Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the review of Recommendation 2001/331/EC providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States [SEC(2007) 1493]
Date: 2007-11-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU programme, action programme, environmental monitoring, environmental policy, environmental protection

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 14.11.2007 
COM(2007) 707 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 review of Recommendation 2001/331/EC providing for minimum criteria for 
environmental inspections in the Member States 

[SEC(2007) 1493]

EN 

   EN 

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

on the review of Recommendation 2001/331/EC providing for minimum criteria for 
environmental inspections in the Member States 

INTRODUCTION 

Inspections  are  an  important  instrument  to  ensure  the  implementation  and  enforcement  of 
Community environmental legislation.  

In  2001,  recognising  that  there  was  a  wide  disparity  between  inspection  systems  in  the 
Member  States,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  adopted  Recommendation 
2001/331/EC  providing  for  minimum  criteria  for  environmental  inspections  in  the  Member 
States1.  

The Recommendation contains non-binding criteria for the planning, carrying out, following 
up and reporting on environmental inspections. Its objective is to strengthen compliance with 
Community  environmental  law  and  to  contribute  to  its  more  consistent  implementation  and 
enforcement in all Member States.  

Member States were requested to report on their implementation of the Recommendation and 
on  their  experiences  with  its  application.  On  the  basis  of  these  reports  and  any  other 
information available the Commission was invited to produce a report on the implementation 
of the Recommendation and a proposal for its further development, if necessary in the form of 
a directive.  

The  report  summarising  the  available  information  on  the  implementation  and  application  of 
the Recommendation is annexed to this Communication2. 

Before making any concrete proposals the Commission intends to gather input from the other 
institutions,  from  the  informal  network  of  European  enforcement  authorities  (IMPEL3)  and 
from other stakeholders. 

This  Communication  is  consistent  with  the  Better  Regulation  agenda  as  compliance  and 
enforcement are essential components of the regulatory cycle.  

This Communication is submitted to the European Parliament, Council, Economic and Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions.  The purpose  of the Communication is to set 
out  the  Commission's  views  on  the  further  development  of  the  Recommendation  and  to 
launch a broad discussion with the other institutions and interested parties.  

The  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the 
Committee  of  the  Regions  are  invited  to  give  their  views  on  the  issues  raised  in  this 
Communication. 

1 
2 

3 

EN 

OJ L 118, 27.4.2001, p. 41 
Commission  Staff  Working  Paper  SEC  XXXX,  Report  on  the  implementation  of  Recommendation 
2001/331/EC  providing  for  minimum  criteria  for  environmental  inspections  in  the  Member  States, 
Annex to the Communication of the Commission on the review of Recommendation 2001/331/EC 
European  Network 
for 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/impel/index.htm 

and  Enforcement  of  Environmental  Law, 

Implementation 

the 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
During 2007 the Commission will hold meetings with stakeholders and carry out an internet 
consultation. 

Input from IMPEL will be obtained through the IMPEL project on the further development of 
the Recommendation that should be completed by the end of 2007.  

Taking  into  account  the  outcome  of  these  discussions  the  Commission  will  propose  the 
appropriate way forward for the further development of the Recommendation in 2008. 

1. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATION IN THE MEMBER STATES 

All Member States submitted a report on the implementation of the Recommendation and a 
report on their experiences with the application of the Recommendation.  

In  many  cases  the  information  submitted  was  incomplete  or  difficult  to  compare.  For  some 
Member States where responsibility for environmental inspections lies with the regions it was 
impossible  to  draw  conclusions  at  national  level.  Also  it  must  be  noted  that,  while  some 
Member States have sent updated information in 2006, most of the information relates to the 
situation in 2002-2003.  

Despite  these  gaps  in  the  available  information,  it  can  be  seen  that,  although  almost  all 
Member States have partially implemented the Recommendation (to varying degrees), only a 
few have achieved full implementation. More detailed information on the implementation of 
the Recommendation can be found in the annexed report. 

