COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) DIRECTIVE 2010/75/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control)
Date: 2020-09-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, air quality, environmental impact, environmental monitoring, industrial pollution, prevention of pollution, reduction of gas emissions, waste incineration, water pollution

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 23.9.2020  SWD(2020) 181 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) DIRECTIVE 2010/75/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) {SWD(2020) 182 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 5 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ............................................................................. 7 

2.1.  Description of the intervention and its objectives ............................................................ 7 
2.2.  Objectives of the IED and problems it is intended to solve ............................................. 8 
2.3.  Key requirements and principles ...................................................................................... 8 
Intervention logic ........................................................................................................... 14 
2.4. 
Industrial emissions policy context prior to 2010 .......................................................... 18 
2.5. 
Expected evolution of key variables under the baseline scenario .................................. 21 
2.6. 
2.7.  Main changes with respect to the IPPCD ....................................................................... 22 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY ................................................................................. 22 

3.1.  Current situation ............................................................................................................. 22 
IED installations and overall emissions ......................................................................... 24 
3.2. 
3.3. 
Production of BREFs and implementation of BAT conclusions .................................... 30 
3.4.  Monitoring and reporting under the IED and E-PRTR .................................................. 32 
3.5.  Compliance and enforcement ......................................................................................... 33 
Innovation ...................................................................................................................... 34 
3.6. 

4.  METHOD .................................................................................................................................... 35 

4.1. 
4.2. 

Short description of methodology .................................................................................. 35 
Limitations and robustness of findings........................................................................... 36 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ................................... 38 

5.1. 
Effectiveness .................................................................................................................. 38 
Efficiency ....................................................................................................................... 54 
5.2. 
5.3.  Relevance ....................................................................................................................... 60 
5.4.  Coherence ....................................................................................................................... 64 
EU added value .............................................................................................................. 67 
5.5. 

6.  CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 69 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION .................................................................................... 79 

ANNEX 2: INTERVENTION LOGIC ................................................................................................. 84 

ANNEX 3: SUMMARY EVALUATION MATRIX ........................................................................... 85 

ANNEX 4: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ............................................................................... 95 

ANNEX 5: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS ................................................................. 106 

ANNEX 6: RATING OF ROBUSTNESS AND STAKEHOLDER SENTIMENT ........................... 110 

ANNEX 7: OVERVIEW OF COSTS AND BENEFITS IDENTIFIED IN THE 

EVALUATION ......................................................................................................................... 113 

ANNEX 8: COHERENCE WITH RELATED EU LEGISLATION .................................................. 116 

ANNEX 9: SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING PROBLEMS WITH THE IED 

IMPLEMENTATION (MARCH 2020) ..................................................................................... 118 

ANNEX 10: LIST OF RELEVANT EU LEGISLATION .................................................................. 119 

ANNEX 11: REFERENCE LIST (MAIN SOURCES) ...................................................................... 122 

1 

 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Policies 

Circular  Economy  Action 
Plan 

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm 

Clean Air 

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/index_en.htm 

Industrial Emissions 

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/stationary/index.htm 

Water 

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/index_en.htm 

Pollutants  

Cd 

CO2 

Hg  

N 

NH3 

Ni 

Cadmium 

Carbon Dioxide 

Mercury  

Nitrogen 

Ammonia 

Nickel 

NMVOC 

Non-Methane VOC 

NOX 

P 

Pb 

PM 

SO2 

TiO2 

TOC 

TSS 

VOC 

Nitrogen Oxides 

Phosphorous 

Lead 

Particulate Matter 

Sulphur Dioxide 

Titanium Dioxide 

Total Organic Carbon 

Total Suspended Solids 

Volatile Organic Compounds 

Abbreviations 

ACCESSA 

Association for Catalytic Control of Emissions from Stationary Sources 

BAT 

Best Available Techniques 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
BATc 

BAU 

BAT conclusions 

Business as usual 

BAT-AEL 

BAT-Associated Emission Level 

BAT-AEPL 

BAT-Associated Environmental Performance Level 

BREF 

CER 

CIRCABC 

CLM 

ECD 

EIPPCB 

ELV 

EPPSA 

E-PRTR  

ESWET 

ETS 

FDM 

FMP 

GHG 

GBR 

GLS 

IA 

IED 

INSPIRE 

IPPCD 

IRPP 

IS (I&S) 

LCP 

Best Available Techniques Reference Document 

Ceramic Manufacturing Industry 

Communication  and  Information  Resource  Centre  for  Administrations, 
Businesses and Citizens - a collaborative tool used to share information and 
resources on the internet 

Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Production 

Environmental Crime Directive 

European  Integrated  Pollution  Prevention  and  Control  Bureau,  part  of  the 
Joint Research Centre 

Emission Limit Value 

European Power Plants Suppliers Association 

European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register  

European Suppliers of Waste-to-Energy Technology  

(EU) Emissions Trading System 

Food, Drink and Milk Industries 

Ferrous Metals Processing Industry 

Greenhouse Gas 

General Binding Rules 

Manufacture of Glass 

Impact Assessment 

Industrial Emissions Directive 

Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community 

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive 

Intensive Rearing of Poultry or Pigs 

Iron and Steel 

Large Combustion Plant 

3 

 
 
 
LCPD 

LOD 

LVIC 

LVOC 

MS 

NECD 

NFM 

NGO 

OPC 

PP (P&P) 

RAINS 

REACH 

REF 

RSB 

SA 

SE 

SF 

SED 

STM 

STS 

TAN 

TNP 

TWG 

Large Combustion Plants Directive  

Limit of Detection 

Large Volume Inorganic Chemicals 

Large Volume Organic Chemicals 

(EU) Member States 

National Emission Ceilings Directive 

Non-ferrous Metals Industries 

Non-governmental organisations 

Open Public Consultation 

Production of Pulp, Paper and Board 

Regional Air Pollution Information and Simulation model 

Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals 

Refineries 

Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

Slaughterhouses and Animals By-products Industries 

Solvent Using Activities 

Smitheries and Foundries 

Solvent Emissions Directive 

Surface Treatment of Metals and Plastics 

STS - Surface Treatment Using Organic Solvents 

Tanning of Hides and Skins 

Transitional National Plan 

Technical Working Group 

UWWTD 

Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 

WI 

WT 

WID 

Waste Incineration and Co-incineration Plant 

Waste Treatment 

Waste Incineration Directive 

WWTP 

Waste Water Treatment Plant 

4 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This evaluation is being completed while the EU is working to implement the European 
Green Deal Communication adopted in December 20191. This Staff Working Document 
(SWD) provides therefore important elements for informing this work, in particular with 
regard to the Zero Pollution ambition for a toxic-free environment.  

The Industrial Emissions Directive2 2010/75/EU (IED) is the main instrument in place at 
the EU level to control and mitigate the environmental and human health impacts from 
industrial emissions in the EU. The IED regulates around 52 000 of the largest industrial 
installations  covering  a  range  of  agro-industrial  sectors.  These  include:  power  plants, 
refineries,  and  production  of  steel,  non-ferrous  metals,  cement,  lime,  glass,  chemicals, 
pulp  and  paper,  food  and  drink  as  well  as  waste  treatment  and  incineration  and  the 
intensive  rearing  of  pigs  and  poultry.  The  general  objective  of  the  IED  is  to  prevent, 
reduce and eliminate as far as possible emissions into air, water and soil and remediate 
soil pollution arising from industrial activities. 

The IED installations account for about 20% of pollutant emissions by mass to air and a 
similar share of emissions to water. While IED sectors are large GHG emitters (around 
40%  of  total  EU  GHG  emissions),  their  CO2  emissions  are  mainly  regulated  under  the 
EU  Emissions  Trading  System  (ETS)  and,  as  stipulated  by  the  IED  itself,  their  IED 
permit  shall  not  include  an  emission  limit  value  for  that  gas.  Nevertheless,  there  are  a 
number  of  IED  installations  whose  CO2  emissions  are  not  regulated  by  the  ETS,  and 
there are emissions of GHGs other than CO2 from IED installations, most of which are 
not regulated by the ETS. Altogether, it is estimated that around 10% of GHG emissions 
of  IED  plants  are  not  covered  by  the  ETS,  representing  around  4%  of  total  EU  GHG 
emissions3.  

This evaluation provides a particularly timely opportunity to assess how well the current 
legal framework on industrial emissions is working, how relevant it remains in light of 
the stated EU policy ambitions, and the degree to which it achieved its intended impacts. 
It includes  a review of the implementation of the IED based on Member States  reports 
and complementary information held by the Commission.  

The  evaluation  has  been  carried  out  in  line  with  the  European  Commission's  Better 
Regulation  guidelines4.  Evidence  gathering  and  its  analysis  was  carried  out  with  the 
support  of  independent  experts.  This  SWD  was  supported  by  their  report5.  Other 

1 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/european-green-deal-communication-annex-roadmap_en.pdf 
2 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/stationary/ied/legislation.htm 
3 Estimation based on E-PRTR data. 
4 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation-why-

and-how/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en 

5 Ricardo Energy & Environment, Umweltbundesamt (AT), Milieu (2020) ‚”Support to the evaluation of 

the Industrial Emissions Directive (Directive 2010/75/EU)”, https://europa.eu/!nY63hc 

5 

 
 
                                                            
evaluations  have  recently  been  concluded  for  legislation  with  which  the  IED  interacts 
strongly, notably on air quality6, water management7, and urban waste water treatment8. 
The relevant aspects of those interactions have been considered in this evaluation.  

The general public, industrial stakeholders, public authorities, and representatives of civil 
society  have  been  consulted  throughout  the  process.  The  evaluation  assesses  the 
legislation  against  the  five  standard  criteria  of  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence, 
relevance and EU-added value. It primarily covers the period from adoption of the IED, 
in  2010,  to  the  present;  however,  in  some  aspects  (e.g.  emissions  of  large  combustion 
plants), it was pertinent to look back further to its predecessor legislation. 

In  terms  of  legislation,  the  evaluation  covers  the  IED,  including  the  information 
exchange  process  for  elaborating  Best  Available  Techniques  Reference  Documents 
(BREFs)9. It covers all activities within the scope of Annex I to the IED and the whole of 
the EU. It also covers the following main implementing decisions adopted under the IED 
that govern its implementation: 

 
 

the Commission Decision setting up the IED Forum10;  
the BREF Guidance11. 

The 17 implementing decisions containing the conclusions on Best Available Techniques 
(BAT conclusions) adopted so far under the IED are not individually assessed as part of 
the evaluation, but are indirectly addressed as a whole for the following reasons: 

  The process to derive the BAT conclusions is analysed in detail and applies to all 

those adopted; 

  The  effectiveness  of  the  IED  is  mainly  the  cumulative  effectiveness  of  the 

implementation of the BAT conclusions; 

  Most  evaluation  questions,  e.g.  on  efficiency,  apply  to  the  BREF  process,  and 
consequently to the drawing up of all BAT conclusions. Where issues specific to 
individual  BAT  conclusions  have  been  raised  (usually  by  stakeholders)  or 
assessed in studies, they have been documented. 

A number of other implementing acts adopted under the IED have not been included in 
the evaluation. These are the following ones: 

6 SWD(2019) 427 final, 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/SWD_2019_427_F1_AAQ%20Fitness%20Check.pdf 
7 SWD(2019) 439 final, 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/fitness_check_of_the_eu_water_legislation/documents/Water%20F
itness%20Check%20-%20SWD(2019)439%20-%20web.pdf 
8 SWD(2019) 700 final, https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-
urbanwaste/pdf/UWWTD%20Evaluation%20SWD%20448-701%20web.pdf 
9 This is referred to as the “BREF process” and is described in detail in Section 3.3. 
10 2011/C 146/03, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011D0517(01) 
11 2012/119/EU, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2012.063.01.0001.01.ENG 

6 

 
                                                            
 

 

 

Implementing  rules  on  the  determination  of  start-up  and  shut-down  periods  for 
large  combustion  plants12  are  not  included  because  they  cover  a  very  specific 
technical issue; 
Implementing  rules  on  transitional  national  plans13  for  ensuring  compliance  of 
Large Combustion Plants (LCPs) with IED requirements are time-limited and all 
expire in 2020; 
Implementing  rules  for  Member  State  reporting14  are  not  addressed,  but  they 
provide some of the data used in the evaluation.  

This  evaluation  will  also  feed  into  an  Impact  Assessment  on  the  revision  of  the  IED, 
seeking  to  ensure  its  fullest  contribution  to  the  Zero  Pollution  ambition  and  coherence 
with  other  policy  objectives,  such  as  industrial  decarbonisation,  also  taking  note  of  the 
Masterplan15  adopted  by  the  High  Level  Group  on  Energy  Intensive  Industries,  and  a 
cleaner  and  more  circular  economy  to  the  benefit  of  both  public  health  and  enhanced 
resilience of natural ecosystems, in line with the European Green Deal Communication. 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

2.1.  Description of the intervention and its objectives 

Industry is responsible for a significant share of overall environmental impacts. The IED 
is the main EU legislation regulating the environmental impacts of large agro-industrial 
sources.  It  combines  and  strengthens  requirements  previously  set  under  seven  different 
EU Directives (see Annex 5 for details of legal instruments), namely:  

  The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPCD)16  
  The Large Combustion Plants Directive (LCPD) 17 
  The Waste Incineration Directive (WID) 18 
  The Solvent Emissions Directive (SED)19  
  Council Directive 78/176/EEC on waste from the titanium dioxide industry20 
  Council Directive 82/883/EEC on procedures for the surveillance and monitoring 

of environments concerned by waste from the titanium dioxide industry21 

  Council  Directive  92/112/EEC  on  procedures  for  harmonising  the  programmes 
for the reduction and eventual elimination of pollution caused by waste from the 
titanium dioxide industry22 

12 2012/249/EU, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32012D0249 
13 2012/115/EU, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32012D0115 
14 (EU) 2018/1135, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018D1135  
15 https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/38403 

16 Directive 2008/1/EC, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0001 
17 Directive 2001/80/EC, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32001L0080 
18 Directive 2000/76/EC, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32000L0076 
19 Directive 1999/13/EC, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31999L0013 
20 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31978L0176 
21 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31982L0883 
22 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31992L0112 

7 

 
 
                                                            
As  an  example  of  better  regulation,  the  IED  was  introduced  following  a  review  of  the 
industrial pollution policy framework23. The motivation was to further control industrial 
pollution,  while  simplifying  regulations,  lowering  the  administrative  burden,  and 
improving enforcement. It aimed to support innovation and provide better coherence with 
other aspects of EU environmental policy acquis (specifically concerning air, water, soil, 
waste, circular economy).  

2.2.  Objectives of the IED and problems it is intended to solve 

The IED is intended to respond to a number of needs. The first is to support a high level 
of  protection  of  human  health  and  the  environment  by  preventing,  reducing  and 
eliminating,  as  far  as  possible,  adverse  impacts  arising  from  industrial  activities  (e.g. 
emissions to air, water and soil, waste, resource consumption). The second is to ensure a 
level playing field for operators within sectors and across the EU for industrial pollution 
prevention and control. The third is to ensure access to information, public participation 
in  decision-making  and  access  to  justice  on  industrial  activities’  environmental 
permitting  and  performance.  The  fourth  is  to  reduce  unnecessary  or  excessive 
administrative  costs  for  economic  operators  from  previous  legislation  controlling 
industrial emissions. 

In response to these needs, the IED has a number of objectives. These include:  

 

 

 

 

 

to  establish  a  framework  for  the  control  and  permitting  of  the  main  industrial 
activities;  
to  avoid  distortion  of  competition  by  ensuring  consistent  environmental 
requirements for all economic operators within each sector;  
to  ensure  that  permitting  of  industrial  installations  is  based  on  best  available 
techniques; 
to  stimulate  innovation  by  encouraging  the  development  and  application  of 
emerging techniques; 
to  ensure  simplification  and  clarity  of  the  legal  framework  and  reduce  or  avoid 
unnecessary administrative burden. 

2.3.  Key requirements and principles   

Scope of the Directive 

More  industrial  activities  fall  under  the  scope  of  the  IED  than  under  its  preceding 
legislation, the IPPCD. In 2015, around 51 700 installations were reported as undertaking 
industrial activities within the scope of the IED. Implementation of the IED, while driven 
by EU actions, is therefore much decentralised. It depends on the correct and consistent 
implementation by a large number of competent authorities across the EU. 

23 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/air/stationary/ippc/ippc_revision.htm 

8 

 
                                                            
The IED is based on several principles, in particular: an integrated approach to pollution 
prevention  and  control,  the  use  of  best  available  techniques  in  permitting,  flexibility, 
inspections and monitoring, public participation and access to justice. 

Integrated Approach and Permitting 

The  IED  requires  that  emissions  from  industrial  sources  are  dealt  with  in  an  integrated 
way  and  minimised.  All  installations  conducting  activities  listed  in  IED  Annex  I  are 
required  to  operate  according  to  a  permit  issued  by  the  competent  authority  of  the 
concerned  Member  State,  and  reflecting  the  principles  and  provisions  stipulated  by  the 
IED.  These  are  the  general  requirements  set  out  in  Chapters  I  and  II  of  the  IED.  The 
permit  extends  to  all  environmental  aspects  of  an  installation’s  operating  activities, 
including  emissions  of  pollutants to  air,  water  and  soil,  waste  generation,  resource use, 
noise, odour prevention of accidents and restoration of the site upon closure. 

For  certain  activities,  i.e.  large  combustion  plants  (LCPs),  waste  incineration  (WI)  and 
co-incineration  plants,  solvent  using  activities  (SE)  and  titanium  dioxide  production 
(TiO2), the IED also sets, in specific sectoral chapters, minimum requirements based on 
the predecessor Directives.  

Best Available Techniques (BAT) 

Permit conditions must be based on the use of Best Available Techniques (BAT), which 
are the most environmentally effective of the economically viable techniques available. 
EU  wide  BAT  conclusions  are  adopted  as  sector  specific  implementing  decisions  that 
define  BAT  and  the  related  environmental  performance  to  be  incorporated  in  permits 
issued by Member States’ competent authorities.  

In order to define BAT and the BAT-associated environmental performance at EU level, 
the Commission organises an exchange of information with experts from Member States, 
industry  and  environmental  organisations.  This  work  is  co-ordinated  by  the European 
IPPC Bureau24(EIPPCB) at the EU Joint Research Centre in Seville (Spain). This process 
results in BAT Reference Documents25  (BREFs). The BAT conclusions are a distinctive 
chapter  of  the  BREFs.  More  information  on  the  production  of  BREFs  is  contained  in 
section 3.3. Figure 2-1 shows a schematic view of the IED. 

24 https://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
25 https://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference 

9 

 
                                                            
Figure 2-1: Schematic overview of the IED (legend: LCP - large combustion plant, WI - 
waste incineration and co-incineration plants, SE - solvent using activities, TiO2 - 
titanium dioxide production) 

The  setting  of  BAT  and  BAT-AEPLs  at  EU  level  is  in  general  based  on  imbalances 
between  installations  with  high  environmental  performance  and  those  less  performing 
ones. The BAT used in well performing installations can then be generalised across all 
installations through the BREF processes, creating a level playing field and a high level 
of  environmental  performance  within  each  industrial  sector.  Market  demand  leads  to 
continual innovation in techniques and improved performance at lower cost. This process 
continues  independently  of  the  BREF  review  process,  ensuring  that  better  performing 
techniques are available in a subsequent cycle. 

BREFs  have  a  standard  format,  set  out  in  the  BREF  Guidance,  consisting  of  the 
following chapters: 

Preface  
Scope  
General information about the sector concerned  
Applied processes and techniques  
Current emission and consumption levels  
Techniques to consider in the determination of BAT  
Best Available Techniques (BAT) conclusions (BATc) 
Emerging techniques  
Concluding remarks and recommendations for future work  
References  
Glossary of terms and abbreviations  
Annexes (dependent upon relevance to the sector and availability of information) 

10 

 
 
 
The BAT conclusions identify a non-exhaustive and non-prescriptive list of BAT, as well 
as  the  environmental  performance  levels  achievable  with  the  use  of  BAT.  They  can 
contain: 

  BAT-Associated  Emission  Levels  (BAT-AELs),  i.e.  a  numerical  range  of 

emission levels for specific pollutants,  

  BAT-Associated  Environmental  Performance  Levels  (BAT-AEPLs)  other  than 
emission levels, which usually address the consumption of raw materials, energy 
or water, as well as waste generation, and/or 

  Descriptive  BAT  which  are  not  associated  with  either  BAT-AELs  or  BAT-
AEPLs,  e.g.  concerning  monitoring, 
remediation,  environmental 
management systems, or the limitation or ban of the use of hazardous substances.  

site 

IED  Article  14(3)  makes  BAT  conclusions  the  mandatory  reference  for  setting  permit 
conditions.  Article  15(3)  makes  BAT-AELs  the  binding  requirements  for  pollutant 
emissions,  usually  to  air  and  water.  Their  upper  level  is  the  upper  boundary  for  the 
corresponding  emission  limit  values  set  in  permits,  unless  a  derogation  is  granted  by  a 
competent  authority  subject  to  strict  conditions  set  by  the  IED.  BAT-AEPLs  and 
descriptive BAT are not binding in the same way as BAT-AELs, but authorities must use 
them as a reference for setting permit conditions. 

Competent authorities must update installation permits to be in line with the content of 
the  BAT  conclusions,  and  operators  must  be  compliant  with  them  within  4  years  of 
publication  of  the  BAT  conclusions  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  EU.  This  gives  BAT 
conclusions  a  more  prominent  role than  under the  IPPCD,  where  they were  not  legally 
binding.  In  doing  so,  permitting  authorities  must  also  ensure  compliance  with  relevant 
minimum requirements contained in IED Chapters III to VI. 

Flexibility 

The  IED  allows  competent  authorities  some  flexibility  to  set  less  strict  emission  limit 
values. Such derogations are possible only in specific cases, where an assessment shows 
that  achieving  the  emission  levels  associated  with  BAT  described  in  the  BAT 
conclusions would lead to disproportionately higher costs compared to the environmental 
benefits due to the geographical location, local environmental conditions, or the technical 
characteristics of the installation, preventing the implementation of BAT. However, the 
use  of  this  derogation  procedure  is  strictly  limited  as  the  competent  authority  has  to 
ensure  that  no  significant  pollution  is  caused  and  that  a  high  level  of  protection  of  the 
environment as a whole is achieved. The competent authority shall always document its 
justification for granting such derogations. In the case of the sectors covered also by the 
specific  Chapters  IV,  V,  VI,  VII,  derogations  cannot  exceed  those  minimum 
requirements. 

At  the  same  time,  competent  authorities  must  set  stricter  emission  limits  when  an 
environment quality standard is exceeded. 

Figure 2-2 illustrates the different regimes for emission limits under the IED. 

11 

 
Figure 2-2: Emission limits under the IED 

Inspections and Monitoring 

The IED contains mandatory requirements on environmental inspections. Member States 
must  set  up  a  system  of  environmental  inspections  and  draw  up  inspection  plans 
accordingly. The IED requires a site visit to take place at least every 1 to 3 years, using 
risk-based criteria. 

Operators  have  to  report  to  Member  State  authorities  the  results  of  the  monitoring 
requirements  set  by  BAT  conclusions,  and  Member  States  are  reporting  to  the  EU  on 
several aspects of the implementation of the Directive. This is described in more detail in 
Section 3.4. 

Access to Information and Access to Justice 

Access to information and public participation are key elements of the IED. They enable 
the  public  to  have  a  right  to  participate  in  the  decision-making  process,  and  to  be 
informed of its consequences in accordance with the Aarhus Convention. This requires, 
in  particular,  ensuring  public  information  on  applications  for  permits  by  industrial 
operators  and  access  to  permits  issued  by  competent  authorities  and  the  results  of 
emissions  monitoring  held  by  them.  In  view  of  the  large  number  of  IED  installations, 
public involvement is also key to police the correct implementation of IED requirements 
in  permits  and  their  respect  by  operators.  Access  to  justice  is  another  aspect  of  the 
Aarhus Convention transposed in the IED. It aims to ensure that, where a problem arises, 
individuals  affected  or  NGOs  can  take  legal  action  to  ensure  the  respect  of  the  IED 
requirements. 

Figure 2-3 outlines the different roles and obligations of the Competent Authorities and 
operators of industrial installations in the permitting process. 

12 

 
 
 
Figure 2-3: Roles and obligations of the Competent Authorities and installation 
operators 

The IED Forum 

The IED requires the Commission to establish and regularly convene a Forum to support 
the information exchange. The Forum is composed of representatives of Member States, 
industry and environmental NGOs. It has been created as a formal expert group through a 
Commission decision, and is chaired by the Commission. New members of the Forum, 
who are not Member States, are appointed by the Director General of DG Environment. 
The  IED  Forum  has  so  far  held  14  meetings  and  all  documents  relating  to  them  are 
publicly available on the internet on CIRCABC26. 

The Commission is required to obtain the opinion of the Forum on the proposed content 
of BREFs and make it publicly available. The Commission must also take into account 
this opinion for the adoption of the BAT conclusions. The Commission also obtains the 
opinion  of  the  Forum  on  the  practical  arrangements  for  the  exchange  of  information 
including  on  the  work programme  for  the revision  of  BREFs.  This  has,  over the  years, 
led  to  incremental  improvements  of  the  BREF  process.  Forum  members  nominate 
participants in the Technical Working Groups who carry out the detailed work on each 
BREF.  

26 https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/06f33a94-9829-4eee-b187-21bb783a0fbf 

13 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
2.4. 

Intervention logic 

For illustrative purposes, the approach through which the IED operates can be described 
through a simplified sequence: 

→ IED identifies sectors with large environmental impacts 

→ IED creates a framework for BAT based permitting 

→  BREF  process  identifies  BAT  and  associated  environmental  performance 
levels 

→ MS competent authorities issue BAT-based permits for installations 

→ Industrial operators apply BAT to comply with permit conditions 

→ MS competent authorities undertake inspection, compliance and enforcement 
actions 

→ Emissions and environmental impacts decrease to levels prescribed 

→ Civil society can access information and challenge permit decisions 

→ IED contributes to the EU’s environmental quality objectives. 

Figure 2-4 shows a  summary intervention logic for the IED, the elements of which are 
explained below. A more detailed version is presented in Annex 2. 

