Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the 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 minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States COM(2007) 707 final
Date: 2008-04-22
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU Member State, EU programme, action programme, environmental monitoring, environmental policy, environmental protection

C 211/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.8.2008

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the
Commission to the Council,
the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the review of Recommendation 2001/331/EC
providing minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States’

the European Parliament,

COM(2007) 707 final

(2008/C 211/10)

On 14 November 2007 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

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 minimum
criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 27 March 2008. The rapporteur was
Mr Zbořil.

At its 444th plenary session, held on 22 and 23 April 2008 (meeting of 22 April), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 151 votes in favour with three abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

framework for environmental

The EESC agrees with the Commission's view that the
1.1
general
inspection systems in
Member States should remain in the form of a Recommenda-
tion. However, the Recommendation should be amended in
order to improve its implementation and strengthen its effec-
tiveness. In key areas, sectoral legislation means that the inspec-
tion activity,
its implementation and methodology, are legally
binding across the whole of the EU.

1.2
The Recommendation must be absolutely clear and
comprehensible for its effective implementation. It is therefore
important to clearly define the scope of environmental inspec-
tions taking into account the detected problems.

The definition, clarity and uniformity of terms are of
1.3
major importance for the harmonisation of inspection activities
across the whole territory of the Community and for providing
a level playing field for businesses. There are many other exam-
ples of the use of these terms in other community legislation,
for which the definition varies from one act to another. The
definition of terms will therefore generally require closer atten-
tion.

1.6
Further standardisation in access to information is
required in accordance with current Community legislation.
Information provided should give an overall picture of the facts
uncovered by the inspection, the necessary corrective measures
and details of their implementation.

The IMPEL network must be supported in order to
1.7
further strengthen international cooperation and ensure greater
harmonisation in standards of inspection and enforcement.

2. The Commission document

Inspections are an important instrument for ensuring the
2.1
implementation and enforcement of Community environmental
the European Parliament and Council
legislation.
adopted
for
minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member
States (1).

In 2001,
Recommendation

2001/331/EC

providing

2.2
The Recommendation contains legally binding criteria
for planning, carrying out, following up and reporting on envir-
onmental inspections, which aim to strengthen compliance with
Community law and to contribute to its more consistent imple-
mentation and enforcement in all Member States.

1.4
Clearer definition of criteria for planning, carrying
out, following up and reporting on environmental inspec-
tions is also required.

The Commission has carried out a survey on the imple-
2.3
mentation and enforcement of
this Recommendation, which
will be used as a basis for drafting the new version of the
Recommendation, to be submitted in 2008.

1.5
The use of modern management methods should be
recommended for the system for managing the inspection
activities. These methods would help focus inspection activities
on key areas of
importance for environmental protection,
improve planning and could also contribute to the sustainable
improvement of environmental protection.

2.4
All Member States submitted reports on the implementa-
tion of the Recommendation and a report on their experiences
with its application. However, it should be noted that the appli-
cation process for the Recommendation varied widely from
State to State. While all Member States have implemented the

(1) OJ L 118, 27.4.2001, p. 41.

19.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/41

Recommendation at least in part, only a small number have
applied it fully. There are always large differences in the imple-
mentation of environmental inspections within the Community.
Moreover, these differences lead to distortions of competition
for businesses.

— Inspection, control, audit

— Inspection authority

2.5 Marked differences, which need to be eliminated, are
particularly noticeable in the following areas:

— Inspection plan, inspection programme

2.5.1 Definition of the scope

— Cross-border mechanism

The current scope focuses mainly on industrial and
2.5.1.1
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 Regu-
lation (2). The implementation of
this Regulation is a high
priority for the Commission.

2.5.1.2
The Recommendation also does not include criteria
for the inspection of Natura 2000 sites. 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 environ-
mental inspections by developing criteria for the inspection of
Natura 2000 sites.

2.5.1.3
Other environmental legislation to which the Recom-
mendation is not applicable concerns the registration and
authorisation of chemicals (REACH (3)), the restriction of certain
hazardous substances in products (e.g. the RoHS Directive (4)),
trade in endangered species (5) as well as activities related to
responsibility
genetically modified organisms and producer
systems.

