COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT REFIT evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 concerning the establishment of a European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on progress in implementing Regulation (EC) No 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  SWD(2017) 710 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT REFIT evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 concerning the establishment of a European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on progress in implementing Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 concerning the establishment of a European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) {COM(2017) 810 final} - {SWD(2017) 711 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 2 

Purpose of the evaluation ............................................................................................ 2 

Scope of the evaluation ............................................................................................... 2 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE ................................................................... 3 

Objective of the E-PRTR Regulation .......................................................................... 3 

Legal context of the E-PRTR ...................................................................................... 3 
Contribution to the 7th Environmental Action Program: ............................................. 4 

Intervention logic ........................................................................................................ 5 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY ................................................................ 6 

E-PRTR website .......................................................................................................... 6 

Reporting 2014 ............................................................................................................ 7 

Quality assurance ........................................................................................................ 8 

Commission guidance ................................................................................................. 9 

Enforcement action ...................................................................................................... 9 

4.  EVALUATION METHOD ......................................................................................... 9 

5.  ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ............................................... 11 

Effectiveness ............................................................................................................. 11 

Efficiency .................................................................................................................. 14 

Coherence .................................................................................................................. 17 

Relevance .................................................................................................................. 20 

EU added value ......................................................................................................... 23 

6.  CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 24 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ................................................................ 28 

ANNEX 2: EVALUATION METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS .................... 30 

ANNEX 3: ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY ........................................................ 36 

1

e
g
a
P

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose of the evaluation 
To check that European Union (EU) legislation is ‘fit for purpose’, the Commission routinely 
reviews selected policy instruments through its  Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT) 
programme1.  REFIT  is  about  ensuring  that  EU  legislation  effectively  and  efficiently  pursues 
public policy objectives that are best achieved at Union level. 

In its Communication Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT): Results and Next Steps2, 
the  Commission  announced  that  the  European  Pollutant  Release  and  Transfer  Register  (E-
PRTR) Regulation would be assessed for its effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and 
EU added value. 

The assessment looked at both the benefits delivered by the E-PRTR, as well as the potential 
for simplification and reduction of regulatory costs and burdens. Furthermore, it took account 
of Article 17 of the E-PRTR Regulation which requires that the Commission reviews E-PRTR 
implementation  every  three  years  on  the  basis  of  Member  State  returns.  The  second  such 
review was exceptionally extended to four years (2010-2013) to fit with the evaluation timing.  

In the interests of efficiency, the REFIT evaluation and the review were considered together. 

Scope of the evaluation 
The  E-PRTR  Regulation  supports  the  EU  in  meeting  the  obligations  of  the  (United  Nations 
Economic  Commission  for  Europe)  UNECE  Kiev  Protocol  on  pollutant  release  and  transfer 
registers3. The E-PRTR and the Kiev Protocol have aligned objectives around enhanced public 
access to information through the establishment of coherent, nationwide pollutant release and 
transfer registers (PRTRs).  

Since the EU would have to deliver Kiev Protocol obligations even if the E-PRTR Regulation 
did  not  exist,  the  REFIT  evaluation  concentrates  on requirements  that  are  additional  to  those 
required by the Kiev Protocol, or in other EU law. In practice, distinction between the two was 
sometimes difficult for evaluation purposes. 

The evaluation looked at E-PRTR implementation from its 2006 inception to the end of 2013 
(for which the most recent data were available). In view of the improvements made during this 
period, more weight is given to issues that are still prevalent. And because Croatia only joined 
the EU in 2013, the geographical scope of the evaluation covers the other 27 Member States. 

1  Commission  Communication  on  Regulatory  Fitness  and  Performance  (REFIT)  http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/better_regulation/documents/com_2013_en.pdf 
2 Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT): Results and Next Steps, COM/2013/0685 final 
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/docs/20131002-refit-annex_en.pdf 
3 UNECE Kiev Protocol http://www.unece.org/env/pp/prtr.html 

2

e
g
a
P

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
A  contractor  conducted  a  supporting  study4  to  assist  the  REFIT  evaluation,  while  also 
addressing  the  routine  triennial  check  on  implementation.  This  Staff  Working  Document 
summarises the REFIT evaluation’s findings and the Commission’s responses to them. 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE  

Objective of the E-PRTR Regulation 
The  main  aim  of  the  E-PRTR  Regulation  is  to  transpose  the  Kiev  Protocol  in  Europe  and  to 
assist  Member  States  in  implementing  it  consistently.  Flowing  from  this,  the  E-PRTR  helps 
improve  public  access  to  environmental  information  on  pollutant  releases  and  transfers  from 
Europe's  largest  industrial  facilities.  By  establishing  a  coherent  and  integrated  database  with 
clear data on the annual mass emissions (and transfers) of pollutants, the E-PRTR enables the 
public to become more closely involved in environmental decision-making. 

An informed public is able to influence the behaviour of operators and thus encourage lower 
pollutant releases and transfers. So although the E-PRTR relates to information on pollutants, 
rather than setting controls on actual pollutant releases per se, it exerts downward pressure on 
emissions since companies do not want to be identified as among the biggest emitters.  

Policy-makers also use the knowledge and evidence base provided by E-PRTR data to assess 
other policy instruments that deal with emissions from industrial sources, such as the Industrial 
Emissions Directive (IED)5.  

Legal context of the E-PRTR 

UNECE  Kiev  Protocol:  The  E-PRTR  Regulation  is  the  EU's  sole  means  of  delivering 
obligations under the Kiev Protocol6. The Protocol binds its Parties "to enhance public access 
to  information  through  the  establishment  of  coherent,  nationwide  pollutant  release  and 
transfer registers (PRTRs)" that: 

  are publicly accessible through the Internet, free of charge; 
  can be searched using separate parameters (facility, pollutant, location, etc.); 
  are user-friendly in their structure and provide links to other relevant registers; 
  present standardised, timely data on a structured, computerised database; 
  cover releases and transfers of at least 86 pollutants covered by the Protocol; 
  cover releases and transfers from certain types of major point sources; 

4  Supporting  the  evaluation  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  166/2006  concerning  the  establishment  of  a  European 
Pollutant  Release  and  Transfer  Register  and  its  triennial  review  –  Final  report.  August  2016,  Amec  Foster 
Wheeler  Environment  &  Infrastructure  UK  Ltd  and  IEEP  https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/fd585562-0c60-48f0-
ad62-9d1ff7151059/E-PRTR%20evaluation_Final%20report%20.pdf 
5  Directive  2010/75/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  industrial  emissions  (integrated 
pollution prevention and control) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32010L0075 
6 Kiev Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers to the UNECE Aarhus Convention 
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/prtr/Protocol%20texts/PRTR_Protocol_e.pdf 

3

e
g
a
P

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  accommodate  available  data  on  releases  from  diffuse  sources  (e.g.  transport  and 

agriculture); 

  have limited confidentiality provisions; 
  allow for public participation in their development and modification.  

Such PRTRs should be based on a reporting scheme that, as a minimum, is: mandatory, annual, 
multi-media (i.e. covers air, water, and land), facility-specific and pollutant-specific. 

To date the Protocol has been ratified by the European Union and 34 countries, including all 
EU Member States, except for Greece and Italy. 
UNECE  Aarhus  Convention:  The  Kiev  Protocol  is  part  of  the  broader  Aarhus  Convention7 
which  establishes  a  number  of  people’s  rights  as  regards  to  the  environment  and  for 
involvement  in  decision-making.  Parties  to  the  Convention  are  required  to  take  steps  so  that 
public authorities (at national, regional or local level) deliver the right to:  

receive the environmental information that is held by public authorities; 

 
  participate in environmental decision-making; 
 

review  procedures  to  challenge  public  decisions  that  have  been  made  without 
respecting the two aforementioned rights or environmental law in general.  

E-PRTR  Regulation:  The  E-PRTR  Regulation  was  adopted  in  2006  to  implement  the  Kiev 
Protocol  at  EU  level  and  to  ensure  consistent  implementation  by  Member  States  of  their 
obligations arising from the Protocol. The E-PRTR provides pollutant emission and waste data 
on large industrial facilities, spanning not only the EU Member States, but also the European 
Free Trade Area (EFTA) nations and Serbia. This data covers: 

  emissions  and  transfers  covering  65  economic  activities  from  nine  main  industrial 

sectors8 (as defined in Annex I to the Regulation) 

  91  pollutants  (as  detailed  in  Annex  II  to  the  Regulation)  including  heavy  metals, 
pesticides,  greenhouse  gases  and  dioxins.  In  all,  there  are  five  additional  water 
pollutants above the minimum requirements of the Kiev Protocol. 

Contribution to the 7th Environmental Action Program:  
The E-PRTR is crucial to several objectives of the 7th Environmental Action Programme (7th 
EAP)9.  Priority  objective  5  (to  improve  the  knowledge  and  evidence  base  for  Union 
environment  policy),  states  that  Union  environment  policy  is  based  on  environmental 

7 UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in 
Environmental Matters http://live.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf 
8  Energy;  production  and  processing  of  metals;  mineral  industry;  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. 
9 Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a General 
Union  Environment  Action  Programme  to  2020  ‘Living  well,  within  the  limits  of  our  planet’  (OJ  L  354, 
28.12.2013, p. 171–200)  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013D1386 

4

e
g
a
P

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
monitoring,  data,  indicators  and  assessments  linked  to  the  implementation  of  Union 
legislation. The 7th EAP recognises that there has been considerable progress on strengthening 
this knowledge base, raising awareness and improving the confidence of policy-makers and the 
public  in  the  evidence  which  underpins  policy,  including  policies  where  the  precautionary 
principle has been applied. This has facilitated better understanding of complex environmental 
and societal challenges (see paragraph 66 of the Annex to the Decision). 

Paragraph 69 goes on to acknowledge improvements in the way environmental information and 
statistics are collected and used at Union and at national, regional and local level, as well as 
globally. However, data collection and quality remain variable and the multiplicity of sources 
can  make  access  to  data  difficult.  Continuous  investment  is  therefore  needed  to  ensure  that 
credible, comparable and quality-assured data and indicators are available and accessible to 
those involved  in  defining and implementing policy. Environmental information  systems need 
to  be  designed  in  order  to  enable  new  information  on  emerging  themes  to  be  easily 
incorporated. Union-wide electronic data-exchange should be further developed, with enough 
flexibility to encompass new areas. 

Baseline  
The first E-PRTR data cover 2007 and  succeed a previous EU-initiated industry registry, the 
European  Pollutant  Emission  Register  (EPER),  under  which  data  were  reported  for the  years 
2001  and  2004.  The  fact  that  the  EPER  pre-dated  and  evolved  into  the  E-PRTR  makes  it 
difficult to establish an exact baseline for assessing the E-PRTR’s additional impact.  