14 

 
Figure 2-4: Simplified intervention logi

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Objectives 

The main objectives of the IED are described in Section 2.2. 

Inputs  

The  inputs  needed  are  essentially  human  and  financial  resources.  These  are  made 
available  by  the  European  Commission,  Member  State  authorities,  economic  operators 
and  other  stakeholders.  EU  inputs  are  primarily  needed  for  the  EU  level  actions,  while 
Member States provide input at EU, national, regional and local levels.  

Activities  

The  resources  provided  are  used  to  undertake  a  range  of  activities  at  various  different 
levels. The first of these, at EU level, was the preparation and adoption of the IED. From 
that time onwards the main actions of the Commission are to manage the production of 
BREFs and adoption of BAT conclusions, oversee implementation of the IED and report 
on it. Member States had to ensure that the necessary structures were in place at national 
and sub-national levels to implement the IED. Member States, industry and NGOs then 
participate  together  with  the  Commission  in  the  development  of  BREFs  and  BAT 
conclusions.  At  installation  level,  Member  State  competent  authorities  have  to  engage 
with  operators  to  grant  permits,  review  them  when  necessary,  ensure  that  permit 
conditions  are  respected,  inspect  installations  and  carry  out  enforcement  action,  if 
needed.  Operators  of  installations  must  make  investments,  as  needed,  to  reduce  their 
environmental impacts and ensure that they are compliant with the permit requirements. 
NGOs  and  citizens  are  able  to  participate  in  permitting  processes,  access  emissions 
monitoring  information  and  bring  complaints  and  information  to  the  competent 
authorities when needed.  

Outputs 

There are a number of outputs. All installations covered by Chapter II of the IED should 
hold regularly updated and BAT-based permits. Permitting decisions should be guided by 
BREFs  and  BAT  conclusions.  The  permits  should  be  complied  with  by  operators  and 
compliance should be enforced by competent authorities. The public should be involved 
in permitting decisions and have access to information on the environmental performance 
of  industrial  installations.  Innovative  techniques  may  be  deployed  to  reduce  the 
environmental  impacts  of  industrial  activities.  To  ensure  compliance  and  enforcement, 
appropriate monitoring and reporting systems should be in place at all IED installations. 
Member States’ competent authorities should collect accurate emissions data for all IED 
installations  and  make  them  publicly  available.  The  European  Pollutant  Release  and 
Transfer  Register  (E-PRTR)  provides  the  legal  framework  for  monitoring  aggregate 
pollutant  emissions  from  IED  installations  and  making  that  information  public,  in  line 
with the requirements of the Aarhus Convention. 

16 

 
 
The IED should lead to the improvement of the environmental performance of industrial 
installations across the EU. 

Effects 

If the implementation of the IED is effective, this should lead to benefits in four areas: 

i. 

ii. 
iii. 
iv. 

reduced impacts on human health and the environment through lower emissions 
to air, water and soil, reduced waste generation and higher resource efficiency; 
a contribution to increased industrial and technology innovation in the EU; 
reduced distortion of competition across the EU; 
improved transparency for the public regarding information on the environmental 
performance of industrial activities. 

External factors 

A  number  of  external  factors  outside  the  intervention  are  relevant,  as  they  may 
influence  delivery  of  the  stated  objectives.  Action  is  required  by  Member  States  to 
transpose  and  implement  the  IED  and  this  is  key  to  its  effectiveness  and  efficiency. 
Implementation  requires  effective  cooperation  within  Member  States  between  national, 
regional  and  local  authorities and  other  actors. General  economic  and  social  conditions 
and  technological  progress  are  also  relevant.  Implementation  of  the  IED  is  also 
influenced by other EU policies. Relevant strategies and policies include in particular the 
thematic  strategies  for  air,  water,  soil,  waste,  the  energy  efficiency  agenda  and  the 
Circular  Economy  Action  Plan.  Other  EU  legislation  of  relevance  include  the  Water 
Framework Directive and other related water legislation, EU Emission Trading System, 
National  Emission  Ceilings  Directive,  Air  Quality  Directive  and  the  Waste  Framework 
Directive, as well as their related legislation. 

Overlaid  onto  the  Intervention  Logic  in  Figure  2-4  are  the  five  criteria  which  form  the 
basis for any evaluation undertaken in line with the Better Regulation Guidelines: 

  Effectiveness: are the impacts (outputs and effects) envisaged by the objectives 
achieved? This effectively considers whether the objectives themselves have been 
achieved in practice.  

  Efficiency: how do the outputs compare to the inputs? Have they been achieved 

in an efficient manner?  

  Relevance:  are  the  objectives  of  the  IED  still  relevant  for  the  needs  in  society 

and problems to address? 

  Coherence: is the IED internally coherent? Does it complement or conflict with 

other existing policies and strategies, as well as new ones?  

  EU  added  value:  how  do  outcomes  (outputs  and  effects)  compare  with  what 
would  have  been  achieved  in  the  absence  of  the  IED  (or  any  EU  policy  on 
industrial pollution control)?  

The intervention logic has been used to develop the individual evaluation questions under 
each of the evaluation criteria. These are described in Annex 3 and used in Section 5. 

17 

 
 
2.5. 

 Industrial emissions policy context prior to 2010 

Baseline and points of comparison  

To  evaluate  the  impacts  of  the  IED,  a  counterfactual  baseline  scenario  was  used 
assuming  the  IED  had  not  been  implemented.  The  baseline  considers  relevant  external 
factors, for example, the evolution of the legal framework and the expected evolution of 
key variables relating to industrial emissions and production.  

The  main  reference  for  the  baseline  was  the  Impact  Assessment  (IA)27,  completed  in 
2007  and  accompanying  the  proposal  for  the  adoption  of  the  IED.  This  defined  the 
problems with the existing legal framework and its expected evolution in the absence of 
any further intervention (business as usual scenario - BAU). The IA is the starting point 
for the definition of the baseline and has been supplemented by input from other relevant 
sources.  

A major weakness of the IA was that it only contained information on emissions to air, 
and no quantitative data on emissions to water or soil. It also contained little quantitative 
data on other aspects such as inspections, compliance or enforcement. While no ex-ante 
assumptions  exist  about  these  parameters,  wherever  possible,  the  evaluation  uses  other 
sources  to  provide  an  indication  of  the  situation  either  before  the  IED  or  early  in  its 
implementation.  

Some illustrations of these alternative data sources are as follows: 

  E-PRTR  data  is  available  for  emissions  to  water,  so  the  emissions  since  the 
Impact Assessment are compared to the situation in 2007 as shown in Figure 3-7. 
  E-PRTR data is available for emissions to soil, so the change in emissions since 

 

2008 are shown in Figure 3-9. 
Information  on  inspections  was  reported  in  2012-13  and  it  was  the  only  data 
available for comparison. 

  There is no systematic information on enforcement, but for some Member States, 
available information on enforcement actions suggest there has been little change 
in their frequency. 

Main assumptions 

Expected evolution of the legal framework 

In  the  absence  of  the  IED,  the  pre-existing  legal  instruments  would  have  continued  to 
regulate  industrial  emissions.  The  IPPCD  was  the  main  instrument  setting  the  overall 
framework  for  regulating  industrial  emissions.  It  gave  a  broad  structure  and  set  of 
principles for permitting. The sectoral Directives would have continued to drive the use 

27 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12306-EU-rules-on-industrial-
emissions-revision 

18 

 
                                                            
of  BAT  to  comply  with  their  ELVs.  Inconsistencies  between  the  IPPCD,  sectoral 
Directives and other legislation would have continued.  

Industrial  emissions  reporting  would  have  continued  to  be  regulated  by  the  European 
Pollutant  Release  and  Transfer  Register  (E-PRTR),  thus  supporting  public  access  to 
emissions information from agro-industrial activities.  

There would have been limited integration between the IPPCD, LCPD, SED, WID, and 
E-PRTR reporting requirements. Reporting would have anyway needed to comply with 
the INSPIRE Directive. 

External relevant parameters/factors 

Industrial  emissions  would  have  been  mitigated  to  varying  degrees  by  other  existing 
environmental legislation which would continue having an effect. The main policy areas 
and legislation from which these effects are expected are: 

  Climate  change  and  energy  policies:  the  EU  ETS28,  the  Effort  Sharing 
Regulation29 and the Monitoring and Reporting Regulation30, as well as Member 
State planning via National Energy and Climate Plans; 
Industrial accidents: the Seveso Directive31; 

 
  Chemicals: REACH32; 
  Air  Quality33:  National  Emissions  Reduction  Commitments  Directive,  Ambient 

Air Quality Directive and Fourth Daughter Directive; 

  Water  quality34:  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  the  Environmental  Quality 

Standards, the Nitrates Directive, the Groundwater Directive; 

  Waste35:  the  Waste  Framework  Directive,  the  Circular  Economy  Action  Plan36, 

the Landfill Directive.  

Market developments also impact on industrial emissions. The economic downturn after 
2008  had  an  impact  on  the  level  of  both  industrial  production  and  therefore  also  its 
emissions. Nevertheless, as the market recovered, so did production and emissions levels. 
While that economic crisis decreased or slowed down investments, its impact was time 
limited.  However,  industry  would  not  have  been  expected  to  invest  in  reducing  their 
environmental  impacts  substantially  beyond  what  they  were  legally  obliged  to  do  and 
therefore  overall  the  crisis  is  not  expected  to  have  had  any  lasting  effect  on  emissions 
intensity. 

28 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en 
29 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/effort_en 
30 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/monitoring_en 
31 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/seveso/ 
32 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_en.htm 
33 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/reduction/index.htm 
34 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/index_en.htm 
35 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/index.htm 
36 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm 

19 

 
 
                                                            
Main problems prior to the adoption of the IED  

The IA identified a number of main problems with the predecessor legislation. Under the 
baseline scenario, these issues would be expected to continue. The main ones were:  

Insufficient BAT implementation  

The IPPCD included rather vague provisions on the role and meaning of BAT and gave 
considerable flexibility to competent authorities in the permitting process to deviate from 
the use of BAT described in the BREFs. An unclear role of the BREF in the permitting 
process  led  to  disparities  among  Member  States  from  different  permitting  approaches, 
which  reduced  the  overall  environmental  benefits.  Deviations  from  the  use  of  BAT 
occurred without due consideration of the technical, geographical or local environmental 
conditions of the installation and transparency of the permitting process was limited. This 
often resulted in permits not based on BAT described in the BREFs and Member States 
often set ELVs in permits that were not sufficiently stringent.  

While there were a number of interacting policies, many of which could incentivise the 
uptake  of  BAT  by  industry,  there  was  no  basis  to  expect  them  to  trigger  a  significant 
increase in uptake of BAT. As a result, emissions would not be expected to decrease. 

Limitations with regard to compliance and enforcement 

Different  approaches  among  Member  States  and  varying  levels  of  completeness  of 
reporting  would  have  led  to  continuing  challenges  in  assessing  compliance  or 
enforcement.  While  some  improvements  were  expected,  the  overall  difference  in  the 
Member States approach to inspections, compliance reporting and enforcement would be 
expected to continue. 

Limited stimulation of innovation 

Divergences among Member States in the implementation of the IPPCD meant that there 
would  not  have  been  strong  and  consistent  market  signal  to  technology  suppliers 
concerning the needed level of environmental performance. This would have limited the 
development and deployment of better techniques.  

Administrative burden  

The (combination of) legislation was complex, causing inconsistencies and uncertainties 
regarding interpretation of the requirements and unnecessary administrative burden. The 
administrative  burden  varied  considerably  among  Member  States  and  regions  due  to 
differences  in  implementation.  Some  degree  of  unnecessary  administrative  burden  was 
related  to  permitting  practices.  Some  requirements  were  redundant  and  the  ELVs  in 
sectoral Directives could not be updated as regularly as BAT conclusions.  

Insufficient scope 

The scope of the IPPCD was insufficiently clear, with a number of legal uncertainties and 
in some cases, too restricted. A number of polluting activities were not regulated, which 

20 

 
would have been insufficient for Member States to meet environmental objectives set in 
EU law and policy. EU environmental objectives have further developed since then and 
the shortcomings would have even been greater now. 

Limited access to information and public participation 

The  main  instrument  to  facilitate  public  access  to  information  on  industrial  emissions 
was  the  E-PRTR,  which  however  only  provided  information  on  yearly  pollution  load 
from  plants.  Inspections  and  permit  reviews  and  reporting  requirements  on  compliance 
varied among Member States.  There was limited evidence of public engagement in  the 
permitting process.  

2.6.  Expected evolution of key variables under the baseline scenario 

There  has  been  limited  change  in  the  number  of  permitted  IED  installations  across  the 
EU and this was not expected to change significantly for Member States in the future.  

Half of the IED installations received an inspection between 2012 and 2013. The average 
annual number of inspections  ranged between 1 and 6 per installation. Across  Member 
States, the share of permitted installations inspected ranged from 100% to less than 50%. 
Under  business  as  usual  (BAU)  it  is  assumed  that  around  50%  of  IPPCD  installations 
would  have  received  an  inspection  each  year  and  the  disparity  among  Member  States 
would have continued. 

Compliance  costs  to  operators  varied  considerably  by  Member  State,  by  sector  and  by 
BAT  uptake  under  the  IPPCD.  Annual  inspection  frequencies  would  not  have  changed 
with,  on average,  a site inspection involving 3 days  inspection  time annually, at a total 
cost of €80 million per year to regulators. Differences among Member States and sectors 
would have been expected to continue with consequent risks of market distortion.  

It is assumed the administrative costs to regulators associated with permitting would have 
primarily concerned the reconsideration or update of permits. These were assumed to be 
approximately  half  the  cost  of  issuing  a  new  permit.  If  permits  were  updated  every  10 
years, then the cost would have been in the range of €11-40 million per year. 

BREF development administrative costs were estimated at €5-10 million per BREF and 
are expected to remain the same under BAU.  

The BAU emissions of pollutants of IPPC activities is expected to remain fairly constant 
assuming  BAT  application  did  not  increase  significantly  and  non-stringent  ELVs  were 
applied. IPPC sector emissions would have become a higher share of total emissions due 
to progress in cutting emissions in other sectors.  

2.7.  Main changes with respect to the IPPCD 

The following elements represent the main changes introduced by the IED compared to 
the preceding IPPC regime: 

21 

 
  Merger of seven preceding Directives; 
  Expansion of the sectors covered by the Directive; 
  The obligation on installations to use BAT; 
  BAT conclusions as the mandatory reference for permit conditions; 
  The obligation to set ELVs in permits within the BAT-AEL range; 
  Formalised  procedure  for  the  exchange  of  information  to  draw  up  and  review 

BREFs; 

  Elements relating to emerging techniques; 
  Conditions for the granting of derogations; 
  Minimum  requirements  for  specific  industry  sectors  in  Chapters  III,  IV,  V  and 

VI; 

  Compulsory inspection plans and inspection frequencies; 
  Stronger  provisions  on  public  access  to  information,  participation  and  access  to 

justice.  

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

3.1.  Current situation  

The IED had to be transposed by 7 January 2013. In the absence of timely transposition 
by 20 Member States, the Commission pursued non-communication infringements in the 
period  2013-2016.  All  concerned  Member  States  have  by  now  adopted  the  necessary 
measures  transposing  the  IED  into  their  national  legal  order  and  all  Commission 
enforcement procedures have been closed.  

On the basis of conformity checking studies, the Commission has assessed the quality of 
Member States’ transposition of the IED. Following this, there remain active EU Pilots 
for 15 Member States (an overview is provided in Annex 8). Of these, a few remaining 
issues  are  being  clarified  with  three  Member  States;  infringement  action  for  incorrect 
transposition has already been launched against two other Member States and additional 
action may be launched in 2020 against ten additional Member States. In addition, with 
regard  to  IED  implementation,  infringement  action  has  been  launched  against  two 
Member  States  for  bad  application. In  general  these  concern  specific  issues  rather  than 
systemic problems. 

Some  of  the  pending  transposition  issues  relate  to  the  fact  that,  in  the  case  of  federal 
Member States, the IED has to be transposed not only at federal level but also at the level 
of regions, states or sub-entities, in a consistent manner. Other transposition issues touch 
upon  some  technical  definitions  or  processes,  which  require  equally  precise  and 
comprehensive  transposition  measures.  A  few  remaining  issues  stem  from  the  fact  that 
some IED provisions are not entirely clear.  

Feedback obtained through implementation reports and  workshops  with Member States 
over  the  period  covered  by  this  evaluation  have  identified  a  number  of  IED 
implementation  topics  causing problems for competent authorities  or  industries. Efforts 

22 

 
have been made to tackle these on an ongoing basis, and this evaluation takes stock of the 
current situation.  

Some challenges concerned BAT conclusions: interpretation, timely inclusion in permits; 
the  role  of  so-called  “horizontal”  BAT  conclusions,  implementation  through  general 
binding rules, granting of derogations and application of stricter emission limit values in 
permits where exceedance of local environmental quality standards (air/water) so require, 
and indirect releases to water through centralised water treatment plants. Transboundary 
pollution  seems  rarely  addressed.  Other  important  issues  concerned  monitoring  of 
emissions,  measurement  uncertainties  and  compliance  assessment.  In  addition,  some 
Member  States  still  seem  to  struggle  with  ensuring  transparency  of  information  and 
public participation in permitting procedures. 

The  Commission  has  engaged  with  Member  States  to  address  those  implementation 
challenges,  for  example  in  workshops  on  specific  topics,  such  as  implementation  of 
derogations, compliance assessment and emissions to water. Regular meetings involving 
the Commission and Member States in the Industrial Emissions Expert Group, as well as 
in  the  Article  13  IED  Forum,  that  also  involves  industry  and  NGO  representatives, 
provided further opportunities for addressing these challenges.  

The  Commission  has  also  prepared  a  compilation  of  responses  it  has  provided  to 
stakeholder questions on IED implementation, which is posted on CIRCABC37.  

Moreover,  the  Commission  cooperates  with  the  European  Union  Network  for  the 
Implementation  and  Enforcement  of  Environmental  Law  (IMPEL)  to  exchange  on IED 
implementation  and  develop  relevant  tools.  The  Commission  also  participates  in  the 
Academy  of  European  Law  training  of  Member  States  judges  on  topics  related  to 
industrial emissions legislation.  

Finally,  the  Commission  has  launched  a  process  to  support  implementation  and 
compliance promotion through the sampling of IED permits from installations across the 
EU. The Commission intends to pursue this effort and possibly complement it with other 
tools to further inform on implementation and compliance assessment.   

3.2. 

IED installations and overall emissions 

Number of IED installations 

Almost  51  700  installations  were  permitted  under  the  IED  in  2015.  The  breakdown  of 
these  is  shown  in  Figure  3-1.  The  largest  share  of  installations  permitted  is  for  the 
intensive  rearing  of  poultry  or  pigs  (IRPP).  Other  sectors  with  a  significant  share  of 
permitted installations include waste management, production and processing of metals, 
and the chemical industry.  

37  https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/06f33a94-9829-4eee-b187-21bb783a0fbf/library/cbcfa4fc-cb8e-4cd7-

bf7a-cbba10c28fb4?p=1&n=10&sort=modified_DESC 

23 

 
 
                                                            
Figure 3-1: Total number of permitted installations by sector38 (EU28, 2015) 

Emissions to air 

In terms of  damage cost39 from emissions, as shown in Figure 3-2, the sectors with the 
largest share are large combustion plants (LCP), followed by refineries (REF), intensive 
rearing of pigs or poultry (IRPP), and iron and steel (IS). 

Figure 3-2: Share of damage costs from emissions to air by sector40,41,3(EU28, 2017) 

38 [10] Ricardo Energy & Environment (2018), “Industrial emissions policy country profiles” 

39 Based on damage costs from EEA technical report 20/2014 which includes damage costs for the main air 
pollutants, heavy metals and organic emissions. A large share of these costs results from impacts on 
human  health.  https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/costs-of-air-pollution-from-industrial-
facilities 

24 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
Industrial  emissions  to  air  and  water  have  generally  decreased  under  the  IED  and  its 
predecessors42.  Moreover,  since  2007,  reductions  of  key  air  pollutants  have  been 
achieved at the same time as overall economic growth, indicating that there has been a 
decoupling of industrial activity from emissions to air. This is illustrated by Figure 3-3 
and Figure 3-4 which show, for a set of key pollutants, how overall indexed emissions to 
air from industry have changed over the last decade. 

1,2

1

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Industry GVA
SOx
PM10
Cadmium, lead and mercury

CO2
Nox
NMVOC

Figure 3-3: Release of air pollutants and gross value added for industry42 (EEA-33) 

Figure 3-4 shows, for the four dominant pollutants in terms of overall damage, how the 
annual damage costs (in €) from IED sector emissions to air have changed over the same 
period. Total damage is dominated by SOX and NOX and the reductions are dominated by 
the change of emissions from Large Combustion Plants (LCP). The total has more than 
halved over the period to just below €100 billion in 2017. 

40 Based on E-PRTR data and EEA damage costs. 
41 Acronyms: LCP- Large Combustion Plants; REF - Refineries; IRPP - Intensive Rearing of Poultry or 
Pigs; IS - Iron and Steel; Chemicals represent LVIC and LVOC - Large Volume Inorganic and Organic 
Chemicals;  CLM  -  Cement,  Lime  and  Magnesium  Oxide;  PP  -  Pulp  and  Paper;  NFM  -  Non-Ferrous 
Metals;  GLS  -  Manufacture  of  Glass;  FDM  -  Food,  Drink  and  Milk;  STS  -  Surface  Treatment  Using 
Organic Solvents; WI - Waste Incineration. 
42 EEA (2019), “Industrial Pollution in Europe”, https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-

maps/indicators/industrial-pollution-in-europe-3/assessment 

25 

 
                                                                                                                                                                                 
Figure 3-4: Damage cost of emissions to air from IED installations by pollutant43 

An important driver for this are the ELVs set in the LCPD and effective from 2008 (as 
shown  in  Figure  3-5)  with  transitional  provisions  until  2016  when  the  IED  ELVs  for 
LCPs became effective. While other factors could contribute, like for example the change 
in energy use in LCPs shown for comparison, full decomposition analysis indicates that 
the ELVs are the main driver in emission reductions. 

Figure 3-5: Timeframe of legislative impacts on LCPs44 

43 [8] ICF, Aether (2018), “Indicators for Industrial Emissions Policy” 

44 Adapted from EEA (2019), “Assessing the effectiveness of EU policy on large combustion plants 
in 
reducing air pollutant emissions”, https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/effectiveness-of-eu-policy-on 

26 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
A similar picture can be seen for most IED sectors with only different rates of change. 
Figure 3-6 below shows the evolution of damage costs from emissions to air for 21 IED 
sectors. 

1,6

1,4

1,2

1

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Chemicals
LCP
REF
IS
GLS
CLM
PP
NFM
FDM
FMP
CER
WI
STS
WT
IRPP
SA
SF
STM
TXT
TAN

Figure 3-6: Normalised damage costs of emissions to air by IED sector1,42,45 

For only two sectors (Waste Incineration and Intensive Rearing of Pigs or  Poultry) has 
damage from emissions increased over the time period. For all other sectors damage from 
emissions has decreased by up to 73% compared to 2008. 

While  they  have  not  been  shown  separately  in  the  previous  figures,  ammonia  (NH3) 
emissions to air are a specific case and compared to 2008, overall NH3 emissions have 
remained  fairly  static.  In  2017  around  92%  of  these  emissions  came  from  agriculture. 
However, only a few percent of this is emitted by agro-industrial activity regulated under 
the IED (mainly from intensive rearing of poultry or pigs).  

Emissions to water 

Figure  3-7  shows,  for  a  number  of  pollutants,  an  absolute  decoupling  of the  total  mass 
emissions to water from industry Gross Value Added (GVA). There is a visible declining 
trend  for  heavy  metals  (Cd,  Hg  and  Pb).  In  the  case  of  Nitrogen  (N),  Phosphorous  (P) 
and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) releases have declined since 2007 as well, although to a 
lesser extent. 

45 Acronyms: Chemicals represent LVIC and LVOC - Large Volume Inorganic and Organic Chemicals; LCP - Large 
Combustion Plants; REF - Refineries; IS - Iron and Steel; GLS - Manufacture of Glass; CLM - Cement, Lime 
and Magnesium Oxide; PP - Pulp and Paper; NFM - Non-Ferrous Metals; FDM - Food, Drink & Milk; FMP - 
Ferrous Metals Processing; CER - Ceramics; WI - Waste Incineration; STS - Surface Treatment with Solvents; 
WT  -  Waste  Treatment;  IRPP  -  Intensive  Rearing  of  Poultry  or  Pigs;  SA  -  Slaughterhouses  and  Animals  By-
products; SF - Smitheries and Foundries; STM -  Surface Treatment of Metals and Plastics; TXT - Textiles; TAN 
- Tanning of Hides and Skins; 

27 

 
 
                                                            
1,2

1

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Industry GVA

Phosphorous

Total organic carbon

Nitrogen

Cadmium, lead and mercury

Figure 3-7: Release of water pollutants and gross value added for industry42 (EEA-33) 

Figure 3-8 shows the contribution that industry makes to total emissions to air and water 
for  all  sources,  based  on  2017  data.  This  demonstrates  that,  despite  the  significant 
reductions  seen  to  date  in  emissions  from  industrial  activities,  they  still  contribute  a 
significant proportion of total EU emissions for some important pollutants. 

Air emissions 

Water emissions 

Figure 3-8: Industrial air and water emissions as a percentage of total EU28 pollution 
by sector46, 2017 

Emissions to soil 

46  EEA  (2019)  EU-28  Industrial  pollution  profile  2019,  www.eea.europa.eu/themes/industry/industrial-

pollution/industrial-pollution-country-profiles-2019/eu28 

28 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
In  contrast  to  emissions  to  air  or  water,  emissions  to  soil  and  groundwater  are  much 
harder to ameliorate once they have occurred. The IED therefore focuses on measures to 
prevent  emissions.  This  requires  the  use  of  techniques  such  as  impermeable  floors, 
avoidance of leaks  and secondary containment for vessels. These  techniques have been 
included as BAT in relevant BAT conclusions and should have been required in permit 
conditions where appropriate. 

