COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Fitness Check of Reporting and Monitoring of EU Environment Policy Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Actions to Streamline Environmental Reporting
Date: 2017-06-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU environmental policy, European Environment Agency, access to information, application of EU law, dissemination of EU information, environmental monitoring, environmental protection, exchange of information, report

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 9.6.2017  SWD(2017) 230 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Fitness Check of Reporting and Monitoring of EU Environment Policy Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Actions to Streamline Environmental Reporting {COM(2017) 312 final}  
 
 
Contents 
1. 

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4 

1.1. 

1.2. 

Purposes of the evaluation .......................................................................................... 4 

Scope of the evaluation .............................................................................................. 5 

2.  Background to the initiative ................................................................................................ 8 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

History of environmental reporting ............................................................................ 8 

Ongoing streamlining exercises ................................................................................. 9 

Intervention Logic .................................................................................................... 12 

3.  Evaluation Questions ........................................................................................................ 14 

4.  Method .............................................................................................................................. 16 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

Information and data gathering ................................................................................ 16 

Costs of reporting obligations – methodology and limitations ................................ 17 

Benefits of reporting obligations – methodology and limitations ............................ 18 

5.  State of play and Main Results ......................................................................................... 18 

5.1. 

Inventory .................................................................................................................. 18 

5.1.1. 

General statistics ...................................................................................................... 19 

5.1.2. 

Content of reporting ................................................................................................. 20 

5.1.3. 

Timing of reporting .................................................................................................. 21 

5.1.4. 

Format and process requirements ............................................................................ 22 

5.2. 

Costs and benefits ..................................................................................................... 24 

6.  Answers to the evaluation questions ................................................................................. 29 

6.1. 

Effectiveness ............................................................................................................ 29 

6.1.1. 

Overall approach ...................................................................................................... 29 

6.1.2. 

Reporting performance in relation to quality and timing ........................................ 32 

6.1.3. 

Delivering information on the state of implementation ........................................... 34 

6.1.4. 

Is the public properly informed ............................................................................... 37 

6.1.5. 

Gaining an insight for decision making ................................................................... 40 

6.2. 

Efficiency ................................................................................................................. 41 

6.2.1. 

Justification and proportionality of costs ................................................................. 42 

6.2.2. 

Factors influencing efficiency ................................................................................. 43 

6.2.3. 

Good examples for efficient reporting ..................................................................... 45 

6.2.4. 

Improving the efficiency of the process .................................................................. 47 

6.2.5. 

Streamlining of timing of reporting ......................................................................... 50 

6.2.6. 

Promotion of active dissemination .......................................................................... 53 

6.3. 

Coherence ................................................................................................................. 55 

2 

 
6.3.1. 

Report once and use many times ............................................................................. 56 

6.3.2. 

Coherence of reporting to the Commission ............................................................. 59 

6.3.3. 

Coherence with reporting to the international level ................................................ 60 

6.4. 

Relevance ................................................................................................................. 61 

6.4.1. 

Relevance of the process ......................................................................................... 61 

6.4.2. 

Relevance of the requirements ................................................................................. 64 

6.4.3. 

Relevance in relation to Better Regulation indicators ............................................. 65 

6.4.4. 

Relevance of technical solutions ............................................................................. 67 

6.5. 

EU Added Value ...................................................................................................... 71 

6.5.1. 

Added value of EU reporting ................................................................................... 71 

6.5.2. 

Replacing reporting with transparency and active dissemination ........................... 73 

7.  Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 75 

8.  Annexes ............................................................................................................................. 81 

8.1. 

8.2. 

8.3. 

8.4. 

8.5. 

8.6. 

8.7. 

Annex 1: List of environment legislation within the scope of the Fitness Check .... 81 

Annex 2: Procedural information .............................................................................. 93 

Annex 3: History of environmental reporting ........................................................... 96 

Annex 4: Synopsis report of stakeholder consultation ........................................... 100 

Annex 5: Methods and Analytical models used in preparing the Fitness Check ... 105 

Annex 6: Overview of results of the Fitness Check evaluation in relation to the legal 
text ......................................................................................................................... 108 

Annex 7: Best Practices - Findings of the evaluation which could be applied in other 
reporting areas ....................................................................................................... 109 

8.8. 

Annex 8: Overview of findings of the Fitness Check evaluation per legislation ... 111 

3 

 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

As  part  of  its  Better  Regulation1  agenda  the  Commission  launched  a  programme  for 
Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT). REFIT makes sure that EU laws deliver their 
intended  benefits  for  citizens,  businesses  and  society  while  removing  red  tape  and  lowering 
costs.  

Environmental  monitoring  of  EU  environmental  policy  looks  at  compliance  with  legal 
obligations, and also helps us understand the causes and the extent of problems, and help us 
define the most cost-efficient responses. This evidence is usually transferred (reported) from 
the  national  or  sub-national  level  to  the  EU  level  institutions,  who  use  it  for  regulatory 
monitoring  of  whether  legislation  is  working  well  or  not.  In  this  way,  environmental 
monitoring,  reporting  and  then  regulatory  monitoring  play  a  fundamental  role  in  providing 
information to citizens and policymakers on how well policy is delivering its environmental, 
economic and social objectives. 

The May 2015 Better Regulation package2 made the following commitments: 

–  Launch  a  broad  review  of  reporting  requirements  to  see  how  burdens  can  be 
alleviated.  This  review  will  have  a  particularly  strong  focus  on  areas  where 
stakeholders  have  recently  indicated  their  concerns,  such  as  agriculture,  energy, 
environment and financial services.  
–  Cooperate  with  Member  States  in  examining  the  best  ways  to  ensure  compliance 
with EU law at national level, including those that have initiated a review of how well 
EU and Member State regulation combines to help protect the environment (as in the 
'Make It Work' initiative). The objective is to identify solutions to enhance the efficient 
application  of  EU  law  at  national  and  local  level  by  reducing  its  complexity  while 
maintaining its level of protection.  

Responding  to  this,  in  2016  this  Fitness  Check  was  confirmed  in  the  Commission's  Work 
Programme  20163 and a Roadmap4 set out the way forward. The 2017 Work Programme of 
the  Commission5  included  it  in  a  package  of  measures  for  better  enforcement  in  the 
environmental area where a "proposal to simplify environmental reporting" was announced as 
a follow up to this evaluation.  

This  Fitness  Check  is  an  evaluation  that  provides  an  evidence-based  critical  analysis  of 
whether  reporting  obligations  are  proportionate  and  delivering  as  expected.  Is  the  right 
information being made available, at the right time, in the right way and at as low a cost as 
possible?  

1.1. 

Purposes of the evaluation  

Reporting is an essential element of the EU policy cycle. It provides the Commission with the 
data  needed  to  assess  the  implementation  of  EU  legislation  and  to  inform  the  European 

Smart Regulation in the European Union (COM(2010) 543 final; 8 October 2010) 
"Better regulation for better results - An EU agenda (COM(2015) 215 final; 19 May 2015) 
Commission  Work  Programme  2016  -  No  time  for  business  as  usual  -  (COM(2015)  610  final;  27 

1  
2  
3  
October 2015) 
4  
regulation/roadmaps/docs/2017_env_002_monitoring_and_reporting_obligations_en.pdf  
5  
(COM(2016) 710 final of 25 October 2016) 

Commission  Work  Programme  2017  -  Delivering  a  Europe  that  protects,  empowers  and  defends 

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-

Roadmap 

available 

Fitness 

Check 

See 

at: 

4 

 
                                                 
Parliament,  Council  and  the  general  public  on  the  impacts  on  the  ground.  Reporting  is  also 
needed by the Member States to compare information in a cross-border context. However, the 
number of reporting obligations has grown over time (cf. section 2.1) in line with the increase 
in environmental legislation.  

This work on reporting in the environmental field6 is to:  

  Further  develop  more  modern,  effective  and  efficient  reporting  for  EU  environment 
policy  as  a  necessary  step  towards  delivering  a  better  environment.  This  will  reduce 
pressure on the public and private sector contributing to reporting, whilst also filling 
information gaps;  

  Contribute  to  the  Commission's  priority  to  create  a  Union  for  Democratic  Change, 
making  environmental  information  more  visible  and  accessible  to  citizens,  and 
achieving higher standards of transparency and accountability.  

Despite constant efforts to streamline reporting and reduce administrative burden (cf. section 
2.2), there are perceptions that the current environmental reporting obligations are still causing 
unnecessary administrative burden whilst not providing the needed evidence base for EU and 
Member State policy making. In other words, a perception that some information that is not 
needed is collected: some information that is needed is not collected. Moreover, the existing 
obligations and their timing have developed without always considering overall coherence and 
relevance.  Even  where  an  obligation  provides  useful  information,  interactions  with  other 
obligations  might  not  always  have  been  taken  into  account,  meaning  there  are  potential 
synergies. There may also be some situations where the IT tools developed at national and EU 
level to report the information are not sufficiently efficient.  

1.2. 

Scope of the evaluation  

Reflecting the fact this Fitness Check is one of the first to look at reporting across an area of 
the acquis, the scope could have been set in a number of ways. In practice, we wanted to be as 
ambitious  as  possible  whilst,  crucially,  making  it  manageable  and  ensuring  that  we  could 
deliver. This meant setting clear boundaries for the current work, whilst knowing that issues 
outside of scope may merit investigation at a later stage. These boundaries were set out in the 
Roadmap for the Fitness Check, and then were discussed with stakeholders. 

The legislation covered 

This  Fitness  Check  covers  the  EU  environment  acquis  under  the  remit  of  the  Commission's 
Directorate General for Environment. Following an initial screening (see Annex 1), 58 pieces 
of  legislation  were  included  whilst six  pieces  have  been  excluded  for example  because  they 
have no reporting obligations. As such, the exercise covers legislation in areas such as: waste, 
water,  air  quality,  environmental  governance,  chemicals,  industry,  noise,  chemicals  and 
international agreements. 

Naturally,  most  external  stakeholders  do  not  know  which  legislation  is  controlled  by  which 
Commission  Directorate  General.  An  example  of  legislation  out  of  scope  is  the  Waste 
Statistics  Regulation  which  is  part  of  Commission  DG  EUROSTAT's  acquis  (and  some 

6  
ensure effective monitoring, more transparency and focused reporting of EU environment policy" 

See SWD(2016) 188 "Towards a Fitness Check of EU environmental monitoring and reporting: to 

5 

 
                                                 
stakeholders  indicated  their  wish  to  see  it  evaluated  following  the  adoption  of  the  Circular 
Economy package). 

What  is  the  reason  for  such  a  scope  limitation?  Essentially,  going  beyond  these  boundaries 
would have meant covering a much much longer list of legislation noticeably in the fields of 
climate, energy, agriculture, mritime policy, consumer health etc. Doing so would have been 
impractical in this exercise - you cannot do everything at once - diluting attention to the extent 
that  analysis  would  all  be  superficial.  In  addition,  this  review  is  only  one  of  many:  for 
example,  the  Commission  has  already  proposed  a  simplification  of  planning,  reporting  and 
monitoring obligations in the climate and energy areas7. Other areas will also carry out their 
own reviews learning from this first wave. 

Environmentally  relevant  information  under  the  control  of  other  Directorate  Generals  is 
covered under the coherence evaluation questions (Section 7.3).  

Which information flows are covered? 

Information at the European level usually starts locally:  

  Environmental monitoring involves seeing at the local level what is happening to the 
environment 'on the ground' in terms of air pollution, state of nature, water quality etc. 
This information is usually needed to manage implementation, regardless of whether it 
is reported or not8.  

  This  information  then  passes  onwards  through  a  range  of  bodies  at  the  regional  or 
national level and is reported to the EU level institutions and then actively reported on 
to the public.  

  At the European level reported information is used for regulatory monitoring, in the 

sense of monitoring if the regulation is working well.  

The Roadmap for this Fitness Check was clear that this Fitness Check excludes environmental 
monitoring in EU environmental legislation (such as measurements of pollutants in air, water, 
soil  or  waste)9.  This  cut-off  was  made  to  ensure  that  the  scope  was  manageable:  only 
reporting  is  included  in  scope,  including  reporting  for  the  purpose  of  regulatory 
monitoring (the monitoring in the title of this Fitness Check is regulatory monitoring).  

One  potential  confusion  that  came  up  in  the  stakeholder  workshops  was  the  difference 
between  reporting  and  provision  of  information  as  the  substantive  requirement  of  the 
legislation. For example, REACH requires firms to prepare and submit registration dossiers – 
this is the substantive act of compliance. It is excluded from the scope of this Fitness Check as 
including such core acts of compliance would necessitate covering almost all the provisions in 

"Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  Governance  of  the 

7  
Energy Union" COM(2016) 759 
8  
In most cases, such environmental monitoring obligations are laid down in separate articles to reporting 
and would continue to apply even if reporting would no longer take place since they have a wider benefit. At the 
same  time,  many  reporting  obligations  require  the  submission  of  aggregated  observation  data  stemming  from 
these environmental monitoring obligations.  
9  
For  example,  Article  8  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (2000/60/EC)  requires  Member  States  to 
establish  a  monitoring  programme  in  order  to  fulfil  the  objectives  of  that  Directive.  Reporting  of  these 
monitoring programmes is regulated in Article 15. Hence, this Fitness Check only evaluated the effects resulting 
from  Article  15,  not  Article  8,  since  the  Member  States  would  still  need  to  carry  out  monitoring  even  if  the 
reporting obligations would be repealed.  

6 

 
                                                 
almost all the legislation, which would be unmanageable. However, in this example, note that 
such provisions are being considered as part of the REACH Review10.  

Figure 1: Information flows from local to EU level 

As  well  as  covering  reporting  to  the  EU  level,  the  Fitness  Check  also  considers  how  this 
information is reported onwards. The Access to Information Directive (2003/4/EC) provides 
for  the  active  dissemination  by  Member  States  to  the  public  of  environmental  information 
such  as  legislation,  plans,  decisions,  reports,  environmental  monitoring  data  and  impact 
assessment  studies.  In  practice,  this  is  done  online  through  Member  State  web  portals.  The 
INSPIRE Directive gives an impetus to such online environmental information by providing 
for discovery, view and download services.  

What type of reporting obligations? 

By  'reporting  obligations'  we  mean  the  legal  provisions  requiring  the  submission  of  data, 
information  or  reports  to  the  European  Commission  or  the  European  Environment  Agency, 
that  are  identified  in  a  piece  of  legislation.  This  covers  obligations  on  the  European 
Commission to monitor the application of EU legislation and document them in reports to the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council.  Thus,  the  Fitness  Check  covers  what  is  termed 
'regulatory monitoring'11 by the European Commission on how Member States implement EU 
environmental legislation.  

10  
11  
              (SWD(2015) 111) 

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2017_env_005_reach_refit_en.pdf  
This  type  of  monitoring  is  described  in  the  Section  V  of  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines  

7 

 
 
                                                 
The  Fitness  Check  covers  the  obligation  on  Member  States  and  the  Commission  and  their 
interaction  and  does  not  look  explicitly  at  national  obligations  on  different  national 
administrations or businesses directly. Changes in reporting to the EU level can though lead to 
downstream changes for businesses and public authorities. 

Another  issue  is  that  not  all  reporting  obligations  covered  by  this  Fitness  Check  are  written 
into the secondary legislation (Directives, Regulations etc.). Many are specified only through 
Delegated  or  Implementing  Acts  (comitology  in  the  jargon)  or  through  guidelines  or 
agreements between the Member States and the Commission.  

Conclusion on scope 

Overall, the scope of the exercise is wide and challenging. The challenge has been to keep the 
right  balance  between:  a  strategic  exercise  that  steps  back  and  takes  an  overview  to  learn 
across  reporting  streams;  and,  an  exercise  that  appreciates  and  learns  from  the  detail  of  the 
different reporting streams and the operational challenges they pose. 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 

2.1.  History of environmental reporting  

In  1991,  the  European  Economic  Community  adopted  the Standardised  Reporting  Directive 
(SRD-91/692/EEC)12, streamlined procedures and introduced a three-year reporting cycle for 
all  covered  legislation.  The  detailed  content  was  then  laid  down  in  sector  specific 
questionnaires.  Consequently,  a  large  number  of  implementing  acts  were  adopted  by  the 
Commission over the years. 

The  next  milestone  was  the  establishment  of  the  European  Environment  Agency  (EEA)  in 
1994. The EEA is to provide the EU and the Member States with objective information and 
plays  an important  role including  through  Reportnet13  -  an  infrastructure for  supporting  and 
improving data and information flows. 

Several  sectoral  initiatives,  e.g.  in  the  field  of  water  or  biodiversity  policy,  have  also 
contributed  significantly  to  the  next  stage  of  modernising  reporting.  The  Water  Information 
System  for  Europe  (WISE)  covers  environmental  monitoring  and  reporting  of  all  water-
related  legislation,  and  streamlines  reporting  with  the  EEA's  state-of-the-environment  data 
flows.  Similarly,  the  Biodiversity  Information  System  for  Europe  (BISE)  is  a  single  entry 
point for data and information on biodiversity.  

At  the  same  time,  the  use  of  information  technology  (IT)  has  expanded  and  reporting  has 
become increasingly electronic. Using electronic means for transmission and making reported 
data available online, e.g. through maps, triggered the need to define and harmonise electronic 
data standards. As a result, the INSPIRE Directive14 was adopted in 2007 to create a European 
Union  spatial  data  infrastructure.  The  INSPIRE  Directive  sets  technical  standards  for  the 

Council  Directive  91/692/EEC  of  23  December  1991  standardizing  and  rationalizing  reports  on  the 

12  
implementation of certain Directives relating to the environment (OJ L 377, 31/12/1991, p. 48–54) 
13  
https://www.eionet.europa.eu/reportnet 
14  
Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an 
Infrastructure  for  Spatial  Information  in  the  European  Community  (INSPIRE)  (for  more  details,  see 
http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/) 

8 

 
                                                 
interoperability  of  spatial  data  and  for  the  online  availability  of  data  discovery  and  access 
services, therefore promoting comparability and data sharing.  

This history (set out in more detail in Annex 3) shows the long-standing effort to streamline 
reporting and reduce the administrative burden to collectors, reporters and users.  

2.2.  Ongoing streamlining exercises  

Dedicated initiatives on streamlining have also taken place over the past years. This section 
lists  a  number  of  more  recent  developments  which  have  not  yet  fully  shown  their  effect  or 
which are only at the start of their implementation. The Fitness Check has tried to anticipate 
and  factor  in  the  streamlining  potential  of  these  initiatives.  The  inventory  (see  section  5.1) 
suggested that streamlining exercises were completed for six pieces of legislation, eight were 
ongoing and four were planned. An initial overview was provided in SWD(2016) 188 and a 
more comprehensive overview is compiled in table 1.  

Table 1: Overview of recent or ongoing streamlining initiatives in relation to environmental 
legislation 

Policy 

Streamlining action 

Waste 

Revision  of  the  waste  legislation15  put 
forward  a  substantial  simplification  of 
of 
reporting 
requirements 
to 
provisions  obliging  Member  States 
produce 
reports  every 
three years) 

implementation 

(repeal 

Expected 
timetable 

Expected benefits 

2017-
2020 

reduction 

Significant 
of 
administrative  burden  (i.e.  75 
working days per country). 

Water/ 
SoE 

Streamlining  of  the  Water  Framework 
Directive  reporting  with  the  State  of  the 
Environment reporting on freshwater 

2015-
2016 

and 

All spatial data on River Basin 
Districts  and  sub-units,  water 
environmental 
bodies 
now 
sites 
monitoring 
managed  jointly,  having  to  be 
reported  only  once  when  it  is 
common  to  the  two  reporting 
flows. 

is 

Water/ 
Marine 

and 

Link  between Water Framework Directive 
reporting 
the  Marine  Strategy 
Framework Directive which meant that the 
programmes  of  measures  which  benefit 
fresh  and  seawater  alike  only  need  to  be 
reported once 

2016 

Re-use of reporting under other 
water  directives  for  the Marine 
Strategy Framework Directive. 

Water 
(urban 

Streamlining 
in  urban  waste  water 
reporting  and  data  dissemination  through 

2015-
2017 

Better assessment of reporting 
information. Acceleration of 

15  

COM(2015) 614 and COM(2015) 595 

9 

 
 
                                                 
Policy 

Streamlining action 

Expected 
timetable 

Expected benefits 

waste 
water) 

the  establishment  of  an  open  source 
national urban waste water website16 

publication of technical data for 
the 28 MS.  

User friendly access to raw and 
aggregated  urban  waste  water 
data.  Implementation  of 
the 
INSPIRE  directive  concerning 
INSPIRE services.  

Air 
quality 

and  mutual 

Reporting 
exchange  of 
information under the Ambient Air Quality 
Directives  is  organised  via  a  dedicated 
internet  interface,  i.e.  the  so-called  air 
quality portal 

2016 

air 

which 

This  utilises  a  state-of-the-art 
electronic  reporting  approach 
by 
quality 
information  is  made  available 
in  a  standardised,  machine-
readable 
INSPIRE 
and 
compliant  form.  The  approach 
is  explicitly  geared 
towards 
the  amount  of 
streamlining 
information  made  available  by 
Member  States,  to  maximise 
the 
such 
information  and  to  reduce  the 
administrative burden.  

usefulness 

of 

Air 
emissions 

aligns 

the  EU 

The  new  National  Emission  Ceilings 
reporting 
Directive 
requirements of emissions of air pollutants 
with 
the 
the  reporting  process  under 
UNECE  Convention  on  Long-Range 
Trans-boundary Air Pollution 

2016 

Reduced 
administrative 
reporting  burden  on  MS: 
alignment  of  reporting  dates 
and other requirements. 

Industrial 
emissions 

The  Industrial  Emissions  Directive  (IED) 
streamlined  reporting  for  seven  previous 
directives 

2012-
2016 

directives 

The  recast  of  seven  previously 
existing 
and 
administrative 
streamlined 
cutting 
aspects 
reporting 
by 
around half. 

requirements 

including 

Industrial 
emissions 

for 

reporting 

Streamlining  of 
IED, 
European  Pollutants  Release  and  Transfer 
Register 
(Major 
Hazardous  Accidents),  Large  Combustion 
Plants  (LCP)  and  the  Extractive  Waste 
Directive 

(E-PRTR), 

Seveso 

2017-
2020 

Building on the reporting of the 
IED, state of the art web-based 
reporting  technology  will  be 
used  and  approaches  between 
several  related  directives  will 
be  streamlined  which  reduces 
the administrative burden while 
increasing  the  added  value  of 
reporting. 

16  

http://uwwtd.oieau.fr/ and https://github.com/OIEau/uwwtd 

10 

 
 
                                                 
Policy 

Streamlining action 

Nature 

Reporting  under  the  Birds  and  Habitats 
Directive  has  been  streamlined  since  the 
last reporting round 

Expected 
timetable 

2013 

Expected benefits 

joint 

reporting 

The 
has 
streamlined  content  and  timing 
and  allows  now 
joint 
analysis of the status of habitats 
and species. 

for 

Reporting  Repeal  of  Council  Directive  91/692/EEC 
of  23  December  1991  standardizing  and 
rationalizing reports on the implementation 
the 
of  certain  Directives 
environment 

relating 

to 

2016-
2017 

Streamlining 
reporting 
obligations and ensuring a clear 
legal 
while 
framework 
repealing obsolete provisions. 

11 

 
 
 
 
2.3. 

Intervention Logic 

Reporting is an important information gathering process which provides the basic data on the 
state of the environment, implementation of measures and the effects of their environmental 
policies. This feeds the EU policy cycle of evaluation and Impact Assessment and revision as 
set out in the Better Regulation Guidelines (see figure 2). 

Figure 2: The EU Policy cycle (see page 6 of Better Regulation Guidelines)17 

As  the  core  of  this  Fitness  Check  are  the  provisions  in  the  different  legal  acts  of  the  EU 
environmental acquis that focus on reporting obligations. Hence, the intervention logic below 
only refers to these reporting obligations and not to the overall objectives of the legislation.  

Broadly, reporting obligations have five main objectives:  

 
 

 
 
 

to allow for an assessment of whether EU legal obligations are being met 
to allow stakeholders to understand the state of the environment and actions taken to 
maintain and improve it 
to indicate how well the legislation is working (i.e. costs and benefits) 
to ensure access to environmental information for citizens 
to  allow  sharing  of  best  practice  between  Member  States  regarding  how  best  to 
implement EU environment law 

Stakeholders responding to the public questionnaire found all five to be important given the 
overall  high  attribution of  scores,  but  attached  most  importance  to  proving  compliance  with 
EU  legal  obligations  (scoring  8.8  out  of  10)  and  least  importance  to  demonstrating 
performance including costs and benefits (scoring 7.3 out of 10). 

Amongst  the  reporting  obligations  in  the  acquis,  the  most  common  purpose  is  to  provide 
information  on  implementation  and  measures  taken  in  Member  States,  which  allows  for  an 
assessment  of  EU  level  compliance.  There  are  also  many  reporting  obligations  that  more 
indirectly  facilitate  this  and  allow  for  the  European  institutions  and  the  public  more  widely 
understanding how the acquis is working in practice and what it is delivering. 

17  

SWD(2015) 111 

12 

 
 
                                                 
A graphic representation of the general intervention logic for reporting obligations in the EU 
environment acquis is presented below.  

Figure 3: Intervention logic for reporting obligations in the EU environment acquis 

13 

 
 
3.  EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

This Fitness Check assesses the fitness of the reporting obligations according to the five Better 
Regulation  criteria  of  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU-added  value 
using specific evaluation questions that were set out in the mandate for the Fitness Check18.  

A fifth effectiveness question was added during the process to look that the extent to which 
current  environmental  monitoring  and  reporting  follows  a  certain  consistent  and  corporate 
approach.  In  addition,  the  questions  were  slightly  reworded  to  make  clear  the  focus  on 
reporting, including for regulatory monitoring and the exclusion of environmental monitoring. 

Regarding effectiveness, the questions are:  

  Are environmental reporting requirements met and with good quality, timely data? 
  Does  environmental  reporting  provide  sufficient  information  on  the  state  and  the 

effectiveness of implementation of the environmental acquis? 

  Does environmental reporting allow for the public to be properly informed about the 

state of the environment? 

  Does  environmental  reporting  allow  for  evidence  based  decision  making  including 

evaluations of regulatory fitness and impact assessments? 

  Additional  question:  "Is  environmental  reporting  following  a  consistent  corporate 

approach?" 

Concerning efficiency, the evaluation questions are:  

  To what extent are the costs involved justified and proportionate? 
  What  factors  influenced  the  efficiency  with  which  environmental  reporting  takes 

place? 

  Are  there  examples  of  good  practice  in  environmental  reporting  at  the  national  or 

regional level that imply it could be undertaken more efficiently, and if so how? 
  Could improvements be made to the process for environmental reporting to cut costs? 
  Could the timing of reports be better synchronised or streamlined to cut costs? 
  Could  the  promotion  of  active  dissemination  of  data  (in  the  context  of  Directives 
2003/4/EC  and  2007/2/EC)  alleviate  the  environmental  reporting  burden  whilst 
improving access for public authorities, businesses and citizens? 

With regards to relevance, the questions are: 

 

Is  the  process  of  environmental  reporting  still  relevant  (as  opposed  to  harvesting  of 
data)? 

  Are all environmental reporting requirements still relevant? 
  Are  environmental  reporting  requirements  relevant  for  assessing  progress  with  Key 
Performance  Indicators  (building  on  the  indicators  system  introduced  by  the  Better 
Regulation Guidelines)? 

  Has the process of reporting taken advantage of technology: including advances in IT, 

increasing provision of data through Copernicus etc.? 

18  

See http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2017_env_002_monitoring_and_reporting_obligations_en.pdf 

14 

 
 
 
                                                 
As far as coherence is concerned, the questions are:  

 

 

 

Is some data reported multiple times, when it could be reported once and then used for 
multiple purposes? 
Is data reported (including to other parts of the Commission) but then full use not 
made of it? 
Is there coherence between reporting to the EU level and to other international levels? 

And with respect to EU-added value, the questions are: 

  What is the additional value resulting from reporting to the EU intervention(s), 

compared to what could be achieved by Member States at national and/or regional 
levels? 

  What would be the most likely consequences of stopping or repealing the existing EU 
reporting requirements and replacing them by increased transparency and active 
dissemination? 

15 

 
 
4.  METHOD 

The  Fitness  Check  has  quantitatively  and  qualitatively  assessed  the  impact,  administrative 
burden and costs as well as the benefits resulting from the reporting obligations enshrined in 
the EU environment acquis. It looked at three areas in more detail, the timing, the content and 
the process of reporting.  

The evaluation is underpinned by a comprehensive support study prepared by ICF, IEEP and 
Denkstatt  (2017)19:  "Support  to  the  Fitness  Check  of  monitoring  and  reporting  obligations 
arising from EU environmental legislation". The study report documents the method, data and 
evidence in more detail.  

Figure 4: Overall approach to analyse environmental monitoring and reporting obligations looking at 
three different areas 

4.1. 

Information and data gathering 

For each reporting obligation, the inventory (see section 6.1) covers systematically data on the 
content,  timing  and  process  along  with  some  information,  e.g.  on  the  usefulness  of  the 
reporting. The inventory was validated by the policy units in charge of the respective reporting 
obligations.  Moreover,  the  European  Environment  Agency  was  consulted  and  information 
available  there,  such  as  the  Reporting  Obligation  Database20,  was  used  systematically.  The 
existing  obligations  were  also  evaluated  using  the  five  Better  Regulation  evaluation  criteria 
and the information gathered in the first two steps. 

For the administrative burden assessment, a general review of relevant literature was followed 
by an assessment of the costs and benefits of reporting obligations.  

The Commission launched a dedicated public consultation to underpin the Fitness Check and 
collected the views, evidence, ideas and expertise of the various stakeholders (MS, local and 
regional administrations, industry and business associations, individual companies and SMEs, 
research  institutions,  think  tanks  and  non-governmental  organisations  (NGOs)  as  well  as 
interested citizens). Moreover, four Stakeholder Workshops21 took place between November 
2015 and December 2016 which collected evidence and views from experts of Member States, 

19  
20  
21  

Published online (ISBN: 978-92-79-6626-5 / EUR - KH-01-17-202-EN-N – EN) 
http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/ 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/reporting/workshops_en.htm 

16 

 
 
                                                 
business  associations  and  NGOs.  The  preliminary  findings  of  the  support  study  were  also 
presented  and  reviewed  by  the  Stakeholder  Workshops  allowing  stakeholders  the  chance  to 
provide additional input.  

Either  as  part  of  the  general  stakeholder  consultation,  or  in  parallel,  discussions  took  place 
with  the  Member  States  through  the  "Make  it  Work"  initiative,  which  is  a  grouping  of 
environment  ministries.  As  outcome  of  their  work,  drafting  principles  for  reporting  were 
adopted22.  Moreover,  the  Commission  engaged  in  exchanges  with  the  Committee  of  the 
Regions which, as a contribution to the Fitness Check,  adopted an Outlook Opinion entitled 
"EU environment law: improving reporting and compliance"23. 

And,  finally,  the  Commission  undertook  in-house  qualitative  and  quantitative  research  and 
interviews in order to validate the findings and gather additional information. 

4.2.  Costs of reporting obligations – methodology and limitations 

The costs of the reporting obligations were calculated using the methodology of the Standard 
Cost Model as described in tool 53 of the Better Regulation Toolbox24. This model involves 
estimating  the  time  required  per  obligation  and  the  frequency  and  then  multiplying  this  by 
average  earnings  adjusted  to  include  non-wage  labour  costs  plus  an  additional  25%  for 
overheads.  

The information  for the calculation of the  man-days  needed in  order  to  fulfil each reporting 
obligation came from various sources but was mainly based on discussions with experts and 
practitioners backed up by desk research of relevant studies (such as Impact Assessments of 
the  legislation).  Estimates  were  validated  with  stakeholders  as  a  further  cross-check  of  the 
data, and in particular with the EEA given their involvement in the process. 

In general, the analysis of costs of reporting seems sensible and proportionate to the benefits 
of undertaking the analysis25. Despite the uncertainties and lack of data that exist, the analysis 
is considered broadly right and more in-depth accurate analysis would not seem to be justified 
as  it  would  be  very  challenging  to  undertake  and  would  not  change  the  conclusions  of  the 
Fitness Check. For example, one weakness is that the analysis does not include any allowance 
for differences in efficiency between and within Member States. In the stakeholder workshops 
comments  were  made  about  'gold  plating'  or  inefficiencies  in  the  provision  of  data  within 
Member  States.  Notably,  federally  orientated  collection  and reporting  multiplies  the  number 
of actors involved, and is seen by many as increasing the complexity of reporting and hence 
also the costs. 

A further issue is that costs vary over time. For example, the EEA has invested heavily in the 
IT infrastructure for collecting data on air quality. This leads to a short term increase in costs 
but savings in the longer run, whilst also delivering more up-to-date data to the public. These 
up-front  costs,  where  known,  are  included  in  the  analysis,  but  in  practice  excluding  them 
would probably not change the banding of different legislation.  

http://www.ieep.eu/assets/2154/MiW_Drafting_principles_on_environmental_reporting_-

22  
_version_adopted_by_project_team_2016-11-22.pdf  
23  
              (http://cor.europa.eu/en/activities/opinions/pages/opinion-factsheet.aspx?OpinionNumber=CDR 5660/2015) 
24  
25  

See: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/docs/br_toolbox_en.pdf  
See section 6.2 for details on the analysis of costs and benefits 

Committee  of 

session  of  7  April  2016,  document  CDR  5660/2015  

the  Regions 

17 

 
                                                 
Finally, on costs, it is complicated to gather cost estimates from a range of experts who will 
understand  and  respond  to  questions  in  different  ways.  This  issue  was  dealt  with  through 
cross-checking the draft analysis to provide as harmonised a view as possible. In the end, the 
legislation was put into bands that reflect the wish to avoid spurious accuracy in costings, but 
the need to show costs broadly.  

4.3.  Benefits of reporting obligations – methodology and limitations 

If  the  assessment  of  costs  is  a  challenge,  the  assessment  of  benefits  stemming  directly  from 
reporting  in  a  quantified  (monetised)  manner  is  nigh  on  impossible.  As  mentioned  earlier, 
reporting  is  an  integral  part  of  the  implementation  process  and  hence  they  contribute  to  the 
benefits  resulting  from  the  implementation  of  the  legislation.  However,  these  wider benefits 
have not been analysed, as in practice it would not tell us what need to change.  

Instead,  a  more  targeted  and  qualitative  assessment  was  carried  out  focussing  on  the  issues 
that  need  to  be  understood  in  practice  to  gauge  the  fitness-for-purpose  of  the  reporting 
obligations.  In  particular,  all  reporting  obligations  went  through  a  categorisation  of  their 
purpose,  their  benefits  and  a  discussion  of  whether  there  was  additional  information  that 
would  be  beneficial  or  if  any  information  currently  collected  was  of  less  benefit.  This 
discussion involved all the different stakeholders and allowed for a picture to be built up of 
what  is  useful  and  what  is  not.  However,  it  was  not  quantifiable  and  no  other  sources  or 
references have  been  found where  such  a quantification  of benefits  resulting from reporting 
obligations has been carried out.  