No  impact  assessment  was  prepared  for  the  E-PRTR  Regulation,  which  is  designed  to 
transpose the EU’s international obligations. 

Intervention logic 
The following intervention logic provides an overview of the main E-PRTR actions and their 
expected outcomes.  

Objectives: 
1. Transpose the Kiev Protocol into EU law 
2. Maximise  public  access 

to 

information  on 

pollutant releases and transfer 

3. Encourage  public  participation  in  environmental 

affairs 
4. Contribute 

to  prevention  and 

reduction  of 

environmental pollution  

5. Create consistency between EU countries 

Actions: 
1. Commission - initial one-off actions  

a)  Establish  an  integrated  Pollutant  Release  and 
Transfer  Register  (E-PRTR),  directly  accessible 
via the Internet 
b) Develop guidance on implementation 

2. Member States (MS) – ongoing actions 









assure quality of data provided by industry 
report  annually  on  releases  and  off-site 
transfers  (electronic  data  transfer  within  15 
months of end of reporting year) 
report on practices and measures taken 
lay  down  rules  on  penalties  applicable  to 
infringements of provisions of the Regulation 
promote  public  awareness  and  provide 
assistance  in  accessing,  understanding  and 
using information  

5

e
g
a
P




3. Commission (assisted by EEA) – ongoing actions 
assure quality of data provided by MS 
publish  E-PRTR  data  (within  16  months  of 
receipt from MS) 
include  information  on  releases  from  diffuse 
sources 
report to EP and Council 





Needs: 
1. A better knowledge of pollution 
2. Promote 

transparency 

and 
accountability in environmental matters 

3. Effectively engage citizens 
4.

Improve environmental performance 

External factors: 
1. MS 

activities 

on 

reporting 

of 

environmental information 

2. Concerns  of  industry  or  stakeholders 
administrative 

confidentiality, 

(e.g. 
burden) 

3. Budgetary constraints from EU and MS 
4. Other policies or reporting requirements 
5.
International obligations 
6. Technological progress 

5 

Expected results/impacts: 
1. More  effective  participation  of  public 
in  environmental 

stakeholders 

and 
decision-making  
2. Constant  access 

to 

information  on 

industrial / environmental pollution 

3. Easy accessible information  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

All  Member  States  have  adopted  national  legislation  and  procedures  to  implement  the 
requirements  of  the  E-PRTR  Regulation.  Appendix  D  of  the  supporting  study  summarises 
implementation measures in each Member State. The following are general observations: 

E-PRTR website  
According to Article 10(1) of the Regulation, the Commission must make the register publicly 
accessible  free  of  charge  on  the  Internet.  The  E-PRTR  website  (http://prtr.ec.europa.eu)  is 
hosted  and  maintained  by  the  European  Environment  Agency  (EEA),  allowing  for  further 
integration of E-PRTR data with other datasets that the EEA manages.  

The website is designed to maximise ease of public access and the information is continuously 
and readily accessible. At present, the E-PRTR website provides online access to data reported 
by more than 30 00010 major industrial facilities covering 65 economic activities11 in the main 
industrial sectors. For each facility, it provides information on the quantity of pollutant releases 
to air, water and land, together with off-site transfers of waste and of pollutants in waste water 
for 91 key substances. In addition to those core datasets, which are the main point sources of 
pollution,  the  E-PRTR  also  contains  spatially  disaggregated  data  on  releases  from  diffuse 
sources into air and water. 

Every year, industrial establishments with pollutant emissions above certain thresholds report 
their pollutant emissions to Member States’ competent authorities. These data take the form of 
total masses of pollutants released to air, water and land, as well as off-site transfers of waste 
and of pollutants in wastewater. 

In  turn,  Member  States  check  these  data  and  electronically  report  them  annually  to  the 
Commission via a portal managed by the EEA. The reporting deadline is 15 months from the 
end of the reporting year (e.g. the deadline for reporting 2014 data was 31 March 2016). Since 
the first reporting year (2007), the deadline has by and large been met by Member States. Some 
minor delays (of up to a few months) have occurred but no structural issues are apparent.  

The  EEA  then  incorporates  the  information  reported  by  Member  States  into  the  E-PRTR 
database within 16 months of the end of the reporting year (e.g. the target for publishing 2014 
data was 30 April 2016)12. 

The  EEA  publish  the  data  on  the  E-PRTR's  interactive  website  and  also  separately  make  it 
available  for  detailed  use  in  its  data  service  facilities.  Emission  data  can  be  accessed  in 
different ways on the E-PRTR website i.e. by searching on criteria such as pollutant, industrial 
activity  type,  country,  or  river-basin.  The  website  includes  a  link  to  the  EEA  website,  from 
which the full E-PRTR database and summary tables can be downloaded. 

10 In the year 2014, data was reported by 33,246 facilities. 
11 See Annex I of the E-PRTR Regulation 
12 In practice two months are needed for the necessary consistency tests and addressing Member State reporting 
issues. 

6

e
g
a
P

6 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Reporting 2014 
The EEA's E-PRTR Summary Report 201413 presents overall statistics for 2014 E-PRTR data 
and shows selected data time series since 2007. Some key observations are listed below: 

 

In  2014,  emissions  were  reported  by  33,084  facilities  in  33  countries  –  the  EU-28, 
Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and Serbia. This was an increase of about 
2% over the 32,480 facilities that reported in 2013.  

  Of  the  E-PRTR  facilities  that  reported  in  2014,  46%  had  reported  every  year  since 
2007. The level of continuity is probably higher still as it does not include facilities that 
have  changed  name  or  are  close  to  the  reporting  thresholds  in  Annex  II  of  the 
Regulation (and so do not need to report every year).  

  11% of facilities reported for the first time in 2014, including those in Croatia. 
 

In 2014 the largest number of facilities carried out waste and waste-water management 
(31%), followed by intensive livestock production and aquaculture (21%). 

  Between  2007  and  2014,  some  industrial  activities  saw  significant  increases  in  the 
number  of  facilities  reporting  emissions.  For  instance,  the  figure  for  waste  and  waste 
water management  was up 58% and for food and beverage industries it rose by 28%. 
This probably reflects higher reporting by existing facilities, rather than the opening of 
new facilities.  

The following figure shows the number of E-PRTR facilities per main activity over the period 
2007 to 2014. 

13  EEA  Summary  Report  on  2014  E-PRTR  Data  https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/fb8035be-a0b3-4b0f-9de1-
58e2c602063f/E-PRTR%20Summary%20Note%202014.pdf 

7

e
g
a
P

7 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Quality assurance 
After  receiving  annual  data  returns  from  facility  operators,  Member  States  carry  out  quality 
checks before transmitting their compiled data to the EEA.  

An  automated  validation  tool  developed  by  the  EEA  helps  Member  States  validate  E-PRTR 
data  and  assure  compliance  with  the  agreed  reporting  format.  The  validation  covers 
information  such  as:  pollutant  types,  industrial  sector  codes,  geographical  coordinates, 
mandatory  checks  for  formatting,  quantitative  checks  of  release  /  waste  values  (including 
outliers),  and  checks  for  confidential  data.  If  errors  are  found,  Member  States  may  resubmit 
data. 

To  help  implement  the  Regulation,  the  EEA  also  checks  the  quality  of  data  in  the  E-PRTR 
annually through a process known as the 'informal review', after which: 

  Member States are provided with detailed feedback on the quality and completeness of 
their  submitted  data.  EEA  checks  cover  an  evaluation  of  the  number  of  facilities  and 
release  reports,  the  amounts  of  releases  and  transfers  reported,  confidentiality  claims 
and accidental releases; 

 

to  identify  and  address  potential  inconsistencies,  E-PRTR  data  are  also  subsequently 
compared  with  data  reported  under  other  reporting  obligations  (e.g.  the  National 
Emission  Ceilings  Directive14,  the  Emissions  Trading  Scheme15,  the  Urban  Waste-
Water Treatment Directive16 and the Waste Statistics Regulation17). 

14  Directive 2001/81/EC http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Al28095 

8

e
g
a
P

8 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Commission guidance 
As  required  under  Article  14  of  the  Regulation,  the  Commission  published  a  guidance 
document18 in 2006 to support implementation of the E-PRTR. The guidance covers practical 
matters  such  as  who  should  report,  what  information  is  required  and  how  data  should  be 
submitted. It also includes an indicative list of sectors and pollutants for which data reporting is 
expected.  

Enforcement action 
The Commission has had little need to resort to formal action against Member States to enforce 
the requirements of the Regulation. There has only been one pilot action (now closed) and that 
hinged  on whether  an activity carried  out  at  a  facility  was covered  by the  Regulation.  While 
there have been some delays with the annual submission of data by Member States, these have 
been resolved through informal reminders and have not necessitated formal action.  

4. 

EVALUATION METHOD 

As summarised in Annex 1 to this document, the evaluation of the E-PRTR Regulation started 
in mid-2014 and was overseen by an Inter-service Steering Committee. Whilst every effort has 
been  made  to  comply  with  the  Better  Regulation  guidelines  published  in  May  2015,  the 
supporting work, including an external consultation, was commissioned before these rules were 
adopted.  The  evaluation  roadmap19,  outlining  the  scope,  purpose  and  approach  to  the 
evaluation, was published in 2014.  

Annex 2 details the wide range of evaluation methods used to assess the E-PRTR Regulation. 
They  included  reviews  of  yearly  implementation  reports,  a  literature  review,  stakeholder 
consultations, an expert workshop and a supporting study by an external contractor.  

Targeted  consultation:  A  targeted  stakeholder  consultation  was  held  in  April  2015.  The 
competent authorities in the Member States first received an introductory letter alerting them to 
an upcoming consultation. One week later the two questionnaires (each with 30-40 questions) 
were  sent  to  stakeholders:  one  for  data  providers  and  managers,  the  other  for  data  users.  A 
sample  of  150  stakeholders  was  consulted.  The  number  of  replies  totalled  78  (from  31 
European or national industry associations, 23 Member States and a number of NGOs, research 
institutes  and  others).  As  follow-up  to  this  targeted  consultation,  31  phone  interviews  were 
organised with academics and selected respondents. 

trading  within 

15  Directive  2003/87/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  a  scheme  for  greenhouse  gas 
emission  allowance 
the  Community  and  amending  Council  Directive  96/61/EC  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1488376075580&uri=CELEX:32003L0087 
16  Directive 91/271/EEC  
17  Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32002R2150  
18  Guidance  Document  for  the  implementation  of  the  European  PRTR  http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/docs/EN_E-

PRTR_fin.pdf 

19   E-PRTR roadmap: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_env_062_e-prtr_en.pdf 

9

e
g
a
P

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                           
Public consultation: Between 23 July and 15 October 2015, all stakeholders were invited to 
make  representations  on  the  REFIT  evaluation  using  a  questionnaire  published  on  the  Your 
Voice in Europe portal. Stakeholders were alerted to the consultation through emails, personal 
contacts  and  announcements  on  the  Directorate  General  Environment  and  the  E-PRTR 
websites20. A total  of 67 responses  were received; almost  all came  from  stakeholders, with a 
small minority (9%) from interested individuals. In all, 63% of the replies came from private 
companies, followed by local authorities (12%), industrial associations (9%) and others.  

