COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Environmental Compliance Assurance — scope, concept and need for EU actions Accompanying the document EU actions to improve environmental compliance and governance
Date: 2018-01-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU environmental policy, action programme, application of EU law, environmental cooperation, environmental law, environmental protection, pollution control measures

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 18.1.2018  SWD(2018) 10 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Environmental Compliance Assurance — scope, concept and need for EU actions Accompanying the document EU actions to improve environmental compliance and governance  {COM(2018) 10 final}  
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Environmental Compliance Assurance — scope, concept and need for EU actions 

Accompanying the document 

EU actions to improve environmental compliance and governance  

Table of Contents 
1 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 

2  Context ............................................................................................................................................ 3 

3 

Importance of EU environmental rules on activities ....................................................................... 4 

4  How EU environmental rules on activities work ............................................................................ 7 

5  Roles of the Commission and national authorities .......................................................................... 8 

6 

The environmental compliance assurance concept ....................................................................... 10 

6.1 

6.2 

6.3 

6.4 

Terms and definitions............................................................................................................ 10 

Types of conduct and interventions ...................................................................................... 11 

Risk assessment, organisation and governance ..................................................................... 13 

Relationship to implementation ............................................................................................ 13 

7  Current situation at EU level ......................................................................................................... 14 

7.1 

7.2 

7.3 

7.4 

Existing EU instruments relevant to environmental compliance assurance.......................... 14 

Role of European practitioner networks and other bodies .................................................... 16 

Available forms of support and their limitations .................................................................. 17 

Assessing compliance assurance efforts ............................................................................... 20 

8  Consultation process ..................................................................................................................... 22 

9  How to improve support on compliance assurance? ..................................................................... 22 

10  Creation of an expert group .......................................................................................................... 27 

Annex 1: Details of actions 
Annex 2: Legislation relevant to EU environmental rules on activities 
Annex 3: Typology of environmental rules on activities derived from EU law 
Annex 4: Description of different aspects of environmental compliance assurance 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1  Introduction 
Given  the  significant  gap  in  implementing  EU  environment  legislation,  it  is  high  time  to 
better  address  compliance  with  rules  on  activities  that  have  an  environmental  impact.  This 
needs to be done in order to assist Member State authorities in the daily challenges they face 
when overseeing compliance. The Environment Implementation Review (EIR)1 has identified 
poor  compliance  as  one  of  the  cross-cutting  root  causes  for  lack  of  implementation.  As  a 
result,  the  Commission’s  communication  EU  actions  to  improve  environmental  compliance 
and  governance2  sets  out  a  number  of  concrete  actions  at  EU  level  to  create  synergies  and 
foster  a  collaborative  way  of  working  and  promoting  good  practices.  Further  details  are 
provided in Annex 1 to the present document.  

The document complements the communication and explains: 

the broader policy context; 

 
  why compliance with environmental rules is important; 
  how environmental rules work; 
 
 
 
 
 

the roles of the Commission and Member States in securing compliance; 
the environmental compliance assurance concept; 
the current legal framework; 
the role of practitioner bodies; 
the types of support that are currently available to Member State authorities and their 
limitations; 

  Commission consultations.  

Finally,  the  document  describes  the  rationale  for  the  set  of  actions  as  well  as  a  number  of 
accompanying arrangements to help implement them. 

2  Context 
The  Commission  initiative  on  compliance  assurance  and  governance  forms  part  of  a  wider 
effort  to  improve  implementation  of  EU  law  in  general  and  EU  environmental  law 
specifically: 

  The  Commission’s  communication  Better  regulation  for  better  results  —  An  EU 
agenda’3 highlights the various ways in which implementation can be improved, e.g. 
by cooperating with ‘Member States in examining the best ways to ensure compliance 
with EU law at national level, including those that have initiated a review of how well 
EU and Member State regulation combines to help protect the environment […]. The 
objective  is  to  identify  solutions  to  enhance  the  efficient  application  of  EU  law  at 
national  and  local  level  by  reducing  its  complexity  while  maintaining  its  level  of 
protection.’ 

  The Commission’s communication EU law: better results through better application 
stresses  the  importance  of  working  with  Member  States  on  enforcement  and  of 
citizens benefitting from EU law4. It refers to this initiative. 

1 COM(2017) 63. 
2 COM(2018)10. 
3 COM(2015) 215. 
4 2017/C 18/02. 

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
  The Commission’s communication The European Agenda on Security5, amongst other 
things,  prioritises  the  fight  against  organised  environmental  crime.  The  present 
initiative  will  contribute  to  this  agenda,  in  particular  through  an  action  focusing  on 
good practice in combating environmental crimes and other related breaches. 

  The Environmental  Implementation Review (EIR), a new  Commission  tool launched 
in  2016,  aims  to  address  the  causes  of  gaps  in  environmental  implementation6.  The 
present  initiative  complements  the  EIR  by  aiming  to  improve  knowledge  of  a 
particular aspect of implementation, namely environmental compliance assurance, and 
by aiming to strengthen compliance mechanisms. 

  The Commission Notice on access to justice in environmental matters7 focuses on the 
role  of  citizens  and  environmental  associations  in  using  national  courts  to  secure 
compliance,  i.e.  ‘private  enforcement’.  The  present  initiative  complements  that  by 
focusing on ‘public enforcement’, i.e. the role of authorities in securing compliance. 
  The  Commission’s  Action  Plan  for  nature,  people  and  the  economy8  stresses  the 
importance  of  improving  implementation  of  EU  nature  legislation.  The  present 
initiative  will  help,  especially  Priority  B  ‘Building  political  ownership  and 
strengthening  compliance’,  through  new  guidance  on  good  practices  in  ensuring 
compliance in rural areas and in tackling environmental crimes and offences. 

  The  Commission’s  staff  working  document  Agriculture  and  sustainable  water 
management  in  the  EU9  refers  to  problems  such  as  nutrient  enrichment  and  over-
abstraction  of  water.  The  present  initiative  will  help  to  address  these  problems 
through an action aimed at improving compliance with activity-related environmental 
rules concerning rural areas. 

  The  Commission  report  Actions  to  Streamline  Environmental  Reporting10  includes 
actions  to  promote  active  dissemination  of  environmental  information  at  EU  and 
national  levels,  and  to  explore  the  potential  of  other  data  sources  such  as  citizen 
science  and  the  Copernicus  programme  to  complement  data  from  reporting.  The 
present  initiative  aims  to  carry  out  similar  actions  in  the  field  of  compliance 
assurance. 

Environmental  compliance  assurance  is  an  integral  part  of  the  governance  framework 
underpinning EU environmental law. It plays a key role in operational terms at the level of 
authorities  and  duty-holders  on  the  ground.  Within  this  wider  environmental  governance 
framework  are  mechanisms,  rules  and  practices  to  implement,  apply  and  enforce  EU 
environmental  laws  and  policies11.  The  framework  constitutes  the  way  in  which  EU 
environmental laws work in practice and deliver concrete results. 

5 COM(2015) 185 final.  
6 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/index_en.htm. 
7 Commission Notice on Access to Justice on Environmental Matters, C (2017) 2616 final.  
8 COM(2017) 198 final and SWD(2017) 139 final. 
9 SWD(2017)153, final, 28.4.2017. 
10 COM(2017) 312 final. 
11 Based on ‘governance’ definition in the Single Market Scoreboard.  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
3  Importance of EU environmental rules on activities 
EU rules in the environment field can be broadly divided in two categories: 

 
 

those concerning activities and ambient conditions; 
those concerning products (i.e. product standards). 

This  document  focuses  on  activities.  Environmental  product  standards  are  dealt  with 
elsewhere under market surveillance12 as part of the work to strengthen the Single Market for 
goods  and  services.  As  with  market  surveillance,  the  Commission  will  work  closely  with 
Member  States  and  stakeholders  under  this  initiative  to  create  a  smart  and  collaborative 
culture of compliance. 

Environmental rules on activities are important because they help ensure public health and a 
good environment. Eurobarometer surveys show that this is a top concern for the EU public. 
Almost all Europeans say that environmental protection is important to them personally, and 
over half say it is very important. Half or more say that they are worried about air pollution 
and  water  pollution,  while  over  four  in  ten  are  worried  about  the  impact  on  health  from 
chemicals in everyday products and the growing amount of waste13. 

In  this  context,  ‘activities’  means  economic  and  other  activities  that  directly  affect  the 
environment  through  air  emissions,  water  discharges,  waste  disposal,  or  other  land-,  water- 
and species-related interventions. 

EU  environmental  rules  seek  to  identify,  prevent  or  limit  the  harmful  effects  of  such 
emissions, discharges, disposal or interventions. They cover, amongst other things: 

industrial processes (including chemical manufacture); 

 
  extractive industries; 
  waste management; 
the water industry14; 
 
  construction projects; 
 

land management (including interventions in protected nature sites) and fertiliser use 
in nutrient-sensitive zones.  

They derive from around 40 principal EU instruments enacted since the 1970s, most of which 
are directives. These instruments are listed in Annex 2. 

Along with respect for environmental product standards, fulfilling activity-related rules helps 
EU  governments  to  secure,  for  the  benefit  of  their  own  and  other  EU  citizens,  vital  public 
goods that underpin human health and the capacity for sustainable development and that are 
subject  to  rights  and  obligations  under  EU  law  that  national  courts  can  be  called  upon  to 
uphold15. 

EU activity-related rules are closely related to EU environmental rules on ambient conditions. 
These  include  requirements  to  adhere  to  limits  on  air  pollution,  pursue  the  good  ecological 

12 http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/goods/building-blocks/market-surveillance/organisation_en. 
13 http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_416_en.pdf. 
14 i.e. collection and treatment of urban waste-water and provision of drinking water. 
15 Commission Notice on access to justice in environmental matters, C(2017)2616, 28.4.2017, Section C.1. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
status of water bodies, and ensure the favourable conservation status of protected habitats and 
animal and plant species. 

State-of-the-environment monitoring shows that the ambient conditions these rules envisage 
are not being fully realised in Europe: 

  People  in  many  European  cities  are  exposed  to  unsafe  levels  of  particulate  matter 

(PM) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), to name just two air pollutants16. 

  Many water bodies suffer from excessive levels of nutrients and pesticides, as a result 

of run-off from the land or untreated waste-water17.  

  Over 80 % of protected habitat types (i.e. Europe’s most fragile natural areas such as 
sand-dune  systems,  peat  bogs  and  biodiverse  woodlands)  have  an  unfavourable 
conservation status, while the situation with protected species is not much better18. 

Shortcomings  in  implementation  come  with  financial  costs.  A  2011  Commission  study 
estimated the costs of implementation gaps at around EUR 50 billion per year19. 

Compliance  with  activity-related  rules  is  important  for  closing  implementation  gaps  with 
regard to ambient conditions. It is also important for: 

  avoiding  transboundary  spill-over  effects.  Shared  seas,  rivers,  ecosystems,  and 
weather systems mean that the effects of non-compliance will often be felt in Member 
States other than those where it occurs. Therefore, ensuring compliance is a matter of 
good neighbourliness between Member States. 

  avoiding  detriment  to  other  EU  policies.  An  example  is  waste  contaminating  food 
production. Another is over-abstraction of water causing long-term impairment of the 
ability to sustain agriculture in dry regions. 

  ensuring a level playing field. Businesses are entitled to know that their competitors 
observe  the  applicable  rules  and  do  not  under-cut  them  through  non-compliance.  A 
waste  collector  who  fly-tips  the  waste  he  collects  will  avoid  the  gate  fees  that  a 
legitimate waste operator has to pay. 

  supporting  the  circular  economy,  resource  efficiency  and  green  innovation.  A 
common thread running through EU environmental rules on activities is their focus on 
reducing  environmental  externalities,  i.e.  the  transfer  of  costs  of  production  to  the 
environment  and  society  at  large  in  the  form  of  pollution  and  waste.  A  culture  of 
compliance  will  recognise  the  good  sense  of  innovative  and  cost-effective  solutions 
that avoid these externalities. 

16 Concentrations of PM exceed the EU limit and target values in large parts of Europe, with a total of 6 % of 
the  EU‑28  urban  population  exposed  to  PM10  levels  above  the  daily  limit  value.  Of  the  EU‑28  urban 
population,  7 %  lives  in  areas  in  which  the  annual  EU  limit  value  for  NO2  was  exceeded  in  2014.  See 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-quality-in-europe-2016. 
17  For  example,  22 %  of  river  and  37 %  of  lake  monitoring  stations  under  the  Water  Framework  Directive, 
2000/60/EC,  show  eutrophication  (i.e.  nutrient  enrichment).  See  Commission’s  staff  working  document 
‘Agriculture and sustainable water management in the EU’, SWD(2017)153, final.  
18  Across  the  EU-27  (i.e.  Member  States  other  than  Croatia),  only  16 %  of  the  habitats  protected  under  the 
Habitats Directive, 92/43/EEC, have a favourable conservation status, and 60 % of the species protected by the 
same Directive have an unfavourable conservation status. 17 % of European bird species are threatened and a 
further 
See 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/pdf/state_of_nature_en.pdf.  
19 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/economics_policy/pdf/report_sept2011.pdf.  

threatened, 

declining 

depleted. 

15 % 

near 

are 

or 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
4  How EU environmental rules on activities work 
Directives  adopted  by  the  EU  co-legislators  oblige  Member  States  to  adopt  national 
legislation to give effect to the legal objectives and requirements that they contain. This will 
typically involve Member State governments: 

 

imposing  obligations  on  economic  operators  and  others  (‘duty-holders’,  sometimes 
referred to as ‘regulatees’ or ‘the regulated community’); 

  giving competent authorities the responsibility to check compliance; 
  establishing procedures for dealing with instances of non-compliance.  

To understand in detail the content of EU environmental rules on activities, the diversity of 
national laws need to be taken into account. 

In broad terms, EU environmental rules on activities fall into a number of sub-categories: 

  prohibitions; 
  procedural requirements; 
  permits, development consents, authorisations and derogations; 
  general binding requirements; 
  conditions under binding contracts or other agreements; 
 

requirements stemming from ad hoc court decisions or other enforcement actions. 

This typology is explained in more detail in Annex 3. 

The duty-holders concerned by these rules are diverse. Ordinary citizens must, amongst other 
things,  observe  rules  on  waste.  Local  authorities  and  utility  companies  must  supply  safe 
drinking water, collect and appropriately treat urban waste-water, and operate waste facilities 
without causing a nuisance. Industrial operators must control all forms of pollution. Farmers 
must observe fertiliser rules and hunters must respect hunting restrictions. 

Examples of non-compliance with the different types of rules are given in Table 1. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1: Examples of non-compliance with EU environmental rules on activities 
Prohibitions 

 
 

Procedural requirements 

Permit,  development  consent,  authorisation  and 
derogation requirements 

General binding requirements 

Conditions under contracts or other agreements 

Requirements  stemming 
decisions or other enforcement actions 

from  ad  hoc  court 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in  a  nitrate 

dumping waste in rural areas 
spreading  manure  on 
land 
vulnerable zone in December 
hunting of wild birds in springtime 
importing  from  non-EU  countries  animals 
and plants that are subject to a trade ban 
carrying  out  construction  works  or  other 
physical  interventions  without  regard  for 
impact assessment as in: 
o 
illegal quarrying 
o  destruction  without 

of 
archaeological  sites  or  other  culturally 
important monuments20 

approval 

destroying  or  degrading  protected  habitats 
within Natura 2000 without prior assessment 
and consent 
shipping  waste  across  borders  without 
documentation or with false documentation 
emitting  a  greater  amount  of  air  pollutants 
from a factory than its permit allows 
accepting  hazardous  waste  at  a  landfill  only 
permitted to accept domestic waste 
discharging untreated urban waste-water into 
a river, lake or the sea 
operating a farm without the required storage 
capacity for livestock manures 
for  protecting 
disregarding  prescriptions 
wildlife  under 
agreement  despite 
receiving payments for complying with them 
disregarding a court order to cease operating 
an illegal waste facility 

an 

5  Roles of the Commission and national authorities 
Prohibitions,  procedural  requirements,  permit  conditions,  general  binding  requirements  and 
contractual conditions are all intended to be enforceable in principle and enforced in practice. 
This  requires  having  information  on  compliance  levels  and  intervening  effectively  to  bring 
about compliance where it is not being achieved. Otherwise the rules will, at best, amount to 
good advice. 