Averaged normalised emissions

Sum of installations reporting emissions of different pollutants to soil

1

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

250

200

150

100

50

0

s
n
o
i
s
a

l
l

a
t
s
n

i

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

8
0
0
2
o
t
d
e
s
i
l

a
m
r
o
n
s
n
o
i
s
s
i

m
E

Figure 3-9: Trend in selected pollutant emissions to soil from IED sectors 47  

Emissions  to soil from  IED installations are also reported under E-PRTR and the same 
thresholds apply as for emissions to water. Very few installations report any emissions as 
illustrated  for  the  average  of  a  number  of  pollutants  in  Figure  3-9  and  the  amount  of 
emissions has also decreased dramatically over the period. 

Furthermore, operators of installations are responsible for remedying any contamination 
of the soil that took place during their operation. Evidence of the initial condition of the 
soil at the installation comes from baseline reports required under Article 22 of the IED, 
which must  be produced at the start of operation or  before the first permit update after 
January  2013.  The  status  of  baseline  reports  has  been  reported  under  the  Second  IED 
Reporting Decision. Operators will be obliged to return the soil to the existing condition 
on cessation of activities and therefore have a strong interest to avoid polluting it. 

Article 16 of the IED requires periodic monitoring of soil and groundwater to verify there 
are  no  releases.  On  cessation  of  activities,  IED  Article  22  requires  the  soil  and 
groundwater condition to be checked again and remediated, if necessary. 

It should be borne in mind that IED installations cover a very small proportion of total 
EU land area and represent a very small proportion of polluted sites in the EU. 

47  Based  on  E-PRTR  reported  data.  The  pollutants  emitted  to  soil  considered  in  this  graph  are:  Arsenic, 
Cadmium,  Chlorides,  Chromium,  Copper,  Halogenated  Organic  compounds,  Lead,  Mercury,  Nickel, 
Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Total Phosphorus and Zinc. 

29 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3. 

Production of BREFs and implementation of BAT conclusions 

BREFs are  produced through a highly participative process of exchange of information 
managed  by  the  European  Commission.  This  exchange  involves  the  Commission, 
Member  States, 
industries  concerned  and  environmental  non-governmental 
organisations, as shown in Figure 3-10, and is hereafter referred to as the BREF process. 

the 

An early step in the process is the agreement by the Technical Working Group (TWG) of 
the environmental aspects that will form the focus of the BREF. These are known as the 
Key  Environmental  Issues  (KEIs).  This  decision  is  guided  by  suggestions  from  TWG 
members and other data that they are able to provide in support. A number of factors is 
taken  into  consideration  by  the  TWG  in  arriving  at  its  decision.  These  include  factors 
such  as  the significance  of  the impact,  the  contribution  of  the  sector  to  overall impacts 
and the availability of data.  

The  BREF  production  process  involves  gathering  information  on  the  performance  of 
installations  and  techniques  in  terms  of  short  and  long  term  emissions,  consumption  of 
raw  materials,  water  and  energy  and  the  generation  of  waste.  It  then  assesses  the 
techniques  used,  monitoring,  cross-media  effects  and  their  economic  and  technical 
viability and developments. The process results in the identification of best available and 
emerging  techniques  and  their  associated  performance  levels.  The  resulting  BREF 
describes  for  defined  activities,  applied  techniques,  emission  and  consumption  levels, 
techniques considered for the determination of BAT as well as BAT conclusions and any 
emerging techniques.   

Figure 3-10: The BREF information exchange process 

30 

 
 
An  important  part  of  the  process  consists  in  identifying  BAT-Associated  Emission 
Levels (AELs) ranges, taking into account the effectiveness of the techniques used and 
any information on the cost of those techniques made available by TWG members. 

To  support  the  TWG  analysis  and  discussions,  emissions  concentrations  per  pollutant 
collected  from  reference  installations  are  plotted  together  with  information  on  the 
technique(s)  used.  An  example  is  shown  in  Figure  3-11  from  the  chemical  sector  for 
releases of total suspended solids (TSS) to water. 

Figure 3-11: Example of analytical output from the EIPPCB48 for total suspended solids 
(TSS) emitted to water from the chemical sector 

The  drawing  up  and  review  of  BREFs  is  an  intensive  and  demanding  process.  Six  to 
eight BREFs are worked on simultaneously with the resources available to the EIPPCB 
and  Technical  Working  Groups  (TWGs).  Figure  3-12  shows  the  current  status  of  the 
different BREF reviews.  

For the 16 BREF reviews that have been finalised by the end of the evaluation support 
contract49, the yellow bar shows the four year period within which the permits must be 
updated  in  line  with  the  BAT  conclusions.  Timings  after  the  start  of  2020  are  shown 
indicatively. 

By  June  2020,  10  of  the  finalised  BREFs  have  been  implemented  in  permits.  It  is 
expected  that  the  last  BREF  reviews  in  the  current  cycle  will  start  in  2021.  In  view  of 
this,  reflections  have  started  about  scheduling  review  work  beyond  2021.  A  workshop 
with the Article 13 Forum took place in June 2020 to discuss this.  

48 https://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2019-11/CWW_Bref_2016_published.pdf 
49  At  the  time  of  finalising  this  document,  the  17th  BAT  Conclusions  for  the  STS  sector  received  the 
positive  vote  of  the  IED  Article  75  Committee  and  have  been  adopted  as  implementing  act  by  the 
Commission. 

31 

 
 
                                                            
Figure 3-12 Status of IED BREF reviews (January 2020) 

3.4.  Monitoring and reporting under the IED and E-PRTR 

The  emission  limits  set  in  permits  under  the  IED  are  primarily  expressed  in  pollutant 
concentrations  and  are  accompanied  by  corresponding  monitoring  obligations  for 
operators. Operators must provide Member State authorities with appropriate monitoring 
results so that they can verify compliance. The results of emissions monitoring are held 
by  the  competent  authority  which  shall  make  this  data  publicly  available.  There  is  no 
further reporting of emission concentrations required to EU bodies. 

Industrial operators have at the same time the obligation under the E-PRTR to determine 
the  annual  quantity  of  released  pollutants  using  measurements,  calculations  or 
estimations,  and  report them  to  Member  State  authorities,  which  in  turn  report  them  to 
the  European  Environment  Agency  (EEA).  These  data  are  the  basis  for  assessing  the 
environmental impacts of industry. Although there is a large overlap in scope, not all IED 
installations are under the E-PRTR scope and vice-versa. 

Member  State  authorities  have  additional  reporting  obligations  under  the  Second  IED 
Reporting Decision. These have been simplified in accordance with the conclusions and 
recommendations  of  the  Fitness  Check  of  EU  Environmental  reporting  obligations.  All 
narrative  reporting  has  been  converted  into  reporting  of  factual  data  generated  by 
Member States as they implement the IED. This includes a range of administrative data 
(e.g. relating to location, permit, activities carried out) and specific information for each 
IED  installation  (e.g.  on  permit  updates,  derogations  or  inspections).  Furthermore,  IED 
reporting has been streamlined with E-PRTR reporting to ensure better consistency and 
increase the value and usefulness of the reported data. All non-confidential information is 
made public. 

32 

 
 
3.5.  Compliance and enforcement 

In  view  of  the  very  large  number  of  installations  and  the  hundreds  of  competent 
authorities  overseeing  them,  it  is  essential  for  the  checking  of  compliance  with  IED 
permit  conditions  and  enforcement  action,  if  needed,  to  be  taken  in  a  decentralised 
manner.  The  IED  therefore  requires  permits  to  contain  the  measures  necessary  for 
checking  compliance  with  the  relevant  conditions.  This  includes  requiring  operators  to 
provide  the  necessary  information  to  the  competent  authorities  for  them  to  verify 
compliance with the permit conditions. The emissions monitoring information provided 
by operators to the competent authorities must be made available to the public. 

Competent authorities are required to carry out inspections of installations at a frequency 
that depends on the environmental risk posed. Inspections may involve non-routine visits 
as appropriate. The IED also enlists the support of the public and environmental NGOs 
who may file complaints about environmental problems related to an installation. If these 
relate  to  serious  environmental  problems,  the  authority  would  normally  be  expected  to 
carry out an inspection and also has the power to suspended operations.  

Where  operators  are  found  to  not  be  respecting  permit  conditions,  it  is  for  the  relevant 
competent authority to take enforcement action. It would normally be expected that, once 
operators are informed by a competent authority of any shortcoming in their compliance 
with permit conditions, they would rectify those within the period required. It is only in 
case of recalcitrant operators or very serious pollution incidents that action before a court 
might be needed. Since there is no obligation for Member States to report information on 
such  compliance  problems,  very  limited  information  is  available  about  enforcement 
action  or  court  cases.  The  available  information  suggests  that  there  might  annually  be 
court cases affecting less than a few tenths of a percent of all IED installations. 

Little  information  is  available  on  penalties  actually  imposed  as  a  result  of  those  cases, 
due  to  the  lack  of  a  central  register.  However,  data  gathered  on  the  type  and  scale  of 
penalties that may be imposed under IED Article 79 shows a significant variation in these 
among Member States and that these have changed little from those under the IPPCD. 

3.6. 

Innovation 

Innovation was stated as one of the objectives in the Impact Assessment accompanying 
the proposal for the IED. As the IED is primarily focused on “available” techniques, its 
influence  on  innovation  is  mainly  indirect.  However,  the  Directive  provides  for  an 
explicit mechanism to identity and promote the use of emerging techniques. 

Indirect promotion of innovation 

Permitting  of  large  agro-industrial  installations  is  at  the  core  of  the  IED.  Permit 
conditions  are  based  on  BAT  and  BAT-AELs.  The  definition  in  the  IED  states  that 
“available techniques” means those developed on a scale which allows implementation 
in  the  relevant  industrial  sector,  under  economically  and  technically  viable  conditions, 
taking into consideration the costs and advantages, […] as long as they are reasonably 
accessible to the operator.   

33 

 
Under  the  IED,  BAT  conclusions  aimed  at  reducing  emissions  and  containing  BAT-
AELs  are  prescriptive.  They  are  the  main  lever  to  trigger  operators'  investments  in 
techniques, necessary to enable them to meet the emission levels required by the permits. 
To  ensure  a  level  playing  field  and  impact  emission  reduction  across  the  whole  sector, 
the  IED  requires  performance  levels  that  are  achievable  using  “best  available” 
techniques,  as  opposed  to  emerging  techniques,  whose  effectiveness  and  economic 
viability is by definition unproven. 

The IED neither prevents competent authorities from setting more stringent limits, e.g. in 
situations  where  air  quality  requires  it,  nor  operators  from  choosing  to  achieve  lower 
concentration of pollutants. On the contrary, as soon as an operator has an economic or 
strategic reason to deploy innovative techniques beyond the IED requirements, it benefits 
from  the  IED  mechanism,  as  these  techniques  would  be  taken  into  account  in  the 
following  BREF  review,  paving  the  way  for  subsequent  standard-setting  across  the 
sector.  Although  available  evidence  shows  that  emission  limit  values  in  permits  are 
usually set at the least stringent limit of the BAT-AEL range, in most cases this is more 
stringent than the previously permitted levels, thus progressively reducing emissions. 

Hence, the IED does stimulate innovation indirectly.  

IED provisions on emerging techniques 

The  IED  includes  an  explicit  mechanism  to  support  innovation  in  the  IED  through  the 
concept  of  “emerging  techniques”.  It  is  the  role  of  the  TWG  to  identify  emerging 
techniques,  in  particular  to  inform  competent  authorities  through  BREFs  about 
developments that may have subsequently emerged.  

The  basis  for  this  is  described  in  the  BREF  Guidance  (2012/119/EU)  point  “1.2. 
Procedure for the drawing up and reviewing of BREFs” – “The reviewing of BREFs is a 
continuing process, due to the dynamic nature of BAT. For example, new measures and 
techniques may emerge, science and technologies are continuously developing, and new 
or  emerging  processes  are  being  successfully  introduced  into  the  industry.  In  order  to 
reflect such changes and their consequences for the BAT, BREFs have to be periodically 
reviewed and, if necessary, updated accordingly. […]” 

Moreover, the  IED  Article  15(5)  includes  provisions  to  facilitate  the  testing  and  use  of 
emerging techniques through a nine month permit derogation. 

Since  experience  showed  that  the  TWG  was  not  very  effective  at  identifying  emerging 
techniques, in 2017 DG Environment set up a pilot Innovation Observatory to reinforce 
this objective. 

Participation of technology suppliers in the BREF process 

Efforts have also been made to encourage technology suppliers to participate in the work 
of the TWGs, as they are key to technology development and innovation. Participation in 
TWGs is limited to EU level organisations and ESWET (European Suppliers of Waste-

34 

 
to-Energy Technology) and EPPSA (European Power Plants Suppliers Association) have 
been  present  for  a  long  time.  More  recently,  ACCESSA  (Association  for  Catalytic 
Control  of  Emissions  from  Stationary  Sources)  has  fulfilled  that  requirement  and  now 
participates in the TWGs.   

4.  METHOD 

4.1. 

Short description of methodology 

An evaluation matrix (Annex 3) was prepared based on the twelve areas for assessment 
set  out  in  the  evaluation  roadmap,  with  some  minor  adjustments.  This  identified  sub-
questions, assessment criteria, indicators, data sources, data collection and data analysis 
methods. 

Various  data  sources  have  been  used.  Desk  research  has  comprised  literature  and 
evidence  assessment  and  quantitative  assessments  related  to  emission  reductions  and 
administrative burden. The assessments of changes in emissions have looked at absolute 
emissions, as well as emission factors (per unit of product). 

A substantial amount of field research has been conducted to gather stakeholder views. 
This  has  comprised  five  activities:  public  consultation,  targeted  survey,  stakeholder 
interviews,  focus  groups  discussions  and  stakeholder  workshops.  Their  outcome  is 
recorded in the report of the study supporting this evaluation3. 

The public consultation was published on the Commission’s Better Regulation portal50. It 
gave  the  opportunity  to  all  interested  parties  to  give  their  views  on  broad  questions 
relating  to  the  IED.  Responses  were  analysed  by  stakeholder  group  and  a  factual 
summary report was published in September 2019. 

The  targeted  survey  was  addressed  to  stakeholders  with  a  good  understanding  of  the 
implementation  of  the  IED.  The  survey  comprised  50  questions,  as  well  as  free  text 
boxes. Responses were analysed qualitatively and quantitatively. In view of the number 
of responses, it was possible to separate Member State responses into national and sub-
national level. 

Telephone  interviews  were  used  to  complement  the  targeted  survey.  Some  addressed 
groups not covered by the survey, such as EU bodies, and others were to follow up with 
survey respondents. 

Two  focus  groups  were  organised  to  discuss  the  BREF  process.  They  provided  an 
opportunity to explore conflicting opinions. 

Workshops  open  to  all  stakeholders  were  held  at  the  start  and  end  of  the  consultation 
process.  The  first  one  at  the  start  informed  stakeholders  about  the  consultation  and 
provided an overview of the information available. The second and last  one,  at  the  end, 
enabled  a  presentation  and  discussion  of  preliminary  findings  and  the  opportunity  to 
bring further relevant evidence. 

50 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2018-4758971/public-consultation_en 

35 

 
 
                                                            
4.2.  Limitations and robustness of findings 

The  evaluation  has  proceeded  in  line  with  the  roadmap.  Extensive  consultations  have 
been  organised  and  to  simplify  the  presentation  of  the  results,  they  are  shown  for  four 
groupings  of  respondents.  These  were:  Member  State  responses  at  national  level, 
Member  State  responses  at  sub-national  level,  industry  and  “Others”,  a  category  which 
included environmental NGOs, consultancies and respondents that do not fit in the other 
categories. 

The  impacts  of  the  IED  are  on-going  and  yet  to  be  realised  for  some  sectors  (as 
illustrated  by  Figure  3-12),  so  it  is  not  feasible  to  quantify  the  impacts  across  all 
industries. This limitation is inherent to the rolling nature of BREF reviews where at any 
moment some sectors are more impacted than others. 

One of the main difficulties has been to separate the impacts of the IED from those of its 
preceding  legislations  and  of  other  EU  policies  regulating  industrial  installations. 
Another  challenge  has  been  the  lack  of  a  comprehensive  baseline  in  the  underlying 
impact  assessment  and  that,  at  the  same  time,  some  of  the  evidence  used  instead  has 
different baselines. Where effects could not be disentangled or clearly attributed, they are 
documented as such. 

The E-PRTR data documents the quantity of released pollutants and is the main source of 
information  for  assessing  the  effectiveness  of  the  IED  on  pollutant  emissions, 
complementing  the  Member  States  implementation  reports.  Therefore,  there  are  good 
data-sets  available  regarding  the  quantity  of  pollutants  released  to  air  and,  to  a  lesser 
extent to water, as well as other information required to be reported. Limited emissions to 
soil are reported, which is in line with the expectation that these mostly should not occur.  

limit 

requirements 

However, for other aspects little information is available. In contrast to the E-PRTR data, 
in  pollutant 
the  emission 
concentrations.  Responsibility  for  verifying  compliance  with  emission  limits  set  in 
permits rests with  Member States  and no data  on compliance with  permit conditions is 
available at EU level. Given that the sites are to be inspected regularly and the public has 
the  possibility  to  file  complaints,  it  is  assumed  that  facilities  do  comply  with  the 
requirements. 

installations  are  expressed 

for 

Information,  such  as  how  permit  conditions  have  been  set,  administrative  cost  and 
burden, number of inspections, enforcement, compliance assessment, public participation 
and the costs and benefits of implementing BAT conclusions is scarcely available from 
industry  or  public  authorities.  Furthermore,  Member  States  have  varying  approaches; 
where in some cases permits are issued centrally, in more regionalised counties it is often 
at  regional  level  and  in  some  cases  at  local  level.  Therefore,  specific  approaches  have 
been designed to address these limitations, including the following: 

  Data  on  inspections  is  required  to  be  reported  under  the  Second  IED  Reporting 
Decision.  Provisional  data  from  this  reporting  has  been  used  in  the  evaluation  and 
fuller information will become available in the near future. 

  To better understand permitting practices, a permit sampling study has been done for 
cement kilns and electric arc furnaces in steel-works to understand the level at which 
emission  limit  values  have  been  set,  and  the  degree  to  which  permits  are  publicly 
available. This data has been used in this evaluation and has been supplemented with 
interviews with permitting authorities.  

36 

 
 
  Costs and benefits were assessed ex-ante for LCPs and ex-post for the Iron and Steel 
sector. Such assessments could not be carried out for additional sectors due to a lack 
of data, in particular on the detailed cost of techniques, and the disproportionate effort 
which would have been required to this end.  

  Where  other  evidence  was  lacking,  stakeholder  views  have  been  sought.  The  main 
mechanism for this was the very detailed targeted questionnaire. . Where appropriate 
there  has  been  follow  up  for  specific  issues,  such  as  sub-national  implementation, 
through interviews with relevant stakeholders to explore the topic in greater detail.  

rather 

than  about  general 

Another constraint is the limited range of experts who are knowledgeable about the topic, 
which results in a limited amount of independent research or literature. This is relevant 
because  of  the  wide  scope  of  the  IED  and  the  fact  that  relevant  experts  are  often 
issues  of 
knowledgeable  about  a  specific  sector 
implementation.  Furthermore,  a  significant  share  of  the  literature  is  provided  by 
interested parties, principally industry or environmental NGOs. In some cases, responses 
to  questionnaires  may  be  polarised,  i.e.  industry  may  have  been  generally  positive  to 
prevent  any  change  and  environmental  NGOs  generally  negative  to  claim  stricter 
requirements. It is also clear that a number of concerted responses (as indicated in Annex 
4)  have  been  provided  to  the  surveys  by  groups  of  stakeholders.  This  is  presumably 
intended to give a higher profile to these comments or responses. To provide insight into 
these  limitations  when  formulating  conclusions,  an  assessment  of  certainty  has  been 
indicated  for  each  aspect  of  the  responses  to  the  evaluation  questions  (as  explained  in 
Annex  5).  Findings  based  on  literature  and  data  have  been  cross-checked  with  survey 
responses  as  far  as  possible.  Where  solid  data  is  available,  the  findings  are  considered 
robust. If the data are weak, but survey responses provide a similar picture, then there is 
also  reasonable  certainty.  Where  the  assessment  had  to  rely  only  on  survey  responses, 
then  the  findings  become  weaker,  particularly  if  stakeholder  opinions  diverge  between 
groups. 

The process of proportionate triangulation has been applied in the assessment of results.  

37 

 
 
 
 
5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The  evaluation  is  structured  around  the  five  better  regulation  criteria.  These  have  been 
split, where appropriate, into different questions for which one or more evaluation sub-
questions are identified. The following sections give an overview of the assessment at the 
level of each of the criteria, followed by the assessment for each sub-question.  

It is noteworthy that, for virtually all stakeholder responses, it is observed that industry 
was  most  positive  about  the  Directive,  followed  by  national  authorities  then  by  sub-
national authorities, whereas the least positive was the category “Others”, which includes 
environmental NGOs.  

Findings are accompanied by indications of robustness e.g. [High] as well as stakeholder 
sentiments as shown on the right for the 4 stakeholder groups with strongly positive as 
++,  positive  +,  neutral  0,  negative  -  and  strongly  negative  --.  The  methods  used  are 
explained in Annexes 5 and 6.  

5.1.  Effectiveness 

Evaluation criterion 1: To what extent has the IED been effective?  

Overall response [and robustness]:  

The IED has overall been effective. It has contributed to reducing emissions and the 
related  impacts  on  human  health  and  the  environment  and  has  covered  most  of  the 
important sectors although a number of polluting agro-industrial activities do not fall 
within its scope. [High] 

The collaborative process to develop BREFs and identify BAT has been effective and 
has  implicitly  addressed  costs.  By  involving  experts  from  Member  States,  industry 
and  environmental  NGOs,  it  has  resulted  in  a  high  degree  of  consensus  on  the 
measures adopted. [High] 

The IED has made a limited contribution to innovation and has been less effective at 
addressing circular economy, including water efficiency issues. [Medium] 

BREFs have supported BAT-based permitting in Member States with a limited use of 
derogations, reducing the distortions in the market. [High] 

The IED has helped improve access to information on the environmental performance 
of  industrial  activities  and  strengthen  enforcement  and  access  to  justice  and  led  to 
simplification. [High] 

Implementation  is  also  key.  Specific  attention  is  needed  in  relation  to  access-to-
information  provisions  and  provisions  affecting  stringency,  for  example  how  BAT 
conclusions  are  implemented  in  permits,  compliance  assessment  and  derogations. 
[High] 

38 

 
 
 
What is the issue? 

The IED is intended to reduce the environmental impacts of the most polluting industrial 
sectors. Because there are a number of different steps in the overall process and different 
elements that may impact on the effectiveness of the intervention, it is necessary to split 
this criterion into a number of sub-elements. Assessing whether these have been effective 
requires a number of sub-questions to be answered. These are: 

1(a)  To  what  extent  has  the  IED  contributed  to  reducing  and  (as  far  as  possible) 

eliminating pollution arising from industrial activities? 

1(b)  Are there any industrial activities that fall outside the scope of the IED (partially 

or fully) which generate high levels of pollution? 

1(c)  Have there been any pollutants that have been omitted/fallen outside the scope 

of the Directive? 

1(d)  Has  the  IED  strengthened  provisions  on  enforcement  and  environmental 

improvement? 

1(e)  Has  the  IED  stimulated  innovation  in  the  prevention  and  control  of  pollution 

from industrial activities? 

1(f)  Has  the  IED  led  to  simplification  of  the  legislation  and  cut  unnecessary 

administrative burden? 

1(g)  Has the IED strengthened public access to information? 
1(h)  Has the IED strengthened public access to justice?  
1(i)  To what extent does the BREF process identify the techniques that are the most 
effective  techniques  (and  identify  the  most  appropriate  associated  emission  or 
performance levels) for achieving a high level of environmental protection? 
1(j)  Does  the  BREF  process  sufficiently  consider  both  costs  and  benefits  in 

identifying the best available techniques? 

1(k)  To  what  extent  has  the  IED  supported  Member  States  in  implementing  BAT-

based permitting? 

1(l)  To what degree are exceptions taken up that result in permits not being based on 

BAT? 

1(m)  To what extent does the emissions monitoring and reporting system facilitate the 
assessment of compliance under IED, and of the quantity of released emissions? 

1(n)  Are monitoring requirements fit for purpose? 
1(o)  Are  there  significant  differences  between  Member  States  and  sectors  in 

implementation? 

39 

 
 
EFFECTIVENESS: To what extent have the IED’s objectives been achieved? 

Evaluation  sub-question  1(a):  To  what  extent  has  the  IED  contributed  to 
reducing  and  (as  far  as  possible)  eliminating  pollution  arising  from  industrial 
activities? 

Overall  response:  In  relation  to  emissions  to  air,  there  have  been  significant 
reductions  from  the  industrial  activities  within  the  scope  of  the  IED.  The  degree  of 
reduction varies  by pollutant, but  aggregate indicators, such as  overall damage  cost, 
have  also  reduced  strongly,  demonstrating  that  the  reduction  efforts  have  been  well 
targeted.  While  it  may  not  be  the  sole  factor,  the  IED  has  definitely  contributed  to 
reducing pollutant emissions to air from industrial activities in its scope. [High] 

In  relation  to  emissions  to  water,  the  reported  evidence  is  less  robust,  but  shows  a 
reduction  too.  The  IED  has  also  contributed  to  reducing  emissions  to  water  from 
activities in its scope. [Medium] 

Reported emissions to soil are very low and expected to be minimised by application 
of BAT. [Medium] 

In  relation  to  resource  use  in  industry  or  of  changes  over  time,  there  is  little 
quantitative  information  available  about  how  the  IED  has  affected  this  other  than 
qualitative  stakeholder  views.  Overall,  the  IED  has  not  been  very  effective  in 
addressing resource efficiency and circular economy aspects. [Medium] 

What  are  the  findings?  To  assess  the  extent  to  which  the  IED  has  contributed  to 
reducing and (as far as possible) eliminating pollution arising from industrial activities, it 
is necessary to look at data on emissions from them, as well as causal links to the IED. 
While the IED itself has been in force since 2012 and 2016 for the LCP ELVs, so far 17 
BAT  conclusions  have  been  adopted  and  the  four  year  implementation  window  has 
concluded for the first eight. Therefore, the impacts of the IED are ongoing and yet to be 
realised  for  some  sectors.  It  is  thus  not  feasible  to  quantify  the  full  impacts.  This 
limitation is inherent to the rolling nature of BREF reviews where, at any moment, some 
sectors are more impacted than others.  