Another limitation was the representativeness of the stakeholder feedback. Despite the efforts 
to capture a wide input from experts and interested public through an online consultation, only 
150  responded.  Moreover,  not  all  Member  State  responded  and  some  did  in  a  more 
consolidated  way  than  others.  During  the  stakeholder  workshops,  not  all  participants 
contributed in the same active way. Feedback and additional evidence was only received from 
very few experts and only four made an effort to coordinate their input in their Member State. 
Consequently, the feedback from these consultations does not provide necessarily the weight 
of evidence envisaged but is presented as useful indications which could be explored further.  

Finally, in many cases the 'devil is in the detail' and needs thorough examination through the 
established  mechanisms  for  specific  piece  of  legislation,  such  as  expert  groups  bringing 
together the Member States and the European institutions and other stakeholders.  

5.  STATE OF PLAY AND MAIN RESULTS 

In  this  section  we  present  the  main  results  of  the  inventory  of  reporting  obligations.  In 
addition, the costs and the benefits produced are assessed and their performance is evaluated. 
The  detailed  results  are  presented  in  the  support  study26.  These  general  results  illustrate  the 
current status quo and, for example, changes proposed by the Commission but not yet adopted 
by the co-legislator (e.g. in the case of the waste legislation) have not been considered in the 
factual part of the inventory and the evaluation of administrative burden.  

5.1. 

Inventory  

One  of  the  initial  tasks  of  this  Fitness  Check  was  to  establish  a  basic  inventory  of 
environmental reporting obligations. As a first step, the EU environmental legislation which 

26  

ICF, IEEP and Denkstatt (2017) (ISBN: 978-92-79-6626-5 / EUR - KH-01- 17-202-EN-N – EN)  
18 

 
                                                 
under the responsibility of the European Commission (DG Environment) was screened. Some 
pieces of legislation are excluded (see section 1.2) leaving 58 pieces of legislation (see Annex 
1) retained.  

As a second step, the legislation and other relevant information (such as the EEA’s Reporting 
Obligations  Database27  and  other  legislation-specific  literature)  were  reviewed.  Then  the 
inventory  was  validated  through  the  experts  in  the  Commission  services  responsible  for  the 
different  pieces  of  legislation.  Also  other  Commission  services  as  well  as  the  European 
Environment Agency (EEA) were consulted. Finally, the draft inventory was published on the 
EUROPA webpage28 and presented at the third Stakeholder Workshop (see Annex 2 and 4 for 
details) for a review for national and other experts.  

The inventory was divided into sections, in particular:  

A. Reference information 

B. DPSIR Coverage (driving forces, pressures, state, impact and responses)  

C. Type of content 

D. Timing of reporting 

E. Format and process requirement 
F. Relevance to 3rd parties and the public 

G. Use of information 

H. Links to other reporting requirements 

I. REFIT and other streamlining activities 

5.1.1.  General statistics  

The  inventory  identified  a  total  of  181  reporting  obligations  (ROs)  stemming  from  the  58 
pieces of EU environmental legislation. 82 ROs of these 181 are regular reports whereas 99 
are one-off or ad hoc ROs. Many of the legal instruments only have one reporting obligation 
but  there  are  a  small  number  of  legal  instruments  which  have  multiple  obligations.  In  most 
cases,  there  is  one  major  obligation  and  the  others  are  just  one-off  or  small  additional 
reporting  requirements.  For  instance,  there  are  six  reporting  obligations  in  each  of  five 
instruments,  including  the  Noise  Directive29  and  the  Packaging  and  Packaging  Waste 
Directive30.  

The  greatest  number  of  reporting  obligations  relate  to  waste.  The  second  largest  group  is 
water  related  issues  while  reporting  obligations  covering  broader  governance  issues  came 
third. At the other end of the scale, only one soil related reporting obligation was identified in 
the Sewage Sludge Directive31 (see figure 5).  

27  
28  
29  
30  
31  

http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/ 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/reporting/workshops_en.htm  
Directive 2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise  
Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste 
Council Directive 86/278/EEC on the protection of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture 

19 

 
                                                 
Water; 28 

Air; 22 

Governance; 19 

Industrial emissions / 
accidents; 10 

Waste; 57 

Nature; 18 

Products; 
20 

Noise; 6 

Soil; 1 

Figure 5: Number of reporting obligations per environmental theme or media32 

The ROs were assessed according to whether they are included in the European Environment 
Information and Observation Network’s (EOINET) Reporting Obligations database (ROD)33. 
Only  69  of  the  181  reporting  obligations  were  separately  included  in  the  EOINET  ROD, 
reflecting in large part the identification of a range of ad hoc and one-off reporting obligations 
(where there is little value in including the information in the ROD), and also some sectoral 
coverage issues (for example, chemicals legislation is for the European Chemicals Agency).  

5.1.2.  Content of reporting  

The content of environmental reporting is diverse and dictated by the legislation in question. 
First,  the  ROs  were  categorised  by  the  primary  type  of  information  transmitted,  i.e.  either 
numerical  or  geospatial  data  or  textual  information.  A  large  majority  of  ROs  result  in  text-
based  information  being  submitted  by  Member  States  (see  figure  6).  This  can  include,  e.g. 
summary  of  measures,  plans  or  programmes  as  well  as  other  descriptions  of  administrative 
processes or the way exemptions and derogations have been applied.  

16 

27 

138 

Numerical

Text

Geospatial

Figure  6:  Number  of  reporting  obligations  with  the  primary  type  of  information  reported  is  either 
textual, geospatial or numeric data34 

Reference: inventory, Annex 1 of ICF, IEEP and Denkstatt (2017)  
ROD  is  the  EEA's  reporting  obligations  database,  which  records  the  environmental  reporting 

32  
33  
obligations that countries have towards international organisations: http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/  
34  

Reference: inventory, Annex 1 of ICF, IEEP and Denkstatt (2017) 

20 

 
 
 
                                                 
The  second  indicator  uses  the  DPSIR  (Driver,  Pressure,  State,  Impact  and  Response)35 
framework.  Figure  7  shows  that  two-thirds  of  the  identified  ROs  primarily  address  the 
‘Response’  category  (so,  typically  measures  taken  by  public  authorities  to  address 
environmental  problems)  while  the  remaining  ROs  are  largely  concerned  with  either  the 
‘State’  of  the  environment,  or  'Pressures'.  The  socioeconomic  and  environmental  ‘Impact’ 
category is marginal, and no reporting obligations primarily address 'Drivers' (although some 
do as a secondary issue). This in fact shows the trend in EU reporting, namely to identify and 
provide information on the nature of Member State reactions to environmental issues and their 
implementation of legal obligations. 

0 

23 

31 

7 

120 

Driver

Pressure

State

Impact

Response

Figure 7: Number of reporting obligations with the primary type of a certain DPSIR35 category36 

There are limitations to this categorisation, in that many ROs require a combination of types 
of  information.  However,  this  simple  categorisation  matches  with  the  observation  above  in 
that over half of the reporting obligations concern “Response”, which will typically require a 
text description of action taken. One consequence of the findings from these two indicators is 
that the reports are less easy to automate, and require more effort to overview. The challenge 
of dealing with textual inputs across the full range of EU languages can also be considerable. 

5.1.3.  Timing of reporting  

82 ROs required the Member States to regularly report to the Commission while 99 ROs were 
either one-off or ad-hoc requirements. A one-off RO is, for instance, a requirement to transmit 
the  list  of  competent  authorities,  or  to  notify  the  Commission  on  exemptions  or  penalties. 
Examples of ad-hoc RO include where the reporting is linked to a specific event: for instance, 
if a Member State decides to limit any incoming shipments of waste destined to incinerators 
that  are  classified  as  recovery  under  the  Waste  Framework  Directive  it  needs  to  notify  the 
Commission.  These  99  ROs  do  not  have  significant  costs  associated  to  them  and  are  not 
considered further in the assessment of timing. 

Leaving  aside  the  ad  hoc  or  one-off  ROs,  there  is  significant  diversity  as  regards  the 
frequencies. Figure 8 shows the range from monthly reporting cycles up to six years. Out of 
the  82  regular  ROs  the  largest  category  is  annual  reporting  obligations,  but  more  than  half 

For  more 

35  
              http://ia2dec.pbe.eea.europa.eu/knowledge_base/Frameworks/doc101182  
36  
Reference: inventory, Annex 1 of ICF, IEEP and Denkstatt (2017) 

information  on 

framework  please  visit 

the  DPSIR 

the  EEA’s  page  at  

21 

 
 
                                                 
have reporting periods of more than two years, including a significant number (particularly in 
the water legislation) with a 6-year cycle. The periodicity of reporting varies with the nature 
of  the  environmental  medium  and  issue  covered  by  the  legislation.  In  general,  lower 
frequencies of reporting reduce the burden on Member States but may also lead to a lack of 
staff familiarity in Environment Ministries with the requirements of reporting. 

3 

8 

13 

51 

20 

8 

29 

1 

48 

Ad-hoc

One-off

Monthly

Annual

Every 2yrs

Every 3yrs

Every 4yrs

Every 5yrs

Every 6yrs

Figure 8: Frequency of reporting obligations37 

80  ROs  are  linked  to  a  Commission  report,  in  other  words  the  legislation  requires  the 
Commission  to  publish  a  report.  It  is  noticeable  that  some  ad  hoc  and  one  off  obligations 
require the preparation of such a report whereas some repetitive reporting (for 13 ROs) is not 
associated with a Commission report. The inventory also recorded the time needed from the 
deadline  of  reporting  to  the  presentation  of  these  Commission  reports.  This  analysis  is 
presented and used in section 6.2.5.  

5.1.4.  Format and process requirements 

Generally,  the  process  steps  are  similar  for  all  reporting  obligations  (see  figure  9).  The 
Member  State  submits  a  report  to  the  European  Commission  or  its  Agencies.  Following  a 
validation and quality assurance step where questions for clarification  may be asked back to 
the Member State, the responsible EU body processes the data, analyses and evaluates it and 
publishes a report which is mostly addressed to the other EU Institutions and the public.  

37  

Reference: inventory, Annex 1 of ICF, IEEP and Denkstatt (2017)  

22 

 
 
 
                                                 
Member States submit 
(revised) report 

Commission (or EEA) 
process the 
information 

Commission (or EEA) 
publish report 

Questions for clarification  

Figure 9: Simplified process for centralised reporting 

Figure 10 shows that  almost  half of the identified ROs have  no format requirements. When 
the ad hoc and one off categories are ignored, only 19 of the remaining regular ROs have no 
format  requirements.  The  second  largest  group  are  those  ROs  where  a  reporting  template, 
which  needs  to  be  used  by  the  Member  States,  exists.  In  third  place  are  those  ROs  which 
require a direct data input. Other format requirements include for instance questionnaires. It 
was also found that more than two-thirds (124) of the ROs are not electronically facilitated or 
done via an electronic platform. 

16 

13 

24 

84 

44 

None

Template

Data input

Other

Not indicated

Figure 10: Number of reporting obligations with particular format requirements38 

Another aspect is the arrangements for the process which are linked to the service provider for 
reporting. Overall, there are three main categories: 

  The lead Commission services (in this case DG Environment) receives the reports and 

manages the entire reporting process; 

  The European Environment Agency (EEA) is fully or partially conducting the process 

on behalf of the Commission;  

  Other  Commission  services  (in  particular  Eurostat)  manage  the  reporting  process  on 

behalf of the lead service. 

Figure 11 gives an overview on the use of each category.  

38  

Reference: inventory, Annex 1 of ICF, IEEP and Denkstatt (2017)  

23 

 
 
 
                                                 
6 

28 

21 

6 

3 

117 

EEA

EEA*

Eurostat

JRC

Other

Not indicated

Figure  11:  Overview  of  service  provider  for  the  process  of  reporting  (EEA:  European  Environment 
Agency, Other: Usually DG Environment with or without the help of outsourcing)39 

As set out above, there are 78 ROs where the Commission (or the EEA) produces a report on 
the basis of information reported to them. In more than half (38 ROs indicated as other), DG 
Environment handles these processes (receiving the information and then reporting onwards). 
In most cases, DG Environment has no in house capacity to handle substantial environmental 
reports  (e.g.  due  to  the  lack  of  certain  language  capacities  or  specific  technical  knowledge) 
which leads to substantial outsourcing.  

Except for six cases under the waste legislation where Eurostat handles the reporting, the other 
main environmental reporting processes rely on the support from the EEA to a larger or lesser 
extent. In 19 cases, the EEA manages the process from the beginning to the end publishing a 
technical report as well as other reporting products such as map viewers (e.g. on the Habitats 
and  Birds  Directives,  the  Bathing  Water  Directive  or  the  National  Emissions  Ceiling 
Directive).  In  11  cases  (e.g.  on  the  Urban  Wastewater  or  the  Nitrates  Directive),  the  EEA 
makes the Reportnet infrastructure available and Member States can submit their files to the 
"Common Data Repository" (CDR). Thereafter, however, the quality assurance, analysis and 
evaluation  of  the  data  are  then  handled  under  the  responsibility  of  DG  Environment  often 
through outsourcing (i.e. with the help of an external consultant).  

5.2.  Costs and benefits 

The  analysis  of  costs  and  benefits  was  done  through  a  screening  analysis  of  all  ROs  with 
some  in-depth  evaluation  for  the  most  relevant  obligations.  The  detailed  assumptions  and 
findings are documented in fiches40 for each of the 181 reporting obligations.  

Table  2  below  sets  out  the  estimated  costs  in  bands,  in  line  with  the  proportionality  of  the 
analysis.  As  stated  previously,  the  scope  of  the  costings  relates  to  the  reporting  obligations 
and captures only the additional costs over and above the costs incurred for compliance with 
the substantive requirements of the legislation.  

Overall,  the  costs  for  Member  States  (including  costs  for  competent  authorities,  businesses 
etc.) are roughly EUR 13 million per annum41. The most costly obligations tend to be those 

39  
40  
41  

Reference: inventory, Annex 1 of ICF, IEEP and Denkstatt (2017)  
Annex 3 of ICF, IEEP and Denkstatt (2017)  
ICF, IEEP and Denkstatt (2017) (ISBN: 978-92-79-6626-5 / EUR - KH-01-17-202-EN-N – EN)  
24 

 
 
                                                 
with  direct  reporting  obligations  for  a  large  number  of  businesses  or  entities.  For  a  large 
number  of  reporting  obligations,  costs  are  generated  by  the  need  to  frequently  compile 
extensive information, which may already exist in the Member States.  

The results of this exercise need to be treated with caution given the lack of some data and the 
sensitivity  of  the  methodology  to  the  assumptions  applied  (see  also  section  4.2  and  support 
study). However, they appear to be in the right order of magnitude since similar results have 
emerged from the Fitness Check evaluation carried out by the European Commission on the 
planning,  reporting  and  monitoring  obligations  within  the  EU  energy  acquis42.  This  Fitness 
Check  assessed  a  total  of  91  obligations  in  31  different  legal  acts  of  the  energy  acquis  and 
estimated the costs related to planning and reporting obligations to be around EUR 20 million 
per year. 

As  well  as  costs  for  Member  States  of,  the  annual  costs  for  the  European  Environment 
Agency  are  estimated  at  around  EUR  4.5  million  yearly43  and  there  are  costs  for  the 
Commission (DG Environment) of approximately EUR 5 million per annum44 on average. A 
reasonable  estimate  for  the  costs  of  reporting  obligations  is  therefore  roughly  EUR  22 
million per annum.  

SWD(2016)  396  and  397 

(https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/news/commission-proposes-new-rules-

42  
consumer-centred-clean-energy-transition) 
43  
These  estimated  costs  for  the  EEA  are  an  average  for  the  years  2014-2016  and  include  outsourcing 
(through the European Topic Centres) as well as some staff costs. However, a number of assumptions have been 
made and these costs can be regarded being at the low end.  
44  
outsourcing, not staff costs 

These  estimated  figures  for  DG  Environment  are  an  average  for  the  years  2014-2016  and  only  cover 

25 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table 2:  

Type 

Assessment of administrative burdens (without IT and system costs at EU level) 
by item of legislation (reference numbers in brackets, see Annex 1 for detailed 
name  of  legislation).  Source:  "Study  to  Support  the  Review  of  Environmental 
Monitoring and Reporting Obligations", 2017 (forthcoming) 

Approximate 
annual 
administrative 
burden 
attributable to 
Reporting 
Large  

More  than  EUR 
1 million  

Incidence 
of burden 

Items of legislation falling into this 
category (and reference number) 

Business, 
MS, EC 

Packaging  Waste  Directive  (31), 
WEEE Directive (34) 

reporting 
Regular 
with  direct  obligation 
for  large  numbers  of 
businesses  /  operators 
as  MS 
as  well 
authorities 

Regular  reporting  by 
MS  of  very  detailed 
extensive 
and 
information 
that 
should  already  (e.g. 
through on the ground 
environmental 
monitoring) 
be 
available  but  requires 
significant 
to 
compile 

time 

Fairly Large 

MS, EC 

EUR  100,000  to 
1 million p.a. 

Ambient Air Quality Directive (1)** 
+ Arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel 
and  PAH 
in  ambient  air  (2)**; 
Environmental  Noise  Directive  (3),  
Water  Framework  Directive  (4)*, 
MSFD (7), Drinking Water Directive 
(8),  Habitats  Directive  (10),  Birds 
Directive  (11),  EPRTR  Regulation 
Emissions 
Industrial 
(13)***, 
Directive  (14);  National  Emissions 
Ceilings  Directive  (16),  Urban  WW 
Treatment  Directive  (17),  Nitrates 
Directive  (18),  EMAS  Regulation 
(19),  Landfill  Directive 
(20), 
Extractive  (Mining)  Waste  Directive 
(21),  Waste  Framework  Directive 
(27),  Waste  Shipments  Regulation 
(29),  Batteries  and  Accumulators 
Directive  (30),  End  of  Life  Vehicles 
Directive  (33),  REACH  Regulation 
(39), 
(45), 
INSPIRE  Directive 
Regulation  on  Trade  in  Wild  Fauna 
and  Flora  (47),  FLEGT  Regulation 
(51), Timber Market Regulation (52)  

EQS  Directive  (5),  Floods  Directive 
(6), Bathing Water Directive (9), IAS 
Regulation  (12),  Sulphur  content  of 
liquid  fuels  Directive  (15),  Fracking 
Sewage 
Recommendation 
(25), 
Sludge  Directive 
(26),  Mercury 
Regulation  (36),  VOCs  Directive 

Reporting  by  MS  of 
information 
detailed 
that should already be 
available 

Moderate  

MS, EC 

EUR  30,000  – 
100,000 p.a. 

26 

 
Type 

Approximate 
annual 
administrative 
burden 
attributable to 
Reporting 

Incidence 
of burden 

Items of legislation falling into this 
category (and reference number) 

Small  

MS, EC 

Zero  –  EUR 
30,000 p.a.   

Regular  or  ad  hoc 
reporting  by  MS  of  a 
limited 
amount  of 
available  information; 
detailed 
or  more 
information  by  EC 
only 

No  further  reporting 
required 

Zero 

- 

(37),  CLP  regulation  (40),  EIA 
Directive  (43),  SEA  Directive  (44), 
Access 
Sharing 
and  Benefits 
(50),  Ship  Recycling 
Regulation 
Medium 
Regulation 
Combustion  Plant  Directive  (54), 
Asbestos Directive (56)  

(53), 

(22), 
VOC  emissions  Directive 
Petrol  vapour  recovery  Directive 
(23), 
(24),  
Seveso  Directive 
Ecolabelling  Regulation  (28),  RoHS 
(35),  POPs  Regulation 
Directive 
(38),  Regulation  on  Export  and 
Import of Hazardous Chemicals (41), 
Regulation on Trade in Seal Products 
(55), EEA/ EIONET Regulation (57)  

PCBs  Directive  (32),  Environmental 
Liability Directive (42), Directive on 
to  Environmental 
Public  Access 
Information 
(46),  Regulation  on 
Imports  of  Whale  Products  (48), 
Regulation  on  Trade  in  Seal  Skins 
(49)  

Notes for table 2:  

* For the Water Framework Directive, the actual costs of the last reporting exercise of 2016 
are likely to amount to several million Euro due to the setting up of the reporting systems but 
the costs of future 6-year reporting is expected to be considerably lower due to stabilisation of 
the reporting model.  

** There is a shared reporting system for the Directives on Ambient Air Quality and Arsenic, 
cadmium, mercury,  nickel and PAH in  ambient air,  and costs are  therefore  shared between 
them. 

*** The majority of this burden stems  from internationally-derived obligations (in this case 
the  UNECE  Kiev  protocol)  and  thus  the  RO  for  E-PRTR  does  not  stem  from  the  EU 
legislation and the Commission is not empowered to alter the requirements. 

Most  ongoing  reporting  obligations  are  seen  to  provide  clear  benefits,  though  these  are 
beyond quantification. However, there is clear evidence that such obligations are an important 
part  of  policy  compliance  and  make  an  important  contribution  to  the  achievement  of  the 

27 

 
 
environmental  policy  objectives.  In  qualitative  terms,  the  benefits  are  numerous,  however. 
They include:  

  Checking and verifying compliance with legislation and making sure that the agreed 

objectives are being met;  

  Supporting implementation at the national and EU level; 
 

Informing  citizens  and  stakeholders  of  the  state  of  the  environment  and  the 
implementation of environmental legislation;  

  Enabling  compilation  of  environmental  information  at  EU  level,  thereby  providing 
information about the state of Europe’s environment, trends, pressures and responses;  
  Providing  up  to  date  information  about  arrangements  for  implementation,  including 
responsible  authorities,  methods  of  implementation,  enforcement  arrangements  and 
penalties for non-compliance;  

  Aiding the identification and resolution of problems in implementing EU legislation as 
well  as  triggering  improvements  in  the  environmental  performance  of  economic 
sectors boosting innovation that can increase the competitiveness of the sectors; and  
Informing  the  regulatory  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  EU  environmental  legislation 
(as set out in the Better Regulation Guidelines). 

 

An attempt was made to identify the qualitative benefits for each RO in the above-mentioned 
fiches (see footnote 40). This shows that all ROs aim to fulfil the compliance checking purpose 
and, in many cases, some of the additional purposes mentioned above. However, the purpose 
and benefits varies by reporting obligation. The use of environmental reporting in compliance 
verification is also providing information and arguments for potential subsequent enforcement 
action.  A  study  of  244  infringement  cases  concluded  that  the  potential  beneficial  monetary 
value of compliance with EU law achieved through enforcement is very high.  

Some  ROs  (e.g.  those  relating  to  bathing  water  and  air  quality)  also  provide  important 
environmental  information  to  the  public.  Other  ROs  help  demonstrate  that  a  particular 
industrial  sector  is  innovative  and  environmentally  friendly  by  publicly  disseminating 
emission  data  of  individual  facilities  (e.g.  under  the  E-PRTR)  or  that  some  agricultural 
practices are more beneficial (less polluting) for the environment than others (e.g. under the 
Nitrates  Directive).  The  potential  benefits  from  providing  environmental  information  are 
considerable.  Reported  information  is  also  essential  for  wider,  cross-cutting  and  integrated 
environmental assessment such as the EEA's State-of-the-Environment report.  

Many assessments show that reporting and regulatory monitoring plays an important part in 
ensuring  proper  implementation  of  environmental  legislation:  the  benefits  of  environmental 
policy  depend  on  high  quality  reporting.  At the  same  time,  better  reporting  can  avoid  time- 
and resource-consuming legal proceedings by allowing swifter and targeted intervention both 
at national and EU level. Further details on benefits issues are provided in Annex 5. 

It  is  reasonable  to  say  that  overall  the  costs  of  reporting  are  proportionate,  forming  a  small 
part  of  the  overall  costs  of  policy  but  being  essential  to  allow  for  implementation  and  the 
periodic  review  of  legislation.  Where  there  are  indications  that  some  specific  elements  of 
reporting obligations are not proportionate, and this is investigated further in section 7. 

Finally, it is worth putting the overall costs into perspective.  Compared to the huge benefits 
resulting  from successful environmental protection policy, the costs of reporting obligations 

28 

 
 
 
are  marginal.  Total  national  environmental  protection  expenditures  in  the  EU  –  not  all  of 
which  relate  to  legislation,  let  alone  EU  legislation  was  EUR  297  billion  in  201445.  It  is 
impossible to say with any level of precision how much is currently spent on environmentally 
related compliance assurance (including monitoring, inspections, enforcement and permitting 
costs), but it could be a figure in the range of half to a billion Euros per annum46. 

6.  ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The following chapter answers the evaluation questions concerning the five central evaluation 
criteria  of  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU  added  value  presented  in 
chapter  3.  A  more  detailed  analysis  of  these  five  criteria  can  be  found  in  the  respective 
chapters of the underlying study47 supporting the Commission's evaluation. 

6.1.  Effectiveness 

The  evaluation  of  effectiveness  looks  at  the  extent  to  which  environmental  reporting  fulfils 
the objectives it is meant to achieve by producing the needed information to a high  level of 
quality.  Based  on  the  intervention  logic,  the  main  purposes  (or  objectives)  for  carrying  out 
environmental reporting are: 

1)  to allow for an assessment of whether EU legal obligations are being met; 
2)  to allow stakeholders to understand the state of the environment and actions taken to 

maintain and improve it; 

3)  to indicate how well the legislation is working (i.e. costs and benefits); 
4)  to ensure access to environmental information for citizens; 
5)  to  allow  sharing  of  best  practice  between  Member  States  regarding  how  best  to 

implement EU environment law. 

6.1.1.  Overall approach 

Additional  assessment  question:  "Is  environmental  reporting  following  a  consistent 
corporate approach?" 

Overall  response:  A  more  consistent  and  corporate  approach  to  reporting  could  be 
followed. There are a number of very good examples and quality is improving, but best 
practices  still  need  to  be  systematically  spread.  A  risk-based  approach  to  reporting 
offers  a  possible  corporate  approach,  with  more  tiered  reporting  building  on  the 
implementation of key indicators or benchmarks.  

What is the issue? 

This question relates to whether reporting differs for good reasons between ROs, or whether a 
more corporate approach could be introduced with a more strategic and harmonised approach. 
A  corporate  approach  would  involve  sharing  best  practice  across  ROs  and  having  a  reason 
why  some  RO  are,  for  example,  dealt  with  by  the  EEA,  primarily  textual,  are  timely 

(2016) 

EUROSTAT 

(http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/7731525/KS-DK-16-001-EN-

45  
N.pdf/cc2b4de7-146c-4254-9521-dcbd6e6fafa6) 
46  
Internal analysis undertaken of compliance assurance in Member States. This analysis is approximate, 
based  on  data  gathering  using  publications  from  competent  authorities,  Member  State  reports  and  a  literature 
search. 
47  

ICF, IEEP and Denkstatt (2017) (ISBN: 978-92-79-6626-5 / EUR - KH-01-17-202-EN-N – EN) 
29 

 
                                                 
completed etc. In other words, a standard approach that makes sure ROs are well designed and 
managed to improve effectiveness, efficiency etc. 

What are the findings? 

There are some very good examples of indicators such as:  

  The indicators on air quality, drinking and bathing water quality or nature favourable 
conservation status giving a quantitative picture on whether and to what extent the core 
objectives in the respective legislation is met.  

  The  emission  data  collected  under  the  European  Pollutant  Release  and  Transfer 
Register  or  the  compliance  figures  with  emission  limit  values  under  the  Urban 
Wastewater Treatment Directive.  

What is common amongst the best examples is that the objectives and quantifiable obligations 
are  laid  down  in  a  sufficient  level  of  detail  that  you  can  define  meaningful  quantitative 
indicators.  In  other  words,  the  legislation  has  already  set  out  a  harmonised  and  quantifiable 
objective which then is translated into the reporting process. A large part of EU environment 
legislation  does,  however,  not  include  a  high  degree  of  harmonisation  but  sets  out  a 
framework and general rules which can be adapted by Member States and applied in different 
ways. It is therefore not straightforward to determine what constitutes a compliant situation.  

Example of environmental obligations which are difficult to monitor in a comparable manner 

-  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  ensure  that  "good 
environmental  status" is  reached in  marine  waters48.  However,  the  definition  of  what "good 
environmental status" is and how it is monitored is left to the Member States. The Commission 
has demonstrated in its report49 that the range of definitions in Member States is so significant 
that no comparative analysis is possible. As a result, the Commission reviewed50 the criteria 
and methods for establishing "good environmental status" in order to improve comparability.  

- earlier EU emission legislation such as the directives regulating urban wastewater treatment 
or  large  combustion  plants  have  laid  down  numeric  emission  limit  values  which  determine 
whether a certain installation complies with the law. When the Industrial Pollution Prevention 
and Control Directive (IPPC) Directive was adopted in 1996, a concept of permits based on 
"Best  Available  Techniques"  (BAT)  was  introduced  across  all  industrial  sectors  covered  by 
the  Directive.  It  was  up  to  the  Member  State  to  define  BAT  on  a  case-by-case  basis  taking 
level. 
account  of  non-binding  reference  documents  which  were  elaborated  at  EU 
Implementation of the IPPC Directive showed that this flexible approach had advantages and 
disadvantages51 but did not allow for an easy reporting and regulatory monitoring of whether 
the  Directive's  objectives  had  been  reached.  The  new  subsequent  Industrial  Emission 
Directive of 2010 aims to overcome some of these deficiencies and a new reporting system is 
now being introduced.  

There  are  specific  conditions  and  derogations  to  this  objective,  for  details  please  refer  to  Directive  

COM(2014) 97 
Commission  Decision  on  criteria  and  methodological  standards  repealing  Commission  Decision  

48  
               2008/56/EC, in particular Articles 9 and 14 
49  
50  
              2010/477/EU 
51  

See Impact Assessment (SEC(2007) 1682) 

30 

 
                                                 
Hence,  comparable,  let  alone  harmonised,  indicators  can  often  not  be  established  (easily). 
Member  States  often  argue  that  a  country-specific  or  case-by-case  assessment  should  take 
place instead. Moreover, a large part of currently reported information is still "text-based" (see 
figure  6  and  7  in  section  5.1.2).  This  means  that  Member  States  do  not  report  numeric  or 
spatial data which are easier to compare and process. Instead, the reports contain significant 
amounts of  textual information  on processes (e.g. the administrative structures in  a Member 
State or public consultation processes which were carried out), plans and programmes which 
include  the  actions  and  measures  (such  as  issuing  permits  or  authorisations)  that  are  being 
taken at a national level or justifications for derogations or lack of implementation regarding 
specific provisions. Experience shows that analysing this type of information is more difficult 
and time consuming. Interpreting and assessing such reports requires specific legal, technical 
and  linguistic  skills.  The  quality  and  timeliness  of  the  information  provided  by  the Member 
States  as  well  as  the  results  presented  by  the  Commission  vary  considerably  and  parts  are 
often only accessible to an expert audience52. 

Example of streamlining reporting on measures 

Learning  from  the  first  reporting  exercise,  the  second  round  of  reporting  under  the  Water 
Framework Directive has introduced the concept of 25 pre-defined "Key Types of Measures 
(KTMs)". It was developed in 2012 to simplify reporting. This approach was the consequence 
of the large differences in level of detail reported in 2010. Some Member States reported 10-
20  measures  whilst  others  reported  hundreds  or  even  thousands.  KTMs  are  groups  of 
measures identified by Member States in their programme which target the same pressure or 
purpose. The approach has been applied successfully in the 4th Implementation Report53 and 
has since been developed further and used in other legislation, such as the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive.  

Another  approach  is  a  more  "risk-based"  and  tiered  reporting.  Rather  than  requesting 
information on all provisions of the Directive and to a sufficient level of detail to allow for an 
in-depth and legally sound compliance assessment, a risk-based reporting is used. Such risk-
based  reporting  identifies  the  key  provisions  of  the  legislation  which  can  give  an  overall 
indication  of  whether  the  objectives  are  being  met  or  whether  implementation  gaps  exist. 
Building on this analysis, quantitative indicators or  qualitative criteria are established which 
can  also  be  presented  and  communicated  in  overviews  or  scoreboards.  Once  reporting  has 
been  analysed,  the  Member  States  are  put  into  different  risk  groups  according  to the risk  of 
poor  implementation.  For  the  group  with  the  highest  risk  of  failing  compliance  additional 
information  can  then  be  requested,  in  order  to  evaluate  the  risks  in  more  detail  or  specific 
action can be taken to help Member States reduce that risk.  

Such  an  approach  has  been  carried  out  successfully  in  the  area  of  municipal  waste 
management54.  An  overall  report  showed  how  municipal  waste  is  managed  by  grading 
Member  States  via  18  criteria  using  green,  orange  and  red  flags.  The  Commission  used  the 
report  to  prepare  fact  sheets  –  a  diagnosis  of  the  situation  -  and  roadmaps  –  including 
recommendations  -  for  the  ten  lowest  classified  Member  States.  These  roadmaps  were 
discussed with national authorities at bilateral seminars.  

52  
53  
54  

Example: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/nat_reports.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/impl_reports.htm#fourth 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/support_implementation_1st_phase.htm 

31 

 
                                                 
This  two-stage,  risk  based  approach  is  now  applied  also  in  other  areas.  It  requires  the 
systematic  identification  of  implementation  benchmarks  (or  key  performance  indicators, 
KPIs).  With  such  an  approach,  risk-based  reporting  can  then  be  combined  with  targeted 
compliance  promotion  or  assistance  efforts  which  are  now  also  promoted  through  the 
Environment  Implementation  Review55.  It  has  the  advantage  that  less  and  more  focused 
information is needed in comparison to a more comprehensive compliance reporting and such 
information is easier and faster to process. However, such a high level approach will often not 
allow  a  detailed  legal  assessment  of  whether  any  of  the  provisions  are  breached.  For  this, 
additional information could still be gathered in a second step (outside the regular reporting, 
e.g.  through  an  EU  pilot)  and  only  for  those  Member  States  where  there  are  indications  of 
breaches.  

These  developments  and  good  practices  are  achieving  promising  results  in  relation  to 
improving  the  effectiveness  of  reporting  on  compliance.  However,  they  are  not  used 
systematically throughout environmental reporting (yet) although there are ongoing efforts to 
apply  such  best  approaches  in  a  systematic  and  consistent  way  (e.g.  through  guidance, 
checklists or good practice exchanges)56. They improve effectiveness by making sure that the 
information  really  needed  is  reported,  and  also  improve  efficiency  by  avoiding  reporting  of 
excessive information.  

6.1.2.  Reporting performance in relation to quality and timing 

Assessment  question:  "Are  environmental  reporting  requirements  met  and  with  good 
quality, timely data?" 

Overall  response:  Member  States  have  problems  in  delivering  complete,  good  quality 
and  timely  reports;  but  the  situation  is  improving.  The  reporting  performance  is 
influence  by  a  wide  variety  of  factors  (e.g.  sufficiency  of  quality  control/assurance, 
language  regime,  clarity  and  frequency  of  reporting,  time  available  and  sequencing  as 
well as maturity of reporting). They all have in common that they are influenced by the 
resources available, which are often insufficient.  

What is the issue? 

For  reporting  obligations  to  satisfy  the  objectives  for  which  they  have  been  designed,  they 
must be fulfilled and the data reported must be of sufficient quality and sufficiently up-to-date 
to serve its required purpose. The most important criteria are the quality of the reports, i.e. the 
completeness and accuracy, and the timeliness (i.e. that the data are up-to-date and the report 
is delivered on time).  

What are the findings? 

The results of the inventory on the delays for reporting and the timeliness of delivery clearly 
show  that  there  is  an  issue  to  address  (see  section  5.1.3).  Whilst  there  are  many  good 
examples,  at  the  slowest  it  can  also  take  three  and  a  half  years  from  the  reporting  deadline 
until the Commission publishes its findings. As shown in this analysis, one important factor 
for this delay is the late submission from Member States.  

