect, it is anticipated that the quality of the documents will make them a key tool
for  authorities  in  the  permit  issuing  process.  In  addition,  operators  are  expected  to
consult the relevant documents when they prepare their applications. The public and
green  non-governmental  organisations  may  also  wish  to  use  them  to  verify  that
conditions in permits are reasonable.

However,  BREF  documents  do  not  set  any  legally  binding  standards.  They  simply
provide reference information. Since authorities are also expected to take account of
the technical characteristics of the installation, its geographical location and the local
environmental  conditions,  BREF  documents  cannot  be  the  only  basis  for  emission
limit values and other permit conditions.

This  European  information  exchange  has  also  led  to  the  creation  of  a  number  of
informal  networks  of  experts  in  industry,  regulatory  bodies  and  research  institutes.

16

These networks can be  used  by authorities should  information in BREF documents
be incomplete, outdated or difficult to understand.

6.1.

System set-up

For  each  BREF  document,  the  European  IPPC  Bureau  co-ordinates  a  technical
working  group  composed  of  experts  from  industry,  authorities,  research  institutes
and  non-governmental  environmental  organisations  from  the  EU,  EFTA  and
Candidate  Countries.  It  usually  takes  two  to  three  years  for  a  working  group  to
complete  a  BREF  document.  While  consensus  in  the  group  is  sought,  it  is  not  a
prerequisite and it is the task of the Commission to reflect any differences in opinion
in the document and to include the justification for any divergent views.

The  more  strategic  role  of  the  Information  Exchange  Forum,  which  has  the  same
broad representation as the working  groups, is to  generally oversee  the information
exchange process.

The Commission publishes the BREF documents on the Internet17 and on CD-ROM
following  a  formal Commission Decision.  Due to  concerns  over  quality,  timeliness
and  resources,  the  Commission  does  not  translate  the  full  texts,  which  are  always
drafted  in  English,  into  the  other  official  EU  languages.  It  only  translates  selected
chapters,  in  particular  the  executive  summaries.  Member  States  and  Candidate
Countries are encouraged to provide additional translation of the documents.

6.2.

Assessment of progress

The Commission’s assessment of the achievements since the start of this ambitious
information exchange18 in 1997 is largely positive. An interesting observation is that
in  each  Member  State  some  unique  best  available  techniques  exist.  This  backdrop
shows the benefits of the whole exercise for all countries involved.

So far, fifteen BREFs have been produced covering the production of iron and steel,
cement  and  lime,  pulp  and  paper,  non-ferrous  metals,  glass,  textiles,  leather  and
large-volume  organic  chemicals  as  well  as  cooling  systems,  ferrous  metals
processing, refineries, the chlor-alkali industry, intensive rearing of poultry and pigs
and waste water and waste gas treatment in the chemical sector.19

the 

industries  concerned 

The  contribution  made  by 
the  most
comprehensive information that the Commission receives. Although the existence of
environmental  performance  data  necessary  for  the  assessment  of  techniques  varies
significantly  from  one  sector  to  another,  the  data  made  available  by  the  industries
concerned,  i.e.  operators  as  well  as  technology  suppliers,  is  usually  sufficient  to
enable  sound  assessments  to  be  made.  However,  economic  data  are  frequently  not
made  available,  and  when  they  are,  it  is  usually  not  possible  to  cross-check  them
with  data  from  other  sources.  This  can  be  an  obstacle  to  a  more  objective

is  usually 

17 http://eippcb.jrc.es
18 As  an  example,  the  process  of  producing  the  BREF  document  on  refineries  entailed  17  meetings,  17
visits/meetings at European  refineries  (8  countries  /  11  companies),  some  350  documents/books  consulted,
some 4300 comments made on 4 drafts, around 1800 e-mails (only counting those that the IPPC Bureau was
involved in) and some 800 visits to the members’ internet workspace.

19 The  various  working  groups,  their  members  and  the  current  status  of  their  work  is  available  on

http://eippcb.jrc.es

17

                                                
determination of the best available techniques as economic aspects are a core part of
the definition.

By and large, industries are very active and quite supportive. They feel that the high
technical quality of the resulting BREF document justifies their efforts, particularly
as  the  document  is  likely  to  improve  authorities’  understanding  of  industrial
processes  and  lead  to  a  more  constructive  dialogue  with  regulators.  With  regard  to
the provision of economic data, industry finds it difficult to strike a balance between
the  desirable  transparency  of  the  “Sevilla  process”  and  the  sometimes  confidential
character of the data.

The  contribution  of  Member  States’  experts  is  a  crucial  supplementary  element  to
that  of  the  industries.  The  level  of  activity  of  Member  States’  experts  varies  from
group  to  group,  but  in  general  the  contributions  of  German  and  Dutch  experts  are
particularly significant.  Some Member  States also  send  national experts  who  act as
the “authors” of the BREF documents in Seville. In this respect, the Commission is
particularly grateful for the support received from German and UK administrations.

The Candidate Countries still do not participate as actively as the Member States in
general  and  this  poses  a  twofold  problem:  less  expert  input  and  the  risk  of  lower
acceptance of the BREF documents in the Candidate Countries.

Finally, environmental organisations and their experts also have an important role to
play, both for their input and for the external credibility of the information exchange.
Overall they are reasonably satisfied with its transparency but they have criticised the
huge difference between the resources that they can put into this work and the much
greater resources that industry is able to mobilise.

6.3.

Next steps

Currently, twelve BREF documents plus a BAT document on mining activities20 are
in progress and a further five documents will  be  launched. The Commission puts a
great deal of effort into minimising delays, but it is dependent on the collaboration of
Member States and industries. The overall aim is to have all first-edition documents
ready by the end of 2005.

It is important that BREF documents be reviewed to ensure that they are up-to-date.
The  Information Exchange  Forum  has accepted  the Commission’s  proposal  to  start
the revision process in 2003 with the Cement and Lime document.

The  review  of  the  first  edition  of  documents  should  focus  on  using  any  new  and
relevant emission, consumption or economic data as well as applying the upcoming
reference document on economic and cross-media issues and its toolbox to come to
more  objective  conclusions  on  best  available  techniques  and  eliminate  divergent
views.  Moreover,  providing  more  comprehensive  guidance  on  monitoring  of
emissions  is  a  priority.  This  aspect  has  not  been  well  addressed  by  the  technical
working groups involved in the first edition of BREF documents. Finally, issues such
as  energy  use,  noise  and  environmental  management  could  generally  be  more
extensively addressed in the sector-specific documents.

20 Produced in accordance with the Commission’s Communication on the "Safe operation of mining activities:

a follow-up to recent mining accidents", COM (2000) 664 final

18

                                                
The  IMPEL  network  has  plans  to  carry  out  a  survey  among  users  of  BREF
documents in the Member States’ authorities, although the timing and details of this
survey have yet to be fixed.

Another  issue  to  consider  is  the  extent  to  which  BREF  documents  can  be  used  for
purposes  other  than  implementing  the  Directive,  and  whether  any  particular  action
should be taken to promote such additional uses.