Data  show  that  reported  emissions  to  air  of  several  pollutants  from  industrial  activities 
have  dropped  relatively  consistently  over  the  past  10  years.  The  IED  is  very  likely  to 
have  contributed  to  this,  but  there  may  also  be  several  other  factors,  in  particular  the 
effects  of  the  preceding  legislation  or  structural  changes  such  as  changing  fuel  use. 
Available assessments demonstrate the impact that the IED has had, or is likely to have, 
on emissions to air.  

Large  combustion  plants  are  a  major  contributor  to  emissions  to  air  from  IED  sectors. 
Whilst their emissions have been reduced significantly, given a number of time-limited 
flexibilities  granted  to  Member  States  under  the  IED,  this  has  been  slower  than  what 

40 

 
would  have  been  achieved  if  BAT  had  been  applied  earlier.  However,  the  decreasing 
trend is very encouraging and the main time-limited flexibilities are coming to an end at 
the  time  when  the  2017  BAT  conclusions  for  large  combustion  plants  will  become 
applicable. 

For emissions to water, reported emission data are less complete or robust, but generally 
show  some  reduction.  Data  on  direct  and  indirect  releases  reported  by  IED  industry, 
which  are  reported  separately  under  the  E-PRTR,  show  that  direct  releases  have  been 
significantly  reduced,  especially  heavy  metals,  but  that  indirect  releases  going  to 
centralised  waste  water  treatment  plants  including  urban  waste  water  treatment  plants 
have remained rather stable over the last 10 years. As the Urban Waste Water Treatment 
Directive  (UWWTD)  is  focused  on  a  limited  set  of  pollutants  linked  to  domestic 
pollution,  it  is  assumed  that  they  do  not  abate  all  pollutants  from  IED  installations  to 
levels  consistent  with  the  use  of  BAT.  As  indirect  releases  from  industrial  installations 
would  become  part  of  the  emissions  reported  by  urban  waste  water  treatment  plants 
under the E-PRTR, together with those from other origins, it is difficult to judge to what 
extent  the  IED  has  impacted  emissions  to  water.  Whilst  this  is  a  limitation  in  the 
evidence available, reductions are nonetheless expected where BAT-AELs for emissions 
to  water  have  been  included  in  BAT  conclusions,  which  should  lead  to  tightening  of 
permit ELVs and therefore to reduced actual emissions.  

There is little evidence on emissions to soil, but as explained in Section 3.2 these ought 
to be largely eliminated by the use of BAT. 

There is little evidence on the IED’s impacts on aspects such as energy use, raw materials 
consumption  and  waste  generation.  The  less  binding  nature  of  these  aspects  of  BAT 
conclusions could be expected to have contributed to them having less impact. 

Regarding  the  circular  economy,  robust  evidence  on  the  direct  impacts  of  BAT 
conclusions  is  not  available.  This  is  partly  due  to  the  non-binding  nature  of  the  IED 
requirements  in  this  area,  the  economic  interest  of  the  operator  and  concerns  over 
commercial confidentiality that limit the amount of information industrial operators make 
available  in the  BREF  process.  Furthermore,  the  IED  applies  to  the  operation  of  plants 
and not to the entire value chain. 

For  some  IED  sectors,  it  is  likely  that  any  untapped  potential  is  limited  because  many 
installations covered by the IED recycle materials (for example glass, paper and metals). 
Furthermore, in some cases, there is virtually no waste (e.g. slaughterhouses) because all 
potential “waste” is turned into a “resource” for another industry. 

Stakeholders: While the reaction was generally positive regarding the IED’s impacts in 
reducing  emissions  to  air  and  to  a  lesser  extent  to  water,  some  questioned  whether  the 
current pollution reductions are sufficient.  

The  reaction  was  less  positive  in  relation  to  resource  efficiency  aspects  with  a  general 
view that the IED makes a small contribution to the circular economy. Some stakeholders 

41 

 
considered it was under delivering whilst others emphasised limitations inherent to using 
permitting of process industry to regulate circularity.  

EFFECTIVENESS: To what extent have the IED’s objectives been achieved?  

Evaluation sub-question 1(b): Are there any industrial activities that fall outside 
the scope of the IED (partially or fully) which generate high levels of pollution? 

Overall response: There are a small number of agro-industrial activities not covered 
by the IED that may generate high levels of pollution. [High]  

What  are  the  findings?  With  regard  to  the  coverage  of  highly  polluting  industrial 
activities, there are a relatively small number of these not already within the scope of the 
IED.  This  includes  various  intensive  livestock  activities  (cattle,  aquaculture,  mixed 
farms,  poultry  farms  below  IED  activity  thresholds),  and  mining,  which  either  emit 
relevant pollutants (e.g. ammonia) or have grown in importance (e.g. aquaculture). The 
previous  Impact  Assessment  concluded  that  the  full  IED  permitting  process  was  not 
appropriate for some of these activities (e.g. cattle) due to the administrative burden 

Stakeholders:  There  was  general  agreement  that  the  IED  addresses  the  most  polluting 
sectors. Various stakeholders identified industrial activities outside the scope of the IED. 
Whether  these  generate  “high  levels  of  pollution”  requires  further  investigation.  This 
includes some activities covered by the IED below the prescribed activity thresholds. 

EFFECTIVENESS: To what extent have the IED’s objectives been achieved? 

Evaluation  sub-question  1(c):  Have  there  been  any  pollutants  that  have  been 
omitted/fallen outside the scope of the Directive? 

Overall  response:  No  pollutants  are  outside  the  scope  of  the  IED.  However,  in 
relation  to  GHGs,  while  the  integrated  approach  encompasses  them,  IED  Article  9 
forbids competent authorities to set ELVs for them for installations falling under the 
ETS.  Limited  attention  has  been  given  to  GHG  emissions  in  BREFs  and  BAT 
conclusions,  affecting  installations  not  covered  by  the  ETS.  There  may  be  indirect 
effects on GHG emissions through BAT on energy efficiency including in some cases 
BAT-AEPLs. [High] 

Other concerns relate to coherence with other EU legislation and Technical Working 
Group choices of Key Environmental Issues for a BREF. The data-driven approach to 
BAT-AELs  limits  the  ability  to  address  pollutants  for  which  little  emission 
monitoring data is available, e.g. a range of water pollutants. [Medium] 

What are the findings? IED Annex II provides a non-exhaustive list of pollutants. The 
BREF process is not limited to these and has covered additional pollutants. Member State 

42 

 
competent  authorities  are  also  obliged  to  establish  ELVs  in  permits  for  polluting 
substances  which  are  likely  to  be  emitted  from  the  installation  concerned  in  significant 
quantities, having regard to their nature and their potential to transfer pollution from one 
medium to another. This is neither limited to the list of pollutants in Annex II to the IED 
nor the list of pollutants with BAT-AELs in BAT conclusions.  

With  regard  to  GHGs,  IED  sectors  are  responsible  for  around  40%  of  total  EU  GHG 
emissions. Most of these sectors are regulated under the EU Emissions Trading System 
(ETS) and ELVs for GHGs may not be set in IED permits for these sectors, as stipulated 
by Article 9 of the IED. Nevertheless, there are some IED sectors whose CO2 emissions 
are not in the ETS scope and there are other GHG emissions that are not regulated by it. 
It is estimated that around 10% of GHG emissions of IED plants are not covered by the 
ETS, representing around 4% of total EU GHG emissions. 

Due  to  the  provisions  of  Article  9  of  the  IED  and  the  fact  that  most  of  the  GHG 
emissions  from  IED  installations  are  regulated  under  the  ETS,  BAT-AELs  for  GHG 
emissions have been set in BREFs in very few cases only. The BREF coverage of GHG 
emissions has largely been limited to techniques to increase energy efficiency and related 
BAT-AEPLs. In a few cases, BAT to reduce GHG emissions originating from processes 
other than combustion have been set51.  

The  fact  that  an  increased  energy  efficiency  also  means  reduced  emissions  of  air 
pollutants  and  GHGs  has  always  been  recognised  during  the  BREF  development. 
However, little attention has been given to date to the synergies that may be achievable 
through decarbonisation techniques other than those related to energy efficiency. 

Stakeholders: Stakeholders largely agree that the most relevant pollutants are addressed. 
Regarding  omitted  pollutants,  a  number  of  stakeholders  (Member  State  authorities  and 
environmental  NGOs)  referred  to  GHG  emissions  from  installations  covered  under  the 
EU ETS.  The need for better coherence of substances addressed by other EU legislation, 
such as the Water Framework Directive and related water quality legislation, as well as 
REACH, was generally stressed. 

51  e.g.  on  emissions  of  fluorinated  refrigerants  from  cooling  systems,  on  process  emissions  of  carbon 
dioxide from ethylene oxide, or on diffuse emissions of sulphur hexafluoride from electrolytic cells in 
primary aluminium production. 

43 

 
 
                                                            
EFFECTIVENESS: To what extent have the IED’s objectives been achieved?   

Evaluation  sub-question  1(d):  Has  the  IED  strengthened  provisions  on 
enforcement and environmental improvement? 

Overall response: The  IED environmental inspections provisions are more explicit 
than under the IPPCD and the provisions relating to environmental permits have been 
strengthened. [High] 

Penalties applied by the Member States vary significantly. [Medium] 

Although  hard  data  is  not  available,  the  strengthening  of  these  provisions  together 
with views expressed by stakeholders suggest that enforcement has to a degree been 
strengthened. [Medium] 

What  are  the  findings?  The  provisions  relating  to  environmental  permits  have  been 
significantly strengthened under the IED – namely by establishing BAT conclusions and 
the BAT-AELs, associated BAT on monitoring and their other aspects as the mandatory 
basis for setting permit conditions.  

One  important  aspect  related  to  enforcement  is  the  IED  requirement  for  periodic 
environmental  inspections  of  installations  and  an  inspection  plan.  These  provisions  are 
more  explicit  than  under  the  IPPCD.  Whilst  the  IED  includes  a  standard  provision  on 
penalties, Member States have a large margin of appreciation on how to implement this 
provision, resulting in significant variation among Member States. 

these  aspects 

information  on 

Initial 
the  IED  Member  State 
implementation  reports  covering  the  2013-16  period  and  more  detailed  information  on 
inspections that has been provided in their 2017 and 2018 implementation reports. There 
is however no pre-IED baseline data on inspections and information on the frequency of 
IED non-compliance is neither reported nor publicly available.  

is  contained 

in 

Stakeholders:  The  majority  of  responses,  across  all  stakeholder  types,  agree  that, 
compared  to  the  state  of  play  under  the  IPPCD,  the  entry  into  force  of  the  IED 
requirements  on  use  of  BAT  conclusions  and  permits  has  led  to  better  control  over 
environmental impacts.  

Most stakeholders, except “Others”, also agree that enforcement has been strengthened.  

44 

 
 
EFFECTIVENESS: To what extent have the IED’s objectives been achieved?   

Evaluation  sub-question  1(e):  Has  the  IED  stimulated  innovation  in  the 
prevention and control of pollution from industrial activities? 

Overall response:  The IED has  to some degree  stimulated innovation, in  particular 
through  provisions  for  identifying  and  deploying  BAT,  expansion  of  markets  for 
BAT, and identification of emerging techniques. [Medium] 

BAT  are  inherently  “backward  looking”  featuring  techniques  which  are  already 
commercialised: this means their ability to stimulate innovation is limited. [High] 

The pilot IED Innovation Observatory has led to an increase in emerging techniques 
documented in the concerned BREFs. [High] 

What  are  the  findings?  The  IED  has,  to  some  degree,  stimulated  innovation  in  the 
prevention  and  control  of  pollution  from  industrial  activities  through  its  provisions  for 
identifying  BAT  and  related  BAT-AELs  and  for  identifying  emerging  techniques 
described in Section 3.6. The main impact has been the deployment of BAT. The market 
for  relevant  techniques  is  larger  in  the  EU  than  it  would  otherwise  have  been,  and  the 
market outside the EU is also stimulated, to the degree other jurisdictions take inspiration 
from aspects  of the IED or  BREFs.  Some  identified emerging  techniques  have  become 
BAT in the subsequent BREF review. 

Due  to  resource  constraints,  the  BAT  information  exchange  process  focuses  less  on 
gathering  information  on  emerging  techniques.  Relevant  types  of  stakeholders  working 
on emerging techniques do not necessarily participate in TWGs. In 2017, work started on 
a  pilot  dedicated  mechanism  to  better  reach  appropriate  stakeholders  and  identify 
emerging techniques through an Industrial Emissions Innovation Observatory. This may 
stimulate innovation further. 

In addition, there are very few cases of operators having been granted a derogation under 
Article 15(5) from ELVs to facilitate the testing of emerging techniques. 

Stakeholders:  While  stakeholders  generally  consider  that  the  IED  has  stimulated 
innovation, many view the emerging techniques chapter of the BREF as having had less 
impact  on  innovation  than  other  parts  of  the  BREF  process  and  the  IED.  Some  think 
innovation has not been stimulated to its maximum potential. A major reason for this is 
that  the  BREF  process  identifies  techniques  already  commercially  in  use,  rather  than 
those  not  yet  commercialised.  Limited  information  has  been  included  in  the  emerging 
techniques  chapter  of  BREFs.  The  limited  time  allowed  for  derogations  under  Article 
15(5) from BAT-AEL-based emission limits to test emerging techniques was also cited 
as a barrier. 

45 

 
EFFECTIVENESS: To what extent have the IED’s objectives been achieved?   

Evaluation sub-question 1(f): Has the IED led to simplification of the legislation 
and cut unnecessary administrative burden? 

Overall  response:  The  merger  of  the  predecessor  Directives  has  clarified  and,  to  a 
lesser  extent,  also  simplified  the  requirements.  Nonetheless,  some  complexities 
remain. [High] 

What  are  the  findings?  As  regards  simplification  of  the  legislation  and  unnecessary 
administrative burden, the key difference is that seven Directives were replaced with one. 
The  same  IED  requirements  relating  to  a  permit  apply  to  installations  in  all  covered 
sectors. Some aspects of the differences between the preceding directives remain in the 
IED.  Despite  this,  there  remain  some  unclear  aspects,  such  as  which  installations  are 
covered by BAT conclusions as well as by specific IED chapters. Some challenges relate 
to  interactions  between  the  texts  of  the  specific  sectoral  IED  chapters  with  that  of  the 
BAT conclusions which  must  be aligned with  the  requirements of IED Chapter II. The 
large numbers of requests for clarifications is a strong indicator that some uncertainties 
and complexities remain. 

Stakeholders: The majority of survey respondents agreed that the IED has contributed to 
simplification of the provisions relative to the previous regime.  

However, they believed more strongly that the provisions had been clarified compared to 
the previous legislation.  

EFFECTIVENESS: To what extent have the IED’s objectives been achieved? 

Evaluation  sub-question  1(g):  Has  the  IED  strengthened  public  access  to 
information?  

Overall  response:  Access  to  information  has  improved  but  there  remain  some 
failings in implementation by Member States. [High] 

What are the findings? As regards public access to information, whilst there has been 
improvement  under  the  IED,  there  remain  deficiencies:  not  all  permits  are  publicly 
available online, information available online is sometimes very difficult to locate and in 
at least one Member State, authorities have initially requested fees for access to permits.  

Stakeholders:  Most  stakeholder  groups  consider  that  access  to  information  has 
improved,  except  “Others”,  who  believe  there  is  insufficient  information  available  and 
that the situation has not improved.  

46 

 
 
EFFECTIVENESS: To what extent have the IED’s objectives been achieved?   

Evaluation sub-question 1(h): Has the IED strengthened public access to justice?  

Overall response: Access to justice has somewhat improved, but limitations remain. 
[Medium] 

What are the findings? With regard to public access to justice, the IED did not include 
any specific new provisions. Changes made to improve and strengthen public access to 
information  and participation  in  permitting procedures  were expected to lead to  greater 
capacity of the public to challenge new or revised permits and other issues. While there 
continue  to  be  limitations  in  knowledge  (see  previous  section  on  public  access  to 
information)  and  no  clear  baseline  for  comparison,  public  access  to  justice  appears  to 
work,  at  least  to  some  extent,  where  new  permits  are  considered.  The  main  limitation 
seems to be, at least in some Member States, 1) the ability of the public or environmental 
NGOs  to  challenge  revisions  to  existing  permits  and  2)  the  interpretation  of  what 
constitutes “substantial change” in IED Article 24 (in combination with uncertainty over 
whether  the  public  can  challenge  a  decision  if  the  change  is  declared  to  be  non-
substantial). Other issues relate to the ability of the public and environmental NGOs to 
challenge  omissions  to  act  by  competent  authorities,  e.g.  where  permits  have  not  been 
issued for an installation. 

In  its  draft  findings  in  an  ongoing  case  against  the  EU  (case  ACCC/C/2014/121),  the 
Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee has expressed a view that the IED provisions 
on public participation in permitting do not cover all cases where the Convention requires 
such  participation,  and  therefore,  are  not  fully  compliant  with  the  provisions  of  the 
Aarhus Convention. 

Stakeholders: Responses are fairly consistent across different groups with over half the 
responses indicating there has been no change, while the remainder mostly believe there 
has been some improvement compared to the preceding situation.  

47 

 
 
EFFECTIVENESS: How effective is the BREF elaboration process?  

Evaluation sub-question 1(i): To what extent does the BREF process identify the 
techniques  that  are  the  most  effective  techniques  (and  identify  the  most 
appropriate associated emission or performance levels) for achieving a high level 
of environmental protection? 

Overall response: The definition of BAT and the collaborative process with Member 
States, industry and environmental NGO experts to draw up and review BREFs has in 
general  allowed  the  most  effective  techniques  for  achieving  a  high  level  of 
environmental protection to be identified. [Medium] 

The BREF process identifies in general the BAT that are most effective for achieving 
a  high  level  of  environmental  protection.  The  effectiveness  of  the  determination  of 
BAT has varied among BREFs and may have been affected by the composition of the 
TWGs and scarcity of data among other reasons. [Medium] 

The BREF  process identifies appropriate BAT-AE(P)Ls. [Medium]  There are some 
limitations  identified,  including  whether  it  has  always  targeted  the  most  relevant 
environmental issues and pollutants.  

Cross-media effects have been sufficiently considered in identifying BAT but there is 
room for improvement in the integrated approach. [Medium] 

What are the findings? The information exchange process established under the IED to 
draft BREFs has involved the collaboration of Member State, industry and environmental 
NGO experts. It provides for continual improvement of this process in the Article 13 IED 
Forum and procedural issues are also identified and discussed in specific BREF TWGs. 
There  have  also  been  specific  workshops  held  on  the  topic.  The  process  for  deriving 
BAT-AELs has been discussed extensively within TWGs for specific BREFs and some 
changes  have  been  implemented  as  a  result.  Many  of  these  previous  discussions  have 
addressed topics raised at this stage by stakeholders. 

Since  BAT  conclusions  have  been  drafted  with  the  involvement  of  Member  States,  the 
Committee  votes  for  their  adoption  have  always  been  positive  reaching  up  to  100% 
support  in  comitology  votes.  This  high  degree  of  support  largely  exists  across  all 
stakeholder groups. 

An ex-post assessment of the Iron and Steel BAT conclusions concluded that only about 
20% of processes in that sector had been impacted. The choice of sectors at the time of 
the analysis was limited, since there were only seven sectors where BAT conclusions had 
been  fully  implemented  in  permits.  This  sector  was  selected  as  there  are  a  manageable 
number  of  installations  that  are  relatively  homogeneous  and  cover  reasonably  well  the 
entire EU. Unfortunately, the iron and steel sector mainly chose not to collaborate  with 
the assessment, which increased the uncertainty of the findings. While this may explain 

48 

 
the relatively low proportion of processes assumed to have been impacted, there may be 
other  reasons.  For  example,  the  Iron  and  Steel  BAT  conclusions  were  among  the  first 
ones  published  under  the  IED,  however  most  of  the  work  was  carried  out  prior  to 
adoption of the IED and of the BREF Guidance. This less rigorous approach may have 
impacted the stringency of the requirements. 

In contrast, an ex-ante assessment for large combustion plants (LCPs) of over 300 MWth 
firing solid fuels found that the BAT Conclusions for LCPs are likely to lead to emission 
reductions at a large proportion of plants (impacting about 72% of the LCPs).  

Stakeholders: Half of industry respondents consider that the BREF review process has 
rarely,  or  never,  sufficiently  considered  the  costs  of  techniques.  The    majority  of 
“Others”  thought  that  the  costs  were  sufficiently  considered  some  or  most  of  the  time. 
Member State responses were in between the two. 

The majority of industry and, to a lesser extent, Member State national authorities agree 
that the BREF process identifies the most effective BAT. Around one third of “Others” 
disagree.  

Furthermore,  specific  stakeholders  raised  potential  issues,  e.g.  data  collection  (burden, 
scope or representativeness), TWG composition, consideration of cross-media effects and 
innovation. Concerns  were  raised  on the focussed approach towards key environmental 
issues  which  may have  led to  a less integrated approach  among all  pollutants and their 
cross-media impacts. 

Stakeholders  broadly  agree  that  the  BREF  process  has  identified  the  most  appropriate 
BAT-AE(P)Ls.  However,  some  respondents  questioned  whether 
the  BAT-AEL 
derivation process is sufficiently systematic and transparent. 

Regarding  cross-media  effects,  around  75%  of  stakeholders  believe  that  they  are 
addressed  some,  most  or  all  of  the  time.  However,  only  about  25%  believe  they  are 
addressed most of the time.  

Just  over  half  of  most  stakeholder  groups  indicated  the  length  of  the  BREF  process  is 
about  adequate  with  the  industry  being  most  positive.  Meanwhile,  Member  States  and 
“Others” tended to think it is too long, while industry tended to think it too short. 

Feedback  on  the  composition  of  the  TWG  includes:  a  need  for  broader  representation; 

EFFECTIVENESS: How effective is the BREF elaboration process?   

Evaluation sub-question 1(j): Does the BREF process sufficiently consider both 
costs and benefits in identifying the best available techniques? 

Overall  response:  As  BAT  are  techniques  already  applied  by  operators  in 
competitive  market  conditions,  they  are  inherently  considered  economically  viable. 
The  BREF  process  provides  sufficient  opportunity  to  provide  and  consider  costs  in 
identifying BAT. [High] 

In  practice,  industry  has  generally  not  provided  much  cost  data.  Whilst  the  BREF 
49 
process  does  not  itself  quantify  the  human  health  and  environmental  benefits  of 
implementing BAT, the separate Commission cost-benefit assessments that have been 
carried out concluded that the benefits significantly exceeded costs. [High] 

 
that  it  can  sometimes  be  dominated  by  industry  participants;  and  that  Member  States 
should not be represented by third parties (industry, consultants). 

What are the findings? With regard to the consideration of costs and benefits within the 
identification  of  BAT,  cost  is  a  relevant  factor  for  consideration.  In  principle,  where 
techniques are operated in existing plants, these are assumed to be economically viable 
without  the  need  for  further  assessment  by  the  TWG.  Where  the  TWG  provides 
appropriate cost data, it is included in the BREF. However, there have been challenges 
around obtaining cost data from industrial operators as part of the BREF process. This is 
also due to confidentiality aspects. There is no quantification of total avoided emissions 
or avoided damage costs at a sectoral level. 

Stakeholders:  Stakeholders  generally  consider  that  the  BREF  process  has  sufficiently 
considered  the  benefits  of  techniques  some,  most  or  all  of  the  time;  industry  were  the 
most positive, followed by Member States and then “Others”.  

EFFECTIVENESS: How effective is the BREF elaboration process? 

Evaluation  sub-question  1(k):  To  what  extent  has  the  IED  supported  Member 
States in implementing BAT-based permitting? 

Overall response: BAT-based permitting has significantly increased under the IED. 
ELVs are set in line with BAT conclusions, though mainly at the least stringent end 
of the BAT-AEL range. [High] 

There is little information on how the IED has influenced other permit provisions, for 
example  where  BAT  conclusions  contain  BAT-AEPLs  or  descriptive  techniques. 
[Low] 

What  are  the  findings?  The  degree  to  which  the  IED  has  supported  BAT-based 
permitting in Member States is easier to assess for ELVs in permits, since they must be 
based on BAT-AELs. ELVs have mostly been set at the least stringent level of the BAT-
AEL range. This approach has even been set out in national guidance or general binding 
rules  in  some  Member  States.  Evidence  from  sampling  of  permits  across  the  EU  for 
specific sectors shows that about 15% of ELVs are set at more stringent levels.  

In relation to BAT-AEPLs other than BAT-AELs, there is limited evidence of their use. 
However,  this  points  to  some  variation  in  implementation  across  the  Member  States 
regarding  whether  the  BAT-AEPLs  are  interpreted  as  binding,  and  thus  included  in 
permits, or not. 

50 

 
Stakeholders  largely  agree  that  the  IED  and  BAT  conclusions  have  enabled  Member 
States to implement BAT-based permitting. This has increased in relation to the IPPCD, 
due to the new nature of the BAT conclusions which have become mandatory.  

EFFECTIVENESS: How effective is the BREF elaboration process?   

Evaluation sub-question 1(l): To what degree are exceptions taken up that result 
in permits not being based on BAT?  

Overall  response:  A  limited  proportion  of  installations  have  been  granted 
derogations.  While  IED  Article  15(4)  does  allow  Member  States  to  derogate,  in 
certain  circumstances,  from  BAT-based  permitting  this  allows  more  cost  effective 
implementation.  There  is  however  limited  understanding  of  the  variability  of 
approaches  across  the  EU  and  insufficient  knowledge  as  to  whether  all  derogations 
are  fully  justified.  Civil  society  has  challenged  the  granting  of  derogations  in  some 
cases, arguing that they would be inconsistent with obligations to meet EU air quality 
standards. [Medium] 

What are the findings? IED Article 15(4) allows for operators to apply for derogations 
from achieving the emission levels associated with applying BAT. These may be granted 
provided the conditions are fulfilled. Such derogations have been granted. 

