REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 on persistent organic pollutants in accordance with Article 12(6) of the Regulation
Date: 2010-09-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: environmental protection, organic pollution, public health, toxic substance

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 28.9.2010 
COM(2010) 514 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the application of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 on persistent organic pollutants in 
accordance with Article 12(6) of the Regulation  

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the application of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 on persistent organic pollutants in 
accordance with Article 12(6) of the Regulation  

(Text with EEA Relevance) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Regulation (EC) 850/20041 on persistent organic pollutants (the Regulation) was adopted in 
April 2004, in order to implement the Stockholm Convention (the Convention) and the POP 
Protocol  under  the  Convention  on  Long-Range  Transboundary  Air  Pollution  (the  Protocol) 
within the European Union. 

The  Regulation  contains  provisions  regarding  production,  placing  on  the  market  and  use  of 
chemicals,  management  of  stockpiles  and  wastes  and  measures  to  reduce  unintentional 
releases  of  POPs.  Furthermore,  Member  States  must  set  up  emission  inventories  for 
unintentionally  produced  POPs,  national  implementation  plans  (NIPs)  and  monitoring  and 
information exchange mechanisms. 

Article  12  of  the  Regulation  requires  annual  reporting  by  Member  States  on  the  actual 
production and use of POPs and triennial reporting on the implementation of other provisions 
of the Regulation (Article 12 reports). The Commission is required to compile the reports and 
integrate  them  with  the  information  from  the  EPER2,  the  E-PRTR3  and  the  CORINAIR 
Emission Inventory of EMEP4 in a synthesis report.  

The first synthesis report was finalised by a contractor on behalf of the Commission in 20095 
based  on  the  2004–2006  triennial  reports  and  the  2006–2008  annual  reports.  This  report 
discusses the findings of the synthesis report and progress achieved in the implementation of 
the  Community  Implementation  Plan  (CIP)6  until  the  end  of  2009.  In  addition  the  report 
recommends further actions to ensure the full implementation of the Regulation. 

1 
2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

OJ L 229, 29.6.2004, p. 5 
EPER (European Pollutant Emission Register) established by Commission Decision 2000/479/EC 
E-PRTR  (European  Pollutant  Release  and  Transfer  Register)  established  by  the  Regulation  (EC) 
166/2006. 
EMEP  (Co-operative  programme  for  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  long  range  transmission  of  air 
pollutants in Europe) 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pops/index_en.htm. The contractor who wrote this report is responsible 
for its content.  
SEC (2007) 341 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

CONTROL OF PRODUCTION, PLACING ON THE MARKET AND USE 

2.1. 

Production 

No  production  of  intentionally  produced  POPs  has  been  reported  except  for  Romania 
producing lindane in 2005 and 2006. This production stopped upon the accession of Romania 
to the EU and no production has been reported in the EU since 2007. The derogation for DDT 
production as an intermediate chemical has not been used and is therefore no longer relevant.  

2.2. 

Placing on the market, import and use 

Only  a  few  Member  States  reported  placing  on  the  market  under  the  general  exemption  for 
POPs used in laboratory-scale research or as a reference standard. The reported amounts vary 
between several grams to several kilograms per Member States, per year. It is likely that the 
overall  use  for  this  purpose  is  higher  than  reported  as  most  Member  States  carry  out 
laboratory based research. 

Substances  occurring  as  unintentional  trace  contaminants  (UTC)  in  substances,  preparations 
or articles have not been reported. The term UTC is not defined in the Regulation, which may 
impede  uniform  enforcement.  For  example,  1  Member  State  considered  fireworks  to  be  in 
breach  of  the  provisions  only  if  the  concentration  of  POP  exceeded  the  cut-off  value  set  in 
Annex IV to the Regulation, which means that the waste related cut-off value was used as a 
definition of UTC. 

Action 1: Commission to clarify term ‘unintentional trace contaminant’. 

The Regulation exempts substances occurring as a constituent of articles produced or in use 
before the date of entry into force of the Regulation. However, immediately upon becoming 
aware of such articles, Member States shall inform the Commission thereof. The Netherlands 
identified PCBs in certain hydraulic systems, transformers, switch boxes, and capacitors. 

Recommendation  1:  Member  States  to  continue  identifying  articles  containing  POPs  and 
reporting it to the Commission. 