Question  4:  Is  the  information  exchange  on  best  available  techniques  optimal
and are the BREF documents an effective implementation tool?

7.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DIRECTIVE

The Commission has proposed two amendments to the Directive: one strengthening
public  participation  in  the  permit  issuing  process,  the  other  essentially  removing
greenhouse  gas  emissions  from  the  scope  of  the  Directive  in  so  far  as  they  are
addressed  by  the  proposed  Directive  on  greenhouse  gas  emissions  trading.  The
Council and the European Parliament have agreed on the former amendment (formal
adoption is pending) whereas they are still discussing the latter.

In addition, even if the first implementation questionnaire (see chapter 2.1) is mainly
retrospective, it also invites views on the future, since it includes a question about the
effectiveness  of  the  Directive  in  comparison  with  other  environmental  instruments.
In the second quarter of 2004, the Commission will present a Report on the results of
that survey. Another issue that needs to be considered is the list of activities covered
in  Annex  I  to  the  Directive.  In  line  with  the  Community’s  Action  Plan  on  Better
Regulation21, any proposal should be preceded by an appropriate impact assessment.

7.1.

Aarhus Convention

The  purpose  of  amending  the  provisions  on  public  participation  in  the  permit
procedure  is  to  take  one  of  a  number  of  steps  that  are  necessary  to  enable  the
Community  to  ratify  the  Aarhus  Convention22  signed  by  the  Community  in  1998.
The  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  have  agreed  on  a  number  of  extended
rights for the public, such as23

– 

– 

the application for  a permit has to  include an  outline  of  the  main  alternatives
that the applicant may have studied;

any  draft  decision  shall  be  published  so  as  to  give  the  public  the  chance  to
comment;

21 COM(2002) 278 final
22 Convention  on  Access  to  Information,  Public  Participation  in  Decision-Making  and  Access  to  Justice  in

Environmental Matters (http://www.unece.org/env/pp)

23 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council providing for public participation in
respect  of  the  drawing  up  of  certain  plans  and  programmes  relating  to  the  environment  and  amending
Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, COM(2000) 839 final, OJ C 154 E, 29/05/2001, p. 123-128;
Result of conciliation:
http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/oeil/oeil_ViewDNL.ProcViewByNum?Lang=2&ProcNum=COD/2000/0331

19

                                                
– 

– 

– 

the authority shall publish the reasons and considerations on which the permit
decision is based;

“public 

concerned”, 

the 
environmental  non-governmental
organisations, shall in principle have access to a review procedure to challenge
the substantive or procedural legality of decisions or omissions;

including 

stricter  requirements for consultation of the  public  in  other  Member  States  in
case of transboundary emissions.

The  scope  of  application  of  these  provisions  has  been  limited  to  new  installations,
existing  installations  planning  to  carry  out  a  substantial  change  and  other  existing
installations  causing  significant  pollution.  Thus,  consultation  will  not  always  be
compulsory for old installations. When trying to obtain the  right to be  consulted in
the context of a permit update, the public may find it difficult to demonstrate that a
planned  change  actually  is  "substantial"  or  that  the  installation  causes  "significant"
pollution.

7.2.

Greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading

Activities that are required to have a  permit in  accordance  with the  IPPC Directive
emit  more  than  a  third  of  all  greenhouse  gas  emissions  in  the  Union,  all  sources
included. The Commission has proposed that not all installations shall be required to
implement  best  available  techniques  to  prevent  or  control  their  greenhouse  gas
emissions.24 Instead, if they receive a greenhouse gas emissions permit, they will in
principle  be  able  to  choose  whether  to  reduce  their  emissions  to  the  amount  of
allowances allocated to them or to less than that level, or keep emissions above that
level and buy allowances from someone else.

The logic behind this novel approach in EU environmental policy is that it is possible
to achieve emission reductions in a more cost-effective way and that, in principle, a
cap-and-trade  system  can  offer  guaranteed  results  in  terms  of  total  emissions,
something that a permit system based on best available techniques cannot achieve.

However, there are certain caveats in relation to this “freedom”: firstly, the emissions
trading  scheme  would  apply  without  prejudice  to  the  IPPC  Directive’s  current
obligations  in respect of  types  of  pollution  other  than  global  warming.  Thus,  if  the
operator  has  to  take  measures  to  bring  down  other  emissions,  and  incidentally
greenhouse gas emissions drop or rise, the operator has no other choice than to take
these measures.

Secondly,  it  may  be  necessary  to  lay  down  permit  conditions  for  some  greenhouse
gases other than carbon dioxide, in order to ensure that trading does not give rise to
any significant local pollution.

24 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse
gas  emission  allowance  trading  within  the  Community  and  amending  Council  Directive  96/61/EC,
COM(2001) 581 final,  OJ C 75 E,  26/03/2002,  p. 33-44  -  see  in  particular  Article  25.  Note  that  all
greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol are covered by the IPPC Directive given the broad definition of
‘pollution’ in the Directive.

20

                                                
Thirdly,  the  present  requirements  for  the  efficient  use  of  energy  in  the  form  of
electricity, steam, hot water etc. remain. Only direct emissions of carbon dioxide on
the site, in combustion or other processes, are affected by the proposed amendment.25
This  has  implications  in  particular  for  installations  consuming  all  the  electricity,
steam etc. they produce.

General  aspects  of  emissions  trading  versus  regulation  based  on  best  available
techniques are discussed in chapter 10.2.3.

7.3.

Activities covered

Many  Member  States  also  apply  similar  permit  systems  based  on  best  available
techniques for activities not covered by the Directive – either the sector as such is not
covered  or  the  Directive’s  threshold  in  terms  of  production  capacity  (or  similar)  is
higher.  This  begs  the  question  of  whether  or  not  additional  activities  should  be
subjected to the harmonised  rules of the Directive, in  keeping  with  the principle of
subsidiarity.

When considering extending the scope of the Directive with the aim of enhancing the
protection of human health and the environment, it is necessary to bear in mind that
Member  States  and  Candidate  Countries  do  not  have  unlimited  administrative
resources  for  ensuring  effective  implementation.  Even  if  the  integrated  approach
leads  to  a  rationalisation  of  the  regulatory  tasks,  the  permit  system  remains  highly
administration-intensive for both operators and authorities. If their limited resources
are  dispersed  on  additional  installations,  there  is  a  risk  that  the  authorities  will  not
devote  adequate  resources  to  the  installations  that  have  or  risk  having  the  greatest
impact.

7.3.1.

Review of thresholds

The  Commission  is  aware  of  a  number  of  activities  for  which  the  thresholds  in
Annex  I  to  the  Directive  are  ambiguous  or  even  unreasonable.  There  is  thus  a  risk
that installations having relatively significant environmental impacts fall outside the
scope of the Directive in its practical application, or conversely installations having
relatively insignificant environmental impacts fall inside the scope of the Directive.
There  is  also  a  risk  that  differing  interpretations  could  lead  to  distortions  in  the
Internal Market.

Therefore,  the  Commission  intends  to  examine  the  way  in  which  the  threshold
criteria  are  designed  for  sectors  such  as  foundries,  smithies,  tanneries,  food
processing, textile finishing, manufacture of ceramic products and electroplating.