55  
56  
              to this end already. 

COM(2016) 316 and COM(2017) 63 (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/index_en.htm) 
DG Environment has set up an internal Focus Group on Reporting and has organised some workshops  

32 

 
                                                 
According to analysis of the EEA's priority data flows, the overall average score was 78% in 
2015,  with  some  variation  across  the  EU28  countries  (0%  means  that  no  data  have  been 
delivered at all and 100% means that complete datasets for all areas have been delivered on 
time)  see  Figure  12  below.  In  a  similar  vein,  an  internal  survey  in  the  DG  Environment57 
revealed  that  around  a  third  of  Member  State  reporting  (out  of  a  sample  of  30  pieces  of 
legislation) is deemed to have quality problems. Both reports recognise that the situation was 
improving with time, e.g. as demonstrated by the positive trends in recent years in the EEA 
priority data flows scoring.  

Figure  12:  Overall  performance  of  countries  reporting  EEA  priority  data  flows  (over  May 
2014-April 2015)58  

Such  issues  have  already  become  apparent  in  the  development  of  the  Shared  Environment 
Information  System59,  which  finds  that  "Where  monitoring  criteria  have  been  laid  down 
explicitly,  such  as  in  the  areas  of  air  quality,  greenhouse  gas  emissions  and  bathing  water 
monitoring,  the  comparability  and  other  quality  aspects  of  the  monitoring  information  have 
significantly  improved.  This  suggests  that  improvement  is  indeed  achievable  and  that  there 
may  well  be  a  need  for  clearer  guidance  from  either  the  EU  or  from  national  authorities, 

57  
58  
59  

ICF, IEEP and Denkstatt (2017) (ISBN: 978-92-79-6626-5 / EUR - KH-01-17-202-EN-N – EN) 
Source: EEA (2015). Eionet priority data flows. May 2014–April 2015. ISSN 1830-770 
SWD(2013) 18 "EU Shared Environmental Information System - Implementation Outlook" 

33 

 
 
                                                 
setting  out  agreed  quality  criteria  for  information  and  the  supporting  data."  It  is  also 
recognised that there is a trade-off between quantity and quality of reporting. 

Similarly, within the Commission there have been 92 infringements or EU pilot cases linked 
to the failure of Member States to comply with reporting obligations since 2010 (for example, 
non-reporting of programmes of measures, incomplete reports etc.)60. These cases support the 
analysis elsewhere in this Fitness Check. 

There are numerous factors which seem to influence the quality and timeliness in the reporting 
process in addition to the potential difficulties in generating the necessary information in the 
first place. These factors are:  

  Adequacy of data checking procedures; 
  Language; 
  Clarity of purpose, adequacy of guidelines and format; 
  Time to conduct reporting / sequencing of reporting; 
  Frequency of reporting; and 
  Maturity of legislation and/or reporting obligations. 

In particular the resourcing of reporting is relevant for all other factors. The current pressure 
on  national  public  budgets  is  often  leading  to  budget  cuts  that  could  undermine  the 
effectiveness  of  current  reporting,  unless  resources  are  used  more  efficiently.  This  pressure 
occurs despite reporting being only a very small part of overall policy costs. 

6.1.3.  Delivering information on the state of implementation  

Assessment question: "Does environmental reporting provide sufficient information on 
the state and the effectiveness of implementation of the environmental acquis?" 

Overall  response:  The  information  reported  is  broadly  sufficient  but  with  a  few  cases 
where  information  may  not  be  needed.  In  some  reporting  areas,  the  focus  is  more  on 
administrative and legal questions rather than the effectiveness of implementation, and 
there  is  even  less  information  reported  on  the  state  of  the  environment.  Often,  the 
reported  information  is  sufficient  to  make  a  general  but  not  an  in-depth  judgement, 
which  would  require  either  more  detail  or  a  tiered  approach.  The  situation  has 
improved over time, but needs to improve further on the basis of a rolling programme of 
evaluations and the Environmental Implementation Review. 

What is the issue? 

Many  reporting  obligations  focus  on  giving  an  overall  picture  of  the  state  of  the 
implementation, establishing the "distance to target" and, in case of gaps in implementation, 
the measures taken to close these gaps. In some cases, such an assessment of effectiveness is 
easier  to  do  than  in  others.  But  this  issue  also  relates  to  whether  we  have  a  systemic 
assessment of the state of environment and whether information can be inter-connected. Often 
the uncertainty linked to the effects that certain measures may have or the multi combination 
of  measures  that  can  be  taken  where  the  combined  effect  is  difficult  to  establish,  make  an 

60  
Overall,  there  were  around  6300  reports  from  EU  Member  States  in  regular  environment  reporting 
areas.  This  means  that  around  1.4%  of  all  reports  ended  up  as  EU  pilots  and  only  0.16%  resulted  in 
infringements. 

34 

 
                                                 
assessment of effectiveness complex. To allow for a sound assessment, a significant amount 
of  data  would  need  to  be  collected  which  would  then  result  in  increased  administrative 
burden.  

What are the findings? 

Section  5.1.2  showed  that  the  focus  of  reporting  obligations  is  on  the  measures  being 
implemented  to  address  environmental  problems  ("response")  and  to  a  lesser  extent  on  the 
state-of-the-environment and the positive and negative impacts on the environment and on the 
measures implemented. Moreover, reported information is largely text based as it looks more 
at the implementation processes and procedures rather than the state-of-the-environment and 
the objectives to be reached through EU environmental legislation.  

In the public consultation, the majority of respondents agreed strongly with the assertion that 
reporting should allow for an assessment of whether EU legal obligations are being met. On a 
scale from 1  to  10,  50%  assigned a  score  of  10  to  this  objective  and  80%  a  score of  8  and 
higher  (see  figure  7  in  the  report)61.  On  average,  this  was  the  highest  score  amongst  the 
questions asking about the main purpose of reporting.  

Public  consultation  respondents  also indicated that the amount of  information reported was 
appropriate (see figure 5 in the report)62. A strong majority of respondents felt that existing 
amounts of information collected in the air quality and pollution, chemicals, noise and waste 
were ‘about right’ to meet policy objectives. Respondents generally felt that more information 
was  required  in  relation  to  biodiversity  and  nature  protection,  natural  resources  and  soil, 
whilst  respondents  with  knowledge  of  water  policy  were  divided  on  whether  existing 
information requirements were appropriate or too demanding, with some suggesting that this 
represents the heterogeneity of water resources across the EU. 

Through the inventory and internal surveys, the experts in the Commission's DG Environment 
were  asked  about  the  sufficiency  and  usefulness  of  the  information  reported.  The  picture  is 
mixed: in most cases the reported information (79 out of 180) and the resulting Commission 
reports  (58)  are  considered  'very  useful'.  However,  there  are  also  cases  where  either  the 
reported  information  (25),  the  Commission  report  (24)  or  both  (18)  are  considered  to  have 
'low' usefulness. Reflecting this, there are already proposals and plans to amend or replace a 
number  of  reporting  obligations  with  low  usefulness,  e.g.  through  the  2015  Commission 
proposals on waste legislation63.  

These results broadly mirror the feedback from the public consultation, which found that most 
people felt the amount of information reported was appropriate but with some people feeling 
there was too much, and similar numbers feeling it is too little.  

It is interesting to look at the reasons for low usefulness which included, in particular:  

  Member States have little to report unless significant changes occur e.g. reporting on 

the structure of relevant competent and other authorities; 

  Member States have little to report as the article being reported on is not / seldom used 

and hence the information is of little use; 

Annex 5 to ICF, IEEP and Denkstatt (2017) (ISBN: 978-92-79-6626-5 / EUR - KH-01-17-202-EN-N –  

61  
              EN) (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/summary_reporting.pdf) 
62  
63  

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/summary_reporting.pdf 
COM(2015) 595 (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm) 

35 

 
                                                 
 
Insufficient information is required on which to make useful analyses; 
  Problems with the quality of reported information inhibit its usefulness; and 
  Timing of reporting.  

The Commission experts also made a number of suggestions for improvements, including:  

 

Improving the underlying evidence base through more systematic and comprehensive 
capturing  of  relevant  information  and  subsequent  improvement  in  analysis  and 
interpretation; 

  Collation of quantitative or qualitative key indicators on progress towards objectives 

(see also 6.4.3); 
Improved accessibility of the report (e.g. via online resources and web viewers). 

 

Specific feedback from public consultation, the stakeholder workshops and the 'Make It Work' 
project highlighted that not all reporting is currently allowing for an effective assessment of 
compliance (e.g. on environmental liability) or sometimes more information would be helpful, 
e.g.  under  the  E-PRTR  it  would  be  useful  if  more  information  on  the  actual  capacity 
threshold/output  levels  was  available  and  compared  with  emissions  data  and  if  (basic) 
emission  data  would  be  transmitted  to  the  authorities  for  all  facilities  in  the  specified 
categories of economic activity regardless of the cumulative release thresholds for pollutants. 
In this context, performance scoreboards to publicise compliance levels (such as the Natura 
2000 barometer64) were mentioned as a good instrument which could be used more widely. It 
was also suggested that traditional compliance reporting might be replaced or supplemented 
by  alternatives,  such  as  air  quality  modelling  (instead  of  only  relying  on  environmental 
monitoring)  or  using  other  available  information  (e.g.  from  remote  sensing  using 
Copernicus65).  Moreover,  the  potential  of  involving  citizens  to  collect  data  (e.g.  through 
citizens  science)66  was  highlighted  as  having  great  potential.  The  biggest  problem  with  the 
reports  that  the  Commission  makes  publicly  available  is  with  their  timelines  e.g.  COM's 
triennial report on shipments of waste includes outdated information. 

Another issue which is common across several reporting obligations is the lack of information 
provided  by  (some)  Member  States.  For  example,  a  significant  percentage  of  “unknown” 
assessments are reported by Member States under the Habitats Directive. Such data gaps are 
often a result of lack of appropriate environmental monitoring at national level.  

Positively, the situation has improved over time and this process of improvement seems to be 
supported  by  the  rolling  programme  of  evaluations  (often  under  REFIT).  In  addition,  the 
Commission’s  Environmental  Implementation  Review  (EIR)  will  provide  a  new  focus  on 
what type of information and data are needed to best identify the "distance-to-target" and gain 
a better understanding of implementation challenges from a cross-cutting perspective. 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm 
Copernicus  is  the  European  Programme  for  the  establishment  of  a  European  capacity  for  Earth  

64  
65  
              Observation (http://www.copernicus.eu/) 
66  
              http://ecsa.citizen-science.net/ 

See 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/IR9_en.pdf 

or  

36 

 
 
 
                                                 
6.1.4.  Is the public properly informed  

Assessment question: "Does environmental reporting allow for the public to be properly 
informed about the state of the environment?" 

Overall response: There have been significant improvements in the ability for the public 
to be informed about the state of the environment. The European Environment Agency 
plays a strong role for the reporting obligations it covers. Further progress can be made 
by developing further open data policies and better applying the legal requirements on 
making available information to the public about the state of the environment that are 
in the Directives on Access to Environmental Information and INSPIRE.  

What is the issue? 

One objective of reporting is to ensure that the public has access to environmental information 
regarding the state of the environment. In practice, the issue is wider than just the state of the 
environment  as  there  is  an  obligation  on  the  EU  to  inform  the  public  on  the  progress  of 
implementation,  the  state  of  the  environment  and  actions  being  taken.  For  the  public  to  be 
considered  properly informed,  the  indicators  should  be  appropriate  and  meaningful  to  them, 
and should be readily accessible. 

What are the findings? 

The European Environment Agency (EEA) that has the lead role at the EU level on providing 
public access to information on the state of the environment, having been set up precisely for 
the above-mentioned purpose67. To this end, the EEA publishes a "State-of-the-Environment 
Report"  every  five  years  and  collects  information  thorough  its  European  Environment 
Information  and  Observation  Network  (EIONET).  For  some  reporting  obligations  (e.g.  air 
quality, state of nature or bathing water), the EEA is the main service provider.  

When  the  EEA  deals  with  reporting  obligations,  public  access  to  the  information  is  usually 
ensured and subject to high demand (e.g. in relation to the bathing water report). There have 
been efforts to streamline the reporting streams between those collected through EIONET and 
those stemming from environmental legislation (e.g. in the field of water policy or protected 
areas).  Presently  more  than  70  environmental  data  flows  are  reported  through  EIONET 
Reportnet, around 80% of which are as a result of EU legal requirements. The same is true for 
the  EEA's  EIONET  priority  dataflows.  However,  there  are  still  inconsistencies  and 
duplications  which  could  be  addressed.  A  particular  issue  is  the  fact  that  the  EEA  does  not 
carry out the reporting process for the majority of obligations (see also section 5.1.4) and that 
the  'state  of  the  environment'  needs  to  look  more  into  the  systemic  interaction  between 
individual pieces of legislation. 

67  

See Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1210/90 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 401/2009) 
37 

 
 
 
                                                 
In the public consultation, the majority of respondents agreed strongly with the assertion that 
reporting  should  allow  stakeholders  to  understand  the  state  of  the  environment  and  the 
actions taken to maintain and improve it. On a scale from 1 to 10, 46% assigned a score of 10 
to this objective and 79% a score of 8 and higher (see figure 8 in the report) 68. On average, 
this  was  the  second  highest  score  amongst  the  questions  asking  about  the  main  purpose  of 
reporting.  

In addition, the public consultation showed strong agreement for the statement that reporting 
should  generate  reliable  environmental  information  and  ensure  access  to  environmental 
information for citizens. On a scale from 1 to 10, 35% assigned a score of 10 to this objective 
and 70% a score of 8 and higher (see figure 10 in the report)69. 

There  was  even  stronger  support  that  reported  information  should  be  fully  available  to  the 
general public, after due consideration of the appropriate level of aggregation and subject to 
appropriate confidentiality constraints. On a scale from 1 to 10, 47% assigned a score of 10 
to  this  objective  and  79%  a  score  of  8  and  higher  (see  figure  16  in  the  report)70.  In  the 
stakeholder events, experts highlighted that such information can help identify front-runners 
and  good  practices  which  could  then  be  shared  with  those  having  similar  implementation 
issues. Reporting can also be an important tool for industry and other sectors to improve their 
environmental performance and promote eco-innovation by sharing best practices. 

Feedback  was  also  made  that  some  important  and  relevant  information  is  not  collected 
(sufficiently) such as e.g. air quality information based on modelling or nature reporting on 
screening  results  and  outcomes  of  Appropriate  Assessment  which  would  be  necessary  to 
assess the effectiveness of the Directives in achieving their objectives.  

With  regard  to  REACH,  the  ECHA’s  new  dissemination  portal71  was  highlighted  as  best 
practice  in  regulatory  monitoring,  and  thought  to  have  made  information  more  easily 
accessible to the public. 

For  the  reporting  obligations  not  dealt  with  by  the  EEA,  the  picture  is  more  mixed  as  to 
whether the public is informed. Firstly, a key route for public accessibility is the publication of 
Commission reports or a general requirement for Member States and the Commission to make 
this information publically available through other means. The inventory records that, of 181 
identified  reporting  obligations,  there  is  a  specific  legal  obligation  for  public  provision  of 
information in 68 cases. In addition, information is also made available from other reporting 
obligations. 

Directive  2003/4/EC  on  access  to  environmental  information  requires  Member  States 
authorities  to  publish  at  regular  intervals  reports  on  the  state  of  the  environment  and  to 
promote active and systematic dissemination of environmental information to the public. This 
is underpinned by the INSPIRE Directive which facilitates public access to spatial information 
in  an  easy  to  use  manner.  There  are  also  initiatives  such  as  SEIS72  and  SIIFs73  that  are 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/summary_reporting.pdf 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/summary_reporting.pdf 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/summary_reporting.pdf 
European  Chemicals  Agency  (ECHA)  is  the  driving  force  among  regulatory  authorities  in 

68  
69  
70  
71  
implementing the EU chemicals legislation 
72  
73  
Wastewater Treatment Directive (see uwwtd.oieau.org) 

SEIS COMMUNICATION (COM(2008) 46) – on a Shared Environmental Information System  
The Structured Implementation and Information Frameworks (SIIF) was piloted for the Urban 

38 

 
                                                 
to 

in  relation 

improving electronic access to certain information relevant for environmental legislation held 
by public bodies. A specific example is the study on "Active dissemination of environmental 
the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directive"74,  which  formulated 
information 
recommendations on active dissemination of environmental information. Taken together, there 
is  a  framework  for  sharing  environmental  information,  including  data  obtained  from 
environmental  monitoring.  This  framework  is  already  leading  to  more  active  dissemination, 
but  could  be  used  more  widely  especially  as  the  technology  develops.  However,  there  are 
some issues that need to be addressed such as data quality and comparability (see also section 
7.5.2). 

Partial onward dissemination could be justified. Indeed, many reporting obligations are of an 
administrative  nature  (e.g.  notifications  of  competent  authorities).  Several  other  obligations 
such  as  the  reporting  on  drinking  water,  invasive  species,  waste  and  chemicals  include 
important  information  on  the  state  of  environment  and  the  measures  taken  under  these 
instruments.  Moreover,  there  are  a  number  of  obligations  which  relate  to  measures  (e.g. 
inspections)  or  which  relate  to  cross-cutting  instruments  such  as  the  European  Liability 
Directive,  the  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  or  the  Strategic  Environment  Assessment 
Directives which need to be assessed regarding their effectiveness. The reporting across these 
pieces of legislation is diverse and may not convey the information that the public wishes on 
them.  

As such, whilst it can be concluded that there is information available for the public that can 
allow them to be properly informed about the state of the environment, care must be taken in 
ensuring  that  the  specific  needs  of  citizens,  particularly  around  non-technical  interpretation 
and ease of access, are addressed. Information to the public should be presented in a way that 
it can be easily understood. Public information requirements need to be better captured and the 
often large amounts of information available need to be better tailored to the public need. The 
idea of providing the public access to the underlying datasets was identified in the stakeholder 
workshops – in such instances ensuring that the data is tailored to and navigable by the public 
is clearly important. 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/pdf/siif_report.pdf  

74  
It  found  that  "each  data  provider  should  review  and  simplify  its  arrangements  for  providing  public  access  to 
spatial  information  and  make  them  compliant  with  INSPIRE  as  soon  as  possible.  It  is  suggested  that  view 
services providing public access to nature data and the nature data themselves are offered free of charge since 
they are collected as part of environmental reporting obligations. Most other view services are preferably free as 
well, while access to services can only be limited under well-specified conditions. Data providers should define 
the  use  conditions  of  each  data  set  and  services  by  making  use  of  the  two  INSPIRE  model  licenses  or  other 
(national) model licenses." 

39 

 
 
 
                                                 
6.1.5.  Gaining an insight for decision making 

Assessment question: "Does environmental reporting allow for evidence based decision 
making including evaluations of regulatory fitness and impact assessments?"  

Overall response: Reporting obligations are widely used to generate part of the evidence 
base,  providing  data  on  key  issues  in  a  comparable  manner.  However,  reporting 
obligations are not the only source. For some legislation, making more use of reporting 
obligations  to  underpin  evaluations  and  Fitness  Checks  would  be  appropriate  but  this 
would  place  additional  demands  on  Member  States  who  may  not  readily  have  such 
information (for example on costs and benefits).  

What is the issue? 

The  Better  Regulation  Guidelines75  highlight  that  a  regulatory  monitoring  and  reporting 
system is a "necessary and an integral part of Better Regulation helping to:  

Identify whether a policy is being applied on the ground as expected; 

 
  Addressing implementation problems of an intervention; and/or 
 

Identifying whether further action is required to ensure that it can achieve the intended 
objectives." 

The  Better  Regulation  agenda  is  about  designing  and  evaluating  EU  policies  and  laws 
transparently,  on  the  basis  of  an  evidence  base.  Evaluations  (such  as  this  Fitness  Check) 
assess what is working and what is not, and then Impact Assessments look at the economic, 
social  and  environmental  impacts  of  options  for  change.  Reporting  obligations  are  one 
important  way  for  Member  States  provide  the  information  needed  to  enable  this  evidence-
based regulation.  

What is the finding? 

The  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  provides  quality  checks  of  Commission  evaluations  and 
Impact  Assessments,  and  its  findings  suggest  that  the  evidence  base  whilst  adequate  for 
developing policy could be stronger76. The Board's opinions raise: 

 

 
 

[regulatory]  monitoring  and  evaluation  as  a  structural  issue  in  around  two  fifths  of 
cases;  
the need for environmental information on options in around a third of cases; 
the need for further quantification in most cases. 

The experience of the Commission is that reporting is a crucial part of the evidence base for 
most  evaluation  and  Impact  Assessments.  Indeed,  reporting  on  implementation  is  normally 
the  first  step  before  the  preparation  of  the  evaluation  report  and  subsequent  Impact 
Assessment  of  options  for  change.  So,  reporting  provides  the  base  on  which  the  analytical 
pyramid is built.  

75  
76  

SWD(2015) 111 
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/iab/board_reports_en.htm  

40 

 
 
 
                                                 
However,  the  analytical  base  provided  through  reporting  is  never  wide  enough  or  even 
consistent enough to allow for the full analysis. A typical evaluation requires information on 
the state of the environment, the drivers and pressures, the responses taken and their impacts. 
Parts of this information may be provided by reporting from Member States, however, never 
all of it.  

Respondents  to  the  public  consultation  (see  section  2.2  in  the  report)77  highlighted  the 
importance  of  reporting  in  assessing  whether  legal  obligations  are  being  met,  improving 
stakeholder  understanding  of  the  state  of  the  environment,  and  providing  environmental 
information  for  citizens.  All  of  these  objectives  are  relevant  for  evaluations  and  Impact 
Assessments.  

One  of  the  issues  is  that  not  all  of  the  necessary  information  is  held  by  Member  States:  no 
Member State systematically evaluates implementation in their own country and then reports 
this  information  to  the  Commission.  The  result  is  that  almost  all  evaluations  and  Impact 
Assessments need to be complemented by additional primary data collection.  

The  weakest  element  of  reporting  is  on  the  costs  and  benefits  of  measures  undertaken.  The 
environmental legislation where this should be mostly available are those that require analysis 
in the Member States (River Basin Management Plans under the Water Framework Directive, 
Noise  Action  Plans  under  the  Environmental  Noise  Directive,  and  analysis  under  the  SEA 
Directive etc.). However, even Commission evaluations of these Directives suffer from a lack 
of data on the costs and benefits of implementation, as it is not usually collected by Member 
States or reported. Even for the INSPIRE Directive, where there is an explicit obligation for 
Member States to report costs and benefits78, it is not possible to make an evaluation of costs 
and  benefits  across  the  EU  mainly  because  many  Member  States  do  not  collect  such 
information systematically79.  

However, simply because all information needed for evaluations and Impact Assessments is 
not  reported,  does  not  imply  that  reporting  is  the  right  channel  to  receive  all  the  needed 
information.  Indeed,  stakeholders  ranked  the  objective  most  closely  associated  with  this  as 
lowest. Discussions with stakeholder indicated that such information was a 'nice to have [or 
give]' but not the priority.  

On  the  other  hand,  some  Member  States  state  they  have  systematic  evaluation  practices  in 
place  (such  as  UK,  NL,  DE).  Effectiveness  would  be  improved  by  these  countries 
transparently  sharing  their  evaluations  and  Impact  Assessments  on  a  regular  basis  with  the 
the  context  of  the 
Commission.  Moreover,  such 
Environmental Implementation Review (EIR)80.  

information  would  be  useful  in 

6.2.  Efficiency  

The evaluation of efficiency looks at whether effectiveness could be improved, in particular 
whether  costs  could  be  cut  without  reducing  effectiveness  or  whilst  improving  quality.  In 
terms of costs, the focus is on the administrative costs of reporting. 

77  
78  
79  
80  

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/summary_reporting.pdf 
Article 21.2(e) of Directive 2007/2/EC 
See COM(2016) 478 and SWD(2016) 273 
COM(2016) 316 

41 

 
                                                 
6.2.1.  Justification and proportionality of costs  

Assessment  question:  "To  what  extent  are 
proportionate?" 

the  costs 

involved 

justified  and 

Overall response: In overall terms, the costs are moderate and a small proportion of the 
implementation  costs  of  legislation.  Most  individual  reporting  obligations  are  justified 
and  proportionate  in  comparison  with  the  benefits  and  have  benefited  from  past  or 
ongoing streamlining exercises. Nevertheless, some reporting obligations go beyond what 
is legally required or do not appear proportionate to some stakeholders. Whilst the trend 
is  positive,  further  evaluations  of  specific  pieces  of  legislation  need  to  investigate  more 
detailed  changes  and  check  that  good  practices  are  being  applied  to  deliver  further 
simplification and burden reduction.  

What is the issue?  

The  question  of  proportionality  essentially  asks  if  the  benefit  of  the  information  reported  is 
greater than the cost of that reporting.  

What are the findings? 

The  evidence  from  the  costs  and  benefits  (see  section  5.2  and  section  6  of  support  study) 
provided  a  discussion  of  this  at  an  aggregated  level.  Costs  appear  to  be  around  EUR  22.4 
million per annum, with around EUR 13 million of this being met by Member States directly. 
It  is  not  possible  to  estimate  the  benefits  of  reporting  obligations  in  quantified  terms  but, 
clearly,  the  benefits  far  exceed  the  costs  overall  as  demonstrated  in  section  6.2.  Without 
reporting  obligations  there  can  be  no  confidence  in  implementation  and  as  to  whether 
legislation is working or not.  

In the public consultation, respondents were asked about their perceptions of the efficiency of 
the reporting process (with regard to cost and administrative burden) in the policy domains 
with  which  they  were  most  familiar.  There  was  a  spread  of  opinion  in  all  policy  domains 
about  whether  or  not  current  reporting  arrangements  are  efficient,  generally  with  a  higher 
percentage of respondents considering it as efficient (see figure below). In all areas, a small 
but significant proportion of respondents (between 14% - 30%) viewed that there is potential 
for significant improvements to be made (see figure 6 in the report) 81. 

As identified also by the stakeholders, there are some specific reporting obligations where the 
potential for improving proportionality has been identified (e.g. INSPIRE Directive).  

The  stakeholder  consultation  identified  a  number  of  good  practices  where  reporting  is 
particularly  efficient  (e.g.  some  reporting  asks  for  web  links  to  existing  documents  to  be 
provided rather than writing summary text only for the purpose of reporting). However, many 
suggestions were made on very specific improvements which would result in higher efficiency, 
such as the need to avoid regular changes and updating of reporting guidance which triggers 
time  consuming  follow  up  at  national  level  (see  contribution  from  France  on  Water 
Framework Directive, page 93 of support study). Moreover, the justification and use made by 
reported dated can be communicated better in some areas which would alter the perception 
on proportionality (see contribution from Germany, page 92 of support study).  

81  

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/summary_reporting.pdf 

42 

 
                                                 
It  is  also  very  clear  that  many  specific  reporting  obligations  are  best  challenged  through 
evaluations  of  the  specific  reporting  obligations.  This  horizontal  exercise  has  identified 
stakeholder  concerns  for  some  obligations,  but  many  of  these  now  need  to  be  validated 
through more in-depth evaluations of the specific legislation, benefiting from the insights of 
this  horizontal  exercise.  Where  clearly  obsolete  or  out-of-date,  changes  can  be  made  on  an 
ongoing  basis  such  as  the  proposal  to  repeal  the  Standardised  Reporting  Directive 
(91/692/EEC). 

This  can  be  achieved  through  connecting  the  results  of  this  Fitness  Check  and  its 
understanding of best practice and the ideal corporate structure with the ongoing and planned 
evaluations  for  particular  pieces  of  legislation  (some  of  which  are  under  REFIT,  others  are 
not).  Overall,  most  environmental  legislation  covered  by  this  Fitness  Check  has  or  will 
undergo  an  evaluation.  Where  evaluations  were  ongoing,  the  link  has  been  made  (see  e.g. 
INSPIRE82) or it will be factored in future exercises.  

Annexes  6  to  8  already  identify  issues  that  merit  further  attention  to  see  how  reporting  can 
better  deliver,  and  to  make  specific  changes  in  the  interests  of  further  simplification  and 
burden  reduction.  Annex  8  sets  out  a  number  of  indicators  of  quality  that  are  discussed 
throughout  this  Fitness  Check  report:  usefulness,  indicators,  textual,  coherence,  delays  and 
process, and format. For example: 

  whilst  two-fifths  of  reporting  is  considered  as  of  high  usefulness,  one-fifth  is 

considered as of low usefulness implying the potential to simplify; 

  one  quarter  of  reporting  suffers  delays  that  indicate  the  potential  to  improve  the 

 

efficiency of the process and also the quality (timeliness) of the final report; 
three quarters of reporting is mainly textual information, which can often be of lower 
quality (use) than indicators and numeric information. 

Moreover,  there  is  a  need  to  promote  good  practices  and  standardise  tried-and-tested 
approaches  across  all  environmental  policy  domains  including  the  improvement  of 
communication on what happens with the reported data and how they are used.  

6.2.2.  Factors influencing efficiency  

Assessment  question:  What  factors  influenced  the  efficiency  with  which  environmental 
reporting takes place? 

Overall  response:  Efficiency  is  affected  by  the  complexity  of  the  obligations,  whether 
they are complied with and the processes. Examples exist where these factors have been 
optimised.  Identifying  these  good  practices  can  help  improve  efficiency  of  other 
reporting  obligations  through  simplification,  burden  reduction  and  improved  quality. 
Any changes should look at factors addressing both costs and benefits and analyse what 
influence they have on one another in case of changes.   

What is the issue?  

This question looks at the factors that determine the efficiency, i.e. the relationship between 
costs and benefits of reporting and how it can be improved. On the cost side, the main factors 
are  included  in  the  Standard  Cost  Model  (i.e.  number  of  entities  reporting,  time  required, 

82  

COM(2016) 478 and SWD(2016) 273 

43 

 
                                                 
frequency  and  hourly  costs  as  well  as  the  costs  of  outsourcing).  On  the  benefits  side,  the 
quality, timeliness, relevance and use of the data play an important role.  

What are the findings?  

As  regards  the  costs,  there  are  a  number  of  factors  where  there  is  potential  for  improving 
efficiency.  The  number  of  reporting  entities  is  mostly  addressing  Member  State  authorities. 
However, in cases where business or other operators need to be involved in the reporting, the 
administrative  burden  increases.  This  may  be  justified  and  proportionate  but  needs  to  be 
validated.  The  frequency  of  reporting  appears  mostly  streamlined.  However,  in  the  water 
policy  area  there  are  questions  about  the  timing  and  frequency  of  reporting  of  legislation 
which is interrelated (see more details in section 6.2.5).  

The time taken for reporting is influenced by the content, format and process of reporting. It 
varies considerably between different reporting obligations. In particular, the introduction of 
IT  tools  and  electronic  reporting  can  enhance  the  efficiency  but  requires  initial  investment 
which has not taken place across all Member States (see more details in sections 6.2.4, 6.2.5 
and 6.4.4).  

A  stakeholder  identified  specific  factors  in  the  context  of  Water  Framework  Directive 
reporting  which  influence  their  costs  from  their  country's  perspective,  e.g.  the  changes  in 
guidance,  code  list  and  new  formats,  delays  and  additional  checks  in  QA/QC  procedures 
(although these could reduce costs over time) as well as the constraints caused by capacity 
problems  of  the  EEA's  Reportnet  (see  contribution  from  France  on  Water  Framework 
Directive,  page  93  of  support  study).  It  was  recognised  in  the  Stakeholder  Workshops, 
however, that the reporting under the Water Framework Directive has undergone significant 
changes from the first to the second round of reporting as a result of feedback from Member 
States and after extensive consultation and agreement with Member States. Reporting under 
this new approach is still ongoing but during a first reflection on the experiences at the last 
meeting  of  Working  Group  Data  Information  and  Sharing  (DIS)  under  the  Common 
Implementation  Strategy  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (October  2016),  the  Member 
States  reiterated  the  need  for  a  stable  reporting  mechanism83.  In  other  words,  for  future 
reporting obligation, the Member States collectively are not in favour of changing the current 
schema as described in the revised WFD Guidance.  

The factors influencing the benefits are more difficult to analyse but are addressed throughout 
the rest of Section 7. Overall, there could be greater emphasis on users which includes the EU 
institutions but also the Member State authorities, businesses and citizens relying on reporting 
for one reason or another. There is a wide range of approaches in the different ROs and there 
are some good examples where the benefits are high and factors such as relevance, timeliness, 
quality etc. seemed to be "optimised" (e.g. bathing water or air quality). In other areas, there 
seem  to  be  some  deficiencies  which  could  be  addressed  at  reasonable  cost  would  help  to 
enhance  the  overall  efficiency  of  reporting.  However,  any  potential  changes  designed  to 
reduce the costs of reporting also need to be viewed in the light of these factors that influence 
benefits.  For  example,  reducing  the  frequency  of  reporting  will  reduce  costs,  but  an 
assessment  of  efficiency  needs  to  examine  the  potential  effects  on  the  benefits  of  having 
current and up-to-date information. Finally, there is some data that could be usefully reported, 
that is not the case at present.  

83  

Summary Report of WFD WG DIS of October 2016 

44 

 
                                                 
6.2.3.  Good examples for efficient reporting  

Assessment question: "Are there examples of good practice in environmental reporting 
at the national or regional level that imply it could be undertaken more efficiently, and if 
so how?  

Overall response: Many good examples were identified which included the enhanced use 
of IT systems, the integration of information systems, the use of centralised dashboards, 
databases or web portals and the coordination of reporting processes between Member 
States at a regional level. Wider adoption of efficient implementation would improve the 
efficiency  at  the  EU  level,  perhaps  through  a  more  “corporate”  (EU  coordinated) 
approach to facilitate sharing of information across domains.  

What is the issue? 

Illustrative  examples  on  how  to  improve  the  efficiency  of  reporting  can  be  identified  at  the 
EU, regional and Member State level, and be more widely applied. There were a number of 
actions  aiming  to  streamline  and  rationalise  (national)  reporting  procedures.  Such  reforms 
reduce  the  administrative  costs  and  increase  benefits.  Good  practices  can  help  improve 
efficiency through promoting their wider use.  

What are the findings? 

At EU level, there are a number of areas where improvements have been made that facilitated 
better practice at national or regional levels. Such examples were listed already84, and include 
the reporting and mutual exchange of information under the Ambient Air Quality Directives 
and the Bathing  Water Directive. On air quality, the dedicated internet interface, i.e. the so-
called air quality portal85, utilises a state-of-the-art electronic reporting approach by which air 
quality  information  is  made  available  in  a  standardised,  machine-readable  and  INSPIRE 
compliant86 manner. For bathing water, Member States are required to report annually on the 
results  of  environmental  monitoring.    While  environmental  monitoring  of  bathing  water  is 
required to cover a range of parameters, the EU report focuses on a simple indicator of bathing 
water  quality,  the  numbers  of  waters  in  each  Member  State  that  meet  different  quality 
standards. The reported data are made publically available and the EU web tool is linked to 
the Member State information systems where the bathing water profiles can be found87. Such 
an  approach  is  exemplary  for  the  concept  of  "Structured  Information  and  Implementation 
Systems"  (SIIFs)  building  on  state-of-the-art  IT  tools,  making  information  available  in  a 
comparable, interoperable and easy-to-use manner. 