Small amounts of lindane were placed on the market in Austria, Ireland and Germany as an 
active  substance  of  human  pharmaceutical  products  and  veterinary  drugs.  These  uses  were 
phased out during 2007 in order to meet the phase-out deadline set in the Regulation.  

Spain imported 7.8 and 12 tonnes of lindane from Romania in 2005 and 2006, respectively. 
Spain  and  Finland  expressed  their  consent  to  import  lindane  until  31  December  2007  under 
the Rotterdam Convention. Finland allowed lindane in biocidal products and Spain as topical 
insecticide for use in public health.  

2.3. 

Infringements 

Three cases of infringements were reported. Ireland reported placing on the market of small 
quantities  of  lindane  in  medicinal  products  at  the  beginning  of  2008.  Denmark  identified 
presence  of  HCB  in  fireworks  in  2008.  In  2009,  Austria confirmed the presence  of HCB in 
20% of tested fireworks in quantities of up to 4%. All three Member States took the necessary 
measures to withdraw the non-compliant products from the market.  

Recommendation 2: Member States to intensify compliance controls of products in line with 

EN 

3 

   EN 

Regulation  (EC)  No  765/20087  setting  out  the  requirements  for  accreditation  and  market 
surveillance relating to the marketing of products  

2.4. 

Prevention  of 
characteristics of POPs  

the  production  and  use  of  new  chemicals  exhibiting 

Provisions  to  prevent  the  production,  placing  on  the  market  and  use  of  new  substances 
exhibiting  POP  characteristics  were  incorporated  into  the  new  regulatory  framework  for 
chemicals, pesticides and biocides.  

Pursuant  to  REACH,  substances  which  are  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic  (PBTs)  or 
very  persistent  and  very  bioaccumulative  (vPvBs)  can  be  subject  to  authorisation.  For 
substances  manufactured  or  imported  in  quantities  of  10  tonnes  or  more,  a  chemical  safety 
assessment  must  be  performed  which  includes  assessment  of  PBT  and  vPvB  properties.  In 
quantities higher than 100 tonnes, the registration requires specific tests for PBT assessment.  

Pursuant  to  Regulation  (EC)  No  1107/20098  concerning  the  placing  of  plant  protection 
products on the market, an active substance, safener or synergist can only be approved if it is 
not a POP, PBT or vPvB substance. A substance must be seen as a candidate for substitution 
if it meets two of the PBT criteria. The Commission's proposal COM (2009)267 on biocidal 
products lists PBTs among substances that should be substituted and not be considered low-
risk substances. 

3. 

STOCKPILES 

Four  Member  States  reported  stockpiles  of  POP  pesticides.  Spain  reported  5  000  tonnes  of 
lindane stored under controlled conditions. Bulgaria, Hungary and Lithuania reported around 
15 000 tons of obsolete pesticides with unknown POP content. Export notifications provided 
by  Germany  under  Regulation  (EC)  No  689/20089  concerning  the  export  and  import  of 
dangerous chemicals and Article 12 reports suggest that Germany has some stocks of lindane.  

Ten  Member  States  reported  stocks  of  more  than  91  000  tonnes  of  equipment  containing 
PCBs. The stocks may be greater as some Member States may only report on this issue under 
Directive 96/59/EC10 on the disposal of PCBs and PCTs (PCB Directive).  

In accordance with the PCB Directive, inventories of equipment with PCB volumes of more 
than  5  dm³,  plans  for  their  disposal  and  plans  for  the  collection  and  disposal  of  smaller 
equipment  were  compiled  by  all  Member  States.  Member  States  continue  in  their  efforts  to 
eliminate  PCBs  and  equipments  contaminated  with  PCBs,  as  small  equipments  must  be 
disposed of as soon as possible and equipment with PCB volumes of more than 5 dm³ must be 
disposed of no later than 2010. 

Action 2: After the expiry of the 2010 deadline, Commission to verify the implementation of 
this provision and issue a report. 

7 
8 
9 
10 

OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 30 
OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1 
OJ L 204, 31.7.2008, p. 1 
OJ L 243, 24.9.1996, p. 31 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
Action 3: Commission to clarify reporting obligation as regards PCBs. 

4. 