Poor  or  absent  mechanisms  to  ensure  compliance  will  make  non-compliance  with  activity-
related  rules  more  likely  (as  deterrence  is  reduced)  and  will  thereby  contribute  to  other 
implementation failures, for example, non-achievement of requirements concerning ambient 
conditions. 

On the one hand, as guardian of the Treaty, the Commission ensures that EU environmental 
instruments are respected. To this end, the Commission can and does use its own exclusive 
enforcement  powers  under  the  Treaties  to  address  non-compliance  issues  in  the  general 

20 See the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, 2011/92/EU. 

7 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
interest of the Union.21 It also supports Member States  – as it is seeking to do through this 
initiative.  

On  the  other  hand,  Member  States  have  the  primary  responsibility  for  fully  and  correctly 
implementing  EU  rules.  In  this  context,  Member  States  have  devolved  oversight 
responsibilities  and  adjudication  powers  to  a  very  wide  set  of  public  authorities 
(‘environmental compliance assurance authorities’), including: 

local authorities; 
regional authorities; 

 
 
  environmental agencies with a broad mandate; 
  agencies with specialist functions, such as checking the quality of drinking water; 
  general law enforcement bodies, such as the police, customs and prosecution services; 
  other bodies with specialist but non-environmental functions, such as fire authorities; 
  specialist law enforcement bodies, such as special environmental prosecutors; 
  ombudsman and public advocates; 
  supreme audit bodies; 
 

judges  responsible  for  adjudicating  administrative-law,  criminal-law  and  civil-law 
cases. 

To  this  list  can  be  added,  amongst  others,  technical  and  scientific  support  services  (e.g. 
hydrologists  and  biologists  who  can  assess  particular  kinds  of  environmental  harm)  and 
forensic laboratories which may be in-house or external. Therefore, the diversity of Europe’s 
public sector is reflected in the arrangements Member States have put in place. Oversight and 
enforcement  can  also  involve  private-sector  service-providers  (who  may  even  fulfil  certain 
inspection-type  functions)  and  civil  society  (which  may  provide  authorities  with  important 
information  about  breaches).  The  work  of  academics  in  various  fields,  such  as  criminology 
and behavioural science, also has an important role. 

Environmental  compliance  assurance  authorities  differ  not  only  in  size  and  role  but  in  the 
extent of their powers  and specialist skills.  Some enjoy a high degree  of independence and 
autonomy. Others need to closely coordinate their work with others (for example, police and 
prosecutors). Some have a dual role. For example, a local authority may exercise oversight on 
permits governing private businesses while at the same time be subject to oversight itself on 
how it collects and treats urban waste-water. 

Finally,  the  international  dimension  is  important  for  at  least  two  reasons.  First,  activities 
subject to EU rules sometimes have strong links to non-EU countries (e.g. waste shipments), 
requiring  cooperation  with  those  countries’  authorities22.  International  conventions  on 
wildlife,  waste  and  other  subject-matter  can  also  come  into  play.  Second,  there  is  global 
recognition  of  how  important  both  environmental  rules  and  the  mechanisms  for  securing 
compliance  are.  This  is  inter  alia  reflected  in  the  UN’s  Sustainable  Development  Goal  16: 
‘Peace,  Justice  and  Strong  Institutions  —  Promote  peaceful  and  inclusive  societies  for 

21 Communication from the Commission, EU law: Better results through better application, C/2016/8600, in OJ 
2017 C 18, p. 10, section 3, at first paragraph. 
22  See  for  instance  the  Strategic  Framework for  Customs  Cooperation 2018-2020 between  the EU  and China, 
signed on 2 June 2017; supporting the fight against fraud with an emphasis on protecting the environment.  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
sustainable  development,  provide  access  to  justice  for  all  and  build  effective,  accountable 
and inclusive institutions at all levels’. 

6  The environmental compliance assurance concept 
The  Communication  introduces  the  challenges  faced  by  compliance  assurance  authorities. 
This section presents the concept of environmental compliance assurance in more detail. This 
concept serves as the theoretical frame of reference for identifying how to support Member 
States in addressing these challenges. 

6.1  Terms and definitions 
Environmental compliance assurance is an umbrella term to cover the range of interventions 
used by public authorities to ensure compliance by duty-holders with environmental rules on 
activities. It is not legally defined and what follows in this section is a synthesis based on the 
work of practitioners, especially those mentioned in the next section. 

The term is found in OECD and IMPEL references23 and was also used by the Make it Work 
group  of  Member  States24.  In  essence,  it  covers  all  the  aspects  of  public  enforcement. 
However,  it  is  a  better  umbrella  term  because  ‘enforcement’  does  not  well  describe  all  the 
types of intervention concerned. If ‘enforcement’ is used indiscriminately then the description 
of different classes of intervention can become muddled. 

The three broad classes of compliance assurance intervention are illustrated in Figure 1. 

They comprise: 

  Compliance  promotion,  which  helps  duty-holders  to  comply  through  means  such  as 
guidance,  ‘frequently  asked  questions’  and  help-desks.  This  represents 
the 
‘preventive’ part of compliance assurance. 

  Compliance  monitoring,  which  identifies  and  characterises  duty-holder  conduct  and 
detects and assesses any non-compliance, using environmental inspections and other 
means. This represents the ‘diagnostic’ part. 

  Follow-up and enforcement, which draw on administrative, criminal and civil law to 
stop,  deter,  sanction  and  obtain  redress  for  non-compliant  conduct  and  encourage 
compliance. These represent the ‘corrective’ part. 

23 See for instance OECD 2009, ‘Ensuring Environmental Compliance: Trends and Good Practices’; Mazur, E. 
(2010),  ‘Outcome  Performance  Measures  of  Environmental  Compliance  Assurance:  Current  Practices, 
Constrains  and  Ways  Forward’,  OECD  Environment  Working  Papers,  No  18,  OECD  Publishing;  IMPEL 
(2012),  ‘Exploring  the  Use  and  Effectiveness  of  Complementary  Approaches  to  Inspection  for  Ensuring 
Compliance’; IMPEL (2012), ‘Compliance Assurance through Compliance Management Systems’.  
24 http://minisites.ieep.eu/work-areas/environmental-governance/better-regulation/make-it-
work/subjects/2015/08/compliance-assurance.  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 1: The three classes of environmental compliance assurance intervention 

A more detailed description of each intervention class is set out in Annex 4. 

The concept aims at being: 

  comprehensive,  i.e.  embracing  the  full  range  of  interventions  used  to  positively 

 

influence conduct; 
integrative,  i.e.  recognising  the  connections  and  synergies  between  different  classes 
and types of intervention. 

The Commission’s own initiatives and interventions reflect the concept. The EU is a union of 
law and Member States constitute a regulated community. Compliance monitoring is carried 
out  through  action  such  as  (i)  Commission  examination  of  Member  States’  implementation 
reports  and  complaints,  (ii)  promotion  through  means  such  as  EIR  bilateral  exchanges  and 
publication  of  guidance  documents  and  (iii)  enforcement  through  use  of  infringement 
procedures. 

6.2  Types of conduct and interventions 
Compliance  promotion,  monitoring,  follow-up  action  and  enforcement  are  all  relevant  to 
securing  compliance  and  are  inter-related  and  inter-dependent.  The  reasons  for  this  are 
related to the explanations given for non-compliant conduct and the realities of pursuing each 
class of intervention. 

The conduct spectrum 
There is no single explanation for why breaches of activity-related rules occur. Instead, the 
conduct  of  duty-holders  corresponds  to  a  conduct  spectrum,  illustrated  in  Figure  2.  Most 
duty-holders (it is hoped) will comply of their own volition and some may even be motivated 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
to go beyond fulfilling legal requirements (‘champions’). For the rest, non-compliant conduct 
may  have  a  range  of  explanations,  including  confusion  or  poor  understanding  of  the 
applicable  rules,  absence  of  investment,  lack  of  acceptance  of  rules,  opportunism  and 
criminality. 

By  the  same  token,  no  one  type  of  response  is  ideally  suited  to  deal  with  all  types  of  non-
compliant  conduct.  Enforcement  and  monitoring  are  clearly  important  but  so  too  are 
awareness-raising,  positive  engagement  with  duty-holders  and  practical  support  measures. 
Compliance assurance is adaptable allowing for a mix of compliance promotion, monitoring 
and enforcement measures, depending on the nature of the non-compliance. 

Figure 2: Types of conduct which can result in different levels of compliance and responses 
to these 

The functional relationship between different classes of intervention 
There  are  strong  functional  relationships  within  and  across  different  classes  of  intervention 
which  make  compartmentalisation  both  unrealistic  and  unhelpful.  Follow-up  action  and 
enforcement  measures  depend  on  the  evidence  that  compliance  monitoring  provides. 
Different types of enforcement will demand different evidence (e.g. authorities must satisfy a 
higher burden of proof when they rely on criminal enforcement). At the same time, evidence-
gathering  by  inspectors,  police  and  others  serves  little  purpose  if  those  with  enforcement 
powers  or  adjudication  roles  have  no  interest  in  follow-up  action  or  enforcement.  This  is 
recognised  in  what  is  termed  the  ‘enforcement  chain’  or  the  ‘compliance  assurance  chain’. 
This  refers  to  the  links  that  connect  the  roles  of  inspector,  police  officer,  prosecutor  and 
judge. Each role is distinct and the judge’s role is independent of the others. However, there 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
is need for a common understanding of activity-related rules and what is at stake when they 
are broken. 

As  for  compliance  promotion,  compliance  monitoring  may  identify  this  as  an  appropriate 
means  of  preventing  or  reducing  future  breaches.  By  lowering  the  general  level  of  non-
compliant conduct, it lessens the burden on scarce inspection resources. 

6.3  Risk assessment, organisation and governance 
Breaches vary in scale, frequency, persistence, geographical extent and the harm they cause. 
Risk assessment is a recognised tool for focusing limited compliance assurance resources on 
the  most  serious  breaches25.  At  the  strategic  level,  it  can  identify  priorities  and  help 
authorities  to  prepare  strategies  and  choose  the  best  mix  of  compliance  assurance 
interventions.  At  the  operational  level,  it  can  help  to  target  specific  interventions.  It  is 
presented in more detail in Annex 4. 

Environmental compliance assurance not only involves conducting particular activities. There 
are  organisational  and  governance  considerations  as  well.  They  are  also  presented  in  more 
detail in Annex 4. 

6.4  Relationship to implementation 
Environmental compliance assurance of activity-based rules represents a significant part but 
not  the  entirety  of  implementation  of  the  EU  environmental  legislation  in  Annex  2.  This 
legislation typically combines activity-related rules with rules setting out administrative tasks 
that  public  authorities  must  carry  out.  Furthermore,  the  fact  that  the  bulk  of  the  legislation 
consists  of  directives  means  that  national  legislation  must  be  adopted  or  adapted. 
Implementation covers all of this and so has additional dimensions such as the role of public 
authorities in putting national legislation into place and carrying out administrative tasks such 
as  preparing  environmental  management  plans  and  monitoring  ambient  environmental 
conditions (i.e. state-of-the environment monitoring). These are illustrated in Figure 3 below. 
As  can  be  seen,  environmental  compliance  assurance  as  addressed  in  this  initiative  largely 
concerns  level  326.  However,  all  aspects  of  implementation  are  closely  inter-related.  Thus, 
poor  state-of-the-environment  monitoring  results  can  be  an  important  indicator  of  the 
possible  existence  or  impact  of  non-compliance  with  activity-related  rules.  Contrariwise, 
good results may point to good outcomes in terms of compliance. Furthermore, compliance 
assurance  can  provide  valuable  evidence  for  framing  rules  in  ways  that  make  compliance 
easier to secure27. 

25 For instance, it features in the inspection provisions of the Industrial Emissions Directive, 2010/75/EU. 
26 While largely focused on level 3, the present initiative has relevance for levels 1 and 2 as well. For example, 
the  proposed  action  on  handling  complaints  will  not  only  address  level  3  compliance  but  also  how  well 
authorities fulfil level 2 tasks. This is because redress mechanisms typically embrace both. 
27 An example is the introduction of more stringent financial security requirements on operators of waste and 
other  high-risk  facilities  in  some  Member  States  following  unsuccessful  enforcement  interventions  against 
companies that caused unlawful environmental damage but who turned out to be insolvent.  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
(1) Transposition 

(2) Key administration tasks  
(e.g. waste plans, state-of-the-
environment monitoring) 

(3) Rules on the ground  
applicable to economic operators and others on activities 
directly affecting air, water and biodiversity  

Figure 3 

Three levels of implementation 

7  Current situation at EU level 
Moving beyond the conceptual framework, this section discusses the EU’s current situation 
in terms of (i) the legislation currently in place on environmental compliance assurance, (ii) 
the  role  of  networks  of  practitioners  and  others,  (iii)  the  existing  forms  of  support  together 
with their limitations and (iv) the assessment of compliance assurance efforts. 

7.1  Existing EU instruments relevant to environmental compliance 

assurance 

There  is  no  single  over-arching  EU  instrument  that  governs  the  environmental  compliance 
assurance of activities. 

Compliance monitoring 
Limited legislative provisions exist on compliance monitoring. These mainly consist of a set 
of  non-binding  general  criteria  on  inspections  set  out  in  Recommendation  2001/331/EC 
providing  for  minimum  criteria  for  environmental  inspections  in  the  Member  States 
(‘RMCEI’) and some sectoral binding inspection provisions. The latter are principally found 
in  the  Industrial  Emissions  Directive  2010/75/EU28,  the  Seveso  III  Directive  2012/18/EU29 
and the Waste Shipment Regulation, 1013/200630.  

These  instruments  follow  a  similar  blue-print,  providing  for  a  mix  of  routine  (i.e.  planned) 
and  non-routine  inspections.  They  recognise  the  role  of  the  public,  making  reference  to 

28 Article 23. 
29 Article 20. 
30 Article 50. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
complaints.  In  addition,  the  Industrial  Emissions  Directive  and  the  Seveso  III  Directive 
provide for minimum inspection frequencies to be determined using risk assessment. 

Other  parts  of  the  environmental  acquis  (e.g.  waste  legislation)  contain  less  detailed 
references  to  inspections  and  a  lot  of  environmental  legislation  (e.g.  water  and  nature 
legislation) is devoid of them. 

Follow-up action and enforcement 
Interpreting the general EU treaty provision to cooperate in good faith31, the Court of Justice 
of  the  European  Union  has  held  that  Member  States  are  obliged,  in  respect  of  breaches  of 
European law, to provide for sanctions in their legal systems that are effective, proportionate 
and  dissuasive.  Recent  environmental  directives  contain  standard  penalty  clauses  based  on 
these strictures. 

The Environmental Crime Directive, 2008/99/EC32, goes further, requiring Member States to 
have  on  their  statute  book  criminal  penalties  for  the  most  serious  environmental  offences 
under much of the legislation featuring in Annex 2. 

