REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on progress in implementing Regulation (EC) 166/2006 concerning the establishment of a European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR)
Date: 2017-12-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU environmental policy, European Economic Area, Internet site, application of EU law, data collection, disclosure of information, environmental monitoring, exchange of information, industrial pollution

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 13.12.2017  COM(2017) 810 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on progress in implementing Regulation (EC) 166/2006 concerning the establishment of a European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) {SWD(2017) 710 final} - {SWD(2017) 711 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2 

2. E-PRTR Regulation: state of play .......................................................................................... 3 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

E-PRTR website ........................................................................................................... 3 

Commission guidance .................................................................................................. 4 

Member State implementation...................................................................................... 4 

Penalties and fines ....................................................................................................... 5 

3. REFIT evaluation ................................................................................................................... 5 

3.1 

3.2 

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

Evaluation results......................................................................................................... 5 

4. Possible improvements to the E-PRTR .................................................................................. 6 

4.1. 

4.2. 

Actions stemming from the 2013 implementation report ............................................. 6 

Actions stemming from the recent evaluation .............................................................. 8 

5. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 9 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. Introduction 

The  European  Pollutant  Release  and  Transfer  Register  (E-PRTR)  provides  high-quality 
environmental information on emissions from Europe’s largest industrial facilities.  

The  public,  stakeholders,  analysts,  policy  developers  and  decision-makers  in  the  European 
Union value this information greatly, as it is used to set priorities for cost-effective emission 
reduction strategies, to measure progress in reducing pollution  and to influence  operators to 
adopt environmentally friendly practices and techniques.   
The E-PRTR was established by Regulation (EC) 166/20061 and, for the EU, it implements 
the UNECE PRTR (Kiev) Protocol to the Aarhus Convention2. In doing so, it builds upon an 
existing European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER) established in 2000.  

Article 17 of the E-PRTR Regulation states that the Commission must review Member State 
emission  data  returns  provided  under  Article  7  and  additional  information  submitted  under 
Article 16. 
A first such Article 17 report3 was submitted to the European Parliament and the Council in 
2013. It assessed the first three years of E-PRTR operation: 2007, 2008 and 2009. This second 
such report covers the subsequent four years: 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. 

The E-PRTR Regulation was also selected for evaluation under the European Commission’s 
Regulatory  Fitness  and  Performance  (REFIT)  programme4  to  check  that  it  was  ‘fit  for 
purpose’.  The  objective  of  this  evaluation  was  to  assess  its  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
relevance,  coherence  and  EU  added  value.  The  assessment  looked  at  both  the  benefits 
delivered  by  the  E-PRTR,  together  with  the  potential  for  simplifying  it  and  reducing 
regulatory costs and burdens. 

Alongside  the  E-PRTR  evaluation,  DG  Environment  carried  out  a  fitness  check  of  wider 
monitoring  and  reporting  obligations  resulting  from  all  EU  environmental  legislation5. 
Synergies flowed from this parallel evaluation process. 

This report therefore covers three main areas: 

  an  overview  of  E-PRTR  implementation  and  how  this  has  changed  since  the  2013 

report to the European Parliament and the Council – section 2; 

  a summary of the REFIT evaluation – section 3; 

  an assessment of possible improvements to the E-PRTR – section 4. 

1 Regulation (EC) 166/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the establishment of a 
European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register and amending Council Directives 91/689/EEC and 96/61/EC 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32006R0166&from=EN 
2 Kiev Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers to the UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission 
for Europe) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice 
in Environmental Matters https://www.unece.org/env/pp/prtr/docs/prtrtext.html 
3 COM(2013) 111 final, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on progress in 
implementing  Regulation  (EC)  166/2006  concerning  the  establishment  of  a  European  Pollutant  Release  and 
Transfer Register http://eur-lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/202443 
4  COM(2012)  746  final,  Commission  Communication  on  EU  Regulatory  Fitness  ,  http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/better_regulation/documents/com_2013_en.pdf 
5 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/ENVReporting/1%29+Streamlining+Reporting  

2 

 
 
 
                                                            
2. E-PRTR Regulation: state of play 

Implementation  of  the  E-PRTR  Regulation  is  dependent  on  coordinated  EU-level  actions 
taken  by  the  European  Commission  and  European  Environment  Agency  (EEA),  and  on 
national measures.  