It  is  also  appropriate  to  examine  whether  in  some  cases  it  would  be  more
straightforward to have production output thresholds over a given  period  instead of
production capacity thresholds.

25 According to the political agreement of the Council (http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/emission.htm)
Member  States  may  still  choose  to  impose  requirements  relating  to  energy  efficiency  in  respect  of
combustion units or other units emitting carbon dioxide on the site.

21

                                                
7.3.2.

The waste management sector

Currently,  the  Directive  covers  the  waste  management  sector  in  a  very  fragmented
way.  In  addition,  the  distinction  made  between  disposal  and  recovery  operations
sometimes requires difficult legal assessments.

The  Commission  sees  it  as  important  to  ensure  a  high  level  of  environmental
protection  for  waste  management  facilities  in  the  EU  in  order  to  avoid  the  risk  of
eco-dumping  in  cross-border  shipments  of  waste  within  the  Union.  To  this  effect,
including  in  the  scope  of  the  Directive  all  waste  management  installations  with  a
capacity exceeding appropriate thresholds is an option to consider.

For  waste  incinerators,  an  alignment  of  Annex I  of  the  Directive  with  the  scope  of
the new Waste Incineration Directive26 should also be considered.

7.3.3.

Additional activities

In  the  light  of  the  above,  the  Commission  is  prepared  to  consider  some  additional
activities for possible inclusion in the Directive.  One  such  activity is  aquaculture27,
which is reported to be a rapidly developing industry with significant environmental
impacts.

To further promote streamlining of permit procedures, the Commission will examine
if  there  is  a  need  for  stronger  coherence  between  the  list  of  activities  under  this
Directive and the list of projects subject to  environmental impact assessment under
Directive 85/337/EEC28.

Question 5: Is the scope of the Directive, in terms of activities and thresholds,
appropriate 
impacts  of
production processes?

the  most  significant  environmental 

to  address 

8.

COMMUNITY EMISSION LIMIT VALUES

The Directive provides for the setting of Community emission limit values by means
of  Directives  when  “the  need  for  Community  action  has  been  identified”.  This
identification should be based in particular  on  the  exchange  of  information  on  best
available techniques and representative limit values applied in the Member States.

When  analysing  the  need  for  Community  emission  limit  values  in  priority  sectors
and  for  priority  pollutants,  the  Commission  will  not  only  consider  the  reports  on
representative limit values in the Member States and  the results  of the exchange of
information  on  best  available  techniques  but  also  information  submitted  for  the

26 Directive  2000/76/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  incineration  of  waste,

OJ L 313, 13/12/2000, p.12-21

27 See  the  Commission’s  Communication  “A  Strategy  for  the  Sustainable  Development  of  European

Aquaculture”, COM(2002) 511

28 Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment, OJ L 175, 5/7/1985, p. 40-48 as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC, OJ L 73, 14/3/1997,
p. 5-15

22

                                                
European  Pollutant  Emission  Register  (see  below).  As  usual,  the  principle  of
subsidiarity will guide the Commission.

Prime candidates for Community emission limit values are dioxins and furans, in line
with the Council’s conclusions on the Commission’s dioxin strategy29, as well as the
priority substances under the Water  Framework Directive and  other  pollutants  with
transboundary impacts.

However,  to  some  extent,  Community-wide  limit  values  undermine  both  the
decentralised  and  the  integrated  approach  of  the  Directive,  since  they  restrict  the
possibility for the competent authority to make pragmatic and environmentally- and
economically-justified 
limit  value
corresponding to the lowest achievable emission level of dioxins in  steel-making is
set, this might cause installations to lower their scrap recycling rates (they would be
forced to  reject  more scrap that  could  be  contaminated)  or  to  significantly  increase
their carbon dioxide emissions (dioxin reduction measures are not energy-efficient).

trade-off  decisions.  For  example, 

if  a 

When  weighing  different  environmental  objectives  against  each  other,  and
considering the costs of the various options, the most sensible decision is very often
influenced  by  the  local  situation  at  each  site.  Therefore,  Community-wide  limit
values should only be introduced where they are necessary.

If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  becomes  clear  that  in  one  or  more  Member  States  the
authorities systematically set emission limit values that are too lenient and not based
on  BAT,  it  may  be  necessary  to  introduce  additional  Community  emission  limit
values. In line with the Action Plan on Better Regulation, such proposals should be
preceded by an appropriate impact assessment.

For dioxin emissions, where the production and processing of metals remains a major
emission  source,  mandatory  monitoring  requirements  for  this  sector,  without  any
Community emission limit values in the first stage, might be one option. This could
be  an  effective  regulatory  tool  since  the  lack  of  data  on  emissions  is  currently  a
serious impediment to appropriate measures being taken.

Question  6:  In  which  cases  do  Community-wide  emission  limit  values  as
minimum  requirements  help  achieve  a  high  level  of  environmental  protection
and prevent distortions of the Internal Market?

9.

EUROPEAN POLLUTANT EMISSION REGISTER (EPER)

Member  States  are  required  to  report  emissions  from  individual  facilities  to  the
Commission  and  to  include  an  overview  report.  The  reported  data  will  be  made
available on the Internet every three years in a public register called ‘EPER’, which
is intended to provide environmental information on  emissions to air and water  for
policy-makers,  researchers  and  the  public.  The  register  provides  operators  of
installations with an incentive to reduce their emissions.

29 Communication  on  a  Community  Strategy  for  Dioxins,  Furans  and  Polychlorinated  Biphenyls

COM(2001) 593

23

                                                
EPER is also a tool to monitor the effectiveness of the Directive, in terms of reduced
emissions  to  air  and  water,  although  it  is  impossible  to  assess  with  any  degree  of
certainty  the  decreases  that occur  as a  result  of  the  Directive  separately  from  those
that occur as a result of voluntary actions or other legislation.

9.1.

Steps taken

Commission Decision 2000/479/EC on the implementation of a European Pollutant
Emission  Register30  lays  down  the  obligations  of  the  Member  States  and  the
Commission. Information on emissions to water and air of 50 pollutants from about
20 000  individual  industrial  facilities  covered  by  the  Directive  will  be  collected.
Every three years, starting in June 2003 with data on emissions in 2001 (unless they
prefer to give data  from 2000 or 2002), Member States are  obliged to report to  the
Commission.  The  Acceding  Countries  are  required  to  deliver  their  first  report  in
2006 based on emissions in 2004.

In  November  2000,  a  guidance  document31  was  published.  It  facilitates  the
implementation  of  the  register  and  clarifies  the  reporting  requirements  under  the
Decision.  It  addresses  details  on  reporting  formats  and  provides  references  to
available  emission  determination  methods  as  well  as  sector-specific  sub-lists  of
pollutants that are likely to be emitted by the various sources.

The  Commission  and  the  European  Environment  Agency  plan  to  launch  a  user-
friendly web site with the results of the first reporting in February 2004.

9.2.