More  generally,  the  Court  has  held  that  Member  States  are  obliged  to  nullify  the  unlawful 
consequences of a breach of EU law33. 

Reflecting  the  polluter  pays  principle,  the  Environmental  Liability  Directive,  2004/35/EC, 
requires Member States to operate a system of liability for environmental damage. 

Application  of  criminal  penalties  or  environmental  liability  requirements  is  dependent  on 
evidence of criminal or environmental liability being found. 

Funding 
Financial  support  for  environmental  compliance  assurance  in  Member  States  is  possible 
under several EU instruments. Of particular note are the LIFE Regulation34, which provides 
grants and project funding, and the Commission implementing decision35 on the 2017 Annual 
Work Programme for Union actions under the Internal Security Fund — Police Instrument36, 
which includes a budget line for the fight against organised environmental crime.  

31 Article 4(3) of the Treaty on the European Union or TEU. 
32 Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the protection 
of the environment through criminal law, OJ L 328, 06/12/2008, p. 28.  
33 See for instance case C-201/02, Wells.  
34  Regulation  (EU)No  1293/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  establishment  of  a 
Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 614/2007, OJL 
347, 20.12.2013, p. 185. 
35 C(2017) 6343.  
36 Regulation (EU) No 513/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 establishing, 
as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and 
combating crime, and crisis management and repealing Council Decision 2007/125/JHA, OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, 
p. 93. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
7.2  Role of European practitioner networks and other bodies 
Alongside the above-mentioned legislative patchwork, voluntary networks of environmental 
compliance  assurance  practitioners  have  been  established  since  the  1990s.  These  have 
worked  both  individually  and,  more  recently  jointly,  to  support  environmental  compliance 
assurance. 

An OECD study37 highlights important functions of voluntary networks, including: 

  promoting the exchange of information and experiences; 
 
 
  channelling participation by national agencies.  

raising professional standards; 
facilitating training; 

Separate  networks  exist  for 
environmental agencies38. These are presented in Table 3 below. 

inspectors,  police,  prosecutors, 

judges,  auditors  and 

Table 3: Main European networks of environmental compliance assurance practitioners 
Network 
The European Union Network for Implementation and 
Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL) 

Description 
Established  in  1992,  this  is  the  oldest  and  most 
developed network. Its membership is drawn from all 
Member  States  and  is  made  up  of  environmental 
authorities and environmental inspectorates at central 
or  regional  level.  It  also  embraces  candidate  and 
potential  candidate  countries  as  well  as  EFTA 
members. 
Established  in  2011,  this  network  mainly  consists  of 
national  police  officers  specialised  in  combating 
environmental crime. 
together  bodies 
in  2012, 
Founded 
responsible  for  criminal  prosecutions  (and,  to  some 
extent, applying administrative sanctions). 
Founded  in  2004,  this  brings  together  judges  from 
in 
those  adjudicating 
including 
across 
criminal as well as administrative and civil cases. 
The  working  group  functions  within  the  broader 
EUROSAI setting. 

this  brings 

the  EU, 

BRIG  maintains  a  close  interest  in  environmental 
compliance,  in  particular  with  regard  to  its  strategic 
importance  within  many  environment  protection 
agencies. 

EnviCrimeNet39 

The  European  Network  of  Prosecutors  for 
Environment (ENPE)40  

the 

The  EU  Forum  of  Judges  for  the  Environment 
(EUFJE)41  

The  European  Organisation  of  Supreme  Audit 
Institutions, 
on 
specialised  working 
environmental auditing (EUROSAI)42 
The European Network of the Heads of Environment 
Protection Agencies (NEPA)43, in particular its Better 
Regulation Interest Group (BRIG) 

group 

37 Mazur, E (2011), ‘Environmental Enforcement in Decentralised Governance Systems: Toward a Nationwide 
Level  Playing  Field’,  OECD  Environment  Working  Papers,  No  34,  OECD  Publishing,  p.  32.  The  study  also 
stresses that networks can serve for benchmarking among different authorities, which in turn is seen as a ‘tool 
that might allow national authorities, the regulated community and the public to know whether there is equality 
in regulatory and compliance assurance activity’, p. 37.  
38 An informal network of environmental law academics, the Avosetta Group, also exists http://avosetta.jura.uni-
bremen.de/.  
39 http://envicrimenet.com/  
40 http://www.basel.int/Default.aspx?tabid=2940  
41 http://www.eufje.org/  
42 http://www.eurosaiwgea.org/  
43 http://epanet.pbe.eea.europa.eu/.  

15 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Also  worth  mentioning  is  'Make  it  Work',  an  initiative  launched  by  several  Member  States 
that  aims  to  deliver  environmental  outcomes  more  efficiently  and  effectively,  without 
lowering  existing  protection  standards.  Amongst  other  things,  it  has  prepared  drafting 
principles on environmental compliance assurance44.  

The work of the specialist environmental networks mentioned above is supported by Europol 
(which,  amongst  other  things,  provides  secretariat  support  to  EnviCrimeNet)  and  Eurojust 
(which has close links to ENPE). 

At  the  international  level,  the Interpol  Environmental  Crime  Programme  has  been  active  in 
highlighting and helping with the fight against environmental crime, in particular concerning 
waste and wildlife trafficking. It has recommended that member countries establish National 
Environmental  Security  Task  Forces  (NESTs)  formed  from  police,  customs,  environmental 
agencies,  other  specialised  agencies,  prosecutors,  non-governmental  organisations  and 
intergovernmental partners. Such task forces can help ensure: 

  a multi-disciplinary approach is taken to enable cooperation and coordination between 

relevant authorities; 

  an  intelligence-led  approach  is  used  to  collect  information  to  effectively  tackle 

transnational environmental crime45.  

A  precursor  to  the  Habitats  Directive,  the  Convention  on  the  Conservation  of  European 
Wildlife  and  Natura  Habitats  (‘the  Bern  Convention’)  has  contributed  to  environmental 
compliance  assurance  in  at  least  two  respects.  First,  it  operates  a  case-file  system46  as  a 
compliance  monitoring  mechanism.  Second,  it  has  developed  a  detailed  series  of 
recommendations on combating the illegal killing, trapping and trade of wild birds47.  

Some environmental NGOs contribute useful work  to  environmental compliance assurance, 
e.g.  through  investigative  work  that  supplements  the  compliance  monitoring  of  public 
authorities and through compliance promotion efforts. 

7.3  Available forms of support and their limitations 
Thanks in large part to the work of the networks and other bodies mentioned above, several 
forms of specific support to  Member State compliance assurance  authorities have emerged. 
These  are  summarised  below.  EU  financial  assistance,  in  particular  under  the  LIFE 
Regulation, has helped to make much of this support possible. Also on a positive note several 
practitioner networks have recently moved to combine their efforts48. 

44 http://minisites.ieep.eu/work-areas/environmental-governance/better-regulation/make-it-
work/subjects/2015/08/compliance-assurance.  
45 A recommended model of NEST formation and structure has been outlined in a National Environmental 
Security Task Force Manual. See for more details: http://www.interpol.int/Crime-areas/Environmental-
crime/Task-forces.  
46 https://www.coe.int/en/web/bern-convention/monitoring  
47 See https://www.coe.int/en/web/bern-convention/recommendations-on-illegal-killing-of-birds  
48 IMPEL, ENPE, EnviCrimeNet and EUJFE have started to organise joint conferences and IMPEL, ENPE and 
EnviCrimeNet are cooperating with each other in the fight against environmental crime. On 20 September 2017, 
the  latter  three  networks  signed  a  Memorandum  of  Understanding  in  the  presence  of  representatives  of  the 
Commission and EUFJE.  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
On the other hand, there are limitations both in terms of the specific forms of support and the 
general role of the networks. For example, several Member States do not participate at all or 
only  rarely  in  IMPEL  projects  and,  being  voluntary,  IMPEL  and  the  other  networks  are 
patchy in their coverage of both practitioners and subject-matter. 

Peer reviews 
These allow environmental compliance assurance authorities in one Member State to benefit 
from  a  review  of  their  structures  and  practices  by  compliance  assurance  practitioners  from 
other Member States. The host Member State receives a visit (typically lasting up to a week) 
after which a report is prepared by the visiting practitioners. 

The most established reviews are those conducted under the IMPEL Review Initiative (IRI) 
which focuses on reviewing and evaluating national environmental inspection systems49. The 
IRI  peer  reviews  provide  a  useful  form  of  external  evaluation  but  are  limited  in  both  the 
extent  of  what  is  reviewed  and  the  number  of  reviews  undertaken.  Not  all  Member  States 
have  yet  been  subject  to  an  IRI  review.  To  date  reviews  have  largely focused  on  industrial 
inspections  rather  than  other  types  of  compliance  assurance  activities  (although  latterly  the 
IRI  has  begun  undertaking  reviews  focused  on  nature  legislation).  Being  conducted  by 
IMPEL  alone,  they  have  not  covered  —  or  not  to  any  large  extent  —  the  environmental 
compliance assurance chain that brings in the roles of police, prosecutors and courts.  

Mention  may  also  be  made  of  another  peer  review  mechanism.  Over  2017-2019,  the 
compliance assurance chain is to be covered in a one-off peer review (‘mutual evaluations’) 
conducted by Member States themselves in accordance with Joint Action 97/827/JHA. This 
review, which was announced under the Maltese Presidency in the first half of 2017, shows 
how important environmental crime has become and will focus on Member States efforts to 
combat waste crime in particular. For each country visit, the evaluation team consists of two 
national  experts  and  two  members  of  the  staff  of  the  Council  General-Secretariat.  One 
Commission  representative  and  representatives  of  Eurojust  and  Europol  can  participate  as 
observers. 

Joint enforcement 
One form of joint enforcement currently exists. This has been developed by the waste expert 
team of IMPEL and consists of annually organised joint inspections of waste shipments in all 
Member States50.  

Peer2Peer tool 
IMPEL  has  facilitated  exchange  programmes  for  inspectors  but  there  has  been  no 
comprehensive  tool  covering  the  main  implementation  challenges  identified  in  the  EIR 
country reports. Therefore, on 7 September 2017 DG Environment launched a new tool for 
peer-to-peer exchanges among national, regional and local authorities in Member States, the 

49 See for details: Bio Intelligence Service/Ecologic/IEEP (2013), ‘Study on possible options for strengthening 
the  EU  level  role  in  environmental  inspections  and  strengthening  the  Commission’s  capacity  to  undertake 
effective  investigations  of  alleged  breaches  in  EU  environment  law’,  p.  111f.  Further  detailed  information  on 
individual 
at: 
http://impel.eu/categories/43/search_type/and/order/default/  
50 More detailed information is available at: http://impel.eu/cluster-2/  

available 

Initiative 

reviews 

Review 

IMPEL 

under 

the 

is 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
TAIEX51-EIR Peer2Peer52. This is aimed at helping Member States improve in implementing 
EU-based  environmental  policy  and  law,  including  tackling  (administrative)  root  causes, 
inspired by the implementation challenges indicated in the EIR. 

On-the-spot visits 
The  Bern  Convention’s  case-file  system  is  used  to  look  into  serious  complaints  about 
compliance  and  draws  on  a  group  of  appointed  experts  to  conduct  independent  on-the-spot 
appraisals  to  verify  information  or  check  whether  recommendations  are  being  satisfactorily 
implemented. However, these expert visits are limited to nature dossiers and do not cover the 
numerous other areas of the EU environmental acquis. 

Training 
In 2008, the Commission launched a ‘Programme for Cooperation with National Judges and 
Prosecutors in the Field of EU Environment Law’. It aimed to: 

  develop various training modules; 
  organise workshops to raise awareness of EU environment law and policy; 
  assist national judges in applying laws in practice; 
  provide  a  forum  for  exchange  of  knowledge  and  experience,  in  particular  on 

environment case law53.  

EUFJE and ENPE representatives have actively contributed. While focused on environmental 
law in general and not on compliance assurance specifically, the Programme has included the 
development of a training module on protecting the environment through criminal law54.  

As  for  inspectors,  IMPEL  too  has  developed  training  materials  and  organises  regular 
workshops. EUROSAI WGEA has developed a MOOC (mass online open course) to provide 
a university qualification in environmental auditing. 

Despite these positive steps, the picture remains incomplete as to the necessary skills required 
for effective compliance assurance and the associated training needs. 

Guidance documents and strategies 
Guidance  documents  exist  on  several  aspects  of  environmental  compliance  assurance  but 
only  to  a  limited  extent.  Over  the  years,  IMPEL  has  developed  methodologies  and  issued 
guidance  on  inspections.  Their  principal  focus  has  been  on  industrial  and  waste-shipment 
inspections. It began developing exchanges of good practices on issues such as diffuse water 
pollution  and  illegal  wildlife  activities  but  guidance  on  these  is  still  incomplete.  The  Bern 
Convention developed a strategy and guidance on combating the illegal killing of wild birds, 
and  the  Commission  has  adopted  an  Action  Plan  against  wildlife  trafficking55,  which  the 
Council endorsed. However, these cover only limited parts of the acquis set out in Annex 2. 

51 Technical assistance and information exchange.  
52 .http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/p2p/index_en.htm  
53 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/judges.htm 
54 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/criminal_law.htm  
55 COM(2016) 087 final.  

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Data and information portals 
The practitioner networks maintain a web presence and are a useful source of information on 
compliance  assurance.  However,  there  is  no  overall  central  source  of  information  and  the 
Commission’s web presence on this is currently weak. 

ENPE  facilitates  the  collecting  of  data  on  environmental  crime  and  the  enforcement  action 
taken  on  this  across  the  EU.  It  also  maintains  a  database  of  European  waste  crime  cases 
which it intends to expand into other areas56. However, there is a general lack of transparency 
and data as regards what compliance assurance authorities actually do and what they achieve. 
Academic  literature  and  other  sources  refer  to  the  lack  of  systematic  data  collection  on 
inspections  and  related  compliance  assurance57.  This  contributes  to  the  lack  of  systematic 
evidence-based  evaluation  of  the  performance  of  compliance  assurance  systems  and  of 
individual authorities with a view to streamlining and strengthening their effectiveness. 

Geospatial intelligence 
Geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) is intelligence about human activity on Earth derived from 
the exploitation and analysis of imagery and geospatial information that describes, assesses, 
and visually depicts physical features and geographically referenced activities on Earth. It can 
serve  as  a  valuable  tool  for  compliance  monitoring  —  for  instance,  helping  to  detect  and 
document  illegal  land-use.  The  Copernicus  Programme  aims  to  develop  European 
information  services  based  on  satellite  earth  observation  and  in  situ  (non-space)  data, 
implemented  in  partnership  with  the  European  Space  Agency  (ESA)  and  others58.  IMPEL 
and others have shown interest in developing the potential of geospatial intelligence to help in 
environmental compliance assurance. However, examples of its use to date are limited. 

Funding 
IMPEL,  the  network  of  inspectorates  receives  an  annual  grant  under  LIFE,  and  ENPE,  the 
prosecutors’  network  has  received  project  funding.  LIFE  has  also  funded  a  number  of 
projects  with  an  interest  for  environmental  compliance  assurance,  e.g.  on  a  compliance 
assurance  approach  to  combat  the  illegal  poisoning  of  birds  of  prey  in  Spain59  and  on 
improving  social  acceptance  of  wolves  and  other  large  carnivores.  However,  take-up  by 
individual compliance assurance authorities of LIFE project-funding has so far been low.  