Literature review: As detailed in Appendix C of the Supporting Study, the literature review 
included academic publications, reviews of E-PRTR data quality, the EEA's informal analysis 
and industry guidance for emissions reporting. Of particular relevance were a variety of EEA 
reports e.g. Summary Report on 2014 E-PRTR Data21. There were also useful insights from a 
study22 of the visitors to the E-PRTR website. 

Expert workshop: A workshop was held in Brussels on 4 November 2015, chiefly to discuss 
and validate the draft findings of the Commission's REFIT evaluation. 

Limitations  of  data  and  method:  Overall,  the  available  data  and  information  appear 
sufficiently robust to  allow for an appropriate evaluation. However,  the following limitations 
should be noted:  

a)  The  nature  of  the  E-PRTR  objectives  (i.e.  maximising  access  to  information, 
encouraging  public  participation,  contributing 
to  prevention  and  reduction  of 
environmental pollution, creating consistency between EU countries), dictated that the 
evaluation  was  largely  based  on  a  qualitative  analysis.  Data  sources  were  used 
whenever  possible,  but  the  character  of  the  Regulation  is  such  that  a  quantitative 
evaluation is a challenge. 

b)  The E-PRTR is one of a group of EU measures that work together to reduce the impact 
of industrial emissions. It is therefore difficult to distinguish the E-PRTR’s individual 
contribution from measures such as the IED, industrial accidents directive23 and VOC 
directive24.  

c)  When considering costs and benefits, it is important to distinguish those deriving from 
the  underlying  Kiev  Protocol  and  those  attributable  to  the  E-PRTR.  In  general  terms, 

20 http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/ and http://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/stationary/eper/implementation.htm  
21https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/fb8035be-a0b3-4b0f-9de1-58e2c602063f/E-
PRTR%20Summary%20Note%202014.pdf  
22 Supporting the evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 concerning the establishment of a European 
Pollutant Release and Transfer Register and its triennial review https://bookshop.europa.eu/en/supporting-the-
evaluation-of-regulation-ec-no-166-2006-concerning-the-establishment-of-a-european-pollutant-release-and-
transfer-register-and-its-triennial-review-pbKH0616137/ 
23 Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of major-
accident  hazards  involving  dangerous  substances,  OJ  L  197,  24.7.2012,  p.  1–37  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1482161174784&uri=CELEX:32012L0018  
24 Directive 1994/63/EC concerning emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from the storage of petrol 
and distribution from terminals to service stations (OJ L 365, 31/12/1994, p. 24–33) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1482161093316&uri=CELEX:31994L0063  

0
1

e
g
a
P

10 

 
 
 
                                                 
the  largest  costs  and  benefits  are  attributable  to  the  Kiev  Protocol  because  it  is  the 
underlying driver for the majority of E-PRTR obligations. 

d)  A  significant  number  of  experts  responded  to  the  various  consultations,  resulting  in  a 
good participation rate (78 replies from 150 requests). However, due to the specialised 
nature of the Regulation, there were limited responses from the general public (only 9% 
of the 67 replies to the public consultation were from individuals). This is important as 
a primary audience for the E-PRTR is the general public. 

5. 

ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS  

This section summarises the key findings for the five main evaluation criteria. In the interest of 
efficiency,  some  evaluation  questions  from  the  initial  Roadmap  were  refined  during  the 
evaluation  and,  for  presentational  reasons,  have  been  grouped  here  into  more  logical 
combinations. Fuller analysis of the evaluation questions (EQ) can be found in Appendix A to 
the supporting study.  

Effectiveness 

EQ1:  Does  the  progress  towards  the  objective  of  the  E-PRTR  Regulation  match  the  initial 
expectations? EQ2: Can the progress made be linked to measures in the E-PRTR Regulation? 
What other influencing factors (e.g. implementation by Member States, action by stakeholders, 
interaction  between  industry  and  authorities)  can  be  identified,  that  contributed  to  the 
changes? 

The objectives of the E-PRTR Regulation as identified by the 'intervention logic' are to: 

1.  Transpose the Kiev Protocol into EU law 
2.  Maximise public access to information on pollutant releases and transfer 
3.  Encourage public participation in environmental affairs 
4.  Contribute to prevention and reduction of environmental pollution. 
5.  Create consistency between EU countries. 

With  regard  to  the  Kiev  Protocol,  the  E-PRTR  Regulation  provided  an  effective  means  of 
transposition. As a Regulation it became immediately enforceable as law in all Member States 
and  thus  avoided  the  potential  for  delay  and  deviation  that  could  have  arisen  from  an  EU 
directive.  

Importantly, for objectives 2, 3 and 4 the E-PRTR Regulation is a contributing instrument and 
does not aim for complete delivery on its own. In addition, some Member States kept existing 
national  registers  predating  the  E-PRTR  and  were  already  working  towards  achieving  these 
objectives.  However,  Member  State  implementation  reports,  plus  stakeholder  feedback  from 
the  consultations  and  the  workshop,  indicate  that  these  objectives  are  being  achieved  overall 
and  have  encouraged  a  better  knowledge  of  pollution  and  exposure  to  pollutants.  Industry 
stakeholders  were  more  emphatic  that  E-PRTR  has  fostered  public  participation  in 
environmental affairs, since they are witnessing more scrutiny of their actions.  

Workshop  participants  discussed  how  the  current  lack  of  contextual  information  reduces 
effectiveness  since  E-PRTR  data  could  be  misinterpreted.  The  public  may  find  it  difficult  to 

11 

1
1

e
g
a
P

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
understand the meaning of emission data e.g. whether facilities are compliant with their legal 
obligations  and  what  a  tonne  of  a  specific  pollutant  actually  means  for  the  environment  and 
human health (i.e. its impacts). There is a suggestion that including additional information on 
production  data  could  aid  the  assessment  of  environmental  effectiveness  and  provide  a  basis 
for benchmarking. Such additional information could add value and purpose to the data already 
held on the register.  

On the fifth objective (consistency), there was an initial risk that Member States would avail 
themselves of the different options provided by the Kiev Protocol. For instance, Annex 1 of the 
Protocol allows the scope of activities to be defined by a threshold either based on production 
capacity  or  the  number  of  employees.  The  E-PRTR,  with  its  pan-European  approach,  has 
therefore minimised variations in Member State interpretations and improved the consistency 
of data reporting. It is clear, from Member State implementation reports and from stakeholder 
responses, that the E-PRTR has made it easier to compare emissions from different countries 
and  industrial  sectors.  This  is  directly  attributable  to  the  establishment  of  the  E-PRTR  as  a 
mechanism for implementing the Kiev Protocol. 

Overall,  it  is  concluded  that  the  E-PRTR  is  working  as  expected  and  that  this  is  due  to  the 
Regulation (i.e. it would not have happened without the Regulation in place). 

With  regard  to  other  influencing  factors  that  may  have  contributed  to  these  changes,  the 
evaluation did not identify any notable contributions.  

EQ3. What unexpected changes resulting from the Regulation can be identified? 

The Member State implementation reports and responses to the stakeholder consultations did 
not  point  to  any  major  unexpected  or  unintended  changes  stemming  from  the  E-PRTR 
Regulation.  

On the positive side, it is notable that most of the signatories to the Kiev Protocol use the E-
PRTR model – presumably because it is a well-established system. This means that there is not 
only harmonisation of data reporting within the EU-28, but further afield as well. 

By contrast, stakeholders indicated some limited confusion arising from the E-PRTR reporting 
thresholds, including difficulties in applying them to the complex scenarios that actually exist 
on industrial facilities. While these thresholds have been set to capture the majority of emission 
sources  (and  thus  limit  the  E-PRTR's  administrative  burden),  some  industry  operators 
incorrectly see them as dictating whether emissions monitoring is needed.  

There was also mention of the potential for E-PRTR data to differ from data collected under 
the  reporting  obligations  in  other  environmental  instruments.  Again,  this  was  partially 
attributed to E-PRTR reporting thresholds, but can also occur because of the different scopes of 
reporting  obligations  (e.g.  pollutant  load  versus  pollutant  concentration)  and  differing 
expressions of pollutants (e.g. SO2 versus SOx – sulphur dioxide versus sulphur oxides).  

EQ4.  Do  the  reported  data  and  possibilities  for  data  searching  serve  the  objectives  of  the 
Regulation?  

Since its implementation, the E-PRTR has provided the EU's largest single dataset on industrial 
pollutant  information.  The  register  is  accessible  to  anyone  with  Internet  access  and  provides 
data encompassing all EU Member States,  European  Free Trade Association (EFTA)  nations 

12 

2
1

e
g
a
P

 
 
 
 
 
 
and Serbia. The annual provision of data means that the importance of this dataset has grown 
year on year as additional use of the data for trend analysis has become possible.  

The data, in aggregated and disaggregated form, are presented in a comprehensive manner and 
are  easy  to  access.  These  positive  findings  have  been  echoed  by  users  outside  the  EU  and 
several non-EU countries have shown an interest in using the European system as the basis for 
development of their own national registers.  

An analysis of the E-PRTR website user patterns and the ad hoc user survey have shown that 
the E-PRTR website  is accessed by a variety of users, including  public services, commercial 
enterprises  and  the  general  public.  In  general,  users  consider  the  website  design  suitable  and 
convenient. They feel that the data, in aggregated and disaggregated form, are presented in a 
comprehensive manner and in a format that is easy to access. These positive findings have been 
echoed by users outside the EU and several non-EU countries have shown an interest in using 
the European system as the basis for their own national registers.  

The number of visitor sessions is a key measure of activity on the E-PRTR website and, in the 
two and a half years between 1 July 2011 and 1 January 2014, a total of 221,712 sessions were 
recorded. This equates to an average of 88,300 sessions per year or 242 sessions per day25. This 
is down on the average for the previous reporting period (589 sessions per day), although the 
reasons for this are not clear.  

73% of website users were returning visitors. This suggests that the site has a well-established 
following. Peak website activity is observed in May – when new data comes online. 