Next steps

At present, the register deals only with emissions to air and water; neither releases to
land nor transfers of waste are part of the register. It should, however, be viewed in
the  perspective  of  the  UN/ECE  Aarhus  Convention,  in  which  all  parties  agreed  to
disseminate  emission  data  to  the  public  and  to  use  pollutant  release  and  transfer
registers (PRTRs) as a tool to monitor environmental progress. The  current register
can thus be considered as a first step towards a PRTR for Europe.

At  the  beginning  of  2001,  a  Working  Group  on  PRTRs  was  established  under  the
Aarhus Convention to develop a legally binding instrument on PRTRs for adoption
at the Kiev Ministerial Conference in May 2003. In parallel with the ongoing efforts
of  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  to  implement  the  first  and  second
reporting  cycles  of  EPER,  the  expansion  of  the  register  into  a  fully-integrated  and
comprehensive PRTR with annual reporting is being prepared.

10.

RELATION WITH OTHER DIRECTIVES AND INSTRUMENTS

The holistic, cross-cutting approach of the Directive means that there is an interface
with a large number of EU environmental Directives, Regulations and other policies
and  measures.  Some  of  these  are  briefly  discussed  below  with  the  aim  of  giving  a
rough  picture  of  the  importance  of  this  Directive  for  other  policy  areas  and

30 OJ L 192, 28/07/2000, p. 36-43
31 “Guidance  Document  for  EPER  implementation”,  European  Commission,  2000,  ISBN  92-894-0279-2,

catalogue number: KH-33-00-106-EN-C,http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ippc/eper/index.htm

24

                                                
instruments  and,  conversely,  how  they  can  influence  the  implementation  of  this
Directive.

When  further  developing  EU  environmental  policy  in  the  field  of  industrial
installations32, it is important to ensure optimal consistency and to examine whether
there are  any obstacles to the  creation  of  an  effective  mix  of  policy  tools  at  EU  or
national  level.  In  such  an  analysis,  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  the  IPPC
instrument and alternative or supplementary policy tools need to be analysed.

10.1.

Traditional instruments of environmental policy

10.1.1. Environmental Impact Assessment Directive

Many new IPPC installations also have a requirement to carry out an environmental
impact  assessment  in  accordance  with  Directive  85/337/EEC.  Member  States  may,
but  are  not  obliged  to,  provide  for  a  single  procedure  in  order  to  fulfil  the
requirements  of  both  Directives.  Whether  planned  changes  necessitate  an  impact
assessment is subject to a case-by-case decision, depending on the significance of the
potentially adverse effects on the environment.

In the case of a new installation or a substantial change where Directive 85/337/EEC
applies,  any relevant  information obtained or conclusion  arrived  at  pursuant  to  that
Directive is to be taken into consideration when the permit application is assessed.

10.1.2. Large Combustion Plant, Waste Incineration and Solvents Directives

For certain priority sources, other Directives set emission limit values for a number
of  key  pollutants.33  These  emission  limit  values  are  not  necessarily  based  on  best
available  techniques  as  defined  in  the  IPPC  Directive,  and  where  an  installation  is
subject  to  both  the  rules  of  the  IPPC  Directive  and  limit  values  under  other
Directives,  these  limit  values  are  minimum  requirements.  These  Directives  should
thus provide a guarantee against the possible abuse of the inherent flexibility of the
IPPC Directive.

10.1.3. Seveso II Directive

The  Seveso  II  Directive34  is  the  other  major  Directive  that  specifically  addresses
industrial  installations/establishments.  It  is  aimed  at  the  prevention  of  major
their
accidents  which 
consequences  for  man  and  the  environment.  It  applies  to  establishments  where
dangerous substances are present in quantities exceeding certain thresholds.

involve  dangerous  substances  and 

limitation  of 

the 

32 Two  interesting  ongoing  policy  review  initiatives  should  be  noted  in  this  context:  The  European  ENAP
Project (Exploring New Approaches in regulating industrial installations) and the IMPEL Better Regulation
Initiative (http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/impel/projects.htm#11)

33 For  example,  Directive  2001/80/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  limitation  of
emissions  of  certain  pollutants  into  the  air  from  large  combustion  plants,  OJ L 309,  27/11/2001,  p. 1-21;
Directive  2000/76/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  incineration  of  waste,
OJ L 313, 13/12/2000,  p.12-21;  Council  Directive  1999/13/EC  on  the  limitation  of  emissions  of  volatile
organic  compounds  due  to  the  use  of  organic  solvents  in  certain  activities  and  installations,  OJ  L  85,
29/03/1999, p. 1-22.

34 Council  Directive  96/82/EC  of  9  December  1996  on  the  control  of  major-accident  hazards  involving

dangerous substances, OJ L 10, 14/01/1997, p. 13-33

25

                                                
There  is  a  considerable  degree  of  overlap  in  scope,  in  particular  for  the  chemical
industry.  The  IPPC  Directive  itself  also  requires  operators  to  take  measures  to
prevent  accidents  and  limit  their  consequences,  but  it  does  not  contain  specific
requirements  relating  to,  for  example,  major-accident  prevention  policies,  safety
reports or internal and external emergency plans.

A  concrete  example  of  interaction  between  the  two  Directives  is  that  the  BREF
document on the production of ammonia, acids and fertilisers that is currently being
developed  will  address  the  manufacture  and  storage  of  ammonium  nitrate  based
fertiliser with a view to reducing the risk of accidents.35

10.1.4. Landfill Directive

Some  landfills  covered  by  the  Landfill  Directive36  also  fall  within  the  scope  of  the
IPPC  Directive.  The  Landfill  Directive states that the technical  requirements of  the
IPPC  Directive  shall  be  deemed  to  be  fulfilled  if  the  requirements  of  the  Landfill
Directive are complied with.

As  a  consequence,  the  authority  has  to  issue  an  IPPC  permit  to  existing  landfills
covered by the IPPC Directive before the 31 October 2007. Full compliance with the
requirements of Annex I to the Landfill Directive, however, is only compulsory as of
16 July 2009. New landfills authorised after 16 July 2001 have to comply with these
requirements from the outset. Whereas any change triggers a permit update under the
Landfill Directive, the additional requirements, e.g. in terms of public participation,
only apply to a “substantial” change in the meaning of the IPPC Directive.

In  addition,  any  landfill  covered  by  the  IPPC  Directive  must  be  made  subject  to  a
periodic review of its permit and to regular reporting of emission data according to
EPER (see chapter 9).

10.1.5. Water Framework Directive

The deadline for the Member States to bring the new Water Framework Directive37
into effect is 22 December 2003. Among other things, this Directive aims to protect
and  enhance  the  status  of  aquatic  ecosystems.  A  key  component  is  its  “combined
approach”, i.e. addressing emission sources at the same time as effects on recipients
through water quality standards.

On the source side, it sets out a plan for developing further the control measures laid
down  in  the  IPPC  Directive  and  other  source-based  Directives.  This  comprises  the
establishment of a list of priority substances for action at EU level, prioritised on the
basis  of  risk,  and  the  design  of  the  most  cost-effective  set  of  measures  to  achieve
load  reduction  of  those  substances,  taking  into  account  both  product  and  process
sources.