The  available  information  indicates  that  there  are  still  large  disparities  in  the  way 
environmental inspections are being carried out within the Community. Such disparities mean 
that  the  full  implementation  of  environmental  legislation  in  the  Community  can  not  be 
ensured. They also lead to distortions of competition for businesses. 

This  situation  of  incomplete  implementation  is  partially  due  to  differing  interpretations  by 
Member  States  of  the  definitions  and  criteria  of  the  Recommendation  and  of  the  reporting 
requirements.  

There  also  appear  to  be  large  differences  in  the  political  priority  given  to  environmental 
inspections  in  Member  States.  Some  Member  States  have  pointed  out  that  the  limited 
resources available for inspecting authorities did not allow them to develop a fully effective 
system of environmental inspections. 

2. 

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE RECOMMENDATION 

The  available  information  shows  that  the  following  elements  of  the  Recommendation  need 
further discussion with a view to improving the effectiveness of the Recommendation.  

2.1. 

Definition of the scope 

Currently the Recommendation covers environmental inspections of all industrial installations 
or  other  enterprises  or  facilities  whose  air  emissions,  water  discharges  or  waste  disposal  or 
recovery  activities  are  subject  to  authorisation,  permit  or  licensing  requirements  under  EC 
law.  There  appears  to  be  a  need  to  clarify  this  definition  of  the  scope.  The  scope  has  been 
interpreted in different ways by Member States, which has resulted in large differences in the 
number of installations subject to environmental inspections and large differences between the 
percentages  of  installations  inspected  per  year  in  the  Member  States.  For  instance,  some 
Member  States  apply  the  Recommendation  only  to  installations  falling  under  the  IPPC 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
Directive4,  while  others  cover  also  other  installations.  This  difference  in  interpretation  is 
particularly  relevant  for  the  waste  sector,  where  many  non-IPPC  installations  are  subject  to 
inspection requirements. 

The current scope focuses mainly on industrial and waste treatment installations and excludes 
many activities that are regulated under Community environmental legislation. 

In  particular,  the  Recommendation  does  not  contain  criteria  for  the  inspection  of  waste 
shipments.  Transboundary  shipments  of  waste  are  regulated  at  EU  level  by  the  Waste 
Shipment  Regulation5.  The  implementation  of  this  Regulation  is  a  high  priority  for  the 
Commission.  In  joint  inspections  carried  out  in  30  EU  ports  by  13  Member  States 
simultaneously in the framework of IMPEL around 50% of the waste shipments were found 
to be illegal. These findings as well as recent significant incidents of illegal waste shipments 
such  as  the  dumping  of  waste  in  the  Ivory  Coast,  which  caused  deaths  and  serious 
environmental  pollution,  have  resulted  in  wide-spread  calls  from  Member  States,  European 
institutions,  NGOs  and  the  general  public  to  strengthen  the  enforcement  of  the  Waste 
Shipment  Regulation,  in  particular  with  regard  to  the  inspections  to  be  carried  out.  It  is 
essential for the Community to work together in the fight against illegal waste shipments. The 
new Waste Shipment Regulation, which was adopted in 2006 and entered into force in July 
2007,  contains  some  provisions  for  an  improved  enforcement  of  the  Regulation  and  for  an 
increased  cooperation  between  Member  States.  It  does  not,  however,  lay  down  criteria  for 
inspections of waste shipments.  

The  Recommendation  also  does  not  include  criteria  for  the  inspection  of  Natura  2000  sites. 
EC legislation on nature protection (the Birds Directive6 and the Habitats Directive7) aims to 
establish  a  European  ecological  network  of  Special  Protection  Areas  and  Special  Areas  of 
Conservation  (Natura  2000)  and  ensure  the  protection  and  enhancement  of  the  sites  which 
constitute the network. The proper implementation of this legislation is of high importance for 
EU  nature  conservation.  The  Commission  thus  welcomes  the  creation  of  the  Green  Enforce 
Network,  which  aims  at  encouraging  cooperation  and  exchange  of  experiences  between 
Member  States  to  facilitate  the  implementation  of  nature  legislation.  The  Green  Enforce 
Network  is  currently  considering  contributing  to  the  further  development  of  environmental 
inspections by developing criteria for the inspection of Natura 2000 sites. 