According  to  website  analytics,  most  sessions  were  by  direct  traffic  i.e.  typing  the  website 
address or using a previously saved bookmark. However, another important source of website 
traffic  is  online  media;  an  online  news  article  references  E-PRTR  data  and  readers  follow 
through  to  the  E-PRTR  website  as  the  original  source  of  data.  As  a  result  of  Italian  media 
coverage,  Italy  therefore  tops  the  list  of  most  active  countries  to  use  the  site  (with  20%  of 
sessions). 

A pop-up website survey conducted by the EEA in 2016 elicited 498 responses which showed 
that the most common reasons for using E-PRTR data were: 

  academic purposes (40% of answers); 
  public participation in decision-making / access to environmental information (25%); 
  business (20%); 
  policy-making (15%).  

The  pop-up  survey  also  asked  visitors  what  kind  of  information  they  were  looking  for.  The 
responses  showed  a  fairly  even  split  between  EU-wide,  country-specific,  sector-specific  and 
facility-specific information.  

As  for  the  kinds  of  visitors:  39%  were  individuals,  37%  were  public  organisations  and  24% 

25 From Appendix E of the supporting study 

3
1

e
g
a
P

13 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
were commercial organisations. 

The accessibility and scale of the E-PRTR website means that can be used in multiple ways. 
The E-PRTR enables data to be collated in a format which can be used by industry and policy- 
makers.  This  data  allows  for  the  high-level  assessment  and  monitoring  of  environmental 
performance  across  a  range  of  industry  sectors,  in  particular  for  installations  covered  by  the 
industrial  emissions  directive  (IED).  For  example,  the  EEA  relies  on  E-PRTR  data  for  its 
regular  reports  on  the  state  of,  and  outlook  for,  the  European  environment  (SOER),  and  for 
special studies on the costs of air pollution from industrial facilities.  

Stakeholders  highlighted  that  better  publicity  -  using  new  media  or  introducing  analytical 
commentaries on issues to help interpretation - could increase the use and visibility of the E-
PRTR.  There  were  also  suggestions about  providing  data  in  new  formats  e.g.  apps  to  run  on 
smartphones  and  other  mobile  devices.  Joining  together  with  other  reporting  processes  –  for 
example  on  waste,  with  the  Water  Information  System  for  Europe26  (WISE)  information  – 
could make for greater effectiveness, particularly in communicating with the public. 

Several  stakeholders  stressed  the  importance  of  data  quality,  since  data  errors  undermine  the 
credibility  of  the  overall  register.  Industry,  Member  States  and  the  EEA  are  already  working 
hard  on  this,  but  further  strengthening  the  existing  quality  assurance  measures  would  be 
beneficial.  

The  automated  validation  tool  and  the  possibility  for  data  resubmission  are  very  useful  for 
Member States. The informal review is considered equally useful in promoting good practice 
by helping to identify inconsistencies and possible errors in the reported data. However, there 
remains a need for Member States to continue improving the upstream quality of their reported 
data. 

Efficiency 

EQ5. Are the costs justified compared to the benefits and usability of the reported information?  

5a. What are the overall costs associated with implementation?  

The  costs  of  implementing  the  E–PRTR  are  borne  by  operators  (initially  providing  data), 
Member State authorities (collecting, collating, checking and providing data) and the European 
Commission and EEA (collating, checking and making data available).  

Since the E-PRTR Regulation implements the Kiev Protocol in EU law, most of the costs and 
benefits  arising  from  its  implementation  stem  from  the  Protocol.  The  incremental  impacts 
arising  from  the  E-PRTR  Regulation  are  relatively  minor  and  relate  to  these  additional 
obligations: 

1.  Facility operators report on five additional water pollutants and, where needed, report 
on dioxins and furan emissions to all media (thresholds have been lowered compared to 
the Kiev Protocol).  

26 http://water.europa.eu/  

4
1

e
g
a
P

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.  Member  State  authorities  report  annually  to  the  Commission,  and  the  Commission, 

assisted by the EEA, incorporate the reported information into the E-PRTR.  

3.  The Commission has drawn up a guidance document supporting the implementation of 

the European PRTR (under Article 14).  

4.  Member States report to the Commission every three years on implementation of the E-

PRTR (under Article 16). 

For the first such 'additional' obligation, the extent of the costs will depend on the number of 
facilities affected. In 2013, only 14727 from a total of 32,777 facilities reporting under E-PRTR 
were affected by the additional E-PRTR requirements (i.e. 0.5% of facilities). The average cost 
of  reporting  (for  all  pollutants)  is  estimated  at  22  working  hours  per  operator28,  leading  to  a 
total cost of about 400 working days for all EU Member States together. As operators usually 
report several pollutants, this is likely to be a high estimate. 

The  second 'additional'  obligation  covers  reporting  activities  for  both  Member  States  and the 
Commission, assisted by the EEA. Member States' reporting to the Commission involves data 
transfer and queries linked to the data. Collecting and compiling data is not part of the E-PRTR 
costs  as  they  are  required  by  the  Kiev  Protocol.  The  additional  costs  of  the  data  transfer  are 
negligible.  The  reporting  costs  incurred  by  the  European  Commission  and  EEA  cover  the 
gathering, checking and publishing of all the requested data. The Commission estimates its E-
PRTR involvement at EUR 150 000 for operational expenditure and one full-time equivalent 
(FTE) per year. The total costs of EEA staff, IT specialists and the Environmental Topic Centre 
are approximately EUR 320 000 and two FTE i.e. around EUR 520 000 per year29.  

The  third  'additional'  obligation  of  drawing  up  a  guidance  document  supporting  the 
implementation  of  the  European  PRTR  has  already  been  implemented.  This  cost  has  already 
been  absorbed.  All  the  consulted  stakeholders  considered  the  guidance  document  to  be 
extremely useful in the reporting process, although the 2013 implementation review identified 
a number of minor areas where it could be improved. 

The  final  'additional'  obligation  (Member  State  triennial  reporting  to  the  Commission)  gives 
feedback on implementation issues and therefore provides a basis for improving the reporting 
process. The Commission uses these returns to prepare a report to the European Parliament and 
the  Council  (under  Article  17)30.  The  supporting  study  to  the  horizontal  REFIT  exercise  for 
environmental  monitoring  and  reporting31  estimated  the  time  required  for  these  actions  to  be 
196 working days for all Member States and 72 working days for the Commission. 

27  In  2013  this  was:  63  for  fluoranthene,  40  for  octyphenols  and  octyphenol  ethoxylates,  34  for 
benzo(g.h.i.)perylene, 8 for isodrin and 2 for hexabromobiphenyl (data from supporting study, p. 41). 
28 Supporting study (pages 45 and 294) 
29 Table 6.1 of the supporting study to the REFIT exercise for Environmental Monitoring and Reporting 
30 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 
31  See  Fiche  13  in  Annex  3  (Reporting  Obligation  Fiches)  to  the  support  study  prepared  by  ICF,  IEEP  and 
Denkstatt  (2017):  'Support  to  the  Fitness  Check  of  monitoring  and  reporting  obligations  arising  from  EU 
environmental legislation', published online (ISBN: 978-92-79-6626-5 / EUR - KH-01-17-202-EN-N – EN). 

5
1

e
g
a
P

15 

 
 
 
                                                 
5b. What are the overall benefits associated with implementation?  

Due to the qualitative nature of most E-PRTR objectives, the benefits are difficult to measure. 
However,  as  demonstrated  in  the  section  on  'effectiveness',  responses  to  the  consultations 
indicate  that  the  E-PRTR  largely  meets  its  stated  objectives  and  thus  delivers  benefits  to  a 
number of stakeholders. These involve: 

  providing  public  access  to  information  on  pollutant  releases  and  transfer  through  an 

easily accessible database. 

  encouraging  public  participation  in  environmental  affairs  by  equipping  stakeholders 

with valuable information. 

  contributing to the prevention and reduction of environmental pollution by highlighting 

poor performers and large emitters that may require other regulatory intervention. 
  creating consistency between EU countries in the way that emissions are reported. 

E-PRTR data on environmental releases from industrial facilities are also useful for 'state of the 
environment' reporting and for informing policy-makers.  

Industrial  stakeholders  consider  that  the  E-PRTR  is  a  useful  investment  as  it  provides 
transparency on their emission data through an established and accepted system. This provides 
industrial operators with some certainty on information demands. 

5c. Are the costs proportionate and are there any inefficient provisions? 

While  it  is  difficult  to  make  a  quantified  comparison  of  E-PRTR  costs  and  benefits, 
stakeholders judge the estimated costs of the E-PRTR to be relatively small when compared to 
the E-PRTR's significant contributions to data transparency and public participation. 

Overall,  consultations  have  shown  that  stakeholders  view  the  benefits  of  the  E-PRTR  to  be 
greater than the costs. This view was strongest among Member States' competent authorities. 

The absence of stakeholder complaints also supports the view that the costs are proportionate 
to the benefits. 

inefficient  provisions, 

Regarding 
triennial 
implementation  returns  made  by  MS  under  Article  16  contain  much  descriptive  text  (which 
makes them difficult to compare) and are very repetitive from one year to the next. In view of 
this,  the  returns  are  considered  to  provide  relatively  little  useful  information  for  the 
Commission. This is inefficient in view of the resources that MS use to compile the returns. 

the  Commission’s  has  observed 

that 

the 

EQ6. Are there significant costs differences for the implementation of the E-PRTR Regulation 
between  countries?  What  can  be  regarded  as  baseline  costs  on  the  basis  of  a  complete 
implementation  of 
terms  of  cost-effective 
implementation can be identified? 

the  Regulation?  What  good  practices 

in 

There  were  no  significant  indications  of  differences  in  Member  State  implementation  costs. 
However,  one  stakeholder  noted  that  the  more  decentralised  a  country  (especially  federal 
countries), the higher the costs for implementing any reporting obligation, including E-PRTR. 

16 

6
1

e
g
a
P

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
This was attributed to additional data movements and associated quality assurance. 

the  E-PRTR  activities  were  handled  electronically.  The 

For countries with advanced e-governance, the implementation costs were lower because most 
of 
implementation  analysis 
demonstrated  that  the  E-PRTR  is  fully  integrated  in  the  national  mechanisms  of  many 
countries32.  Actions  to  enhance  efficiency  are  Member  State  initiatives  but  commitments  to 
integrate reporting at EU level could boost this efficiency still further. 

With regard to baseline costs, the responses to the various evaluation procedures did not allow 
this to be quantified. 

On good practices for cost-effective implementation of the Regulation, the targeted stakeholder 
consultation  noted  that  several  Member  States  were  pursuing  the  streamlining  of  reporting 
activities between the E-PRTR and other reporting activities. 

EQ7. How do implementing costs compare to other similar reporting measures? 

Although  there  are  no  other  directly  comparable  reporting  obligations,  most  stakeholders 
expressed the view that the E-PRTR implementing costs as similar to those required by other 
environmental reporting obligations. 