35 Out-of-specification  ammonium  nitrate  based  fertiliser  was  involved  in  the  disaster  at  the  AZF  factory  in

Toulouse (France) in September 2001.

36 Council Directive 1999/31/EC of on the landfill of waste, OJ L 182, 16/07/1999, p. 1-19
37 Directive  2000/60/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  a  framework  for

Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22/12/2000, p. 1-72

26

                                                
The  list  of  priority  substances  was  adopted  in  November  2001  and  it  covers
33 substances  or  groups  of  substances.38  According  to  the  Water  Framework
Directive,  the  Commission  shall  submit  proposals  for  emission  controls  for  point
sources, as well as environmental quality standards, for these priority substances by
December 2003.

10.1.6. Chemicals Policy

New  chemical  substances  and  priority  existing  substances  are  subject  to  risk
assessments, in which  potential risks inter  alia in relation  to  industrial  installations
covered  by  the  IPPC  Directive  are  considered.  Based  on  these  assessments,  risk
reduction strategies  are  drawn up  and in  some  cases  marketing  and  use  restrictions
are introduced.39 These strategies often comprise measures that target the use of the
chemical in IPPC installations.

Most of the current legislation on chemicals is under revision. Potential elements of
the  future  strategy  are  outlined  in  the  Commission’s  White  Paper  presented  in
200140.  The  new  system  for  assessing  and  controlling  the  use  of  both  existing  and
new  chemicals  is  known  as  the  REACH41  system.  This  system  will  provide  more
information  on  chemicals  used  in  industrial  facilities,  thereby  enhancing  the
implementation of the IPPC Directive. It is important to ensure that the new system
will  be  consistent  with  the  IPPC  permit  system  to  guarantee  a  high  level  of
environmental  protection  without  placing  unnecessary  administrative  burdens  on
operators.

10.1.7. National Emission Ceilings Directive

Every  Member  State  and  all  ten  Acceding  Countries  have  agreed  to  national
emission  ceilings  for  four  groups  of  air  pollutants  responsible  for  acidification,
eutrophication and ground-level ozone pollution.42 The ceilings cover total emissions
including  non-industrial  emissions,  and  form  part  of  a  cost-effective  strategy  for
dealing  with  these  environmental  problems.  It  is  the  responsibility  of  each  state  to
undertake policies and measures to ensure that the national emissions are below the
ceilings by the year 2010 at the latest.

The  effects-based  approach  of  the  Directive  on  national  emission  ceilings
complements  the  BAT-based  approach  of  the  IPPC  Directive.  Strict  emission
standards  set  in  the  context  of  implementing  the  IPPC  Directive  will  help  in
achieving the national emission ceilings.

38 Decision  No  2455/2001/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  the  list  of  priority
substances in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC, OJ L 331, 15/12/2001, p. 1-5
39 Council  Regulation  (EEC)  793/93  on  evaluation  and  control  of  risks  of  existing  substances,  OJ L 84,
5/4/1993,  p.1-75;  Council  Directive  67/548/EEC  on  the  approximation  of  laws,  regulations  and
administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, OJ
196, 16/8/1967, p. 1-98 and Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of  the  Member  States  relating  to  restrictions  on  the  marketing  and  use  of  certain
dangerous substances and preparations, OJ L 262, 27/9/1976, p. 201-203

40 COM(2001) 88 final
41 Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals.
42 Directive  2001/81/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  national  emission  ceilings  for
certain  atmospheric  pollutants,  OJ L 309,  27/11/2001,  p. 22-30  –  covers  the  following  pollutants:  nitrogen
oxides, sulphur dioxide, volatile organic compounds and ammonia

27

                                                
10.1.8. Air Quality Directives

The Air Quality Framework Directive43 and Directives adopted on the basis of  that
Directive set limit values for the concentration of pollutants in ambient air.44 These
air  quality  standards  are  primarily  based  on  the  prevention  of  negative  effects  on
human health through direct inhalation.

It is the responsibility of each  Member State to develop  the  plans and  programmes
necessary to ensure that the standards are not exceeded. Quality standards provide a
framework  for  emission  limit  values.  If  an  installation  makes  a  significant
contribution to  local pollution  and  if the use of the best available  techniques  is  not
enough  to  meet  a  quality  standard,  the  IPPC  Directive  emphasises  that  additional
measures must be taken.

10.1.9. Recommendation on inspections

The  IPPC  Directive  is  rather  unspecific  as  regards  the  means  used  to  ensure
compliance with permit conditions. It simply states that Member States shall take the
measures  necessary  to  ensure  that  permit  conditions  are  complied  with  and  that
operators  shall  be  required  to  co-operate  with  the  authorities  when  inspections  are
carried out.

inspections45  should  bring  about
However,  the  recent  Recommendation  on 
systematic and effective routine and non-routine inspections of IPPC installations all
over  the  Union.  It  is  thus  vital  that  the  Commission  closely  follows  the  progress
made  in  Member  States  and  Candidate  Countries  with  regard  to  the  inspections  of
installations  in  the  coming  years.  In  2002,  all  the  Member  States  provided  the
Commission with initial  information  about their inspection systems  as  stipulated  in
the Recommendation. For several Member States there were substantial gaps in the
reported  data,  and  it  could  not  be  concluded  from  these  initial  reports  that,  on  the
whole, the Member States were in compliance with the Recommendation.

10.2.

Non-traditional and market-based environmental policy tools

According  to  the  Sixth  Community  Environment  Action  Programme,  the  EU  shall
promote  sustainable  production  patterns  by  using  a  blend  of  instruments,  including
market-based and economic instruments. So far, relatively few non-traditional tools,
such as the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS), have been applied in EU
environmental  policy.  The  proposed  Directive  on  greenhouse  gas  emissions
allowance  trading  (see  chapter  7.2)  will  be  the  first  overarching  market-based
instrument used throughout the EU for environmental purposes.

43 Council Directive 96/62/EC on ambient air quality assessment and management, OJ L 125, 18/05/1994, p. 1-

44

44 There are currently limit values for nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, lead, particulate matter, benzene, carbon

monoxide and ozone.

45 Recommendation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  providing  for  minimum  criteria  for

environmental inspections in the Member States (2001/331/EC), OJ L 118, 27/04/2001, p. 41-46

28

                                                
10.2.1. Environmental Management Schemes including EMAS

Environmental  Management  Schemes  such  as  the  European  Eco-Management  and
Audit  Scheme  (EMAS)46  make  voluntary  participation  by  companies  and  their
installations  in  an  environmental  management  system  (EMS)  possible.  EMAS  is
based  on  the  international  standard  EN ISO 14001:1996  but  goes  further  in  several
respects,  such  as  publication  of  environmental  statements  and  verification  of
compliance with environmental legislation.

Implementing  an  EMS,  in  particular  EMAS,  makes  it  easier  to  comply  with  the
requirements  of  the  IPPC  Directive,  for  example  when  it  comes  to  preparing
applications  and  monitoring  reports.  Some  European  countries  have  introduced
forms of so-called regulatory relief for companies with a certified EMS. The majority
of them have introduced special incentives to promote EMS, in particular EMAS and
to recognise their benefits. In these countries inspections can be less frequent, as can
permit  reviews,  and  reporting  requirements  can  be  less  onerous  for  IPPC
installations.47  However,  Member  States  cannot  exempt  companies  with  an  EMS
from their obligations under the Directive.