RELEASE REDUCTION, MINIMISATION, ELIMINATION AND EMISSION INVENTORIES 

4.1. 

Emission inventories (under the Protocol, the Convention and E-PRTR) 

The  Protocol  includes  the  obligation  to  maintain  emission  inventories  for  PCDD/Fs,  PAHs 
and HCB into  air11  and  annually  report  them  to  the  EMEP  data  centre12. 24 Member States 
regularly report their estimates of PCDD/Fs and PAHs emissions, 21 Member States of HCB 
emissions  and  18  Member  States  voluntarily  report  estimates  of  PCBs  emissions.  The  EU 
total emissions for 2007 are 2.21 kg I-TEQ of PCDD/Fs, 1369 tonnes of PAHs, 657 tonnes of 
HCB and 2.9 tonnes of PCBs.  

Recommendation  3:  Member  States  to  report  emission  data  to  EMEP  regularly  and 
comprehensively. 

The  Convention  follows  a  more  source-based  approach  than  EMEP  and  includes  emissions 
also to soil and water. The Commission actively contributed to the development of a global 
standardized  toolkit  for  the  identification  and  quantification  of  PCDD/Fs  releases  to  help 
countries establish their release inventories. Some Member States applied this methodology in 
their action plans.  

E-PRTR was established by Regulation (EC) No 166/200613. It contains emission data from 
approximately 24000 industrial facilities in 65 economic activities for 91 pollutants, including 
all POPs.  

Data  from  the  reference  year  2007  and  2008  are  publicly  available.  The  2007  data  show, 
unexpectedly, that releases were reported not only for unintentionally produced POPs but also 
for  intentionally  produced  POPs,  such  as  aldrin  (153  kg),  dieldrin  (143  kg),  endrin  (98  kg), 
heptachlor (2 kg), DDT (3 kg), and hexachlorocyclohexane (263 kg).  

Recommendation  4:  Member  States  to  investigate  the  cause  of  the  releases  of  the  banned 
substances and take appropriate measures.  

There  are  some  discrepancies  between  EMEP  and  E-PRTR  data.  The  E-PRTR  covers  only 
large point sources and reported emissions should not exceed national total emissions reported 
under EMEP, which include all anthropogenic emissions occurring in the geographical area of 
the country. Seven Member States have however reported emissions to E-PRTR higher than 
the  national  total  emissions.  Some  POPs  were  reported  only  to  E-PRTR  and  not  to  EMEP 
although the same data could be reported to EMEP. 

Recommendation  5:  Member  States  to  ensure  consistency  in  and  maximise  use  of  emission 
reporting. 

11 

12 
13 

following  a  specific  EMEP/CORINAIR  guidance  document  ,now  updated  with  the  Guidelines  for 
Reporting  Emission  Data  under  the  Convention  on  Long-range  Transboundary  Air  Pollution  and  the 
joint EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook 
http://www.ceip.at/emission-data-webdab/ 
OJ L 33, 4.2.2006, p. 1 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
4.2. 

Emission minimisation 

New information related to the prevention and control of the formation and release of POPs 
into  the  environment  was  gathered  when  revising  the  Best  Available  Techniques  (BAT) 
reference documents (BREFs). The revised Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide BREF was 
adopted  in  the  first  half  of  2010  and  contains  updated  conclusions  on  BAT  to  prevent  and 
abate POPs, in particular PCDD/Fs.  

Action 4: Commission to finalize the on-going revision of the Iron and Steel BREF and the 
Non Ferrous Metals BREF. 

The  impacts  of  including  combustion  installations  below  50  MW  in  the  scope  of  a  revised 
Directive  2008/1/EC14  concerning  integrated  pollution  prevention  and  control  (IPPC 
Directive)  have  been  studied15,16.  Lowering  the  capacity  threshold  to  20  MW  would  affect 
3200  installations  leading  to  considerable  emission  reductions  of  particulate  matter  and 
potentially also POPs. The Commission included these installations in its revision proposal. 