EQ8.  Has  evidence  been  detected  for  simplifying  or  streamlining  with  other  applicable 
regulations in the field of industrial emissions and reporting? 

The various consultations highlighted some opportunities for simplification: 

  E-PRTR  efficiency  would  be  improved  by  a  multi-query  search  function  with 

additional reporting parameters and/or access to other key information. 

  Further  harmonisation  between  E-PRTR  and  IED  scope/definitions  could  make  for 
better streamlining of the data flow management. This could reduce the administrative 
burden  for  reporting  facilities  and  also  reduce  mistakes  caused  when  similar  datasets 
are provided in different reporting formats. 

  Streamlining  IT  tools  and  registers  that  have  often  been  developed  in  silos.  Here,  the 
European Commission and EEA are working on possibilities to streamline the reporting 
on industrial emissions, for example by linking E-PRTR reporting to the reporting on 
large combustion plant (LCP) emission inventories. 

Coherence 

EQ9. Is the E-PRTR Regulation coherent internally?  

Most competent authority and industry stakeholders in the targeted consultation considered that 

32 The E-PRTR is fully integrated in the national reporting mechanisms in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Ireland, the 
Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Integration has started in Romania and Slovakia. 

7
1

e
g
a
P

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the E-PRTR Regulation is internally coherent to a large extent.  

Their main comment about possible incoherence related to having different reporting units for 
different  environmental  media  i.e.  kilograms  for  emissions  to  air  and  water,  but  tonnes  for 
waste transfers. However, these are considered to be well-established and appropriate units for 
their respective media and quality assurance procedures exist to minimise errors in data-entry.  

From  the  Commission’s  own  observations,  another  source  of  possible  inconsistency  is  the 
variety of methods that are used to produce reported E-PRTR data i.e. estimations, calculations 
and measurements. While there are guiding principles for each method, there are no standard 
methods. 

The E-PRTR Regulation is therefore considered to have good internal coherence. 

EQ10.  Is  the  E-PRTR  Regulation  coherent  with  other  applicable  legislation?  What,  if  any, 
overlaps,  discrepancies,  contradictions  or  similar  issues  can  be  identified  which  hamper 
achievement of the E-PRTR objectives? 

The E-PRTR is considered by stakeholders to be generally consistent with EU law in the fields 
of  air,  water  and  waste.  The  following  observations  were  made  on  the  interfaces  with  other 
legislation that requires reporting on the mass releases of pollutants: 

Industrial  emissions  law:  The  IED  and  E-PRTR  cover  very  similar  industrial  sectors  and, 
moreover, they cross-reference each other. However, there is not an exact match, since the E-
PRTR  covers  more  activities  (e.g.  urban  waste-water  treatment  plants)  and  there  are  some 
different capacity thresholds (e.g. for ceramics production).  

This  strong  overlap  with  the  IED  presents  an  opportunity  to  develop  tools  for  streamlining 
reporting  activities.  D-G  Environment  and  the  EEA  have  been  working  on  this  coherence  in 
practice and there is an ongoing initiative to develop a single reference dataset for consistency 
in  identifying  all  industrial  point  (the  so-called  EU  Registry  on  Industrial  Sites).  A  first 
beneficiary  of  this  initiative  will  be  the  annual  reporting  on  LCPs  under  Article  72(3)  of  the 
IED.  

Water law: In order to streamline with the Water Framework Directive and its Annexes IX and 
X (Priority substances), the E-PRTR added five substances to the Kiev Protocol’s list. 

There  is  a  strong  E-PRTR  interface  with  Directive  2008/105/EC  on  environmental  quality 
standards in the field of water policy (the EQSD) since, under Article 5, Member States must 
produce  inventories  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  that  include  E-PRTR  information33. 
However,  other  data  sources  are  needed  to  cover  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  from 
facilities below the E-PRTR reporting thresholds. Several stakeholders considered the E-PRTR 
water pollutant list to be outdated, since the EQSD is evolving more quickly to take account of 
new threats, e.g. endocrine disrupters.  

33  As  Recital  21  of  Directive  2008/105/EC  states  “in  order  to  avoid  duplication  of  work  by  establishing  those 
inventories and to ensure the coherence of those inventories”. 

8
1

e
g
a
P

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  Water  Information  System  for  Europe  (WISE)  currently  relies  on  E-PRTR  data  and 
information  provided  by  Member  States  on  concentrations  of  organic  parameters  in  surface 
water. However some substances do not feature in the E-PRTR or are not reported, due to the 
high thresholds.  

E-PRTR  requires  reporting  on  discharges  from  plants  covered  by  the  Urban  Waste-Water 
Treatment  Directive  (UWWTD)  when  the  population  equivalent  exceeds  100  000.  However, 
the UWWTD has a number of different (and much lower) thresholds, so it is difficult to tally 
the requirements of the two instruments.  

Waste law: On the E-PRTR's coherence with EU waste law, many of the issues identified by 
stakeholders  derive  from  the  complex  waste  acquis.  For  example,  different  waste  definitions 
and  categorisations  are  found  in  the  Regulation  on  waste  statistics  (EC/2150/2002)  and  the 
Regulation on waste shipments (EC/1013/2006); the latter uses waste codes derived from the 
Basel  Convention.  Many  of  the  different  information  flows  on  waste  are  not  themselves 
considered coherent. E-PRTR, in its collection of data on off-site waste transfers, is an element 
in this complicated landscape. 

The  proposed  circular  economy  package  includes  a  proposed  revision34  to  the  Waste 
Framework  Directive35  that  would  see  information  on  hazardous  waste  collected  and  made 
available through new nationwide electronic registries. The proposal also states that Member 
States  should  build  on  E-PRTR  data  when  such  data  is  relevant.  This  would  be  a  significant 
improvement in the external coherence of the E-PRTR and waste legislation. 

INSPIRE:  Most  stakeholders  viewed  the  E-PRTR  Regulation  as  generally  coherent  with  the 
practical requirements of the INSPIRE Directive36. The EEA, supported by the Joint Research 
Centre  as  technical  coordinator  of  the  INSPIRE  directive,  is  developing  an  approach  for 
integrating  information  on  the  location  of  industrial  entities  in  Europe.  This  will  streamline 
reporting under the E-PRTR and IED in a combined data submission.  

National  Emission  Ceilings  Directive  (NECD)  and  European  Monitoring  and  Evaluation 
Programme (EMEP): There is general coherence with national air pollutant emission inventory 
reporting  under  Directive  2001/81/EC  on  national  emission  ceilings  and  EMEP.  Some 
discrepancies were noted in the past, including several instances where countries report greater 
emissions for certain pollutants in the E-PRTR than are reported in their national total emission 
inventories.  Furthermore,  no  stack  height  information  is  required  in  the  E-PRTR  but  it  is 
needed for reporting under EMEP. Similarly, SOx emissions are required in the E-PRTR and 
EMEP, as opposed to SO2 emissions in the NECD. In view of apparent overlaps between the 
reporting  of  emissions  from  NECD  'large  point  sources'  and  the  E-PRTR,  there  is  ongoing 
work to consider streamlining these obligations on Member States.  

EU Emissions Trading System (ETS): There is general coherence between the E-PRTR and the 

34 COM (2015) 595  
35 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste and repealing certain Directives 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098 
36  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  

9
1

e
g
a
P

19 

 
 
 
                                                 
ETS. However: 

  activities and thresholds are not the same and the two laws differ in scope; 
  CO2 emissions are hard to compare because of the different definitions of an ETS 

'installation' and an E-PRTR 'facility';  

  E-PRTR  data  include  all  CO2  emissions,  while  ETS  data  are  net  emissions  that  do  not 
include renewable sources (although the E-PRTR has voluntary fields to reconcile this). 

The overall view is that: 

  The  E-PRTR  has  a  high  level  of  external  coherence,  especially  with  existing  EU 
legislation  on  Public  Access  to  Environmental  Information,  Public  Participation  in 
Decision making and Access to Justice. 

  There is some incoherence between the E-PRTR and EU legislation on air, water and 
waste.  However,  the  E-PRTR  Regulation  was  not  established  with  the  intention  of 
creating  a  one-stop  shop  for  all  reporting.  Nevertheless,  there  are  opportunities  to 
further extend the ongoing initiatives on E-PRTR alignment and to use the E-PRTR as a 
building block for related reporting obligations. Possible streamlining is already being 
investigated for reporting obligations under the UWWTD and the NECD. 

  Some  of  these  opportunities  are  identified  in  the  horizontal  Fitness  Check  on 
environmental reporting37 which ran concurrently with the E-PRTR Fitness Check.  

Relevance 

EQ11. Do the objectives of the E-PRTR still correspond to current needs within the EU?  

The  evidence  collected  from  the  various  consultations  shows  that  the  E-PRTR  is  still  very 
relevant to the EU's current needs and is consistent with the aims identified in the intervention 
logic.  In  particular,  there  was  strong  public  and  stakeholder  support  that  the  Regulation 
encourages  access  to  information  and  public  participation,  and  improves  the  prevention  and 
reduction of environmental pollution.  

The  analysis  of  visitors  of  the  E-PRTR  website  demonstrated  that  73%  -  mainly  academics, 
general public and policy-makers - had returned to the website. This suggests that the website 
and its content are relevant to them. This well-established group of users is familiar with the 
website  and  frequently  refers  to  its  data.  Although  it  is  unclear  exactly  how  visitors  use  the 
data, it is apparent from website hit data that they seek access to the full range of aggregation 
possibilities offered by the website, i.e. facility-specific, sectoral, national and EU-level data.  

Very wide use of the website by the general public should not be expected as the E-PRTR will 
always be a niche product providing very specific information.  

For  the  Commission,  the  E-PRTR  Regulation  was  driven  by  the  international  imperative  to 
enact  the  Kiev  Protocol.  In  doing  so,  it  has  created  data  consistency  across  the  EU  which 

37 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/reporting/fc_overview_en.htm  

0
2

e
g
a
P

20 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
greatly enhances the data's power. 

It  is  therefore  concluded  that  the  objectives  of  the  E-PRTR  still  correspond  to  current  needs 
within the EU. 

EQ12.  Are  there  obsolete,  unnecessary  or  missing  provisions  in  the  Regulation  that  are 
affecting its performance? 

None  of  the  stakeholder  consultations  identified  any  obviously  obsolete  or  unnecessary 
provisions in the E-PRTR Regulation.  

However, the Commission is assessing the benefit derived from the information that Member 
States are required to report to the Commission, every three years, under Article 16 of the E-
PRTR Regulation. This additional information relates to the practices and  measures taken by 
Member States to deliver their national registers. The Commission uses it to prepare its Article 
17  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council38.  However,  the  information  gathered 
through these reports has proven to be of limited added value in undertaking this evaluation. 