At national level, there are many good examples and the support study88 is only able to list a 
sample from which some wider lessons can be learnt, in particular:  

"Towards  a  Fitness  Check  of  EU  environmental  monitoring  and  reporting:  to  ensure  effective 

84  
monitoring, more transparency and focused reporting of EU environment policy" (SWD(2016) 188) 
85  
86  
87  
http://www.eea.europa.eu//publications/european-bathing-water-quality-2015 
88  
section 6.4 

Commission Implementing Decision 2011/850/EU and http://www.eionet.europa.eu/aqportal  
I.e. in line with the specifications set by Directive 2007/2/EC 
Source:  European  Environment  Agency  (2016)  European  Bathing  Water  Quality 

ICF,  IEEP  and  Denkstatt  (2017)  (ISBN:  978-92-79-6626-5  /  EUR  -  KH-01-17-202-EN-N  –  EN),  see 

in  2015. 

45 

 
 
                                                 
  The Austrian electronic data management system is currently under development as an 
integrated  eGovernment  application.  The  aim  is  to  reduce  administrative  burden  by 
creating  synergies  and  reducing  redundancies  of  current  parallel  systems  and 
processes.  

  The Irish Environment Protection Agency (EPA)89 has invested in streamlining after it 
found  in  a  2014  evaluation  of  their  reporting  systems  on  industry  and  waste  some 
inefficiencies (e.g. duplication or uselessness of data). Their current projects will lead 
to  significant  efficiency  gains,  improved  quality  and  accessibility  of  data  (leading to 
better  decision  making  and  environmental  outcomes)  and 
improved  public 
information.   

  The  Baltic  Marine  Environment  Protection  Commission  (HELCOM)90  regional 
reporting system provides a platform where all the Member States of the Baltic region 
share their data. Collaboration with the EU/EEA ensures these data are also used in the 
context of reporting under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. 

  Scotland's  Environment  Web91  is  good  practice  for  active  dissemination.  It 
demonstrates how a national portal can in an easily understandable and accessible way 
inform the wider public and other authorities, and stakeholders. It uses extensively the 
technologies  developed  by  the  INSPIRE  Directive  by  making  over  300  datasets 
available, in an easily accessible way.  

Despite  ongoing  developments  in  certain  Member  States,  the  potential  for  adapting  national 
systems to the developments in the field of digital technologies seems only tapped to a limited 
degree.  

There are also examples where investments and efforts have not necessarily resulted in higher 
benefits  or  efficiencies.  For  example,  Bulgaria,  has  launched  some  spatial  data  portals  that 
allow  public  access  to  the  data  they  administer.  In  addition,  Bulgaria  participates  in 
multilateral  data  exchanges  projects  and  initiatives  (such  as  DanubeFloodRisk,  DanubeGIS, 
WISE). Nonetheless, the usability of this data by the Commission and EU is generally poor – 
with information largely available only on request (often for a fee) and strong variations in the 
quality and accessibility of information available between government authorities92.  

Looking  at  all  these  examples  it  is  noticeable  that  there  are  few  mechanisms  in  place  to 
identify and share such good practices so as to ensure their wider use. Some exchanges of best 
practices exist in sectoral or individual reporting groups organised by the Commission (e.g. on 
water and nature). However, no cross-cutting mechanism at EU level is in place (yet).  

E.g. the Irish LEMA programme (Licensing, Enforcement and Monitoring Application) or their current 

89  
"Common View of Authorisations" project (http://www.epa.ie) 
90  
91  
92  
00446-00-00-EN-TRA-00.pdf 

www.helcom.fi 
http://www.environment.scotland.gov.uk/ (it was co-financed by the LIFE+ Programme) 
http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/reports/country_reports_mr2012/BG-INSPIRE-Report-2013_ENV-2013-

46 

 
 
 
                                                 
6.2.4.  Improving the efficiency of the process 

Assessment  question:  "Could  improvements  be  made  to  the  process  for  environmental 
reporting to cut costs?" 

Overall  response:  Process  improvements  are  possible  and  may  well  offer  greater 
opportunities to reduce burdens than reductions in the reporting obligations themselves. 
They  will  reduce  costs  or  increase  benefits,  in  particular  by  more  widely  applying  the 
most  efficient  processes  and  by  increasing  the  use  of  electronic  tools,  templates  and 
solutions  (including  those  developed  by  the  EEA)  as  well  as  through  better  guidance. 
This  can  require  initial  investment  which  will,  however,  pay  off  in  the  mid-  and  long-
term. 

What is the issue? 

This  question  looks  at  the  process  for  compiling,  transmitting,  analysing  and  publishing 
information reported by the Member States to the EU. In particular, the service providers and 
the reporting format/templates/guidance offer process options.  

What are the findings? 

One measure of efficiency is the time it takes from the deadline set out in the Directive to the 
publication of the Commission report. On average, the Commission takes 630 days to do this 
(in contrast, the EEA is aiming to deliver reports within 180 days). There are many reasons for 
this  delay  including  late  submission  of  Member  State  reports93,  time  for  translation, 
processing of data which takes longer if data are of poorer quality and the need for detailed 
assessment  of  a  mixture  of  qualitative  and  quantitative  data.  One  factor  that  appears  to 
influence the overall process delay is the choice of service providers.  

Section  5.1.4  and  figure  11  provide  an  overview  on  the  different  service  providers  for  the 
reporting process. The EEA processes data quicker (on average 497 days) with annual bathing 
water and the national emission ceilings reports done in 146 and 162 days respectively. By far 
the longest  delay occurs in  the mixed process where  the EEA infrastructure is used initially 
but then the processing of the reports is outsourced (695 days). This is not surprising for two 
reasons: 

1.  the  EEA  is  specialised  in  reporting  processes  and  has  an  interest  to  optimise  and 
standardise procedures. This  allows the EEA to  handle its own priority dataflows of the 
EIONET within a mere 180 days on average.  

2.  the outsourcing such services is highly diverse and a wide variety of different consultants 

are used with similar variety of diversity of the process management.  

The outsourcing option has other disadvantages: transparency and continuity of the support is 
not  always  guaranteed.  For  example,  the  databases  generated  by  a  consultant  are  often  not 
publically  available  and  sometimes  differ  from  those  held  at  the  EEA.  The  consultant  may 
also  change  from  one  reporting  round  to  the  next  meaning  expertise  is  lost.  Moreover,  the 

93  
For example, for the Nitrates Directive, the time elapsed between when MSs are supposed to report and 
when  the  EC  reports  is  461  days,  but  in  practice  the  days  between  the  latest  data  delivery  from  MS  and  the 
publication of the EC report is 113 days. 

47 

 
                                                 
coordination needs between the higher number of actors (from Commission services, EEA and 
consultants) may be time and resource consuming.  

The  reason  why  the  EEA  is  not  handling  a  higher  number  of  reporting  processes  is  quite 
simply that it was not foreseen in many legal acts and therefore no dedicated resources were 
allocated  to  the  EEA.  Only  in  eight  out  of  the  57  pieces  of  legislation  analysed  is  the  EEA 
mentioned, and then mostly in assisting or cooperating with the Commission in the reporting 
process. In most cases, this did not result in the allocation of additional budget to the EEA.  

The  public  consultation  concluded  that  respondents  generally  felt  that  IT  systems  have 
significant  potential 
to  support  streamlining  of  reporting  processes  and  reduced 
administrative  burden.  Almost  all  categories  of  respondents  expressed  the  view  that  IT 
technology is not used to its full potential and could support harmonisation of environmental 
monitoring  and  reporting  between  policy  areas,  with  a  majority  agreeing  that  the  INSPIRE 
Directive  can  help  support  a  common  approach  and  reduction  in  administrative  burden. 
Nonetheless, a substantial proportion of respondents (67%) felt that more support is needed 
for Member States in preparing reports, including the development of common tools. 

Another aspect is the use of improved reporting format/templates/guidance as well as the use 
of information technology (IT): 

 

The  use  of  templates  and  standardized  formats  is  still  not  the  case  for  all  reporting 
obligations (see figure 10 in section 5.1.4);  

  Outside  the  EEA's  Reportnet  process,  a  large  variety  of  processes  and  tools  exist,  and 

their harmonization could improve efficiency; 
The large extent of textual information makes it more difficult to automate the process 
using IT tools, especially when multiple languages are used; 
The  application  of  quality  assurance  (QA)  and  quality  control  (QC)  has  significant 
influence on efficiency making reported data more robust, complete and reliable but can 
also create delays and inefficiencies; and 
The use of the INSPIRE Directive could be strengthened.  

 

 

 

The  application  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  was  analysed  in  the  context  of  the  REFIT 
evaluation94. This evaluation found significant room for improvement in the use of INSPIRE 
standards and services for reporting purposes but that this would require further investment at 
national and EU level. Such investments would also contribute to enhanced transparency and 
active dissemination (see section 6.2.6).  

Strong  support  was  expressed  during  the  public  consultation  for  the  INSPIRE  Directive  to 
provide  a  common  approach  for  reporting,  reducing  administrative  burden  and  facilitating 
reuse of the reporting process and information across different levels of government. 55% of 
respondents totally agreed or tended to agree with this statement, although 30% expressed no 
opinion or did not answer. 

At the Stakeholder Workshops, suggestions were made on how the process can be improved: 

- Make environmental data INSPIRE compliant 

- INSPIRE metadata should include an ‘authorisation’ stamp to indicate that data is officially 
authorised. This is an important issue for any future data harvesting. 

94  

See COM(2016) 478 and SWD(2016) 273 

48 

 
                                                 
- Establish INSPIRE as the first point of review when data is required i.e. the availability of 
data on INSPIRE should be considered first before any new data is requested. 

- Use EU working groups to define EU products under INSPIRE 

- Improve communication and joint working between environmental monitoring and reporting 
and INSPIRE communities 

- Ensure INSPIRE data is made adequately available 

INSPIRE  can  help  to  address  these  issues  by  improving  harmonisation.  There  was  a  major 
effort in the Netherlands to map data to a new data model, and significant costs (e.g. 200,000 
euro  for  air  quality).  Working  groups  need  to  bring  together  the  INSPIRE  and  reporting 
communities, harmonise approaches across Member States and across legislation. It was also 
noted  that, given  the  cost  of  developing  INSPIRE  compliant  datasets, this  is  not  necessarily 
the lowest cost or most efficient way of achieving harmonisation.  

Improving  the  process  management  and  enhanced  application  of  IT  can  contribute 
significantly  to  the  reduction  of  administrative  burden.  Such  cost  reductions  and  efficiency 
gains  would  be  the  major  benefits  of  reviewing  and  optimising  the  process  for  reporting. 
Some  Member  States  which  have  gone  through  such  an  optimisation  process  report 
significant  time  savings.  For  example,  the  Irish  Environment  Protection  Agency  was  able,  as 
part  of  their  LEMA  programme  (Licensing,  Enforcement  and  Monitoring  Application)95,  to 
reduce the time needed for reporting under the Industrial Emission Directive from 6 months (in 
2010) to half a day (2012)96.  

A  common  issue  raised  by  a  variety  of  Member  States  and  stakeholders  is  that  reporting 
involves  a  learning  process,  whose  effectiveness  and  efficiency  improves  over  time.    Early 
reporting  rounds  under  each  item  of  legislation  may  require  a  large  amount  of  data  on 
various aspects of implementation as well as on the state and pressures on the environment.  
They  also  require  reporting  processes  and  systems  to  be  established.    Over  time,  as  the 
legislation becomes more mature, environmental monitoring and reporting can become more 
focused on ongoing implementation issues, while the processes also improve with experience.  
While it is important to ensure sufficient consistency in reporting requirements and processes 
to facilitate efficient reporting processes at Member State and EU level, the process needs to 
be  sufficiently  dynamic  to  enable  improvements  to  be  made  that  enhance  efficiency  –  and 
hence lower costs – over time. 

95  
96  

For more information: LEMA: http://www.epa.ie 
See also SWD(2016) 188 

49 

 
 
 
                                                 
6.2.5.  Streamlining of timing of reporting   

Assessment  question:  "Could  the  timing  of  reports  be  better  synchronised  or 
streamlined to cut costs?" 

Overall  response:  Frequencies  and  synchronisation  of  timing  of  reporting  are  factors 
influencing  the  costs  and  benefits.  There  are  many  good  reasons  why  the  currently 
agreed timings exist. Some improvements can be made to reduce the burden on national 
authorities but it needs to be examined on a case by case basis to ensure reporting still 
delivers the needed information.  

What is the issue? 

The  frequency  of  reporting  processes  and  the  synchronisation  of  deadlines  for  reporting  are 
the  two  main  aspects  assessed  in  relation  to  timing.  These  timing  elements  are  usually  laid 
down in the legislation and are a combination of legal logic (such as the link of reporting to 
the  timing  of  a  material  provision),  technical  considerations  (such  as  availability  of  data  or 
frequency of environmental monitoring) and political compromise.  

What are the findings? 

Looking at the environmental reporting obligations, there is a significant diversity as regards 
the  frequencies.  Figure  8  (and  section  5.1.3)  shows  the  wide  range  from  monthly  reporting 
cycles  up  to  six  years.  Noticeably,  a  majority  (97  ROs)  are  ad  hoc  or  one-offs  such  as  the 
submission of a list of competent authorities. These 97 ROs do not have significant costs and 
are not considered further in the assessment of timing. Figure 13 shows the frequencies for the 
82 reporting obligations linked (in the legislation) to a Commission report.  

11 

5 

9 

7 

3 

19 

19 

5 

Ad-hoc

One-off

Annual

Every 2yrs

Every 3yrs

Every 4yrs

Every 5yrs

Every 6yrs

Figure  13:  Frequencies  of  those  82  reporting  obligations  which  are  associated  with  a 
Commission report  

50 

 
 
It  is  noticeable  that  some  ad  hoc  and  one  off  obligations  requires  the  preparation  of  such  a 
report  (for  14  ROs)  whereas  some  repetitive  reporting  is  not  associated  with  a  Commission 
report (18 ROs)97. 

From  the  regular  82  ROs,  most  require  annual  (19  ROs)  and  triennial  (19  ROs)  reports. 
Annual reporting exists in areas such as air quality, bathing water, industrial or air emissions 
(under  for  example  E-PRTR,  IED  and  NEC),  waste  streams  (waste  shipment,  batteries, 
packaging,  WEEE  and  ELV)  and  trading  figures  (POPs,  FLEGT,  CITES)  as  well  as  the 
INSPIRE Directive.  Most  of this annual information  is  essential  for compliance  assessment, 
information  to  the  public  and  wider  policy  making.  These  data  are  also  outdated  quickly 
which is why many of them are published within months of submission by the Member States. 
On average, the Commission reports are presented 419 days after the reporting deadline (well 
below the overall average, see 5.1.3).  

The group related to reporting frequencies of three years includes reporting for drinking water, 
industrial  emissions  (including  VOC),  waste  (framework  directive  as  well  as  landfills, 
extractive waste, WEEE and batteries) and INSPIRE.  

The  third  biggest  group  is  legislation  where  the  main  reports  are  every  six  years  (19  ROs) 
linked to water and marine management (WFD, FRMD, EQS and MSFD), nature protection 
(habitats, birds, invasive  species) and the EIA Directive. Water, marine and nature policy is 
linked to the availability of key biological and ecosystem data which are only monitored every 
couple of years due to the higher cost of environmental monitoring and the slower change of 
the parameters.  

The  other  reporting  cycles  of  two,  four  or  five  years  cover  a  range  of  different  reporting 
obligations. For these, there does not appear to be a particular overarching logic or reason for 
a particular frequency.  

There are 50 key reporting obligations that trigger reports from the Commission to the public 
(overall reports on implementation, plans, programmes, etc.), the frequencies vary similarly to 
the above (see table 3) reflecting the way in which that information is used.  

Table 3: Frequency of key reporting obligations towards the Commission (overall reports on 
implementation, plans, programmes, etc.) 

Ad-hoc 
One-off 
Annual 
Every 2yrs 
Every 3yrs 
Every 4yrs 
Every 5yrs 
Every 6yrs 

2 
10 
10 
5 
16 
2 
6 
8 

The  frequency  of  reporting  has  an  influence  on  the  costs.  If  some  report  cycles  were  to  be 
changed from two to three years or from four/five years to six years, this would reduce costs. 

97  
explicit requirement exists for the Commission to publish a report 

E.g.  on  urban  wastewater  where  Member  States  report  every  two  years  (under  Article  15)  but  no 

51 

 
                                                 
The question on whether this would also reduce the benefits of the reports has to be answered 
on a case-by-case basis.  

It is certainly beneficial that some reports continue to be on an annual basis since these tend to 
be in high demand (e.g. bathing water or air quality reporting) and to deliver multiple benefits 
for the work on compliance, policy evaluation and development as well as information to the 
public. In some cases, reporting may be more beneficial if their frequency was increased.  

Example on benefits from increasing frequency  

The current three yearly drinking water reporting is hardly of interest to the wider public and 
has  limited  use  for  compliance  assessment  since  the  data  are  outdated  by  the  time  they  are 
analysed.  The  recently  published  evaluation  for  the  Drinking  Water  Directive  (DWD)98 
concluded "The DWD is directly relevant for citizens but they want to see more up-to-date and 
easily  understandable  information  published  online."    Member  States  collect  (and  many 
publish  online)  drinking  water  data  on  an  annual  basis  but  the  practices  are  very  diverse. 
Having a similar approach to the bathing water reporting (which is reported annually) may 
increase the value of these reports significantly. A similar feedback was also received from the 
stakeholder  consultation  in  relation  to  the  annual  Eurostat  water  statistics  being  more 
valuable than the biannual reporting on the urban wastewater directive.  

Other factors to consider when deciding on a more cost-effective frequency of reporting are 
key products or policy cycles for which such reported data would be beneficial, such as:  

  The EEA's State-of-the-Environment Report (SoER) (every five years); 
  The  envisaged  country  reports  for  the  Environmental  Implementation  Review  (every 

two years); 

  The cycle of the Multi-Annual Financial Framework (every six to seven years); or 
  The evaluation cycle in the REFIT Programme (usually every five to seven years). 

It  will  not  be  possible  to  have  reporting  cycles  which  match  all  these  different  processes. 
However, so far, they are often not factored into the reporting process which means that when, 
e.g. the EEA publishes its next SoER in 2019, some implementation and compliance data for 
key environmental legislation will be out of data (e.g. nature data collected before 2013 will 
be used).  

Another  aspect  of  timing  is  the  synchronisation  of  related  reporting  obligations.  With  the 
increase  in  environmental  legislation,  there  are  significant,  and  sometimes  complex, 
relationships  between  different  pieces  of  legislation.  This  can  lead  to  the  same  data  being 
needed  for  different  reporting  obligations  or  synergies  being  possible.  To  this  end,  it  is 
positive to note that the legislator has already synchronised the six year cycle for management 
and  reporting  in  water  and  marine  policy  (2016,  2022,  2028,  …)  as  is  the  cycle  for  nature 
reporting (2013, 2019, 2025, …). However, there is a lack of synchronisation between these 
major policy areas whereas there are some overlaps in reporting between them99. 

Also  within  a  certain  domain,  there  are  questions  as  to  why  the  reporting  cycles  are  not 
synchronised  further.  For  example,  savings  have  been  estimated  at  EUR  159.000  if  the 

98  
99  
thereafter) and under Birds and Habitats Directives in 2019 (and every six years thereafter). 

SWD(2016) 428 
These have to be reported under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in 2018 (and every six years 

52 

 
                                                 
reporting cycle of the Nitrates and the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directives were aligned 
with the Water Framework Directive cycle100. These rough estimates show that cost savings 
would  be  possible  but  this  would  need  to  be  viewed  carefully  against  the  potential  loss  of 
benefits from less frequent reporting and the potential benefits of more consistent information. 

On the other hand, Member States could not produce all the different reporting obligations at 
the  same  time.  Doing  so  would  overload  the  responsible  people  instead  of  spreading 
workloads over time.  

Participants in the Stakeholder Workshops101 highlighted the scope to reduce administrative 
burdens  by  streamlining  timing  under  the  water-related  directives.  It  was  also  argued, 
however, that synchronisation of reporting should take account of the capacity of the Member 
State authorities, and that there could be problems and resource constraints if everything had 
to be reported at once. Moreover, a logical and staggered system needs to properly have local 
and sectoral reporting feeding into more national/regional and holistic reporting.  

Also in other areas, some minor synchronisation questions could be raised. At the same time, 
there  are  also  areas  where  synchronisation  of  timing  has  already  been  achieved  (e.g.  on 
nature).  

6.2.6.  Promotion of active dissemination  

Assessment  question:  "Could  the  promotion  of  active  dissemination  of  data  (in  the 
context  of  Directives  2003/4/EC  and  2007/2/EC)  alleviate  environmental  reporting 
burden whilst improving access for public authorities, businesses and citizens?" 

Overall  response:  There  is  further  scope  for  active  dissemination  (or  open  data),  i.e. 
sharing of data in a structured and easily accessible way. Ultimately, such developments 
could  make  more  information  available  at  source  and  thereby  reduce  the  need  for 
detailed  reporting  if  effective  tools  for  data  harvesting  were  to  be  developed.  Active 
dissemination  also  provides  more  timely  and  fit  for  purpose  information  to  citizens, 
businesses  and  Member  State  authorities.  More  transparency  and  accountability  in 
relation to implementation of EU law offers opportunities for businesses to use the same 
data to create new products or services. This potential has not been fully exploited yet. It 
is unlikely, however, that active dissemination will lead to the complete replacement of 
reporting ("zero reporting") but can create efficiency gains if used in a complementary 
and joined up way.  

What is the issue? 

Environment policy was an early embracer of full transparency and the 'open data' concept by 
requiring such approaches through the Access to Environmental Information Directive102. The 
INSPIRE Directive further facilitates this by creating the underlying enabling frameworks for 
active  dissemination  of  environmental  information  (services,  interoperability  and  metadata). 
As can be seen in section 6.2.3, there are a number of good examples of active dissemination 
of information. The question is whether and to what extent active dissemination could more 
widely serve reporting needs?  

ICF, IEEP and Denkstatt (2017): Study on "Support to the Fitness Check of monitoring and reporting 

100  
obligations arising from EU environmental legislation", see p. 117 (version 19 December 2016) 
101  
102  

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/reporting/workshops_en.htm 
2003/4/EC Article 7 

53 

 
                                                 
What are the findings? 

It can be seen that stakeholders are making more and more use of the EU legal framework and 
the infrastructure of modern technologies (especially IT) as an enabler for process efficiency. 
In accordance with the principle of improving access to environmental information for public 
authorities, as well as the ethos of the INSPIRE Directive, a number of public authorities are 
undertaking  efforts  to  promote  active  dissemination  of  information.  The  support  study 
presents  a  number  of  examples  and  good  practices  in  this  area,  in  particular  from  France, 
Hungary, Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom103. 

In the public consultation, the majority of respondents agreed strongly with the assertion that 
reporting  should  result  in  information  being  fully  available  to  the  general  public  after  due 
considerations  of  the  appropriate  level  of  aggregation  and  subject  to  the  appropriate 
confidentiality  constraints.  On  a  scale  from  1  to  10,  47%  assigned  a  score  of  10  to  this 
objective and 79% a score of 8 and higher (see figure 16 in the report) 104. 

The  majority  of  respondents  also  agreed  with  the  assertion  that  reporting  should  generate 
reliable  environmental  information  for  citizens  so  they  understand  what  EU  legislation 
achieves, in line with qualitative responses pointing to the potential to maximize the value of 
data in the context of the INSIRE Directive. On a scale from 1 to 10, 35% assigned a score of 
10 to this objective and 70% a score of 8 and higher (see figure 10 in the report) 105.  

One  respondent  to  the  public  consultation  from  a  public  authority  suggested  that  while 
INSPIRE  will  contribute  to  the  harmonisation  of  spatial  data,  there  are  risks  inherent  in 
converting  too  much  data  to  INSPIRE  compliance  as  technical  specifications  and  formats 
become  outdated,  resulting  in  cumbersome  systems.  While  harmonisation  of  reporting  is 
supported, it poses challenges from an IT perspective.  

Participants  in  the  stakeholder  workshop  highlighted  the  potential  for  development  of 
standardised tools and protocols to support data harvesting in specific areas  – for example, 
WFD  River  Basin  District  data,  or  MSFD  harvesting  data  in  line  with  Regional  Sea 
Conventions. 

There  is  enthusiasm  about  the  potential  for  active  dissemination  to  over  time  reduce  costs 
associated  with  reporting  obligations  through  reducing  the  duplication  of  reporting  effort. 
However, experience from Member States indicates that active dissemination may not in itself 
reduce  costs  (at  least  in  the  short  to  medium  term),  as  authorities  will  still  need  to  access, 
compile and quality check data. Given existing deficiencies in data for established reporting 
obligations in some areas and regions, there is concern amongst some stakeholders that this 
could  lead  to  less  consistent  and  harmonised  data.  The  greatest  potential  for  cost  reduction 
may lie in better streamlining e.g. if online dissemination occurs in a more joined up way and 
allows  data  to  be  used  for  a  range  of  reporting  purposes.  Active  dissemination  has  some 
potential  for  replacing  and/or  complementing  traditional  reporting  obligations  to  the 
Commission,  with  significant  co-benefits,  helping  to  enhance  public  access  to  the  reported 
information as well as the timeliness of information dissemination. However, if data was to be 

ICF,  IEEP  and  Denkstatt  (2017)  (ISBN:  978-92-79-6626-5  /  EUR  -  KH-01-17-202-EN-N  –  EN,  

103  
              see section 6.7. 
104  
105  

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/summary_reporting.pdf 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/summary_reporting.pdf 

54 

 
                                                 
made  available  just  voluntarily  then  there  would  clearly  be  gaps  and  the  objectives  of 
reporting would not be met. 

In  addition  to  national  administrations,  regional  and  local  authorities  play  an  important  role 
when it comes to disseminating environmental information and informing its citizens. To this 
end, the Committee of the Region made a strong call on the Commission to use the Fitness 
Check to improve the current system by reducing administrative burden on the authorities and 
working together to enhance active dissemination.  

The  Committee  of  the  Regions  prepared  and  adopted  an  Outlook  Opinion  entitled  "EU 
environment law: improving reporting and compliance" in its session of 7 April 2016 (CDR 
5660/2015)106. As regards the Fitness Check, the "Committee of the Regions:  

  urges  the  European  Commission  to  explore  efficiency  gains  and  address  unnecessary 
administrative burden in environmental monitoring and reporting (M&R) in particular by 
automatisation  of  the  reporting  tools,  and  by  looking  at  synergies  across  reporting 
obligations  under  different  directives;  "implementation  scoreboards"  should  be 
established for additional directives; 

  calls  on  the  European Commission  and  the  EEA  to  further  explore  within  pilot  projects 
how environmental M&R requirements on local and regional authorities can be reduced 
by ICT and eGovernment without affecting the impact of legislation; 

  supports further development of INSPIRE as an eGovernment tool to provide the central 
common format and process for data collecting on environmental spatial information for 
streamlining environmental M&R; urges Member States, with support from the European 
Commission, to strengthen the involvement of their regional and local authorities in the 
INSPIRE process;  
[…]" 

 

Finally,  it  is  important  to  consider  that  while  efforts  to  promote  standardisation  and  greater 
use  of  data  harvesting  techniques  may  in  fact  incur  greater  costs  on  public  authorities,  for 
reporting  obligations  where  there  are  information  requirements  placed  on  businesses  such 
approaches could at the same time lower administrative and particularly transaction costs by 
creating a ‘level playing field’ across the EU. E.g. it may be easier possible to compare the 
application  of  the  environmental  rules  from  one  country  to  another  with  the  view  to 
establishing  whether  businesses  are  subject  to  the  same  obligations  for  the  same  activities. 
This  redistribution  of  costs  and  benefits  has  been  highlighted  in  previous  studies,  including 
work to assess the costs of implementing EU environmental policy107. 

6.3.  Coherence  

Coherence  is  concerned  with  how  well  different  EU  interventions  work  together,  both 
internally  and  with  other  interventions  in  other  EU  legislative  areas  such  as  agriculture, 
climate,  consumer  and  health  protection,  energy,  maritime  and  fisheries,  statistics.  The 

106  
107  
the European Commission, DG Environment 

http://cor.europa.eu/en/activities/opinions/pages/opinion-factsheet.aspx?OpinionNumber=CDR 5660/2015 
Farmer, et al. (2015) Study to analyse differences in the costs of implementing EU policy. A report to 

55 

 
 
                                                 
analysis of coherence with these other policy areas was carried out step-by-step looking first 
through  a  screening  across  all  other  policy  areas  where  a  duplication  was  likely  to  occur  or 
where there was a potential to better use the data of these other areas for environmental policy 
purposes. Thereafter, a more in-depth analysis took place in particular in those areas where the 
screening  identified  some  relevant  issues  or  which  were  raised  by  stakeholders.  These  areas 
included agriculture, climate policy, fisheries, and statistical data. Moreover, the coherence of 
EU environmental reporting and such reporting under international commitments is analysed 
in this section. Given the significant number of EU legislation and international commitments 
which  may  potentially  be  relevant  in  this  context,  further  in-depth  evaluation  may  be 
necessary in some areas.  

6.3.1.  Report once and use many times  

Assessment question: "Is some data reported multiple times, when it could be reported 
once and then used for multiple purposes?" 

Overall  response:  Most  information  is  only  reported  once  and  few  instances  were 
identified where the same data is reported twice. However, some specific examples have 
been  highlighted  by  stakeholders  and  other  examples  concern  situations  where  the 
information requested is similar but not identical. Moreover, there may be possibilities 
for improvements in relation to coherence with reporting under other EU policy areas, 
such as agriculture, climate action and waste.  

What is the issue? 

The  provision  of  data  and  information  is  associated  with  certain  costs  and  administrative 
burden which is why it has become a widely recognised principle that the maximum benefit 
should be derived from what is reported. In particular, the “report once and use many times” 
principle is laid down in many EU policy documents108.  

What are the findings? 

In the public consultation, the principle of "report once, use many times" was ranked as the 
most  important  one  amongst  the  respondents.  The  majority  of  respondents  agreed  strongly 
with the assertion that "information should be collected once and shared where possible for 
many purposes". On a scale from 1 to 10, 50% assigned a score of 10 to this principle and 
83% a score of 8 and higher (see figure 14 in the report)109. 

Looking at the reporting obligations, there are a few specific examples where exactly the same 
data  needs  to  be  reported  under  different  reporting  obligations.  As  a  result,  making  cross- 
references  and  using  available  data  has  become  common  place  (e.g.  reporting  under  the 
Marine Strategy Framework Directive makes effective use  of data reported under  the  Water 
Framework, the Habitats and Birds Directive or the Bathing Water Directive). The evaluations 
have  contributed  in  identifying  such  issues  and  dedicated  sectoral  initiatives  have  helped  to 
address and improve coherence.  

108  
In  particular,  the  INSPIRE  Directive  (2007/2/EC),  the  Communication  on  a  Shared  Environment 
Information System (COM(2008) 46), the Better Regulation Guidelines (SWD(2015) 111)  and, more recently, 
the eGovernment Action Plan (COM(2016) 179) 
109  

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/summary_reporting.pdf 

56 

 
                                                 
There  are  some  examples,  however,  where  similar  data  are  being  requested,  reported  and 
published separately sometimes leading to different messages from different parts of the EU 
institutions  (see  overview  table  on  page  130-131  of  support  study).  One  example  is  nitrate 
pollution  in  freshwaters  under  the Water  Framework  Directive  and the  Nitrates  Directive  as 
well as the EEA's voluntary reporting. The purpose and the need for such data differs under 
the  two  Directives,  however,  which  may  justify  the  differences.  The  assessment  of  action 
programmes (or derogations) under the Nitrates Directive requires more detailed and specific 
data linked to pollution in comparison to the more generic need under the Water Framework 
Directive  looking  at  all  sources  of  nutrient  pollution.  Nevertheless,  it  is  important  to 
coordinate these reporting processes better and improve communication of the results to the 
public in order to explain the differences in a better way.  

Obstacles to overcoming incoherence include that the governance of reporting obligations is 
sometimes  fragmented  (i.e.  different  groups  discuss  related  issues  with,  in  the  above  case, 
each reporting flow overseen by a different group of experts and sometimes the reporting is 
managed by different MS authorities) and there are costs to overcoming incoherent situations 
which  do  not  necessarily  result  in  (short-term)  benefits  for  those  dealing  with  the  reporting 
obligations.  Hence,  a  case-by-case  assessment  (e.g.  as  part  of  future  evaluations  of  the 
legislation) is necessary to determine whether the reporting of similar, but not identical data is 
justified or whether there is a potential for streamlining in the reporting of similar data, which 
are reported for different purposes.  

In  terms  of  the  potential  for  multiple  reporting  across  EU  policy  areas,  the  initial  screening 
found that the greatest policy overlap is between environment and agriculture, climate action 
and fisheries and statistics110. For example:  

  The coherence between EU waste legislation and the Waste Statistics Regulation was 
highlighted  by  stakeholders  as  creating  duplication  and  inefficiency  that  needs 
addressing.  The  Commission  proposal  on  the  waste  legislation  in  the  context  of  the 
Circular  Economy  package  addresses  this  issue  partially  and  proposes  to  eliminate 
textual  waste  reporting  based  on  questionnaires  to  use  the  waste  statistics  instead. 
However, this proposal still needs to be adopted by the EU Institutions and this may 
well  change  the  reporting  needs.  Moreover,  the  package  does  not  cover  all  waste 
legislation and there are some specific areas where duplication still exists. Thus there 
may  need  to  be  further  alignment  of  the  waste  reporting  with  the  Waste  Statistics 
Regulation.  

  The NEC Directive and – in the climate action policy area – the Climate Monitoring 
Mechanism  Regulation  (Regulation  (EU)  No  525/2013,  MMR),  relate  to  pollution 
inventories and greenhouse gas inventories respectively. These inventories cover some 
of the same pollutants. Having developed separately, attention has recently been paid 
to improving consistency and coherence. The MMR increased synergies and coherence 
of greenhouse gas inventories reporting with reporting under the NEC Directive. The 
new  NEC  Directive  substantially  harmonised  the  timetables  for  reporting  and 
simplified reporting for Member States. This process continued with the Commission 
proposal for a Regulation on the Governance of the Energy Union, and an inventory 
review exercise under the new NEC Directive is ongoing. This review will identify the 
need for further action. 

110  
              see section 7.2 

ICF,  IEEP  and  Denkstatt  (2017)  (ISBN:  978-92-79-6626-5  /  EUR  -  KH-01-17-202-EN-N  –  EN),  

57 

 
                                                 
  There has been progress in the development of the 28 agri-environmental indicators111, 
which are the result of the collaboration between several departments of the European 
Commission  (namely  DG  ENV  and  DG  AGRI,  together  with  DG  ESTAT  and  DG 
JRC)  as  well  as  the  EEA.    Moreover,  the  EU  legislation  on  agriculture  and  rural 
development  provides  for  a  Common  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Framework 
(CMEF)112, established with a view to measuring the performance of the whole CAP, 
which  includes  a  number  of  output,  result  and  impact  indicators  related  to  agri-
environmental issues.  

Although there is good practice, and a number of rules and procedures on data management 
are  in  place,  there  are  weaknesses  to  ensure  an  effective  and  efficient  process  for  managing 
data.  