Another link between the IPPC Directive and EMSs is provided by the conclusions
on  environmental  management  systems  that  have  been  produced  for  use  in  future
BREF  documents.  These  conclusions  set  out  a  number  of  key  features  of  an
environmental management system, adding that the nature and level of detail of each
system will generally depend on the nature, scale and complexity of the installation
and the range of environmental impacts it may have. EMAS, which embodies further
supporting  measures  including  external  verification  and  the  publication  of  an
environmental statement, gives higher credibility.

10.2.2. Environmental agreements

The  potential  of  environmental  agreements  for  sectors  of  industry,  often  involving
national  or  European  trade  associations,  to  contribute  effectively  to  environmental
policy objectives is widely recognised. Agreements can provide a quick response to
an  environmental  challenge,  they  can  deliver  a  tailor-made  and  flexible  solution  to
that  challenge  as  well  as  stimulating  a  more  proactive  approach  on  the  part  of
industry.

The  Commission  wants  to  encourage  voluntary  commitments  and  agreements  to
achieve  clear  environmental  targets,  as  a  complement  to  existing  legislation.  In  its
Communication  on  environmental  agreements48,  the  Commission  sees  a  place  for
environmental  agreements  at  Community  level  over  a  wide  range  of  sectors,  and
singles  out  the  fields  of  waste  management  and  climate  change.  However,  sector-

46 Regulation  (EC)  No  761/2001  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  allowing  voluntary
participation  by  organisations  in  a  Community  eco-management  and  audit  scheme  (EMAS),  OJ L 114,
24/04/2001, p. 1-29

47 The Commission will produce a report on the way Member States have used these and other incentives by
the end of 2003. The ENAP Project referred to in footnote 32 above also looks into the possible  synergies
between environmental management systems and the permit procedures under the IPPC Directive.

48 Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  Economic  and  Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Environmental Agreements at Community Level - Within the
Framework  of  the  Action  Plan  on  the  Simplification  and  Improvement  of  the  Regulatory  Environment;
COM(2002) 412 final

29

                                                
wide  or  company-specific  targets,  on  either  EU  or  national  level,  cannot  replace
binding installation-specific conditions in permits.

10.2.3. Emissions trading

According to the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme the Community
shall  analyse  “the  environmental  efficiency  of  tradable  environmental  permits  as  a
generic  instrument  and  of  emission  trading  with  a  view  to  promoting  and
implementing their use where feasible”.

A  compelling  argument  in  favour  of  emissions  trading  is  that  there  is  always  an
incentive for operators to reduce emissions, whereas the system put in place by the
IPPC  Directive  does  not  offer  any  direct  financial  incentive  to  reduce  emissions
below the BAT-based limit values set in the permit. There is also the argument that
the  company  often  has  more  information  and  know-how  than  the  authority  and  is
therefore in a better position to identify cost-effective measures to reduce emissions,
provided that the incentive is there.

Emissions  trading  is  an  instrument  which  could  cover  not  only  greenhouse  gas
emissions  but  also  other  emissions  from  installations  within  the  scope  of  the  IPPC
Directive.  However,  it  would  be  necessary  to  first  carefully  analyse  the  possible
consequences of a trading scheme and then to take appropriate steps to ensure that it
does  not  lead  to  any  significant  local  pollution  and  that the  monitoring  and
enforcement system is as stringent as under existing mandatory instruments such as
the IPPC Directive.49

With a view to striking the proper balance between different  environmental aspects
and ensuring a successful co-existence between these two instruments, it is important
to recognise that there are some inevitable trade-offs between impacts addressed by a
trading scheme and other aspects of the environmental performance of installations.

In  any  case,  no  emissions  trading  scheme  should  be  introduced  if  it  lowers  the
environmental level of ambition of the IPPC Directive with regard to the state of the
environment  in  Europe.  In  principle,  engaging  in  emissions  trading  with  countries
outside Europe is only an interesting option if the effects of the emissions are of an
entirely global nature.

10.2.4. Environmental taxes, charges and subsidies

According to the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme, the Community
shall  also  promote  and  encourage  “the  use  of  fiscal  measures  such  as
environmentally  related  taxes  and  incentives,  at  the  appropriate  national  or
Community level”.

As with emissions trading, fiscal instruments have the advantage that, as they lead to
an internalisation of external costs in prices of products, there is always an incentive
for operators to reduce emissions  even beyond  binding  emission  limit  values.  Thus
the regulatory approach of IPPC and the use of taxes and charges are complementary

49 The ENAP Project referred to in footnote 32 above has looked at links between the IPPC Directive and any
future  national  emissions  trading  schemes  for  pollutants  covered  by  the  National  Emission  Ceilings
Directive.

30

                                                
instruments. However, while  Member  States  have  made  extensive  use  of  taxes  and
charges on emissions, there has been little development in this area at EU level due
to the requirement for unanimity on taxation issues among Member States.

Member States can also grant State aid to enterprises for environmental purposes, in
particular  for  investment  to  go  beyond  Community  standards.  The  Community
guidelines  on  State  aid  for  environmental  protection  defines  the  scope  for  such
measures  with  a  view  to  both  environmental  and  competition  policy  objectives.50
Where  the  use  of  best  available  techniques  is  required  under  the  IPPC  Directive,
these are regarded as ‘Community standards’.

10.2.5. Environmental liability

EU environmental legislation focuses on the regulation of activities that carry risks to
human  health  and  the  environment.  Instruments  such  as  the  IPPC  Directive  rarely
address  the  question  of  what  would  happen  if,  despite  legislation,  damage  to  the
environment should nonetheless occur.

The  Commission  adopted  a  proposal  for  a  Directive  on  environmental  liability  in
January  200251,  which  covers  environmental  damage,  including  bio-diversity
damage, caused by emissions from point sources such as IPPC installations.

An important point of debate is whether compliance with permit conditions shall be
deemed to be a legitimate defence for operators of IPPC installations and exonerate
them  from  liability,  or  at  least  be  regarded  as  a  mitigating  factor.  In  the
Commission’s proposal compliance with permit conditions is regarded as sufficient.
If  the  fact  that  an  operator  has  complied  with  permit  conditions  could  be  ignored
when  liability  is  assessed,  there  is  a  risk  that  regulators  could  lapse  into  a  lax
approach to IPPC implementation, i.e. the permit might not be used as the preventive
instrument it is supposed to be.

10.2.6. Environmental Technology Action Plan

The  IPPC Directive is a driver for the  dissemination of environmental technologies
in  industry.  The  Environmental  Technology  Action  Plan  (ETAP)  due  at  the  end  of
2003  shall  include  a  series  of  measures  to  overcome  barriers  that  are  holding  back
the  development,  diffusion  and  use  of  promising  technologies  that  are  able  to
contribute  to  both  increased  environmental  protection  and  higher  economic  growth
and  employment.52  The  ongoing  work  on  the  action  plan  is  complementary  to  the
IPPC Directive, inter alia because an attempt is made to map a number of promising
technologies,  that  may  at  some  point  in  the  future  be  introduced  as  BAT,  and  to
identify ways to remove barriers to technology development and diffusion.