Member State responses to  Article  16 implementation questions are available on the EEA’s 
reporting obligations database6. These responses are analysed in the supporting study to the E-
PRTR evaluation7. The key observations about implementing the E-PRTR Regulation appear 
below. 

2.1 E-PRTR website 

Since it began receiving data from Member States in 2007, the E-PRTR website has become 
the  definitive  source  of  yearly  information  on  emissions  from  Europe’s  major  industrial 
activities. This environmental information is published free on an interactive website8 hosted 
and maintained by the EEA. 

Data on key pollutants are provided by operators of some 30 000 industrial facilities and held 
on the E-PRTR. They cover 65 economic activities from the main industrial sectors9 defined 
in the Regulation. These industrial sectors are closely (but not exactly) aligned to the list of 
activities regulated under the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED)10.   

For each facility, operators provide annual information on the quantity of pollutants released 
to  air,  water  and  land,  together  with  off-site  transfers  of  waste  and  of  pollutants  in  waste 
water.  The  best  available  data  are  reported  to  the  E-PRTR.  They  may  come  from 
measurements, calculations or estimations, and they cover all releases – deliberate, accidental, 
routine or non-routine.  

Emission data cover 91 key pollutants, including heavy metals, pesticides, greenhouse gases 
and dioxins. To concentrate on the largest emission sources, reporting is restricted to facilities 
where stated emission thresholds are exceeded.  

In  addition  to  these  core  datasets,  which  cover  the  main  point  sources  of  pollution,  the  E-
PRTR  also  contains  spatially  disaggregated  data  on  releases  from  diffuse  (i.e.  non-point) 
sources.  

The  E-PRTR  website  and  its  associated  search  tools  have  been  designed  to  make  access  as 
easy as possible. As a result, E-PRTR website visitors are both numerous (with an average of 
242  sessions  per  day)  and  varied  (including  public  services,  private  enterprises  and  the 
general public).  

2.2 Commission guidance 

To  help  Member  States  implement  the  E-PRTR  consistently,  in  2006  the  Commission 
published  a guidance  document  explaining  who should  report,  what they  should  report,  and 

6 http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/540/overview.  
7  Section  3.2  and  Appendix  D  https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/fd585562-0c60-48f0-ad62-9d1ff7151059/E-
PRTR%20evaluation_Final%20report%20.pdf.  
8 http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/. 
9 Energy; metal production and processing; the mineral industry; the chemical industry; waste and waste-water 
management; paper and wood production and processing; intensive livestock production and aquaculture; animal 
and vegetable products from the food and beverage sector; others. 
10  Directive  2010/75/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24 November  2010  on  industrial 
emissions http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1489681035236&uri=CELEX:32010L0075 

3 

 
 
                                                            
how they should submit the data. It also includes an indicative list of sectors and pollutants for 
which data reporting is expected.  

While  extremely  useful  in  the  reporting  process,  the  guidance  is  now  11  years  old  and  the 
time has come to update it. This would involve both refining the existing issues covered by 
the guidance and addressing implementation questions and experiences that have arisen since 
it was first published. 

2.3 Member State implementation 

All  EU  Member  States  have  implemented  the  E-PRTR  Regulation.  As  the  Regulation  is  of 
interest to the European Economic Area, it has also been implemented in Norway, Iceland and 
Liechtenstein.  Add  to  this  the  data  reported  by  Switzerland  and  Serbia,  and  the  Regulation 
enjoys unanticipated but useful additional geographical coverage. 

All  Member  States  submitted  their annual  data returns  for 2010,  2011,  2012  and  2013.  The 
Commission  had  to  take  follow-up  action  to  prompt  certain  Member  States  to  submit  their 
returns.  However,  these  isolated  cases  were  dealt  with  rapidly  and  the  Commission  has  not 
pursued formal infringement proceedings.  

National  authorities  are  responsible  for  assessing  the  quality  of  the  submitted  data  and 
whether the information provided by individual facilities is sufficiently complete, consistent 
and  accurate.  As  the  previous  implementation  report  noted,  monitoring  practicalities  make 
reporting of air emissions the most comprehensive. Data on the transfer of waste and releases 
to land are relatively few.  

Several Member States have opted to extend the list of substances to be reported by operators 
and to lower the reporting thresholds.  

The  difficulties  that  Member  States  have  encountered  in  reporting  E-PRTR  data  are  most 
often  related  to  information  technology  and  a  lack  of  operator  knowledge  (resulting  in 
mistakes in substances reported and units). The lack of alignment between the E-PRTR and 
the IED has also been highlighted as a source of difficulties, in particular for activities related 
to waste management and landfills. 