During  the  stakeholder  workshops,  many  national  experts  as  well  as  experts  from  industry 
highlighted the issue of the lack of coherence between waste legislation and waste statistics. 
At  the  first  workshop113,  three  presentations  were  given  on  this  subject  with  similar 
conclusions. To illustrate this, the statement from Hazardous Waste Europe best illustrates the 
situation: "There are problems in reporting on hazardous waste, with inconsistencies between 
E-PRTR,  Waste  Shipment  Regulation  and  Waste  Statistics  Regulation,  resulting  in  quite 
different  quantities  of  hazardous  waste  reported."  Similar  issues  in  national  reporting  also 
affect the comparability and consistency between Member States and affect decision-making 
for waste management and in using Regional Funds.  

A good example where potential incoherence has been addressed and emphasis was given on 
"collecting once, using several times" is the 2015 Commission proposal on the  recast of the 
Data Collection Framework of data in the fisheries sector (DCF)114. The revision of the DCF 
was used as an opportunity to, on the one hand, ensure better availability of fisheries data to a 
wider circle of interested parties, and on the other hand, to reduce the burden of data requests 
on Member States by using the most recent technical developments.  Through this, coherence 
and synergy gains with the reporting under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the 
provisions  laid  down  in  the  INSPIRE  Directive  were  suggested.  The  proposal  is  still  being 
discussed in the Institutions.  

Defined in Commission Communication "Development of agri-environmental indicators for monitoring 

111  
the integration of environmental concerns into the common agricultural policy" COM(2006) 508 
112  
113  
114  

For detailed information see, in particular, Commission Implementing Regulation No 834/2014 
Summary report of the First MIW Workshop  
COM(2015) 294 

58 

 
 
 
                                                 
6.3.2.  Coherence of reporting to the Commission 

Assessment question: "Is data reported (including to other parts of the Commission) but 
then full use not made of it?" 

Overall  response:  Information  reported  under  environmental  legislation  is  usually  but 
not  always  used  to  the  fullest  extent.  There  is  some  potential  to  exploit  other  data 
sources more for environmental policy, building on positive examples such as in the area 
of  agriculture-environment-climate  data.  Finally,  there 
in  aligning 
definitions,  code  lists  or  other  data  specifications  in  order  to  facilitate  re-use  and 
interoperability of data.  

is  potential 

What is the issue? 

This question asks if all information reported to the Commission (or the EEA, where relevant) 
is used to the full extent. This includes whether information reported in other EU policy areas 
may be useful for fulfilling the purposes of environmental reporting but is not being used so 
far.  

What are the findings? 

In most cases of reporting, reported information is exploited as far as possible. Increasingly, 
there are cross-references between the reporting processes related to environmental legislation 
and  use  is  being  made  of  reporting  under  one  Directive  for  another  (see  table  1,  water  and 
marine example). There are only few examples listed by stakeholders where this is either not 
the case or where, at least, the use is not clear and communicated well (see also section 6.4.2).  

As  regards  the  information  that  is  provided  to  the  Commission  overall  and  which  could  be 
usefully exploited in more detail for environment policy purposes, there seems to be scope for 
improvement  although  only  few  specific  examples  have  been  found.  One  such  example  is 
agricultural legislation which requires  a wealth of information  to  be maintained by agencies 
(and  made  available  for  audit)  on  the  detailed  practices  adopted  at  farm  level,  but  has 
relatively  limited  requirements  for  the  transmission  of  that  data  to  EU  level.  Lack  of 
transmission is in part due to the volumes and complexity of the data that would be involved. 
This  barrier  to  transmission  is  an  example  of  an  issue  that  may  be  surmountable  through 
alternative reporting approaches, such as data harvesting.  

While limited formal overlaps between reporting obligations exist, it seems likely that there is 
scope for significantly greater use, at Member State and regional level, of the data available 
from  paying  agencies  to  inform  national  and  regional  policy-making  on  the  extent  to  which 
the  objectives  of  various  elements  of  European  environmental  policy  are  being  delivered 
(water  quality,  particularly  nitrates  pollution;  biodiversity  impacts;  emissions  to  air, 
particularly  ammonia).  Greater  use  of  agricultural  data  could 
the  EEA’s 
understanding of the various pressures on land and support its reports on the state of, trends in 
and prospects for the environment across Europe. 

improve 

An example of good practice is found in an audit of the processes for managing and sharing 
data  on  agri-environmental-climate  issues  in  the  Directorate  Generals  responsible  for 
agriculture,  climate  and  environment  the  Internal  Audit  Service,  and  the  responses  made  to 
this. The objective was to assess whether there are effective and efficient processes in place 
for  managing  this  cross  cutting  data.  Whilst  the  audit  found  a  number  of  strengths,  it  also 

59 

 
identified  weaknesses  such  as  the  absence  of  a  Commission-wide  framework  for  managing 
and  sharing data, and  deficiencies in  sharing  between  Directorate  Generals. In  response,  the 
three Directorate Generals have committed to better data sharing and better working together 
to improve coherence.   

Another issue is the usability of other information and data. Sometimes, similar information is 
collected  but  cannot  be  used  because  the  categories,  code  lists  or  data  specifications  are 
slightly different.  

Overall,  there  is  some  limited  streamlining  potential  from  increased  coherence  in  reporting 
obligations  of  the  other  related  policy  areas  (with  agriculture,  climate,  energy  and  statistics 
being the most relevant).  

6.3.3.  Coherence with reporting to the international level 

Assessment question: "Is there coherence between reporting to the EU level and to other 
international levels?" 

Overall  response:  There  are  many  examples  where  EU  Member  States  have  to  report 
similar  information  to  the  EU  institutions  under  EU  law  and  to  international  bodies. 
Whilst this leads to duplication, it can be ensured that this not burdensome in practice. 
Some good efforts to improve coherence have taken place but there is room for further 
improvement. This  will  require, however, the  willingness of the  international bodies to 
(re-)negotiate their reporting commitments.  

What is the issue? 

Similar to the coherence with other EU legislation, there is a question regarding the coherence 
between  EU  environmental  reporting  and  similar  commitments  under 
international 
agreements.  Such  agreements  are  taken  in  the  context  of  the  United  Nations  (UN),  the  UN 
Economic Committee for Europe (UNECE), the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD) 
or many regional international bodies such as regional marine conventions (such as HELCOM 
for  the  Baltic)  or  international  river  basins  (such  as  the  Danube  or  the  Rhine).  In  all  these 
agreements, the EU or at least the EU Member States are members but there are also always 
countries which are not part of the EU. Negotiations on reporting obligations are therefore not 
always driven by the existence of EU obligations.  

What are the findings? 

Some EU reporting obligation actually stem from international obligations (e.g. for E-PRTR 
the  obligation  stems  from  the  UNECE  Kiev  protocol  and  thus  the  costs  associated  with 
fulfilling this RO do not stem from the EU legislation). In such cases, the reporting obligations 
are  mostly  coherent  although  sometimes  small  technical  differences  occur  that  for  example 
originate  from  the  need/desire  to  align  the  international  reporting  obligations  with  related 
(similar)  pre-existing  EU  legal  (reporting)  obligations.  Similarly,  it  is  common  that  EU 
Member States  have  an obligation to report the same or  similar data to the EU and to  other 
international  bodies  in  the  context  of  international  environmental  commitments.  The 
evaluation provides a first overview of good and less good examples of coherence115. 

115  
              see section 7.4 

ICF,  IEEP  and  Denkstatt  (2017)  (ISBN:  978-92-79-6626-5  /  EUR  -  KH-01-17-202-EN-N  –  EN),  

60 

 
                                                 
In some areas, a process is set to facilitate such reporting processes for Member States, e.g. 
the  context  of  air  emissions  reporting  (to  the  UNECE  Convention  on  Long-Range 
Transboundary Air Pollution) where the EEA plays a coordinating role. In most instances, the 
Member States have to report in parallel, sometimes at different times or to a different level of 
detail. Improvements have been made in some areas; for instance the new National Emission 
Ceilings Directive116 aligns the EU reporting requirements of emissions of air pollutants with 
the  reporting  process  under  the  UNECE  Convention  on  Long-Range  Transboundary  Air 
Pollution. 

This  issue  could  potentially  offer  significant  room  for  improvements.  However,  this  is 
dependent  on  the  willingness  of  the  international  bodies  responsible  for  such  reporting 
agreeing to engage in such negotiations to amend existing obligations. This can become time 
consuming and complex since all international commitments involve countries which are not 
part  of  the  EU  and  therefore  may  not  have  a  high  interest  to  align  content  and  timing  of 
reporting to EU obligations.  

6.4.  Relevance  

The  evaluation  of  relevance  looks  at  the  relation  between  the  objectives  for  environmental 
reporting and the current needs, in particular if the current needs have changed in comparison 
to the past.  

The needs and problems of society which triggered action for environmental reporting have 
not  changed.  According  to  the  intervention  logic,  to  achieve  the  aims  of  environmental 
protection laid down by the Treaty and by successive Community action programmes on the 
environment,  the  EU  and  the  Member  States  need  information  on  the  state  of  the 
environment, implementation of measures and the effects of their environmental policies (see 
also figure 3 in section 2.3). 

6.4.1.  Relevance of the process 

Assessment  question:  "Is  the  process  of  environmental  reporting  still  relevant  (as 
opposed to harvesting of data)?" 

Overall response: Current reporting processes remain relevant. The increase of relevant 
environmental  information  in  the  public  domain  and  the  full  implementation  of  the 
INSPIRE Directive will though make it easier in the future to "harvest" information for 
the purposes of regulatory monitoring of compliance. However, whilst there is potential 
to  change  the  reporting  process,  a  number  of  pre-conditions  need  to  be  fulfilled  and 
there are also some limitations (such as the availability of tools and the formal status of 
harvested  data).  Rather  than  replacing  reporting,  there will  be  opportunities  in  future 
for a better combination of current reporting and harvesting of data.   

What is the issue? 

The process of reporting from Member States to the European Commission has been set up in 
most pieces of legislation as a means to allow regulatory monitoring of the implementation of 
EU  law  by  the  Commission.  This  process  was,  in  most  cases,  designed  so  that  a  competent 
national authority would send a (paper) report to the European Commission (see also section 

116  Directive 2016/2284/EU on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, amending 

Directive 2003/35/EC and repealing Directive 2001/81/EC 

61 

 
                                                 
2.1).  Over  the  years,  the  use  of  electronic  transmission  and  digital  formats  became 
commonplace  in  most  reporting  processes.  With  the  obligation  to  promote  "active 
dissemination"  in  the  Access  to  Environmental  Information  Directive117  and  the  adoption  of 
the  INSPIRE  Directive118,  the  amount  of  available  data  and  its  access  through  electronic 
means (such as the internet) has increased dramatically.  

What are the findings? 

The  INSPIRE  Directive was  designed,  amongst  other  objectives,  to  improve  the  availability 
and the sharing of spatial data relevant for environment policy and thereby facilitate reporting. 
The  recent  evaluation  of  the  Directive119  has  demonstrated  that  despite  the  good  progress 
made,  "further  efforts  are  needed  at  EU  and  Member  State  level  to  close  the  significant 
implementation  gaps…"120.  In  relation  to  environmental  reporting,  it  noted  that  "inefficient 
EU-level  coordination  (the  European  Commission  and  EEA)  in  guiding  Member  States 
towards  priorities  in  identifying  the  spatial  datasets  for  environmental  and  related  policies 
(e.g. for reporting)" prevents the wider use of INSPIRE-related services for reporting so far. 
Moreover,  "there  are  currently  few  end-user  applications121  that  allow  harvesting  the 
potential of data using the INSPIRE approach at EU level. On reporting, some pilot projects 
have  been  completed,  such  as  the  air  quality  reporting  pilot,  but  none  has  reached  full 
operational  maturity.  National  priority  setting  differs  greatly  in  terms  of  identifying  those 
spatial  datasets  most  needed  for  cross-border  applications  or  for  reporting  activities  at  EU 
level  (i.e.  some  focus  on  air  quality122,  others  on  marine  data123)."  Moreover,  important 
implementation deadlines of the Directive are still in the future, in particular the requirement 
for Member States to transform their datasets on the basis of agreed data specifications  for the 
purpose of "interoperability" will only be due in 2020.  

Notwithstanding these findings, there is a widespread recognition that the implementation of 
the  INSPIRE  Directive  will  improve  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the  reprorting  process 
(see section 6.1.4 and 6.2.6). At the same time, there were some concerns raised when using 
datasets provided through the INSPIRE infrastructure for reporting and thereby limitations to 
harvesting.  

Overall,  a  majority  of  respondents  (55%)  in  the  public  consultation  (totally  or  tended  to) 
agree  (and  only  15%  disagreeing)  that  the  INSPIRE  Directive  can  provide  a  common 
approach for reporting, reducing administrative burden and facilitating reuse of the reporting 
process and information across different levels of government (see figure 24 in the report)124. 

During  the  Stakeholder  Workshops,  it  was  noted  that  INSPIRE  would  help  to  promote  the 
harvesting  of  data.  However,  there  are  legal,  organisational  and  resource  challenges. 
Moreover, for some purposes such as compliance checking, data needs to be quality checked 
and officially authorised. Raw data made publicly available may not be fit for purpose. 

Directive 2003/4/EC and in particular Article 7 thereof 
Directive  2007/2/EC  establishing  an  Infrastructure  for  Spatial  Information  in  the  European  Union 

COM(2016) 478 and SWD(2016) 273 
SWD(2016) 243 
E.g.  the  Information  Platform  for  Chemical  Monitoring  using  basic  INSPIRE  features  to  access  a 

Geodateninfrastruktur Deutschland: INSPIRE success story — Implementing e-reporting of air quality 

117  
118  
(INSPIRE) 
119  
120  
121  
multitude of data sources. For other examples, see footnote 28. 
122  
based on INSPIRE at national level 
123  
124  

62 

The German Marine Data Infrastructure and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, 2015 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/summary_reporting.pdf 

 
                                                 
The main concerns regarding harvesting are, in particular:  

  The question of authorisation and legal value of the data obtained through harvesting 

(e.g. when using them in Court proceedings)125;  

  The process of aggregation and quality assurance which can influence the findings of 

any data analysis;  

  The  comparability  of  data  from  different  sources,  in  particular  if  no  harmonised 

standards have been used; 

  The updating of data after the moment when they have been harvested;  
  The continuity of data services and data availability (e.g. when servers are down).  

As demonstrated in the INSPIRE evaluation, the setting up and maintenance of such services 
require  also  additional  investments,  in  particular  in  the  beginning,  which  have  not  yet  taken 
place in all Member States. As long as such services are not available in all Member States, it 
will be difficult to replace the current system of submitting reports which is easier to enforce. 
Moreover,  tools  for  harvesting  need  to  be  developed  which  is  currently  not  the  case  yet. 
Hence, there is significant future potential but also some limitations for streamlining reporting 
and  reducing  administrative  burden  through  harvesting  using  the  INSPIRE  Directive 
solutions.  

Other  than  using  INSPIRE-related  solution  for  spatial  data,  a  number  of  other  suggestions 
have been made which could be explored, in particular:  

  The  harvesting  of  textual  information  similar  to  a  literature  research  and  study.  Any 
analysis resulting from such a process which would be used for compliance checking 
or other reporting purposes would then be sent to the national authorities for validation 
before it is being published.  

  There is also increasing potential for using software for systematic textual data mining 

which are currently being explored in some areas126.  

  The reporting of measures and examples for implementation as a means to share good 
practices  could  be  replaced  by  workshops  and  targeted  studies  rather  than  a  formal 
reporting obligation127.  

Such ideas would need to be explored further as regards their relevance and effectiveness. The 
support  study  has  looked  at  this  question  in  more  detail  and  a  thematic  fiche  on  data 
harvesting128 has been prepared. 

Although this could be overcome by an authorisation stamp as proposed by some experts (see page 54) 
E.g. "Tools for Innovative Monitoring" (TIM) developed by the Joint Research Centre 
See  "Drafting  principles  for  smarter  environmental  reporting"  by  the  Make  It  Work  initiative 

125  
126  
127  
(http://www.ieep.eu/work-areas/environmental-governance/better-regulation/make-it-
work/subjects/2015/08/monitoring-and-reporting) 
128  
              see Annex 5 

ICF,  IEEP  and  Denkstatt  (2017)  (ISBN:  978-92-79-6626-5  /  EUR  -  KH-01-17-202-EN-N  –  EN),  

63 

 
 
 
                                                 
6.4.2.  Relevance of the requirements  

Assessment question: "Are all environmental reporting requirements still relevant?" 

Overall response:  Overall most but not all environmental reporting obligations are still 
relevant. Many improvements have been made over the past years (also as a result of the 
rolling  programme  of  evaluations,  many  under  REFIT).  However,  the  context  and  the 
maturity  of  environmental  legislation  are  constantly  evolving  and  therefore  the 
relevance  of  some  aspects  will  continue  to  change  over  time.  Some  improvements  have 
been  identified  in  this  context.  Moreover,  it  is  also  important  to  communicate  the 
relevance to stakeholders so that it is clear and understood.  

What is the issue? 

Whereas  the  above  questions  look  at  the  relevance  of  the  reporting  process,  this  question 
focusses  on  the  relevance  of  the  content  of  the  environmental  reporting  obligations.  In 
particular, this will look at whether the information provided is relevant to the assessment of 
compliance  as  well  as  the  other  objectives  for  reporting  (see  section  2.3).  Sometimes 
adaptations are necessary over time in order to ensure the continued relevance of obligations 
or requirements as objectives change over time.  

What are the findings? 

Most of the reporting obligations are still highly relevant and are able to fulfil several or all 
the  objectives  for  environmental  reporting.  Examples  are  reporting  on  air  quality,  water  or 
nature  protection.  Moreover,  a  number  of  actions  have  been  taken  over  the  past  years  also 
with the aim to making the reporting obligations more relevant (see table 1 in section 2.2).  

However, some reporting obligations have been highlighted where relevance may be an issue. 
In  particular,  around  a  third  of  reporting  obligations  are  not  seen  to  be  highly  useful.  Even 
where a reporting obligation is marked as low usefulness overall, elements may well still be 
useful but they clearly need to be looked at closely.  

The most pertinent example where reporting obligations have become irrelevant to the extent 
that  they  are  now  obsolete  is  the  Standardised  Reporting  Directive  (see  2.1).  Consequently, 
the Commission proposed its repeal.  

The  Commission  services  have  also  identified  in  the  inventory  a  number  of  reporting 
obligations that are no longer relevant (e.g. an obligation under the Packing Waste or the VOC 
Directives).  Also  the  stakeholder  consultation  mentioned  a  number  of  areas  where  the 
continued relevance was questioned.  

Often  the  relevance  of  the  reporting  is  questioned  because  it  is  not  well  understood.  In 
particular  through  the  consultation  process  with  Member  States  and  the  'Make  It  Work' 
initiative,  the  issue  of  explaining  and  communicating  the  purpose  as  well  as  the  need  for 
establishing  regular  feedback  mechanisms  between  senders  and  receivers  of  the  reported 
information  was  highlighted.  Also  the  further  away  the  data  providers,  such  as  regional  and 
local  authorities,  are  from  the  data  users  at  EU  level  the  more  it  appeared  that  they  did 
question the relevance of the reported information.  

64 

 
At the third stakeholder workshop it was suggested that where  the relevance  of  reporting is 
not understood by data providers, the level of attention / resources given to reporting, and the 
comprehension of what is to be reported, may be diminished. This can affect the completeness 
and quality of reported information and hence undermine the effectiveness of reporting. At the 
workshop  it  was  also  suggested  that  improving  Member  State’s  understanding  of  the 
relevance of the reported information may also lead to co-benefits as it helps Member States 
understand the legislation.  

In this respect, the 'Make it Work' drafting principles129 concludes under the heading "Making 
the purpose(s) clear" the following:  

"Once the information need has been identified it is important to make this purpose clear. This 
applies  not  only  to  the  overall  framework  of  the  information  needed,  but  also  to  individual 
aspects of it. Doing this will ensure that this purpose continues to guide the development of 
the  processes  of  information  gathering  and  informs  those  involved  in  information  provision 
(sometimes in years to come). For example, if reporting is determined as the best method to 
obtain information, it would be appropriate to state the purpose or purposes of this reporting 
in a basic reporting requirement in the directive, keeping in mind that they may change over 
time (see also section 2.6). The purpose of each individual piece of information that Member 
States  would  be  required  to  report  could  be  stated  in  the  reporting  guidance  developed  to 
support that directive, together with the planned output (e.g. compliance report, State of the 
Environment  statistic).  This  would  also  support  communication  of  the  reasons  for 
requirements  to  those  who  provide  the  requested  data  at  the  regional  or  local  level.  Good 
practice in this regard is the revised reporting guidance for the Water Framework Directive 
where  a  statement  of  purpose  is  provided  against  each  item  of  information  requested  in  the 
reporting guidance." 

There  are  two  more  issues  which  were  found  when  analysing  the  relevance  of  reporting 
requirements,  namely  “gold  plating”  and  “maturity”.  Gold  plating  of  reporting  means  that 
Member  States  independently  chose  to  go  beyond  agreed  reporting  at  EU  level.  Maturity 
describes the changes that occur during the lifetime of a legislation where the implementation 
status and the role in directing the Member States changes. Both issues were raised but could 
not be covered by a more detailed analysis, for example, because they are issues specific  to 
how Member States organise themselves.  

6.4.3.  Relevance in relation to Better Regulation indicators 

Assessment question: "Are environmental reporting requirements relevant for assessing 
progress with Key Performance Indicators (building on the indicators system introduced 
by the Better Regulation Guidelines)?" 

Overall response:   Most  of the  current obligations have been defined before the Better 
Regulation  Guidelines  were  adopted.  Nevertheless,  some  good  examples  for  such 
indicators exist or the data collected could be easily used to derive such indicators. At the 
same time, many current reporting obligations, in particular where textual reporting is 
required,  have  not  made  systematic  use  of  indicators  and  cannot  be  aligned  easily. 
Stakeholders support such an approach and highlight a number of ideas but also risks if 
this approach is developed further.  

129  

MIW Drafting principles on reporting 

65 

 
                                                 
What is the issue? 

Evaluation  of  legislation  has  become  increasingly  important  and  the  drive  of  the  European 
Commission  for  Better  Regulation  has  put  this  need  at  the  heart  of  European  policy.  The 
Better  Regulation  Guidelines  in  the  guidelines  on  monitoring130  suggests,  amongst  other 
things,  to  link  the  monitoring  system  with  relevant  indicators.  Three  types  of  indicators  are 
introduced, output, outcome/result and impact indicators (here referred to as key performance 
indicators). Such indicators go beyond a legal compliance report, looking at the objectives of 
the legislation and linking up the policy cycle from the impact assessment to the evaluation. 
The  question  is  whether  reporting  obligations  reflect  this,  having  mostly  been  designed  to 
prepare  implementation  reports  which  often  do  not  constitute  a  full  evaluation  of  the 
legislation131. 

What are the findings?  

Most of the environmental monitoring and reporting obligations have been agreed before the 
Better  Regulation  Guidelines  were  adopted.  Having  said  this,  the  concepts  described  in  the 
Guidelines are not new and have been applied in environmental policy before.  

Some good examples of Implementation Benchmarks (or key performance indicators (KPIs)) 
exist in various reporting processes, e.g. the assessment of quality of air, water or nature, the 
waste  target  indicators  or  the  compliance  indicators  (e.g.  regarding  urban  wastewater). 
However, the current reporting obligations have not been systematically defined by using the 
approach set out in the Better Regulation Guidelines. In particular when it comes to the high 
degree of textual data, a limited use of applying result indicators (instead of textual description 
of the implementation) has been made. An initial scoping of all the 181 ROs revealed that in 
12 cases, reporting indicators are already linked to established KPIs whereas in 38 cases the 
reported information could potentially be used in this way. The evidence from this screening 
analysis  of  the  inventory  suggests  also  that  the  bulk  of  reporting  obligations  are  not  closely 
aligned with reporting on the policy outcomes of environmental legislation. This matches the 
earlier finding that they are primarily focused on assessing whether the legal requirements of 
the legislation are  being complied with  in  practice  based on more textual information  rather 
than indicators.  Moreover, it was found that currently no consistent, systematic approach on 
how to assess reported information is in place across the environmental reporting domains.  

130  
131  

See chapter V, p. 42 of SWD(2016) 111 
See Box 1, p. 45 of SWD(2016) 111 

66 

 
 
 
                                                 
During the Stakeholder consultation and Workshops, the suggestion to focus on the wider use 
of (headline) indicators (or limited number of key performance indicators per legislation), i.e. 
core data set and information needs on what is essential for decision-making at EU level, was 
made repeatedly. Moreover, the idea of a two-level approach to reporting, involving EU level 
reporting of selected key indicators, allowing MS more flexibility in reporting at national level 
in  more detail according to their specific needs. This  line of thinking  resulted also from the 
Make It Work project132. The stakeholders also recognised that there are sensitivities around 
Member  State  legal  compliance.  Hence,  when  defining  indicators,  they  should  be 
disconnected from  information on legal  compliance. The compliance  could  be assessed in  a 
separate  step  following  the  indicator-based  assessment  and  targeting  only  those  Member 
States  where  there  are  indications  for  non-compliance  ("risk-based  approach").  There  were 
also  contrasting  views  about  the  limitations  of  (key  performance)  indicators  given  that  the 
reporting  obligations  are  diverse  and  serve  different  purposes.  Moreover,  where  large 
volumes of textual information are collated, this may present opportunities but also challenges 
for simplification or condensing through (key performance) indicators. In addition, continuity 
of indicators was highlighted as important in order to understand trends over time.  

There is, however, significant potential and widespread agreement that such a systematic use 
of (key performance) indicators would be beneficial for a number of reasons:  

  To improve the comparability of the data; 
  To  allow  processing  of  the  data  more  easily  (in  comparison  to  information  which  is 

largely text based);  

  To focus on the essential information for a first assessment across the EU (and leave a 

more detailed assessment for a second level); 

  To combine objectives and intention of the legislation with the evaluation of whether 

they have been achieved; 

  To facilitate communication of reported results, e.g. through the use of scoreboards; 
  To be consistent with the Better Regulation Guidelines.  

At the same time, some concerns were raised when applying such an approach, namely that 
there is a risk of oversimplification, a tendency towards a "one-size, fits all" approach and the 
potential  loss  of  valuable  information.  Hence,  a  more  detailed  case-by-case  analysis  of  the 
relevant  reporting  obligations  may  be  needed  to  establish  whether  and  how  they  could  be 
developed to replace and streamline current reporting obligations.  

6.4.4.  Relevance of technical solutions 

Assessment  question:  "Has  the  process  of  reporting  taken  advantage  of  technology: 
including advances in IT, increasing provision of data through Copernicus etc.?" 

Overall response:  Despite clear progress made in the area of modernisation of reporting 
processes, opportunities are not being universally exploited. Preliminary results indicate 
that there are some inconsistencies in environmental reporting. Moreover, the reporting 
process  can  be  made  more  efficient  by  using  emerging  technologies  and  sources 
including  Copernicus,  applying  agreed  standards  (such  as  those  of  the  INSPIRE 

132  

MIW Drafting principles on reporting 

67 

 
 
                                                 
Directive) and making better use of established systems such as Reportnet. Also the role 
of citizen science as alternative source of information can be enhanced. 

What is the issue? 

Technological advances provide opportunities for improving the efficiency and robustness of 
reporting  processes  (e.g.  greater  automation  of  data  transfer  and  storage),  and  the  nature  of 
data  that  is  reported  (e.g.  increase  in  geospatial  and  numeric  data  in  place  of  textual 
information). The question looks at how the use of technology has evolved and to what extent 
they have been adopted.  

What are the findings?  

Systems for reporting have been evolving from paper-based reporting to electronic reporting 
including  differing  degrees  of  standardisation  and  automation.  Important  drivers  for  this 
process were the development of EEA's Reportnet, the application of the INSPIRE Directive 
and the adoption of the Directive 2003/4/EC on Public Access to Environmental Information. 
Moreover, there are a number of sectorial initiatives which have helped create an additional 
impetus for the development and use of electronic (reporting) tools (e.g. WISE or E-PRTR).  

The  recently  published  INSPIRE  SWD133  shows  also  the  importance  of  INSPIRE  and  IT 
tools/applications useful also for reporting and data management:  

"In  addition  to  EU-wide  application  and  uses,  the  INSPIRE  Directive  was  also  designed  to 
create EU added value through improved cross-border cooperation spatial data management, 
not just in the environmental field. Whether it is sharing data on air quality, marine pollution 
or flood risk management, environmental solutions often need cross-border collaboration. To 
address  also  other  policy  areas  and  used  national  priority  setting  which  differs  greatly  in 
terms  of  identifying  those  spatial  datasets  most  needed  for  cross-border  applications  or  for 
reporting  activities  at  EU  level  (i.e.  some  focus  on  air  quality,134  others  on  marine  data135) 
can  be  coordinated  better  across  the  EU  or  between  Member  States.  Finally,  collaboration 
between the Commission and Member States has generally been seen as positive but can be 
strengthened further by, for example, developing implementing tools and components together 
rather than each Member State ‘reinventing the wheel’.  

A  Member  State-led  initiative  Make  It  Work  (MIW)136  was  also  launched  in  2015  on 
environmental  reporting  with  the  aim  to  identify  reporting  drafting  principles  found  that 
INSPIRE could be a tool for smart reporting: "The INSPIRE Directive is intended as a vehicle 
to  streamline  existing  reporting  processes  and  make  them  more  effective  and  efficient. 
INSPIRE aims to create a spatial data infrastructure to enable the sharing of environmental 
spatial information among public sector organisations and facilitate public access to spatial 
information  across  Europe.  Furthermore,  INSPIRE  aims  to  assist  policy-making  across 
boundaries. Therefore, the spatial information considered under the directive is extensive and 
includes a great variety of themes." 

SWD(2016) 0273 final 
Geodateninfrastruktur Deutschland: INSPIRE success story — Implementing e-reporting of air quality 

133  
134  
based on INSPIRE at national level 
135  
136  
principles for smarter environmental reporting" (22 November 2016) 

The German Marine Data Infrastructure and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, 2015 
The Make it Work Project is a Member State led initiative which produced the document on "Drafting 

68 

 
                                                 
Having  said  this,  there  are  still  many  reporting  obligations  where  no  electronic  reporting 
formats exist. For only 56 ROs, electronic reporting appears to be supported.  Another internal 
analysis137 suggested that 20 out of 30 Directives/Regulations reviewed make use of electronic 
reporting  systems  with  Reportnet  used  in  75%  of  such  instances.  However,  the  research138 
found that even when Reportnet is available, some Member States chose to report hard copies 
and/or  via  email  (e.g.  under  the  Noise  Directive).  But  in  no  instances  was  reporting  only 
paper-based. Hence, there is ample scope to enhance the use of Reportnet more widely.   

137  
using internal analysis 
138  
analysis of internal raw survey data 

ICF, IEEP and Denkstatt (2017) (ISBN: 978-92-79-6626-5 / EUR - KH-01-17-202-EN-N – EN), ICF 

ICF, IEEP and Denkstatt (2017) (ISBN: 978-92-79-6626-5 / EUR - KH-01-17-202-EN-N – EN), ICF 

69 

 
 
 
                                                 
Despite the above described initiatives, respondents to the public consultation indicated that 
insufficient use of IT was made within environmental reporting (across collection, processing 
and  dissemination),  with  55%  either  totally  disagreeing  or  tending  to  disagree  that  IT  was 
adequately used (see figure 22 in the report)139.  

Another issue is the heterogeneous application of information technology. Despite the efforts 
made  by  Reportnet,  INSPIRE  and  other  initiatives,  the  tools,  systems,  approaches  and 
software used varies significantly. Some streamlining and coordination in this respect may be 
beneficial: for example, making more use of XML-type reporting. 

Another  aspect  is  the  exploitation  of  new  data  sources.  E.g.  the  Earth  Observation  data  and 
products  from  the  European  Earth  Observation  program  "Copernicus"140  which  are  made 
available under a full, free and open data policy by the Union offer objective and inter-country 
comparable data for regulatory monitoring and reporting. 

At the September 2016 workshop, stakeholders identified that Copernicus could provide new 
ways  of  collecting  data,  thus  potentially  reducing  the  burden  of  reporting.  Specific 
suggestions  received  from  stakeholders  in  responses  to  this  study  included:  satellite  data 
could be used to track land use change as part of environmental monitoring of Natura 2000 
sites  (source:  Birdlife  International);  satellite  data  could  be  combined  with  other  forms  of 
data  collection  to  enhance  information  (and  improve  efficiency)  for  air  quality  reporting 
(source: Netherlands).  

However,  in  practice,  this  has  not  happened  and  further  efforts  are  needed  on  how  such 
information stemming from Copernicus could be used to replace or complement information 
coming from environmental reporting. Also the use of the standards set out by the INSPIRE 
Directive  when  harvesting  data  from  Copernicus  will  be  important  in  order  to  ensure  their 
usability for different purposes from the outset.  

Another  promising  source  for  complementary  information  and  data  on  environmental  issues  is 
citizen  science141.  Citizen  science,  powered  by  mobile,  online  and  computing  tools,  offers 
another  way  to  collect  environmental  data,  useful  for  regulatory  (and  environmental) 
monitoring, in a cost-effective manner, while increasing awareness and empowering citizens. 
In  practice  citizen  science  is  not  (yet)  used  widely  as  an  effective  tool  to  monitor 
environmental directives at EU level142. 

In Member States data collected by volunteers are already used to monitor, report and respond 
to  EU  environmental  legislation.  This  can  be  very  cost  effective:  for  example,  in  the  UK,  a 
£7M  government  investment  into  volunteer  schemes  generated  data  estimated  to  be  worth 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/summary_reporting.pdf 
See  http://www.copernicus.eu  (in  addition,  the  Group  on  Earth  Observation  (GEO)  and  the  Global 

139  
140  
Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) play an important role) 
141  
Citizen Science" (December 2013) 
142  
http://eurobirdportal.org/ 

See  SWD(2016)  188  and  Science  for  the  Environment–In-depth  report  (Issue  9):  "Environmental 

70 

 
                                                 
£20m143. In France, savings of 1-4M euro have been estimated per year in the Citizen Science 
Biodiversity Monitoring Programme of the French National Museum for Natural History144.  

Exploiting  the  potential  of  citizen  science  requires  adequate  standards  and  infrastructure  in 
local, regional or national government agencies, revised data validation protocols, methods for 
data quality, data interoperability and management, and innovative and robust technologies. A 
further  coordination  between  organisations  at  different  levels  of  governance  is  also  still 
needed. There are still few European wide programmes and networks in place to connect the 
emerging citizen science initiatives with each other, and with the already existing knowledge 
and policy schemes145. 

Whilst  the  enhanced  use  of  technology  offers  significant  benefits  in  the  future,  there  are  a 
number of pitfalls which need to be addressed; in particular the tools should be easy to use, 
well documented and stable for operation. Substantial investments have already been made in 
creating some good practices in relying on IT tools in reporting, however, there may need to 
be  further  investment  to  move  to  more  electronic  reporting  at  national  level  may  be 
significant.  

6.5.  EU Added Value 

6.5.1.  Added value of EU reporting 

Assessment question: "What is the additional value resulting from reporting to  the EU 
intervention(s),  compared  to  what  could  be  achieved  by  Member  States  at  national 
and/or regional levels?" 