Other environmental legislation to which the Recommendation is not applicable concerns the 
the registration and authorisation of chemicals (REACH8), the restriction of certain hazardous 
substances  in  products  (eg  the  RoHS  Directive9),  trade  in  endangered  species10  as  well  as 
activities related to genetically modified organisms and producer responsibility systems. 

4 

5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, OJ L 
257, 10.10.1996, p. 1 
Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste, OJ L 190, 12.7.2006, p.1, p 
Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p.1 as last amended by 
Directive 91/244/EEC, OJ L 115, 8.5.1991, p. 41 
Directive  92/43/EEC  on  the  conservation  of  natural  habitats  and  of  wild  fauna  and  flora,  OJ  L  206, 
22.7.1992, p. 7 
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 
concerning  the  Registration,  Evaluation,  Authorisation  and  Restriction  of  Chemicals  (REACH), 
establishing  a  European  Chemicals  Agency,  amending  Directive  1999/45/EC  and  repealing  Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  793/93  and  Commission  Regulation  No  1488/94  as  well  as  Council  Directive 
76/769/EEC  and  Commission  Directives  91/155/EEC,  93/67/EEC,  93/105/EC  and  2000/21/EC,  OJ  L 
396, 30.12.2006, p. 1 
Directive  2002/95/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  restriction  of  the  use  of 
certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, OJ L 037, 13.2.2003, p. 19 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.2. 

Clarification of definitions 

The  reports  have  shown  that  some  terms  used  in  the  Recommendation  are  interpreted  in 
different  ways  by  Member  States.  This  has  led  to  differences  in  the  implementation  of  the 
Recommendation in Member States and in the information reported by the Member States. 

Differing interpretations can be seen in particular for the following terms: 

– 

Inspection, control, audit 

Under  the  Recommendation  the  term  inspection  covers  activities  that  entail  checking  and 
promoting  compliance  of  controlled  installations  with  relevant  environmental  requirements, 
the  monitoring  of  the  impact  of  installations.  The  Recommendation  lists  a  number  of  such 
activities  as  examples.  The  terms  control  and  audit  are  part  of  these  listed  inspection 
activities, but are not defined.  

The definition of inspection in the Recommendation is thus very broad and should cover any 
activity that aims to promote compliance with environmental requirements by installations. It 
has,  however,  been  interpreted  differently  by  Member  States,  some  having  a  very  narrow 
interpretation  covering  for  instance  only  direct  controls  at  installations  and  others  a  much 
broader approach.  

This difference in interpretation has an effect on the implementation of the Recommendation 
and  in  particular  on  the  planning  of  inspections,  as  all  activities  concerned  should  be  taken 
into  account  in  the  inspection  plans.  It  also  makes  it  difficult  to  compare  the  information 
provided by Member States on the inspections carried out and in particular the proportion of 
controlled installations that have been inspected. 

– 

Inspection authority 

Pursuant  to  the  Recommendation  an  inspection  authority  is  any  public  authority,  which  is 
established  or  designated  by  Member  States  and  responsible  for  matters  covered  by  the 
Recommendation  and  any  legal  person  to  whom  these  tasks  have  been  delegated  by  these 
authorities  to  be  accomplished  under  their  authority  and  supervision,  provided  such  person 
has  no  personal  interest  in  the  outcome  of  the  inspections  it  undertakes.  In  some  Member 
States where many different authorities could be directly or indirectly involved in inspection 
activities  it  was  sometimes  difficult  to  distinguish  which  authorities  should  be  regarded  as 
inspection  authorities.  This  lack  of  clarity  has  implications  for  the  implementation  of  the 
Recommendation, and in particular for the planning of inspections, as the plans should cover 
the activities of all inspection authorities. 