Most  Member  States  report  that  E-PRTR  data  are  submitted  electronically,  with  three 
Member States expressly not accepting paper returns.  

The  EEA  carries  out  a  number  of  quality  assurance  checks  on  data  returns  and,  where  this 
identifies data errors, Member States can make corrections. In all, four Member States used 
this data resubmission facility over the evaluation period – in all cases to rectify mistakes in 
the reporting units.   

Eight  Member  States  indicated  that  they  had  made  use  of  the  confidentiality  provisions  in 
Article 11 to withhold data from the E-PRTR.  

2.4 Penalties and fines 

Under  Article  20  of  the  E-PRTR  Regulation  Member  States  must  put  in  place  rules  for 
penalties  in  the  case  of  infringements.  Member  States  report  various  administrative  and 
criminal proceedings with a wide range of maximum fines. During the reporting period, five 
Member  States  actually  imposed  penalties.  Two  others  indicated  that  infringement 

4 

 
 
proceedings  had  been  initiated  against  operators  but  were  withdrawn  when  the  data  were 
forthcoming. From this evidence it is apparent that Member States have put in place effective 
penalties  and  fines  to  ensure  that  the  relevant  operators  deliver  on  their  E-PRTR  reporting 
obligations. 

3. REFIT evaluation 

Under  its  REFIT  programme,  the  Commission  has  evaluated  the  E-PRTR  Regulation, 
assessing the core analytical questions on effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and 
EU added value.  

To this end, it used sources such as Member State implementation returns, consultations and a 
stakeholder  workshop.  In  addition,  it  contracted  an  external  consultancy  to  conduct  a 
supporting study and gather specific information on key topics.   

Further details of the evaluation exercise are presented in a Staff Working Document11. This 
report  summarises  the  key  findings  of  the  evaluation  and  takes  a  more  detailed  look  at  the 
follow-up actions needed. 

3.1 Scope of evaluation 

Since Member States already have direct reporting obligations as parties or signatories to the 
Kiev  Protocol,  the  evaluation  focused  on  the  additional  obligations  under  the  E-PRTR 
Regulation:  

a)  operators  reporting  on  five  additional  water  pollutants  and  the  lower  reporting 

thresholds for emissions of dioxins and furans; 

b)  annual reporting of data by Member State competent authorities to the Commission; 
c)  incorporation of that data by the Commission (supported by the EEA) into the publicly 

available E-PRTR; 

d)  development  of  a  Commission  guidance  document  to  facilitate  consistent  Member 

State practices; and 

e)  triennial  Commission  reporting  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  E-

PRTR implementation. 

3.2 Evaluation results 

The evaluation criteria are assessed as follows: 

  The  E-PRTR  is  an  effective  instrument,  as  it  provides  a  highly  comprehensive  and 
detailed dataset on industrial emissions. There is broad stakeholder appreciation of the 
E-PRTR’s  valuable  contribution  to  access  to  environmental  information.  The 
completeness and quality of E-PRTR data is good and improving over time. On data 
interpretation, additional information would help reach a wider public audience.  

11 SWD(2017)710 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
  The  E-PRTR  performed  well  on  efficiency.  Most  data  providers  stated  that  minimal 
effort  was  needed  to  meet  the  E-PRTR  reporting  requirements  additional  to  those 
under the Kiev Protocol; data managers stated that such effort was proportionate to the 
broad  benefits  provided  by  the  public  availability  of  E-PRTR  data.  However,  the 
Article 16 triennial obligation on Member States to report on overall implementation 
of the E-PRTR appears to be of limited use, suggesting scope for simplification. 

  While consistent in itself, some concerns were raised about the coherence of E-PRTR 
with  data  reported  under  related  environmental  legislation,  such  as  the  IED  and  the 
waste acquis.   

  The  E-PRTR  has  continued  relevance,  as  it  provides  a  detailed  and  comprehensive 
dataset  that  the  general  public  can  easily  access.  Thanks  to  this,  the  E-PRTR 
contributes greatly to transparency and public participation in environmental decision-
making.   