Overall  response:  An  EU-level  approach  delivers  clear  benefits  that  could  not  be 
achieved through reporting at MS level alone, particularly in relation to trans-boundary 
issues and the need to achieve a consistent overview of the state of the environment and 
progress  in  implementation  of  legislation  across  the  EU.  The  Commission/EU  is  best 
placed to coordinate efforts on making reporting processes more efficient and effective.  

What is the issue? 

Environmental reporting obligations, like all requirements linked to EU legislation, should be 
subject  to  the  principle  of  subsidiarity,  which  is  fundamental  to  the  functioning  of  the 
European Union. In this regard, there is a need to demonstrate a clear case for reporting at the 
EU level, compared to reporting at the local or national levels only.  

What are the findings? 

The Commission needs regular and consistent information on how successfully EU laws are 
being implemented across the EU, in order to be able to confirm whether implementation is 

Makechnie,  C.,  Maskell.  L.  C.,  Norton,  L.  R.  &  Roy,  D.B.  (2011)  The  Role  of  ‘Big  Society’  in 

Levrel, H., Fontaine, B., Henry, P-Y., Jiguet, F., Julilard, R., Kerbiriou, C. & Couvet, D. (2010) 

143  
monitoring the state of the natural environment. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 13(10), 2687-2691 
144  
Balancing state and volunteer investment in biodiversity monitoring for the implementation of CBD indicators: 
A French example. Ecological Economics, 69(7), 1580-1586 
145  
Nascimento, S., Rubio-Iglesias, J.M., Owen, R., Schade, S., Shanley, L. (forthcoming) 'Citizen Science 
for better policy formulation and implementation' In Citizen Science – Innovation in Open Science, Society and 
Policy, edited by A. Bonn, M. Haklay, S. Hecker, L. Robinson and A. Bowser, UCL Press, London 

71 

 
                                                 
satisfactory. This can also be crucial in supporting enforcement, and indeed such information 
plays a key role in the Environmental Implementation Review process.  

One  specific  area  where  the  added  value  of  EU  level  reporting  is  most  clear  is  for 
transboundary issues; which is relevant for many of Europe’s environmental challenges. Some 
respondents to the public consultation argued that as many of the problems legislation seeks to 
address are transboundary, there are clear benefits to data reported being cross-comparable.  

In  the  transboundary  context,  INSPIRE  is  an  important  tool  to  channel  efforts  towards 
simplification and more reliance on automated IT services. The recent INSPIRE evaluation's 
observations on EU added value are relevant146:  

"In particular, cross-border and EU level use cases can demonstrate where the application of 
the INSPIRE Directive has an added value which would have not been possible without  EU 
level action… Member States, in particular those where implementation has progressed most, 
reported  positive  effects  in  breaking  down  their  internal  obstacles  preventing  the  more 
effective  sharing  of  their  spatial  data  between  public  administrations  and  across  borders 
(including in some cases across their regional borders). Simplification and harmonisation of 
data policies and licenses combined with a technical infrastructure allowing easier discovery, 
access  and  use  of  spatial  data  are  attributed  to  a  large  extent  to  INSPIRE.  This  has  also 
generated  a  number  of  cross-border  collaborations  and  improvements  when  it  comes  to 
environmental  data  sharing  (e.g.  BE,  DE,  IT,  NL  and  UK  reported  efficiency  gains  and 
improved  sharing  across-borders  when  applying  INSPIRE  solutions  to  air  quality  data 
sharing)." 

This  shows  that  using  IT  tools  for  data  management  at  EU  level  clearly  has  the  benefits  of 
being able to address transboundary issues, through a harmonised approach. If this objective 
would  be  delivered  by  Member  States  individually  then  their  efforts  would  surely  result  in 
overlaps,  inconsistencies  and  inefficiencies,  as  compared  to  a  well-coordinated  harmonised 
approach.  

As well as transboundary issues, there is considerable benefit to having systemic information 
across  environmental  issues,  where  consistent  and  comparable  information  allows  for  better 
addressing of cross-cutting environmental issues. 

The stakeholder  consultation confirmed the importance of reporting and the benefits  of data 
generated  both  in  terms  of  demonstrating  compliance  with  EU  legislation,  and  highlighting 
issues and learning points in the implementation of this legislation within national regulatory 
frameworks.  This  implies  a  need  for  consistent  information  to  be  made  available  across  the 
EU. Furthermore, the responses to the public consultation and discussions at the stakeholder 
workshops indicated a general acceptance of the need for reporting to continue at EU level.  

146  

SWD(2016) 273 

72 

 
 
 
                                                 
6.5.2.  Replacing reporting with transparency and active dissemination 

Assessment  question:  "What  would  be  the  most  likely  consequences  of  stopping  or 
repealing  the  existing  EU  reporting  requirements  and  replacing  them  by  increased 
transparency and active dissemination?" 

Overall response: A system based solely on transparency and active dissemination would 
not  be  fit  for  purpose.  However,  there  is  more  scope  for  better  use  of  IT  solutions  to 
benefit all stakeholders, in particular citizens and public authorities via citizens' science, 
open  data  and  promotion  of  eGovernment  processes.  Active  dissemination  could  only 
replace traditional reporting processes in the future if the necessary information has to 
be made available and in a consistent way.  

What is the issue? 

The  development  of  information  and  communication  technologies  creates  opportunities  for 
active  dissemination  and  improved  transparency  of  environmental  reporting.  This  question 
seeks to assess the likely consequences of, in this context, replacing EU level environmental 
reporting  with  alternative  arrangements  which  involve  Member  States  making  the  relevant 
information publicly available. 

What are the findings? 

In certain policy areas, for Member States with more developed reporting processes in place, 
it  is  conceivable  that  the  processes  of  formal  reporting  of  data  to  the  Commission  and 
subsequent analysis and dissemination in the form of periodic reports, could be replaced by 
continuous reporting  and  active  dissemination  (in  the  form  of  accessible  databases and  web 
pages)  at  the  Member  State  level.  This  publicly  available  data  could  then  be  mined  and 
harvested  as  appropriate  by  the  Commission  and  other  EU  Executive  Agencies  to  produce 
reports, in lieu of formalised reporting systems.  

Two scenarios are considered by the supporting study. Firstly, repealing all legal obligations 
and replacing them by non-binding requirements of active dissemination. This first scenario 
would  have  major  ramifications  in  terms  of  data  availability.  There  would  be  gaps  in  the 
information reported, with a tendency for Member States to follow their own interests, or to 
supply  the  most  easily  provided  data,  rather  than  those  most  relevant  to  assess 
implementation,  compliance  and  development  of  EU  law.  Inconsistencies  in  reported  data 
including differences in definitions, timelines, specifications  and assessment methods would 
occur  unless  some  mechanism  remained  in  place  to  ensure  common  approaches  between 
Member  States.  The  absence  of  common  quality  management  processes  would  affect  the 
robustness  of  data  and  the  confidence  of  users.  There  would  also  be  differences  in  the 
accessibility  and  navigability  of  the  information  provided  in  the  absence  of  common 
templates and access routes.  Overall, these risks would have significant consequences for the 
ability of the reporting system to meet its objectives (see in section 7.5.1).  

The second scenario would entail the rationalisation of reporting processes and replacement 
of  formal  reporting  process  by  legally  binding  active  dissemination  requirements  that  are 
equally detailed as the formal reporting processes they are intended to replace. As presented 
already  under  sections  7.2.3.  and  7.2.6  on  promotion  of  active  dissemination  and  good 
examples  of  reporting,  one  of  the  likely  consequences  of  stopping  or  repealing  the  existing 
EU  reporting  requirements  and  replacing  them  with  increased  transparency  and  active 

73 

 
dissemination  would  be  the  emergence  of  a  system  that  continued  to  provide  much 
information about the state of the environment and the actions being taken to improve it, the 
state of implementation of the EU environmental acquis and the compliance with current legal 
obligations. 

While increased transparency and active dissemination have the potential  over time to  meet 
the objectives  of the current reporting system, this  is likely to  depend on a continuing legal 
requirement  to  provide  the  information  needed,  as  well  as  common  arrangements  and 
standards  for  data  specification,  quality  checking  and  presentation  building  on  already 
developed infrastructures and processes.  

The  ‘zero  environmental  reporting’  vision  is  found  both  in  the  INSPIRE  Directive  and  the 
enhanced  active  dissemination  requirements  in  the  Directive  on  access  to  environmental 
information.  However  it  is  recognised  that  Member  States  are  at  very  different  levels  of 
maturity  with  regard  to  transparency  and  active  dissemination,  and  zero  reporting  is  not 
realistic in the immediate future.  

It  seems  reasonable  to  conclude,  therefore,  that  new  technological  processes  like  citizen 
science,  data  mining  and  data  harvesting  offer  only  limited  potential  for  simplification  and 
burden  reduction  in  the  short  term.  As  the  techniques  are  explored  and  developed  though 
confidence  in  these  approaches  could  increase,  and  so  in  the  longer  term  they  offer  more 
potential.  

74 

 
 
 
7.  CONCLUSIONS 

This  Staff  Working  Document  presents  the  findings  of  the  Fitness  Check  evaluation  on  the 
reporting obligations in relation to environmental legislation. In total, there are 181 reporting 
obligations (ROs) in 58 pieces of legislation.  

The  inventory  of  environmental  ROs  showed  that  the  majority  of  obligations  are  primarily 
text  based  and  give  information  on  responses  to  environmental  problems  such  as  plans, 
programmes,  and  measures  including  authorisations  or  licences.  Looking  at  the  181 
environmental  ROs,  82  required  the  Member  States  to  regularly  report  to  the  Commission 
while  99  ROs  were  either  one-off  or  ad-hoc  requirements147. As  regards  the  process,  nearly 
half of the ROs are carried out without a reporting template. Most of the process (90 ROs) is 
handled by the Commission (Directorate-General (DG) Environment) often with the help of 
outsourcing.  Meanwhile,  the  European  Environment  Agency  (EEA)  carries  out  or  assists  in 
many ROs (48) and in fewer cases, the Commission services of DG EUROSTAT (6) or DG 
Joint Research Centre (2) assist DG Environment.  

The  Fitness  Check  was  conducted  based  on  data  compiled  into  an  inventory,  a  study  on 
administrative  burden  looking  at  costs  and  benefits  as  well  as  an  extensive  stakeholder 
engagement through a public consultation and four Stakeholder Workshops. The key findings 
are presented below in relation to the assessment categories.  

Effectiveness  

Effectiveness has improved significantly in many areas over the years and is considered 
satisfactory.  Nevertheless,  potential  for  improvements  are  identified  for  some  cross-
cutting issues (such as the streamlining towards a more corporate process) as well as for 
improving the quality and usefulness of reporting for some specific pieces of legislation.   

Factors positively influencing effectiveness: 

  Many good examples for effective reporting exist (such bathing water and air quality) 

of good quality, timely data which could be spread more widely; 

 

  The  definition  and  wider  use  of  a  corporate,  streamlined  and  targeted  reporting 
approach  in  all  areas  through  risk-based  or  tiered  assessment  increasing  the  use  of 
indicators and reducing the reliance on textual information;  
Improvements  in  streamlining  and  effectiveness  are  taking  place  and  are  planned, 
including those triggered by evaluations, largely as part of the REFIT programme; 
Increasing  body  of  relevant  information  made  available  by  Member  States  (through 
active dissemination) and the European Environment Agency;  
  Enhanced use of information technology in the reporting process.  

 

Factors negatively influencing effectiveness: 

  Lack  of  clarity  and  flexibility  in  legal  obligations  making  it  difficult  to  establish 

effective reporting obligations; 

147  
A one-off reporting obligation is for instance a requirement to transmit the list of competent authorities 
dealing  with  the  legislation  whereas  ad-hoc  reporting  is  linked  to  the  occurrence  of  a  specific  event.  The 
frequencies of the recurring ROs range from annual to every six years in most cases. 

75 

 
                                                 
  Completeness,  timeliness  and  quality  of  reporting  from  Member  States  are  still  an 

issue in some areas;  

  Available  information  from  Member  States  (through  active  dissemination)  is  not 
relevant,  up-to-date,  easily  accessible  and  user  friendly  enough  to  allow  for  its  use 
instead of reporting such information; 

  Reported  information  is  sometimes  insufficient  to  establish  an  understanding  on  the 
implementation or the state of the environment and it is often not sufficiently robust, 
relevant  and  complete  to  use  for  EU  decision-making  (e.g.  as  input  to  impact 
assessments or evaluations).  

Efficiency  

Reporting  is  largely  efficient  and  the  administrative  burden  is  moderate,  justified  and 
proportionate  (estimated  costs  of  22  million  euro  annually).  The  benefits,  such  as 
improved implementation and better information of the public, outweigh the costs by far 
although  quantification  was  not  possible.  Some  efficiency  gains  could  be  expected 
through streamlining the process in a more horizontal and strategic manner to simplify 
and  reduce  burdens.  Some  content,  timing,  frequency  and  process  adjustments  could 
also lead to efficiency gains and better quality reporting but may require amendment of 
the  legislation concerned. Potential  issues in different  areas  have been identified where 
the quality of reporting could be improved.  

Factors positively influencing efficiency: 

  Promotion  of  good  practices  and  streamlined  (harmonised)  processes  including  the 
more  advanced  and  systematic  use  of  information  technology  as  well  as  the  wider 
application of the INSPIRE148 Directive; 

  Full ownership or, at least, involvement of the European Environment Agency in the 

reporting process; 

  Promising examples of improvements in efficiency of national systems and processes 

exist and such good practices can be applied more widely;  

  Pushing for wide spread active dissemination of environmental information at national 
level  creating  multiple  benefits  (but  not  necessarily  reduce  costs)  also  beyond  using 
such information for reporting. 

Factors negatively influencing efficiency: 

  Where  data  reported  is  not  of  good  quality,  their  use  and  usefulness  decreases,  the 
costs of quality assurance increase and the reliability of the analyses and reports made 
on their basis is reduced;  

  Diverse  use  of  information  technology  and  uncoordinated  outsourcing  of  reporting 

following different models and approaches; 

  Timing inconsistencies and lack of alignment of frequencies (there are arguments that 

 

this is the case in the water area); 
Insufficient communication and explanation on the purpose and the use of reporting to 
the data providers.  

148  

Directive 2007/2/EC establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Union 
76 

 
 
 
                                                 
Coherence  

Coherence is achieved between the environmental reporting obligations to a large extent 
but  some  specific  areas  for  improvement  may  need  to  be  tackled.  There  are  links 
between environmental reporting and reporting on agriculture, climate, energy, marine 
policy  etc.  The  possibility  to  improve  data  use  among  some  EU  policy  areas  should  be 
considered as well as with obligations stemming from international commitments. Work 
has  already  been  done  to  improve  this  situation,  for  example  with  the  revised  NEC 
Directive  and  the  Energy  Union  Governance  proposal.  Moreover,  better  use  of 
information submitted to other Commission services can be made in some areas so as to 
better inform environment policy. 

Factors positively influencing coherence: 

  Coherent terminology and definitions in legal acts;  
  Dedicated initiative to improve coherence in many areas;  
  Re-use of information available in other parts of the Commission;  
 

Increased use of data sharing tools and alignment of definitions, terms and standards; 
improve  coherence  and 
Efforts 
streamlining.  

international  organisations 

together  with 

to 

Factors negatively influencing coherence: 

  Lack of coherent legal obligations agreed by the co-legislator (e.g. in the waste area in 

relation to waste statistics); 

  Fragmented governance and decision-making;  
 

Insufficient  coordination  and  collaboration  between  different  actors  in  related  areas 
(e.g.  between  experts  on  environment  reporting  and  geospatial  data  linked  to  the 
INSPIRE Directive); 

  Overall, one quarter of reporting obligations have some (partial) coherence issues.  

Relevance  

Relevance  of  most  reporting  obligations  is  achieved  as  many  improvements  have  been 
made  in  the  past  or  are  ongoing.  But  further  opportunities  for  improvements  (e.g. 
advanced  technical  solutions)  and  alternative  or  complementary  approaches  exist.  In 
particular, there is significant potential to focus the content of environmental reporting 
more towards a strategic, quantitative and better regulation-driven information (e.g. by 
using  key  indicators)  and  thereby  reducing  the  extent  of  textual  information  that  is 
currently requested.   

Factors positively influencing relevance: 

  Regular review of reporting obligations (e.g. as part of the evaluations) to maintain the 

level of relevance over time; 

  Around two thirds of reporting obligations are considered highly useful (and one third 

are not); 

  More  wide  spread  use  of  key  indicators  (such  as  output,  outcome  and  impact 

indicators) whilst reducing the need for textual information;  

  Complementing  reported  information  with  other  data  sources  though  harvesting, 

citizen science or using data coming from the Copernicus programme.  

77 

 
Factors negatively influencing relevance: 

  Lack of structured, coordinated and output-oriented approach when defining reporting 

needs; 

  Definition of reported information for one purpose only (i.e. compliance assessment) 
not  considering  other  needs  (e.g.  state-of-the-environment,  decision-making  or 
information to public); 

  Not using tried and tested reporting processes and tools (e.g. EEA's Reportnet).  

EU added value  

EU added value is still ensured because current reporting still delivers clear benefits in 
the  form  of  comparable  and  consistent  information,  which  is  not  available  at  national 
level  alone.  However,  alternative  approaches  such  as  active  dissemination  of  relevant 
environmental  information  at  national  level  could  be  explored  further  and  potentially 
reduce the need for reporting to the EU level if certain conditions were met.  

Factors positively influencing EU added value: 

  Focus on EU and cross-border where reporting is often the main source of comparable, 

consistent, timely and quality checked information in relation to EU legislation;  

  Provides  the  evidence  base  for  the  application  of  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines 

(evaluation and Impact Assessment); 

  New technological approaches like citizen science, data mining and data harvesting are 
not  yet  fully  operational,  but  may  offer  potential  for  simplification  and  burden 
reduction in the longer term. 

Factors negatively influencing EU added value: 

  Structured availability of relevant environmental information at national level which is 

easily accessible and useable. 

As  regards  the  specific  findings  per  legislation,  the  following  table  provides  an  overview. 
Annexes  6-8  set  out  the  different  issues  identified  for  specific  pieces  of  legislation  (also 
analysed  in  table  9.4  of  the  support  study).  Many  are  shown  to  have  one  or  more  issues, 
though this is not necessarily indicative that they need amendment. Often, the issues refer to 
one  particular  reporting  obligation  in  cases  where  there  are  several  within  a  piece  of 
legislation. A more detailed analysis is necessary to identify the best ways forward with the 
aim of streamlining the existing reporting obligations further. In most cases, such a review can 
take place in the ongoing or envisaged evaluations for that legislation. 

78 

 
 
 
Table 4: Overview of findings (for more details, see Annexes 6-8). The percentage is related 
either to the 58 pieces of legislation or 181 reporting obligations analysed, depending on the 
available data. 

Issue  

Percentage  

Amendment  of  legislation  already  proposed  by  the  Commission  which 
streamlines reporting (linked to legislation) 

Reporting 
amendments (linked to legislation) 

issues  were 

identified  which  may 

require 

legislative 

Reporting which includes best practice examples 
(linked to legislation) 

Reporting which is considered of high usefulness  
(linked to reporting obligations) 

Reporting which is considered of low usefulness  
(linked to reporting obligations) 

Reporting where the use of indicators could be improved 
(linked to legislation, based on screening analysis) 

Reporting which relies mainly on textual information 
(linked to reporting obligations) 

Reporting where external coherence could be improved 
(linked to legislation, based on stakeholder feedback) 

Reporting where the delays are significant 
(linked to 78 reporting obligations which are linked to Commission report) 

16% 

12% 

19% 

39% 

9% 

86% 

76% 

29% 

27% 

Overall,  the  Fitness  Check  evaluation  led  to  the  conclusion  that  environmental  reporting, 
including for the purposes of regulatory monitoring, is largely fit-for-purpose. Nevertheless, a 
range  of  cross-cutting  and  specific  issues  have  been  identified  which  would  benefit  from 
further  improvements.  Moreover,  a  regular  review  and  maintenance  of  the  system  and  its 
components  (e.g.  through  the  evaluation  programme)  is  needed  given  the  evolving  policy 
context and needs.  

Next steps 

Whilst this Fitness Check is the beginning of a process to improve environmental reporting, 
the concrete findings identified in the evaluation indicate clearly areas for future work. These 
next  steps  are  further  elaborated  in  the  Commission  Report  that  this  Fitness  Check 
accompanies, but respond to the following needs and issues: 

1.  Getting  the  right  information  in  the  right  form  at  the  right  time  –  this  Fitness 
Check  identified  that  there  is  a  need  for  a  mixture  of  legislative  and  non-legislative 
changes  to  reporting  for  specific  pieces  of  legislation.  These  changes  could  improve 
the quality of reporting through:  

o 

improved  coherence,  including  improving  the  synchronisation  of  different 
timings for different reports to align frequencies; 

79 

 
 
o  reducing  textual  reporting  and  focussing  on  clear  quantified  indicators  to 

improve usefulness and cut costs along the reporting chain; 

o  reducing the delays along the reporting chain, whereby Member State reporting 

o 

can be late and/or Commission onwards reporting is (further) delayed; 
improving the format of reporting, e.g. through more use of templates. 
2.  Streamlining  the  reporting  process  –  the  Fitness  Check  identified  the  potential  to 
harmonise and centralise (some) process provisions and make better use of technology 
to make reporting more effective and to reduce burdens in particular through: 

o  harmonising  the  “business  process”  of  reporting  and  exploiting  more  widely 
the  opportunities  from  eReporting  building  on  the  best  tried  and  tested 
examples  (including  through  improving  EEA’s  Reportnet,  and  then  making 
fuller use of it); 

o  better use of the tools and specifications set out by the INSPIRE Directive; 
o  promoting  good  practices  or  common  open  source  IT  tools    for  active 
collection  of  information  and  facilitation  of  generation  databases  to  be 
disseminated in dissemination tools; 

o  strengthening  capacities  for  data  harvesting  as  an  alternative  to  centralised 

reporting.  

3.  Promotion  of  active  dissemination  of  environmental  information  at  European 
and national level - promoting good practices for active dissemination, i.e. improve 
the availability and accessibility of data related to environmental monitoring, reporting 
and implementation (as also required by the INSPIRE and the Access to Information 
Directives).  

4.  Exploiting  other  data  sources  and  alternative  approaches  complementing 
environmental reporting – the Fitness Check identified some potential to make better 
use  of  complementary  data  sources  to  “classic”  reporting  such  as  data  coming  from 
EU data sources (such as Copernicus) or from citizens directly (e.g. in the context of 
citizen science). 

5.  Improving  coherence  and  cooperation  –  The  Fitness  Check  identified  the  need  to 
ensure that there is coherence between environmental reporting and reporting in other 
EU policy areas, including by facilitating the use of already existing data at EU level. 
Similarly, coherence needs to be ensured with reporting to the international level.  

Clearly, such a programme of next steps involves a mixture of horizontal actions and changes 
specific  to  individual  pieces  of  legislation  (which  may  or  may  not  involve  amending  the 
legislation). 

80 

 
 
8.  ANNEXES 

8.1.  Annex  1:  List  of  environment  legislation  within  the  scope  of  the  Fitness 

Check 

Ref. 
no. 

Title of environmental legislation 

Short title and 
abbreviation 

Short description of number and 
subject of reporting obligations (ROs) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient 
air quality and cleaner air for 
Europe (including Implementing 
Decision 2011/850/EU) 

Air Quality 
Directive (AQD) 

Two ROs covering information on ambient 
air quality and air quality plans in 
agglomerations exceeding limit or target 
values 

Directive 2004/107/EC of 15 
December 2004 relating to arsenic, 
cadmium, mercury, nickel and 
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 
in ambient air (Including 
Implementing Decision 
2011/850/EU) 

Ambient Air 
Directive (As, Cd, 
Hg, Ni, PAHs) 

Directive 2002/49/EC relating to 
the assessment and management of 
environmental noise 

Environmental 
Noise Directive 
(END) 

Directive 2000/60/EC  establishing 
a framework for Community 
action in the field of water policy  

Water Framework 
Directive (WFD) 

Directive 2008/105/EC on 
environmental quality standards in 
the field of water policy 
(consolidated version)  

Environmental 
Quality Standards 
Directive (EQS) 

Directive 2007/60/EC on the 
assessment and management of 
flood risks 

Floods Directive 
(FD) 

Directive 2008/56/EC establishing 
a framework for community action 
in the field of marine 
environmental policy  

Marine Strategy 
Framework 
Directive (MSFD) 

One RO covering information on ambient 
air quality for the following parameters: As, 
Cd, Hg, Ni, Benzo(a)Pyrene 

Six ROs covering information on competent 
authorities, limit values, major 
infrastructure, strategic noise maps and 
actions already in place and planned 

Six ROs covering information on river basin 
districts and competent authorities, 
characterisation of river basin districts, 
monitoring programmes, programmes of 
measures, river basin management plans, 
and issues, which cannot be dealt with at 
Member State level 

Two ROs covering information on Member 
States reporting to EC on the results of 
monitoring of substances included in the 
Watch List, and Member States 
communicating inventories of emissions, 
discharges, and losses 

Four ROs covering information on 
preliminary flood risk assessment and areas 
of potential significant flood risk, flood 
hazard maps and flood risk maps, flood risk 
management plans, and units of 
management and competent authorities 

Six ROs covering information on 
information on the subdivision of marine 
regions and subregions, information on the 
competent authorities, preparation of initial 
assessment, determination of good 
environmental status, setting of 
environmental, monitoring programmes, 
programmes of measures, and interim report 
on programmes of measures 

81 

 
Ref. 
no. 

8 

9 

Title of environmental legislation 

Short title and 
abbreviation 

Short description of number and 
subject of reporting obligations (ROs) 

Council Directive 98/83/EC on the 
quality of water intended for 
human consumption  

Drinking Water 
Directive (DWD) 

One RO covering information on report on 
quality of water for human consumption 

Directive 2006/7/EC concerning 
the management of bathing water 
quality  

Bathing Water 
Directive (BWD) 

Three ROs covering information on 
monitoring and classification of bathing 
waters, identification of bathing areas, and 
written observations on Commission report 

10 

Council Directive 92/43/EEC on 
the conservation of natural habitats 
and of wild fauna and flora 

Habitats Directive 
(HD) 

11 

Directive 2009/147/EC (Codified 
version) replacing Directive 
79/409/EEC) on the conservation 
of wild birds 

Birds Directive 
(BD) 

12 

EU Regulation (EU) No. 
1143/2014 on Invasive Alien 
Species 

Invasive Alien 
Species Regulation 
(IAS) 

13 

Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 
concerning the establishment of a 
European Pollutant Release and 
Transfer Register  

European Pollutant 
Release and 
Transfer Register 
(E-PRTR) 

14 

Directive 2010/75/EU of 24 
November 2010 on industrial 
emissions (integrated pollution 
prevention and control) (Recast)  

Industrial 
Emissions 
Directive (IED) 

82 

Four ROs covering information on the 
implementation report, the national report on 
derogations, information on compensation 
measures, and information on Natura 2000 
sites 

Four ROs covering information on the 
implementation report, the national report on 
derogations, information on compensation 
measures, and information on Natura 2000 
sites 

Three ROs covering information on 
reporting on various issues, including on the 
surveillance system, actions plans, 
eradication and management measures etc., 
information on competent authorities, and 
information on provisions on penalties 

Two ROs covering information on the report 
covering data reported by industrial facilities 
covering 65 economic activities within 9 
industrial sectors, and a single report based 
on the information from the last 3 reporting 
years 

Eleven ROs covering information on 
reporting obligations on IED-installations 
(including data on competent authorities, 
permit information (e.g. derogations), and 
baseline reports), the duty to inform 
Commission if derogations granted where 
failure to comply with ELVs is linked to 
interruption of supply of low-sulphur fuel, 
the duty to inform Commission if 
derogations granted where failure to comply 
with ELVs is linked to interruption of supply 
of gas, the communication of transitional 
plans covering selected pollutants from older 
combustion plants, changes to transitional 
plans, the plant to which the limited life 
derogation is applied, the inventory of 
exempted small isolated systems, the 
inventory of exempted district heating 
plants, the summary of inventories of 
combustion plant emissions and energy 
input, data on fuel used by combustions 

 
Ref. 
no. 

Title of environmental legislation 

Short title and 
abbreviation 

Short description of number and 
subject of reporting obligations (ROs) 

benefitting from the derogation (article 31) 
for indigenous solid fuel, and data on 
operating hours of combustion plant 
operating less than 1500 hours per year 

Three ROs covering information on 
notification from a ship to its flag State and 
the competent authority of its port of 
destination when it cannot buy marine fuel 
in compliance with the directive and port 
state's notification to the Commission, 
information on sudden change in the supply 
and subsequent difficulty to apply the limits, 
and compliance report based on sampling, 
analysis and inspections 

One RO covering information on national 
emission inventories and emission 
projections 

15 

Directive 1999/32/EC on the 
sulphur content of certain liquid 
fuels 

Sulphur Directive 
(SD) 

16 

17 

18 

19 

Directive 2001/81/EC of 23 
October 2001 on national emission 
ceilings for certain atmospheric 
pollutants and the revised NECD  

National Emission 
Ceilings Directive 
(NEC) 

Council Directive 91/271/EEC 
concerning urban waste-water 
treatment  

Urban Wastewater 
Treatment 
Directive (UWWD) 

Three ROs covering information on the 
information on monitoring results, the 
situation report on the disposal of urban 
waste water and sludge in MS areas, and 
national implementation programmes 

Council Directive 91/676/EEC 
concerning the protection of waters 
against pollution caused by nitrates 
from agricultural source 

Nitrates Directive 
(ND) 

Three ROs covering information on the 
Monitoring and Implementation report, 
vulnerable zones notification, and details of 
MS codes of good agricultural practice to be 
implemented by farmers on voluntary basis 

Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 o 
of 25 November 2009 on the 
voluntary participation by 
organisations in a Community eco-
management and audit scheme 
(EMAS), repealing Regulation 
(EC) No 761/2001  

EMAS Regulation 

20 

Council Directive 1999/31/EC on 
the landfill of waste  

Landfill Directive  

83 

Three ROs covering information on 
communication of changes to the EMAS 
register, information on the structure and 
procedures relating to the functioning of the 
Competent Bodies and Accreditation and 
Licensing Bodies, and Member States shall 
report to the Commission updated 
information on the measures taken pursuant 
to this Regulation 

Four ROs covering information on the report 
on implementation of Directive, in particular 
on National Strategies required by Art 5, MS 
to notify Commission of exempted islands 
and isolated settlements, MS to notify 
Commission of national plan to reduce 
biodegradable waste to landfill, and MS 
seeking to postpone attainment of targets in 
Art 5 must inform Commission "in advance" 

 
 
Ref. 
no. 

Title of environmental legislation 

Short title and 
abbreviation 

Short description of number and 
subject of reporting obligations (ROs) 

21 

Directive 2006/21/EC on the 
management of waste from 
extractive industries and amending 
Directive 2004/35/EC 

Extractive (Mining) 
Waste Directive  

Three ROs covering information on MS 
implementation reports, including 
information on accidents or near-accidents, 
MS to transmit to Commission information 
on events notified by the operators of 
extractive waste facilities, and MS to notify 
Commission of exemptions under Article 
24.4 (facilities that stopped accepting waste 
before 1 May 2006, were completing closure 
procedures, or would be effectively closed 
by 31 December 2010) 

Two ROs covering information on the report 
on implementation, and reporting on special 
measures 

One RO covering information on penalties 
in place 

Volatile Organic 
Compound 
Directive (VOC) 

VOC-Stage II 
Directive 

Four ROs covering information on 
notification and information on major 
accidents, the report on implementation, 
information on establishments, and penalties 

Seveso III 
Directive  

Shale Gas 
Recommendation 

One RO covering information on the report 
on measures put in place in response to the 
Recommendation Note: reporting to the 
Commission which is then made publicly 
available 

Directive 94/63/EC on the control 
of volatile organic compound 
(VOC) emissions resulting from 
the storage of petrol and its 
distribution from terminals to 
service stations 

Directive 2009/126/EC on Stage II 
petrol vapour recovery during 
refuelling of motor vehicles at 
service stations 

Directive 2012/18/EU of 4 July 
2012 on the control of major-
accident hazards involving 
dangerous substances, amending 
and subsequently repealing 
Council Directive 96/82/EC 

Commission Recommendation of 
22 January 2014 on minimum 
principles for the exploration and 
production of hydrocarbons (such 
as shale gas) using high-volume 
hydraulic fracturing (2014/70/EU)  

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Council Directive 86/278/EEC on 
the protection of the soil, when 
sewage sludge is used in 
agriculture 

Sewage Sludge 
Directive 

27 

Directive 2008/98/EC of 19 
November 2008 on waste and 
repealing certain Directives 

Waste Framework 
Directive (WFD) 

84 

Two ROs covering information on the report 
on the use of sludge in agriculture: the 
quantities used, the criteria followed and any 
difficulties encountered, and information on 
the methods of treatment and the results of 
the analyses 

Six ROs covering information on MS 
implementation reports, including info on 
waste oil management, reuse & recycling 
targets, progress on implementation of waste 
management & prevention programmes and 
changes to programmes, info on extended 
producer responsibility measures, MS to 
report on targets in the Directive, MS to 
notify Commission "without delay" 

 
Ref. 
no. 

Title of environmental legislation 

Short title and 
abbreviation 

Short description of number and 
subject of reporting obligations (ROs) 

deviations from the list of waste, MS to 
inform Commission of general rules 
specifying types & quantities of waste that 
may be covered by a permit exemption as 
per Article 24, method of treatment to be 
used, and specific conditions for exemptions 
relating to hazardous waste, MS to notify 
Commission of case by case decisions on 
whether certain waste has ceased to be waste 
(in accordance with Directive 98/34/EC), 
and MS to notify Commission of any 
decision to limit incoming shipments of 
waste destined to incinerators that are 
classified as recovery 

Three ROs covering information on MS to 
notify Commission of provisions/rules on 
penalties applicable to infringements of the 
Regulation's provisions, and to notify 
Commission of any subsequent amendment 
affecting them, the competent body 
awarding the EU Ecolabel to a product to 
notify the Commission thereof, and the 
competent body to inform all other 
competent bodies & Commission of 
prohibition of use of the EU Ecolabel on a 
product 

Eight ROs covering information on MS 
report to Basel Convention Secretariat & 
Commission on waste shipments, MS 
additional report to Commission on waste 
shipments, MS to inform Commission of 
deviations from the export prohibition 
provision of Art 36, MS with overseas 
countries/territories to notify Commission if 
they apply national procedures to shipments 
from those overseas countries & territories, 
MS to notify Commission of national 
legislation relating to prevention & detection 
of illegal shipments & penalties for such 
shipments, MS to notify Commission of 
designations & details of: competent 
authorities (Art 53); correspondents (Art 
54); and where appropriate customs offices 
(Art 55), MS to inform Commission of 
provisions of national law adopted pursuant 
to Art 6 on financial guarantee, and MS to 
inform Commission of their system for 
supervision & control of shipments of waste 
exclusively within their jurisdiction 

Seven ROs covering information on MS 
implementation reports, MS reports on 
compliance with batteries collection targets, 
MS reports on compliance with batteries 
recycling targets, MS to transmit to 

28 

Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of 25 
November 2009 on the EU Eco-
label + individual  Commission 
Decisions establishing criteria for 
the 32 product groups  

Eco-label 
Regulation 

29 

Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on 
shipments of waste  

Waste Shipment 
Regulation 

30 

Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries 
and accumulators and waste 
batteries and accumulators 

Batteries Directive 

85 

 
Ref. 
no. 