– 

Inspection plan, inspection programme 

terms 

inspection  plan  and 

inspection  programmes  are  not  defined 

the 
The 
Recommendation. A number of Member States seem to have different interpretations of what 
the term 'inspection plan' means. This is meant to be a strategic document for the prioritisation 
of  environmental  inspections.  There  was  some  confusion  with  the  term  'inspection 
programme' which indicates the installations that are to be inspected in a certain period and 
which  according  to  the  Recommendation  should  be  a  part  of  the  inspection  plan.  A 
consequence  of  this  is  that  many  Member  States'  inspection  plans  consist  merely  of  list  of 
installations or sectors that will be inspected in a certain time period. The difference between 
the  two  terms  is  also  relevant  for  the  implementation  of  the  provisions  on  access  to 

in 

10 

Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating 
trade therein, OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
environmental information. Some Member States argue that they do no make inspection plans 
available  to  the  public,  as  they  want  to  avoid  informing  and  warning  operators  of  any 
imminent inspection planned. The distinction between plans and programmes could be useful 
in  order  to  separate  the  policy  aspect  (plan)  from  the  operational  aspect  (programme);  the 
plans could then be published without fear of jeopardising individual inspections.  

– 

Cross-border mechanism 

to 

Pursuant  to  the  Recommendation  Member  States  should  encourage  the  coordination  of 
that  might  have  significant 
installations  and  activities 
inspections  with  regard 
transboundary impacts. The information provided on this point in the reports of the Member 
States  was  incomplete  and  diverse.  Some  Member  States  provided  some  examples  of 
administrative  cooperation  with  neighbouring  countries  or  districts.  Some  Member  States 
referred to joint inspections of waste shipments carried out in IMPEL projects. Some Member 
States  referred  more  generally  to  exchange  of  experiences  between  Member  States  in  the 
framework of IMPEL projects. Due to these different interpretations, it could not be assessed 
whether Member States have implemented this part of the Recommendation. 

– 

Routine, non-routine inspections 

According  to  the  Recommendation  routine  inspections  are  carried  out  as  part  of  a  planned 
inspection programme. Non-routine inspections are carried out in response to complaints, in 
connection  with  the  issuance,  renewal  or  modification  of  a  permit  or  as  part  of  the 
investigations of accidents, incidents and occurrences of non compliance.  

In some Member States different categories of inspections have been established, e.g. reactive 
or non-reactive inspections, scheduled or unscheduled inspections etc. These can not always 
be clearly attributed to the categories routine or non-routine. Differences in interpretation of 
these  terms  made  it  difficult  to  assess  the  implementation  of  the  Recommendation  in  some 
Member States. The distinction is particularly important for the planning of inspections, as the 
time and resources needed for both routine and non-routine inspections have to be considered 
in the plans.  

2.3. 

Criteria for planning, carrying out, following up and reporting on inspections 

The objective of the Recommendation is to strengthen compliance of controlled installations 
with  environmental  legislation.  Member  States  should  also  ensure  that  environmental 
inspections aim to achieve a high level of environmental protection. In order to achieve this, 
the  Recommendation  sets  out  criteria  on  how  to  plan,  carry  out,  follow  up  and  report  on 
environmental inspections.  

2.3.1.  Planning of inspections  

The Recommendation provides for the establishment of inspection plans and sets out general 
criteria for these plans describing the coverage of the plans, the basis on which they should be 
developed and their minimum content.  

These  criteria  do  not  seem  to  have  been  fully  implemented  in  all  Member  States.  In  many 
Member States inspection plans do not contain strategic elements but rather consist of lists of 
installations or sectors to be inspected in a certain time period.  