  The E-PRTR provides added value beyond the requirements of the Kiev Protocol by 
ensuring  consistent  implementation  of  the  Protocol  across  all  Member  States.  This 
cross-border  consistency  is  valued  by  E-PRTR  users,  as  it  provides  transparency  on 
the  pollutant  emissions  from  industrial  activities  and  allows  for  comparative 
assessment between Member States. The EEA’s industrial pollution country profiles12 
are  a  good  example  of  how  E-PRTR  data  are  used  to  add  value  for  policy-makers, 
industry and the general public. 

The evaluation concludes that the E-PRTR Regulation is an important instrument in the EU’s 
environmental acquis and is fit for purpose.   

4. Possible improvements to the E-PRTR 

4.1.  Actions stemming from the 2013 implementation report  

The Commission’s 2013 report to the European Parliament and the Council concluded that the 
E-PRTR  Regulation  had  been  relatively  well  implemented  but  identified  areas  in  which 
potential improvements could be made. In the subsequent four years ongoing improvements 
have  been  observed,  mainly  as  operators, competent authorities and the general  public have 
gained  experience  with  using  the  E-PRTR.  Re-visiting  the  three  main  improvement  areas 
identified in the 2013 report, it is relevant to note as follows: 

a) Enhancing quality of data and user confidence: 

Operators  and  Member  States  are  obliged  under  the  Regulation  to  provide  high-
quality  data  to  the  E-PRTR.  While  occasional  data  errors  still  occur,  the  data 
submitted  to  the  Commission  is  now  more  complete,  more  consistent  and  more 
accurate,  largely  thanks  to  refined  automated  checks  in  the  reporting  system.  Most 
residual data errors are detected in an informal EEA review and Member States can 
make corrections through data resubmission.  

12 http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/industry/industrial-pollution.  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The 2013 report envisaged using infringement procedures against Member States to 
improve data quality, but it has not been necessary to resort to this. 

The review of the E-PRTR guidance document has been launched. 

Data quality remains an important area for further improvement, since more reliable 
and higher-quality data creates a virtuous circle of enhanced user confidence, which 
in turn increases use of the E-PRTR data.  

The  2013  report  also  highlighted  the  need  for  the  Commission  to  better  coordinate 
the  E-PRTR  with  the  work  of  expert  groups  for  other,  associated  environmental 
policies. On the idea of improving emission factors for water releases, there has been 
engagement  with  the  Water  Framework  Directive’s  working  group  on  chemical 
aspects through a project on integrated assessment modelling in EU freshwater and 
marine environment policy.  

b) Improving data use and exchange 

The 2013 report saw the need to make the E-PRTR website more user-friendly. The 
areas  highlighted  were:  improved  functionality;  navigation  and  search  functions; 
adding  technical  information  to  the  data  presented;  standardised  terminology;  and 
links to datasets resulting from other reporting obligations. Many improvements have 
been made as part of an ongoing process, including the launch of a new user-friendly 
website in 2016.  

Likewise,  the  Commission  has  actively  promoted  the  E-PRTR  for  scientific, 
technical, and policy analysis and for public use.  

c) Clarifying the E-PRTR Regulation and links with other legislation 

As  a  key  source  of  industrial  emission  data,  the  E-PRTR  is  in  line  with  the  good 
practices  promoted  in  the  Commission’s  7th  Environment  Action  Plan  –  i.e.  the 
Shared  Environmental  Information  System  (SEIS)  principle  of  ‘produce  once,  use 
often’.  

The  common  approach  to  acquiring  and  using  consistent  spatial  information  under 
INSPIRE13 also provides an opportunity to align E-PRTR data with obligations under 
related legislation, in particular the IED and the waste acquis.  

Opportunities have been taken to further develop synergies across data-flows and to 
improve streamlining:  

- 

the  E-PRTR’s  IT  infrastructure  will  be  upgraded  to  include  a  ‘registry’  for 
industrial  facilities.  This,  in  line  with  INSPIRE  requirements,  will  harmonise 
information  on  common  administrative  parameters,  such  as  operator  name, 
address and location. This will promote synergies between datasets and the E-
PRTR. For example, IED datasets will be linked and partly integrated into the 
E-PRTR; 

13  Directive  2007/2/EC  establishing  an  Infrastructure  for  Spatial  Information  in  the  European  Community 
(INSPIRE) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:108:0001:0014:en:PDF 

7 

 
 
                                                            
- 

- 

the proposed revision of the Waste Framework Directive14 includes a provision 
to  ensure that E-PRTR data  are used, where  relevant, to improve  information 
on national waste generation and management; 

initiatives are under way to better coordinate reporting under the E-PRTR and 
closely related directives on industrial emissions, urban waste water treatment15 
and national emission ceilings16. 