Evidence  from  sampling  of  cement  kiln  permits  across  the  EU  indicates  that  a  small 
proportion of ELVs are set at levels above the upper end of the BAT-AEL range under 
Article  15(4)  derogations.  Member  State  reporting  shows  that,  for  Iron  and  Steel  and 
Glass installations combined, 15 Member States granted derogations for 82 installations 
out  of  a  total  of  around  780  installations,  i.e.  just  over  10%  of  installations.  In  many 
instances  these  derogations  are  related  to  a  single  BAT  conclusion.  This  suggests  that, 
overall,  the  BAT  conclusions  were  appropriate  for  the  majority  of  the  installations. 
However, an ex-post assessment of the Iron and Steel BAT conclusions concluded that 
they impacted only about 20% of processes in that sector. Unfortunately, equivalent data 
are not available for the Glass sector. 

The Commission does not hold information pointing at widespread unlawful use of this 
derogation  procedure.  However,  there  are  cases  where  civil  society  has  challenged 
derogations  at  national  level,  arguing  that  derogations  should  not  be  given  due  to  the 
contribution of the concerned plants to low air quality in zones not complying with EU 
air quality standards. 

Stakeholders: The majority of stakeholders believe that there are significant differences 
in  BAT  implementation  among  Member  States  (Member  States:  64%;  Sub-national: 
55%;  Industry:  91%;  “Others”:  86%).  Yet,  this  somewhat  contradicts  answers  to  sub-
question 1(o) where all stakeholder groups largely agree that the IED has contributed to 
reducing  distortion  of  competition  (the  proportions  agreeing  or  strongly  agreeing  are: 
Member State: 86%; Sub-national: 88%; Industry: 69%; “Others” 67%).  

51 

 
EFFECTIVENESS: How effective is emissions monitoring and reporting?  

Evaluation  sub-question  1(m):  To  what  extent  does  the  emissions  monitoring 
and reporting system facilitate the assessment of compliance under the IED, and 
of the quantity of released emissions?  

Overall  response:  Monitoring  and  reporting  systems  provide  good  information  on 
emissions.  Member  States  draw  on  the  BREFs  and  BAT  conclusions  when  setting 
monitoring  requirements  in  permits.  However,  there  is  variation  in  implementation 
across the EU, in particular in relation to compliance assessment, which risks creating 
distortions. [High]  

What are the findings? Emissions monitoring and reporting by operators to competent 
authorities  is  essential  to  assess  compliance  of  installations  and  also  for  knowing  the 
quantity of released emissions. All recent BAT conclusions contain consistent  BAT for 
monitoring.  Member  States  reporting  to  the  Commission  shows  that  monitoring 
frequencies  in  permit  conditions  are  consistent  with  the  frequencies  given  in  the  BAT 
conclusions.  This  points  to  overall  improved  transparency  and  consistency  of  the 
requirements across Member States.  

There is however less evidence as to whether they have led to improved compliance. In 
many Member States, monitoring information is not systematically made public; and it is 
thus  unclear  if  it  is  being  reported  consistently  by  operators  and  used  by  competent 
authorities  for  compliance  assessment.  The  limited  information  available  on  the 
approaches  used  by  competent  authorities  for  compliance  assessment  points  to 
divergences  between  them.  Variations  in  compliance  assessment  rules  risk  creating 
distortions across the Internal Market.  

Stakeholders:  BAT  on  monitoring  are  mostly  clear.  More  recent  BREFs  and  BAT 
conclusions are considered to be much clearer with respect to monitoring aspects. 

EFFECTIVENESS: How effective is emissions monitoring and reporting?   

Evaluation sub-question 1(n): Are the monitoring requirements fit for purpose?   

Overall response:  There is  a  sound system in  place  for monitoring  emissions  from 
IED installations. [High] 

Emissions data held by competent authorities are public, but it is not clear how easy it 
is  to  access  them  and  how  much  use  is  made  of  this.  Real-time  monitoring 
information  is  rarely  available  to  competent  authorities.  Emissions  data,  including 
real-time data, are rarely made available via the internet. [Medium] 

What  are  the  findings?  The  monitoring  of  emissions  to  air  and  water  for  compliance 
assessment  purposes  is  largely  based  on  EN  standards.  More  than  a  hundred  of  these 
standards are used. Detailed provisions apply in Member States to ensure a high quality 

52 

 
of the measured data (e.g. accreditation schemes for testing laboratories or certification 
of automated measurement systems for emissions to air). Measurements are often carried 
out periodically, but emissions from large sources are usually measured continuously. 

IED  Article  24  stipulates  that  the results  of  emission  monitoring,  as  required  under  the 
permit  conditions  and  held  by  the  competent  authority,  shall  be  made  available  to  the 
public.  However,  while  citizens  may  request  these  emission  monitoring  results  and  the 
authorities  are  obliged  to  share  them,  there  is  a  certain  barrier,  because  the  results  are 
rarely made available to the general public upfront via the internet. 

There  are,  nevertheless,  a  number  of  countries  outside  the  EU,  as  well  as  some  EU 
regions  and  companies,  which  publish  the  results  of  emission  measurements  online, 
including  in  real  time  in  the  case  of  continuous  measurements.  These  examples 
demonstrate  the  feasibility  of  applying  digital  technologies  to  improve  the  overall 
efficiency of emissions reporting, facilitate compliance checks and enhance public access 
to information.  

Stakeholders: Some stakeholders have highlighted digitalisation as a way to improve the 
quality reporting and aid quicker identification of non-compliance.  

EFFECTIVENESS: 

Evaluation sub-question 1(o): Are there significant differences between Member 
States and sectors in implementation? 

Overall  response:  The  IED  has  contributed  to  a  more  level  playing  field  for 
operators compared to under the IPPCD. This is mainly achieved through a reduction 
in differences in stringency of permit ELVs among Member States. [High] 

Variations in implementation remain among Member States, particularly with respect 
to compliance assessment and the granting of derogations. There appear to be minor 
differences  among  Member  States  in  setting  ELVs,  with  a  limited  share  being  set 
below the least stringent level set by BAT conclusions. [High] 

What  are  the  findings?  The  IED  is  intended  to  minimise  differences  in  stringency 
among  Member  States  and  sectors.  There  is  some  (limited)  variation  in  terms  of  the 
levels at which permit conditions have been set within the BAT-AEL range. The majority 
of ELVs appear to be set at the upper (least stringent) end of this range. Some Member 
States appear to have granted a greater number of derogations than others and some do 
not  allow  them  at  all.  Stricter  ELVs  than  those  corresponding  to  the  BAT  conclusions 
appear to be rarely applied. Differences in the levels at which permit conditions are set 
based  on  the  BAT-AEL  range  can  impact  on  company  costs.  There  appear  to  be 
differences in compliance assessment. 

53 

 
Stakeholders  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  IED  has  contributed  to  a  more  level  playing 
field  compared  to  the  IPPCD  and  sectoral  Directives,  although  differences  still  remain. 
Permit conditions are largely being set according to the BAT conclusions  – at least for 
BAT-AELs, which has led to a much more uniform approach among Member States than 
under  the  IPPCD.  Differences  among  Member  State  approaches  to  conducting 
inspections have reduced under the IED with greater establishment of inspection plans as 
required under its Article 23. 

5.2.  Efficiency 

Evaluation  Question  2:  How  economically  have  the  resources  used  been 
converted into effects? 

Overall response: 

The  overall  benefits  of  implementing  BAT  conclusions  have  been  shown  to 
substantially outweigh all the costs. There is no part of the IED where costs have been 
identified as disproportionate. [Medium] 

There  has  been  continuous  improvement  of  the  BREF  process.  There  is  limited 
evidence  on  overall  administrative  costs  or  their  possible  increase  or  decrease.  No 
unnecessary  administrative  costs  have  been  identified.  There  are  mixed  impacts  on 
EU competitiveness, but no evidence is available that these are significant. There is 
no evidence of excessive burden. [Medium] 

The IED has improved environmental sustainability. [High] The effect on social and 
economic sustainability is less clear. [Medium] 

What is the issue? 

The  assessment  of  efficiency  compares  the  inputs  used  for  a  certain  activity  with 
produced  outputs.  This  is  particularly  challenging  for  the  IED,  as  it  is  hard  to  estimate 
compliance  costs,  due  to  the  implementation  of  the  BAT  conclusions  by  competent 
authorities and in individual processes and installations. 

The evaluation has therefore focussed on assessing whether the overall compliance costs 
are justified by the benefits obtained and whether there is evidence that efficiency could 
have been improved. It is also assessed to what extent the administrative burden has been 
reduced  with  respect  to  initial  expectations.  Finally,  it  is  explored  whether  the 
implementation  of  the  IED  supported  or  hampered  EU  competitiveness  in  the  global 
economy.  

The following sub-questions are answered: 

2(a)  To  what  extent  are  the  costs  justified,  given  the  impact  of  the  IED  and  the 

benefits it has delivered? 

2(b)  Could efficiency have been improved? 

54 

 
2(c)  To what extent has the administrative burden been reduced with respect to initial 

expectations? 

2(d)  Has implementation of the IED supported or hampered EU competitiveness in the 

global economy? 

2(e)  Has  the  implementation  of  the  IED  improved  or  been  detrimental  to  economic, 

social and environmental sustainability? 

EFFICIENCY: How economically have the resources used been converted into 
effects? 

Evaluation  sub-question  2(a):  To  what  extent  are  the  costs  justified,  given  the 
impact of the IED and the benefits it has delivered? 

Overall response: The overall benefits of implementing BAT conclusions have been 
shown to substantially outweigh the overall costs. [Medium] 

There  is  limited  knowledge  of  the  overall  costs  and  benefits  other  than  reduced 
emissions to air. Cost assessments have been carried out for only a limited number of 
sectors, but the findings can likely be extrapolated more generally on the basis that 
the same procedure applies to all BREF reviews. [High] 

What are the findings? 

There is no pre-existing assessment of the overall costs of the IED or the benefits it has 
delivered.  In  particular,  there  is  no  agreed  approach  to  value  some  of  the  benefits,  e.g. 
reduced emissions to water. This makes it challenging to assess the extent to which the 
costs are justified. 

No cost-benefit analysis is required in the BREF process as the IED definition of BAT in 
Article 3 requires that it is cost-effective. During the drawing up and reviews of BREFs , 
economic  viability  is  evaluated  at  the  sector  level.  Usually,  the  TWG  determines  the 
economic viability of a technique by noting that it is used in various installations across 
various  countries,  under  competitive  market  conditions.  Any  TWG  member  can  bring 
data on costs and economic viability, which can be country-specific. IED sectors are in 
general  not  labour  intensive,  and  the  cost  of  technology  dominates  any  investment 
triggered  by  the  IED.  In  addition,  IED  operators  are  usually  large  multinational 
companies,  not  bound  by  national  specificities. There  is  no evidence  of  an  intrinsically 
differing  economic  viability  for  BAT  among  Member  States.  If  for  an  individual 
installation this does not hold, then a derogation can be applied for (see “Effectiveness” 
sub-question 1(l)). However, to  have an overview of the efficiency of the policy,  some 
targeted  cost-benefit  assessments  have  been  undertaken  for  a  limited  number  of  BAT 
conclusions. Carrying out these assessments is complex and expensive because the BAT 
conclusions apply at process level, and each installation has different processes. In view 
of  this,  as  a  minimum,  it  is  necessary  to  have  a  sufficiently  detailed  database  for  the 
whole sector with information on processes at each installation.  

55 

 
An ex-post assessment for the iron and steel sector concluded that the benefits to society 
from compliance with the BAT conclusions for emissions to air (€932 million annually) 
are around 10 times the investment costs (€90 million annually). An ex-ante assessment 
for LCPs assessed that the benefits (€3.4-14.2 billion annually) will be between 2.5 and 
5.8  times  the  investment  costs  (€0.59-5.7  billion  annually)  in  2025.  Further  detailed 
assessments  could  not  be  carried  out  due  to  their  cost  and  difficulties  in  obtaining  the 
comprehensive information needed on techniques used in plants at process level.  

An  assessment  of  the  other  main  costs  beyond  the  cost  of  techniques  required  for 
compliance  with  BAT  conclusions,  such  as  monitoring  and  inspection  costs,  has  been 
done for the Iron and Steel sector. This suggests that the benefits still significantly exceed 
the  costs  after  adding  these  non-investment  related  costs,  primarily  because  these  other 
costs are relatively small in comparison. 

The  IED  mechanisms  for  derogations  reduce  compliance  costs,  as  do  the  transitional 
arrangements  for  LCPs  under  Chapter  III.  It  is  not  clear  whether  the  use  of  these 
flexibilities  leads  to  better  efficiency  in  terms  of  costs  per  unit  of  environmental 
improvement.   

Stakeholders: Member States largely agree that the benefits achieved from the IED are 
cost-effective while industry and “Others” are less positive.  

Industry  largely  finds  compliance  costs  moderately  acceptable  or  does  not  agree  or 
disagree. NGOs believe the compliance costs are fully acceptable. 

There  is  a  general  view  that  the  BREF  process  requires  a  large  resource  effort  from 
Member States, industry and civil society, which stakeholders would like to see reduced.  

Stakeholders provided examples where they claim that parts of certain BAT conclusions 
have been less cost-effective. However, they have not provided evidence supporting their 
views.  In  addition,  some  industry  stakeholders  claim  that  the  accumulation  of  various 
obligations  on  LCPs  from  climate  and  energy  policy,  coupled  with  the  obligation  to 
comply with IED Chapter III and Annex V requirements in 2016 and then with the LCP 
BAT conclusions in 2021 have increased costs to operators. Literature has identified the 
risk of stranded assets for LCPs in this situation.  

56 

 
EFFICIENCY: How economically have the resources used been converted into 
effects? 

Evaluation sub-question 2(b): Could efficiency have been improved? 

Overall response: The BREF process has already been (and continues to be) subject 
to  a  process  to  improve  its  efficiency.  Whilst  successful,  it  is  possible  that  more 
could be done in the future to further improve its efficiency, several suggestions were 
made by stakeholders. [Medium] 

What  are  the  findings?  As  regards  whether  efficiency  could  have  been  improved,  the 
meetings  of  the  IED  Article  13  Forum  as  well  as    TWG  meetings  regularly  discuss 
aspects  of  the  BREF  process.  Where  process  improvements  are  identified  and  agreed 
these can be implemented. These efforts over the years appear to have led to efficiency 
improvements, but it is not excluded that further improvements may be identified. 

Stakeholders: Two thirds of stakeholders have no view on whether the IED could have 
been  implemented  more  efficiently  whilst  still  delivering  its  objectives  and  minimising 
unnecessary costs. Most of the remaining third indicated that efficiency could have been 
improved.  Several  suggestions  were  made  by  stakeholders  to  help  deliver  the  IED’s 
environmental objectives whilst improving efficiency.  

Survey respondents were generally positive about the process for Member State reporting 
to the Commission, even though the systems are in flux and the EU Registry on industrial 
installations is still being rolled out. 

EFFICIENCY:  How  economically  have  the  resources  used  been  converted  into 
effects? 

Evaluation  sub-question  2(c):  To  what  extent  has  the  administrative  burden 
been reduced with respect to initial expectations? 

Overall response: Additional administrative costs have been incurred for additional 
requirements under the IED compared to the IPPCD, for example the production of 
baseline  reports  by  operators,  under  IED  Article  22,  on  the  state  of  soil  and 
groundwater contamination. However, these costs are not “unnecessary” and no such 
costs  have  been  identified.  There  is  limited  evidence  of  any  change  in  overall 
administrative  costs  compared  to  before  the  IED.  There  is  no  good  evidence  on 
overall administrative costs. [Medium] 

What  are  the  findings?  Regarding  administrative  costs,  limited  evidence  has  been 
identified on those associated with the IED overall and therefore on how this may have 
changed relative to under the previous legislation.  

57 

 
It is estimated that there was a one-off cost after implementation of the IED of the order 
of  €19.9  million  to  produce  baseline  reports  in  relation  to  the  state  of  soil  and 
groundwater at the Iron and Steel installations. Other one-off costs are estimated at €7.9 
million  to  carry  out  the  BREF  review  and  €14.9  million  for  the  permitting  of  the 
installations.  Additional  annual  costs  are  estimated  at  €5.5  million  for  national 
implementation of the IED, €5.5 million for monitoring and €4.5 million for inspections. 
Annualised, these costs are of an order of magnitude lower than the scale of investment 
costs for this sector.  

Monitoring data are needed for the BREF process to function. Emission data provide the 
basis for establishing which techniques are BAT and the achievable emission levels. 

Stakeholders:  More than half of the stakeholders  indicated that  administrative  costs to 
Member  States  and  operators  have  increased  under  the  IED  compared  to  the  previous 
situation. When asked whether the implementation of the IED has led to a reduction in 
unnecessary  administrative  burden  for  operators  and/or  Member  State  competent 
authorities, the respondents were generally negative to neutral. In explanation, a number 
of industry stakeholders highlighted that the requirement to produce baseline reports on 
soil and groundwater pollution represented a significant additional administrative burden. 
However, this new IED requirement was specifically introduced to address a gap in the 
IPPCD.  

A co-ordinated industry response claimed that the burden for operators has grown due to 
increased monitoring provisions under the IED, for example where a BAT on monitoring 
is set for pollutants for which no BAT-AELs have been set. The IED derogations process 
was also reported to have increased administrative burdens for Member States (justified 
by reduced compliance costs for industry).  

Inconsistencies  between  the  BREFs  and  the  provisions  in  Chapters  III  and  IV  of  and 
associated  Annexes  to  the  IED  were  flagged  by  some  stakeholders  as  potential 
unnecessary administrative burdens related to the different averaging periods used in the 
different  documents.  No  further  evidence  has  been  identified  indicating  that  the  costs 
have caused an unnecessary or excessive burden. 

EFFICIENCY:  How  economically  have  the  resources  used  been  converted  into 
effects? 

Evaluation  sub-question  2(d):  Has  implementation  of  the  IED  supported  or 
hampered EU competitiveness in the global economy? 

Overall  response:  The  IED  both  supports  (e.g.  driving  the  export  of  EU 
sustainability expertise) and hampers EU competitiveness in the global economy (e.g. 
additional compliance costs in the EU compared to elsewhere). There is no evidence 
that  these  impacts  are  significant.  Therefore,  overall,  the  IED  has  not  significantly 
impacted EU global competitiveness. Several non-EU countries are using information 
from  BREFs  to  shape  their  national  industrial  measures  or  set  emission  limits. 
[Medium] 

58 

 
What  are  the  findings?  As  regards  the  IED’s  impact  on  EU  competitiveness  in  the 
global  economy,  Eurostat  data shows  that  overall  the  industry  environment  compliance 
costs remain relatively constant. The IED impact assessment reported several studies that 
showed  that  environmental  legislation  does  not  impair  economic  competitiveness  and 
was  in  many  cases  considered  a  competitive  advantage.  Costs  associated  with 
environmental  legislation  were  generally  a  small  factor  in  global  competitiveness,  with 
other costs, such as labour, raw materials and energy, being much more influential. 

The Iron and Steel BAT conclusions assessment has indicated estimated total annualised 
compliance  costs  of  around  €134  million  per  year.  In  comparison,  the  sector’s  annual 
turnover is reported to be €123 billion and its annual investment costs are €3.9 billion. It 
seems unlikely that an additional cost of 0.1% of turnover will have a significant impact 
on  competitiveness.  A  number  of  industry  respondents  referred  to  “Cumulative  Cost 
Assessment”  studies.  However,  this  approach  only  considered  costs  and  not  benefits. 
Furthermore, it did not differentiate between the IED compliance costs and the costs of 
other  emissions  legislation,  and  the  limited  cost  evidence  was  not  seen  as  reliable.  No 
specific supporting evidence about competitiveness impacts was provided.  

A growing  number of non-EU countries around the world are implementing  legislation 
based  on  the  BAT  concept  or  using  EU  BREFs  to  provide  information  for  setting 
emission  limit  values.  The  OECD  is  organising  an  exchange  of  information  between 
international experts on BAT-like legislation. These factors help to reduce differences in 
environmental requirements internationally. 

Stakeholders:  Stakeholders  groups  had  mixed  views  as  to  whether  or  not  the  IED  has 
reduced competitiveness with countries outside the EU due to higher compliance costs. 
The majority of industry responses believe this is the case, as major competitors on the 
global  market  do  not  have  to  comply  with  similar  legislation,  while  more  than  half  of 
Member States and NGOs believe there is a benefit to EU competitiveness.  

EFFICIENCY:  How  economically  have  the  resources  used  been  converted  into 
effects? 

Evaluation  sub-question  2(e):  Has  the  implementation  of  the  IED  improved  or 
been detrimental to economic, social and environmental sustainability? 

Overall response: The IED has improved environmental sustainability. [High] 

 Whether the IED has improved social and economic sustainability is less clear since 
the effects are largely indirect. [Medium] 

What are the findings? There is reasonable evidence about the IED’s impact on overall 
environmental  sustainability.  Some  of  the  harmful  environmental  impacts  are  clearly 
decreasing,  which  points  to  enhanced  environmental  sustainability  of  the  regulated 

59 

 
sectors.  However,  where  the  evidence  on  the  impacts  is  less  clear  e.g.  for  resource 
efficiency, then the contribution to environmental sustainability is also less certain.  

As regards the impact of IED implementation on economic and social sustainability, the 
conclusions  are  more  indirect.  The  benefits  from  IED  implementation  that  can  be 
quantified largely arise from improved human health. These largely exceed the costs of 
implementation,  which  means  that  there  will  be  overall  economic  benefits  for  society, 
like  through  reduced  absenteeism  at  the  work  place  due  to  sicknesses  caused  by  air 
pollution  or  diminished  costs  of  the  related  health  care.  The  social  benefits  arise  from 
lower industrial impacts on people and communities. There may also be other economic 
and social benefits from the higher acceptability of industrial installations, and the lower 
impact  on  property  prices  or  on  quality  of  life.  However,  the  scale  of  all  of  these  and 
therefore their impact on economic and social sustainability are less obvious since they 
are indirect. 

Stakeholders:  There  was  strong  agreement  across  all  stakeholder  types  that  there  has 
been  an  improvement  in  environmental  sustainability  since  the  implementation  of  the 
IED.  

There was much less certainty regarding the positive effects of the IED with respect to 
social  sustainability.  While  just  over  half  of  respondents  indicated  that  there  has  been 
some or significant improvement, around a third claimed that there had been no impact.  

Similarly, there was less certainty that the IED had led to improvements with respect to 
economic  sustainability.  Just  under  half  of  all  respondents  believed  that  there  has  been 
some or significant improvement since the implementation of the IED with mixed views 
between  stakeholder  types  (the  majority  of  MS  authorities,  both  national  and  regional, 
and  “Others”  believe  there  has  been  improvements  in  economic  sustainability;  industry 
less so). 

5.3.  Relevance 

60 

 
 
 
Evaluation  question  3:  To  what  extent  is  an  intervention  relevant  in  respect  to 
needs, problems and issues identified in target groups? 

Overall response:  

The IED is still relevant to the needs, problems and issues of the EU. [High] 

The  IED  is  able  to  respond  to  new  or  emerging  environmental  issues,  but  there  are 
limitations due to the nature and time of the processes. [High] 

The IED has not contributed greatly to the decarbonisation of industry and there are 
divergent views about whether it is relevant for this. [Low] 

What is the issue? 

The key consideration under this criterion is whether the environmental pressures caused 
by operating industrial plants have been fully addressed or whether there remains a need 
and scope for further improvements in the future.  

A  further  aspect  is  whether  the  IED  is  able  to  adapt  to  new  and  emerging  issues.  This 
may  be  the  case  for  specific  pollutants  that  have  come  to  attention  or  to  new  policy 
considerations  such  as  the  circular  economy,  zero  pollution  ambition,  or  the  need  for 
industrial decarbonisation. 

The following sub-questions are answered: 

3(a)  To what extent do the IED objectives still correspond to the needs of the EU? 
3(b) 
Is the IED able to respond to new or emerging environmental issues? 

RELEVANCE:  To  what  extent  is  an  intervention  relevant  in  respect  to  needs, 
problems and issues identified in target groups? 

Evaluation  sub-  question  3(a):  To  what  extent  do  the  IED  objectives  still 
correspond to the needs of the EU? 

Overall  response:  The  IED  remains  relevant  to  the  needs  of  the  EU  within  its 
objectives. [High] 

What are the findings? 

To understand the extent to which the IED objectives still correspond to the needs of the 
EU it is necessary to assess whether or not the problems it was intended to address still 
exist. Emission data shows that industrial activities overall, and in particular those within 
the IED’s scope, still contribute significantly to emissions of some pollutants (to air and 
water)  resulting  in  significant  health  and  environmental  impacts.  They  are  also  major 
users  of  resources.  Although  the  IED  does  not  address  land  use  and  habitat  protection 

61 

 
directly,  through  cutting  industrial  emissions  to  air,  water  and  soil,  it  contributes  to 
addressing pollution which is a driver of the decline of biodiversity. In view of this, the 
IED remains relevant to continue to address these impacts. 

The  steady  decline  in  pollutant  emissions  from  industrial  activities  (particularly  to  air) 
shows  the  IED  and  its  predecessor  legislation  are  having  positive  impacts.  It  therefore 
remains relevant to helping to protect human health and the environment in line with the 
European Green Deal.  

Stakeholders: As well as the overall health and environmental impacts, the IED remains 
relevant for all the different stakeholder groups. For industry, it ensures a level playing 
field,  for  Member  States  it  helps  to  meet  their  environmental  goals  while  not 
disadvantaging  their  industry,  and  for  EU  citizens  it  ensures  better  health  and  public 
access to information and justice.  

Stakeholders  are  of  the  view  that  the  IED  has  generally  addressed  the  most  relevant 
environmental impacts. There are however some limitations with respect to energy use, 
raw  materials  consumption  and  waste  generation  as  requirements  for  these  included 
within the BAT conclusions are not binding in the IED in the same way as BAT-AELs.  