In addition to the need to clarify some key terms related to inspection planning as mentioned 
above  under  point  2.2.,  there  seems  to  be  a  potential  for  further  improving  the  planning  of 
inspections in the Member States. This would allow Member States to make the best possible 
use of their available resources by better targeting inspections of installations. Some Member 
States have already established advanced systems to plan inspections. The use of risk-based 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
management  approaches  to  plan  inspections  has  been  suggested  as  a  method  for  achieving 
good practice in inspections. This risk-based approach can be based on different criteria, such 
as  environmental  risk,  environmental  objectives  and  compliance  history  of  the  installation. 
One example of such an approach is the UK Operator and Pollution Risk Appraisal (OPRA) 
system,  which  is  based  on  several  criteria  such  as  the  complexity  of  the  installations,  its 
location and emissions as well as operator performance and history of the installation. 

2.3.2.  Carrying out of inspections 

The  Recommendation  states  that  site  visits  should  be  regularly  carried  out  as  part  of  the 
authorities'  routine  inspections  and  in  the  case  of  complaints,  accidents,  incidents  or 
occurrences  of  non  compliance  and  after  issuing  a  permit  and  before  reissue  or  renewal  or 
modification of a permit. Criteria are set out describing how these site visits should be carried 
out.  The  findings  of  the  site  visits  should  be  contained  in  reports,  which  should  be 
communicated to the operator and be made publicly available. Serious accidents, incidents or 
occurrences  of  non-compliance  should  be 
the  causes  and 
responsibilities,  mitigate  or  remedy  the  environmental  impacts,  determine  the  action  to  be 
taken as well as potential sanctions or enforcement measures. The follow-up by the operator 
should be ensured. There are no criteria for other inspection activities. 

investigated 

to  clarify 

2.3.3.  Evaluation of inspection plans 

Although the Recommendation does not expressly state that the implementation of inspection 
plans  should  be  evaluated,  point  VIII  of  the  Recommendation  requests  Member  States  to 
report on the evaluation of the success or failure of their inspection plans. 

Evaluating  the  success  of  inspection  plans  has  been  recognised  as  an  important  tool  to 
improve  the  planning  of  inspections.  Some  Member  States  have  put  in  place  sophisticated 
systems to evaluate the success of their inspection plans. These systems have helped them to 
define their future plans.  

2.4. 

Reporting 

The  first  reporting  exercise  has  produced  a  large  amount  of  information  showing  how  the 
Recommendation  is  implemented  and  applied  in  the  Member  States.  The  information  is, 
however,  not  always  comparable  and  does  not  always  allow  clear  conclusions  on  the 
efficiency  of  the  inspection  systems  in  the  Member  States.  It  has  been  suggested  that  a 
simpler reporting system more targeted to measuring the success of inspection systems should 
be  developed.  A  very  clear  uniform  format  for  such  a  reporting  system  would  need  to  be 
developed to ensure comparability of the data. 

2.5. 

Access to information 

The  Recommendation  states  that  the  inspection  plans  and  the  inspection  reports  should  be 
made available to the public in accordance with Directive 90/313/EEC. This Directive has in 
the  meantime  been  replaced  by  Directive  2003/4/EC.  The  new  directive  specifies  in  more 
detail  than  the  previous  one  the  concept  of  environmental  information,  the  grounds  for 
refusing access to information and the obligation to actively make information available to the 
public, e.g. via the internet. 

The  reports  have  shown  that  several  Member  States  do  not  make  the  inspection  plans  and 
reports  available.  Member  States  have  given  several  reasons  for  this.  Often  the  inspection 
plans are lists of installations that are to be inspected in a certain time period. The release of 
this  information  could  jeopardise  the  success  of  the  inspections.  Inspection  reports  are  also 
often not made public because they could contain confidential commercial information. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Information related to environmental inspections is covered by the requirements of Directive 
2003/4/EC,  so  the  legal  obligation  to  make  the  information  available  exists  already.  The 
Directive  also  gives  sufficient  grounds  for  exemptions  to  refuse  access  to  this  information 
where other overriding interests need to be protected.  