Clarification of definitions: some terms used in the
2.5.2
Recommendation are interpreted in different ways by Member
States. Differing interpretations can be identified in particular
for the following concepts:

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste, OJ L 190,

12.7.2006, p. 1.

(3) 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 Regu-
lation 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.

(4) 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 37, 13.2.2003, p. 19.

(5) 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.

— Routine, non-routine inspections.

2.5.3
Criteria for planning, carrying out, following up
and reporting on inspections: the objective of the Recom-
mendation is to strengthen compliance of controlled installa-
tions with environmental legislation and to achieve a high level
of environmental protection.
the
Recommendation sets out criteria on how to plan, carry out,
follow up and report on environmental inspections.

to achieve this,

In order

— Planning of inspections: the Recommendation provides for the
establishment of
inspection plans and sets out general
criteria for these plans and their minimum content. In many
Member States, however,
inspection plans do not contain
strategic elements but rather consist of lists of installations
or sectors to be inspected in a certain time period. There
seems to be a potential for further improving the planning
inspections in the Member States to make the best
of
possible use of
their available resources. Some Member
States have already established advanced systems to plan
risk-based management
inspections
approaches (6).

through the use of

routine

inspections

— Carrying out of inspections: the Recommendation states that
site visits should be regularly carried out as part of the
authorities'
case of
and in the
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.
Although there are no major disparities between individual
Member States, practices in this area should also be harmo-
nised.

— Evaluation of inspection plans: evaluating the success of inspec-
tion 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.

(6) One example of such an approach is the UK Operator and Pollution

Risk Appraisal (OPRA) system.

C 211/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.8.2008

2.5.4
Reporting: The first reporting exercise has produced a
large amount of information showing how the Recommenda-
tion is implemented and applied in the Member States. The
information is, however, not always comparable. A very clear
uniform format for such a reporting system would need to be
developed to ensure comparability of the data.

2.5.5
Access to information: the Recommendation states
that the inspection plans and the inspection reports should be
made available to the public in accordance with the Community
Directives in force. The reports have shown that several Member
States make neither the inspection plans nor reports available.
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. Appropriate mechanisms will need to be developed
to allow this right to be exercised.

2.6 Proposed way forward

In the opinion of the Commission, the lack of full implementa-
tion of the Recommendation makes it necessary to consider
for environmental
establishing legally binding requirements
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:

2.6.1
Revision of the Recommendation: the Recommen-
dation should be seen as a general framework for environmental
inspection systems in Member States. Its criteria are of a general
nature. Due to this very general and descriptive nature of the
criteria, it does not seem appropriate to transform them into
legally binding requirements. However,
the Recommendation
should be amended in order to improve its implementation and
strengthen its effectiveness.

2.6.2
Sectoral inspection requirements: In addition to the
inspections set out in the
general criteria for environmental
Recommendation, specific legally binding requirements for the
inspection of certain installations or activities
should be
included in sectoral pieces of legislation. Legally binding require-
ments are necessary to ensure that a higher political priority is
given to inspections and that environmental legislation is better
enforced throughout
inspection
requirements can be complementary to the Recommendation or
they can concern installations or activities that are not covered
by the Recommendation.

the Community. Sectoral

As part of the review of the IPPC Directive (7), which
2.6.2.1
is on the 2007 Commission Legislative Work Programme, and
based on the analysis of the implementation of this legislation,

(7) Directive 96/61/EC on the prevention and control of pollution.

the Commission will consider ways to secure a better compli-
ance framework to ensure more consistency and confidence in
Member States' inspection of IPPC installations.

2.6.2.2
The Commission is considering proposing specific
legally binding rules for inspections of waste shipments. Specific
criteria should be defined to ensure sufficient quality and
frequency of inspections and provide for appropriate training
and co-operation among authorities.

of

and

guidance

Development

2.6.3
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 envir-
onmental
actively
supported and participated in these projects. 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.