The feasibility of applying continuous measurements of PCDD/F and of monitoring of dioxin-
like PCBs has been assessed for waste incineration and co-incineration plants17. Continuous 
sampling of PCDD/Fs is feasible and is successfully applied in a number of Member States, in 
particular  Belgium.  Its  mandatory  use  would  improve  information  about  emissions  and 
harmonization of the relevant legislation. The economic impact at the sector level is limited, 
but  could  be  significant  for  small  plants.  The  option  of  setting  a  date  for  continuous 
measurement  for  PCDD/F  releases  into  air  is  included  in  the  IPPC  revision  proposal.  The 
studies on monitoring dioxin-like PCBs were inconclusive.  

The Commission has mandated CEN to finalise an analytical standard for measurement of air 
emissions of dioxin-like PCBs. The field test measurements took place in 2008 and 2009. The 
standard method is expected in 2011. 

In  the  context  of  Directive  2009/125/EC  on  the  eco-design  requirements  for  energy-related 
products,  environmental  impacts  including  PCDD/Fs  emissions  of  solid  fuel  small 
combustion  installations18  were  analysed  and  ways  of  improving  their  environmental 
performance were recommended. 

Action  5:  Commission  to  table  an  implementing  measure  to  set  out  minimum  eco-design 
requirements for solid fuel small combustion installations. 

The methods and practices to estimate PCDD/Fs emissions from domestic sources, as well as 
to  reduce  these  emissions  were  analysed19.  The  report  also  identified  obstacles  to  accurate 

14 
15

16 

17 
18 
19 

OJ L 24, 29.1.2008, p. 8 

http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/ippc_rev/library?l=/gathering_amendments/final_report/fa

ctsheet_combustion/_EN_1.0_&a=d 
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/ippc_rev/library?l=/combustion_20-
50/final_report&vm=detailed&sb=Title 
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/ippc_rev/library?l=/waste_incineration/final_report 
http://www.ecoaircon.eu/ 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/dioxin/pdf/report09.pdf 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
 
estimation and effective action. The conclusions and recommendations were disseminated to 
national authorities and decision makers in the form of a brochure20. 

5. 

WASTE MANAGEMENT 

The  Regulation  has  been  amended  four  times  in  relation  to  waste  provisions.  The 
concentration limits in Annex IV and V were established by Regulation (EC) No 1195/200621 
and  172/200722,  respectively.  Annex  V  was  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  323/200723  in 
order  to  allow  pre-treatment  operations  prior  to  the  permanent  storage  of  wastes  containing 
POPs. Annex IV and V were further amended by Regulation (EC) No 304/200924 in order to 
align them with the updated general technical guidelines for management of  POP wastes of 
the  Basel  Convention  leading  to  the  inclusion  of  operation  "R4  Recycling/reclamation  of 
metals  and  metal  compounds"  as  an  acceptable  operation  in  order  to  destroy  or  irreversibly 
transform POPs in waste.  

The Regulation allows under certain conditions alternative treatment options than destruction 
or irreversible transformation of POP waste if it does not exceed the concentration limits of 
Annex V to the Regulation. In order to facilitate the obligatory submission of the notifications 
and  their  justification  concerning  the  use  of  this  derogation,  the  Commission  established  a 
reporting format in Decision 2009/63/EC25.  

Two  Member  States  have  made  use  of  the  derogation  clause.  In  2008,  Germany  authorised 
disposal of 50 tonnes of PCB containing construction and demolition waste at an underground 
disposal site for hazardous wastes. In 2009, Finland authorised disposal, after a treatment by 
stabilisation,  of  2000  tonnes  of  soil  contaminated  with  PCDD/Fs  at  a  landfill  for  hazardous 
waste.  

Denmark, France, the Netherlands and the Slovak Republic indicated in their NIPs that they 
do not intend to make use of the derogation. 

Although  only  few  Member  States  made  use  of  this  derogation,  it  has  to  be  noted  that  a 
relatively short period of time has elapsed since the concentration limits were established and 
significant amounts  of  POP stockpiles have still to be  disposed  of. In  addition, further POP 
substances  will  be  added  to  the  Regulation.  It  cannot  be  ruled  out  that  further  use  of 
derogations  may  be  needed  for  these  substances.  Therefore,  no  changes  to  the  existing 
derogation clause are currently foreseen.  

6. 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

To date, 24 Member States have ratified the Convention. Ireland, Italy and Malta signed the 
Convention in May 2001, but have not yet ratified.  

Recommendation 6: Member States to finalize ratification process. 