Some stakeholders feel that the outputs are not ambitious enough to meet the needs of the 
EU and other policy objectives. This is driven to some extent by Member States approach 
to  setting  permit  ELVs.  Permitting  authorities  consider  that  releases  to  water  require 
more stringent approaches to meet EU water quality objectives. 

RELEVANCE:  To  what  extent  is  an  intervention  relevant  in  respect  to  needs, 
problems and issues identified in target groups? 

Evaluation  sub-question  3(b):  Is  the  IED  able  to  respond  to  new  or  emerging 
environmental issues? 

Overall  response:  The  IED  is  able  to  respond  to  new  or  emerging  environmental 
issues  through  the  BREF  process.  But  there  are  some  limitations  in  relation  to  the 
length  of  the  BREF  process,  the  time  between  BREF  reviews,  and  the  need  for  the 
BREF process to have monitoring data on pollutants which leads to mainly covering 
existing rather than emerging pollutants. [High] 

There are divergent views about the relevance of the IED for the decarbonisation of 
industry. [Low] 

What are the findings? 

There could be new or emerging environmental issues that the IED has not been able to 
address.  From  the  BREFs  drawn  up  and  reviewed  under  the  IED,  e.g.  Wood  Based 
Panels and or Common Waste Gas Treatment in the Chemical Sector, it can be seen that 

62 

 
 
they have addressed additional pollutants to those listed in Annex II to the IED as well as 
new  environmental  issues.  Since the  IED  in  principle  covers  all  environmental  impacts 
and it is for the TWG to agree the scope of the BREF, it seems clear that the framework 
is  able  to  respond  to  any  new  environmental  issue.  One  major  challenge  limiting  the 
ability to respond to emerging issues relates to the length of the BREF process and the 
relatively  long  time  between  BREF  reviews.  There  is  frequently  a  lack  of  monitoring 
data  for emerging issues  which  hampers  the  ability to  identify  BAT.  This  has  been  the 
case more often for emissions to water (e.g. as regards micro-plastics), than for emissions 
to air.  

The IED sectors emit a significant share of GHGs, but these are mainly regulated through 
the  ETS  and  ELVs  may  not  be  set  in  IED  permits  for  them.  For  the  remaining  GHG 
emissions not regulated under the ETS, BAT-AELs could have been identified and ELVs 
set in permits within the current legal framework. However, to date TWGs have largely 
chosen to address these GHGs emissions only indirectly through BAT and BAT-AEPLs 
on energy efficiency. Only in a few cases, BAT-AELs were set for GHG emissions (e.g. 
for methane emissions from certain large combustion plants). 

Stakeholders: Stakeholder views on whether the IED and the BREF process are able to 
respond to new or emerging issues was mixed. Industry generally agreed that this is the 
case, while Member State authorities and “Others” either disagreed or did not know.  

Some  concerns  were  raised  by  stakeholders  about  the  process  for  identifying  key 
environmental  issues  which  may  constrain  the  ability  to  identify  emerging  issues.  A 
reliance  on  the  availability  of  complete  data  sets  and  a  tendency  to  focus  on  the  same 
substances as the existing BREF were considered to potentially make it harder to tackle 
new or emerging issues.  

With  regard  to  the  duration,  multiple  stakeholder  groups  stated  that  the  length  of  the 
BREF  process  and  time  between  BREF  reviews  made  it  harder  to  deal  with  emerging 
issues.  In  contrast,  several  industry  stakeholders  provided  examples  of  how  the  BREF 
process quickly responded to an emerging issue.  

Whilst there is an ever increasing need for industry to rapidly adapt to a net zero-carbon 
economy  in  2050,  this  has  only  been  addressed  marginally  in  BREFs.  Stakeholder 
responses were mixed, with  industry raising concerns about  potential  double  regulation 
and  overlaps  with  EU  climate  and  energy  policy,  whereas  environmental  NGOs  and 
Member States were overall more positive. Some stakeholders feel it is essential that all 
impacts are dealt with under the IED in an integrated manner. 

63 

 
 
5.4.  Coherence 

COHERENCE: 

Evaluation  question  4:  Is  the  IED  coherent  with  itself,  other  EU  and 
international actions? 

Overall response:  

There is a high degree of coherence internally and with other policy instruments.  

The  IED  is  internally  coherent,  but  nonetheless,  several  aspects,  could  be  further 
clarified. The IED is largely coherent with other environmental and wider EU policies 
and  supports  at  least  to  some  extent  their  delivery.  There  is  scope  for  greater 
contribution in some areas. [High] 

What is the issue? 

The assessment of coherence looks at how well different actions work together and thus, 
points to synergies as well as areas where there are potentially contradictory objectives or 
approaches  that  may  cause  inefficiency.  It  is  necessary  to  assess  whether  the  IED  is 
coherent  internally,  coherent  with  other  EU  actions  and  with  international  actions.  The 
following sub-questions are answered: 

4(a)  To  what  extent  are  the  elements  of  the  intervention  logic  complementary, 

mutually supportive and non-contradictory? 

4(b)  To what extent do the objectives and activities support or contradict those of other 

public interventions? 

COHERENCE:  Is  the  IED  coherent  with  itself,  other  EU  and  international 
actions? 

Evaluation  sub-question  4(a):  To  what  extent  are  the  elements  of  the 
intervention logic complementary, mutually supportive and non-contradictory?  

Overall  response:  The  IED  is  overall  largely  coherent  and  consistent  although 
several  elements,  for  example  the  interactions  between  some  BAT  conclusions  and 
specific chapters of the IED could be further clarified. [High] 

What are the findings? 

To assess the extent to which the IED is internally consistent and coherent, it is necessary 
to  assess  whether  its  parts  all  contribute  to  the  same  goals  and  whether  there  are 
contradictions  between  different  requirements.  It  is  clear  that  there  are  interpretation 
challenges in relation to various aspects of the IED, which are illustrated by the number 

64 

 
 
 
 
of  enquiries  received  by  the  Commission.  However,  these  do  not  point  to  fundamental 
contradictions or inconsistencies.  

Stakeholders:  Around  half  of  the  stakeholders  indicated  that  the  IED  is  very  or 
extremely  consistent.  Nevertheless,  similar  comments  were  made  by  all  respondents, 
flagging that overlaps, contradictions or inconsistencies still exist within the IED itself. 

A number of stakeholders stated that the IED seems like a juxtaposition of several former 
Directives,  rather  than  a  piece  of  coherent  legislation  integrating  parts  of  all  former 
Directives  in  a  coherent  manner.  In  particular,  clarification  is  felt  to  be  needed  on  the 
interaction between the general requirements of Chapter II and the sectoral provisions of 
Chapter  III  on  large  combustion  plants  and  Chapter  IV  on  waste  incineration  and  co-
incineration  plants.  It  was  moreover  claimed  that  there  are  inconsistencies  between  the 
relevant BAT conclusions and the requirements of Chapters III and IV. In addition, the 
wording of the text related to the treatment of confidence intervals is unclear, leading to 
Member  State  differences  in  compliance  assessment.  One  stakeholder  claimed  that 
incoherence  arises  from  the  fact  that  most  techniques  to  reduce  emissions  lead  to 
increased  resource  use  and  waste  generation.  However,  this  is  trade-off  is  well 
understood and taken into account in BREFs. 

COHERENCE: Is IED coherent with itself, other EU and international actions? 

Evaluation  sub-question  4(b):  To  what  extent  do  the  objectives  and  activities 
support or contradict those of other public interventions? 

Overall  response:  The  IED  is  largely  coherent  with  other  EU  environmental  and 
wider  EU  policies  and  at  least  to  some  extent  the  IED  supports  the  delivery  of  the 
objectives  of  other  EU  policies.  However,  whether  there  is  scope  for  greater 
contribution  in  some  areas,  including  water  and  circular  economy  policies,  requires 
further assessment. There are scope inconsistencies between the IED and the E-PRTR 
Regulation. [High] 

What are the findings?  

The IED’s coherence with other EU environmental policies and legislation was assessed 
by  comparing  it  with  other  EU  legislation.  This  shows  that  the  IED  is  mostly  coherent 
with sectoral and wider EU environmental policies. The objectives are consistent, in that 
all  the  policies  considered  the  aim  to  protect  the  environment  and  human  health  from 
pollution, and at least to some extent the IED is supporting the delivery of the objectives 
of other EU policies. However, in the case of the E-PRTR Regulation, there are several 
inconsistencies,  particularly  with  respect  to  the  scope  or  reporting  thresholds  of  the 
industrial  activities  and  pollutants  covered,  definitions,  aggregated  reporting,  and 
collection methodologies, which have evolved over time.  

Literature  has  assessed  the  contribution  of  the  IED  to  water  policy  and  the  circular 
economy. On the contribution of the IED to water policy, it was found that the BREFs 
have had, and are likely to continue to have, positive impacts for both reducing emissions 

65 

 
 
 
 
to water and, perhaps to a lesser extent, reducing water usage. The objective of the Water 
Framework  Directive  to  have  zero  releases  of  priority  hazardous  substances  is  stricter 
than,  and  calls  into  question  the  setting  of,  BAT-AELs  for  such  substances.  On  the 
contribution of the IED to the circular economy, it was found that the BREF process does 
not  systematically  include  BAT  on  circular  economy  areas  of  resource  use  (e.g.  water 
and  materials),  hazardous  chemicals  use  and  industrial  symbiosis.  Where  BAT  are 
included on the common cross-media themes of energy, materials, and waste, they  often 
do  not  give  quantitative  targets  and  are  not  explicitly  mentioned  as  aiming  to  meet 
circular economy objectives and strategies. 

As a significant amount of indirect releases from IED plants transit through urban waste 
water treatment plants,  including pollutants that are typically not  abated by such  plants 
like heavy metals, there appears to be excessive releases of those pollutants to be released 
to  the  EU  water  bodies. Given  that  the  IED  does  not  allow higher loads  to  be released 
than  the  amount  compatible  with  the  application  of  BAT,  it  appears  that  competent 
authorities have difficulty in applying this, and that there are inconsistencies in the joint 
implementation of the IED and the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. 

Stakeholders: As regards the coherence with other legislation and policies, stakeholders 
were most positive about the interaction with air quality legislation. Nevertheless, some 
problems  were  identified  by  stakeholders  concerning  other  legislation.  For  some 
substances,  there  were  claims  that  their  threshold  levels  in  sectoral  policies  (especially 
water and chemicals) may not align with the IED. There were mixed views on whether 
the  IED’s  scope  encroaches  on  the  scope  of  specific  environmental  legislation.  Some 
thought the specific environmental legislation may be better suited to address problems 
while  others  thought  the  IED’s  integrated  approach  was  the  right  way  to  tackle  wider 
issues such as GHG emissions and energy efficiency.  

It  was  also  stated  that  the  IED  is  not  sufficiently  aligned  with  some  specific 
environmental policies and wider environmental objectives such as the circular economy. 
In  particular  the  IED  and  E-PRTR  have  significant  overlaps,  however,  there  are  still 
mismatches, especially in terms of their activities, pollutants and thresholds. 

The stakeholder consultation carried out under the fitness check of the Water Framework 
Directive52  showed  that:  (1)  permitting  authorities  encounter  difficulties  in  applying 
Article  18  of  the  IED  to  set  stricter  ELVs  than  those  required  by  the  BAT-AELs  to 
comply  with  environmental  quality  standards,  and  (2)  some  industrial  sectors  claim 
difficulties  in  obtaining  permits  for  new  activities  as  a  result  of  application  of  the 
provisions  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  preventing  discharges  into  water  bodies 
failing to meet a “high” ecological status. 

52 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/fitness_check_of_the_eu_water_legislation/index_en.htm 

66 

 
 
                                                            
5.5.  EU added value 

EU  ADDED VALUE: To  what  extent are  the policy actions  best carried out at 
EU level? 

Evaluation question 5: What is the added-value of the IED, compared to what is 
likely to have been achieved by Member States in its absence? 

Overall response: There is significant added value of the IED at EU level. [High] 

What is the issue? 

The  EU  added  value  criterion  brings  together  the  findings  from  all  other  evaluation 
criteria and focusses on the benefits and changes resulting from EU action on industrial 
pollution  prevention  and  control  that  are  additional  to  those  that  would  have  resulted 
from action at local, regional or national level otherwise. 

What are the findings? 

There are a number of important benefits arising from action at EU level in comparison 
to  action  taken  at  national  and  sub-national  levels  only.  EU  action  has  ensured  a  more 
consistent  approach  in  the  adoption  of  environmentally  effective  industrial  emission 
standards with relatively limited deviation among Member States. It has also ensured a 
more consistent approach in the monitoring and enforcement of the requirements across 
the EU. These elements have also helped to contribute towards a level playing field. 

The BREF process itself would not be feasible to replicate at  Member State level to the 
same degree. In some Member States there would not be sufficient installations in one or 
all  sectors  to  enable  any  meaningful  comparison  of  techniques  and  environmental 
performance levels. In any case, to the degree that the installations are subject to national 
legislation,  they  are  likely  to  have  a  relatively  similar  environmental  performance.  It  is 
also  likely  to  be  difficult  to  ensure  any  meaningful  contribution  of  civil  society  to  the 
BREF  review  process  due  to  the  heavy  burden  and  limited  resources  and  different 
priorities. 

There is in addition some evidence to suggest that in the absence of EU action – initially 
under the IPPCD and then the IED – environmental standards, at least in many Member 
States, would have remained less demanding. As a result, the overall level of emissions 
and  impacts  on  health  and  the  environment  would  have  been  greater  and  therefore  an 
EU-level approach is likely to have led to stricter requirements overall. 

In  addition,  while  the  concept  of  BAT  is  also  used  in  multilateral  environmental 
agreements related to industrial pollution, there is evidence of similar concepts based on 
the EU system emerging in third countries, including the Russian Federation and Korea. 
The EU BREFs are also used as benchmarks within other systems e.g. in India. This is 
adding value at the global level. There appears to be interest from China in BREFs and it 

67 

 
appears  to  be  following  a  similar  approach  to  address  industrial  emissions,  with  for 
example ELVs set for LCPs that are in a comparable range to those in the EU. 

The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality seem to be well reflected. In relation to 
subsidiarity,  the  responsibilities  of  Member  States  and  the  European  Union  as  a  whole 
seem to be both well allocated, and the interaction between them works well (e.g. in the 
BREF process).   

Stakeholders: When asked directly, the majority of stakeholders were supportive of the  
EU action.  

68 

 
 
 
6.  CONCLUSIONS 

This evaluation is timely as it is being completed at a time when the EU is working on 
the implementation of the European Green Deal. This Staff Working Document provides 
important  elements  for  informing  this  work,  in  particular  with  regard  to  the  Zero 
Pollution ambition for a toxic-free environment. It is particularly relevant for the already 
announced revision of the IED, which will build upon the outcome of this evaluation, and 
take  into  consideration  Europe’s  ambitions  in  terms  of  enhanced  resource  efficiency 
(including  energy  and  water),  in  line  with  the  Climate  Agenda  and  the  2020  Circular 
Economy Action Plan. 

Since  its  adoption,  the  Industrial  Emissions  Directive  (IED)53  has  made  a  substantial 
contribution to reducing pollutant emissions from industrial installations across the EU. 
Under the IED, 17 BAT conclusions have now been adopted and a further six are under 
revision.  Of  the  adopted  17  BAT  conclusions,  eight  have  now  been  implemented  by 
Member States in an estimated 2 500 installation permits. The subsequent nine that are in 
the  process  of  being  implemented  in  permits  represent  around  a  further  36  000 
installations. 

The  damage  costs  of  all  IED  installations’  emissions  to  air  declined  by  around  50% 
between 2010 and 201740. For the different IED sectors they have mostly declined, with 
the largest reduction being around 70% over  the period from 2007 to 2016. Declines in 
emissions to water are less marked with around a 30% reduction from 2010 to 2017 in 
aggregated cadmium, lead and mercury emissions, while phosphorus emissions reduced 
by around 17% and nitrogen by around 7%. 

The IED has also created EU-wide requirements for inspections of IED installations and 
common  requirements  for  ensuring  public  access  to  information  on  industry  emissions 
and access to justice.   

What does and what does not work and how that links to the intervention 

What does work? 

In general, the evaluation shows that stakeholders have a high degree of satisfaction with 
the IED and the main implementing acts adopted under it (i.e. the BAT conclusions). 

BREF process 

There  is  widespread  support  and  appreciation  for  the  process  of  drawing  up  and 
reviewing  BREFs.  This  participative  approach  to  evidence-based  establishment  of 
regulatory  requirements,  actively  involving  all  relevant  stakeholders  (Member  States, 
industry and environmental NGOs), while requiring a substantial effort is much praised. 
The main outputs of the process are the identification of BAT and the establishment of 

53 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/stationary/ied/legislation.htm 

69 

 
                                                            
BAT-AE(P)Ls. The benefits of the process are illustrated by the high degree of support 
for the BAT conclusions adopted. 

Permitting 

The  IED  requires  updating  of  permit  conditions  within  four  years  of  the  publication  of 
BAT conclusions in the Official Journal of the EU. The permits must be updated in line 
with BAT conclusions, although there is the possibility of derogations in limited cases. 
Permit  updates  have  largely  been  managed  within  the  required  time  period  with  the 
evidence available showing that permit ELVs are largely set within, but towards the least 
stringent end, of the BAT-AELs range and a limited number of time limited derogations 
are granted. 

Reducing distortion of competition 

The identification of BAT and their associated environmental performance at EU level is 
based  on  existing  imbalances  between  installations  with  a  good  environmental 
performance and others with a less good one. The performance levels of “best in class” 
installations are then generalised  across  all installations through the obligation to  apply 
BAT.  Through  this  process,  the  IED  has  strongly  contributed  to  reducing  competitive 
distortion within the EU based on environmental requirements.  

Reducing industry emissions 

There  are  challenges  to  separate  the  impact  of  the  IED  from  its  predecessor  legislation 
and other possible contributory factors. Nevertheless, decomposition analysis shows that 
reductions in LCP pollutant emissions are mainly due to lower emission factors driven by 
legislation.  Extrapolating  from  this,  it  seems  probable  that  the  IED  has  been  very 
important  in  reducing  emissions  to  air  from  large  agro-industrial  sources.  Reducing 
emissions to water appears to have been more challenging, and the impact is less certain 
due  to  poorer  data  and  the  fact  that  a  share  of  industrial  waste  water  is  transferred  to 
urban  waste  water  treatment  plants.  It  is  likely  that  the  IED  has  also  contributed  to 
minimising  emissions  to  soil.  By  helping  reduce  emissions  to  all  environmental 
compartments, the IED has contributed to addressing pollution, which is one driver of the 
decline of biodiversity. 

Cost-effectiveness 

The  assessment  of  various  aspects  of  the  IED  appears  to  show  that  it  is  cost-effective. 
Carrying out the identification of BAT at EU level is considerably cheaper than it would 
be if individual Member States were to carry out the same process themselves. 

The costs and benefits of implementing BAT conclusions have been assessed ex-post for 
one sector (Iron and Steel) and ex-ante for another (Large Combustion Plants). Although 
there  are  limitations,  these  cost-benefit  assessments  demonstrate,  for  these  sectors,  that 
the  quantifiable  benefits  are  significantly  higher  than  the  investment  costs.  Additional 
costs  of  compliance  (e.g.  baseline  reports,  inspections  and  monitoring)  with  the 

70 

 
legislation  have  also  been  roughly  quantified  and  this  does  not  alter  the  overall 
conclusion on cost-effectiveness.  

Promotion of BAT 

The main focus in the process of identification of BAT is on existing techniques, in line 
with the definition of BAT in the IED. The generalisation of the use of these techniques 
as  a  result  of  updating  emission  limits  in  permits  leads  to  an  expansion  of  the  market. 
This  expanded  market  has  potentially  led  to  an  increased  interest  from  equipment 
suppliers  in  offering  solutions  to  achieve  the  required  outcomes  more  cheaply  or  more 
effectively. Meanwhile, this is likely to have indirectly stimulated innovation. 

What works less well? 

The evaluation has identified a number of areas where the performance of the legislation 
does  not  appear  to  be  as  satisfactory  as  expected  or  required  by  the  latest  high-level 
policy objectives. The main areas are outlined below: 

Emerging techniques  

BREFs contain a chapter on emerging techniques which is intended to inform competent 
authorities  on  techniques  that  might  by  then  have  come  to  the  market.  This  chapter  is 
reported to have received little focus during the information exchange process since it did 
not  impact    the  BAT  conclusions  directly.  The  emerging  techniques  documented  are 
reported to have been rarely used in permitting practice and the specific provisions under 
Article 15(5) for testing emerging techniques have hardly been used.  

Clarification of legal requirements 

The IED has created a single legal framework from what were previously seven separate 
Directives. It is however clear from the Commission’s implementation support activities, 
discussions in  expert groups and the large number of ongoing enquiries about different 
aspects  of  the  legislation  that  there  remain  many  areas  of  uncertainty  or  differences  in 
interpretation. These differences limit convergence of the stringency of the requirements 
across the EU and may distort competition. 

GHG emissions / Decarbonisation 

While  most  of  the  CO2  emissions  from  IED  sectors  are  addressed  by  the  ETS,  and  are 
subject to a prohibition of setting ELVs for CO2 in IED permits, there remain some GHG 
emissions which are mainly addressed only indirectly through BAT and BAT-AEPLs on 
energy efficiency. BAT-AELs for GHG emissions have very rarely been set including for 
those where the current legal framework would have allowed it (i.e. for GHG emissions 
not covered by the ETS). 

As  increased  energy  efficiency  also  means  reduced  emissions  of  air  pollutants,  GHG 
emissions  have  always  been  considered  during  the  BREF  development.  Nevertheless, 

71 

 
BREFs  have    paid  little  attention  to  date  to  the  synergies  that  may  be  achievable  for 
addressing other pollutant emissions through decarbonisation techniques. 

The  Masterplan16  adopted  by  the  High  Level  Group  on  Energy  Intensive  Industries 
provides  further  context  to  this  evaluation  in  that  it  draws  attention  to  the  need  for  the 
IED  permitting  process  to  be  adapted  to  support  GHG  abatement  measures  throughout 
the  transition  period,  and  to  better  document  low  carbon  emission  technologies  under 
development in BREFs as potential emerging techniques. 

Reducing resource use and supporting the circular economy 

There  is  very  little  information  available  on  what  impact  the  IED  may  have  had  in 
addressing  non-emissions  aspects  such  as:  energy,  water  and  material  use,  as  well  as 
waste generation. Assessment in this area is hampered by commercial confidentiality, the 
reference  character  of  any  performance  levels  established  in  the  BAT  conclusions,  and 
other economic incentives already in place. 

Availability of data 

A  key  requirement  for  the  proper  functioning  of  the  BREF  review  process  and  BAT 
identification  is  the  provision  of  data,  especially  by  industry,  which  is  not  mandatory. 
There is usually a substantial amount of data provided, with typically 300 to 800 plant-
specific  questionnaires  submitted  for  the  drawing  up  or  review  of  a  BREF.  Data  is 
generally more easily available and in sufficient quantity and quality for pollutants that 
are already regulated and monitored. However, for emerging pollutants such monitoring 
data is generally limited which hampers the establishment of BAT conclusions. 

A  similar  constraint  exists  for  data  on  energy  and  resource  use,  waste  generation  and 
management as well as on the cost of techniques. For these, industry is less forthcoming 
and will often only supply such data if kept confidential. Limited data and their potential 
confidentiality hamper the operation of the information exchange process and the IED’s 
ability to address those issues.   

Implementation of BAT conclusions in permits  

There  is  limited  knowledge  about  the  implementation  of  BAT  conclusions  into  permit 
conditions and some concern exists that this may not be uniform across the EU. A first 
assessment of how BAT-AEL ranges in BREFs have been translated into emission limit 
values (ELVs) in permits has shown a widespread use of the least stringent value in the 
BAT-AEL range for setting ELVs in permits.  

Moreover, setting ELVs for indirect emissions to water seems in some cases challenging, 
as the IED provisions do not appear to have been understood in the intended way by all 
competent authorities.  

There  is  uncertainty  over  other  aspects,  as  it  is  extremely  unclear  if  how  other  BAT-
AEPLs are used, for example for energy, materials or water use, or if and how narrative 

72 

 
BAT  conclusions,  i.e.  not  directly  related  to  emission  values,  are translated  into  permit 
conditions. 

Access to information  

The IED’s provisions securing public access to information have not been adequately and 
consistently  applied  across  the  Member  States.  The  ongoing  implementation  of  the 
Industrial  Emissions  Registry  that  requires  linking  permits  to  installations,  as  well  as 
letters sent to Member States breaching accessibility of permit information should help to 
resolve these weaknesses.  

Public participation in the permitting procedure and access to justice 

Limited  information  is  available  about  the  extent  to  which  IED  provisions  have 
facilitated  public  participation  in  permitting  decisions  and  access  to  justice.  Anecdotal 
reports suggest that public participation in permitting procedures is rather limited overall. 
There are also a limited number of identified court cases relating to IED implementation. 
Overall, penalties for non-respect of permit conditions vary significantly among Member 
States and appear largely unchanged from those under the previous legislation. 

Lessons learnt  

The  IED  combined  seven  prior  directives  and  aimed  to  simplify  the  legal  framework 
while strengthening their requirements. Generally, this appears to have been achieved. 

The main mechanism through which environmental requirements are regularly reviewed 
and tightened, where justified, are the  BREF reviews. This process existed prior to the 
IED but it has been given a more formal structure under the IED. It has been subject to 
continuous  refinement  and  improvement,  and  has  been  recognised  as  a  model  of 
participative governance.  

The  scope  of  the  IED  was  the  subject  of  a  thorough  analysis  when  the  IED  was  being 
designed.  It  however  remains  an  important  issue  since  the  legislation  may  result  in 
important  boundary  impacts,  where  for  example  new  installations  are  built  with  a 
capacity just below the IED threshold to avoid its requirements.  

Implementation  activities  carried  out  at  EU  level,  for  example  meetings  of  the  IED 
Forum  and  Technical  Working  Groups,  are  relatively  accessible  and  transparent, 
especially to relevant stakeholders. However, in contrast, EU knowledge on how the IED 
provisions are actually implemented at Member State level is limited. This is in part due 
to the complexity caused by the large number of installations and, consequently, permits 
that  require  revision,  the  volume  and  complexity  of  technical  documentation,  different 
levels of Member States administration (e.g. regional, local) charged with permit writing 
and  their  available  expertise  and  language  capabilities,  as  well  as  some  uncertainties 
regarding the legal status of specific IED provisions. 