50 OJ C 37, 3/2/2001, p. 3-15
51 Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  environmental  liability  with
regard  to  the  prevention  and  remedying  of  environmental  damage,  COM(2002) 17 final,  OJ C 151 E,
25/06/2002, p. 132-145

52 COM(2003) 131 final

31

                                                
10.3.

The Common Agricultural Policy

The  Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP),  in  its  first  pillar  (Common  Market
Organisations), makes direct payments conditional to measures Member States shall
take  in  order  to  improve  environmental  effects  of  agricultural  activities.  These
measures may  entail making  the  support  conditional  to  compliance  with  general  or
specific environmental standards, including those derived from the IPPC Directive.

In  addition,  the  second  pillar  of  CAP53  offers  a  range  of  measures  from  which  the
Member  States  can  choose  when  drawing  up  their  rural  development  programmes.
Some  of  these  measures  are  geared  towards  the  protection  of  the  environment  and
may  complement  the  IPPC  Directive.  For  a  number  of  measures  (e.g.  investment,
improving  processing  and  marketing  of  agricultural  products),  beneficiaries  are
eligible  for  rural  development  support  on  condition  that  they  meet  minimum
environmental standards, again including those established under the IPPC Directive.
For agri-environmental measures, payments can be  granted to  farmers  who  commit
themselves to go beyond usual  good farming  practice,  which  entails  as  a  minimum
compliance with general mandatory requirements for environmental protection.

The level of support available under rural development measures would be increased
should  the  Council  adopt  the  Commission  proposals  for  a  reform  of  the  CAP54.
Money  would  be  shifted  from  the  first  to  the  second  pillar.  Moreover,  for  farmers
receiving  direct  payments,  compliance  with  environmental  standards  based  on
Community  environmental  legislation  would  be  reinforced  by  a  system  of  controls
and sanctions.

10.4.

The 6th Research Framework Programme

Activities  of  the  6th  Research  Framework  Programme55  can  reinforce  integrated
pollution prevention and control. For example, the expected results of the RTD and
demonstration  projects  could  deliver  new  techniques  that  will  be  available  for
industry. The knowledge gained within these projects should contribute to the update
of  the  BREF  documents.  Moreover,  the  BREF  documents  can  help  the  research
communities focus their attention on issues identified as priorities.

Question  7a:  In  order  to  achieve  EU  environmental  objectives  for  large
industrial and agricultural installations, is any action needed to ensure optimal
consistency  between  this  Directive  and  other  existing  or  potential  instruments
used at EU or national level?

Question 7b: In particular, how can the EU further promote complementary use
of  market-based  instruments,  including  national  emissions  trading,  and
voluntary instruments?

53 Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999, OJ L 160, 26/6/1999, p. 80-102
54 COM(2003) 23 final
55 Decision No 1513/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 232, 29/8/2002, p. 1-33

32

                                                
11.

CONCLUSION

Compliance with the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive is one of
the  key  prerequisites  for  European  industry  to  achieve  good  environmental
performance. Successful implementation, including full application of best available
techniques  by  October  2007,  is  essential  in  order  to  achieve  more  sustainable
production patterns in Europe and a cleaner and healthier environment for European
citizens.  It  can  also  make  a  significant  contribution  to  several  other  EU  objectives:
promotion  of  innovation  and  modernisation  in  industry,  economic  and  social
cohesion, and fair and sound competition in the Internal Market.

A  large  number  of  IPPC  plants  have  demonstrated  that  strong  environmental
performance  goes  hand-in-hand  with  strong  economic  performance.  The  Directive
represents a challenge for European industry, but also an opportunity.

The application of the subsidiarity principle has resulted in a system where operators
of  installations  are  expected  to  acquire  knowledge  of  the  best  available  techniques
and  competent  authorities  (local,  regional  or  national)  designated  by  the  Member
States  are  required  to  ensure  that  technical  implementation  takes  place  by  laying
down  a  number  of  conditions  in  permits.  This  places  a  large  responsibility  and
considerable  demands  on  both  the  competent  authorities  and  the  operators  of
installations in terms of resources and access to information.

The  exchange  of  information  on  best  available  techniques  between  Member  States
and  stakeholders  represents  a  key  instrument  in  this  respect  but  it  is  not  in  itself
sufficient  to  ensure  successful  implementation.  In  addition,  the  expertise,  integrity
and  performance  of  the  competent  authorities  and  their  ability  to  develop  a
cooperative relationship with stakeholders, especially plant operators, is crucial.

Should it become clear that the efforts of the authorities are insufficient, it might be
necessary to consider a more harmonised approach that ensures a reasonable degree
of consistency between permits issued by different authorities, for example by setting
minimum  Community-wide  emission  limit  values  as  a  rule  rather  than  as  an
exception.  Alternatively,  greater  use  of  market-based 
instruments  could  be
considered.

In  the  opinion  of  the  Commission,  a  large  number  of  Member  States  need  to
accelerate progress towards a high level of environmental protection, given the final
deadline  for  full  implementation.  Furthermore,  the  majority  of  the  Acceding
Countries  must  continue  to  significantly  enhance  their  efforts,  as  agreed  in  the
accession negotiations. In all cases except where an extra transition period has been
granted, which may be the case for installations located in Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia
or Latvia, the final deadline is October 2007.

Successful implementation of the Directive would represent a major contribution to a
number of actions under development as part of the Sixth Community Environment
Action Programme, in particular the thematic strategies on air pollution, the marine
environment,  soil  protection,  sustainable  resource  use  and  recycling  as  well  as  the
strategy on climate change. A particular challenge in this respect will be to evaluate
the expected impact of the Directive on the environmental issues addressed in these
strategies.

33

The  Community  also  needs  to  constantly  strive  for  an  optimal  mix  of  environment
policy instruments, check that there is full consistency between them and to explore
the  possibility  of  making  more  use  of  non-traditional  approaches  which  provide
incentives to companies to further improve their environmental performance.

In  the  global  arena,  the  Community  needs  to  continue  its  efforts  to  promote  a
progressive  transition  to  sustainable  production  patterns  within  the  10-year
framework of programmes agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development
in Johannesburg. It is particularly important for non-European countries as well to be
able  to  reap  the  benefits  of  the  European  information  exchange  on  best  available
techniques.

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

With  the  publication  of  this  Communication,  the  Commission  is  launching  a  broad
consultation  on  implementation  issues  and  future  development  of  the  policy  that
addresses  the  environmental  impact  of  large  industrial  point  sources.  To  this  end,
seven key questions are raised in this Communication and a consultation web site has
been set up at http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ippc/ippc_consultation.htm.

The Commission will report to the EU Institutions on the results of this consultation
and  on Member  States’  official replies  in  the  general  implementation  survey  in  the
first half of 2004.