20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/dioxin/pdf/brochure09.pdf 
OJ L 217, 8.8.2006, p. 6 
OJ L 55, 23.2.2007, p. 1 
OJ L 85, 27.3.2007, p. 3 
OJ L 96, 15.4.2009, p. 33 
OJ L 23, 27.1.2009, p. 30 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
So  far  19  Member  States  have  developed  NIPs  and  provided  them  to  the  Convention 
Secretariat  and  to  the  Commission.  The  2  years  deadline  after  the  Convention  entered  into 
force  has  expired  for  Portugal  and  Greece  while  it  is  still  pending  for  Estonia,  Poland  and 
Hungary. 

Public participation in the NIP development was generally assured by means of stakeholder 
and expert consultations during the process of preparation. 

National Action Plans (NAPs) on measures to identify, characterise and minimise releases of 
unintentionally  produced  POPs  should  be  prepared  as  part  of  the  NIPs.  All  Member  States 
who  have  completed  their  NIPs  have  also  made  NAPs.  In  addition,  Poland  who  did  not 
communicate their NIP reported the existence of a NAP.  

Identification  of  emission  sources  of  unintentionally  produced  POPs  is  mainly  done  by 
checking  with  the  emission  categories  specified  under  existing  EU  legislation  (the  IPPC 
Directive,  the  E-PRTR  Regulation,  the  PCB  Directive)  or  international  instruments 
(EMEP/EEA,  and  in  some  cases  also  the  UNEP  dioxin  toolkit).  Several  Member  States 
reported on additional activities such as studies to identify new sources of POPs or to identify 
contaminated sites.  

Source  characterisations  are  performed  by  means  of  emission  measurements  or  estimation 
using  activity  data  from  statistical  offices  and  emission  factors  from  the  EMEP/EEA 
Guidebook or the UNEP dioxin toolkit.  

Measures to minimise releases of POPs are mainly based on achieving compliance with EU 
legislation.  These  measures  include  requirements  for  environmental  permits  under  the  IPPC 
Directive, identification and destruction of PCB stockpiles under the PCB Directive, control 
of  emissions  to  water  to  comply  with  the  Water  Framework  Directive26  and  other  water 
legislation and POP waste destruction in accordance with this Regulation. In addition, there 
are  some  measures  reported  also  at  national  level,  such  as  e.g.  the  introduction  of  a  ban  on 
open  burning  to  minimise  emissions,  promotional  and  educational  activities  on  proper 
combustion of bio-fuels, plans for legal emission requirements on stoves, furnaces and boilers 
as well as the establishment of legal emission requirements for crematoria.  

Recommendation  7:  Member  States  to  finalize  NIPs  including  NAPs  and  consider  their 
updates. 

A CIP was developed27 in 2007. It identifies existing measures at EU level related to POPs, 
assesses  their  efficiency  and  sufficiency  in  meeting  the  obligations  of  the  Convention, 
identifies  needs  for  further  Union  level  measures  and  establishes  a  plan  for  implementing 
further measures.  

Out of the 32 actions identified in the CIP, 12 actions are continuous (Actions 1, 7, 9, 11, 23, 
25-27, 29-32) and a fixed deadline was set for 20 actions. Of these, 15 actions were finalized 
while 5 actions (Actions 2, 4, 14, 19 and 22) remain to be done.  

Action 6: Commission to continue work on actions with a continuous time line, to finalize the 
actions  not  yet  finalized  and  update  the  CIP  as  a  consequence  of  technical  and  legislative 

26 
27 

OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1 
SEC (2007) 341 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
developments  in  the  field,  the  listing  of  9  new  substances  in  the  Convention  and  findings 
presented in this report. 

7. 

MONITORING 

All Member States except Hungary reported that some environmental monitoring activities of 
POPs  are  in  place.  Substances  covered  are  mainly  PCDD/Fs  and  PCBs,  but  also  POP 
pesticides or PAHs. 

Unfortunately,  no  time  trend  analysis,  spatial  distribution  nor  baseline  determination  at  EU 
level and thus no policy effectiveness evaluation could be performed from the data available. 
The information reported by the Member States for the policy effectiveness evaluation lacks 
necessary  details.  The  raw  data  which  would  be  suitable  for  this  purpose  are  scattered  in 
various databases with different formats. Thus these data can only be analysed with difficulty. 
Finally, there is a lack of comparability of the data.  

Action  7:  Commission  to  consider  establishment  of  a  chemical  data  centre  enabling 
collection, accessibility, sharing and comparability of the chemical monitoring data including 
data from recently initiated human biomonitoring activities.  

8. 

INFORMATION EXCHANGE 

Information  exchange  between  Member  States  and  the  Commission  is  ensured  by  regular 
meetings of the Competent Authorities (CAs). 26 Member States nominated their CA. Estonia 
has not yet done so. A web-based application managed by the Commission is used for sharing 
information among the CAs and observers to the group. In addition, information exchange is 
further ensured by meetings of working parties and meetings of CAs established under other 
legislation.  Information  exchange  with  third  countries  is  ensured  i.a.  by  participation  in 
international meetings and working groups under the Convention. 

Awareness raising, providing information to the public and training activities are consistently 
reported by Member States. Dedicated websites, brochures, guidance documents, workshops 
and seminars are typical approaches pursued.  

9. 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

The  Commission  provided  voluntary  support  to  the  Secretariat  for  effectiveness  evaluation 
and  the  dioxin  toolkit.  Some  Member  States  reported  numerous  assistance  activities  and 
others  were  not  able  to  provide  support.  17  Member  States  are  donors  to  the  Global 
Environmental Facility (GEF) which is the Convention's financial mechanism.  

The  assistance  provided  includes  support  for  participation  at  Conferences  of  the  Parties, 
identification  and  elimination  of  stockpiles,  waste  management,  sampling  and  analytical 
methods, monitoring and decontamination, development of national implementation plans and 
legal frameworks, research and capacity building activities.  

There  is  little  coordination  between  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  on  their  direct 
support for the Convention, which could improve the effectiveness of the support and ensure 
that the Union has a stronger voice in steering future action.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

Recommendation 8: Commission and Member States to coordinate their voluntary support to 
the  Convention  Secretariat.  Those  Member  States  that  are  not  yet  GEF  donors  to  consider 
becoming contributors.  

10. 

REPORTING 

The  reporting  format  for  both  annual  and  triennial  Article  12  reporting  was  established  by 
Commission Decision 2007/639/EC28. 23 Member States provided their first triennial report 
which was mainly for the period 2004–2006.  

14  annual  reports  were  received  for  2006,  21  reports  for  2007  and  21  reports  for  2008. 
Estonia, Greece, Malta and Portugal have not submitted any report yet.  

Recommendation 9: Member States to report regularly to the Commission. 

The adopted reporting format fulfilled its role to facilitate the first reporting. A major part of 
the format is also relevant for subsequent reports, but certain parts of the triennial report are 
only relevant for the first reporting.  

Action  8:  Commission  to  review  the  current  reporting  format  with  a  view  to  increasing  its 
clarity  and  usability  of  the  (monitoring)  data  and  making  it  compatible  with  Shared 
Environmental Information System29 principles.  

11. 

PENALTIES 

The majority of Member States have laid down rules on penalties related to Articles 3, 5, and 
7 of the Regulation. Only Hungary reported no strict rules on penalties for infringements and 
Spain,  Ireland  and  Sweden  reported  that  rules  on  penalties  have  been  drafted  but  are  not  in 
force yet.  

In  general  penalties  are  graded  depending  on  the  type  of  violation  and  the  offending  body. 
They  include  fines  (rating  from  a  few  Euros  up  to  10  millions  Euros)  and  imprisonment 
(ranging from a few days up to 5 years).  

Enforcement  is  ensured  by  regular  inspections  in  most  Member  States.  The  intensity  of 
enforcement cannot be assessed. Up to now, three cases of infringements have been reported, 
see section 2.2. In all cases measures were taken to withdraw the product from the market, but 
no information is available as to whether penalties were applied. 

Action 9: Commission to clarify situation on penalties and take action accordingly. 

12. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The requirements of the Regulation are largely fulfilled in relation to intentionally produced 
POPs.  Production,  placing  on  the  market  and  use  have  been  phased-out;  stock  inventories 

28 
29 

OJ L 258, 4.10.2007, p. 39 
COM (2008) 46 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
have been prepared and are being updated. Member States continue their efforts to eliminate 
the stockpiles particularly in view of the end of 2010 deadline for PCB equipments.  

Emission  inventories  for  unintentionally  produced  POPs  have  been  established,  but  they 
suffer from data gaps and inconsistencies. Data gaps include insufficient coverage of sources, 
environmental  compartments,  number  of  POP  substances  and  changes  in  completeness  of 
estimations  and  reporting  methodology.  Inconsistencies  are  observed  between  E-PRTR  and 
EMEP emission estimates.  

Emission  data  deficits  are  especially  critical  for  water  and  land  compartments  and  for  HCB 
and PCB emissions, but all evaluations would benefit from improved reporting. This includes 
the  need  to  up-date,  further  specify  and  review  the  use  of  emissions  factors.  This  will  be 
addressed by ongoing review projects for the EMEP/EEA Guidebook and the UNEP dioxin 
toolkit.  A  systematic  information  exchange  of  Member  State  authorities  on  applied 
methodologies would be an additional tool to further improve the reliability of estimates. 

Elaboration of NIPs pursuant to the Convention requirements and the related establishment of 
NAPs for unintentionally released POPs are not yet completed or have not even started in a 
number  of  Member  States.  19  Member  States  have  developed  NIPs  and  related  NAPs  and 
provided them to the Convention Secretariat.  

NAPs  generally  contain  descriptions  of  measures  to  identify,  characterise  and  minimise 
releases  of  unintentionally  produced  POPs.  The  expansion  of  the  inventories  from 
PCDD/PCDFs  and  PAHs  to  PCBs  and  HCB  is  a  priority.  Measures  to  implement  the  IPPC 
Directive,  BAT  and  other  EU  emission  limits  are  still  ongoing  in  many  Member  States. 
Domestic  combustion  has  become  a  new  priority  issue  (caused  by  efforts  to  replace  use  of 
fossil  fuels)  followed  by  elimination  of  stocks  and  environmental  burdens,  as  well  as  open 
burning of waste.  

Waste  provisions  are  well  implemented.  Concentration  thresholds  for  upper  and  lower  POP 
content have been established. Changes to the existing derogation clause providing an option 
to deal with waste in exceptional circumstances as alternatives to destruction or irreversibly 
transformation of the POPs content are not envisaged.  

POP  environmental  monitoring  is  established  in  most  Member  States.  However,  there  is  no 
EU  level  database  enabling  evaluation  of  time  trends  in  the  environment,  nor  is  the 
information  provided  by  Member  States  sufficient  to  evaluate  policy  effectiveness  at  EU 
level. A more comprehensive and detailed compilation of comparable monitoring data at EU 
level and establishment of a common information system is needed.  

Compliance with the reporting obligation is not satisfactory. A significant number of Member 
States has not respected their reporting obligations. The quality of information provided must 
improve.  The  reporting  format  would  benefit  from  a  revision  to  increase  clarity  and 
compatibility with SEIS principles. 

Greater coordination of EU assistance would improve its effectiveness and visibility.  

The Commission will continue to work with Member States to improve implementation with 
the aim to protect human health and the environment from POPs. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

Abbreviations and units used 

Best Available Techniques Reference Document 

European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme  
European Pollutant Emission Register 
European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register 

BAT  Best Available Techniques 
BREF 
CAs  Competent Authorities 
CEN  European Committee for Standardization 
CIP  Community Implementation Plan 
CORINAIR  Core Inventory of Air Emissions 
DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 
EEA  European Environmental Agency 
EMEP 
EPER 
E-PRTR 
GEF  Global Environmental Facility 
HCB Hexachlorobenzene 
IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control  
I-TEQ 
MW  Mega Watts 
NAP  National Action Plan 
NIP  National Implementation Plan 
PAHs 
PBT  Persistent, Bioaccumulative, Toxic 
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls 
PCDD/Fs 
PCTs Polychlorinated Terphenyls 
POPs Persistent Organic Polluntants 
REACH 
SEIS Shared Environmental Information System 
UNEP 
UTC  Unintentional Trace Contaminants 
vPvB very Persistent, very Bioaccumulative 

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

International Toxic Equivalent  

United Nation Environmental Programme 

Polychlorinated Dibenzo- Dioxins and Furans 

Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals  

EN 

12 

   EN