Title of environmental legislation 

Short title and 
abbreviation 

Short description of number and 
subject of reporting obligations (ROs) 

Commission voluntary agreements related to 
Arts 8, 15 & 20, and to report to the 
Commission on their results, MS to notify 
Commission of measures related to the 
implementation of any economic 
instruments to promote the collection of 
waste batteries/ accumulators or to promote 
the use of batteries/ accumulators containing 
less polluting substances, MS to notify 
Commission & other MS of draft measures 
(and grounds for proposing them) to exempt 
small producers from Article 16(1) 
requirements, and MS to notify Commission 
of draft measures to allow disposal of certain 
types of batteries/ accumulators in landfills 
or underground storage 

Six ROs covering information on MS 
implementation reports, waste packaging 
yearly statistics report, waste packaging 
hazardous contents report and other 
voluntary data on packaging and packaging 
waste, before adopting economic 
instruments, MS to notify Commission of 
drafts the intended measures, MS to inform 
Commission if they have, or will, set 
programmes going beyond the targets of 
Article 6, and MS to communicate to 
Commission the text of their national 
standards on essential requirements 

One RO covering information on MS to 
draw up: plans for decontamination and/or 
disposal of inventoried equipment and its 
PCBs; and outlines for collection & 
subsequent disposal of equipment not 
subject to inventory 

Five ROs covering information on MS 
implementation reports, ELV 
reuse/recycling/ recovery targets compliance 
report, MS to transmit to Commission 
agreements to transpose provisions of Arts 
4(1), 5(1), 7(1), 8(1), 8(3) & 9(2) and to 
specify detailed rules of implementation of 
Art 5(4), and to report to Commission on 
their results, MS making use of Art 5(3) 
must inform Commission of the reason why, 
and MS to inform Commission & other MS 
of reason for laying down lower targets for 
vehicles produced before 1 Jan 1980 

Seven ROs covering information on MS 
implementation reports, MS to collect 
information on quantities & categories of 
EEE placed on their markets, collected 
through all routes, prepared for re-use, 

31 

Directive 94/62/EC on packaging 
and packaging waste  

Packaging Waster 
Directive 

32 

Directive 96/59/EC on the disposal 
of polychlorinated biphenyls and 
polychlorinated terphenyls 
(PCB/PCT)  

PCB Directive 

33 

Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of 
life vehicles  

End-of life 
Vehicles Directive 
(ELV) 

34 

Directive 2012/19/EU by 
14/2/2014 on waste electrical and 
electronic equipment (WEEE)  

WEEE Directive 

86 

 
Ref. 
no. 

Title of environmental legislation 

Short title and 
abbreviation 

Short description of number and 
subject of reporting obligations (ROs) 

recycled & recovered within the MS, and on 
separately collected WEEE exported, by 
weight, MS to report to Commission if they 
set more ambitious rates for separate 
collection of WEEE, MS to transmit to 
Commission agreements to transpose 
provisions of Arts 8(6), 14(2) & 15, and to 
report to Commission on their results, MS to 
notify Commission of provisions re rules on 
penalties applicable to infringements of the 
national provisions adopted pursuant to the 
Directive, and notify Commission of any 
subsequent amendment affecting them, MS 
making use of derogation from Art 5(2)(b) 
(re return of WEEE to distributor) to inform 
the Commission, and MS which opt to set up 
minimum quality standards for treatment of 
collected WEEE shall inform the 
Commission thereof 

One RO covering information on MS to 
notify Commission of provisions re rules on 
penalties applicable to infringements of the 
national provisions adopted pursuant to the 
Directive, and notify Commission of any 
subsequent amendment affecting them 

Five ROs covering information on MS to 
submit to Commission a copy of any permit 
issued for a facility designated to store 
metallic mercury temporarily or 
permanently, accompanied by the respective 
safety assessment pursuant to Art 4(1), MS 
to inform Commission on application & 
market effects of the Regulation in their 
territory, mercury importers, exporters and 
relevant economic operators to submit to the 
Commission and to MS concerned info on 
mercury volume, price and countries of 
origin and of destination and on the expected 
use of mercury and info on the volume, price 
and countries of origin and of destination of 
mercury waste when transported within the 
EU, economic operators targeted in Art. 2 to 
submit to Commission and MS info on 
quantity of mercury that is still used, stored 
and gained and on volume of mercury waste 
sent to waste storage facilities and contact 
details of such facilities, and MS to notify 
Commission of provisions on penalties 
applicable to infringements of the 
Regulation, and notify Commission of any 
subsequent amendment affecting them 

35 

Directive 2011/65/EU of 8 June 
2011 on the restriction of the use 
of certain hazardous substances in 
electrical and electronic equipment 
(RoHS) 

RoHS Directive 

36 

Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 of 
22 October 2008 on the banning of 
exports of metallic mercury and 
certain mercury compounds and 
mixtures and the safe storage of 
metallic mercury 

Mercury 
Regulation 

87 

 
 
Ref. 
no. 

37 

Title of environmental legislation 

Short title and 
abbreviation 

Short description of number and 
subject of reporting obligations (ROs) 

Directive 2004/42/EC on the 
limitation of emissions of volatile 
organic compounds due to the use 
of organic solvents in certain 
paints and varnishes and vehicle 
refinishing products  

Paints Directive 

One RO covering information on MS 
required to report to the Commission 
periodically on (i) their monitoring of 
compliance and (ii) quantities of products 
licensed under a derogation 

Five ROs covering information on MS to 
inform Commission in cases where 
prohibited substances occur in products 
already in use, the bbligation to inform the 
Commission on derogations granted under 
article 7 (4), information on application, 
including infringements and penalties, data 
on  volumes produced / placed on the 
market, and summary information on 
impacts 

One RO covering information on the report 
on the operation of the legislation 

38 

Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of 
29 April 2004 on persistent 
organic pollutants  

POPs Regulation 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 
concerning the Registration, 
Evaluation, Authorisation and 
Restriction of Chemicals 
(REACH) and establishing a 
European Chemicals Agency  

Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of 
16 December 2008 on 
classification, labelling and 
packaging of substances and 
mixture 

REACH Regulation 

CLP Regulation 

Two ROs covering information on 
competent authorities to inform 
Commission, where relevant, of cancellation 
of authorisations, and Member State report 
on implementation 

Regulation (EU) No 649/2012 of 4 
July 2012 concerning the export 
and import of hazardous chemicals  

PIC Regulation 

Two ROs covering information on operation 
of procedures under the Regulation, and 
quantities of chemicals exported 

Directive 2004/35/CE on 
environmental liability with regard 
to the prevention and remedying of 
environmental damage  

ELD Directive 

One RO covering information on the report 
on the experience gained in the application 
of this Directive 

Directive 2011/92/EU on the 
assessment of the effects of certain 
public and private projects on the 
environment , as amended by 
Directive 2014/52/EU, (EIA)  

EIA Directive 

Three ROs covering information from 
Members States to the Commission on 
certain EIA data, Member States have to 
inform the Commission on projects to be 
exempted from the application of the EIA 
Directive, and information from Member 
States on projects adopted by a specific act 
of national legislation 

88 

 
 
 
Ref. 
no. 

44 

45 

Title of environmental legislation 

Short title and 
abbreviation 

Short description of number and 
subject of reporting obligations (ROs) 

Directive 2001/42/EC on the 
assessment of the effects of certain 
plans and programmes on the 
environment (SEA)  

Directive 2007/2/EC establishing 
an Infrastructure for Spatial 
Information in the European 
Community (INSPIRE) (Including 
Commission Decision of 5 June 
2009 implementing Directive 
2007/2/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council as 
regards monitoring and reporting)  

SEA Directive 

INSPIRE Directive 

Two ROs covering information on the report 
on the application and effectiveness of the 
SEA Directive, and on the types of plans and 
programmes which would be subject to an 
environmental assessment 

Two ROs covering information on the 
country report on implementation and use of 
infrastructures for spatial information, and 
monitoring of implementation and use of 
infrastructures for spatial information 

46 

Directive 2003/4/EC on public 
access to environmental 
information  

Access to 
Information 
Directive (A2I) 

One RO covering information on the report 
on experience gained in the application of 
the Directive 

Council Regulation (EC) No 
338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the 
protection of species of wild fauna 
and flora by regulating trade 
therein (Including Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 939/97 of 26 
May 1997 laying down detailed 
rules concerning the 
implementation of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the 
protection of species of wild fauna 
and flora by regulating trade 
therein) 

Council Regulation (EEC) No 
348/81 on common rules for 
imports of whales or other 
cetacean products 

Council Directive 83/129/EEC of 
28 March 1983 concerning the 
importation into Member States of 
skins of certain seal pups and 
products derived there from  

Regulation No 511/2014 on 
Access to Genetic Resources and 
the Fair and Equitable Sharing of 
Benefits Arising from their 
Utilization in the Union (including 
Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2015/1866)   

47 

48 

49 

50 

Two ROs covering information on annual 
reports, and biennial reports 

Wildlife Trade 
Regulation 
(CITES) 

Whales Regulation 

One RO covering information on names and 
addresses of the authorities 

One RO covering information on necessary 
measures 

Seal Products 
Directive 

Three ROs covering information on the 
report on application of the Regulation, 
notification on collection, and notification 
on competent authorities and focal points 

ABS Regulation 

89 

 
Ref. 
no. 

51 

Title of environmental legislation 

Short title and 
abbreviation 

Short description of number and 
subject of reporting obligations (ROs) 

Council Regulation (EC) No 
2173/2005 of 20 December 2005 
on the establishment of a FLEGT 
licensing scheme for imports of 
timber into the European 
Community  

FLEGT Regulation  

Two ROs covering information on the report 
with quantitative data on timber imports, 
licences granted and enforcement, and 
notification of circumvention of the 
Regulation 

52 

Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of 
20 October 2010 laying down the 
obligations of operators who place 
timber and timber products on the 
market  

Timber Regulation  

53 

Regulation (EU) No 1257/2013 on 
ship recycling 

Ship Recycling 
Regulation 

Four ROs covering information on the report 
on implementation of the regulation and 
effectiveness of the prohibition of the 
placing on the market of illegally harvested 
timber and timber products, EC information 
on the names of competent authorities or 
changes to their contact details, information 
about the monitoring organisation no longer 
compliant with the regulation, and exchange 
information on serious shortcomings 

Three ROs covering information on the 
report  by MS on the application of the 
Regulation, MS to communicate list of 
authorised ship recycling facilities and EC to 
publish a European List of ship recycling 
facilities, and MS to designate competent 
authorities and administrations responsible 
for application of the Regulation, and 
contact persons responsible for informing or 
advising natural or legal persons making 
enquiries 

54 

55 

Directive (EU) 2015/2193 of 25 
November 2015 on the limitation 
of emissions of certain pollutants 
into the air from medium 
combustion plants 

Medium 
Combustion Plants 
Directive (MCP) 

Two ROs covering information on MS 
required to report on implementation to EC, 
and the report with an estimate of the total 
annual emissions of CO 

Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of 
16 September 2009 on trade in seal 
products (including Implementing 
Regulation No 2015/1850) 

Seals Products 
Directive 

Three ROs covering information on the 
report on application of the Regulation, 
notification on penalties and enforcement, 
and notification of designated competent 
authorities 

56 

Council Directive 87/217/EEC of 
19 march 1987 on the prevention 
and reduction of environmental 
pollution by asbestos 

Asbestos Directive 

Two ROs covering information on MS to 
notify to Commission the procedures and 
methods for measuring asbestos emissions 
and releases from industrial discharge ducts 
and facilities manufacturing asbestos cement 
and paper and board, and MS to report to 
Commission on implementation of the 
Directive 

90 

 
 
 
Ref. 
no. 

57 

Title of environmental legislation 

Short title and 
abbreviation 

Short description of number and 
subject of reporting obligations (ROs) 

Regulation (EC) No 401/2009 of 
23 April 2009 on the European 
Environment Agency and the 
European Environment 
Information and Observation 
Network 

EEA Regulation  

One RO covering information on MS shall 
keep the Agency informed of the main 
component elements of their national 
environment information networks 

58 

Directive 2010/63/EU of 22 
September 2010 on the protection 
of animals used for scientific 
purposes 

Animal Testing 
Directive  

Three ROs covering information on 
Implementation of the Directive and in 
particular Articles 10(1), 26, 28, 34, 38, 39, 
43, statistical information on the use of 
animals and procedures, including 
information on the actual severity of the 
procedures and the origin and species of 
non-human primates used in procedures, and 
exemptions granted under Article 6(4)(a) 
from killing methods contained in Annex IV 

91 

 
 
 
 
List of environmental legislation not included in the scope of the Fitness Check 

Title of environmental legislation 

Reason for being out of scope 

59 

Council Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 
relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos  

No reporting obligations were 
identified 

Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 of 4 
November 1991 prohibiting the use of leg-hold traps 
in the Community and the introduction into the 
Community of pelts and manufactured goods of 
certain wild animal species originating in countries 
which catch them by means of leg-hold traps or 
trapping methods which do not meet international 
humane trapping standards  

No reporting obligations were 
identified 

Regulation 1367/2006 on the application of the 
Aarhus Convention to Community institutions and 
bodies  

The reporting obligations under it were 
placed on the Commission and were 
not linked to MS reporting 

Directive 2003/35/EC providing for public 
participation in respect of drawing up of certain plans 
and programmes relating to the environment and 
amending with regard to public participation and 
access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 
96/61/EC  

The reporting obligations under it were 
placed on the Commission and were 
not linked to MS reporting 

Council Directive 2006/11//EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 
on the protection of groundwater against pollution 
and deterioration  

No reporting obligations were 
identified beyond the ones foreseen in 
the Water Framework Directive 

Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 
on the establishment of a Programme for the 
Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) and 
repealing Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 

Financial instrument for which 
different budgetary reporting 
obligations apply (note that this is 
though subject to a separate 
evaluation) 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

92 

 
 
 
 
8.2.  Annex 2: Procedural information 

Lead DG and internal references  

The  "Fitness Check of  monitoring and reporting obligations in  environment policy" was led 
by DG Environment. It was included as item 2017/ENV/002 in the Agenda Planning (AP) and 
as Commission's REFIT Initiative item 9 in the Commission Work Programme of 2016149 as 
well as part of package item 21 "A more strategic approach to enforcement of EU law" in the 
Commission Work Programme of 2017150.  

This initiative is linked to two other actions delivered in 2016, the Commission Staff Working 
Document  "Towards  a  Fitness  Check  of  EU  environmental  monitoring  and  reporting:  to 
ensure  effective  monitoring,  more  transparency  and  focused  reporting  of  EU  environment 
policy" (SWD(2016) 188, AP no. 2016/ENV/084) and the proposal to repeal the Standardised 
Reporting  Directive  (91/692/EEC)  and  related  questionnaires  (COM(2016)  789,  AP  no. 
2016/ENV/089).  

Organisation and timing 

An  inter-service  steering  group  (ISG)  was  set  up  in  November  2015  (Ares(2015)5058423  - 
13/11/2015) with representatives from the Directorate Generals for Environment; Agriculture 
and  Rural  Development;  Climate  Action;  Communication  Networks,  Content  and 
Technology;  Energy;  Eurostat;  Financial  Stability,  Financial  Services  and  Capital  Markets 
Union;  Health  and  Food  Safety;  Humanitarian  Aid  &  Civil  Protection;  Informatics;  Internal 
Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs; Joint Research Centre; Justice and Consumers; 
Maritime  Affaires  and  Fisheries;  Mobility  and  Transport;  Regional  and  Urban  Policy; 
Research  and  Innovation,  the  Legal  Service  and  the  Secretariat  General.  In  addition, 
representatives  from  the  European  Environmental  Agency  were  invited  to  the  meetings  as 
experts. Moreover, the Internal Audit Service joined some of the meetings in the light of their 
work  on  the  internal  audit  of  the  process  for  managing  and  sharing  on  agri-environmental-
climate issues in DG AGRI, DG CLIMA and DG ENV.  

Table of Annex 2: ISG meeting dates and topics of discussion as well as other consultations 

Date 

01.12.2015 

Topics of discussion 

Fitness  Check  Mandate  (draft  Roadmap);  Questionnaire  for  the  Public 
Consultation  and  document  for  consultation  strategy.  Presentation  of 
first  draft  proposal  for  the  Repeal  of  the  Standardised  Reporting 
Directive  (SRD).  Outline  of  Commission  Staff  Working  Document 
which  was  subsequently  circulated  for  comments.  Information  on 
outcome  of  the  first  Stakeholder  Workshop  and  the  cooperation  with 
"Make It Work" initiative. 

18.05.2016 

Terms of References for the actual Fitness Check study by the external 
consultant (extension to support contract); Presentation of interim results 
of  ongoing  preparatory  work  and  evidence  gathering  by  the  external 
consultant; Presentation of results from Public Consultation.  

149  
150  

Annex II of COM(2015) 610 
Annex 1 of COM(2016) 710 

93 

 
                                                 
Date 

12.10.2016 

07.12.2016 

Topics of discussion 

Presentation  of  preliminary  results  of  supporting  study  send  to  ISG 
Members by email for comments until 14 October; First draft of Fitness 
Check Commission Staff Working Document.  

Final Meeting of the ISG before the RSB; Presentation of the final draft 
of  the  supporting  study  and  the  complete  draft  Fitness  Check  Staff 
Working Document;  Comments (at the meeting and  in  writing) invited 
to  both  documents.  Discussion  on  the  quality  assessment  of  the 
supporting  study  concluding  positively  about  the  quality  of  the  work 
done. The form for Quality Assessment of the supporting study will be 
completed  once  the  final  version  of  the  study  is  approved  in  February 
2017.  

08.02.2017 

Final  meeting  before  the  adoption;  presentation  of  the  outcome  of  the 
Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board.  Presentation  and  discussion  of  the  draft 
Communication including the follow up actions with possibility to send 
written comments.  

In  addition,  a  DG  Environment  Focus  Group  was  set  up  which  involved  all  affected  or 
interested  Directorates  and  Units  within  DG  Environment  as  well  as  the  main  service 
providers for reporting, namely the European Environment Agency, the Joint Research Centre 
and Eurostat. The Focus Group met eleven times between September 2015 and January 2017. 
It prepared, reviewed and validated the evidence base for this Fitness Check.  

Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board has discussed the file at its meeting on the 1 February 2017 
and  issued  a  positive  opinion  on  3  February  2017151.  The  Board  highlighted  aspects  for 
improvement:  

In addition, the Board identified further considerations in relation to design and methodology, 
efficiency  and  effectiveness,  coherence  and  validity  of  the  conclusions  and  relevance  for 
further  action.  All  the  issues  identified  by  the  Board  have  been  taken  into  account  when 
finalising the Fitness Check evaluation.  

151  

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/reporting/fc_overview_en.htm 

94 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
RSB comment 

Action taken 

Better  explain  and  justify  the  scope  of 
the fitness check 

Amend conclusions to draw lessons from 
concrete  findings  and  clearly  identify 
areas for further work as well as refining 
relevance  and 
the 
coherence  to  fully  reflect  the  identified 
shortcomings 

conclusions  on 

The  titles  has  been  changed,  Section  1.2 
updated,  terminology  checked  throughout 
to  make  clearer  differences  between 
environmental  monitoring,  reporting  and 
regulatory monitoring.  

The  Annexes  have  been  expanded 
to 
discuss  more  the  specific  problems  for 
specific  pieces  of  legislation:  in  particular 
Annex 8 sets out quality issues by piece of 
legislation.  Summary  tables  have  been 
included  in  the  report  and  the  executive 
summary.  Discussion  of  simplification 
potential strengthened.  

on 

Provide  more  specific  and  operational 
and 
the 
conclusions 
inconsistencies 
reporting 
with 
obligations 
from  other  policy  areas 
(coherence section) 

overlaps 

of 

coherence 

Discussion 
expanded 
including  additional  reference  to  Internal 
findings.  Additional 
Audit 
information 
follow-up 
on 
envisaged.  

Service 

put 

the 

In addition, the Board identified further considerations in relation to design and methodology, 
efficiency  and  effectiveness,  coherence  and  validity  of  the  conclusions  and  relevance  for 
further  action.  All  the  issues  identified  by  the  Board  have  been  taken  into  account  when 
finalising the Fitness Check evaluation.  

External Expertise 

The  analysis  underpinning  this  Fitness  Check  was  undertaken  by  an  independent  study 
commissioned  by  DG  Environment.  The  "Study  to  Support  the  Review  of  Environmental 
Monitoring  and  Reporting  Obligations"  was  undertaken  by  a  consortium  of  ICF  Consulting 
Services in association with IEEP (Institute for European Environment Policy) and Denkstatt 
from 18 October 2015 until 18 February 2017. The initial study on general evidence gathering 
and  establishment  of  an  inventory  was  extended  following  the  adoption  of  the  Roadmap  to 
cover all relevant aspects to  support the preparation of the Fitness Check and following the 
consultation of the terms of references in the ISG.  

95 

 
 
 
8.3.  Annex 3: History of environmental reporting 

Since the 1970s, the amount of environment legislation has increased steadily. The question 
of reporting and how to organise this most effectively was on the agenda from the start, and 
the process of trying to streamline reporting can be shown through the milestones in the figure 
below.  

Figure: Main milestones in the history of environmental reporting  

Already  in  1991,  the  European  Economic  Community  adopted  a  Directive  to  streamline 
reporting and improve the ability of the Commission to monitor the application of EU law.  

The  next  milestone  was  the  establishment  of  the  European  Environment  Agency  (EEA)  in 
1994. As part of its mandate152, the EEA is tasked, in particular:  

 

 
 

 

to  provide  the  EU  and  the  Member  States  with  objective  information  necessary  for 
framing and implementing sound and effective environmental policies,  
to record, collate and assess data on the state of the environment,  
to draw up expert reports on the quality, sensitivity and pressures on the environment 
within the territory of the European Union, and 
to  provide  uniform  assessment  criteria  for  environmental  data  to  be  applied  in  all 
Member States.  

152  
Agency and the European environment information and observation network 

See Regulation (EEC) No 1210/90 of 7 May 1990 on the establishment of the European Environment 

96 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The Standardised Reporting Directive (SRD-91/692/EEC)153 – the first milestone 

The Directive aimed at rationalizing and improving, on a sectoral basis, the provisions on the 
transmission of information and the publication of reports. It covered  some 32 legal acts on 
the  protection  of  the  environment  at  the  time  (e.g.  in  the  areas  of  water  and  waste).  The 
Directive streamlined procedures and introduced a three-year reporting cycle for all covered 
legislation.  The  detailed  content  was  then  laid  down  in  sector  specific  questionnaires. 
Consequently,  a  large  number  of  implementing  acts  were  adopted  by  the  Commission  over 
the years. 

Over the last 25 years, the SRD proved to be difficult to implement, and became increasingly 
obsolete. The main drivers that eroded the SRD’s relevance were:  

(i) the development of the environmental  acquis, including revisions of individual pieces of 
environmental  legislation,  which  have  frequently  removed  reporting  obligations  from  the 
ambit of the SRD;  

(ii) radical progress in information and communications technologies (ICT);  

(iii) the European Environment Agency’s assistance to the reporting obligations; and  

(iv)  an  unprecedented  scale-up  of  the  need  for  timely,  cross-border,  and  interactive 
environmental information.  

As  a  result,  during  the  preparation  of  this  Fitness  Check  and  as  an  early  deliverable,  the 
Commission  proposed  the  repeal  of  the  SRD  and  its  implementing  acts  in  2016154.  A  more 
detailed overview on the SRD and an analysis of the effects is available155.  

Several sectoral initiatives, e.g. in the field of water or biodiversity policy, have contributed 
significantly  to  the  next  stage  of  modernising  reporting.  The  Water  Information  System  for 
Europe (WISE) was developed as a result of the Water Framework Directive which advocates 
an integrated and holistic approach to water management. It covers environmental monitoring 
and  reporting  of  all  water-related  legislation,  but  also  goes  beyond.  WISE  looks  at  ways  of 
streamlining legislative reporting with the EEA's state-of-the-environment data flows. Since it 
was launched in 2007, it has: 

led to a move to electronic reporting only, getting rid of paper reporting; 

 
  harmonised electronic reporting to build comparable publicly accessible EU datasets; 
  streamlined  with  State  of  the  Environment  reporting  to  avoid  duplication  and  ensure 

complementarity – "provide once, use often"; 

  stimulated  the  development  of  national  information  systems  (Sweden,  France,  Spain, 

Austria, Ireland…). 

Council  Directive  91/692/EEC  of  23  December  1991  standardizing  and  rationalizing  reports  on  the 

153  
implementation of certain Directives relating to the environment (OJ L 377, 31/12/1991, p. 48–54) 
154  
155  
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/reporting/pdf/Study_SRD_repeal_IEEP.pdf) 

COM(2016) 789 
"Study  on  the  Standardised  Reporting  Directive  (91/692/EEC)  repeal  -  background  document" 

97 

 
 
 
                                                 
What are the EEA’s EIONET and REPORTNET? 

The European Environment Agency (EEA) is an agency of the European Union. Its task is to 
provide  sound,  independent  information  on  the  environment.  The  EEA  coordinates  the 
European environment information and observation network (Eionet). 

The  EEA  has  33  member  countries  and  six  cooperating  countries.  Eionet  is  a  partnership 
network  of  the  EEA  and  the  countries.  The  EEA  is  responsible  for  developing  the  network 
and coordinating its activities. To do so, the EEA works closely together with national focal 
points,  typically  national  environment  agencies  or  environment  ministries.  They  are 
responsible for coordinating national networks involving many institutions (about 350 in all). 

In  order  to  manage  reporting  in  operational  terms,  the  EEA  set  up  Reportnet156  an 
infrastructure for supporting and improving data and information flows. Reportnet is based on 
a set of inter-related tools and processes which all build on the active use of the World Wide 
Web.  Reportnet  has  been  in  operational  use  since  2002.  It  was  initially  used  for  reporting 
environmental data to EEA, but now also hosts some of DG Environment’s reporting tasks. 

The Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE) is a single entry point for data and 
information on biodiversity supporting the implementation of the EU strategy and the Aichi 
targets in Europe. Bringing together facts and figures on biodiversity and ecosystem services, 
it links to related policies, environmental data centres, assessments and research findings from 
various  sources.  It  is  being  developed  to  strengthen  the  knowledge  base  in  support  of  the 
implementation  of the EU biodiversity strategy and the assessment of progress  in achieving 
the 2020 targets. 

Since  then,  also  the  use  of  information  technology  (IT)  has  expanded  and  reporting  has 
become increasingly electronic. Using electronic means for transmission and making reported 
data available online, e.g. through maps, triggered the need to define and harmonise electronic 
data  standards.  As  a  result,  the  INSPIRE  Directive157  was  adopted  in  2007  to  create  a 
European Union spatial data infrastructure for the purposes of EU environmental policies and 
policies or activities which may have an impact on the environment. The INSPIRE Directive 
sets technical standards for the interoperability of spatial data and for the online availability of 
data discovery and access services, therefore promoting comparability and data sharing.  

The  related  development  of  the  Shared  Environment  Information  System  (SEIS)158, 
introduced a more modern and effective, horizontal approach on information management and 
reporting. The Commission concluded at the time that "[…] a key step in implementing SEIS, 
and especially to trigger  the expected simplification benefits,  will be to modernise the legal 
provisions relating to the way in which information required by environmental legislation is 
made available. It is expected that this will be done by revising the Standardised Reporting 
directive  91/692/EC,  which  needs  to  be  updated  and  brought  into  line  with  the  SEIS 
principles. To this  end,  the Commission  intends to  come forward  with  a relevant legislative 
proposal  in  2008,  including  a  repeal  of  outdated  provisions  in  the  current  standardised 
reporting directive."  

156  
https://www.eionet.europa.eu/reportnet 
157  
Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an 
Infrastructure  for  Spatial  Information  in  the  European  Community  (INSPIRE)  (for  more  details,  see 
http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/) 
158  

COM(2008) 46 of 1 February 2008 

98 

 
                                                 
The Impact Assessment159 conducted for the preparation of SEIS highlights issues which are 
still pertinent today. In particular the following conclusion: "A major challenge in Europe and 
globally  is  to  organise  the  vast  array  of  already  collected  environmental  data  and 
information, to integrate these, where desirable, with existing data and information from the 
social and economic realms, to make them available together with tools that allow experts to 
do their own analyses, and to communicate them in ways which the public policy makers and 
the public can readily understand and use as a basis for their own actions. At the same time, 
Member  States  and  EU institutions  need  an  efficient  and  modern  'reporting  system'  to  fulfil 
their  legal  obligations  related  to  Community  and  international  environmental  policies  and 
legislation, avoiding duplication of efforts, overlapping and redundancies." 

Ultimately,  the  Commission  decided  not  to  come  forward  with  a  new  legal  instrument  on 
reporting  but  to  pursue  this  agenda  through  a  non-legal  approach  (see  EU  Shared 
Environmental  Information  System-Implementation  Outlook160)  combined  with  coordinated 
action in the different environmental policy areas (such as water, air, nature, etc.). 

In  2012,  the  Commission’s  Implementation  Communication161  put  emphasis  on  the 
importance  of  a  reliable  and  accessible  knowledge  base  and  set  out  ideas  to  improve  the 
collection and dissemination of knowledge both at national and EU level. For example, more 
systematic  information  and  active  dissemination  would  ensure  up-to-date  and  comparable 
information across Europe and would allow earlier identification of implementation problems. 
The  Strutured  Information  and  Implementation  (SIIF)162  projects  translated  these  ideas  into 
practical examples.  

This  history  illustrates  the  long-standing  effort  to  streamline  reporting  and  reduce  the 
administrative  burden  to  collectors,  reporters  and  users.  The  Fitness  Check  takes  this  story 
forwards  another  chapter:  however,  as  a  horizontal  exercise  it  has  to  be  seen  together  and 
coordinated with the efforts in the different sectoral areas of environment policy. In particular, 
it  needs  to  ensure  that  the  regular  evaluation  and  critical  review  of  the  provisions  and 
practices in specific pieces of legislation that takes place in future, takes place with a cross-
cutting perspective. 

SEC(2008) 111 
SWD(2013) 18 of 25 January 2013 
“Improving the delivery of benefits from EU environment measures: building confidence through better 

159  
160  
161  
knowledge and responsiveness” (COM(2012) 95) 
162  
SIIF  Principles:  Focus  on  compliance;  Be  easy  to  access  and  focus  on  user's  need;  be  up-to-date, 
accurate and comparable; be forward looking; decentralize, self-assess and qualify; share automatically; increase 
efficiency  and  reduce  administrative  burden;  develop  step-by-step.  As  an  example,  see  the  open  source  urban 
waste water website that has implemented these principles: http://uwwtd.oieau.fr/ and will be replicated for the 
other 27 Member States. 

99 

 
 
 
                                                 
8.4.  Annex 4: Synopsis report of stakeholder consultation 

Executive Summary 

The  Commission  launched  an  online  public  consultation  from  November  2015  to  February 
2016. In total, 150 responses were received, mainly from public authorities, business and non-
governmental  organisations.163  The  responses  to  this  public  consultation  fed  into  the 
Commission's  fitness  check  of  reporting  obligations.  The  Commission  also  organised  a 
number  of  stakeholder  events  to  discuss  environmental  reporting  in  November  2015,  April, 
September  and  December  2016.164  Moreover,  input  and  feedback  was  received  by  the 
Committee of the Regions and by the 'Make It Work' project, a Member State-led initiative.  

The main conclusions that can be summarized based on the online consultation are as follows:  

- A majority of respondents are fairly satisfied with existing reporting arrangements, although 
they see some specific areas for improvement in certain policy domains.  
- Respondents generally regard existing information requirements as appropriate, with some 
exceptions.  
Efficiency  of  most  reporting  requirements  were  viewed  as  neutral,  with  specific  areas  of 
improvement  possible.  -  In  terms  of  the  principles  and  objectives  of  reporting,  respondents 
felt  that  the  most  important  principle  is  that  reporting  should  collect  information  once,  and 
share it where possible for many purposes.  
- The EU is seen as the most appropriate level of governance for harmonisation of reporting 
processes.  
- Respondents generally felt that IT systems have significant potential to support streamlining 
of reporting processes and reduced administrative burden.  

The Stakeholder Workshops provided input and evidence and reviewed the draft final 
supporting study, in particular its draft conclusions. Overall, there was broad support for the 
findings of the study and some specific suggestions for improvements were made at the final 
stakeholder event, e.g. the potential for an enhanced use of citizens' science.  
The  findings  of  the  online  consultation  and  the  stakeholder  workshop  need  to  be  looked  at 
carefully and validated since the overall number of participants is not as high as it could have 
been.  

Aim of consultation activities 

The  stakeholder  consultation  is  used  to  identify  the  most  relevant  issues  in  relation  to  the 
reporting  and  to  collect  data  in  response  to  those  questions.  The  consultation  will  allow 
stakeholders to identify specific issues that they perceived as a problem and to explain why. 

The stakeholder consultation aims to approach all relevant stakeholders, in particular, national 
public  authorities  (central,  regional  or  local  government)  and  private  companies,  research 
organisations, universities and academic institutions, citizens, and NGOs. 

163  

164  

Summary of the public consultation is published on the following web page:  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/reporting/index_en.htm  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/reporting/workshops_en.htm  

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Public consultation - introduction and approach 

As  part  of  the  Fitness  Check,  the  Commission  launched  an  online  public  consultation  in 
November 2015. The consultation sought the views of stakeholders and the public about the 
principles  to  be  applied  in  setting  reporting  requirements,  as  well  as  current  shortcomings, 
overlaps and potential improvements that should be examined during the process. Moreover, 
the respondents were invited to provide evidence for the evaluation through the consultation 
process. 

The  public  consultation  took  the  form  of  an  online  questionnaire  and  ran  between  18 
November 2015 and 10 February 2016. Responses submitted late165 were also accepted after 
this  deadline.  The  questionnaire  included  15  questions.  These  were  organised  in  6  sections 
(introduction,  general  information,  general  principles  and  objectives  relating  to  reporting, 
current  perceptions,  areas  for  further  consideration  and  additional  evidence),  and  were 
presented in a variety of closed-ended and open-ended formats. Respondents were also invited 
to  submit  supporting  documentation,  as  relevant.  The  questions  of  the  consultation  were 
formulated so as to respect the Commission's new 'better regulation' requirements.  

To  ensure  transparency,  individual  contributions  were  made  publicly  available  on  the  DG 
ENV website166. Statistical contributions were evaluated via a customised spreadsheet model, 
while  the  qualitative  submissions  were  methodologically assessed  with  the  help  of  a  cluster 
analysis.  All  quantitative  figures  are  derived  from  a  dataset  that  was  retrieved  from  the 
consultation website. 

Participants to the public consultation 

A total of 150 responses were made by stakeholders, citizens and organisations across the EU. 
The  majority  of  these  (56%)  were  public  authorities,  including  EU  executive  agencies  and 
Member  State  national  authorities.  This  group  included  representatives  of  government 
departments  and  environmental  agencies  at  the  national  and  sub-national  level.  One  in  six 
respondents were individual citizens, while representatives of civil society organisations and 
professional bodies made up a further 9% of the sample each. A large number of responses 
were  received  from  individuals  or  organisations  based  in  Germany  (33%),  followed  by 
Belgium (22%), Denmark (7%), and the UK and Sweden (5% respectively).  