34

ANNEX 1

IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT STRUCTURES

IMPEL

Since  1997,  IMPEL,  the  Member  States’  informal  network  of  authorities  responsible  for
implementation  and  enforcement  of  EU  environmental  law,  has  devoted  a  great  deal  of  its
activities to this Directive. A number of relevant projects that address important issues have
been  carried  out,  such  as  projects  on  inspections,  compliance  monitoring,  changes  in
operations, general binding rules.56

The Commission welcomes the identification and promotion of best practice in these projects.
However, it is of the view that in general there is scope for focusing the projects more on best
practice  identification.  Given  the  importance  of  the  reports,  Member  States  should
disseminate them more widely and stimulate a wider application of their recommendations.

For  the  Candidate  Countries,  the  AC-IMPEL  network  was  established  to  promote  the
implementation of the environmental acquis. Several AC-IMPEL actions, such as studies on
administrative  capacities,  have  concerned  this  Directive.  The  two  networks  merged  on
1 January 2003.

IPPC Experts Group

The  IPPC  Experts  Group  is  an  informal  group  that  was  originally  created  to  further
discussions between Member States and the Commission on various ambiguities that needed
to be dealt with when the Directive was transposed into national law. More recently the group
has focused on reporting and on strategic issues.

Information Exchange Forum and European IPPC Bureau

In 1997, the Commission established an Information Exchange Forum, with representatives of
Member States, industry and non-governmental environmental organisations, and a European
IPPC Bureau in order to facilitate an orderly and purposeful exchange of information on best
available techniques and monitoring. The work that they are involved in, sometimes referred
to as the “Sevilla Process”, is described in chapter 6.

EPER Committee

In its work  on  the European Pollutant  Emission  Register (EPER), including the  adoption of
the  Decision  on  EPER,  the  Commission  is  assisted  by  a  Committee  composed  of
representatives of the Member States. For further information about EPER, see chapter 9.

56 Completed 

reports 

available 

on: 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/impel/index.htm

Ongoing projects: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/impel/workprog.htm

35

                                                
ANNEX 2

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF POLICIES FOR INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION CONTROL IN
SOME NON-EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

The  information  below  was  given  at  a  conference  on  policies  for  prevention  and  control  of
industrial pollution that the Commission and the Spanish Presidency held in Seville on 25 and
26 April 2002.

USA

In the past, traditional  command  and  control  regulations have dominated US policy  and  are
considered by the US-EPA to have been effective. They still make use of the BAT concept,
emission limit values and environmental quality standards. The Administration has pledged to
make  greater  use  of  market-based  systems  that  should  supplement  and  substitute  traditional
approaches. Incentives are also increasingly used at sub-federal level.

The  best-known  incentive-based  system  is  the  1990  sulphur  dioxide  trading  programme,
which  was  considered  relatively  successful  by  the  US-EPA.  Incentives  are  considered
particularly useful for small and geographically-dispersed sources. They have identified seven
types  of  incentives,  four  of  which  are  relevant  for  large  industrial  point  sources:  trading,
liability,  information  and  voluntary  programmes.  It  is  estimated  that  a  quarter  of  current
spending can be saved if incentives are applied instead of traditional regulation.

Under the Superfund system, even a minor contribution to soil contamination can potentially
lead  to  liability  for  total  clean-up  costs.  All  manufacturing  facilities  that  have  10  or  more
employees are required to report to the publicly available Toxic Release Inventory if they use
listed  chemicals  over  and  above  certain  threshold  levels.  US-EPA  also  negotiates
environmental agreements with private firms.

Canada

In 1999, a new federal Environmental  Protection Act was  adopted and this is supplemented
by  some  additional  regulation  by  the  provinces.  Instruments  applied  include  traditional
regulation,  pollution  prevention  plans,  codes  of  practice,  quality  objectives,  release
inventories,  emissions  trading,  financial  incentives,  voluntary  agreements  and  North
American action plans for regional capacity building.

Pollution prevention plans focus on primary measures and target either a specific pollutant, a
production  process  or  a  whole  facility.  The  Ministry  of  Environment  can  require  the
preparation and implementation of such a plan and the company is then required, subject to
penalties, to keep the plan on-site, but there is no obligation to submit it for approval.

Codes  of  practice  are  comprehensive  documents  developed  for  various  industrial  sectors  in
strong  consultation  with  industry  and  they  correspond  to  the  EU’s  BREF  documents.  The
codes  can  be  adopted  as  voluntary  commitments  by  corporations  or  facilities  or  used  for
laying down regulatory requirements or as conditions for financing imposed by the financial
sector.

36

Negotiated agreements supplement the regulatory framework. They are designed to cater for
senior-level  commitment,  clear  objectives  and  measurable  results,  consultation  with
stakeholders,  public  reporting,  verification  of  results,  incentives  and  consequences.  Canada
recently ran a voluntary challenge programme aimed at reducing emissions of 117 pollutants
and involving eight sectors and 318 facilities. A follow-up programme is being prepared.

Japan

While  the  Japanese  Ministry  of  Environment  develops  most  of  the  policies,  the  local
authorities are responsible for enforcement and also implement their own policies.

The national legislative framework is not integrated (separate laws for air, water, waste, soil,
noise etc.) and emission limit values as well as quality standards are applied. Emission limit
values are uniform, minimum  requirements  that can be  supplemented  by  locally  established
limits in order to meet local quality standards. The concept of BAT is not used in the central
system. However, on local level voluntary, integrated and BAT-based local pollution control
agreements are used. There are currently some 30,000 such agreements.

The culture  is  strongly  consensual  and  prosecutions  are  few.  In  future,  Japan  will  put  more
emphasis on voluntary approaches  at national level and more emphasis on transparency and
accountability.  Due  to  the  recent  economic  hardships  in  the  country,  the  climate  for
introducing new pollution controls is not particularly auspicious at the moment.

China

In April 2002, China had 136 environmental laws and 427 environmental standards, and their
main  focus  was  on  industrial  pollution.  In  1979  a  permit  system  was  introduced  and  the
enforcement was centralised.

In 1998, 150 000 small enterprises were shut down due to high pollution (in particular in the
pulp  and  paper,  tannery,  coking  and  steel  industries).  When  there  are  river  pollution  peaks,
operations are suspended. China intends to continue to shut down plants with heavy pollution
and high energy use.

They  have  also  started  to  use  market-based  policies  such  as  promotion  of  ISO  14000  and
environmental labels. New policies, such as emissions trading and total emission control for
more  pollutants,  are  being  considered,  in  particular  for  large  combustion  plants,  the  petro-
chemical industry, metallurgy and the construction material industry.

India

India uses command and control regulation, economic instruments and voluntary approaches.
For 17 sectors, an annual environmental statement is mandatory. However, the BAT concept
is not applied as a regulatory tool.

Closed-loop processes  are  emphasised  and  emission  standards  are  developed  in  cooperation
with  industries  and  made  subject  to  public  participation.  Clean  fuels  are  promoted  in  areas
sensitive  to  air  pollution.  Furthermore,  a  number  of  local  waste  minimisation  circles  have
been set up to make use of reuse and recovery opportunities.

37