The IED makes a substantial contribution to a number of other pieces of EU legislation 
and  policies,  in  particular  those  concerning  air  and  water  quality  and  soil  protection. 

73 

 
However,  it  is  hard  to  establish  what  impact  the  IED  has,  and  whether  the  BAT 
conclusions,  through  the  setting  of  permit  conditions,  have  an  important  role  for  other 
policy areas such as energy efficiency, decarbonisation, water use or circular economy. 
Moreover,  gathering  such  evidence  is  difficult  due  to  the  confidentiality  of  sensitive 
business information. 

It  is  generally  agreed  that  the  IED  has  a  high  degree  of  coherence  both  internally  and 
with other EU policies and legislation.  

The  E-PRTR  Regulation  provides  important  information  on  the  quantity  of  emissions 
from  the  IED  sectors.  However,  the  quality  of  this  information  is  hampered  by 
misalignment in some areas as well as its thresholds for emissions to be reported, which 
reduce  both  the  quantity  and  quality  of  the  reported  information.  This  is  an  important 
weakness. 

Emissions  from  the  industrial  sectors  covered  by  the  IED,  as  well  as  the  resource  use 
within  them,  remain  significant.  Reducing  the  emissions  and  resource  consumption,  as 
well as encouraging the use of secondary raw materials and industrial symbiosis, remain 
highly relevant EU policy objectives. In view of this, it is clear both from literature and 
from stakeholder feedback that the IED remains relevant to EU needs.  

In view of the large degree of support for the way the IED functions and its support for 
fair competition across the single market, it is unsurprising that stakeholders believe that 
the  legislation  provides  a  high  EU  added  value.  It  is  clear  that  action  only  at  Member 
State  level  would  not  achieve  the  objective  of  reducing  distortions  of  competition  and 
would lead to a lower overall reduction in environmental impacts. Replicating the BREF 
production process at Member State level would lead to a multiplication of the resource 
needs and cost while probably delivering a lower overall benefit. 

Does performance match expectations? 

The IED definitely fulfils its role in reducing pollutant emissions to air. In general, the 
overall trend seen with regard to emissions for all pollutants and sectors is that they are 
continuously decreasing.  

However, for emissions to water, it is harder to be certain, due to the lower quality of the 
data.  Nevertheless,  it  appears  that  emissions  are  reducing,  albeit  less  rapidly  than  the 
emissions  to  air,  and  that  the  IED  is  not  delivering  as  much  as  expected.  This  view  is 
largely shared by stakeholders. 

For  resource  efficiency  and  circular  economy,  IED  impacts  are  uncertain,  and 
stakeholders are divided on the matter. It is not clear what expectations there were over 
the  contribution  that  the  IED  could  make,  although  the  fact  that  these  aspects  of  BAT 
conclusions do not  have a legally  binding  status suggests that the expected benefit was 
lower than for pollutant emissions. 

74 

 
The  lack  of  identifiable  impact  on  greenhouse  gas  (GHG)  emissions  is  largely  in  line 
with  expectations  since  the  setting  of  ELVs  for  GHGs  in  permits  for  IED  installations 
that  fall  within  the  ETS  scope  was  explicitly  excluded  from  the  IED  at  the  time  of  its 
design,  in  order  to  avoid  duplication  of  regulation.  Furthermore,  for  such  installations, 
permitting  authorities  may  choose  not  to  impose  requirements  relating  to  energy 
efficiency.  However,  identifying  GHG  emissions  abatement  and  energy  efficiency 
techniques is within the scope of the IED for all sectors and a number of BAT and BAT-
AEPLs on energy efficiency have been established.  

Overall, as far as information is available, implementation of the IED does appear to be 
largely in line with expectations. Some of the biggest uncertainties about its impact, and 
therefore  whether  this  is  in  line  with  expectations,  relate  to  implementation  at  Member 
State or regional or local level. 

Is the IED’s level of ambition sufficient in the context of the European Green Deal? 

Since the environmental impacts of IED sectors remain significant, they are pertinent for 
the European Green Deal and its Zero Pollution ambition. 

The overall level of environmental ambition of the IED is largely driven by its definition 
of  BAT.  The  environmental  performance  of  IED  installations  has  generally  improved, 
however, there is still untapped emission reduction potential as only a minor share of the 
installations is required to reduce their emissions towards the lower end of the BAT-AEL 
ranges  prescribed  by  the  BATCs.  In  the  future,  there  may  be  synergies  with 
decarbonisation  (e.g.  replacement  of  fossil  fuel  combustion  with  electric  or  hydrogen-
based processes). 

A  key  question  is  therefore  whether  the  current  BAT  definition  is  sufficient  for  the 
ambition of the European Green Deal. If not, how can a higher ambition be balanced with 
what  is  “economically  viable”,  how  can  that  be  financed  and  what  would  be  its 
implications, e.g. for industry competitiveness? 

The  IED  has  had  uncertain  impacts  on  the  circular  economy  and  was  not  designed  to 
address decarbonisation. Another important question is therefore whether the IED is  fit 
for  accompanying  the  move  towards  a  carbon-neutral,  zero-pollution  and  circular 
economy.  

Are there issues that need to be addressed? 

The evaluation identifies a number of issues that are unlikely to resolve themselves over 
time. These are grouped below into areas: 

Scope 

The assessment shows that there may be (agro-)industrial sectors outside the current IED 
scope with high environmental impacts. Most of them have been assessed for inclusion 
previously, resulting in a decision to leave them outside the scope. However, in view of 

75 

 
policy changes over time, it could be investigated whether their impacts are sufficiently 
large to be addressed, and how, if it is appropriate to do so. 

As the environmental performance of the sectors regulated under the IED has improved, 
this  might  lead  to  installations  under  the  threshold  becoming  increasingly  relevant  in 
terms of their environmental impacts. 

In  view  of  this,  the  thresholds  for  the  IED  sectors  need  to  be  kept  under  review  and  if 
appropriate, further activities added. 

Member State implementation 

There are a number of areas with differences among Member States with respect to the 
implementation  of  EU  requirements.  These  include  the  implementation  of  BAT 
conclusions into permits, verification of compliance and application of proportionate and 
dissuasive  fines  where  necessary,  ensuring  public  access  to  information,  facilitating 
participation in decision making and access to justice. The Commission made efforts to 
support  Member  State  implementation  in  these  areas  with  a  view  to  further 
harmonisation, but more in-depth consideration seems justified.  

Circular economy 

The IED appears to be less effective in its contribution to energy, water or other resource 
efficiency, and to the wider circular economy approach. The Commission has carried out 
some  preliminary  investigations  of  these  areas  to  better  understand  the  situation  and 
potential.  Further reflection is needed on whether these aspects, including the re-use  of 
reclaimed  (industrial  or  urban)  waste  water  in  industrial  processes,  or  the  relation  with 
the  Landfill  Directive  can  be  enhanced.  The  new  Circular  Economy  Action  Plan54 
confirms the need for further action to facilitate water reuse and efficiency, including in 
industrial processes. 

BREF review process 

There  is  a  continuous  effort  to  improve  the  process  for  the  elaboration  of  BREFs  and 
BAT  conclusions.  Nevertheless,  as  the  current  BREF  review  cycle  is  nearing  its  end, 
there  is  merit  in  considering  what  the  priorities  are  and  the  potential  for  further 
improvements to decide whether any re-focussing of effort is justified. 

It  is  expected  that  the  variation  in  environmental  performance  of  IED  installations in  a 
given sector has reduced, compared to the time when the IED was put in place. This may 
have  implications  for  identifying  BAT  in  the  next  BREF  review  cycle.  Therefore,  it 
might be necessary in the future to also rely on considerations that go beyond the current 
criteria for assessing the environmental performance of installations.  

54 COM(2020) 98 Final of 11 March 2020 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1583933814386&uri=COM:2020:98:FIN 

76 

 
                                                            
Timeliness 

The IED contributes to achieving environmental goals set in other legislation. However, 
the  IED  approach,  involving  BREF  reviews  and  then  permit  updating,  results  in  an 
almost  a  ten  year  time  lag  to  implement  requirements  based  on  the  achievable 
performance level at the start of the process. This time lag limits the contribution of the 
IED sectors to achieving the overall environmental policy objectives. Further reflection 
on ways to enhance the process and reduce the time lag is desirable. 

Greenhouse gas emissions 

In 2020, with Europe’s stated ambition to achieve climate-neutrality by 2050, effectively 
tackling  GHG  emissions  has  become  more  important  compared  to  when  the  IED  was 
adopted back in 2010. In addition, the time frame for action is shorter than at the time of 
the IED development, with a clear recognition that energy-intensive industries also need 
to  start  planning  and  taking  action  to  reduce  and,  where  possible,  eliminate  their  GHG 
emissions  along  with  their  other  impacts.  There  has  so  far been  little  investigation  into 
the  potential  of  the  IED  to  support  industry  decarbonisation  and  this  merits  further 
reflection.  

In  addition,  further  action  under  IED  for  curbing  methane  emissions  could  not  only 
contribute  to  decarbonisation  but  also  reduce  a  precursor  of  ozone,  a  harmful  air 
pollutant.  The  NEC  Directive  includes  a  Commission  declaration  reminding  of  these 
links  and  the  intention  to  consider  measures  for  reducing  methane  emissions,  and  if 
appropriate, submit a legislative proposal to that end. 

Coherence with other legislation 

While there is overall a high degree of coherence, it is desirable to explore whether more 
can be done to enhance the IED’s contribution to and interaction with other policy areas. 
One key aspect is the contribution to water policy which heavily depends, as far as point 
source  pollution is  concerned,  on  the  correct  implementation  of  the IED.  Here  the  IED 
appears to be less effective and reflection is desirable for a more extensive and coherent 
approach to address water quality (emissions) and quantity (through water efficiency and 
water  re-use).  Other  aspects  are 
the  circular  economy  and 
decarbonisation  topics,  for  example  exploring  whether  more  can  be  done  to  address 
energy efficiency. 

interlinked  with 

Emerging techniques and innovation 

To  boost  the  identification  of  emerging  techniques,  the  Commission  has  established  a 
pilot Industrial Emissions Innovation Observatory to reach a broader set of stakeholders 
involved  in  research  and  development  of  new  techniques  to  reduce  the  environmental 
impacts  of  different  IED  sectors.  This  has  gathered  a  large  amount  of  information  on 
emerging techniques, which has been used as input for some recent BREFs. Based upon 
this, it seems desirable to expand and continue this work in the future, also to address the 
challenges of emissions reduction and efficiency in resource use. 

77 

 
The Industrial Emissions Innovation Observatory has also become increasingly relevant 
as the European Green Deal will require industry to undergo major transformations. 

Public access to information and participation  

There  is  limited  knowledge  about  the  ease  of  public  access  to  information  about  IED 
installations,  of  public  involvement  in  permitting  decisions  and,  if  necessary,  of  the 
ability to seek legal redress. Further work on the IED registry and efforts to ensure full 
compliance  with  the  IED  legal  requirements  will  be  an  important  step.  Nevertheless 
consideration could be given to further actions in these areas. 

One  important  aspect  to  improve  public  information  will  be  to  address  the  interaction 
with the E-PRTR Regulation. This could be improved to ensure that the latter provides 
more  accurate  information  and  better  aligns  with  the  sectors  covered  by  the  IED.  This 
may require addressing the activities covered as well as the reporting thresholds. 

The  Commission  will  carefully  take  into  account  concerns  raised  by  the  Aarhus 
Convention Compliance Committee related to public participation in this field, also with 
a  view  to  making  it  easier,  for  concerned  parties,  to  seek  judicial  review  where 
appropriate. 

Digitalisation 

Another area for possible efficiency gains in the process for developing BREFs is the use 
of  digital  solutions.  Recent  innovations  have  involved  the  use  of  advanced  data 
visualisation software to enable the Technical Working Groups to better understand the 
data gathered and reduce the burden on the EIPPCB to produce different visualisations. 

A wide range of other possibilities are being explored. For example, real time emissions 
monitoring  data  could  be  made  available  online,  as  is  the  case  in  Croatia  for  example. 
This  has  value  in  terms  of  transparency,  public  access  to  information  and  could  also 
support the BREF process. Moreover, it could be used to quickly acquire direct access to 
information  on  installation  emissions,  supporting  the  questionnaire  process,  and 
facilitating emissions reporting. There would be  many aspects to consider, not least the 
availability and quality of the data. 

Other aspects that may merit further investigation are the use of satellite monitoring data 
for  large  point  sources  and  possible  applications  of  artificial  intelligence  to  assessing 
permits. 

78 

 
Annex 1: Procedural information 

1.  LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

This  evaluation  is  led  by  DG  Environment  (DG  ENV).  It  was  included  as  item 
PLAN/2018/3301  in  the  DECIDE/Agenda  Planning  database.  The  roadmap  for  the 
initiative was published on 6 November 2018. 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

In  October  2018,  an  inter-service  steering  group  (ISSG)  was  set  up  for  the  IED 
evaluation, including members from all relevant Directorate Generals: 

  Secretariat General (SG) 
  Legal Service (LS) 
  Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) 
  Environment (ENV) 
  Climate Action (CLIMA) 
  Energy (ENER) 
  Health and Food Safety (SANTE) 
 
  Joint Research Centre (JRC) 
  Research and Innovation (RTD) 

Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (GROW) 

The group met four times during the evaluation process, as shown in Table A1-1. On a 
number  of  deliverables,  the  group  was  consulted  also  in  writing.  The  members  of  the 
group  were  invited  to  the  two  stakeholder  workshops  organised  in  the  context  of  the 
consultation process described in Annex 2. 

ISSG Meeting Date 

1.  15/11/2018 

2.  13/3/2019 

Discussion Topics 

Introduction to the IED, Evaluation Roadmap, Terms of 
Reference for the support study, Consultation Strategy 

Intervention  logic,  Evaluation  matrix,  Questionnaire 
Open  Public  Consultation,  Stakeholder  categories  and 
instruments,  Workshop  (attendees,  structure,  etc.), 
Targeted Consultations (online survey, interviews, focus 
groups), Support study timetable 

3.  13/11/2019 

Interim report of the support study, Preliminary findings 

4.  12/02/2020 

Draft  final  report  of  the  support  study,  Draft  Staff 
Working Document 

Table A1-1: Meetings of the Inter-Service Steering Group 

Table A1-3 under point 5 “Evidence, sources and quality” provides an overview and the 
timetable of the different stakeholders’ consultations.  

79 

 
 
3.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 

There were no exceptions to the Better Regulation Guidelines55 during this evaluation. 

4.  CONSULTATION OF THE RSB  

An upstream meeting was held with the Regulatory Scrutiny Board on 18 June 2019. 

On 29 April 2020 the RSB meeting discussing the draft SWD was held. The RSB gave 
its positive opinion on 4 May and made some suggestions for improvement. Table A1-2 
shows these considerations and how they were addressed. 

(BAT) 

techniques 

Main considerations by the RSB 
1.  The  report  does  not  sufficiently  explain 
to what extent the processes put in place 
by the Directive contribute to innovation 
and  are  compatible  with  the  European 
Green Deal ambitions. 
The  report  should  explain  better  the 
interaction  between  market  forces,  best 
available 
and 
innovation. It should clarify the extent to 
which  the  Directive  was  expected  to 
through  which 
promote 
mechanisms  and  whether  or  not  they 
have  been  effective.  The  report  should 
the 
revision 
discuss  whether 
long 
process 
sector  BAT 
specific 
Reference  Documents  has  been  able  to 
keep  up with  fast-paced and  continuous 
should 
innovation.  The 
further  clarify  the  role  of  the  Directive 
in  promoting  innovative  techniques  in 
different  sectors,  in  the  context  of  the 
European  Green  Deal  ambitions.  It 
should 
limitations  of 
the 
identify 
processes in this regard. 

innovation, 

evaluation 

of 

2.  The  report  does  not  fully  analyse  the 
coherence  with  other  related  pieces  of 
legislation. 
in 
The 
analysing  the  coherence  with  related 
pieces  of  legislation,  in  particular  with 
the  European  Pollutant  Release  and 
Transfer  Register.  Overlaps,  gaps  and 

should  go  deeper 

report 

How they were addressed 

Introduction of a new detailed Section 
3.6 “Innovation”. 
Introduction  of  a  new  Sub-section  “Is 
the  IED’s  level  of  ambition  sufficient 
in  the  context  of  the  European  Green 
Deal?” under Section 6 - Conclusions. 
Additional explanatory text on circular 
economy was added to Section 5 1(a). 

Introduction of a new detailed Annex 8 
-  Coherence  with 
related  EU 
legislation. 

55 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation-why-

and-how/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en 

80 

 
                                                            
inconsistencies,  including  those  with 
monitoring requirements may need more 
explanation.  The 
report  could  also 
clarify  the  role  of  the  Directive  in 
applying  the  Aarhus  Convention  on 
public 
access 
participation  in  decision-making  and 
in  environmental 
access 
matters.  The 
could  better 
report 
substantiate that there is no conflict with 
emissions trading or other instruments to 
contain industrial emissions. 

information, 

justice 

to 

to 

Several  explanatory  paragraphs  were 
added  to  Section  3.3  “Production  of 
BREFs  and  implementation  of  BAT 
conclusions”, and to Section 5 2(a). 

The  wording  of  the  conclusions  was 
refined  accordingly,  in  particular  the 
sections  on  permitting,  emissions, 
cost-effectiveness 
cost-benefit 
assessment. 

and 

3.  The evaluation does not capture whether 
the  economic  viability  of  best  available 
techniques  at  sector  level  might  favour 
operators in certain Member States. 
The  analysis  used  for  establishing  best 
available 
techniques  considers  cost-
effectiveness  and  economic  viability  of 
the technology at sectoral level. Because 
of  differences  in  the  availability  of 
resources 
to  operate  BATs  across 
Member States, their introduction  could 
favour  certain  types  of  operators  and 
countries.  From  this  perspective,  the 
report should clarify possible limitations 
of this sectoral approach. 

4.  Some  conclusions  appear  to  overstate 

is  welcome,  but 

the findings of the evaluation. 
robustness  of 
indication  of 
The 
conclusions 
the 
conclusions  themselves  should  be  more 
nuanced to fairly reflect all the findings. 
The  presentation  of  conclusions  under 
each evaluation question is repetitive. A 
different  presentation  (less  based  on 
evaluation  questions)  would  arguably 
result in shorter, less repetitive and more 
informative conclusions. 

Additional comments 

How they were addressed 

It  is  not  clear  why  the  implementing 
decisions  on  BATs  are  not  included  in 
the scope of the evaluation. 

The  intervention  logic  lacks  a  simple 
logic  explaining  how 
the  different 
processes put  in  place as  a result of the 
Directive  contribute  to  its  objectives,  in 
particular to emissions’ reduction. 

A  more  detailed  reasoning  was  added 
to Section 1 “Introduction”. 

A simplified sequence of interventions 
was 
introduced  under  Section  2.4 
“Intervention logic”. 

81 

 
 
 
 
The  different  baselines  used  throughout 
the analysis could be better explained. 

Additional explanatory text was added 
to  Section  2.5  “Industrial  emissions 
policy context prior to 2010”. 

The  factual  evidence  stems  mainly 
from the circa 23 Commission studies 
carried  out  prior  to  this  evaluation. 
They are now listed in a new Annex 11 
sources)”, 
“Reference 
the  public 
including 
CIRCABC repository. 

(main 
to 

link 

the 

list 

Additional explanatory text was added 
to Section 3.1 “Current situation”. 

Additional explanatory text was added 
to Section 5.1(i). 

list  with 

A 
the  main  changes 
introduced by the IED with  respect to 
the preceding IPPC regime was added 
in  a  new  Section  2.7.  Main  changes 
with respect to the IPPCD 

The  principle  of 
triangulation  of 
different  sources  has  been  applied. 
However, the factual evidence collected 
is relatively limited. 

pending 

Transposition  of  the  EID  was  due  by  1 
January  2013.  Nevertheless,  there  are 
still 
regarding 
transposition or implementation in 15 or 
16 Member States. How does this affect 
effectiveness? 

issues 

The  ex-post  assessment  of  the  iron  and 
steel BAT conclusions argued that these 
impacted  only  about  20%  of  processes 
in  that  sector.  What  conclusions  can  be 
drawn  from  this?  Are  BAT  conclusions 
only partially relevant for the permitting 
process? 

The  IED  is  the  result  of  bringing 
together seven pieces of legislation. The 
overall  conclusions  could  give  a  better 
assessment  of  the  extent  to  which  this 
Directive has streamlined and improved 
previous  measures.  A 
list  with  all 
improvements  would  have  been  helpful 
(for example, mandatory nature of BAT 
conclusions). 

Table A1-2: RSB comments 

5.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

Support study  

The  study  "Support  to  the  evaluation  of  the  Industrial  Emissions  Directive  (Directive 
2010/75/EU)"  provided  substantial  support  for  the  Commission  Evaluation  of  the 
Directive. The contract was signed on 27 February 2019. The contract was carried out by 
a consortium of experts led by Ricardo Energy and Environment, comprising also Milieu, 
Umweltbundesamt (UBA Austria), and ELLE. The final report of the study was accepted 
on 15/05/2020.  

82 

 
 
 
Stakeholder consultation  

Consulting a wide range of stakeholders has been an important instrument for gathering 
information,  evidence,  and  validating  data  and  preliminary  findings  (see  Annex  3, 
Stakeholder consultation). A1-3 provides an overview and the timetable of the different 
consultations.  

Date / Period 

22 May 2019 

Stakeholders consultation 

First stakeholders workshop 

May - September 2019 

Open Public Consultation (OPC) 

June - September 2019 

Targeted Consultation Survey 

15 October 2020 
2nd half 2019 

Two Focus Groups 

Interviews 

17 December 2019 

Final stakeholders workshop 

Table A1-3: Timetable of stakeholder consultations  

Evidence from selected studies and documents 

A wide range of information sources have been used. Evidence has been collected from 
around 200 different documents including some 24 studies carried out for the European 
Commission, all listed in Annex 11. 

83 

 
Annex 2: Intervention Logic 

84 

 
 
 
Annex 3: Summary evaluation matrix 
The evaluation questions define the scope of the evaluation and map closely onto the intervention logic. The evaluation methods are designed to gather the evidence required 
to answer the questions and are presented in the evaluation matrix. Against each question are mapped: 

Indicators: potential indicators to measure the respective impacts and the different components of the intervention logic.  

  Assessment criteria: the operational questions to answer; used to develop questions to be asked to stakeholders.  
 
  Data analysis approach: description of the overall approach, methods and tools used.  
  Data sources and data collection methods: key sources to use to answer the question and how data may be gathered.  

Table A3-1: Evaluation matrix - effectiveness 

Sub-questions 

Assessment criteria 

Indicators 

Data analysis approach 

Data sources and collection methods 

media) 

Level  of  emissions  (to  different 
environmental 
from 
industrial activities (total of all IED 
activities,  and  split  by  sector)  by 
pollutant type 
Number/type of pollutants captured 

been 

from 

other 

reduced 

Pollution from IED activities 
has 
/ 
eliminated 
IED Annex II pollutants 
What 
influenced the outcome 

EQ1. To what extent has the IED achieved its objectives? 
a. 
To  what  extent  has 
contributed 
to 
the 
IED 
far  as 
(as 
reducing  and 
possible) eliminating pollution 
arising 
industrial 
activities?  To  what  extent  can 
reasonably  be 
the  effects 
credited to the IED? 
Are 
industrial 
any 
there 
activities  that  fall  outside  of 
the scope of the IED (partially 
or  fully)  which  generate  high 
levels of pollution?  
Have 
any 
been 
that  have  been 
pollutants 
the 
outside 
omitted/fallen 
scope of the Directive?  

factors 

there 

the 

Has 

b. 
IED 
strengthened  provisions  on 
and 
enforcement 
environmental improvement? 

Evidence  effectiveness  of 
inspections  and  enforcement 
checks/tools has improved in 
the  prior 
to 
comparison 

Number/frequency  of  enforcement 
checks 
Levels of (non) compliance 

85 

activities 

industrial 

Quantitative analysis of some emissions to 
air and water for some sectors: 
Evolution  in  emissions  by  category  of 
pollutant  and  sector  since  IED  adoption 
compared with baseline 
Contribution  of  IED  to  NEC  goals  for 
NOx,  SOx  and  dust  for  GLS,  CLM,  REF, 
P&P in selected MS.  
Mapping 
of 
identifying those under IED 
Gap between reported emissions in BREF 
questionnaires  and  WBP  and  FDM  BAT-
AELs to estimate emission reductions.  
Gap  between  ELV  in  IED  Annexes  and 
BAT-AEL in relevant BATc  
For  chosen  pollutants,  compare  emissions 
under IED and outside and pollution share 
captured by scope of IED. 
BAT-implementation  mentions  in  NECD 
National 
Control 
Programmes. 
BAT-AELs 
for  hazardous  substances 
versus  sectors  in  literature;  MS  ELVs 
versus BAT-AEL; Hg inventory analysis 
Quantitative analysis: 
compliance/non-compliance 
Analyse 
levels and level of penalties by sector and 
over  time  on  the  basis  of  data  from 

Pollution 

Air 

Databases  /  reports  with  emissions  (E-
PRTR, LCP inventories, air emission and 
water emission inventories) 
Review of literature  
Stakeholder consultation 
BREFs 
and  BATC 
questionnaires  
MS IED implementation reporting  
Sample of permits on cement, P&P, GLS 
and REF regarding Hg, SOx and NOx (6 
in total) 

and  BREF 

Data sources e.g. IMPEL studies 
Surveys of authorities  
Workshop with expert groups (IEEG, Art 
75,  Art  13)  and  other  groups  such  as 

 
Sub-questions 
c. 
to 
(IPPC)? 