7.4. Assessing compliance assurance efforts 
The EIR presents an overview of implementation of EU environmental legislation. Chapter 5 
of each country-specific report addresses environmental compliance assurance. However, the 
information the Commission had on this when compiling the reports was much less complete 
than  it  was  for  other  aspects  of  implementation.  While  the  Commission  benefits  from 
periodic  Member  State  reports  based  on  state-of-the-environment  monitoring  (reflecting 
detailed  requirements  on  matters  such  as  the  establishment  and  collection  of  data  from  air 

56 https://www.environmentalprosecutors.eu/waste-crime  
57 Faure, M. and Svatikova, K., ‘Criminal or Administrative Law to Protect the Environment? Evidence from 
Western  Europe’,  Journal  of  Environmental  Law,  May  2012,  p.  16  and  22.  OECD  research  also  stressed  the 
inadequacy of available enforcement data in many countries to allow assessment of efficiency and effectiveness 
of enforcement actions, see OECD 2009, ‘Ensuring Environmental Compliance. Trends and Good Practices’, p. 
42-43.  
58 http://www.copernicus.eu/main/overview.  
59http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3573 

19 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
pollution  monitoring  stations),  it  must  rely  on  various  sources  to  build  a  picture  of  how 
environmental compliance assurance works in practice60.  

Assessing  the  performance  of  Member  State  authorities  in  overseeing  compliance  with 
environmental legislation is not easy. As indicated above, there has been an initial attempt to 
boost  progress  on  this  in  the  first  round  of  the  EIR.  Learning  from  this  experience,  the 
Commission  decided  that  more  work  is  needed  to  develop  a  better  understanding  of  what 
works well. It launched a scoping study61 to present some initial ideas for a comprehensive 
assessment  framework.  In  developing  such  an  assessment  framework,  it  may  be  useful  to 
refer to three dimensions of environmental compliance assurance systems: 

  organisation (allocating and dividing responsibilities); 
  activities (types of interventions to ensure compliance); 
  governance (administrative coordination and public participation). 

Figure  4  illustrates  the  principal  building  blocks  of  each  dimension.  The  building  blocks 
represent  individual  elements  or  activities  that  must  be  carried  out  or  initiated  to  deliver  a 
compliance assurance assessment system. 

Figure 4:  Dimensions of environmental compliance assurance62 

60 These have included the work of IMPEL and a number of ad hoc studies. 
61 Study ‘Further development of an assessment framework for environmental compliance assurance’.  
62 ‘CoI’ in Figure 4 stands for ‘conflict of interest’ 

20 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
The scoping study has been able to present some ideas on how these aspects can be presented 
in  a country fiche  template, a related scoreboard and a traffic light assessment system. The 
assessment framework was tested in two countries and recommendations have been made on 
how  such  a  compliance  assurance  assessment  framework  can  be  developed  further.  The 
outcome of this scoping study will be discussed and developed further when the Action Plan 
is implemented (in particular Action 9). A follow-up project will help realise this assessment 
framework with the aim of providing input and better evidence on compliance assurance in 
the second and any further EIR. 

8  Consultation process 
From February to May 2013, the Commission carried out an online stakeholder consultation 
with  a  view  to  a  possible  initiative  on  environmental  compliance  assurance.  The  results 
showed broad support for the concept. 

Over  2014  and  2015,  the  Commission  worked  closely  with  the  Make  it  Work  group  of 
Member  States  who  wanted  to  prepare  recommendations  on  the  drafting  of  environmental 
compliance assurance provisions. Make it Work adopted its conclusions in 201563. 

Following the announcement of this initiative in the Commission’s 2017 Work Programme64, 
the Commission  convened a stakeholder conference with Member States and experts on 31 
January 201765 and a workshop on environmental crime held on 20 March 201766. Position 
papers followed from IMPEL and ENPE in May and June 2017 in which both stressed their 
enthusiasm to collaborate with the Commission on strengthening environmental compliance 
assurance67.  

9  How to improve support on compliance assurance?  
In  2013,  a  draft  impact  assessment  report  was  prepared.  This  examined  several  options  for 
improving  environmental  compliance  assurance,  including  legislative  ones.  However,  a 
strategic set of concrete actions that focused on supporting Member States was subsequently 
considered to be the best way forward. Stakeholders showed strong support for this approach 
at the conference held in January 2017. 

In the light of consultations and analysis, nine actions were chosen. 

The  nature,  scope  and  ambition  of  the  proposed  actions  broadly  reflect  the  outcome  of  the 
stakeholder conference and the subsequent workshop on environmental crime. An overview 
is  provided  in  Table  3  below  and  further  details  are  set  out  in  Annex  1.  The  actions  were 

63 http://minisites.ieep.eu/work-areas/environmental-governance/better-regulation/make-it-
work/subjects/2015/08/compliance-assurance 
64 http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/pdf/cwp_2017_en.pdf 
65 The summary of this conference is available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/pdf/summary_conference_compliance_assurance.pdf 
66 The summary and other material of this workshop are available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/inspections.htm  
67 The IMPEL Position Paper is available at: https://www.impel.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2017/06/EnvCompliance-Assurance-Position-Paper-IMPEL.pdf  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                            
chosen  for  their  expected  high  added  value  in  addressing  particular  shortcomings  over  a 
relatively  short  period  of  time.  They  represent  a  balanced  mix  of  the  different  kinds  of 
support  described  in  Section  7.  The  Commission  aims  to  ensure  there  is  overall  coherence 
and  synergy  between the  actions.  For  example,  Action  3  will,  amongst  other  things,  aim  at 
disseminating deliverables under other actions. 

Table 3: List of proposed actions and timing 

No 

Action 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Improve deployment of environmental compliance assurance expertise 
across the EU by means of peer reviews, joint enforcement actions, compliance 
assurance visits and use of the TAIEX-EIR Peer2Peer tool68 

Identify necessary professional skill-sets and training needs for 
environmental inspectors and improve cooperation with practitioner- and 
other bodies promoting excellence and providing training for compliance 
assurance professionals at national and European level 

Facilitate the sharing of good practices, background and reference material, 
promote funding opportunities for environmental compliance assurance, and 
explore the setting up of a wider environmental implementation portal 

Prepare a good practice guidance document on strategies for combating 
environmental crimes and other related breaches, with a particular focus on 
waste and wildlife 

Prepare guidance document(s) on good practices in environmental 
compliance assurance in rural areas (in relation to land and water)  

Timing 

2019 

2018 

2019 

2019 

2019 

Prepare technical guidelines for inspections of extractive waste facilities  

2018 

Prepare documentation on good practices in the handling of environmental 
complaints and citizen engagement at Member State level, including 
through citizen science and work with Member States to share good practices 
on effective national complaint-handling mechanisms concerning EU 
environmental law  

Build up the capacity and use of geospatial intelligence for compliance 
assurance and promote good practice projects (e.g. using Copernicus data)  

Assess national environmental compliance assurance systems as part of a wider 
governance assessment framework and regularly present feedback to Member 
States, also as part of the Environmental Implementation Review  

2019 

2019 

2019 

Action 1, improve deployment of environmental compliance assurance expertise  

The following specific considerations underlie Action 1: 

  There  continue  to  be  wide disparities in  environmental compliance assurance  across 

the EU, with good practices not always known or followed. 

68 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/p2p/index_en.htm  

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
  The take-up of IMPEL’s review initiative and its joint enforcement show that there is 
amongst Member States a broad interest in collaboration with compliance assurance 
experts  from  other  Member  States  and  authorities,  with  IMPEL’s  position  paper 
stressing the value of this. 

  There  is  clearly  room  to  develop  further  the  deployment  of  compliance  assurance 

experts. 

Action 2, identify necessary professional skill-sets and training needs  

At  the  stakeholder  conference,  the  importance  of  training  and  development  of  specialised 
skills was very strongly emphasised by all networks69. They are also strongly emphasised in 
the position papers of IMPEL and ENPE. 

Action 3, facilitate the sharing of good practices  

The  stakeholder  conference  confirmed  the  importance  of  collecting  and  disseminating 
information properly and of developing tools to facilitate this. 

Action  4,  prepare  a  good  practice  guidance  document  on  strategies  for  combating 
environmental crimes  

The following specific considerations underlie Action 4: 

  environmental crimes are amongst the most serious forms of non-compliance70; 
 

the December 2016 Council Conclusions stressed the importance of action to combat 
environmental crime and called on the Commission to do more71; this was particularly 
acknowledged  in  the  recently  published  Commission’s  ‘Comprehensive  Assessment 
of EU Security Policy’72;  

  organised crime already features in the Security Agenda and is a particular problem in 

 

the areas of waste and wildlife; 
IMPEL,  EnviCrimeNet,  ENPE  and  EUFJE  concur  on  the  importance  of  working 
together to combat environmental crime, and on prioritising the areas of waste73 and 
wildlife74; 

69 See the conference summary at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/pdf/summary_conference_compliance_assurance.pdf  
70 Combined estimates from the OECD, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), UNEP and INTERPOL 
on  the  monetary  value  of  all  environmental  crime  show  that  it  is  the  fourth  largest  international  crime. 
According  to  Europol,  waste  related  environmental  crime  is  driven  by  an  exceptional  low-risk,  high  profit 
margin and is organised by sophisticated networks of criminals with a clear division of roles (e.g. collection and 
transportation).  Europol  also  stresses  that  organised  criminal  groups  play  an  increasing  role  in  wildlife 
trafficking within the EU.  
71 http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15412-2016-INIT/en/pdf 
72 Commission staff working document ‘Comprehensive Assessment of EU Security Policy’, SWD(2017) 278 
final, p. 58-61.  
73 Waste crime and offending is a problem that concerns both fixed waste sites and waste movements within and 
outside the EU. Based on 2009 data, an estimated 15 % of waste within the EU is placed on sites that do not 
meet  EU  standards.  See  Ecologic  2009  —  A  Report  on  the  Implementation  of  Directive  1999/31/EC  on  the 
landfill of waste. Some estimate suggest it might be 400 times cheaper to simply dump hazardous waste than 
dispose of it legally in the EU (See ‘From toxic waste to toxic assets, the same people always get dumped on’, 
The  Guardian,  21  September  2009;  available  online  at  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-
green/2009/sep/21/global-fly-tipping-toxic-waste).  

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
  combating environmental crime and related offences presents particular challenges in 
terms  of  cooperation  and  coordination  between  authorities,  e.g.  between  inspectors, 
police and  prosecutors across the environmental compliance assurance chain, and  in 
terms of the relationship between criminal, administrative and civil law. 

Action  4  takes  up  an  idea  advanced  by  EnviCrimeNet  at  the  March  2017  workshop  on 
environmental  crime75,  namely  the  value  of  having  a  strategic  approach  to  environmental 
crime and offending such as that developed in the Netherlands. It is also timely in light of the 
review  of  the  Environmental  Crime  Directive,  2008/99/EC,  and  will  help  to  effectively 
implement  that instrument  as  well  as  the  related  efforts  to  combat  organised  environmental 
crime. 

Action  5,  prepare  guidance  document(s)  on  good  practices  in  environmental  compliance 
assurance in rural areas  

The following specific considerations underlie Action 5: 

  The  EIR  highlights  serious  concerns  about  diffuse  water  pollution  and  over-
abstraction,  and  the  poor  condition  of  many  habitats  and  species.  These  are  also 
highlighted in the Commission’s staff working document Agriculture and sustainable 
water  management  in  the  EU  and  the  Commission’s  Action  Plan  for  nature,  people 
and the economy. 

  EU water and nature legislation do not have provisions on environmental inspections 

such as those found in the Industrial Emissions Directive, 2010/75/EU. 

  Methodological guidance on how to carry out environmental compliance assurance in 
rural areas could be strengthened. IMPEL now has expert teams on water and nature 
but these were established relatively recently. While these are of growing value, they 
have had less time to match the work done on industrial inspections. 

  A combined approach to rules affecting rural areas will enable greater coherence and 

streamlining of compliance assurance efforts there. 

Action 6, prepare technical guidelines for inspections of extractive waste facilities  

The  Mining  Waste  Directive,  2006/21/EC  and  the  Industrial  Emissions  Directive, 
2010/75/EU  both  make  explicit  provision  for  adopting  Commission  guidelines  on 
environmental inspections. As part of the present Action Plan, the Commission will adopt the 
guidelines envisaged in the Mining Waste Directive. 

Action  7,  prepare  documentation  on  good  practices  in  the  handling  of  environmental 
complaints and citizen engagement at Member State level  

A number of specific considerations underlie Action 7: 

74 Wildlife crime has both an international aspect and an internal EU aspect. The international aspect relates to 
wildlife trafficking. A Commission communication on the subject in 2014 notes that 2 500 seizures of wildlife 
products are made every year in the EU. See COM(2014) 64 final, p. 4.  
75 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/pdf/Summary_20_03.pdf  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                         
 

the  Commission’s  communication  EU  law:  better  results  through  better  application 
stresses the role national authorities play in securing the rights of individuals and the 
importance of supporting national redress mechanisms76; 

  while  complaint  mechanisms  form  part  of  the  concept  of  environmental  compliance 
and while they figure in a number of environmental instruments77, there is currently 
neither a general mechanism for, nor guidance on, handling environmental complaints 
at national level; 
the  high  number  of  environmental  complaints78  and  petitions  received  by  the 
European  institutions  show  that  there  is  scope  for  improving  environmental 
complaint-handling within Member States; 

 

  citizen science offers a constructive model for how citizens can make environmental 
submissions  to  the  competent  authorities,  something  already  acknowledged  by  the 
Commission in its report Actions to Streamline Environmental Reporting79. 

Action 8, build up the capacity and use of geospatial intelligence  

The workshop on environmental crime held on 20 March 2017 included a contribution from 
the European Space Agency that confirmed the potential value of geospatial intelligence for 
environmental compliance assurance80. 

Action 9, assess national environmental compliance assurance systems  

The stakeholder conference included a presentation of the EIR and highlighted that there was 
broad agreement on the need and usefulness of evaluation mechanisms at both national and 
EU level. The following points also emerged81: 

  Evaluation  systems  should  have  a  dynamic  character  and  be  closely  integrated  with 
support measures that aim to help evaluated bodies to improve their performance. 
  Evaluation criteria should be developed in a dynamic way in close collaboration with 
evaluated bodies and be designed to show trends and state when progress is made. 
  Evaluation systems are not only valuable to the bodies evaluated but can also help to 
demonstrate the credibility of both the assessing and evaluated bodies to the public. It 
was considered valuable to have evaluation criteria on complaint-handling and public 
engagement  in  order to  show  that  public concerns  are  taken  on  board and  to  ensure 
public confidence. 

76 2017/C 18/2. 
77 See for example RMCEI and the Industrial Emissions Directive, 2010/75/EC. 
78 Approximately 600 per annum. 
79 COM(2017) 312 final.  
80 The matter was explored in more detail in a workshop on the use of satellites to combat waste crime organised 
by DG ENV and an ESA-funded consultancy in October 2017. 
81  An  evaluation  system  developed  and  presented  by  Ireland’s  Environmental  Protection  Agency  (EPA)  was 
January  2017: 
instructive, 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/inspections.htm  

stakeholder  conference  on  31 

Irish  EPA  presentation  at 

see 

the 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
10 Creation of an expert group  
At the stakeholder conference, participants stressed the importance of multi-level governance 
and  of  having  a  strategic  approach  to  environmental  compliance  assurance.  They  observed 
that, to be effective, compliance assurance needs to involve all government levels and that a 
shared  understanding  of  objectives  and  approaches  across  different  authorities  is  desired. 
They  also  stressed  senior  management  need  to  be  engaged  to  ensure  prioritisation,  proper 
strategic planning, suitable resource allocation and efficiency. 

In view of this, an expert group is being established to engage Member States at senior level 
on  issues  of  environmental  compliance  assurance  and  environmental  governance  generally. 
This will provide steering for the Action Plan and serve as a forum to exchange views with 
senior  managers  from  Member  States  on  how  to  improve  these  aspects  of  implementation. 
There is currently no such cross-cutting expert group at EU level. The expert group offers a 
means for the chairs and leaders of the practitioner networks to join in the exchanges.  

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1 

Details of actions 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ACTION 1:  

Improve deployment of environmental compliance assurance expertise across the EU by 
means of peer reviews, joint enforcement actions, compliance assurance visits and the use of 
the TAIEX-EIR Peer2Peer tool.  

OBJECTIVE: 

Enable Member States to benefit from the application of compliance assurance expertise from 
elsewhere in the EU. 

BACKGROUND, RATIONALE AND DESCRIPTION: 

The  action  will  build  on  a  number  of  existing  mechanisms  that  strengthen  compliance 
assurance  in  one  or  more  Member  States  through  deploying  compliance  assurance  experts 
from other Member States or bodies: 

 

 

IMPEL  (EU  Network  for  the  Implementation  and  Enforcement  of  Environmental 
Law) carries out peer reviews (IMPEL Review Initiative or IRI for short82) in which 
a  host  authority  in  one  country  receives  IMPEL  experts  from  other  countries  who 
draw up a report on their visit; 
IMPEL  has  an  established  joint  enforcement  action  on  trans-frontier  waste 
shipments under which inspectors from all Member States carry out joint checks and 
collect data once a year83; 

  The  Berne  Convention  on  the  Conservation  of  European  Wildlife  and  Natural 
Habitats  (‘the  Berne  Convention’),  to  which  both  the  EU  and  Member  States  are 
parties, has a case-file system which provides for on-the-spot visits by independent 
experts to report on compliance issues; 

  The  TAIEX-EIR  Peer2Peer  tool  forms  part  of  the  Environmental  Implementation 
Review84 (EIR) and will fund short-term visits of officials from one Member State to 
another. 

These  mechanisms  have  in  common  the  involvement  of  experts  from  outside  an  individual 
Member State in compliance assurance within that Member State. They facilitate transfer of 
knowledge, good practices and insights, and foster a more cohesive and consistent approach 
to compliance assurance across the EU.  

The action will aim to increase such benefits by: 

  strengthening IMPEL peer reviews through one or more of the following: 

o  expanded geographical coverage85; 
o  expanded subject-areas86; 

82  
83  
84  
85  
hosted any. 

https://www.impel.eu/tools/impel-review-initiative-tool/  
https://www.impel.eu/projects/enforcement-actions/  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/p2p/index_en.htm  
While  most  Member  States  have  already  hosted  at  least  one  IMPEL  peer  review,  some  have  not  yet 

28 

 
 
 
                                                            
o  more  extensive  coverage  of  the  compliance  assurance  chain  (for  instance, 

through involvement of police officers and prosecutors)87; 

  strengthening  IMPEL  joint  enforcement  action  by  initiating  it  in  one  or  more  new 

areas; 

  strengthening the Commission’s capacity to carry out compliance assurance visits in 
one or more Member States (such visits could look at specific compliance issues — or 
systemic  ones  where  they  might  cause  an  environmental  implementation  gap;  they 
would be carried out in close coordination with Member State administrations); 

  encouraging authorities to use the TAIEX-EIR Peer2Peer tool for cross-border visits 

by compliance assurance practitioners. 

DELIVERABLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND TIMELINES: 

What? 

  agreement with IMPEL on strengthening peer reviews and joint enforcement actions; 
  development of Commission model and capacity to undertake compliance assurance 

visits; 

  promotion of the TAIEX-EIR Peer2Peer tool for compliance assurance. 

Who? 

The  relevant  Commission  services  will  lead  the  work.  They  will  collaborate  closely  with 
IMPEL  and  consult  with  EnviCrimeNet  (Environmental  Crime  Network)  and  ENPE 
(European Network of Prosecutors for the Environment). 

When? 

Discussions  on  improving  available  tools  (with  IMPEL  or  TAIEX-EIR  Peer2Peer)  during 
2018  with  the  view  to  promoting  them  for  compliance  assurance.  The  model  and  the 
proposed capacity to carry out compliance assurance visits will be developed during 2018. A 
presentation  will  be  given  to  the  Environmental  Compliance  and  Governance  Forum  in 
Quarter 4, 2018 on the progress made. 

86  
IMPEL  peer  reviews  have  to  date  largely  focused  on  industrial  inspections,  with  a  few  recent  ones 
focusing  on  compliance  with  EU  nature  and  water  legislation.  Improved  coverage  of  EU  nature  and  water 
legislation would be beneficial. 
87  
IMPEL  peer  reviews  have  largely  focused  on  the  role  of  inspectorates.  However,  there  is  scope  to 
involve  other  categories  of  practitioners  such  as  prosecutors  with  a  view  to  improving  feedback  to  host 
authorities and Member States on how to manage work-flows that include several authorities.  

29 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                         
ACTION 2: 

Identify  necessary  professional  skill-sets  and  training  needs  for  environmental  inspectors 
and  enhance  cooperation  with  practitioner  and  other  bodies  promoting  excellence  and 
providing training for compliance assurance professionals at national and European level. 

OBJECTIVES: 

  provide Member State competent authorities with reference material on skill-sets and 

training needs related to the compliance assurance chain88; 

  achieve a broad expert consensus on the best options for preparing training materials, 
rolling-out  training  and  ensuring  coordination  of  training  efforts  in  the  compliance 
assurance field. 

BACKGROUND, RATIONALE AND DESCRIPTION: 

At  the  Stakeholder  Conference  of  31  January  2017,  the  EU-level  pan-European  networks, 
IMPEL89, ENPE90, EUFJE, EnviCrimeNet and the working group on environmental auditing 
within  EUROSAI91,  together  with  Europol  and  Eurojust,  pointed  to  the  importance  of 
professionalism and a high demand for specialist training. The topic features prominently in 
IMPEL’s  subsequent  position  paper.  The  lack  of  specialised  knowledge  and  the  need  to 
strengthen  training  activities  across  the  environmental  compliance  chain  have  already  been 
recognised  in  several  Council  Conclusions92  and  Commission  documents  as  well  as  in 
scientific research93. 

Professionalism and training needs relate to: 

 

the  different  professions  that  undertake  environmental  compliance  assurance,  in 
particular those of inspector, police officer, customs official, prosecutor and judge; 
the technical and forensic support required by these professions; 

 
  entry-level recruitment requirements; 
  core qualifications, core competences and criteria for measuring expertise; 
 
  assessment of training effectiveness. 

in-service training and the links to career development and continuous assessment; 

The chain that links the roles of inspectors, police, prosecutors and judges. 
In  June  2017,  IMPEL  published  a  position  paper  on  the  present  Commission  initiative,  see 

88  
89  
https://www.impel.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/EnvCompliance-Assurance-Position-Paper-IMPEL.pdf.  
90  
ENPE also provided a position paper on the initiative. 
91  
The European organisation of supreme audit institutions.  
92  
See  for  instance  Council  Conclusions  on  countering  environmental  crime  from  8  December  2016: 
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15412-2016-INIT/en/pdf;  Council  Conclusions  on  the  EU 
Action Plan against wildlife trafficking: 
       http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10512-2016-INIT/en/pdf; 
Council Conclusions on the continuation of the EU Policy Cycle for organised and 
serious 
2018-2021: 
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7704-2017-INIT/en/pdf.  

international 

period 

crime 

the 

for 

93  
(EFFACE): http://efface.eu/. 

See for instance the outcomes of the EU-funded study on European action to fight environmental crime 

30 

 
 
                                                            
 
The rationale of Action 2 is, firstly, to take an initial step towards addressing the demand for 
specialist  training  by  identifying  the  professional  skill-sets  necessary  to  carry  out 
environmental inspections and their associated training needs, with IMPEL invited to take the 
lead;  secondly,  to  build  on  this  and  further  support  training  needs  through  cooperation 
between the Commission and the compliance assurance networks and other bodies. 

IMPEL  already  provides  some  training  to  its  members  with  Commission  support.  The 
Commission  also  runs  an  existing  ‘Programme  for  cooperation  with  national  judges  and 
prosecutors in the field of environmental law’94. Action 2 will aim to ensure a particular focus 
on compliance assurance when developing new training materials or updating existing ones 

DELIVERABLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND TIMELINES: 

What? 

First:  Discussion  with  IMPEL  on  delivering  an  inventory  of  professional  skill-sets  and 
training needs for environmental inspectors. This is to be followed by a reference document 
containing  an 
training  needs,  and  broad 
recommendations for how to deliver qualifications and training. 

inventory  of  skills,  competencies  and 

Second: Refinement of  existing training  support in  light  of exchanges  with  the compliance 
assurance networks and other bodies. 

Who? 

The  relevant  Commission  services  will  coordinate  the  work.  This  will  involve  close 
collaboration,  in  particular  with  IMPEL  but  ENPE,  EnviCrimeNet,  EUFJE  and  EUROSAI 
will also be consulted. 

When? 

Action 2 will be implemented in a two-step approach. Firstly, it will involve discussion with 
IMPEL  in  Quarter  1,  2018  to  engage  in  a  collaboration  which  would  result  in  IMPEL 
presenting its inventory at the Environmental Compliance and Governance Forum in Quarter 
4,  2018.  Secondly,  it  will  involve  engaging  with  all  the  pan-European  networks  on  their 
training activities and presenting the Environmental Compliance and Governance Forum with 
an  overview  in  Quarter  2,  2019  as  well  as  the  proposals  of  each  network  for  improving 
training. 

94  

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/judges.htm  

31 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
ACTION 3: 

Facilitate  the  sharing  of  good  practices,  background  and  reference  material  and  promote 
funding opportunities for environmental compliance assurance and explore the setting up of a 
wider environmental implementation portal. 

OBJECTIVES: 

Help Member States’ experts, practitioners and the public to better understand environmental 
compliance  assurance  find  relevant  examples  and  good  practices  and  ensure  effective 
dissemination of deliverables under this Action Plan.  

BACKGROUND, RATIONALE AND DESCRIPTION: 

In  combination  with  search  engines,  internet  information  portals  allow  both  the  public  and 
specialists  to  find  useful  information  and  knowledge  more  easily.  In  the  field  of  the 
environment, the importance of disseminating environmental information is recognised in the 
Access  to  Environmental  Information  Directive,  2003/4/EC95,  the  INSPIRE  Directive, 
2007/2/EC96  and  a  Commission  review  of  EU  environmental  reporting  requirements97. 
Positive  examples  of  active  dissemination  of  environmental  information  by  EU  institutions 
and bodies include WISE98, BISE99, IPCHem100, and online information related to the Urban 
Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive101.  However,  actively-disseminated  information  about 
is  currently  patchy,  hampering 
environmental  compliance  assurance  at  EU 
understanding  of  the  concept,  the  sharing  of  good  practices  and  the  take-up  of  funding 
opportunities. 

level 

This  action  aims  to  improve  the  situation  by  establishing  a  more  complete,  coherent  and 
useful Commission web presence on environmental compliance assurance, linking it to other 
information  sources,  e.g.  those  developed  in  certain  sectors  (e.g.  industrial  emissions)  or 
certain organisations (e.g. IMPEL). Apart from being key potential end-users, several of the 
networks of environmental compliance assurance practitioners mentioned below themselves 
maintain a web presence whereby they share valuable compliance assurance information. It 
will  draw  on  positive  models  where  they  already  exist,  and,  in  terms  of  content,  seek  to 
provide visitors with a coherent body of information covering good practices, references and 

95  

Directive  2003/4/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  28  January  2003  on  public 

Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an 

access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC , OJL 41, 14.2.2003, p.26. 
96  
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE), OJ L 108, 25.4.2007, p. 1. 
97  
98  
99  
100  
101  

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/reporting/fc_overview_en.htm 
The Water Information System for Europe, see: http://water.europa.eu/. 
Biodiversity Information System for Europe, see: http://biodiversity.europa.eu/. 
The Information Platform for Chemical Monitoring, see: https://ipchem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/. 
Urban  Waste-water  Treatment  Directive  Structured  Implementation  and  Information  Framework 
(SIIF), see: http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/water-pollution/uwwtd/interactive-maps/urban-waste-water-
treatment-maps-1. 

32 

 
 
                                                            
sources of funding (for example under the LIFE Regulation102). It will, amongst other things, 
serve to actively disseminate deliverables under other actions of the Action Plan. 

As  the  Environmental  Implementation  Review  (EIR)  demonstrates,  information  about 
environmental compliance assurance fits into a broader context. To categorise the content of 
environmental  information,  the  European  Environment  Agency  (EEA)  uses  a  ‘DPSIR’ 
(drivers, pressure, state, impact and response)103 model. Environmental compliance assurance 
forms  part  of  the  response  category,  but  a  broad  understanding  of  compliance  challenges 
needs to draw on other DPSIR categories. Therefore, this action also explores the possibility 
and  feasibility  of  setting  up  a  wider  environment  implementation  portal,  building  on  the 
experiences  gained  through  sharing  information  on  compliance  assurance  which  would, 
amongst other benefits, support the EIR. 

DELIVERABLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND TIMELINES: 

What? 

The  action  will  first  and  foremost  focus  on  ensuring  that  the  Commission  provides  user-
friendly  information  on  environmental  compliance  assurance  through  the  Europa  pages,  in 
particular to actively disseminate deliverables under the Action Plan. As a second step it will 
explore the possibility of expanding the information to encompass broader content by using 
an environment implementation portal. 

Who? 

The relevant Commission services will lead the work. They will seek feedback from relevant 
pan-European  practitioners  networks  in  the  field  of  the  environment  such  as  IMPEL  (EU 
Network  for  the  Implementation  and  Enforcement  of  Environmental  Law,  EnviCrimeNet 
(Environmental  Crime  Network),  ENPE  (European  Network  of  Prosecutors  for  the 
Environment) and EUFJE (EU Forum of Judges for the Environment). Moreover, input from 
sectoral information or relevant information available at national level will be considered. 

When? 

The results of the action will be presented to the Environmental Compliance and Governance 
Forum in Quarter 2, 2019. 

102  
Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 
on the establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) and repealing Regulation 
(EC) No 614/2007, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 185.  
103 
framework, 
http://ia2dec.pbe.eea.europa.eu/knowledge_base/Frameworks/doc101182  

the  DPSIR 

For  more 

information 

EEA’s 

page 

see 

the 

on 

at 

33 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
ACTION 4: 

Prepare a  good practice guidance document on strategies for combating environmental 
crimes and other related breaches, with a particular focus on waste and wildlife. 

OBJECTIVES: 

Ensure  a  minimum  level  of  coherence  across  the  EU  Member  States  on  how  to  tackle 
environmental crimes and other related breaches. The action will help the relevant Member 
State authorities to develop strategic approaches at national level, by providing guidance that 
they can adapt and refine. 

BACKGROUND, RATIONALE AND DESCRIPTION: 

Member States104, practitioners105 and international bodies106 have recognised environmental 
crime as a serious issue, in particular in the areas of waste and wildlife. Challenges include: 

 

 

 

 

 

the need for strategic assessment of risk and strategic coordination within and across 
Member  States  between  administrative  authorities  and  law  enforcement  bodies 
(including the police, customs and prosecutors), as well as the sharing of intelligence; 

the  need  to  take  account  of  non-EU  countries,  and  ensure  good  links  with 
international law enforcement, e.g. through Interpol; 

the  need  to  take  account  of  non-environmental  crimes  and  offences,  such  as 
corruption, fraud, money laundering and tax evasion; 

the need to take account of organised crime, which features prominently in relation to 
both  waste  and  wildlife,  although  it  does  not  characterise  all  forms  of  waste  and 
wildlife offending; 

the need to sometimes address issues of social acceptance of unlawful conduct in the 
case of wildlife breaches (e.g. some forms of illegal hunting); 

  difficulties  in  detecting  illegal  activities  that  are  highly  mobile  and  clandestine,  and 

may require special investigative techniques, know-how and powers; 

104  

See  for  instance  Council  Conclusions  on  countering  environmental  crime  from  8  December  2016: 
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15412-2016-INIT/en/pdf.  Also,  the  Council  mechanism  on 
the mutual evaluations round (see Joint Action 97/827/JHA) has environmental crime as a topic for evaluation, 
starting in 2017. This involves evaluating the application and implementation at national level of measures and 
activities  in  the  fight  against  organised  environmental  crime,  with  the  main  focus  being  on  waste  crime  and 
dangerous materials across the EU-28.  
105  
Workshop  on  tackling  waste  and  wildlife  crime  held  in  March  2017;  stakeholder  conference  on 
environmental  compliance  assurance  held  in  January  2017;  workshop  on  review  of  existing  policy  and 
legislation  on  organised  environmental  crime  (waste  and  wildlife  crime)  held  in  October  2016;  and  EFFACE 
final conference on ‘Combating Environmental Crime: Priorities and Opportunities for further EU Action’ held 
in February 2016. 
106  

https://www.interpol.int/News-and-media/News/2016/N2016-073  

34 

 
 
 
                                                            
 

 

 

the  need  for  responses  to  include  not  only  application  of  criminal  law,  but  also 
administrative law and rules on remediation; 

the need to address the concerns of the public and civil society; 

the need to respond to media interest. 

Currently, with some positive exceptions107, there is an absence of guidance at EU level on 
how to address these challenges and — again with some positive exceptions108 — an absence 
of strategies at national level. Drawing on advice from practitioners, this action will address 
the gap by producing: 

i.  An easy-to-understand overview and summary of: 

o 

o 

o 

the relevant EU environmental obligations in the areas of waste and wildlife; 

the types of offending that occur in practice; 

the  principles  that  should  govern  compliance  assurance  (for  example,  the 
principle  of  effectiveness,  including  with  regard  to  sanctions;  the  polluter 
pays principle; and the principle of prevention); 

o 

the role of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. 

ii.  An overview of the role of the following in giving effect to these principles: 

o  criminal law, in particular the Environmental Crime Directive109, in ensuring  

the most serious offences are effectively sanctioned; 

o  administrative  law  in  providing  a  set  of  responses  (such  as  warnings  and 
administrative  fines)  for  circumstances  that  are  not  well  addressed  by  penal 
codes (e.g. lack of penal sanctions for legal persons); 

o  assessing  environmental  harm  as  part  of  the  assessment  of  gravity  of 
environmental  crimes  and  breaches  and  the  role  of  liability  regimes,  in 
particular  the  Environmental  Liability  Directive110,  in  addressing  damage 
resulting from environmental crime and offending; 

o  financial security as both a preventive and response tool for certain types of 

offending;  

107  
Detailed  EU  Guidelines  for  customs  controls  on  transboundary  shipments  of  waste  do  exist,  and  are 
aimed at supporting a harmonised and coherent approach by customs authorities in the control of shipments of 
waste into, through and out of the territory of the European Union, reference OJC 157, 12.5.2015, p. 1-14. 
108  
109  
protection of the environment through criminal law, OJL 328, 6.12.2008, p28. 
110  
Directive  2004/35/CE  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  21  April  2004  on 
environmental  liability  with  regard  to  the  prevention  and  remedying  of  environmental  damage,  OJ  L  143, 
30/04/2004, p. 56. 

For example, in the Netherlands and in the United Kingdom.  
Directive  2008/99/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  19  November  2008  on  the 

35 

 
 
                                                            
o  awareness-raising. 

iii.  An  overview  of  arrangements  and  good  practices  at  national,  pan-European  and 
international111  level  for  ensuring  close  coordination  and  cooperation,  including 
information  and  data-sharing,  between  similar  authorities  and  authorities  with 
different  roles,  e.g.  inspectors  responsible  for  routine  fixed  installation  inspections 
(which may be the first to identify offences) and police, customs and prosecutors, who 
will have the detailed investigative powers and the right to prosecute; 

iv.  An  overview  of  relevant  compliance  monitoring  tools  and  how  they  relate  to 

enforcement tools; 

v.  Recommended  content  for  strategies  to  combat  environmental  crimes  and  offences, 

taking account of links to other kinds of crime and offence. 

DELIVERABLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND TIMELINES: 

What? 

Guidance  document  and  other  relevant  information  to  be  presented  to  the  Environmental 
Compliance and Governance Forum. 

Who? 

The  relevant  Commission  services  will  lead  the  work.  The  action  will  be  implemented  in 
close  discussion  and  consultation  with  the  Environmental  Compliance  and  Governance 
Forum. In the preparatory phase, the Commission services will seek close collaboration with 
relevant pan-European groups, bodies or networks, in particular IMPEL (EU Network for the 
Implementation  and  Enforcement of Environmental Law), EnviCrimeNet, ENPE (European 
Network  of  Prosecutors  for  the  Environment)  and  EUFJE  (EU  Forum  of  Judges  for  the 
Environment), Europol and Eurojust. Preparing the guidance will involve a phase of research 
on existing Member State models, where they exist (e.g. The Netherlands), and an iterative 
approach to drafting, involving expert workshops and expert consultations. 

When? 

The guidance document will be presented to the Environmental Compliance and Governance 
Forum in Q2/2019. 

111  
For instance, see the Strategic Framework for Customs Cooperation 2018-2020 between the European 
Union and the Government of the People’s Republic of China, signed June 2nd 2017, supporting the fight against 
fraud with an emphasis on protecting the environment. 

36 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
ACTION 5: 

Prepare guidance document(s) on good practices in environmental compliance assurance 
in rural areas (in relation to land and water). 

OBJECTIVES: 

Improve  environmental  compliance  assurance  as  regards  rural  areas112  by  assisting  national 
authorities  to  monitor,  promote  and  enforce  compliance  with  EU  water,113  nature114  and 
related  legislation115.  The  action  will  strengthen  compliance  with  EU  nature  legislation, 
creating a synergy with the Commission’s Action Plan for nature, people and the economy116 
and help improve national compliance assurance systems for water legislation as envisaged in 
the Commission staff working document Agriculture and Sustainable Water Management in 
the  EU117.  The  guidance  will  contribute  to  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP)  by 
underpinning legislation covered by cross-compliance. 

BACKGROUND, RATIONALE AND DESCRIPTION: 

EU  environmental  legislation  lays  down  obligations  related  to  activities  in  rural  areas  that 
affect  land  and  water.  Much  EU  environmental  legislation  that  gives  rise  to  environmental 
requirements  for  rural  areas  does  not  contain  detailed  provisions  on  inspections  and  other 
forms  of  compliance  monitoring.  There  is  an  absence  of  guidance  to  help  Member  States 
ensure  that  these  requirements  are  effective  on  the  ground.  However,  some  of  these 
requirements  are  subject  to  cross-compliance  –  which  comes  with  inspection  and  audit 
provisions under the CAP.  

The action will facilitate better implementation of environmental legislation by producing: 

i.  An  easy-to-understand  overview  and  summary  of  the  relevant  EU  environmental 
obligations that govern or influence these environmental requirements, a summary of 

112  
The intended focus is on areas outside of urban areas and urban settlements such as those within the 
scope  of  Directive  91/271/EEC  on  urban  waste  water  treatment,  OJ  L  135,  30.5.1991,  p.  40  (Urban  Waste 
Water Treatment Directive). 
113  
In  particular,  Directive  2000/60/EC  establishing  a  framework  for  Community  action  in  the  field  of 
water  policy,  OJ  L  327,  22.12.2000,  p.1  (Water  Framework  Directive);  Council  Directive  91/676/EEC 
concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against  pollution  caused  by  nitrates  from  agricultural  sources,  OJ  L  375, 
31.12.1991, p.1 (Nitrates Directive); Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks, 
OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 27 (Floods Directive); Council Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for 
human consumption, OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32 (Drinking Water Directive). 
114  
In particular, Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7 (Birds 
Directive); and Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 
206, 22.7.1992, p. 7 (Habitats Directive). 
115  
In  particular,  Directive  2011/92/EU  on  the  assessment  of  the  effects  of  certain  public  and  private 
projects  on  the  environment,  OJ  L  26,  28.1.2012,  p.  1.  (Impact  Assessment  or  EIA  Directive);  Directive 
2008/98/EC  on  waste  and  repealing  certain  Directives,  OJ  L  312,  22.11.2008,  p.  3  (Waste  Framework 
Directive), Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (Air Quality Directive) and 
Directive  2016/2284/EU  on  the  reduction  of  national  emissions  of  certain  atmospheric  pollutants  (NEC 
Directive). 
116  
compliance. 
117  

COM(2017)  198,  final,  see  in  particular  Priority  B:  Building  political  ownership  and  strengthening 

SWD(2017)153 final, 28.4.2017, Section 2.1.  

37 

 
 
                                                            
the  principles  and  strategies  that  should  govern  compliance  assurance  in  respect  of 
them, and links to funding instruments. 

ii.  A  tool  for  developing  strategies,  in  particular  for  assessing  the  risks  of  non-
compliance with these requirements, including systemic risks, to help Member State 
prioritise and target their compliance assurance. 

iii.  Guidance on good practices in inspections and other forms of compliance monitoring, 
as  well  as  follow-up,  covering  in  particular  (1)  site-based  inspections118;  (2) 
monitoring  at  the  level  of  river  catchments  or  protected  sites;  (3)  earth  observation 
and related means of monitoring land-use changes; (4) environmental audits; (5) role 
of citizen science; (6) compliance monitoring that covers different requirements and 
takes  account  of  cross-compliance;  (7)  data  collection  and  data-sharing  and  other 
forms  of  cooperation  between  authorities  and  (8)  relationship  of  compliance 
monitoring  to  state-of-the-environment  and  pressure  monitoring.  To  maximise 
synergy with the CAP, particular attention will be paid to requirements that are also 
subject  to  cross-compliance  or  are  otherwise  the  subject  of  CAP  payments,  with  a 
view to avoiding unnecessary administrative burden for farmers and Member States. 

iv.  Guidance  on  good  practices  to  help  duty-holders  comply  and  raise  general  public 
awareness, covering in particular (1) advice and awareness-raising on the importance 
of compliance and the consequences of non-compliance; (2) practical advice on how 
to fulfil requirements; (3) practical advice on where to get financial support; and (4) 
co-design  with  duty-holders  of  detailed  requirements  and  prescriptions,  in  particular 
those that have a voluntary character, to optimise results 

These  outputs  will  to  an  appropriate  and  useful  extent  take  account  of  requirements 
concerning: 

  storage of manures and other polluting substances and organic and chemical fertiliser 

application119; 

  pesticide use120; 

  abstraction of surface and ground water121 and protection of groundwater; 

  protection of habitats and species122. 

Account will also be taken of related environmental requirements that concern: 

118  
Including  under  Directive  2010/75/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  industrial 
emissions  (integrated  pollution  prevention  and  control),  OJ  L  334,  17.12.2010,  p.  17.  (Industrial  Emissions 
Directive). 
119  
120  
action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides, OJL 309, 24.11.2009 (Sustainable Use Directive). 
121  
122  
the Water Framework Directive.  

Nitrates Directive and Article 11 of the Water Framework Directive 
Water  Framework  Directive  and  Directive  2009/128/EC  establishing  a  framework  for  Community 

Article 11 of the Water Framework Directive. 
Articles 3 and 4 of the Birds Directive, Articles 6, 12 and 13 of the Habitats Directive and Article 4 of 

38 

 
 
                                                            
  waste-water  discharges  in  rural  areas  (i.e.  outside  urban  areas  and  urbanised 

settlements)123; 

  protection of drinking water sources124, protection of other environmentally sensitive 

areas125 and protection of groundwater126; 

  erosion of soil127 and flood management128; 

  assessment of impacts on and/or protection of valuable features such as wetlands and 

cultural heritage129; 

  emissions of air pollutants from agricultural sources130.  

To facilitate authorities and duty-holders, also with view to simplification, the action will aim 
at identifying the inter-linkages between different requirements and responses.  

DELIVERABLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND TIMELINES: 

What? 

Guidance document(s) and other relevant information will be presented to the Environmental 
Compliance  and  Governance  Forum.  Deliverables  will  take  account  of  relevant  water 
research and innovation initiatives, and other innovative solutions such as those facilitated by 
the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) on Water131 and the EIP on Agriculture132and the 
importance of the links between science and policy. 

Who? 

The  relevant  Commission  services  will  lead  the  work.  In  the  preparatory  phase,  the 
Commission will seek close collaboration with experts in the various environmental sectors 
as  well  as  relevant  pan-European  groups,  bodies  or  networks,  in  particular  (1)  IMPEL  (EU 
Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law), (2) the specialised 
working  group  on  environmental  auditing  within  the  European  Organisation  of  Supreme 
Audit Institutions (EUROSAI,) and (3) other experts in the field. Relevant high-level sector-
specific  groups, notably the EU  Water Directors and the EU Nature Directors, will be kept 
informed of progress, given that the action supports the Common Implementation Strategy of 
the Water Framework Directive and the Action Plan for Nature respectively. 

Waste Framework Directive/Water Framework Directive. 
Article 7 of the Water Framework Directive. 
See Water Framework Directive.  
See  Directive  2006/118/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  protection  of 

123  
124  
125  
126  
groundwater against pollution and deterioration, OJ L 372, 27.12.2006, p. 19 (Groundwater Directive). 
127  
the Habitats Directive. 
128  
129  
130  
131  
132  

Floods Directive. 
Waste Framework Directive and EIA Directive. 
Air Quality Directive and NEC Directive.  
http://www.eip-water.eu/about 
https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en 

Article 11 of the Water Framework Directive, Articles 3 and 4 of the Birds Directive and Article 6 of 

39 

 
 
                                                            
When? 

The  first  guidance  document(s)  will  be  presented  to  the  Environmental  Compliance  and 
Governance Forum in Q2/2019. 

40 

 
 
 
 
ACTION 6: 

Prepare technical guidelines for inspections of extractive waste facilities.  

OBJECTIVES: 

Provide Member States with technical guidelines on inspections in line with Article 22 of 
Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries. 

BACKGROUND, RATIONALE AND DESCRIPTION: 

Directive  2006/21/EC133  sets  out  requirements  which  Member  States  must  fulfil  when 
managing waste from mines and other extractive industries. 

Article  17  requires  Member  States  to  inspect  extractive  waste  facilities  to  ensure  that  they 
comply  with  relevant  permit  conditions  and  Article  22  provides  that  the  Commission  shall 
adopt technical guidelines for inspections in accordance with Article 17. 

This  action  involves  the  Commission  adopting  the  expected  technical  guidelines  for 
inspections. 

DELIVERABLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND TIMELINES: 

What? 

The  technical  guidelines  are  expected  to  address  aspects  such  as  the  competence  of 
inspectors, inspection plans, the scope of inspections and the role of competent authorities. 

Who? 

The relevant Commission services will lead the work and the adoption process will involve 
use of a committee procedure set out in Directive 2006/21/EC. In line with Better Regulation 
commitments, the Commission plans to publish the draft act for public feedback. This would 
then  be  adopted  as  an  implementing  act,  using  the  examination  procedure,  which  involves 
Member States experts. 

When? 

Formal  adoption  is  expected  in  2018.  The  technical  guidelines  will  be  presented  to  the 
Environmental Compliance and Governance Forum in Quarter 2, 2019. 

133  

OJ L 102, 11.4.2006, p. 15.  

41 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
ACTION 7: 

Prepare  documentation  on  good  practices  in the  handling  of  environmental  complaints 
and citizen engagement at Member State level, including through citizen science and work 
with  Member  States  to  share  good  practices  on  effective  national  complaint-handling 
mechanisms concerning EU environmental law. 

OBJECTIVES: 

The  action  will  help  Member  States  authorities  to  apply  good  practices  for  handling 
environmental  complaints  and  organising  citizen  science  submissions  from  the  public  by 
developing a reference document on these. 

BACKGROUND, RATIONALE AND DESCRIPTION: 

As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission receives and examines 600 or so environmental 
complaints  from  EU  citizens  each  year.  At  the  same  time,  it  recognises  the  importance  of 
supporting effective redress mechanisms at national level134. There is currently an absence of 
reference  documents 
the 
environmental acquis at national level. There is also patchy knowledge of the opportunities 
created  by  citizen  science  to  facilitate  submissions  from  citizens  to  public  authorities  on 
implementing this acquis. 

to  help  Member  States  address  complaints  concerning 

The action will address this gap by producing documentation that presents good practices on: 

i. 

ii. 

handling  complaints  submitted  to  environmental  authorities  at  national  level  about 
non-compliance,  which  will  cover  complaints  about  nuisances  and  environmental 
crimes and offences; 

the role of national ombudsmen and similar bodies that receive complaints about how 
national  administrations  have  fulfilled  obligations  related  to  the  EU  environmental 
acquis; 

iii. 

the role of citizen science in facilitating the transmission of useful information from 
citizens to public authorities on implementing the EU environmental acquis. 

DELIVERABLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND TIMELINES: 

What? 

Documentation  will  be  prepared  for  presentation  to  the  Environmental  Compliance  and 
Governance Forum. 

Who? 

The  relevant  Commission  services  will  lead  the  work.  The  Commission  will  seek  close 
collaboration with relevant pan-European groups, bodies or networks, in particular IMPEL. 

134  

COM(2017) 198 final.  

42 

 
 
                                                            
When? 

Presentation of documentation to the Environmental Compliance and Governance Forum in 
Quarter 4, 2018. 

43 

 
 
 
 
ACTION 8: 

Build  up  the  capacity  and  use  of  geospatial  intelligence  for  compliance  assurance  and 
promote good practice projects (e.g. using Copernicus data). 

OBJECTIVES: 

Enable  Member  States  and  the  Commission  to  benefit  from  the  potential  of  geospatial 
intelligence (GEOINT) to support risk-based compliance assurance. 

BACKGROUND, RATIONALE AND DESCRIPTION: 

GEOINT  is  intelligence  about  human  activity  on  Earth  derived  from  the  exploitation  and 
analysis of imagery and geospatial information that describes, assesses, and visually depicts 
physical  features  and  geographically  referenced  activities  on  Earth.  GEOINT  consists  of 
imagery and imagery intelligence135 (IMINT) combined with other geospatial136 information. 
It uses different sources of information about specific locations (e.g. imagery from satellites 
and  other  means  of  earth  observation  such  as  drones)  as  either  itself  a  form  of  compliance 
monitoring or as a tool for directing other forms of compliance monitoring (such as site-based 
inspections).  Other  geospatial  information  is  essentially  all  the  spatial  data  covered  by  the 
INSPIRE Directive, 2007/2/EC137, to which also specific information on compliance can be 
linked as attributes (for example a landfill is a waste processing facility at a given location to 
which  information  on  permits  etc.  can  be  linked).  The  recent  results  of  the  environmental 
reporting  fitness  check138  have  shown  that  there  is  greater  scope  for  using  such  geospatial 
technologies to make monitoring and reporting on compliance more effective and efficient. 

GEOINT  can  be  useful  in  detecting  and  documenting  unlawful  land-use  changes  (e.g. 
damage  to  protected  nature  sites  and  operation  of  illegal  landfills)  or  in  tracking  sensitive 
movements  (e.g.  waste  or  wild  birds).  It  has  the  potential  to  provide  automated  early 
warnings  (e.g.  by  picking  up  the  signatures  of  unusual  or  irregular  land-use  changes  and 
notifying  these  to  end-users);  ad  hoc  evidence  of  change  (e.g.  before  and  after  images  of 
particular  locations  affected  by  unlawful  changes);  and  tracking  data  that  can  deter  illegal 
movements, such as those of waste. 

Amongst  others,  the  following  organisations  have  shown  an  interest  in  GEOINT:  the 
Commission’s  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC),  IMPEL  (EU  Network  for  the  Implementation 
and Enforcement of Environmental Law), the European Space Agency (ESA) and a number 
of  Member  States.  Furthermore,  the  EU  Copernicus  Programme  can  support  GEOINT 
through implementing the 2016 Space Strategy.  

Imagery  intelligence  (IMINT)  is  an  intelligence-gathering  discipline  which  collects  information  via 

Geospatial information is defined in the ISO/TC 211 series of standards as data and information having 

135  
imaging sensors on satellite and/or airborne platforms (planes, drones).  
136  
an implicit or explicit association with a location relative to the Earth.  
137  
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE), OJ L 108, 25.4.2007, p. 1.  
138  

Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an 

COM(2017)312 and SWD(2017)230.  

44 

 
 
                                                            
The  action  will  help  Member  States  and  bodies  who  wish  to  use  GEOINT  by  bringing 
together expertise (including  expertise resulting from a  number of  ad hoc  applications)  and 
sharing insights with the Environmental Compliance and Governance Forum.  

DELIVERABLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND TIMELINES: 

What? 

The  Commission  services  will  seek  to  develop  ad  hoc  applications  of  GEOINT  and  to 
cooperate  with  others,  notably  the  EEA,  IMPEL  and  the  ESA,  who  are  also  applying  this 
technique. 

The action will dovetail with the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive (also taking into 
account the results of the reporting fitness check) and Commission objectives for supporting 
the uptake of Copernicus and space applications139, in particular through: 

 

the  development  of  an  information  session  on  using  GEOINT  for  environmental 
compliance assurance as part of Copernicus training and information sessions for use 
across the EU140;  

  evidence-gathering  that  quantifies  benefits  of  improved  environmental  compliance 
assurance achieved through using integrated geospatial technologies & data as part of 
the Copernicus market report141; 

 

thematic  workshop(s) 
Copernicus142; 

for  environmental  compliance  assurance  as  part  of 

  development of applications or broker services for GEOINT support to Commission 

work on environmental compliance assurance143; 

  encouraging the potential of framework partnership agreements to boost the uptake of 
Copernicus  and  space  applications  in  the  field  of  environmental  compliance 
assurance, e.g. to support the production and procurement of useful space applications 
by public authorities. 

Who? 

The relevant Commission services (ENV, JRC and GROW in close collaboration) will lead 
the work. It will involve close collaboration with EEA, ESA and IMPEL, with EnviCrimeNet 
(Environmental  Crime  Network)  and  ENPE  (European  Network  of  Prosecutors  for  the 
Environment) also invited to participate. 

When? 

139  
140  
141  
142  
143  

https://euagenda.eu/publications/fostering-the-uptake-of-copernicus-and-space-applications  
Ibid p. 24.  
Ibid p. 26.  
Ibid p. 29.  
Ibid pp. 31-33.  

45 

 
 
                                                            
The  initial  showcasing  is  expected  to  take  place  at  a  thematic  workshop  planned  for  the 
INSPIRE Conference in Antwerp in September 2018. A presentation is planned to be given at 
the  Environmental  Compliance  and  Governance  Forum  for  Quarter  2,  2019  concerning  the 
progress made. 

46 

 
 
 
 
ACTION 9: 

Assess national environmental compliance assurance systems as part of a wider governance 
assessment framework and present feedback regularly to Member States, also as part of the 
Environmental Implementation Review (EIR). 

OBJECTIVES: 

Improve  the  understanding  of  —  and  ability  to  present  information  on  —  each  Member 
State’s  system  of  environmental  compliance  assurance  as  a  means  to  measure  progress  and 
identify good practices. 

BACKGROUND, RATIONALE AND DESCRIPTION: 

Identifying  strengths  and  weaknesses  in  national  approaches  to  environmental  compliance 
assurance requires information and criteria to assess what works well and what does not. 

In  the  field  of  the  environment,  the  Commission’s  general  priority  on  implementation  now 
involves providing Member States with a regular EIR in which the perceived strengths and 
weaknesses  of  each  Member  State’s  implementation  efforts  are  presented  through  concise 
country reports. 

Section  5  of  the  first  round  of  EIR  country  reports  (published  in  February  2017)144  covers, 
amongst  other  governance  topics,  environmental  compliance  assurance.  The  reports’ 
preparation  showed  that  the  methodological  approaches  for  assessing  Member  States’ 
compliance  assurance  systems  are  not  mature,  with  assessment  criteria  incomplete  and 
relevant data and information to underpin the assessment often not readily available. 

Therefore,  the  rationale  of  this  action  is  to  improve  the  feedback  to  Member  States  by 
developing  and  applying  an  assessment  framework  that  can  better  analyse  national 
environmental compliance assurance systems as well as other components of environmental 
governance  (such  as  access  to  information  and  access  to  justice).  It  will  contribute  to  the 
preparation  of  future  EIR  country  reports  and  complement  other  work  the  Commission  is 
undertaking on the quality of public administration in the context of the EU Semester145. 

DELIVERABLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND TIMELINES: 

What? 

This action will involve: 

 

reviewing existing methodologies and approaches for assessment frameworks; 

144  
145  
administration_en.pdf 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/index_en.htm 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/european-semester_thematic-factsheet_quality-public-

47 

 
 
                                                            
  defining appropriate qualitative criteria and/or quantitative indicators (building on the 

Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines146); 

 

testing, applying and presenting the proposed assessment approach and refining it in 
light of the testing; 

  producing specific country reports for  all EU Member States  based on the proposed 

governance assessment framework.  

It will also collect the necessary, publically available data and information, and contribute to 
preparing country reports under future EIRs. 

Who? 

The relevant Commission services will lead the work, with a support project initiated in 2017. 
The  project  will  be  carried  out  involving  close  consultation  and  interaction  with  Member 
State experts and relevant pan-European compliance assurance networks such as IMPEL (EU 
Network  for  the  Implementation  and  Enforcement  of  Environmental  Law)  as  well  as  the 
European Environment Agency. 

When? 

A project has been launched in 2017 and it aims to have material to contribute to the second 
round  of  EIR  country  reports  (due  to  be  published  in  Quarter  1,  2019)  but  the  assessment 
framework will be fully developed and applied thereafter. A presentation of the final project 
and  proposals  for  further  work  will  be  made  to  the  Environmental  Compliance  and 
Governance Forum in Quarter 2, 2019. 

146  

SWD(2015) 111 (http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_guide_en.htm) 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
ANNEX 2 

Legislation relevant to EU environmental rules on activities 

LEGISLATION PRINCIPALLY LINKED TO ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA (AIR, LAND, WATER)  

1.  

Air 

(a)  European  Parliament  and  Council  Directive  94/63/EC  of  20  December  1994  on 
the  control  of  volatile  organic  compound  (VOC)  emissions  resulting  from  the 
storage of petrol and its distribution from terminals to service stations147;  

(b) Council  Directive  1999/32/EC  of  26  April  1999  relating  to  a  reduction  in  the 
sulphur content of certain liquid fuels and amending Directive 93/12/EEC148; 

(c)  Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 

2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise149; 

(d) Directive  2004/107/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15 
December  2004  relating  to  arsenic,  cadmium,  mercury,  nickel  and  polycyclic 
aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient air150; 

(e)  Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 

2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe151; 

(f)  Directive  2009/126/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  21 
October  2009  on  stage  II  petrol  vapour  recovery  during  refuelling  of  motor 
vehicles at service stations152; 

(g) Directive  2016/2284/EU  of  14  December  2016  on  the  reduction  of  national 

emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants153; 

2.  

Nature and biodiversity 

(a)  Council Directive 83/129/EEC of 28 March 1983 concerning the importation into 
Member States of skins of certain seal pups and products derived therefrom154; 

147 OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 24. 
148 OJ L 121, 11.5.1999, p 13. 
149 OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12. 
150 OJ L 23, 26.1.2005, p. 3. 
151 OJ L 152, 11.6.2008, p. 1. 
152 OJ L 285, 31.10.2009, p. 36. 
153 OJ L 344, 17.12.2016, p. 1-31.  

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
(b) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 of 4 November 1991 prohibiting the use of 
leghold traps in the Community and the introduction into the Community of pelts 
and  manufactured  goods  of  certain  wild  animal  species  originating  in  countries 
which  catch  them  by  means  of  leghold  traps  or  trapping  methods  which  do  not 
meet international humane trapping standards155; 

(c)  Council  Directive  92/43/EEC  of  21  May  1992  on  the  conservation  of  natural 

habitats and of wild fauna and flora156; 

(d) Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  338/97  of  9  December  1996  on  the  protection  of 

species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein157; 

(e)  Council Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 relating  to the keeping of wild 

animals in zoos158; 

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

(g) Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 

16 September 2009 on trade in seal products159; 

(h) Directive  2009/147/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30 

November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds160; 

(i)  Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
20 October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and 
timber products on the market161; 

(j)  Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
compliance  measures  for  users  from  the  Nagoya  Protocol  on  Access  to  Genetic 
Resources  and  the  Fair  and  Equitable  Sharing  of  Benefits  Arising  from  their 
Utilisation in the Union162; 

154 OJ L 91, 9.4.1983, p. 30. 
155 OJ L 308, 9.11.1991, p. 1. 
156 OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. 
157 OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1. 
158 OJ L 94, 9.4.1999, p. 24. 
159 OJ L 286, 31.10.2009, p. 36. 
160 OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7. 
161 OJ L 295, 12.11.2010, p. 23. 
162 OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p.59 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                         
(k) Regulation  (EU)  No  1143/2014  on  the  prevention  and  management  of  the 

introduction and spread of invasive alien species163. 

3.   Water and marine 

(a)  Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water164; 

(b) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of 

waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources165; 

(c)  Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended 

for human consumption166; 

(d) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing 

a framework for Community action in the field of water policy167; 

(e)  Directive  2006/7/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15 
February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing 
Directive 76/160/EEC168; 

(f)  Directive  2006/118/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12 
December  2006  on  the  protection  of  groundwater  against  pollution  and 
deterioration169; 

(g) Directive  2007/60/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23 

October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks170; 

(h) Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 
2008  establishing  a  framework  for  community  action  in  the  field  of  marine 
environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive)171. 

163 OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, s. 35.  
164 OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40. 
165 OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p.1. 
166 OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32. 
167 OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1. 
168 OJ L 64, 4.3.2006, p. 37. 
169 OJ L 372, 27.12.2006, p. 19. 
170 OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 27. 
171 OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
LEGISLATION PRINCIPALLY LINKED TO ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES  

4.  

Chemicals 

(a)  Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
29  April  2004  on  persistent  organic  pollutants  and  amending  Directive 
79/117/EEC172; 

(b) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
18  December  2006  concerning  the  Registration,  Evaluation,  Authorisation  and 
Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, 
amending  Directive  1999/45/EC  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 
76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 
2000/21/EC173; 

(c)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
16  December  2008  on  classification,  labelling  and  packaging  of  substances  and 
mixtures,  amending  and  repealing  Directives  67/548/EEC  and  1999/45/EC,  and 
amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006174; 

(d) Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal 
products175; 

(e)  Regulation (EU) No 649/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 

July 2012 concerning the export and import of hazardous chemicals176; 

(f)  Directive  2009/128/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  21 
October  2009  establishing  a  framework  for  Community  action  to  achieve  the 
sustainable use of pesticides177. 