With  regard  to  missing  provisions,  some  stakeholders  consider  that  the  E-PRTR  gives  an 
incomplete picture of the environmental impact of industry as there is no production capacity 
for  each  facility.  The  absence  of  such  contextual  information  limits  the  E-PRTR's  value  in 
environmental  benchmarking  -  i.e.  generating  a  more  objective  metric  of  pollutant  emissions 
per unit of output. There is room for improvement in this area.  

There was also stakeholder comment on the following issues: 

  The  levels  at  which  reporting  thresholds  are  set  and  whether  these  are  still  set  at  the 
right level. The general principle is to capture the main emissions without imposing an 
administrative  burden  on  a  large  number  of  small  sources.  Some  stakeholders 
questioned  whether  the  thresholds  for  waste  transfers  were  potentially  too  high  as  a 
significant proportion of data were not included within the E-PRTR.  

  Noting that some Member States require data reporting on more pollutants in order to 
gain  an  insight  into  their  emission  profiles,  stakeholders  discussed  whether  emerging 
pollutants should be included in the E-PRTR scope. 

  The need to address some data gaps e.g. improve the quantification of diffuse emission 

sources. 

It is concluded that there are no obviously unnecessary or missing provisions in the E-PRTR 
Regulation.  Member  State  reporting  to  the  Commission  under  Article  16  appears  to  have 
limited usefulness, which suggests that there is scope for simplification. 

38 A first report assessed experience gained during the first three years of operating the E-PRTR i.e. 2007, 2008 
and 2009. See 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  

1
2

e
g
a
P

21 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
EQ13.  Does  the  Regulation  contribute  to  the  5th  objective  of  the  7th  Environment  Action 
Programme 'to improve the knowledge and evidence base for Union environment policy'? 

The  7th  Environment  Action  Programme  highlights  the  need  to  improve  the  knowledge  and 
evidence  base  for  Union  environment  policy.  It  further  notes  that  data  collection  and  quality 
remain variable and multiple sources make access difficult.  

The  E-PRTR  provides  data  on  mass  emissions  of  a  wide  range  of  pollutants  from  industrial 
activities and hence displays information on industrial pollution performance. As such, it is a 
source of data for environmental policy development and it is important for providing data to 
the public.  

The E-PRTR is frequently referenced in academic writings and consultant reports, suggesting 
that  it  is  indeed  a  relevant  and  useful  means  of  improving  the  knowledge  base  on 
environmental policy. 

E-PRTR  data  is  also  used  extensively  by  the  Commission  services  as  an  evidence  base.  For 
example, it feeds into DG Environment's own seminal report on the Contribution of industry to 
pollutant  emissions  to  air  and  water  39  and  the  EEA's  annual  reports  on  the  state  of,  and 
outlook for, the European environment (SOER)40. 

It  is  therefore  concluded  that  the  E-PRTR  makes  a  significant  contribution  to  the  EU's 
knowledge and evidence base by collating EU-wide emission data and simplifying the process 
of comparison / analysis. 

EQ14.  Has  the  adaptation  of  the  Regulation  to  scientific  and  technical  progress  been 
appropriate and involved stakeholders. EQ15. Are there new needs that should be reflected in 
the E-PRTR Regulation? 

The Regulation has not been formally adapted to scientific or technical progress through either 
of the potential legislative routes i.e. amendment through the ordinary legislative procedure or 
amendment of Annex II to the Regulation through comitology.  

Any legal change at EU level should be for aspects of the E-PRTR that are not prescribed by 
the  Kiev  Protocol.  Alternatively  the  EU  and  Member  States  would  first  have  to  seek 
amendment of the Protocol before amending the EU law.  

However, adaptation of IT systems to reflect progress in technology does not require changes 
to the E-PRTR Regulation and has already been taking place. Technical progress is important 
for data transfer processes, as such systems evolve rapidly. The E-PRTR Regulation establishes 
the  principles  for  data  transfer,  making  system  adaptation  possible.  Adaptation  can  also  be 
effected through revision of the E-PRTR guidance document but this has not yet been done. 

Stakeholders noted that recent IED scope extensions have not all been reflected in the E-PRTR 

39 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/b0435e80-9ef3-4275-8a00-c06a3bafd5a9  
40 http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer  

2
2

e
g
a
P

22 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Regulation. Stakeholders highlighted that taking the following steps could be beneficial: 

  Reviewing  the  thresholds  for  some  of the parameters. In  an  interview, one  competent 
authority said that the E-PRTR threshold for ammonia emissions to air (10 000 kg/year) 
was too high as only 10% of ammonia emissions from agriculture are reported to the E-
PRTR.  This  is  important  for  many  Member  States  in  meeting  their  NECD  emission 
ceilings. 

  More accessible information e.g. disclosure through apps, etc.; 

  More  commentaries  and  explanations  about  the  environmental  significance  of  the 

reported pollutants; 

  The E-PRTR should complement new environmental reporting schemas e.g. IED; 

  The addition of certain activities that are now covered by the IED. 

Participants at the stakeholder workshop also discussed emerging needs and concluded that the 
value of E-PRTR data could be enhanced by including the production capacity of facilities and 
providing better granularity on the production activities undertaken at each facility. 

EU added value 

EQ16.  What  is  the  additional  value  of  the  E-PRTR  Regulation,  compared  to  what  could  be 
achieved at national level? EQ19. Do the issues tackled by the Regulation still require action 
at EU level? 

As a party to the Aarhus Convention and its Kiev Protocol, the EU is required to implement its 
commitments.  In  theory,  since  Member  States  are  parties  to  the  Protocol  as  well,  all  the 
obligations  it  contains  could  have  been  established  in  national  legislation.  However,  there 
would  have  been  no  guarantee  of  consistent  application across  the  EU  in  this case, since the 
Protocol  contains  options  for  the  implementation  of  some  provisions.  For  instance,  the 
activities falling within its scope can be defined using either capacity or employee thresholds. 

In  addition, adoption  of the E-PRTR Regulation delivered indirect compliance with the Kiev 
Protocol, even in those Member States that were not initial signatories to the Protocol. 

Thus,  as  the  Commission's  original  proposal  for  the  E-PRTR41  states,  it  was  decided  to 
minimise the scope for inconsistency by creating an appropriate legal act at Community level 
to ensure compliance with the obligations of the Protocol. This EU-level instrument also was 
also expected to provide a more efficient delivery mechanism, as the E-PRTR was able to build 
on an existing Community-level intervention in this field, in the form of the EPER.  

The E-PRTR adds value, as it has led to the development of an EU-wide Guidance document 
with rules and advice on such issues as data collection, quality checking and presentation. This 

41 COM(2004)634 in Explanatory Memorandum 

3
2

e
g
a
P

23 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
guidance improves data consistency, and hence comparability, between Member States. Due to 
occasional,  but  significant,  differences  between  the  data  reported  (e.g.  carbon  dioxide 
emissions from biomass combustion) some stakeholders call for improvements to the guidance. 

Further quality assurance checks carried out by the EEA address both the completeness of data 
(i.e. their presence / absence) and their accuracy. These EU-level checks identify issues which 
are  then  rectified  at  national  level  –  a  correction  mechanism  that  would  not  exist  without  a 
European register. 

Furthermore, EU-level processes such as expert groups, workshops and analytical reports also 
provide support, helping the Member States deliver their national registers.  

For  members  of  the  public,  the  E-PRTR  adds  significant  EU  value  by  allowing  the  easy 
comparison of emission data for different industry across the EU and for providing cumulative 
emissions data for the whole of Europe. This information would be much harder to derive from 
28 separate national registers. 

The added value of the E-PRTR is therefore considered to be significant, compared with what 
could have been achieved by national action in 28 countries, and the issues addressed by the E-
PRTR Regulation continue to justify action at EU level.  

EQ17.  What  is  the  perception  of  E-PRTR  and  available  information  on  industrial  pollution? 
EQ18. How have the different provisions of the Regulation been accepted by stakeholders? 

Both  the  public  and  stakeholder  consultations  demonstrate  that  most  respondents  have  a 
positive overall view of the E-PRTR. This encouraging perception is strong, especially among 
competent  authorities.  The  large  majority  of  respondents  stated  they  trust  E-PRTR  data  and 
that the E-PRTR was valued by users. 

Some stakeholders believe that the E-PRTR data could be more useful if additional contextual 
information was added to it, e.g. facility production capacity and an indication of whether the 
emissions were compliant with permit conditions. 

It  is  apparent  from  user  numbers  for  the  website  that  the  E-PRTR  serves  a  small  but  niche 
demand for information. For those users, there is a strong positive perception of the available 
information on industrial pollution.  

6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Overall  it  is  concluded  that  the  E-PRTR  Regulation  is  fit  for  purpose.  It  is  an  important 
instrument  in  the  EU's  environmental  acquis  because  of  the  information  it  makes  publicly 
available on the performance of large industry. 

The  evaluation  showed  that  there  is  wide  stakeholder  appreciation  of  the  value  that  the  E-
PRTR brings to the topic of access to environmental information. The E-PRTR is seen as an 
easily  accessible  and  valuable  dataset,  with  no  comparable  alternative  when  it  comes  to  a 
consistent data inventory on industrial emissions across the EU.  

In terms of the formal evaluation criteria: 

24 

4
2

e
g
a
P

 
 
 
 
 
in  combination  with  other 

  The  E-PRTR  was  judged  to  be  a  fairly  effective  tool  for  a  range  of  informed 
the 
stakeholders,  and, 
achievement of wider environmental objectives. However, data interpretation could be 
further supported. For the general public, additional background information would be 
needed  to  better  understand  and  use  E-PRTR  data.  Additional  context  would  be 
beneficial  if  E-PRTR  data  is  to  be  more  used  for  benchmarking  the  environmental 
performance of industrial activities (i.e. specific activity data, production capacity).  

instruments,  contributes 

to 

  The E-PRTR is appreciated as an efficient tool and the evaluation did not identify an 
excessive administrative burden. Most stakeholders considered that the effort required 
of  data  providers  was  minimal.  Data  managers  also  found  the  level  of  effort  to  be 
appropriate  to  the  benefits  provided  by  the  disclosure  of  E-PRTR  data.  However,  the 
resources  required  by  the  E-PRTR  could  be  further  reduced  by  harmonising  its 
reporting with other environmental legislation.  

  The E-PRTR is generally internally and externally coherent with related environmental 
legislation. Some concerns were raised on how E-PRTR data submissions fit with data 
reported  under  related  legislation.  The  ongoing  work  in  implementing  the  INSPIRE 
Directive in the context of the E-PRTR and the IED is a first step in tackling some of 
the inconsistencies raised. 