The Commission

inspections (8).

has

3. General comments

The EESC welcomes the Commission's Communication
3.1
on the review of Recommendation 2001/331/EC providing for
minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member
States, and appreciates the efforts (9) made to undertake a study
on the application of this Recommendation.

constitute

inspections

Environmental

3.2
an important
element of the executive power of each state in environmental
protection. It is appropriate that they pay ensure the application
of not only national environmental protection policy but also
the Community's common principles in environmental policy,
in a way which is as balanced as possible, whatever legal entity
is given the responsibility for carrying out inspections in a given
Member State.

3.3
The EESC is aware that it is vital to strengthen compli-
ance with Community environmental law and to contribute to
its more consistent
in all
Member States, to ensure that the agreed and applied minimum
criteria contribute to creating a level playing field in the future,
in particular with regard to competition.

implementation and enforcement

3.4
The EESC believes that further debate with stakeholders
regarding the communication will offer insights necessary for
creating an optimal framework for inspection activities, which
will be both clear and well enforced throughout
the Com-
munity.

(8) For further information see the IMPEL website:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/impel/index.htm.

(9) Commission Staff Working Paper — on the application of Recommen-
dation 2001/331/EC providing for minimum criteria for environ-
mental inspections in the Member States.

19.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/43

4. Specific comments

4.1
The recommendation must be absolutely clear and
comprehensible for effective implementation. The EESC is there-
fore delighted that the Commission intends to draw attention to
this point.

4.1.1
The EESC believes that it is essential that the scope of
environmental inspections is well defined, covering important
problem areas, without undermining the flexibility of
the
inspection systems or specific national approaches. However,
only those national approaches that are required under specific
national objectives for environmental protection should be
applied.

4.1.2 Whenever specific Community legislative acts provide
for inspection activities, these should be governed by a specific
legislative act, to avoid differences of interpretation.

It can be seen from the Communication that differ-
4.1.3
ences in the definition, clarity and uniformity of terms are of
major importance for the harmonisation of inspection activities
across the whole territory of the Community and for providing
a level playing field. If uniform application of the Recommenda-
tion is to be achieved, it is absolutely essential that the basic
terms are precisely defined in order to allow harmonisation and
to establish links to other legislation.

The EESC therefore also draws attention to the fact that
4.1.4
there are many other examples of the use of these terms in
other community legislation,
for which the definition varies
from one act to another. The definition of terms will therefore
generally require closer attention.

In addition, the EESC considers it essential to determine
4.2
the criteria for planning, carrying out,
following up and
reporting on inspections, while also preserving the necessary
flexibility for specific inspection activities to be undertaken. A
reporting system that is as simple and clear as possible should
be established to provide comparable information on how
inspection systems function and whether they achieve the objec-
tive of improving compliance with environmental legislation.

The use of modern management methods should be
4.3
recommended for the system for managing the inspection activ-
ities, as such methods have shown positive results in some

Brussels, 22 April 2008.

Member States. These methods would help focus inspection
activities on key areas of importance for environmental protec-
tion, improve planning and could also contribute to the sustain-
able improvement of environmental protection.

4.4
The EESC recommends further standardisation in access
to information in accordance with current Community legisla-
tion to respect the specific level of access to information in the
Member States. The provision of such information should not
hamper the inspection activities and the information provided
should give an overall picture of the facts uncovered by the
inspection, the necessary corrective measures and details of their
implementation.

framework for environmental

The EESC agrees with the Commission's view that the
4.5
general
inspection systems in
Member States should remain in the form of a Recommenda-
tion. Indeed, given the 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 Recommen-
dation should be amended.

4.6
This opinion is based on the fact that a considerable
amount of current and forthcoming Community legislation
includes conditions and criteria for carrying out
inspection
activities specific to particular sectors. This legislation means
that
its implementation and metho-
dology, are legally binding across the whole of the EU.

the inspection activity,

4.7
The EESC considers that the IMPEL network must be
supported if international cooperation is to be further strength-
ened. The network has drawn up many documents with guide-
lines for planning and carrying out inspections. In addition, the
network has organised exchanges of information and experience
between inspectors. The professional activities of
the IMPEL
network could contribute a considerable amount, in particular
through specific projects, as was the case in the past. IMPEL
might play a useful role in facilitation of common training and
professional development. It might also be useful to develop a
central unit for the compilation of Europe — wide statistics and
other information instruments about inspection and enforce-
ment activities throughout Europe.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS