REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament under Article 18(2) of Directive 2004/35/EC on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage
Date: 2016-04-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, cost of pollution, environmental liability, environmental monitoring, environmental protection, national implementing measure, polluter pays principle, prevention of pollution

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 14.4.2016  COM(2016) 204 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament under Article 18(2) of Directive 2004/35/EC on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage  {SWD(2016) 121 final} {SWD(2016) 122 final}  
 
 
1. 

Introduction 

This second implementation report1 on Directive 2004/35/EC on environmental liability with 
regard  to  the  prevention  and  remedying  of  environmental  damage  ('the  Environmental 
Liability Directive' or 'the Directive' or 'ELD')2 presents the experience gained in applying the 
Directive  between  2007  and  2013  and  must  be  read  in  conjunction  with  a  Staff  Working 
Document3.  The  report  is  based  on  Article  18(2)  ELD.  It  contains  conclusions  and 
recommendations on how to improve the implementation on the ground, based on the REFIT 
evaluation  undertaken  over  the  past  two  years.  The  evaluation  assessed  how  the  Directive 
works and whether it is “fit for purpose”4, backed up by two studies done in 2012 and three 
from 20135. 

The  ELD  addresses  cases  of  significant  environmental  damage.  It  implements  the  'polluter 
pays'  principle  which  is  set  out  in  Article  191  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European  Union,  meaning  that  the  public  should  not  pay  if  an  industrial  operation  causes 
significant  environmental  damage.  Operators  carrying  out  occupational  dangerous  activities 
as  listed  in  Annex  III  ELD  (see  section  2.  below)  are  strictly  liable  for  the  environmental 
damage  they  caused,  i.e.  there  is  no  need  to  prove  fault  (intent  or  negligence).  Operators 
carrying out other than dangerous occupational activities are liable on the basis of fault. 

The  main  objectives  of  the  Directive  are  to  prevent  environmental  damage  if  there  is  an 
imminent  threat  and  to  remedy  it  if  it  has  already  occurred.  In  line  with  the  polluter-pays 
principle, the liable operator must take the necessary preventive or remedial action and must 
bear all costs. Damage is considered to be remedied once the environment has been returned 
to its pre-damage state. The ELD covers damage to biodiversity (protected species and natural 
habitats),  water  and  land.  Traditional  damage  (damage  to  property,  loss  of  life  and  bodily 
injury or economic loss) is not covered by the Directive. 

2. 

Transposition and implementation 

Several Member States failed to meet the deadline for transposing the Directive into national 
law (30 April 2007) and it has only been fully transposed by all 27 Member States6 since mid-
2010. The first Commission report outlined these delays and other shortcomings. In addition, 
the Commission analysed in detail the complex situation that was created by the introduction 
of  a  rather  flexible  framework  EU  instrument  on  environmental  liability  in  addition  to  pre-
existing national legislation in most Member States. In summary, this led to a certain degree 
of better coherence from a legal point of view in comparison to the situation before the ELD 
was  transposed  (e.g.  some  MS  did  not  have  any  environment  liability  regime  in  place). 
However,  the  current  situation  remains  in  legal  and  practical  terms  diversified  and  further 
steps would be needed to establish a European level playing field7. 

1 The first implementation report was presented on 12 October 2010 (COM(2010) 581). 
2 OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, p. 56 (as amended by Directive 2006/21/EC, Directive 2009/31/EC and Directive 2013/30/EU) 
3 SWD (2016)121 
4 See COM(2013) 685, COM(2014) 368, SWD(2014) 192 final/2 and COM(2015) 215, SWD(2015) 110  
5 All studies available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/liability/eld/studies.htm 
6 Croatia, which notified the transposition of the Directive at the time of its accession to the EU, was not obliged to submit a national report 
on the ELD application by 30 April 2013 as it acceded the EU only on 1 July 2013. 

7 More details of this analysis and the underlying studies is available in the ELD Implementation Study, Annex Part A – Legal Analysisi of 
the national transposing legislation, 2013, and in the Legal Analysis Study, 2014 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
   
                                                            
The  Commission  has  taken  action  concerning  late  transposition  and  issues  relating  to  non-
conformity  (seven  Member  States  still  need  to  resolve  some  non-conformity  issues).  These 
actions  have  slightly  improved  the  coherence  of  the  Member  State  legal  systems  in  place. 
However,  the  diversity  continues  due  to  the  framework  character  of  the  ELD,  offering  a 
considerable degree of flexibility to the Member States. 

As regards the implementation, between April 2007 and April 2013, Member States reported 
approximately  1  245  confirmed  incidents  of  environmental  damage  which  triggered  the 
application of the ELD. However, the number of cases varies greatly between Member States. 
Two Member States account for more than 86% of all reported damage cases (Hungary: 563 
cases,  Poland:  506)  and  six  Member  States  reported  most  of  the  remaining  cases  (Germany 
(60), Greece (40), Italy (17)8, Latvia, Spain and the United Kingdom). Eleven Member States 
have  reported  no  ELD  damage  incidents  since  2007,  possibly  because  they  deal  with  cases 
exclusively under their national system. 

The number of annual ELD cases per Member State varies considerably, from 95 to less than 
1. A high number of cases in a Member State does not necessarily indicate that this Member 
State  applies  the  ELD  more  strictly  than  required.  The  evaluation  and  the  work  on 
conformity-checking  demonstrates  that  this  divergence  can  be  explained  by  different  legal 
frameworks and traditions (in particular whether pre-existing legislation was repealed or not), 
possible differences in the state of the environment and different interpretations of key terms 
and concepts, as presented further below. Higher use of the Directive is often due to: 

  use of registers of ELD cases; 
  better  opportunities  for  interested  parties  to  submit  comments  and  to  engage  with 

competent authorities; 

  competent authorities being obliged on a secondary basis to carry out preventive and 

remedial action if operators fail to do so; and 

  a  higher  level  of  awareness  of  the  ELD  of  the  public  and  among  stakeholders,  in 

particular among operators. 

In contrast, the scope of the ELD has not been identified as a major reason for the differences 
in implementation (see section 4). 

Around  50  %  of  the  reported  cases  of  environmental  damage  concern  damage  to  land. 
Damage to water accounts for 30 % and damage to biodiversity for around 20 %. 

20 

28 

52 

Water

Land

Biodiversity

Figure 1: Category of environmental damage based on 1450 cases9 

8 However, Italy accounts for a further potential of 1000 incidents, many may become later ELD cases. 
9 Some cases appear in more than one damage category 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
                                                            
The  dangerous  occupational  activities  (linked  to  strict  liability)  causing  environmental 
damage are mostly: 

  waste management activities; 
 

treatment of dangerous substances, preparations, plant protection products or biocidal 
products; 

  activities under the Industrial Emissions Directive10 and 
 

transport of dangerous or polluting goods by road, rail, inland waterways, sea or air. 

Other  occupational  activities  (linked  to  fault-based  liability)  also  caused  environmental 
damage, but cause according to the ELD exclusively biodiversity damage. 

 Figure 2: Reported ELD cases by number of cases according to the type of damaging activity 

Relatively few requests for action were reported as having been initiated by people  affected 
by environmental damage or by environmental NGOs11. Judicial review was sought in about 
60 cases, 44 of these in Poland. 

The average time from start to completion of remediation was 12 months. However, in some 
cases, remediation took longer than six years. 

10 2010/75/EU (OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17) 
11 132, but 93 of which were requests for action in Italy alone. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
3.  Evaluation and regulatory fitness12 

3.1. Relevance 

The  objectives  of  the  Directive,  namely  to  prevent  and  remedy  environmental  damage,  are 
still relevant and match current needs because there are always risks of these types of damage 
and  accidents.  The  evaluation  shows  that  the  Directive  has  helped  improve  the  level  of 
environmental protection in the EU to a limited degree. However, it has not yet fulfilled its 
potential. Moreover, as the ELD is more relevant in some Member States than in  others, its 
relevance  needs  to  be  assessed  against  the  diverse  national legal  frameworks  and  traditions 
already in place. 

3.2. Effectiveness 

The effectiveness of the Directive varies significantly because it has been implemented very 
differently across the Member States. This is partially caused by the framework character of 
the ELD, which provides for many exceptions, options and flexibility. In particular, the different 
interpretations  and  application  of  the  'significance  threshold'  for  environmental  damage  has 
been  identified  as  main  reason  for  the  uneven  application  of  the  Directive.  Competent 
authorities,  economic  operators  and  insurers  have  frequently  called  for  more  clarity  and 
guidance  on  this  issue.  The  effectiveness  of  the  Directive  is  best  reflected  in  the  amount  of 
remedied environmental damage (turning around EUR 6 million without five major losses, and 
EUR 180 million if the five major instances are included). The incentivising effect, materialising 
in enhanced precautionary measures and better financial security, and the prevented damage due 
to  immediate  action  in  case  of  imminent  damage,  is  largely  unknown  due  to  yet  non-existing 
data. 

As regards the scope of environmental damage, the evaluation confirmed that it is sufficient 
to  cover  damage  to  the  most  important  natural  resources.  The  scope  of  strict  liability  for 
hazardous activities (Annex III) also appears to be up-to-date, with the possible exception of 
off-site  pipeline  transport  of  dangerous  substances.  However,  stakeholders  have  indicated 
issues with third party liability in this regard. 

3.3. Efficiency 

The  efficiency  assessment  looked  at  the  principal  cost  categories:  remediation  cost, 
administrative cost and financial security cost. 

The remediation costs for the restoring of the damaged natural resources are to be borne by 
the person liable, in line with the polluter-pays principle. The available evidence shows that 
the cost of remedial action averages around EUR 42 00013. Greece reported a mean value of 
EUR 60 000. However, the remediation costs of individual cases range from a few thousand 
EUR to more than EUR 50 million for large-scale losses due to major accidents (such as in 
Kolontár, Hungary or in Moerdijk in the Netherlands). 

12 The Commission decided to carry out an evaluation under its REFIT programme in 2013 well before the guidelines for evaluation were 
adopted in May 2015.  

13 Calculated on the basis of 137 cases representing just over 10% of all reported ELD cases by Member State and without considering in 
particular the three largest losses in Kolontár (Hungary), Moerdijk (Netherlands) and the Greek Assopos case (since they were considered as 
outliers). 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
The  administrative  costs  for  public  authorities  are  the  continuous  costs  which  cannot  be 
recovered  from  liable  operators.  Only  three  Member  States  provided  precise  data  on 
administrative costs, ranging from EUR 55 000 (in the Flemish Region of Belgium) to EUR 2 
million (in some of the autonomous communities of Spain). No data were provided as regards 
the administrative costs for businesses. Due to the limited information on administrative costs 
for  authorities  and  the  private  sector,  it  is  not  possible  to  draw  sound  conclusions  on  the 
administrative  costs.  However,  no  stakeholders  have  complained  about  the  administrative 
burden. 

The  costs  of  environmental  damage  for  liable  operators  can  be  reduced  through  the  use  of 
financial security instruments (covering insurance and alternative instruments, such as bank 
guarantees,  bonds  or  funds).  Most  markets  provide  sufficient  cover  for  all  ELD  risks,  but 
demand is low due to the insufficient number of cases in many Member States, lack of clarity 
regarding  some  ELD  concepts14  and  slower  emerging  insurance  markets15.  A  recent  report 
suggests  an  increase  in  the  amount  of  environmental  liability  insurance  purchased  by 
European companies (average annual increase of 13.6 % since 2006 particularly in the high 
risk  sectors)16.  Despite  progress  in  financial  security  developments,  problems  persist 
regarding  the  application  of  the  Directive  to  large-scale  accidents  and  insolvency  among 
liable economic operators. 

It is not possible to make a meaningful overall assessment of the efficiency of the Directive 
based  on  the  available  information.  More  work  will  be  needed  including  collection  of 
additional data to overcome the shortcomings of this evaluation. 

3.4. Coherence 

The  evaluation  found  that  the  Directive  is  generally  consistent  with  other  parts  of  EU 
environmental  law  and  with  the  relevant  international  conventions  listed  in  its  Annexes  IV 
and  V.  The  Directive  is  satisfactorily  integrated  in  the  EU  acquis,  supplementing  other 
environmental  legislation,17  in  particular  the  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  Directive,18 
the  Industrial  Emission  Directive19  and  legislation  on  waste.  A  more  detailed  appraisal  of 
some specific issues can be found in section 4 where there are also indications on the need of 
some possible further work, as well as in the annexed Staff Working Document. 

3.5. EU added value 

The  assessment  demonstrated  again  that  there  is  some  EU  added  value  as  regards  setting  a 
minimum level of environmental protection, in particular for cross-border circumstances (e.g. 
transboundary  water  pollution).  The  Directive  also  aims  at  ensuring  a  better  level  playing 
field  in  the  internal  market,  but  has  not  yet  achieved  that  primary  objective  of  EU 
harmonisation.  While  the  Directive  has  increased  the  use  of  precautionary  measures,  for 

14 In particular regarding the 'significance threshold'. 

15 For instance the Baltic republics and smaller island Member States. 

16 Stuart Collins, EIL market grows post ELD, in: Commercial Risk Europe, 27 November 2015. 

17 How the ELD tiers in with the Habitats Directive is summarised under point 4.3. 

18 2011/92/EU (OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, p.1) 
19 See footnote 10. 

6 

 
 
 
                                                            
example by increasing the availability of environmental insurance cover on the market (see 
point 3.3), in practice, the shortcomings identified earlier prevent a higher EU added value. 

4. 

Specific points for review 

This report includes a review of four specific areas applied under the Directive in accordance 
with Article 18(3) ELD. 

4.1. Exception to the ELD scope of some international conventions (Annexes IV and V) 

Some  conventions  of 
the  International  Maritime  Organisation  (IMO)  and  related 
conventions20 are exempt from the scope of the ELD. These conventions apply world-wide  to 
ship-owners whose vessels are registered in a State Party to the conventions, provide for strict 
liability for ship-owners, for mandatory financial security,21 and, in the case of specific types 
of  damage,  for  special  compensation  funds  which  pay  any  claims  in  excess  of  the  ship-
owners' liability. In particular, in the case of oil pollution from tankers, a three-tier system is 
in  place  to  provide  compensation  for  victims  of  oil  pollution  incidents.  These  international 
conventions prohibit Parties from introducing additional compensation claims. 

The  ELD  and  these  international  conventions  apply  different  remediation  standards,  as  the 
ELD  effectiveness  study  for  the  Commission  has  shown.22  This  difference  is  potentially 
important  depending  on  the  individual  case.  The  International  Oil  Pollution  Compensation 
Funds (IOPC Funds) and the International Group of P&I Clubs also provided reports on the 
costs of preventive measures and environmental damage following all oil pollution incidents 
from  tankers  since  2002,  which  did  not  identify  evidence  of  insufficient  compensation  of 
environmental damage. 

Based  on  this  information,  the  Commission  will  consider  further  exploring  whether  the 
different  remediation  standards  can  be  addressed  by  non-legislative  means,  in  particular  by 
working  towards  a  common  understanding  of  concepts,  for  example  through  interpretation 
within the 'Claims Manual' of the IOPC Funds and/or within fora composed of the Parties to 
the Conventions. 

The Commission has not encountered new circumstances which would call into question the 
exclusion of nuclear damage. 

4.2. Application to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) 

There  were  no  incidents  of  environmental  damage  caused by  GMOs23  in  the  EU  within the 
reporting  period.  The  acquis  is  fully  consistent  with  the  requirements  of  the  Nagoya-Kuala 
Lumpur  Supplementary  Protocol  on  Liability  and  Redress  to  the  Cartagena  Protocol  on 
Biosafety  of  October 2010, so  no  further  action at EU level was necessary to  conclude that 
Protocol. 

20 i.e. the Liability Convention or CLC, the 1992 Fund Convention, the Bunker Oil Convention, the Hazardous and Noxious Substances by 
Sea or HNS Convention and the Dangerous Goods Convention. 
21 Having become part of EU law by means of Directive 2009/20/EC on the insurance of shipowners for maritime claims, OJ L 131, 
28.5.2009, p. 128. 
22 See footnote 5. 

23 Annex III.10 and 11 ELD. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
4.3. Application in relation to protected species and natural habitats 

The study on biodiversity damage24 looked into the potential for increasing the level playing 
field by extending the scope of the ELD to cover all 'protected species and natural habitats' in 
the Member States. This is because half of the Member States apply this broader scope25 and 
the  others  limit  their  application  to  the  scope  defined  by  the  Habitats  Directive.  However, 
extending  the  scope  of  the  application  of  the  ELD  to  include  purely  nationally  protected 
natural  habitats  and  species  would  pose  legal  difficulties  (due  to  national  competence)  and 
may not improve harmonisation as national scopes may also differ widely. 

The study found that: 

 

 

 

the  definitions  of  'significant  damage'  and  'favourable  conservation  status'  in  both 
directives deserved more attention in the face of potentially different meanings and/or 
uses  of  the  threshold  of  significant  damage  in  the  ELD  and  in  Article  6(2)  of  the 
Habitats Directive; 
there is a need for more consistent application and better clarification of the threshold 
of 'significant damage'. This was also pointed out by several competent authorities and 
by the insurance sector; 
the  geographical  reference  of  the  'favourable  conservation  status'  in  the  ELD  (EU 
territory, national territory, natural range) has proved problematic. It should therefore 
be  clarified  that  a  site-related  approach  is  required  to  ensure  correct  and  effective 
implementation; 

  measures  preventing  biodiversity  damage  from  becoming  significant  are  often  not 
taken  on  the  incorrect  assumption  that  preventive  action  can  only  be  taken  if  it  is 
known that the damage will be significant. 

The  Commission  is  currently  analysing  a  policy  option  for  a  possible  initiative  on  "no  net 
loss"26  which  could  also  address  these  issues.  The  study  is  under  finalisation  and  will  be 
considered as input for the Commission when determining whether, and if so how, to address 
the above-mentioned aspects. 

4.4. Possible inclusion of other instruments into Annexes III, IV and V27 

The Commission looked at the potential candidates for inclusion. However, the evaluation has 
not shown any need to extend Annexes III (see above under 3.2.), IV or V.28 

5. 

Conclusions 

The  implementation  of  the  ELD  has  improved  the  prevention  and  remediation  of 
environmental  damage  to  a  limited  extent  in  comparison  to  the  situation  before  the 
transposition of the ELD. In particular, the Directive strengthened the polluter pays principle 

24 See footnote 5. 
25 Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, 
United Kingdom (England, Wales, Northern Ireland). 

26 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/nnl/index_en.htm 

27 'The report … shall include a review of: (d) the instruments that may be eligible for incorporation into Annexes III, IV and V.' (Article 
18(3)(d) ELD). 
28 These international instruments are either not likely to ever enter into force or are complementary to the ELD (see for further details 
section 6.4 of the SWD. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
(thus avoiding significant costs for the public purse), implementing strict liability across the 
EU  for  environmental  damage  and  raising  the  remediation  standards  for  restoring  damaged 
natural resources, in particular for damage to biodiversity. However, the degree of variability 
among  the  Member  States  regulations  may  be  a  cause  for  limited  concern,  although  few 
concerns have been communicated to the Commission, and the evaluation has helped identify 
the main shortcomings. 

As for the evaluation, one of the major challenges is the lack of data on ELD incidents and 
comparable incidents treated under national legislation. Other issues are the lack of awareness 
and  information  of  stakeholders  on  the  ELD,  insufficient  resources  and  expertise  to 
implement the ELD, uncertainties and ambiguities about key concepts and definitions such as 
the  'significant'  threshold,  under-use  of  complementary  and  compensatory  remediation  and 
insufficient  data  about  environmental  damage,  remediation  cases  and  costs.  While  some  of 
these aspects of the Directive and its context help explain the large variation in the number of 
reported  cases  and  their  content,  the  differences  in  the  use  of  the  'significance  threshold' 
together  with  pre-existing  national  frameworks  is  identified  as  the  main  reason  for  the 
significant  divergences.  Other  factors  contributing  to  the  variable  effect  of  the  Directive 
include  varying  use  of  ELD  registers,  varying  degrees  of  public  participation,  varying 
application of the subsidiary obligation of competent authorities to take action in the absence, 
or due to inaction, of liable operators, and varying levels of stakeholders' awareness. 

On the positive side, implementation of the Directive continues to improve. The industry and 
other  stakeholders  contributing  to  the  evaluation  are  largely  satisfied  with  the  current  legal 
framework.  Together  with  the  Member  State  experts,  they  have  argued  strongly  for 
continuity,  predictability  and  legislative  stability  in  relation  to  environmental  liability.  The 
Directive  also  stimulates  preventive  action  and  precautionary  approaches,  and  thus  guards 
against  high  remediation  costs  which  often  exceed  the  costs  of  preventive  measures. 
However, it is difficult to quantify the benefits gained through prevention, in particular due to 
the  lack  of  complete  information  on  the  total  of  preventive  actions  and  other  precautionary 
measures taken under the ELD. 

Any  future  evaluation  should  assess  the  ELD  together  with  the  pre-existing  national 
legislation to determine the extent to which a level playing field has been created. The playing 
field  could  be  levelled  further  by  clarifying  some  key  terms  (in  particular  'significant 
damage'). To this end, the Commission has identified supportive actions at EU level which, 
combined  with  a  number  of  recommendations  to  Member  States,  would  constitute  a 
proportionate response to help make the Directive more 'fit for purpose' than this evaluation 
has found it to be. 

6. 

Recommendations and next steps 

Over  the  next  years,  the  key  priority  for  the  Commission  will  be  to  promote  alignment  of 
national  solutions  and  practices  within  the  framework  provided  by  the  Directive  and  to 
identify  on  how  this  can  be  applied  effectively  and  coherently  in  a  wider  legal  liability 
framework. Efforts also need to be made to improve the evidence base on the actual impacts 
of  the  ELD,  both  on  the  environment  and  on  relevant  stakeholders.  Doing  so  will  require 
improvements in the collection of data on ELD cases in those Member States that have not 
yet established registers. Aligned national solutions (on such matters as remediation models, 
risk  analysis,  insurance  calculation,  etc.)  could  also  produce  useful  results  since  available 
databases can be used to step up financial security (offer better-targeted products), enhance 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
companies'  risk  management  schemes  and  improve  the  knowledge  of  all  practitioners  and 
stakeholders, including the authorities responsible for damage abatement. 

More  information  is  needed  to  identify  the  precise  reasons  and  impacts  of  the  divergent 
solutions  in  Member  States.  More  importantly,  steps  could  be  taken  to  build  more 
administrative  capacity  and  boost  supporting  implementation  instruments.  Furthermore, 
developing  effective  regulatory  monitoring  as  set  out  in  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines 
(SWD(2015)110) should ensure a more robust and conclusive evaluation of the Directive in 
the  future.29  It  will  therefore  be  necessary  to  discuss  with  all  relevant  stakeholders  and  the 
Member States how this evidence base can be improved. 

The Commission services will therefore propose a  multi-annual rolling work programme to 
Member  States’  experts  and  stakeholders  in  order  to  improve  the  evidence  base  and  help 
align  national solutions. Moreover, the Commission  will continue to  provide  administrative 
support measures, such as 

(a) guidance or interpretative notices on key issues ('significance'); 

(b) training programmes; and 

(c)  helpdesks  for  practitioners  (covering  competent  authorities,  operators,  loss  adjusters, 
financial  security  providers,  affected  individuals,  NGOs,  etc.)  providing  information, 
assistance and assessment support for risk and damage evaluations. 

To complement these efforts, the Commission recommends that all Member States undertake 
to: 

  support  their  implementation  efforts  with  proactive  initiatives  (such  as  guidance 
documents, training, electronic tools for risk analysis, baseline setting, financial security 
models etc.) as some Member States have done already; 

  exchange  administrative  experiences  and  best  practices  and  support  each  other  in 

 

capacity-building efforts; 
review their interpretation of key provisions of the Directive, in particular in relation to 
'significance'; 
 
record data on ELD incidents and publish ELD registers if they have not done so already; 
  systematically  gather  the  necessary  data  that  can  document  that  the  application  of  the 
Directive in their country is effective, efficient and in line with the overall situation in the 
EU. 

All this will help prepare for the next evaluation of the Directive. The Commission considers 
that  these  steps  constitute  a  proportionate  approach  to  improving  the  intended  positive 
impacts of the ELD and will also help to produce the information that can be used in the next 
evaluation  to  then  better  demonstrate  the  scale  of  EU  added  value,  efficiency  and 
effectiveness of the Directive. 

29 Which according to the Commission Communication 'Better regulation for better results – An EU agenda' (COM(2015) 215) should take 
place every 5 to 7 years. 

10