It  seems  that  in  many  cases  the  underlying  cause  for  the  lack  of  implementation  of  these 
provisions is the difficulty for authorities to find practical ways of separating the confidential 
information from the information that should be made accessible to the public. For example 
ways need to be found to make the strategic part of the inspection plan public, without also 
making public the part that contains the list of installations that will be inspected in a certain 
time period.  

3. 

PROPOSED WAY FORWARD 

Before the Recommendation was adopted there was a discussion on whether the criteria for 
environmental  inspections  should  be  legally  binding  or  not.  The  outcome  of  the  discussion 
was  the  adoption  of  a  non  binding  Recommendation  and  the  request  to  the  Commission  to 
review the Recommendation in the light of the experiences made with the implementation of 
the Recommendation and where necessary present a proposal for a directive.  

In  the  opinion  of  the  Commission  the  lack  of  full  implementation  of  the  Recommendation 
makes  it  necessary  to  consider  establishing  legally  binding  requirements  for  environmental 
inspections.  In  addition  there  is  a  need  to  clarify  the  general  criteria  for  environmental 
inspections  and  to  provide  further  guidance  and  exchange  of  information  on  their 
implementation. Accordingly, the following actions are proposed: 

3.1. 

Revision of the Recommendation 

The  Recommendation  should  be  seen  as  a  general  framework  for  environmental  inspection 
systems in Member States. Its criteria are of a general nature, describing how environmental 
inspections  should  be  planned,  carried  out  and  followed  up.  Due  to  this  very  general  and 
descriptive nature of the criteria, it does not seem appropriate to transform them into legally 
binding requirements.  

However,  in  order  to  improve  its  implementation  and  strengthen  its  effectiveness,  the 
Recommendation  should  be  amended.  In  particular  it  should  be  considered  to  broaden  its 
scope  so  that  it  covers  as  far  as  possible  all  environmentally  significant  activities.  The 
definitions relevant to inspections should be clarified. The further development of criteria for 
the  planning  of  inspections  should  be  considered.  A  reporting  system  that  is  as  simple  and 
clear as possible should be established to provide comparable information on how inspection 
systems  are  working  and  whether  they  achieve  the  objective  of  improving  compliance  with 
environmental legislation.  

3.2. 

Sectoral inspection requirements  

to 

the  general  criteria  for  environmental 

the 
In  addition 
Recommendation,  specific  legally  binding  requirements  for  the  inspection  of  certain 
installations or activities should be included in sectoral pieces of legislation. Legally binding 
requirements are necessary to ensure that a higher political priority is given to inspections and 
that  environmental  legislation  is  better  enforced  throughout  the  Community.  Defining  the 
inspection requirements in each legislative act has the advantage that the requirements can be 
adapted  to  the  specific  nature  and  risks  of  the  installations  or  activities  covered  and  can  be 
more precise and better targeted than general criteria. These sectoral inspection requirements 

inspections  set  out 

in 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
can be complementary to the Recommendation or they can concern installations or activities 
that are not covered by the Recommendation. 

One example of an existing well functioning sectoral inspection system is the one established 
by  the  Seveso  II  Directive  for  the  control  of  major-accident  hazards11.  Pursuant  to  this 
directive  authorities  must  organise  a  system  of  inspections  or  other  measures  of  control 
appropriate  to  the  type  of  establishment  concerned.  The  Directive  defines  a  minimum 
frequency  of  on-site  inspections  of  one  per  year  and  obliges  Member  States  to  ensure  that 
inspection  programmes  are  drawn  up  for  all  establishments,  that  reports  are  prepared  after 
inspections  and  that,  where  necessary,  inspections  are  followed  up  with  the  management  of 
the establishment within a reasonable period.  
As part of the review of the IPPC Directive12, which is on the 2007 Commission Legislative 
Work  Programme,  and  based  on  the  analysis  of  the  implementation  of  this  legislation,  the 
Commission  will  consider  ways  to  secure  a  better  compliance  framework  to  ensure  more 
consistency and confidence in Member States' inspection of IPPC installations.  