4.2.  Actions stemming from the recent evaluation 

The  evaluation  of  the  E-PRTR  Regulation  was  carried  out  when  the  register  had  been 
operational for around a decade. It did not identify obvious need for major simplification of, 
or  big  improvements  to,  the  existing  Regulation;  especially  since  improvements  to  the 
functioning of the E-PRTR remain possible by means of enhanced implementation.   

The  evaluation  confirms  that  the  follow-up  actions  stemming  from  the  2013  report  on  E-
PRTR implementation are relevant and should continue. It also suggests that there is potential 
for further refinements in the following areas: 

a)  Guidance:  Member  States  are  coming  together  around  good  practices.  However, 
further gains in consistent implementation will come from updating the existing EU-
level  guidance,  which  dates  back  to  2006,  since  when  many  implementation  issues 
have arisen. Revising the E-PRTR guidance document has therefore been launched as 
part of the Commission’s work programme for 2017. It will clarify such issues as the 
scope  of  the  Regulation,  activity  definitions,  emission  factors  and  the  reporting 
elements that can be considered confidential. 

b)  Related  reporting:  The  2013  report  already  saw  further  harmonisation  with  closely 
related environmental reporting obligations as a  means of making the E-PRTR more 
efficient  and  consistent.  As  explained  above,  current  initiatives  seek  to  explore  the 
options for streamlining reporting obligations with the E-PRTR. Looking to the future, 
when implementing and reviewing related law, the Commission will strive to further 
exploit synergies that will reduce the reporting burden and improve consistency across 
datasets.  

c)  Article  16:  Member  States  have  a  triennial  obligation  to  report  on  their  E-PRTR 
practices and  measures. In  turn, the Commission  uses the information  to prepare the 
Article  17  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council.  Article  16  returns  are 
highly  qualitative  and  repetitive.  Moreover,  the  signatories  to  the  Kiev  Protocol  are 
already  obliged  to  make  similar  implementation  returns  to  UNECE  under  the  Kiev 
Protocol17. So there is a strong argument for considering Articles 16 and 17 of the E-
PRTR Regulation are obsolete. Therefore,  as part of the follow-up to the horizontal 
reporting  fitness  check,  the  Commission  proposes  repealing  the  Article  16  triennial 

14 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015PC0595  
15  Directive 
concerning 
91/271/EEC 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31991L0271. 
16 Directive (EU) 2016/2284 on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1490193496651&uri=CELEX:32016L2284. 
17 See Article 17(2). 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

urban  waste-water 

treatment 

8 

 
 
 
                                                            
reporting  obligation  on  Member  States  and  the  associated  Article  17  review  by  the 
Commission. This would not preclude periodic fuller evaluation of the Regulation.  

d)  Data context: Supplementing the existing E-PRTR with more contextual information 
would strongly improve its effectiveness as a comprehensive source of environmental 
information. Additional context could be provided by such measures as increasing the 
granularity  of  activity  descriptions,  including  quantitative  activity  data  and  better 
explaining  the  possible  health  and  environmental  impacts  of  the  stated  releases,  as 
well as better signposting access to further information on air and water quality. 

5. Conclusions 

The E-PRTR is an important and pivotal component in the knowledge base on emissions from 
industrial activities in Europe.   

The  readily  accessible,  high-quality  data  available  on  the  E-PRTR  website  equip  the  public 
with  information  that  greatly  enhances  their  ability  to  engage  with  wider  environmental 
decision-making.  Moreover,  for  a  variety  of  other  users,  including  policy  analysts  and 
developers, the E-PRTR remains the primary reference point for key environmental facts on 
large industrial activities.  

The Commission considers that the E-PRTR Regulation is well implemented and many of the 
issues  identified  in  the  2013  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  Council  have  been 
remedied.  

There  inevitably  remains  scope  for  further  improvement  of  the  E-PRTR  and  this  report 
identifies a number of lines that the Commission will pursue, notably: 

 

revising  the  existing  guidance  document  to  help  Member  States  with  consistent 
implementation;  

  better  streamlining  reporting  obligations  by  further  exploiting  synergies  with  related 

environmental legislation; 

 

reducing the administrative burden on Member States; and 

  exploring  options  for  additional  contextual  information  to  make  E-PRTR  data  more 

effective. 

9