These  figures  mask  differences  in  the  profile  of  respondents;  the  relatively  high  number  of 
Belgian  responses  can  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  some  19/33  (58%)  of  these  are  pan-
European  organisations  or  institutions  based  in  Brussels.  Similarly,  of  the  high  number  of 
responses from Germany, some 23/49 (47%) represented state or municipal level authorities, 
with  the  remainder  representing  federal  (national)  level  authorities,  private  businesses  and 
civil society associations.  

Late  responses  were  received  after  the  formal  deadline  from  two  Member  State  authorities 
which  needed  to  undertake  extensive  cross-departmental  consultation  to  establish  common 
positions on the survey content. Whilst these survey responses were not included within the 
quantitative  analysis,  the  extensive  qualitative  evidence  and  position  statements  provided 
were integrated into the findings of the study report. The findings of the public consultation 
were presented at a stakeholder workshop, held in Brussels on 27 April 2016.  

165  
166  

Via the functional email address 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/reporting_en.htm 

101 

 
 
 
                                                 
Main outcomes of the public consultation 

The  majority  of  respondents  are  fairly  satisfied  with  existing  reporting  arrangements, 
although they see some specific areas for improvement in certain policy domains. Some 
65%  of  consultation  respondents  indicated  that  they  were  satisfied  or  fairly  satisfied  with 
existing arrangements, although nearly a third were dissatisfied. Public authorities appeared to 
report  the  highest  satisfaction  with  current  arrangements,  whilst  professional  organisations, 
private enterprise and academic/research institutions appeared amongst the most dissatisfied.  

Respondents  generally  regard  existing  information  requirements  as  appropriate,  with 
some  exceptions.  The  larger  proportion  of  respondents  felt  that  existing  amounts  of 
information  collected  in  the  air  quality  and  pollution  (51%),  chemicals  (68%),  noise  (61%) 
and waste (47%) were ‘about right’ to meet policy objectives. Respondents generally felt that 
more  information  was  required  in  relation  to  biodiversity  and  nature  protection,  natural 
resources  and  soil,  whilst  respondents  with  knowledge  of  water  policy  were  divided  on 
whether  existing  information  requirements  were  appropriate  or  too  demanding  –  with  some 
suggesting that this represents the heterogeneity of water resources across the EU.  

Most  reporting  requirements  were  viewed  as  neither  efficient  nor  inefficient,  with 
specific  areas  of  improvement  possible.  Noise  was  the  policy  domain  where  the  current 
process  was  thought  by  the  largest  share  of  respondents  to  be  efficient  (39%),  with  waste 
(30%) and natural resources (29%) having the greatest share of respondents viewing them as 
inefficient.  

In  terms  of  the  principles  and  objectives,  respondents  felt  that  the  most  important 
principle is that reporting should collect information once, and share it where possible 
for  many  purposes.  There  is  strong  support  for  the  INSPIRE  Directive167  as  a  means  to 
realise  this  principle  and  minimise  overlap.  The  most  important  objective,  meanwhile,  is  to 
allow  for  an  assessment  of  whether  EU  legal  obligations  are  being  met,  and  to  allow 
stakeholders to understand the environment and the actions taken to maintain and improve it. 
For both of these objectives, it was felt that there are possible areas for improvement in most 
policy domains.  

The  EU  is  seen  as  the  most  appropriate  level  of  focus  for  harmonisation  of  reporting 
processes. Whilst respondents acknowledged the growing range of national and international 
reporting  obligations,  they  generally  viewed  the  European  Commission  as  the  most 
appropriate area of focus for harmonisation between policy areas. Similarly, there was much 
legislation  and 
stronger  support  for  reporting  obligations  to  be  formalised  within 
harmonisation achieved through collaborative action rather than ad-hoc arrangements between 
Member States. 

Respondents  generally  felt  that  IT  systems  have  significant  potential  to  support 
streamlining  of  reporting  processes  and  reduced  administrative  burden.  Almost  all 
categories of respondents expressed the view that IT technology is not being used to its full 
potential and could support harmonisation of reporting between policy areas, with a majority 
agreeing that the INSPIRE Directive can help support a common approach and reduction in 
administrative  burden.  Nonetheless,  a  substantial  proportion  of  respondents  (67%)  felt  that 
more support is needed for Member States in preparing reports, including the development of 
common tools.  

167  

OJ L 108, 25.4.2007, p. 1–14 

102 

 
                                                 
Other consultation activities  

In  line  with  the  consultation  strategy,  Commission  services  organised  four  Stakeholder 
Workshops. Between 40-100 experts from Member States, other countries (such as Norway), 
EU institutions (European Parliament, Council and Committee of the Regions), business and 
non-governmental  organisations  took  part.  The  workshop  programmes,  the  documents  and 
presentations were made available online168 where also the summary reports can be found.  

The  Stakeholder  Workshops  discussed  the  approach  (1st  Workshop,  November  2015),  the 
outcome of the public consultation as well as some preliminary results (2nd Workshop, April 
2016),  the  interim  results  on  the  inventory  and  the  administrative  burden  assessment  (costs 
and  benefits)  (3rd  Workshop,  September  2016)  as  well  as  the  draft  final  study  report  (4th 
Workshop, December 2016). All workshops were also an opportunity for experts to provide 
input and evidence to the evaluation and several experts made use of this opportunity.  

The input to all workshops was substantial and well informed and overall there was support 
for  the  Fitness  Check  and  its  approach.  Particular  emphasis  was  given  to  ensure  that  the 
benefits  of  reporting  received  similar  attention  in  the  evaluation  as  the  costs.  In  the  final 
workshop,  the  draft  final  study  report  was  circulated  and  discussed,  in  particular  the 
conclusions. Overall, stakeholders found that the support study contained a large number of 
useful findings, observations and proposals, in particular the last two sections (9.4 Emerging 
options  for  improving  the  system,  9.5  Information  gaps  and  further  research  needs)  were 
considered  as  helpful.  Moreover,  the  ideas  for  cross-sectoral  integration,  harmonisation  and 
simplification were appreciated.  

In addition to the stakeholder events, the Commission services followed and collaborated with 
the parallel reporting project of the 'Make It Work' (MiW) initiative. This Member State-led 
initiative was launched by the Netherlands  (Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment) 
and  the  United  Kingdom  (Department  for  Environment,  Food  &  Rural  Affairs).  Now  the 
project  team  includes  in  addition  representatives  from  Germany  (Federal  Ministry  of 
Environment,  Nature  Conservation,  Building  and  Nuclear  Safety),  Sweden  (Ministry  of 
Environment and Energy) and Czech Republic (Ministry of the Environment). The aim of the 
project is to identify concrete opportunities to improve the quality of EU environmental law 
and  thus  help  to  achieve  the  benefits  associated  with  the  law  while  delivering  a  more  level 
playing  field  across  the  EU.  In  particular,  it  aims  at  establishing  a  more  coherent  and 
consistent framework for the EU environmental acquis through developing drafting principles 
on  the  use  of  cross-cutting  instruments  and  procedures  in  EU  environmental  directives  and 
regulations.  

The  first  project  of  MiW  focused  on  compliance  assurance.  In  2015,  MiW  also  started 
working  on  environmental  reporting  looking  at  cross-cutting  principles  to  streamline  and 
improve  it.  The  first  stakeholder  workshop  in  November  2015  was  co-organized  between 
Commission services (DG Environment) and MiW and included a specific session organised 
by  the  MiW  project  where  national  experts  had  a  chance  to  discuss  their  experiences  as 
regards reporting. Throughout  the Fitness  Check, the MiW team participated actively in  the 
stakeholder workshops and provided useful evidence for the support study. On 22 November 
2016, the MiW initiative published its final document169 on "Drafting principles for smarter 
environmental  reporting"  which  was  also  presented  at  the  4th  Stakeholder  Workshop.  This 

168  
169  
work/subjects/2015/08/monitoring-and-reporting 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/reporting/workshops_en.htm 
http://www.ieep.eu/work-areas/environmental-governance/better-regulation/make-it-

103 

 
                                                 
document  provides  a  useful  complement  to  the  evaluation.  In  their  presentation,  the  MiW 
team recognised that the findings of the support study for the Fitness Check align well with 
their findings and suggestions.  

Another  consultation  and  collaboration  took  place  with  the  Committee  of  the  Regions. 
Following  an  exchange  with  the  Commission,  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  prepared  and 
adopted  an  Outlook  Opinion  entitled  "EU  environment  law:  improving  reporting  and 
compliance"  in  its  session  of  7  April  2016  (CDR  5660/2015)170.  Also  following  the 
finalization  of  the  opinion,  experts  of  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  were  involved  in  the 
Stakeholder Workshops.  

170  
5660/2015 

http://cor.europa.eu/en/activities/opinions/pages/opinion-factsheet.aspx?OpinionNumber=CDR 

104 

 
 
                                                 
8.5.  Annex  5:  Methods  and  Analytical  models  used  in  preparing  the  Fitness 

Check 

This Fitness Check is one of the first on reporting obligations, and can be seen as a pilot for 
the future analysis of reporting obligations in the rest of the European Union acquis. 

The evaluation is underpinned by a comprehensive support study prepared by ICF, IEEP and 
Denkstatt  (2017)171:  "Support  to  the  Fitness  Check  of  monitoring  and  reporting  obligations 
arising from EU environmental legislation". The study report documents the method, data and 
evidence in more detail. The analysis basically took place on the basis of information and data 
gathering  and  on  the  assessment  of  the  costs  and  benefits  of  reporting  obligations  in  the 
support study.  

First,  the  gathering  of  data  on  the  existing  reporting  obligations  was  conducted  and  their 
expected  role  and  impacts  was  clarified.  Second,  an  assessment  of  the  costs  and  benefits  of 
reporting obligations was undertaken and third, the existing obligations were evaluated along 
the five Better Regulation evaluation criteria and based on the information gathered in the first 
two steps. 

The  legislative  obligations  considered  in  the  Fitness  Check  were  identified  in  an  internal 
screening exercise of the whole EU acquis under the responsibility of the Directorate-General 
for the Environment of the European Commission. The results of the screening were used to 
establish an extensive inventory in late 2015 which was updated and refined throughout 2016.  

As a general rule, the analysis in this report is mainly retrospective assessing the obligations 
currently  in  force.  Some  predictions  are  also  included  as  regards  agreed  or  planned 
streamlining of reporting (e.g. the Commission  proposals on waste of December 2015  –  see 
section 3.2).  

Preparatory work, evidence gathering and some consultations started in the summer of 2015, 
alongside the start of the validation process for the Evaluation Roadmap, which was required 
before  work  could  officially  begin.  The  detailed  Fitness  Check  evaluation  started  after  the 
Commission approved the Evaluation Roadmap in March 2016 with in particular the signature 
of the evaluation support study. Stakeholders were consulted on and involved in agreeing the 
methodology. 

Due to the horizontal and specific nature of this Fitness Check, no modelling was done in the 
framework of this Fitness Check. Therefore, also no baseline scenario was developed and the 
analysis describes the current situation.  

Analysis of benefits 

An attempt was made to identify the qualitative benefits for each RO in the above-mentioned 
fiches40. This shows that all ROs aim to fulfil the compliance checking purpose and, in many 
cases, some of the additional purposes mentioned above. However, the purpose and benefits 
varies by reporting obligation. Some ROs (e.g. those relating to bathing water and air quality) 
also  provide  also  important  environmental  information  to  the  public.  Other  ROs  help 
demonstrate  that  a  particular  industrial  sector  is  innovative  and  environmentally  friendly  by 
publicly disseminating emission data of individual facilities (e.g. under the E-PRTR) or that 

171  

Published online (ISBN: 978-92-79-6626-5 / EUR - KH-01-17-202-EN-N – EN) 

105 

 
                                                 
some agricultural practices are more beneficial (less polluting) for the environment than others 
(e.g. under the Nitrates Directive).  

Reported  information  is  also  essential  for  wider,  cross-cutting  and  integrated  environmental 
assessment  such  as  the  EEA's  State-of-the-Environment  report.  The  benefits  of  information 
stemming  from  individual  pieces  of  legislation  (e.g.  air  quality)  are  important  but  could  be 
further  enhanced  if  available  in  a  more  harmonised  and  interoperable  way  to  allow  for 
addressing cross-cutting issues.  

At the same time, some ROs have been less beneficial than originally foreseen. In most such 
cases,  steps  are  being  taken  to  address  this  issue,  either  by  repealing  the  obligation  or  by 
improving the quality and consistency of reporting.  

The use of environmental reporting in compliance verification is also providing information 
and  arguments  for  potential  subsequent  enforcement  action.  A  study  of  244  infringement 
cases concluded that the potential beneficial monetary value of compliance with EU law achieved 
through enforcement is very high. For example, improving the quality of bathing water and its 
impact  on  health  and  the  economy  (Bathing  Water  Directive).  "The  benefits  of  improved 
bathing  water  quality  were  estimated  to  amount  to  EUR  97  million  on  average  per  case 
analysed, per year"172. Similar figures were calculated for other Directives.  

There are many other studies and assessments where the benefits of proper implementation of 
environmental  legislation  have  been  assessed  and  reporting  play  an  important  part.    One 
illustrative example demonstrating that benefits far outweigh the costs comes from the area of 
air  pollution.  The  EU  Impact  Assessment173  accompanying  the  legislative  proposal  assesses 
that full implementation of the EU proposed policy option results in: 

  A reduction of total external costs of air pollution with a further €45bn (on the most 

conservative valuation) or ten times the compliance cost.  

  Direct economic benefits of the policy proposal includes reduced labour productivity 
losses  over  the  baseline  of  €2bn,  reduced  health  care  costs  of  €650m,  reduced  crop 
value losses of €270m, and reduced damage to the built environment of €140m. 

  When  productivity  improvements  are  taken  into  account,  the  policy  also  results  in 

around 110 thousand additional jobs. 

An EEA study174 in area of industrial emissions revealed that in 2012, the aggregated cost of 
damage over the period 2008–2012 caused by emissions from the E-PRTR industrial facilities 
is estimated as being at least EUR 329 billion (and up to EUR 1 053 billion). A small number 
of industrial facilities are responsible for the majority of the damage costs — fifty per cent of 
the  total  damage  cost  occurs  as  a  result  of  emissions  from  just  147  (or  1  %)  of  the  14  325 
facilities.  The  reporting  under  the  E-PRTR  and  the  EU  Industrial  emissions  legislation  are 
instrumental to reducing these damage costs.  

Whilst  these  figures  cannot  be  fully  attributed  as  benefits  of  reporting,  many  such  benefits 
would not have materialised without high quality reporting. At the same time, better reporting 

"Study  to  assess  the  benefits  delivered  through  the    enforcement  of  EU  environmental  legislation" 

172  
(Final report of project 070203/2015/711789/ETU/ENV.D.2) [to be published shortly] 
173  
174  
20/2014, European Environment Agency) 

SWD(2013) 531 
"Costs  of  air  pollution  from  European  industrial  facilities  2008-2012"  (EEA  Technical  report  No 

106 

 
                                                 
can  avoid  time-  and  resource-consuming  legal  proceedings  by  allowing  swifter  and  targeted 
intervention both at national and EU level.  

The  potential  benefits  from  providing  environmental  information  can  be  expected  to  be 
considerable  as  was  analysed  in  the  Impact  Assessment  for  the  Shared  Environment 
Information System (SEIS)175. "Since environmental data and information is of potential use 
to  a  great  many  players  for  many  purposes,  improving  the  mechanisms  for  collecting, 
exchanging and using the data can be expected to significantly increase the use that is made 
of such data, together with a significant reduction in cost for the users. There are also positive 
examples  of  such  freely  available  data  being  successfully  used  on  a  commercial  basis. 
Overall,  use  of  data  can  be  expected  to  extend  from  small  thematic  or  geographic 
communities of policy makers to include policy makers in other themes or sectors, informed 
public  and  researchers.  This  will  render  monitoring  investments  made  by  Member  States 
considerably  more  cost-effective.  Improvements  in  the  access  and  interoperability  of  data 
systems will also reduce the need for reporting requirements, leading to a streamlining of data 
requirements  and  data  flows,  including  the  phasing  out  or  repeal  of  outdated  or  redundant 
reporting requirements." In quantitative terms, the UK Environment Agency for England and 
Wales  estimated  the  benefits  of  improved  environmental  management  and  in  reducing 
environmental  risk  through  making  environmental  spatial  data  available  and  re-useable  by 
implementing the INSPIRE Directive (which would be a pre-requisite for developing SEIS) to 
be equivalent to £5.1 million/year176.  

It is worth putting the overall costs into perspective. Compared to the huge benefits resulting 
from  successful  environmental  protection  policy,  the  costs  of  reporting  obligations  are 
marginal. Total national environmental protection expenditures in the EU  – not all of which 
relate to legislation, let alone EU legislation was EUR 297 billion in 2014177. It is impossible 
to  say  with  any  level  of  precision  how  much  is  currently  spent  on  environmentally  related 
compliance assurance (including monitoring, inspections, enforcement and permitting costs), 
but it could be a figure in the range of half to a billion Euros per annum.  

175  
176  
177  
N.pdf/cc2b4de7-146c-4254-9521-dcbd6e6fafa6) 

SEC(2008) 111 
INSPIRE REFIT evaluation (SWD(2016) 173) 
EUROSTAT 

(2016) 

(http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/7731525/KS-DK-16-001-EN-

107 

 
 
 
                                                 
8.6.  Annex 6: Overview of results of the Fitness Check evaluation in relation to 

the legal text  

Ref. no. 

Environmental 
legislation 

Identified specific issues  

Comments 

Environmental Noise 
Directive (END) 

- adjustment of timetable for preparation 
of noise maps 

Evaluation 
completed 
SWD(2016) 454 

3 

7 

8 

17 

18 

- alignment of timing/frequency of 
reporting under Articles 8, 9 and 10 with 
Habitats Directive cycle 

- link of Article 11 reporting to Water 
Framework Directive 

- adaptation of timing/frequency and 
delivery mechanism (public) 

- alignment of timing/frequency with 
Water Framework Directive 

Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive 
(MSFD) 

Drinking Water 
Directive (DWD) 

Urban Wastewater 
Treatment Directive 
(UWWD) 

Nitrates Directive 
(ND) 

- alignment of timing/frequency with 
Water Framework Directive 

45 

INSPIRE Directive 

- elimination of three annual reporting 
under Article 21.3 for strengthening 
annual monitoring (Art. 21.1) 

108 

Evaluation 
completed 
SWD(2016) 428 and 
impact assessment 
under preparation 

Link to analytical 
methods and 
reporting cycles with 
the Sewage Sludge 
Directive (26) could 
also be addressed 

Implementation 
report and evaluation 
completed 
(COM(2016) 478 
and SWD(2016) 
273) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
8.7.  Annex 7: Best Practices - Findings of the evaluation which could be applied 

in other reporting areas  

Ref. no. 

Environmental 
legislation 

1 / 2 

Ambient Air Quality 
Directive (AAQD) 

4 / 6 / 7 

Water Framework 
Directive (WFD) / 
Floods Directive 
(FD) / Marine 
Strategy Framework 
Directive (MSFD 

Best practices issues 

Comments 

- good set of key indicators 

- monitoring criteria improving 
comparability and quality 

- near-real time ozone data 

- interoperability and potential for 
harvesting of data (INSPIRE pilot) 

- communication of purpose and use of 
reported information  

- significant reduction of textual 
information 

- prior definition of reporting products and 
scoreboards to monitor progress 

- streamlining, coherence and relevance 
linked to FD (6) and MSFD (7) 

- overall improvement of reporting process 
(including quality assurance) through 
WISE 

Link to more 
information 

Many improvements 
were introduced in the 
second reporting cycle 
under the WFD 
(2016) and the 
evaluation of these 
improvements is still 
ongoing 

9 

Bathing Water 
Directive (BWD) 

- good set of key indicators 

- monitoring criteria improving 
comparability and quality 

Link to more 
information 

10 / 11 

Habitats Directive 
(HD) / Birds 
Directive (BD) 

- timely reporting and quickest publication 
(less than six months) 

- good active dissemination, high public 
interest 

- link between EU information (map 
viewer) and national information (beach 
profiles) 

- good set of key indicators 

- streamlining and coherence between 
habitats and birds directive 

- good active dissemination including 
scoreboards to monitor progress 

- integration into wider data, information 
and knowledge management platform 

109 

Link to more 
information 
(overview) including, 
Natura 2000 viewer, 
Conservation status 
online tool and BISE 

 
Ref. no. 

Environmental 
legislation 

Best practices issues 

Comments 

13 

15 

17 

(BISE) 

- good re-use of Natura2000 data 

European Pollutant 
Release and Transfer 
Register (E-PRTR) 

- many examples of good practices at 
national level creating efficiency gains 
(e.g. through efficient data management) 

Link to more 
information 

- good active dissemination 

- streamlining and coherence with 
industrial emissions ongoing 

Sulphur Directive 
(SD) 

- new information system used for 
reporting 

Link to more 
information 

Urban Wastewater 
Treatment Directive 
(UWWD) 

- good set of key indicators (also including 
investment information, Art. 17 reporting) 

Link to more 
information 

- interoperability and potential for 
harvesting of data (INSPIRE pilot) 

- link between EU information (map 
viewer) and national information (beach 
profiles) (SIIF pilot) 

110 

 
 
 
 
8.8.  Annex  8:  Overview  of  findings  of  the  Fitness  Check  evaluation  per 

legislation 

This table presents the findings of the evaluation for issues which could be subject to further 
streamlining. Where indicated, the issues are related to specific reporting obligations and not 
necessarily to all reporting under the legislation. More details can be found in the inventory 
for the following five criteria used to systematically record potential issues:  

(1) Usefulness? This reflects the identification of the potential to increase the usefulness 
of a particular reporting obligation either to the Commission, or of the subsequent report 
by the Commission. It is used as a simple indication and relates to preliminary findings 
that the reporting could be streamlined to deliver more useful information, which could 
result in lower costs and/or higher benefits. (Source: inventory: columns G2 and G5) 
(2) Indicators? This reflects a screening of where no or only some indicators "X" have 
been identified or where data exist to create indicators "(X)" but are not currently used as 
key indicators. As a result, key indicators in line with the Better Regulation Guidelines 
could  be  developed  embedding  information  reported  under  existing  legislation,  which 
would  result  in  lower  costs  and/or  higher  benefits.  (Source:  inventory:  tab  "key 
performance indicators") 
(3) Textual? This reflects whether the reporting is mainly relying on textual information. 
Where all of the reporting obligations for a piece of legislation are mainly textual, they 
are marked as "X" and where only some of the reporting obligations are mainly textual 
they are marked as "(X)". Whilst scoring is on whether it is mainly textual, many have 
multiple  elements.  As  a  result,  the  textual  information  could  be  potentially  reduced  or 
simplified which would result in lower costs and/or higher benefits. (Source: inventory: 
column C1)  
(4)  Coherence?  This  reflects  the  findings  in  relation  to  external  coherence  (i.e.  the 
relationship  of  the  reporting  under  that  legislation  with  other  legislation  or  policies) 
mainly  on  the  basis  of  the  stakeholder  feedback  and  other  available  sources.  Where 
coherence  could  be  improved,  this  would  result  in  lower  costs  and/or  higher  benefits. 
(Source: table 9.4 in support study and other evidence presented in the support study) 
(5)  Delays/process?  This  reflects  the  analysis  of  the  time  delays  between  the  reporting 
deadline and the publication of the Commission report. All delays above one year (360 
days) are included as "(X)" and all delays above 500 days as "X". It is used as a simple 
indication  in  relation  to  the  process  efficiency.  As  a  result,  efficiency  gains  could  be 
introduced to reduce delays. (Source: inventory: column D8 and tab "statistics – delays") 
(6) Format? This reflects whether there is potential for electronic reporting or for format 
requirements to be put in place. (Source: the inventory: columns E3 and E6) 

This summarised overview presents the findings of the work undertaken for this evaluation: in 
particular,  as  reported  in  the  inventory  of  the  support  study.  In  many  cases,  only  specific 
reporting  obligations  (not  all)  under  a  particular  piece  of  legislation  are  affected.  More 
detailed analysis and consultations of experts in each specific area will be needed in order to 
validate or clarify the issues and propose appropriate solutions.  
As well as the specific issues identified in the Annex, there are horizontal streamlining efforts 
that  could  be  of  benefit  to  these  pieces  of  legislation:  for  example,  additional  use  of  EEA 
reporting infrastructure, improved application of INSPIRE principles, etc.   

111 

 
 
Ref. 
no. 

Environmental 
legislation 

(1) 

(2) 

(3)  

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

Usefulness? 

Indicators? 

Textual? 

Coherence? 

Delays/ 
process? 

Format? 

Comments 

(X) 

(X) 

X 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Air Quality 
Directive (AQD) 

Ambient Air 
Directive (As, 
Cd, Hg, Ni, 
PAH) 

Environmental 
Noise Directive 
(END) 

Water 
Framework 
Directive (WFD) 

Environmental 
Quality 
Standards 
Directive (EQS) 

(X) 

X 

X 

X 

(X) 

(X) 

(X) 

(X) 

(X) 

X 

X 

X 

Some other issues identified  
(e.g. improvement of active dissemination) 
Evaluation provisionally scheduled 

(see above) 

Evaluation completed. Some other issues 
identified 

Evaluation provisionally scheduled 

X 

Evaluation provisionally scheduled 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ref. 
no. 

Environmental 
legislation 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Floods Directive 
(FD) 

Marine Strategy 
Framework 
Directive 
(MSFD) 

Drinking Water 
Directive (DWD) 

Bathing Water 
Directive (BWD) 

10 

Habitats 
Directive (HD) 

11 

Birds Directive 
(BD) 

(1) 

(2) 

(3)  

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

Usefulness? 

Indicators? 

Textual? 

Coherence? 

Delays/ 
process? 

Format? 

Comments 

(X) 

Evaluation provisionally scheduled 

(X) 

(X) 

X 

(X) 

Some other issues identified  
Evaluation provisionally scheduled 

(X) 

X 

X 

Evaluation completed  
Some other issues identified  
(e.g. improvement of data quality) 

X  
(only COM 
report on 
derogations-
Article 16) 

X  
(only COM 
report on 
derogations-

(X) 
(only 
compensation 
measures) 

(X) 
(only 
compensation 

X 

X 

Evaluation completed (see SWD(2016) 472), other 
issues identified  
(e.g. improvement of data quality). 
The Commission composite report on derogations 
has been abolished in the meantime.  

X 

Evaluation completed (see SWD(2016) 472), other 
issues identified 
(e.g. improvement of data quality).  
The Commission composite report on derogations 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ref. 
no. 

Environmental 
legislation 

(1) 

(2) 

(3)  

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

Usefulness? 

Indicators? 

Textual? 

Coherence? 

Delays/ 
process? 

Format? 

Comments 

Article 9) 

measures) 

has been abolished in the meantime. 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

Invasive Alien 
Species 
Regulation (IAS) 

European 
Pollutant Release 
and Transfer 
Register (E-
PRTR) 

Industrial 
Emissions 
Directive (IED) 

Sulphur 
Directive (SD) 

National 
Emission 
Ceilings 
Directive (NEC) 

(X) 

X 

New reporting 

X 

X 

Evaluation ongoing  
Other issues identified 

(X) 

(X) 

X 

X 

(X) 

X 

114 

Some other issues identified. Ongoing 
streamlining of reporting of data and compliance 
information regarding both E-PRTR and IED. 

New reporting system facilitates implementation 
and reporting for MS 

Indicators and coherence with greenhouse 
gases (GHG) reporting were updated in recent 
revision of Directive (published as Directive 
2016/2284/EU) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ref. 
no. 

Environmental 
legislation 

(1) 

(2) 

(3)  

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

Usefulness? 

Indicators? 

Textual? 

Coherence? 

Delays/ 
process? 

Format? 

Comments 

17 

Urban 
Wastewater 
Treatment 
Directive 
(UWWD) 

X  
(only disposal- 
Article 16) 

18 

Nitrates Directive 
(ND) 

19 

EMAS 
Regulation 

X  
(likely to be 
amended) 

20 

Landfill 
Directive  

21 

Extractive 
(Mining) Waste 
Directive  

X 
(only 
implementation 
report-Article 

(X) 

(X) 

X 

X 

Evaluation provisionally scheduled 

(X) 

(X) 

X 

(X) 

X 

ND data could be  integrated by EEA in the 
Environmental Data Centre website on Water (MS 
already report Art. 10 information via EIONET, 
with the format requirements clearly defined) 

Evaluation ongoing, possible action identified 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Commission proposals includes streamlining of 
reporting (COM(2015) 594) 

Once revised EU waste legislation is adopted, an 
assessment of the coherence of EU Waste 
Statistics Regulation with reporting obligations is 
needed 

Some other issues identified (see report 
COM(2016) 553) which could result in 
amendment of Commission Decision 2009/358/EC 
in order to ensure better comparability and 

(X) 

X 

X 

X 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ref. 
no. 

Environmental 
legislation 

(1) 

(2) 

(3)  

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

Usefulness? 

Indicators? 

Textual? 

Coherence? 

Delays/ 
process? 

Format? 

Comments 

18) 

Volatile Organic 
Compound 
Directive (VOC) 

X 
(only 
implementation 
report-Article 
9) 

X 

X 

VOC-Stage II 
Directive 

Seveso III 
Directive  

Shale Gas 
Recommendation 

Sewage Sludge 
Directive 

X 

(X) 

X 

X 

(X) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

Waste 
Framework 
Directive (WFD) 

X  
(likely to be 
amended) 

(X) 

(X) 

X 

116 

relevance of reported information as well as more 
active dissemination 

COM proposal on the repeal of Standardised 
Reporting Directive (COM(2016) 789) eliminates 
further reporting under Article 9 of that Directive. 

Evaluation ongoing. Only reporting by Member 
States is on penalties. 

X 

Work ongoing to enhance coherence with 
reporting under E-PRTR and IED 

Proposals for action already made in recent report 
(COM(2016) 794) 

(X) 

X 

X 

Commission proposals includes streamlining of 
reporting (COM(2015) 595) 

Once revised EU waste legislation is adopted, an 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ref. 
no. 

Environmental 
legislation 

(1) 

(2) 

(3)  

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

Usefulness? 

Indicators? 

Textual? 

Coherence? 

Delays/ 
process? 

Format? 

Comments 

assessment of the coherence of EU Waste 
Statistics Regulation with reporting obligations is 
needed 

Evaluation ongoing 

X 

X 

X 

Evaluation planned (see Roadmap)178 

X 

Evaluation ongoing, and some streamlining 
activities ongoing (see Commission proposals 
(COM(2015) 593 and section 3.2 of SWD). 

Once revised EU waste legislation is adopted, an 
assessment of the coherence of EU Waste 
Statistics Regulation with reporting obligations is 
needed. 

Some streamlining activities ongoing (see 
Commission proposals (COM(2015) 596 and 
section 3.2 of SWD). 

28 

29 

Eco-label 
Regulation 

Waste Shipment 
Regulation 

30 

Batteries 
Directive 

X  
(only for 
Article 6) 

X  
(likely to be 
amended) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

(X) 

(X) 

31 

Packaging Waste 
Directive 

X  
(likely to be 
amended) 

(X) 

X 

X 

178 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2017_env_026_waste_shipment_evaluation_env.pdf 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Ref. 
no. 

Environmental 
legislation 

(1) 

(2) 

(3)  

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

Usefulness? 

Indicators? 

Textual? 

Coherence? 

Delays/ 
process? 

Format? 

Comments 

32 

PCB Directive 

33 

End-of life 
Vehicles 
Directive (ELV) 

34  WEEE Directive 

X  
(likely to be 
amended) 

X  
(likely to be 
amended) 

X 

(X) 

X 

X 

Once revised EU waste legislation is adopted, an 
assessment of the coherence of EU Waste 
Statistics Regulation with reporting obligations is 
needed. 

No more reporting envisaged 

X 

Some streamlining activities ongoing (see 
Commission proposals (COM(2015) 593 and 
section 3.2 of SWD). 

Once revised EU waste legislation is adopted, an 
assessment of the coherence of EU Waste 
Statistics Regulation with reporting obligations is 
needed. 

Some streamlining activities ongoing (see 
Commission proposals (COM(2015) 593 and 
section 3.2 of SWD). 

Once revised EU waste legislation is adopted, an 
assessment of the coherence of EU Waste 
Statistics Regulation with reporting obligations is 
needed. 

(X) 

(X) 

X 

X 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ref. 
no. 

Environmental 
legislation 

(1) 

(2) 

(3)  

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

Usefulness? 

Indicators? 

Textual? 

Coherence? 

Delays/ 
process? 

Format? 

35 

RoHS Directive 

X 

X 

X 

Comments 

No more reporting envisaged 

Regulation revised in 2017 – new reporting system 
to be established through implementing acts 

X 

X 

36 

Mercury 
Regulation 

37 

Paints Directive 

38 

POPs Regulation 

39 

REACH 
Regulation 

40 

CLP Regulation 

41 

PIC Regulation  

(X) 

(X) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

(X) 

(X) 

X 

(X) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

(X) 

(X) 

(X) 

(X) 

42 

ELD Directive 

X 

X 

X 

119 

X 

Evaluation ongoing 

X 

X 

Evaluation ongoing 

No more reporting envisaged 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ref. 
no. 

Environmental 
legislation 

(1) 

(2) 

(3)  

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

Usefulness? 

Indicators? 

Textual? 

Coherence? 

Delays/ 
process? 

Format? 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

(X) 

(X) 

X 

Comments 

New reporting 

Evaluation provisionally scheduled 

Evaluation completed.  
Other issues identified which could result in 
amending Commission Decision 2009/442/EC. 

No more reporting envisaged 

43 

EIA Directive 

44 

SEA Directive 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

INSPIRE 
Directive 

Access to 
Information 
Directive (A2I) 

Wildlife Trade 
Regulation 
(CITES) 

Whales Products 
Directive 

Seals Products 
Directive I 

X 

X 

(X) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

120 

(X) 

A new reporting format has been agreed within the 
context of the Convention on International trade in 
Endangered Species (CITES), which will start to 
apply from 2017 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ref. 
no. 

Environmental 
legislation 

(1) 

(2) 

(3)  

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

Usefulness? 

Indicators? 

Textual? 

Coherence? 

Delays/ 
process? 

Format? 

Comments 

50 

ABS Regulation 

51 

52 

FLEGT 
Regulation  

Timber 
Regulation  

53 

Ship Recycling 
Regulation 

Medium 
Combustion 
Plants Directive 
(MCP) 

Seals Products 
Directive II 

54 

55 

X 

X 

(X) 

(X) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

(X) 

(X) 

X 

X 

121 

No reporting exercise so far - recommendations 
from the evaluation will be taken into account as 
the reporting format and process are being 
developed 

First reports will be submitted in 2017 on the basis 
of a new format agreed with the Member States in 
2016 

For the next exercise (2017), minor updates were 
included in the reporting format as agreed with the 
Member States and based on the experience from 
the previous exercise 

X 

X 

X 

Reporting set out in the new Directive is limited to 
mainly two exercises at key stages of 
implementation 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ref. 
no. 

Environmental 
legislation 

(1) 

(2) 

(3)  

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

Usefulness? 

Indicators? 

Textual? 

Coherence? 

Delays/ 
process? 

Format? 

Comments 

56 

Asbestos 
Directive 

X 

57 

EEA Regulation 

58 

Animal Testing 
Directive 

X 

X 

X 

X 

(X) 

(X) 

X 

COM proposal on the repeal of Standardised 
Reporting Directive (COM(2016) 789) eliminates 
further reporting under that Directive 

122