The  Commission  is  considering  proposing  specific  legally  binding  rules  for  inspections  of 
waste  shipments.  Unlike  inspections  of  installations,  inspections  of  waste  shipments  are 
carried  out  in  different  spots,  such  as  sea  ports,  roads  or  border  crossings  and  they  usually 
involve  many  different  authorities,  such  as  customs,  police  and  environmental  authorities. 
Specific  criteria  should  be  defined  to  ensure  sufficient  quality  and  frequency  of  inspections 
and provide for appropriate training and co-operation among authorities. 

In the case of product related legislation such as Directive 2002/95/EC on  the restriction of 
the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment13 compliance is 
checked  through  a  system  of  market  surveillance  and  conformity  assessment  procedures.  It 
should be examined whether there is a need to strengthen this system on the occasion of the 
current review of this Directive. 

Other pieces of environmental legislation that are currently under review or under preparation, 
and  in  which  the  necessity  of  establishing  or  reinforcing  inspection  requirements  will  be 
looked at, are: 

–  Directive  2003/87/EC  establishing  a  scheme  for  greenhouse  gas  emission  allowance 

trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC14 
–  Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer15 
–  Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption16 

–  Directive  86/609/EEC  on  the  approximation  of  laws,  regulation  and  administrative 
provisions  regarding  the  protection  of  animals  used  for  experimental  and  other  scientific 
purposes17 

–  Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment18 

11 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accidents hazards involving dangerous substances, OJ L 10, 
14.1.1997, p. 13, as last amended by Directive 2003/105/EC, OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 97 
Directive 96/61/EC on the prevention and control of pollution  
OJ L 37, 13.2.2003, p. 19 
OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, p. 32 
OJ L 244, 29.9.2000, p. 1 
OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32 
OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1 
OJ L 37, 13.2.2003, p. 24 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by 

regulating trade therein19 

–  Future directive on the injection and sub-surface storage of carbon 

The issue of inspections should also be considered in future reviews of legislation. 

3.3. 

Development of guidance and cooperation between Member States  

IMPEL  has  carried  out  a  long  list  of  projects  which  aim  to  strengthen  the  cooperation  and 
encourage  the  exchange  of  information  between  Member  States  on  environmental 
inspections20. The Commission has actively supported and participated in these projects. 

In particular the following projects should be mentioned: 

The  IMPEL  Review  Initiative  (IRI)  consists  of  sending  a  team  of  senior  inspectors  from 
different  countries  to  explore  the  regulatory  system  of  the  candidate  inspectorate  by 
comparing practice in the candidate inspectorate with the arrangements in the inspectorates of 
the  review  team  members.  IRI  projects  have  been  carried  out  in  8  volunteer  EU  Member 
States – Germany (Mannheim), Ireland (Wexford), Belgium (Brussels), France (Douai), The 
Netherlands  (Zwolle),  Spain  (Santiago de Compostela),  Sweden (Stockholm and Södertälje) 
and the United Kingdom (Scotland) as well as in Norway- between 2001 and 2007. 

The  IMPEL  Cluster  Transfrontier  Shipments  of  Waste  has  carried  out  several  projects 
concerning  the  prevention  of  illegal  shipments  of  waste,  including  the  organisation  of  joint 
inspection activities.  

Numerous guidance documents have been developed by IMPEL on how to plan and carry out 
inspections.  Exchanges  of  information  and  experiences  between  inspectors  have  been 
organised. 

All  these  initiatives  have  had  a  positive  impact  on  the  strengthening  of  inspections  in  the 
Community and IMPEL should be encouraged to continue such projects. 

19 
20 

OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1 
For detailed information see IMPEL website: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/impel/index.htm 

EN 

10 

   EN