  The  E-PRTR  is  a  relevant  tool  for  general  environmental  awareness  and  policy 
development.  E-PRTR  is  a  detailed  and  comprehensive  dataset  and,  together  with  its 
ease of access, means that it is a valuable EU-wide information source. Some concerns 
were raised that the available data mainly covers large point sources and more should 
be  done  to  ensure  that  information  on  diffuse  emissions  is  better  represented  in  the 
Register.  While  the  E-PRTR  website  is  frequently  used  as  an  authoritative  source  of 
emission  data  and  is  accessed  by  a  variety  of  users,  there  remains  potential  to  raise 
awareness of its existence and to increase user numbers.  

  Finally, as expected, the E-PRTR provides added value beyond the requirements of the 
Kiev Protocol by ensuring consistent implementation of the Protocol across the EU and 
allowing  for  easy  data  comparison.  This  benefit  has  increased  further  because  some 
non-EU Kiev Protocol signatories have decided to use the E-PRTR. 

Based on the weight of  evidence from the evaluation  and using  expert  opinion to  score each 
criterion out of five, the supporting study (page 66) usefully visualised the results as follows: 

5
2

e
g
a
P

25 

 
 
 
 
The  E-PRTR  already  makes  some  use  of  good  practices  that  Article  70  of  the  7th  EAP 
promotes i.e. the Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS) principle of ‘produce once, 
use  often’.  The  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  is  ongoing.  This  creates  the 
conditions  for  avoiding 
the  duplication  of  effort  and  eliminating  any  unnecessary 
administrative burden on public authorities.  

Looking  to  the  future,  the  7th  EAP  identifies  some  ongoing  gaps  in  knowledge  which  are 
relevant to the priority objectives. Investing in further data collection and research to fill those 
gaps is essential to ensure that public authorities and businesses have a sound basis for taking 
decisions  which  fully  reflect  the  true  social,  economic  and  environmental  benefits  and  costs. 
The  E-PRTR  will  be  a  key  instrument  in  helping  close  the  information  gaps  identified  in 
paragraph 73 of the 7th EAP, which refers to the aim of ensuring that by the year 2020: 

  policy-makers  and  stakeholders  have  a  more  informed  basis  for  developing  and 
implementing  environment  and  climate  policies, 
the 
environmental  impacts  of  human  activities  and  measuring  the  costs  and  benefits  of 
action and the costs of inaction; 
the environment science-policy interface is strengthened, including the accessibility of 
data for citizens and the contribution of citizens’ science. 

including  understanding 

 

There  is  no  obvious  potential  for  simplification  of,  or  major  improvement  to,  the  existing 
Regulation. Neither are stakeholders clamouring for major change. However, these are seen as 
the main areas for possible refinement: 

 

  whilst  Member  States  appear  to  be  converging  on  good  practices,  further  gains  in 
consistent interpretation can be delivered by updating the existing EU-level guidance. 
the E-PRTR can be made more efficient and coherent if there is further harmonisation 
with closely-related environmental reporting obligations. 
the triennial obligation on Member States to report on implementation of the E-PRTR 
appears to have limited usefulness, which suggests that there is scope for simplification. 

 

6
2

e
g
a
P

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  adding more contextual data to the existing E-PRTR would improve its effectiveness as 

a comprehensive source of environmental information. 

7
2

e
g
a
P

27 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION  

The  evaluation  was  conducted  by  the  Directorate-General  for  Environment  in  response  to 
Annex 2 to the 2016 Commission Work Programme42 which listed new REFIT Initiatives to be 
undertaken in 2016. The roadmap43 was published in June 2015. 

Organisation and timing: The evaluation was conducted in coordination with an Inter-service 
Steering Committee, which was established early in the evaluation process and met three times. 
The  Committee  consisted  of  Directorates-General  with  immediate  links  to  the  E-PRTR 
Regulation: 

  DG Environment (ENV) 
  DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (GROW) 
  DG Climate Action (CLIMA) 
  DG Mobility and Transport (MOVE) 
  DG Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) 
  DG Energy (ENER) 
  Joint Research Centre (JRC ISPRA) 
  Eurostat (ESTAT) 
  European Environment Agency (EEA) 

Timeline of the REFIT evaluation 

Date 

09/07/2014 

Activity 
1st  meeting  of  the  Inter-service  Steering  Committee:  kick-off, 
mandate, terms of reference for the evaluation study 

10/07/2015 

Interim supporting study received from consultant 

-

Public consultation  

15/08/2015 
15/10/2015 

17/09/2015 

September  2015 
– January 2016 

04/11/2015 

2nd  meeting  of  the  Inter-service  Steering  Committee:  comments  on 
interim supporting study 

Targeted stakeholder consultation 

Stakeholder  workshop  on  the  findings  of  the  evaluation  and  the 
interim supporting study 

02/06/2016 

Draft final supporting study received from consultant 

42 https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/work-programme-commission-key-documents-2016_en  
43 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_env_062_e-prtr_en.pdf. 

8
2

e
g
a
P

28 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Date 

22/06/2016 

Activity 
3rd  Meeting  of  the  Inter-service  Steering  Committee:  presentation  of 
draft  quality  assessment  form.  Discussion  on  draft  final  supporting 
study and next steps 

03/08/2016 

Final supporting study received from consultant 

10/10/2016 

Supporting study published in EU Bookshop 

February 2017 

Inter-service Steering Committee correspondence round: discussion of 
the  Staff  Working  Document  and  the  Commission  Report  to  the 
Parliament and Council 

Q2 2017 

Inter-service  Consultation  on  the  Staff  Working  Document  and  the 
Commission Report to the Parliament and Council 

Q4 2017 

Adoption by the Commission 

Regulatory Scrutiny Board: This evaluation was not selected for assessment by the Regulatory 
Scrutiny Board (which did not yet exist in its current form when the evaluation started).  

External expertise and evidence: External expertise was used for this evaluation through such 
fora  as  a  targeted  stakeholder  consultation  (using  telephone  interviews)  and  a  stakeholder 
workshop which was attended by some 30 participants.  

In addition, the Commission contracted an external consultancy to conduct a supporting study 
and gather specific information on key topics. The Annex to the supporting study includes a list 
of  all  data  sources  used  and  also  describes  in  more  detail  how  the  information  and  data  was 
assessed for its quality and robustness, the analytical method applied including the approach to 
evaluation questions. 

9
2

e
g
a
P

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: EVALUATION METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS  

Literature review 

The  consultant's  supporting  study  included  a  literature  review  of  academic  publications,  E-
PRTR  data  quality  reviews,  the  EEA  informal  analysis  and  industry  guidance  for  emission 
reporting.  Full  details  and  references  to  the  papers  can  be  found  in  Appendix  C  to  the 
supporting study. 

Website review 

A  review  of  the  E-PRTR  website  was  conducted  to  understand  how  it  performs  against  the 
criteria of the Regulation and also how data is accessed and used. The review was supported by 
stakeholder consultation with key user groups, particularly on the access and use points. 

During  the  period  1  July  2011  to  1  January  2014  a  total  of  221,712  web  sessions  were 
recorded.  This  corresponds  to  an  average  of  242  sessions  per  day.  The  average  has  declined 
significantly since the previous reporting period for which the average number of sessions per 
day was 589. The total number of sessions cannot be compared as the period of time is not the 
same  (the  first  review  covered  1.5  years  between  March  2010  and  June  2011).  Although  the 
daily average from the previous reporting period is recognised as being an overestimate (due to 
peak activity in the last for months drove up the average), similar peak activity was observed in 
the current reporting period and so the daily averages are relatively comparable44. 

The  website  usage  indicates  that  the  E-PRTR  has  a  well-established  following  (with  73%  of 
visitors  returning).  Previously  it  was  reported  that  peak  activity  on  the  E-PRTR  website  was 
linked to the publication of data (i.e. in May).  

According to the website analysis, an  important source  of website traffic is  online media: an 
online news article references E-PRTR data and readers follow through to the E-PRTR website 
as the original source of data. This was found to be the case in both  the current and previous 
reporting  periods  –  although  more  traffic  was  previously  redirected  from  a  wider  variety  of 
online media sources than is the case now.  

Consultations  

Part  of  the  remit  of  the  E-PRTR  Regulation  is  to  raise  awareness  of  its  existence  and  allow 
members  of  the  community,  including  the  general  public,  to  get  involved  in  how  policy  is 
shaped  to  address  environmental  concerns.  The  stakeholder  consultations  were  therefore 
designed to gauge opinion and understand how the E-PRTR is used within the EU. 

The following consultation activities were undertaken: 

44  Environment  Agency  Austria  (2012)  final  report:  Three  years  of  implementation  of  the  E-PRTR.  Supporting 
study for the European Commission 
 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/stationary/eper/pdf/Final%20report_20120605.pdf 

0
3

e
g
a
P

30 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  a public consultation hosted on the ‘Your voice in Europe’ website – to obtain views from 

the general public; 

  a targeted survey of key users based on an agreed questionnaire;  
 

follow-up consultations by telephone to verify and explore issues identified in the targeted 
survey; and 

  validation workshop for plenary discussion on identified issues. 

Public consultation (by electronic survey)  

To  collect  evidence  from  the  wider  public,  and  in  accordance  with  the  Better  Regulation 
guidelines,  a  public  consultation  was  undertaken  as  part  of  the  evaluation.  This  public 
consultation also fulfilled the obligation included in Article 13 of the Kiev Protocol to provide 
public participation in the development of PRTRs.  

A public consultation was held between 23 July 2015 and 15 October 2015. Stakeholders were 
informed about the public consultation through emails,  personal contacts and announcements 
on the DG Environment and E-PRTR websites. The questionnaire was published on the Your 
Voice in Europe portal 

The questions were structured around the following themes: 
 
the scope of the E-PRTR; 
  providing data to the register; 
  checking and forwarding data; 
  understanding the register website; and  
 

the usefulness of the register.  

A  total  of  67  responses  to  the  public  consultation  were  received.  Almost  all  came  from 
stakeholders, with a minority (9%) from interested individuals. In all, 63% of the replies came 
from private companies, 12% from local authorities and 9% from industrial associations.  

The key messages to emerge from the responses are: 

 

  most  respondents  use  the  E-PRTR  to  consult  their  own  data,  followed  by  comparing 
emissions with other sources. Emissions to air and water are the most often examined; 
for  those  responding  about  their  national  PRTR  registers,  just  under  twice  as  many 
thought that data were easy to provide, compared with other monitoring and reporting 
activities. For those responding on the E-PRTR, there was an even split between those 
who thought data provision was easy and those who did not; 

  all  respondents  indicated  that  data  collection  was  time-consuming.  The  activities 
highlighted as such were data collection, calculation of mass emissions, verification and 
uploading of data; 

  suggestions  on  making  the  registers  more  useful  were:  adding  links  to  web  pages  of 
national competent authorities' webpages, including links to data from previous years to 
allow  for  comparisons  and  providing  more  feedback  on  how  emissions  were  reached 
(e.g. estimated or calculated); and  

  broader  comments  included  the  difficulty  to  combine  the  E-PRTR  based  on  mass 
emissions  with  the  information  included  in  permits  that  set  concentration  limits  as  a 
basis  for  monitoring.  The  reporting  thresholds  were  also  highlighted  by  some 
respondents as raising issues of comparability between sectors, and being set too high 
(i.e. not capturing 90% of the release of the specific pollutant). 

31 

1
3

e
g
a
P

 
 
 
 
 
Targeted consultation (by electronic survey) 

Part of the objective of the E-PRTR Regulation is to raise awareness of its existence and allow 
members  of  the  community,  including  the  general  public,  to  get  involved  in  how  policy  is 
shaped to address environmental concerns. Stakeholder consultations were therefore designed 
to gauge opinion and understand how the E-PRTR is used within the EU, and to contribute to 
the  analysis  of  information  required  under  both  the  review  of  the  implementation  and  the 
evaluation of the Regulation.  

Considering the large number of interested stakeholders, a representative sample was selected 
for  the  targeted  consultation.  Approximately  150  stakeholders  were  consulted  to  obtain 
information from all categories. Stakeholders were divided up as follows: 

Stakeholder 

Role 

Member State competent authorities 
Industry operators 
European Environment Agency 
European Commission Directorates-Generals 
Non-governmental organisations 
Private researchers and consultancies 
Academia 
International organisations (UNECE, WHO, OECD, UNEP) 
Broader public 

Gathering data from national sites to provide to E-PRTR 
Data providers 
Gathering, QA checking and maintenance of E-PRTR website 
Likely a heavy data user 
Likely a heavy data user 
Likely a heavy data user 
Data user 
Data user 
Data user 

The  targeted  stakeholder  consultation  was  held  in  April  2015.  To  boost  participation  in  the 
survey, Member State competent authorities first received an introductory letter alerting them 
to  an  upcoming  consultation.  One  week  later,  the  two  questionnaires  (each  containing  30-40 
questions) were sent to stakeholders: one for data providers and managers and the other more 
relevant  to  data  users.  The  full  questionnaires  are  included  in  Appendix  G  to  the  supporting 
study. 

Those  stakeholders  consulted  included  Member  State  competent  authorities,  European  trade 
and industry associations, NGOs, international organisations and academic institutions.  

A sample of 150 stakeholders was selected and consulted. By the closing date (25 May 2015), 
the  targeted  consultation  had  received  78  responses,  with  the  main  contributions  from 
European or national industry associations (31 responses) and Member States (23 responses). 

Follow-up consultation (by phone interviews) 

Following  the  targeted  consultation,  22  informal  phone  interviews  were  organised  with 
selected  respondents  between  September  2015  and  January  2016.  The  aim  of  this  additional 
consultation was to gain a deeper understanding of some specific topics (e.g. the use of the E-
PRTR data by academics and the context of other PRTRs).  

Five  academics  were  chosen  and  contacted  as  part  of  the  research  task  for  this  study.  One 
provided  feedback  on  the  use  of  the  E-PRTR  for  academic  purposes.  In  addition,  26  other 
stakeholders were approached for follow-up conversations. Discussions were successfully held 
with  17  of  them.  The  details  from  the  discussions  are  presented  in  Appendix  H  to  the 
supporting study. 

The key messages to emerge from the responses to the stakeholder consultations were that: 

32 

2
3

e
g
a
P

 
 
 
 
 
the E-PRTR is a useful and valuable tool for policy-makers and academics; 

 
  aggregation  of  data  can  be  complicated  and  there  are  some  difficulties  in  matching 

activities with reporting activity codes under the E-PRTR; 

  despite improvements, there are data gaps e.g. on diffuse emissions; 
 

there are varying views on the value of the thresholds and for some stakeholders it leads 
to additional complications in the reporting which is unhelpful; 
there are challenges for engaging the public and increasing public participation; and  
the use of E-PRTR for other environmental reporting is useful but could be improved 
(e.g. for waste reporting and urban waste-water reporting).  

 
 

Workshop of Member State stakeholders 

A workshop was held in Brussels on 4 November 2015. In advance, attendees were provided 
with an 'issues paper' providing the draft findings of the Commission's REFIT evaluation. The 
main aim of the workshop was to discuss and validate these findings, with a particular focus on 
the following tasks: 

  discuss the E-PRTR and its value at the European and wider international levels. 
  help identify issues and areas for improvement against the intervention logic and the five 

REFIT themes.  

  provide feedback to the delegates on the finalised set of issues identified to seek opinions 

on those in greatest need of prioritisation 

  share views on the register's contribution to capacity building, public awareness and 

support in decision-making. 

At the workshop, the following key conclusions were drawn for the five REFIT criteria: 

Effectiveness 

 

 

 

 

the  value  of  the  E-PRTR  Regulation  was  highlighted.  The  E-PRTR  website  is  one of 
few tools that provide comprehensive data over a long time span; 
there  was  a  clear  difference  in  perspective  between  industry  operators  and  competent 
authorities on fostering public participation: the former believe that the E-PRTR does a 
good job of fostering public participation, while the latter believe public participation is 
poor.  This  difference  in  views  may  stem  from  how  each  interprets  the  meaning  of 
‘public participation’ in environmental policy-making; 
the  barriers  to  making  better  use  of  the  E-PRTR  were  acknowledged  but  there  was 
resistance  to  transforming  the  E-PRTR  too  radically.  Contextual  information  on 
pollutants  and  their  source  of  emissions,  data  quality  and  metadata  were  welcomed. 
Information such as production outputs was deemed more difficult to obtain; 
to be of more use when defining benchmarking, and to be able to use the E-PRTR as a 
tool for environmental performance, it was felt that more data was needed; for instance 
on  environmental  performance  ratings,  production  data,  size/  age  of  plant,  abatement 
technology used; and  

  some  users  highlighted data  quality  issues  /  data  gaps  as  a possible  barrier  to  making 
the E-PRTR as effective as it could be. Reporting thresholds are especially important as 
they affect data completeness across the EU. Likewise, the emission calculation method 
(estimated, calculated or measured) was a big variable. 

33 

3
3

e
g
a
P

 
 
 
 
Efficiency 

  Feedback was uneven on the differences in the systems used for the E-PRTR and the 
IED. For some Member States this does not appear to be an important issue; for others 
it  uses  much  of  their  support  resources.  However,  respondents  highlighted  that  the 
sectors covered by the Annex I economic activities were defined in a way that does not 
allow  for  a  useful  comparison  with  other  environmental  legislation,  particularly  the 
IED. 

Coherence 

  discussions focused on how to increase the E-PRTR's potential as a tool to help gauge 
the industry performance (e.g. with Best Available Techniques  - BAT). There was no 
clear agreement about whether the E-PRTR should be used for this purpose; 

  Member  State  stakeholders  reiterated  that  the  extended  time-series  allows  the 
assessment  of  trends.  This  is  an  important  component  of  the  dataset  and  needs  to  be 
maintained; and  
the difference between installation level and facility level can be valuable and warrants 
further discussion.  

 

Relevance 

 

 

 

the boundaries of the E-PRTR’s scope (e.g. thresholds for reporting; activities included) 
mean  that,  although  a  useful  dataset  can  be  compiled  to  help  public  participation  in 
environmental  matters,  data  completeness  issues  (data  gaps,  below-threshold  data, 
diffuse emissions) are such that the dataset limits the capacity to see the whole picture. 
One  example  of  this  is  total  emissions  as  made  up  of  industrial  emissions  vs  diffuse 
emissions; 
industry  highlighted  the  importance  of  the  E-PRTR  in  assessing  environmental 
performance  and  benchmarking  against  other  operators  in  the  same  industry  sector. 
However, this has proven difficult due to a lack of context or metadata; and  
reporting  on  the  treatment  of  waste  under  the  Waste  Statistics  Regulation  is  not 
complementary to the requirement to report on the transfer of waste under the E-PRTR 
Regulation, such as in relation to on-site waste generation and management and the use 
of EU waste codes. This question then arises of how well the E-PRTR correlates to the 
waste shipment and waste statistics data and what needs the E-PRTR fulfils in this area. 

EU added value 

 

 

the  findings  showed  strong  support  for  the  value  of  the  EU-level  register  and  the 
processes to deliver it under the Regulation. The specific areas of added value that were 
cited  include  the  provision  of  an  EU-wide  database;  harmonisation  of  reporting; 
harmonisation  of  monitoring  practices;  development  of  a  common  approach  and 
understanding in data collection and reporting; enhanced comparability across reporting 
countries;  and  higher  quality  of  data  thanks  to  the  EEA’s  quality  assurance  efforts. 
However, national data quality was highlighted as an area of uncertainty; and 
the  purpose  of  the  database  (against  which  EU  added  value  needs  to  be  judged)  is 
public information provision and any related benefits. The findings showed that public 

34 

4
3

e
g
a
P

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
use of the E-PRTR is sporadic and may be linked to specific events or news items. Its 
users are more likely to be professionals (policy-makers, industry, NGOs, etc.). Public 
engagement with registers was more evident at national level.  

Based  on  the  wide  range  of  information  and  evidence  it  collected,  the  workshop  thought  it 
appropriate to cluster the key messages received and focus the evaluation on: completeness and 
quality of data; level of public participation; overlaps between reporting for the E-PRTR and 
other regulations; use of E-PRTR data in other policy areas; and implementation. 

5
3

e
g
a
P

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3: ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY 

Abbreviation 
/ Term 

Explanation 

7-EAP 

EEA 

EFTA  

EMEP 

7th Environment Action Programme 

European Environment Agency 

European Free Trade Association 

European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme 

E-PRTR 

European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register 

ETS 

FTE 

IED 

INSPIRE 

NECD 

Emissions Trading Scheme 

Full-time equivalent 

Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
24  November  2010  on  industrial  emissions  (aka  Industrial  Emissions 
Directive) 

Directive  2007/2/EC  establishing  an 
Information in the European Community 

Infrastructure 

for  Spatial 

Directive 2016/2284 of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
the  reduction  of  national  emissions  of  certain  atmospheric  pollutants 
(National Emission Ceilings Directive) 

PRTR 

Pollutant Release and Transfer Register 

REFIT 

Regulatory Fitness and Performance 

SEIS 

Shared Environmental Information System 

SOER 

EEA report on the state of, and outlook for, the European environment 

UWWTD 

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

WISE 

Water Information System for Europe 

6
3

e
g
a
P

36