5.  

Industrial emissions and major accident hazards 

(a)  Council Directive 87/217/EEC of 19 March 1987 on the prevention and reduction 

of environmental pollution by asbestos178; 

172 OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 7. 
173 OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1. 
174 OJ L 353, 31.12.2008, p. 1. 
175 OJ L 167, 27.6.2012, p. 1. 
176 OJ L 201, 27.7.2012, p. 60. 
177 OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 71-86.  
178 OJ L 85, 28.3.1987, p. 40. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
(b) Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008  of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
22 October 2008 on the banning of exports of metallic mercury and certain mercury 
compounds and mixtures and the safe storage of metallic mercury179; 

(c)  Directive  2010/75/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24 
November  2010  on  industrial  emissions  (integrated  pollution  prevention  and 
control)180; 

(d) 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, amending 
and subsequently repealing Council Directive 96/82/EC181; 

(e)  Directive  2015/2193/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  25 
November 2015 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from 
medium combustion plants182. 

6.   Waste 

(a)  Council  Directive  86/278/EEC  of  12  June  1986  on  the  protection  of  the 
environment,  and  in  particular  of  the  soil,  when  sewage  sludge  is  used  in 
agriculture183; 

(b) European  Parliament  and  Council  Directive  94/62/EC  of  20  December  1994  on 

packaging and packaging waste184; 

(c)  Council  Directive  96/59/EC  of  16  September  1996  on  the  disposal  of 

polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT)185; 

(d) Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste186; 

(e)  Directive  2000/53/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18 

September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles187; 

179 OJL 304, 14.11.2008. 
180 OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17. 
181 OJ L 197, 24.7.2012, p. 1. 
182 OJ L 313, 28.11.2015, p. 1.  
183 OJ L 181, 4.7.1986, p. 6. 
184 OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10. 
185 OJ L 243, 24.9.1996, p. 31. 
186 OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1. 
187 OJ L 26, 21.10.2000, p. 34. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
(f)  Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 
2006  on  the  management  of  waste  from  extractive  industries  and  amending 
Directive 2004/35/EC188; 

(g) Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 

14 June 2006 on shipments of waste189; 

(h) Directive  2006/66/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  6 
September  2006  on  batteries  and  accumulators  and  waste  batteries  and 
accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC190; 

(i)  Directive  2008/98/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  19 

November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives191; 

(j)  Directive  2012/19/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  4  July 

2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)192; 

(k) Regulation (EU) No 1257/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
20  November  2013  on  ship  recycling  and  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1013/2006 and Directive 2009/16/EC193. 

HORIZONTAL INSTRUMENTS 

(a)  Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 
2004  on  environmental  liability  with  regard  to  the  prevention  and  remedying  of 
environmental damage194; 

(b) Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 
2007  establishing  an  Infrastructure  for  Spatial  Information  in  the  European 
Community (INSPIRE)195; 

(c)  Directive  2011/92/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13 
December  2011  on  the  assessment  of  the  effects  of  certain  public  and  private 
projects on the environment196. 

188 OJ L 102, 11.4.2006, p. 15. 
189 OJ L 190, 12.7.2006, p. 1. 
190 OJ L 266, 26.9.2006, p. 1. 
191 OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3. 
192 OJ L 197, 24.7.2012, p.38. 
193 OJ L 330, 10.12.2013, p. 1. 
194 OJ L 143, 30/04/2004, p. 56.  
195 OJ L 108, 25.4.2007, p. 1. 
196 OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, p. 1. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
ANNEX 3 

Typology of environmental rules on activities derived from EU law 

Prohibitions render certain types of activity unlawful197. The rationale for having this type of 
rule  is  that  the  activities  targeted  are  inherently  damaging  to  the  environment  and  must  be 
prevented. 

Procedural  requirements  stipulate  that  certain  activities  can  only  be  approved  and  should 
only  be  carried  out  once  their  environmental  impacts  have  been  examined  —  and/or 
environmental  authorities  and  the  public  have  been  given  an  opportunity  to  have  their  say. 
Here  the  rationale  is  that  the  requirements  enable  potential  environmental  problems  to  be 
identified, public goods safeguarded and civil society engaged in advance of decision-taking. 

Permits,  development  consents,  authorisations  and  derogations198  govern  how  certain 
activities are carried out. For example: 

 a permit may regulate a factory’s operating conditions; 

 
  a development consent may require fulfilment of certain environmental conditions; 
  a derogation may set out limits and restrictions on how an activity is carried out. 

What they have in common is that they are framed with specific activities in mind. They are 
often time-limited and need to be reviewed. The rationale is that protecting the environment 
sometimes requires not only prior approval but also safeguards to be applied on an ongoing 
basis. 

General  binding  requirements  provide  that  certain  activities  must  be  carried  out  in 
compliance with specific conditions fixed in generally binding rules rather than in individual 
permits199. The rationale for this type of rule is that protecting the environment requires that 
safeguards  be  applied  to  these  activities  on  an  ongoing  basis.  They  are  administratively 
simpler than permits, since they do not require individual decisions.  

Conditions  under  binding  contracts  or  other  agreements  bind  the  parties  concerned.  Under 
some EU environmental legislation, it is possible for Member States to use contracts or other 
agreements with duty-holders to achieve environmental objectives. The rationale is that some 
environmental outcomes are best accomplished through agreements voluntarily entered into. 
However,  once  entered  into,  some  agreements  are  binding  on  the  parties  and  their  non-
fulfilment can be subject to enforcement.   

197 Examples include different bans: on use of specific hazardous chemicals, on uncontrolled dumping of waste, 
on land-spreading of fertilisers over the winter and hunting of wild birds during periods of migration or in the 
breeding season. 
198 Permits to operate waste facilities are an example. Development consents requiring compensation for habitat 
damage are another. 
199 One example is a requirement that farmers have minimum storage capacity for livestock manure in nitrate 
vulnerable zones. Another consists of requirements to collect and treat urban-waste water according to EU 
standards set in national implementing legislation (these may also be set in authorisations). 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Requirements  stemming  from  ad  hoc  court  decisions  or  other  enforcement  actions  are 
auxiliary  rules  intended  to  ensure  that  the  other  rules  are  respected.  The  rationale  is  that 
enforcement action will often require duty-holders to conduct themselves in particular ways, 
e.g. complying with a court order to do something positive or refrain from doing something 
negative. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4 

Description of different aspects of environmental compliance assurance 

I. Compliance promotion 

The principal goals of compliance promotion are to: 

  communicate  to  the  general  public,  media  and  duty-holders  the  importance  of 

compliance, in particular for protecting the environment and human health; 

  provide  advice  and  guidance  to  duty-holders  on  how  to  comply  with  relevant 

obligations; 

  help duty-holders to achieve and maintain compliance as efficiently as possible, thereby 

 
 

reducing costs; 
recognise and reward excellence in achieving compliance; 
facilitate and encourage self-monitoring, self-certification, self-reporting of compliance 
and non-compliance, and voluntary environmental auditing by duty-holders. 

Some  instruments  listed  in  Annex  2  such  as  the  Timber  Regulation  (EU)  No  995/2010  are 
trade-related.  Compliance  promotion  can  therefore  include  making  information  available  to 
suppliers in non-EU countries who supply EU duty-holders. 

Promotion  can  include  having  structured  partnerships  with  the  regulated  community  and 
other  stakeholders,  including  duty-holder  representative  bodies,  with  a  view  to  improving 
levels of compliance. 

Compliance promotion can be especially important in situations where: 

  non-compliance  is  caused  by  a  lack  of  awareness,  knowledge,  understanding  or 
capacity  on  the  part  of  duty-holders,  something  likely  to  occur  when  duty-holders 
consist  of  micro,  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  that  lack  the  detailed  in-house 
knowledge of compliance requirements often possessed by larger enterprises; 
it  is  difficult  to  ensure  compliance  among  a  large  number  of  duty-holders  through 
compliance monitoring and enforcement activities alone; 

 

  new and complex obligations are introduced. 

II. Compliance monitoring 

The principal goals of compliance monitoring are to 

  verify compliance; 
 

identify,  detect  and  characterise  the  nature  and  extent  of  non-compliance,  identify 
those responsible and establish a causal link to the non-compliance detected; 

  analyse the causes of non-compliant conduct; 
  contribute to compliance enforcement and promotion, and rule-setting. 

Compliance monitoring can cover individual breaches as well as generalised non-compliance. 
In an individual case, effective follow-up action and enforcement may depend on establishing 
a convincing causal link between the breach and those identified as responsible. Monitoring 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
can also extend to analysing the best means to ensure voluntary compliance and encouraging 
duty-holders to report any instances of non-compliance to the authorities responsible. 

The different kinds of compliance monitoring include but are not limited to: 

  periodic, planned site-inspections — these are associated with fixed installations such 
as  industrial  plants  operating  under  permit  and  they  may  take  account  of  self-
monitoring by the operators; 

  ad  hoc  inspections  —  these  are  carried  out  in  response  to  complaints  or  in  case  of 

incidents or accidents; 

  surveillance and spot-checks — these may be appropriate for mobile activities such as 
transferring  waste  or  recreational  hunting,  or  activities  like  forestry  that  occur  over 
wide geographical areas; 

  environmental audits — these may  be valuable in identifying system bottlenecks, for 
example, in relation to weak investment in urban waste-water treatment facilities; 
intelligence-gathering and forensic investigations — these may be needed to uncover 
clandestine organised crime such as waste and wildlife trafficking. 

 

With  different  kinds  of  monitoring  come  different  techniques  and  technologies.  Examples 
include  the  use  of  earth  observation200  to  detect  unlawful  land-use  change,  data  analytics 
(sometimes  referred  to  as  ‘data  science’  or  ‘big  data’)  to  uncover  irregular  patterns  in 
documentation  and  whistleblower  provisions  that  encourage  insiders  to  disclose  unlawful 
conduct. 

Compliance monitoring may be proactive or it may be reactive, triggered by complaints from 
the public or incidents and occurrences such as fires and accidents. 

Duty-holders  can  contribute  to  compliance  monitoring  through  self-monitoring  as  well  as 
through means such as due diligence in overseeing their supply chains. 

Environmental  NGOs  can  contribute  through  their  evidence-gathering  that  is  shared  with 
authorities. 

III. Follow-up action and enforcement 

Follow-up action and enforcement come into play when non-compliance is detected. 

The principal goals of follow-up action and enforcement are to: 

  bring non-compliance to an end as soon as possible; 
  prevent,  limit  and  remedy  or  offset  the  harm  caused  to  the  environment  or  human 

health; 

  apply  the  polluter  pays  principle  and  ensure  that  non-compliance  does  not  bring 

economic advantage to the culprits; 
  deter and prevent future non-compliance. 

200 Imagery from satellites and aircraft. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Depending  on  the  circumstances,  proportionate  and  appropriate  follow-up  action  and 
enforcement may involve one or more of the following: 

 
tightening of permit conditions; 
 
issuing of audit recommendations; 
  written or recorded verbal warnings; 
  cease-and-desist orders; 
  enforceable undertakings whereby an economic operator agrees in a binding manner 

to do something or refrain from doing something; 

  communications,  notices  or  orders  requiring  corrective  action  by  the  duty-holder 
responsible,  possibly  including  capital  investment  and  remediation  or  offsetting  of 
environmental damage; 
imposing administrative fines or launching criminal proceedings; 

 
  publishing detected non-compliance cases naming the offender; 
  seizing, destroying, disabling or confiscating goods or prohibiting specific activities; 
  civil proceedings claiming damages or an injunction. 

Thus, administrative, criminal and civil law can all come into play. 

Follow-up  action  and  enforcement  may  take  into  account  the  extent  of  a  duty-holder’s 
cooperation in relation to detecting and reporting non-compliance for which the duty-holder 
is  responsible  in  whole  or  in  part.  They  may  take  into  account  also  the  respective  duty-
holder’s compliance record. 

A  key  aspect  of  environmental  compliance  assurance  concerns  how  best  to  select  and 
integrate the different possible types of follow-up action and enforcement in order to secure 
the goals of intervention201.  

IV. Risk assessment 

Risk  assessment  has  two  aspects:  ‘likelihood’  and  ‘effects’.  The  first  relates  to  the  likely 
occurrence of breaches and involves looking at the class or classes of duty-holders concerned 
and past evidence of non-compliance. The second involves looking at  immediate and long-
term  effects  on  the  environment  and  human  health  as  well  as  other  factors  such  as  unfair 
competition. Effects will relate to the nature, scale and persistence of breaches.  The greater 
the likelihood and the greater the effects, the more reason there is to worry — and intervene. 

To  further  understand  how  risk  assessment  works,  it  is  useful  to  refer  to  the  DPSIR  — 
‘driver’, ‘pressure’, ‘state’, ‘impact’, ‘response’ — model of how human beings influence the 
environment.  This  is  shown  in  Figure  5.  In  this  model,  both  activity-related  rules  and 
compliance  assurance  represent  a  response.  However,  they  are  closely  related  to  the  other 
DPSIR dimensions. 

201 Valuable insights into the rationale for choosing different kinds of sanction in environmental cases can be 
found  in  ‘Regulatory  Justice:  Making  Sanctions  Effective,  Final  Report’,  November  2006,  Professor  Richard 
at 
Macrory, 
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121205164501/http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file44593.pdf  

available 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 5: DPSIR model of human influences on the environment 

The likelihood of non-compliance is especially (though not exclusively) linked to drivers and 
pressures, while  the effects  of non-compliance is linked to  state and  impacts. It is easier  to 
focus on the most important types of non-compliance when the effects of non-compliance are 
understood,  If  the  pressures  and  drivers  are  understood,  it  is  easier  to  choose  the  right 
compliance assurance interventions. For example, if it is known that breaches of waste rules 
are driven by criminal waste enterprises looking to make illicit profits, the right compliance 
assurance mix is likely to include compliance monitoring and criminal enforcement.  

The type of monitoring and those carrying it out will be influenced by the nature of the driver 
and  the  pressure,  e.g.  checks  such  as  surveillance  and  criminal  investigations  led  by  the 
police and scientific examination of illegal landfill sites. So too will the type of enforcement, 
e.g. criminal enforcement aimed at sanctioning and deterring the search for illicit profits. At 
the  same  time,  the  state  of  the  environment  may  require  additional  interventions,  such  as 
action against the perpetrators to require them to clean up contaminated sites. 

The  assessment  of  risks  of  non-compliance  can  take  place  on  both  operational  (e.g.  for 
targeting specific inspections) and strategic level (e.g. for prioritising compliance monitoring 
work). 

V. Organisation and governance 

Organisational and governance considerations cover amongst other matters: 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  statutory  powers  given  to  authorities  to  carry  out  different  compliance  assurance 

tasks; 

  safeguards  to  ensure  that  compliance  assurance  activities  are  carried  out  in  a 

consistent and impartial manner; 

  safeguards to ensure that the staff responsible for monitoring and enforcement are free 
of any conflict of interest, have the necessary qualifications, and periodically receive 
training; 

  arrangements  for  ensuring  that  different  compliance  assurance  authorities  cooperate 

and coordinate with each other, including through data-sharing; 

  keeping accurate records; 

  protection  of  personal  data,  non-disclosure  of  information  covered  by  professional 

secrecy and respect for fundamental rights; 

  active  dissemination  of  certain  compliance  assurance  information  (e.g.  through 

publication of annual activity reports or individual inspection reports); 

  preparation of periodic evaluations, activity reports, research and awareness-raising; 

 

registration and handling of complaints and other submissions from the public. 

61