How does it compare 
situation 

the  previous 

Indicators 
Penalties levied 

Assessment criteria 
situation under IPPCD  
that  use  of  an 
Evidence 
integrated 
has 
contributed to more effective 
enforcement 
Reduced 
compliance  

levels  of  non-

permit 

Has 

d. 
the  Directive 
stimulated  innovation  in  the 
prevention  and  control  of 
pollution 
industrial 
from 
activities? 

Presence of evidence that the 
IED has led to an increase in 
the  number  of  new/novel 
techniques being developed / 
adopted as BAT 

e. 
simplification 
legislation 
unnecessary 
burden? 

Has  the  IED  led  to 
the 
of 
and 
cut 
administrative 

of 

Replacement 
the 
predecessor  Directives  with 
the  IED  has  simplified  the 
legislation  
Implementation  of  the  IED 
has  led  to  a  reduction  of 
administrative  costs/burden 
in  comparison  to  costs  prior 
to its adoption 

/ 

test 

technique  evolution, 
Abatement 
R&D  on  better  industrial  process 
efficiency. 
Number  of  IED  installations  using 
test  emerging 
to 
Article  15(5) 
techniques.  
Share  of 
indicating 
installations 
IED  played  a  role  in  decision  to 
/  adopt  new 
develop 
technologies 
Techniques  moving  from  emerging 
to BAT between BREF reviews 
to 
Number  of  non-IED  efforts 
stimulate  industrial  innovation  e.g. 
FP6/FP7/Horizon2020 
One-off costs related to: 
New 
operator 
requirements  
New permit applications  
reviews 
Permit 
publication of BATC 
Participation 
processes 
Ongoing costs related to: 
Compliance  assessment  by  MS  of 

in  BREF 

understand 

following 

review 

to 

86 

views 

reasons  and 

Data analysis approach 
literature  and  responses  to  the  survey  of 
authorities 
Analyse  non-compliance 
evolution over time. 
Input  from  authorities  on  appropriateness 
/effectiveness of current enforcement tools 
(semi-quantitative assessment) 
on 
stakeholder 
Qualitative: 
enforcement evolution under IED. Groups 
such  as 
toward  more 
IMPEL  hint 
coordinated enforcement 
IED 
18 
Article 
implementation  reports.  Complemented 
with  input  from  authorities  if  Article  18 
provisions are applied or not and why.  
Assess  BREFs  /  BATc  to  identify  new 
techniques included.  
Analyse  MS  IED  reports  for  share  of 
installations testing emerging techniques 
Operator  survey  responses  on  extent  IED 
implementation 
/ 
testing  /  adoption  of  new  techniques  that 
wouldn’t have happened otherwise.  
Review  FP6/FP7/Horizon2020  literature 
to stimulate industrial innovation to assess 
other drivers 

to  development 

from  MS 

use 

led 

Data sources and collection methods 
IMPEL 
IED impact assessment 

studies 

relevant 

including 

Review 
industrial innovation observatory. 
MS IED implementation reporting 
Survey operators covered by the IED and 
interviews with industry associations  
Interviews  with 
members, 
EIT 
organisations.  
FP6/FP7/Horizon2020 
programmes 

TWG 
research 

EIPPCB, 

research 

and 

Qualitative 
ease  of 
assessment  of 
understanding the IED versus predecessor 
directives.  
(Semi) Quantitative: 
data from studies to assess extent different 
types  of  administrative  burden  have 
reduced since IED adoption 
complement  with  qualitative  input  from 
industry  and  regulatory  authorities  asked 
the  extent  administrative 
to 
burden  has  changed,  providing  examples 

indicate 

Review relevant literature including IED 
implementation  reports  and  IED  impact 
assessment 
industrial 
Survey/interview 
installation  operators 
and  of  MS 
competent  authorities  (legislators  and 
permit writers) 

of 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub-questions 

Assessment criteria 

the 

Has 

f. 
IED 
strengthened  public  access  to 
information?  
How  does  it  compare  to  the 
previous situation (IPPC)? 

Has 

g. 
IED 
strengthened  public  access  to 
justice? 

the 

Evidence that level of public 
access  to  information  has 
improved  in  comparison  to 
the  prior  situation  under 
IPPCD  

level  of  public 
Evidence 
access 
has 
improved  in  comparison  to 
situation under IPPCD 

justice 

to 

Indicators 
monitoring 
Reporting information to authorities 
and from MSs to the Commission.  
Other costs / savings  
Number  of  MS  providing  permits 
online  accessible 
the  public 
(includes consultations on new and 
revised permits and derogations) 
Level  of  stakeholder  agreement 
that  public  access  to  information 
has improved since IED adoption  

to 

Level  of  stakeholder  agreement 
that  public  access  to  justice  has 
improved since IED adoption 
Case study focus 

EQ2. How effective is the process of elaborating BREFs and BAT Conclusions? 
a. 
To  what  extent  does 
the BREF process identify the 
techniques  that  are  the  most 
effective 
(and 
identify  the  most  appropriate 
associated 
or 
for 
performance 
achieving  a  high 
level  of 
environmental protection?  

emission 
levels) 

techniques 

Overview of benefits from applying 
BREFs and BATc. 
Comparison of efforts and benefits. 
Stakeholder  views  on  effective 
interaction in TWG. 
Has  BREF  process  has  been  data 
and evidence based  
Transparency 
of 
information/technology gathering 
BREF process timescales. 
Number  of  TWG  members  broken 
down by MS and industry 
Number of comments on a BREF. 

data 

and 

the 

upper  BAT-AEL 
environmental 

Extent 
to  which  BATc 
include BAT-AE(P)Ls based 
available 
best 
on 
techniques  to  achieve  high 
level 
environmental 
of 
protection.  
Stakeholder groups in TWG 
BATc  ambitious  enough  to 
lower emissions.  
Does 
trigger 
improvement? 
Are 
challenging than others 
BAT-AELs 
distinguishing 
new  and  existing  plants; 
what is the consequence?  
Transparency  from  data  and 
technology 
to 
BAT-AELs. 
Criteria to set BAT-AEL 
Main  conflict  areas  when 
setting BAT AELs 
TWG 

some  BATc  more 

evaluation 

access 

assess 

to 

87 

Data analysis approach 
of costs under IPPCD and IED. 
Compare  administrative  costs 
in  IED 
impact  assessment  and  costs  established 
via (primarily) stakeholder survey 

Data sources and collection methods 

Quantitative 
Data on MS providing permit information 
accessible online.   
Stakeholder  feedback  (authorities,  NGOs) 
to  qualitatively  assess  the  extent  IED  has 
made 
easier 
compared to previous situation 
Stakeholder  feedback  (authorities,  NGOs) 
to  qualitatively  assess  the  extent  that  the 
IED  has  made  access  to  justice  easier 
compared to previous situation 

information 

access 

to 

that  are 

The  objectives  of  BREFs  and  BATc  are 
identifying  BAT 
the  most 
effective  techniques  to  achieve  a  high 
level  of  environmental  protection,  taking 
into  account 
the  costs  and  benefits. 
Important  to  consider  whether  this  has 
been  achieved  through  review  of  upper 
and  lower  BAT-AELs,  ELVs,  emission 
data  and 
literature  and 
engagement with stakeholders (regulators, 
technology 
NGOs, 
providers). 
explore 
Stakeholder 
whether  process 
into  account 
viewpoints  across  industry,  technology 
suppliers 
effectively 
without bias. 

consultation 

inventories, 

regulators 

industry 

takes 

and 

and 

to 

reports  on  public  access 

Review  of  relevant  literature  including 
MS  IED  implementation  reports  and 
to 
NGO 
information e.g. EEB report “Burning the 
evidence”.   
Survey/interview of NGOs 
Feedback from the OPC 
Survey/interview of NGOs. 
One  targeted  survey  question  on  access 
to information relates to access to justice. 

and  benefits  of 

Review  of  relevant  literature  (including 
ICF 2013) including studies assessing the 
the  BAT 
costs 
Conclusions (e.g. Ricardo 2016, 2018).  
Survey/interviews/workshops 
of 
regulators,  operators,  NGOs,  technology 
providers, EIPPCB, TWG members.  
Focus group on the BREF process.  
BREFs and BATC 
New  level  of  environmental  protection 
(BAT  AEL)  vs  old  level  (“old”  ELVs 
e.g. in Annexes of IED) 

 
 
 
Sub-questions 

Does 

b. 
the  BREF 
process  sufficiently  consider 
both  costs  and  benefits  in 
identifying  the  best  available 
techniques? 
c. 
To  what  extent  has 
the  IED  supported  Member 
States  in  implementing  BAT-
based permitting? 
d. 
To  what  degree  are 
exceptions taken up that result 
in  permits  not  being  based  on 
BAT? 

questions 

Assessment criteria 
information,  comments  and 
ask 
(quality 
check). 
of 
Cost 
identified BATs are properly 
identified.  

benefits 

and 

Indicators 

Data analysis approach 

Data sources and collection methods 

Proportion  of  BATc  demonstrably 
based  on  sufficient  economic  and 
environmental  data.  Stakeholder 
views (EIPPCB, industry, NGOs) 

assessment 

of  whether 
Qualitative 
judgements  made  in  deciding  on  BAT 
have  sufficient  evidence  to  judge  both 
costs and benefits of techniques.  

of 

regulators, 
Survey/interviews 
operators,  NGOs,  technology  providers, 
EIPPCB.  
BREF process Focus group. 

to 

How straightforward is it for 
MS  authorities 
issue 
permits  based  on  BAT?  Are 
the  BREF 
findings  from 
BATc 
process 
accessible 
to 
implement BAT in permits?  

and 
to  MS 

Permit  conditions  have  been  based 
on BAT 
Number  and  type  of  derogations 
applied for and granted (many may 
imply  the  BATc  was  difficult  to 
implement) 
Commission guidance  
Feedback from MS authorities 

Quantitative analysis:  
Review  MS  implementation  reports  to 
identify  how  BATc  have  been  used  in 
permits. 
Review  MS  reports,  studies  and  other 
sources  to  identify  numbers  of  Article 
15(4) derogations applied for and accepted 
by activity, pollutant, BATc.  
Qualitative  analysis:  regulator  feedback 
how BREFs and BATc have been used in 
permitting. 

e.g. 

literature 

Review 
MS 
implementation  reports  re  Article  15(3), 
15(4), 15(5); Article 15(4) study.  
Survey  regulators  and  other  groups  e.g. 
IMPEL.  
Guidance from Commission. 
Review  permit  selection 
identify 
implementation of BATc – link with #1a.   

to 

EQ3. How effective is the emissions monitoring and reporting process?  
e. 
To  what  extent  does 
the  emissions  monitoring  and 
reporting  system  facilitate  the 
assessment  of 
compliance 
under IED, and of the quantity 
of released emissions? 
Are 
the 
requirements fit for purpose? 

Views  on  suitability  of  emissions 
monitoring 
and 
frequency in BATc. 
Views  on  suitability  of  reporting, 
distinguishing: 
to 
Competent Authorities, to European 
Commission  and  to  EEA  for  E-
PRTR. 

requirements 
sufficient 
assess 

monitoring 

techniques 

reporting 

to 

Monitoring 
provide 
information 
compliance. 
No  or 
limited  problems 
identified with monitoring or 
reporting procedures.  
No  or  limited  gaps  in  the 
information.   
provides 
Monitoring 
to 
sufficient 
assess quantity of emissions. 

information 

EQ4. Are there significant differences between Member States and sectors in implementation? 
f. 
Number/proportion  of  each  of 
Are  there  significant 
exceptions,  general  binding  rules, 
differences  between  Member 
flexibilities  and  derogations  per 
States  or  between  different 
sector per MS 
sectors  (including  social  costs 
as  a  consequence  of  poor 
Indicators  on  costs/benefits  as 
implementation)? 
mentioned in EQ5. 
g. 

General level of variation in 
IED implementation.  
Level  of  variation  in  use  of 
different 
legislative 
flexibility provisions.  

IED 

Has 

the 

88 

analysis: 

feedback 

the  monitoring 

and 
systems 

Qualitative 
from 
stakeholders  on  suitability  and  robustness 
reporting 
of 
requirements  and 
in  place. 
Identification  of  any  particular  challenges 
and the reasons for this.  
Consider  monitoring 
reporting 
systems  applied  in  selection  of  non-EU 
countries e.g. Korea.  

and 

in 

literature, 

Review 
particular 
implementation reports, evaluation of E-
reporting 
PRTR  and  environmental 
Fitness Check.  
Review  approaches  applied  in  non-EU 
countries  based  on  literature  and  direct 
engagement. 
Stakeholder  consultation 
(interviews, 
survey(s), workshop) – in particular with 
regulators and operators.  

Qualitative: implementation experience by 
operators  across  different  MS,  and  MS 
authorities.  Examine  specific  reasons  or 
parameters  that  led  to  differences  in  IED 
costs  or  benefits  among  MS  and  how 
important they are.  
Quantitative:  assess  variation  among  MS 

and 

reports 

implementation 

MS 
summaries.  
IMPEL studies. 
Ongoing studies on implementation (MS 
support, implementation assessment). 
Stakeholder  consultations  -  Views  from 
industry  on  harmonised  implementation 

 
 
 
Assessment criteria 

Indicators 

Sub-questions 
contributed  to creating  a  level 
playing field?  
What  is  causing  them; and do 
these  differences  affect  the 
costs or benefits of the IED? 

Table A3-2: Evaluation matrix - efficiency 

Data analysis approach 
in  how  the  flexibility,  derogation  etc.  has 
been  taken  up,  supported  by  justifications 
to identify potential distortions.  

Data sources and collection methods 
at EU level. 

Sub-questions 

Assessment criteria 

Indicators 

Data analysis approach 

Data sources and collection methods 

benefits 

EQ5. The extent to which the costs are justified, given the impact of the IED and the benefits it has delivered? (links with EQ7 administrative costs assessment) 
a. 
Monetary  value  of  emissions 
What  are  the  costs 
reduction  in  IED  industrial 
and  benefits  (monetary  and 
sectors  that  can  be  attributed 
non-monetary) associated with 
to  the  IED  (by  MS  and  EU 
the implementation of the IED 
level). 
in  each  Member  State,  and  in 
the EU as a whole 
Direct 
indirect 
and 
b. 
administrative  and  technical 
costs  for  the  various  actors 
been  achieved 
and processes arising from the 
effective manner? 
IED requirements.  
c. 
To  what  extent  are 
the  costs  justified,  given  the 
impact  of  the  IED  and  the 
benefits it has delivered? 

exceed 
Do 
compliance and administrative 
(monetary  and  non-
costs 
monetary) 
associated  with 
implementation  of  the  IED, 
and MS distribution.  
The  cost/benefit  ratio  of  the 
IED compares favourably with 
comparable 
other 
interventions. 

the  benefits 
in  a  cost-

and  maintain 

Have 

and 

Quantitative:  A  full  assessment  by 
sector  is  not  possible.  Case  study 
approach  focusing  on  some  sectors 
where  BATc  implemented  (e.g.  Iron 
and  Steel  production)  where  a  CBA 
analysis is available.  
Understand 
indirect 
direct 
administrative and technical costs from 
IED implementation (includes operator 
costs  to  apply  and  maintain  permit  / 
abatement 
install 
equipment 
report, 
regulator costs to review, grant, enforce 
permits,  costs  of  BREF  process). 
Compare to impacts and benefits. 
Compare  with  costs  and  benefits  of 
other legislative actions.  
Quantitative  analysis  where  available 
using outputs of EQ 4a, 4b and 4c. 

/  monitor  and 

legislative  actions 

Literature  review  –  IED  IA  on  costs  and 
benefits  of  other 
for 
comparison.  
Ex-ante  (LCP)  and  ex-post  (Iron  and  Steel) 
BATc CBA assessments. 
MS implementation reports.  
Damage costs by MS.  
Stakeholder  consultation  (interviews,  surveys, 
workshops)  -  targeted  survey  questions  (public 
authorities and industrial sites) to quantify time 
through 
spent  and 
workshops 
regarding 
proportionality between costs and benefits 
Impact  assessments  and  evaluations  of  other 
legislation (e.g. NECD revision). 

investments; 

interview 

feedback 

and 

As above. 

How 

d. 
proportionate 
were  the  costs  for  different 
taking 
stakeholder  groups, 
into  account 
the  benefits 
achieved? 

costs 

stakeholders  have 
or 

Specific 
disproportionate 
benefits? 
Specific  stakeholders’  costs 
not  justified  by  benefits  (i.e. 
high cost-benefit ratio)?  

Costs  per  stakeholder  group 
involved. 
Benefits for society of reduced 
health/environmental impacts. 

EQ6. Could efficiency have been improved?  
a. 
What  factors  could 
have  improved  efficiency  by 
strengthening  delivery  of  the 
objectives  while  minimising 
unnecessary costs? 

of 

IED 
Elements 
implementation  with  highest 
costs. 

Qualitative  indices  on  cost-
benefit ratios (very high, high, 
medium,  low,  very  low)  for 
various 
and 
dimensions related to IED. 

measures 

  stakeholder  views  on 
Qualitative: 
aspects that could more efficiently have 
reduced impacts or stakeholder inputs.  
Triangulation  of  results  from  other 
efficiency EQs. 

targeted 
Stakeholder  consultation 
OPC)  particularly  MS  authorities  and  industry 
representatives. 
BREF process Focus group. 

(surveys, 

EQ7. To what extent has administrative burden been reduced with respect to initial expectations? (See also EQ1e and questions related to benefits of the IED) 

89 

 
 
to 

a. 
the 
are 
What 
administrative  costs 
the 
Member  States,  Commission, 
and IED operators?  
b. 
administrative  costs  of 
BREF process? 
c. 
and 
efficient  is  the  process  for 
reporting and monitoring? 

the 
the 

timely 

What 

How 

are 

d. 
Taking account of the 
objectives  and  benefits  of  the 
IED  is there  evidence  that  the 
costs have caused unnecessary 
or  excessive  administrative 
burden?  

costs 

costs 
administrative 
How 
compare to IED IA estimates. 
Total  administrative  costs  for 
IED implementation so far for 
IED 
Commission,  MS, 
operators relative to IPPCD. 
Administrative 
to 
develop  BREFs  (total  and  per 
BREF) before and after IED. 
Time  and  costs  for  BREF 
process before and after IED. 
Frequency, extent, and time or 
for 
cost  of 
requirements 
and  monitoring, 
reporting 
separately  for 
industry  and 
authorities relative to IPPCD. 
Ratio  of  administrative  costs 
to benefits 
Is  ratio  of  administrative  cost 
to benefit comparable to other 
similar interventions 
Compare  with 
expectations 

IED 

IA 

to 

efforts 

of  monitoring 

of 
Overview 
elaborate BREFs and BATc. 
Length  of  time  per  BREF 
review.  
Frequency 
reporting. 
Developments  in  direct  and 
indirect  administrative  costs 
(quantitative  evidence  where 
available, 
otherwise 
qualitative indications). 

Quantitative analysis of the (estimated) 
manpower  costs  for  the  Commission, 
MS  authorities,  industry  and  NGOs 
relative to IPPCD. 
Application of standard cost model and 
associated  wage 
from 
(e.g. 
Eurostat) for estimating burden.  
Consider  whether  effort  of  BREF 
process is proportionate to the benefits 
achieved by applying BAT. 

rates 

industry 
quoted 
from  parties  directly 

regulators, 
Survey/interviews  of 
representation,  NGOs,  EIPPCB: 
administrative  costs 
working on reporting obligations. 
BREF process Focus group.  
Evaluations  and  impact  assessments  of  other 
EU environmental legislation (e.g. EU ETS). 
IED IA. 

Ratio  of  administrative  costs 
to benefits 

Quantitative:  review  of  administrative 
costs  and  comparison  with  benefits 
(estimated in earlier questions).  
Qualitative: stakeholder views on areas 
that  led  to  unnecessary  or  excessive 
administrative burdens. 

Inputs from other EQs.  
Feedback 
interviews, workshops). 

from 

stakeholders 

(surveys, 

EQ8.  Has  implementation  of  the  IED  supported  or  hampered  EU  competitiveness  in  the  global  economy;  has  the  implementation  of  the  IED  improved  or  been  detrimental  to 
economic, social and environmental sustainability?  
a. 
the  IED 
affected  the  competitiveness 
of the EU industry? 

How  has 

Literature  assessments  (e.g.  cumulative  costs 
assessments). 
Eurostat  (e.g.  GVA,  sector  production  outputs 
and profit margins). 
Stakeholder interviews (industry). 

GVA per unit of production. 
Average  profit  margin  of 
affected sectors.  
Level 
of 
energy/environmental. 
Mitigation 
industry affected by IED.  

for  EU 

savings 

costs 

in 

by 

IED has had a positive impact 
(at  least  no  negative  impact) 
on 
and 
productivity 
profitability  of  EU  industry 
affected 
its 
implementation. 
the 
IED 
EU 
competitiveness 
industry  in  comparison  to  its 
main 
by 
promoting 
the  adoption  of 
new technologies/ innovation.  

competitors 

improved 

of 

Semi-quantitative.  
Analyse  Eurostat  and  sectoral  study 
data  (where  available)  on  GVA  and 
profit  margins  of  sectors  over  time. 
Compare  with  competitors  outside  the 
EU (where relevant). 
Indicative  analysis  since  profitability 
by 
competitiveness 
and 
multiple factors beyond IED. 
(industry, 
Complement 
authorities) 
input  on  positive  or 
negative  IED  impact  on  productivity, 
profitability, operating costs.  
Other EQs (e.g. EQ1) feed into this.  

affected 

with 

Has 

b. 
the 
implementation  of  the  IED 
improved  or  been  detrimental 

Evidence  available  suggests 
IED had a positive impact (or, 
at  least,  no  negative  impact) 

Qualitative  bringing  together  evidence 
and  conclusions  from  other  EQs  (e.g. 
EQ 1, 5, 9a) and stakeholder input. 

Literature and datasets.  
Stakeholder interviews (industry). 

90 

 
 
 
economic, 

to 
environmental sustainability? 

social 

and 

economic, 
environmental sustainability. 

social 

and 

Table A3-3: Evaluation matrix - relevance 

Sub-questions 

Assessment criteria 

Indicators 

Data analysis approach 

Data sources and collection methods 

the 

Has 

EQ9. To what extent do the IED objectives still correspond to the needs of the EU? (This will be considered alongside outputs from EQ1) 
a. 
IED 
addressed  the  most  relevant 
environmental  impacts  and 
pollutants?  
b. 
Has  it  set  relevant 
standards  and  obligations  to 
protect  human  health  and 
the environment? 

Level  of  emissions 
identified pollutants. 
Human  health 
impacts  and 
level  of  risk  associated  with 
identified pollutants.  
Pollutants  expressly  covered 
in IED compared to pollutants 
reported in E-PRTR. 

Analysis 
indicators  will 
demonstrate  the  extent  that  the  addressed 
environmental  impacts  and  pollutants  were 
and still are an issue in the EU. 
We will also use input from stakeholders on 
the  initial  and  ongoing  need  to  address  the 
specific  environmental  impacts  and  use  the 
conclusions  from  question  1  to  assess  and 
help  conclude  on  the  relevance  of  the 
and 
the 
provisions 
obligations.  

standards 

these 

from 

and 

of 

c. 
for 
IED 
stakeholders  and 
citizens in particular? 

How relevant is the 
different 
to  EU 

the 

Benefits accrued to society 

Qualitative. We will use input from question 
9a and input from stakeholders (authorities, 
industry,  civil  society  and  experts) 
to 
conclude  on  the  relevance  for  the  IED  for 
different stakeholders  

relevant 

BREF  process  has  covered  all 
relevant  environmental  impacts 
(and 
pollutants) 
identified  at  the  time  of  its 
adoption.  
Environmental 
impacts/pollutants  covered  are 
still relevant today.  
No important pollutants omitted  
to  address 
BATc  appropriate 
relevant 
and 
environmental impacts. 
IED  recognised  as  appropriate 
reduce 
instrument 
environmental 
and 
protect  human  health  among 
stakeholders 

to 
impacts 

health 

recitals 

Literature  (KEI  studies  and  method  paper 
authored  by  Ricardo  and  its  long  list  of 
pollutants) and environmental  datasets (E-
PRTR, NECD inventories). 
Literature  analysis  on 
Directive’s 
rationale 
formulation of EU policy needs. 
Stakeholder consultations with particularly 
EU staff and MS authorities on rationale of 
Directive, and with civil society. 
Triangulation  of  formulation  of  objectives 
with formulation of needs and rationale. 

the 
summarising 
and 

IA  and 
the 
the 

intervention 

for 

EQ10. Is the IED able to respond to new or emerging environmental issues?  
a. 
Has  the  IED  been 
flexible  enough  to  respond 
to new or emerging issues?  

Number  of  new/additional 
pollutants 
and/or 
environmental  issues  covered 
in BREFs.  

New  environmental  issues  and 
pollutants  emerged  under  IED 
have been covered by BREFs 
sufficiently 
process 
BREF 
flexible  to  cover  new  issues  not 
initially identified 

Evidence from BREFs by sector if/how new 
environmental issues were covered. 
Conclusions  from  EQ2  and  stakeholder 
(time  needed, 
input 
procedures) to cover new issues in different 
stages of the process. 

assess 

ease 

to 

identification 

BREFs 
– 
environmental issues.  
Stakeholder  survey/interviews  (industry, 
civil society NGOs, academics/experts.) 

key 

of 

Table A3-4: Evaluation matrix - coherence 

Sub-questions 

Assessment criteria 

Indicators 

Data analysis approach 

Data sources and collection methods 

EQ11. To what extent is the IED internally consistent and coherent?  

91 

 
is 

To  what  extent 

the  IED 
in 

a. 
internally  consistent  and  coherent, 
particular among its different chapters?  
Are there any identified cases of overlaps, 
contradictions  or  other  inconsistencies  in 
terms of the provisions / requirements?  
To  what  extent  do  provisions  match  the 
objectives of the Directive? 
What,  if  any,  are  the  inconsistencies, 
contradictions,  unnecessary  duplication, 
overlap  or  missing 
links  between 
provisions  and  activities  listed  in  Annex 
1? 

Is IED coherent internally 
No unnecessary, unclear or 
contradictory requirements 
Instances  of 
interaction 
and  existence  of  possible 
inconsistencies.  
Provisions 
objectives.   
provisions 
Streamlining 
(permitting,  reporting  and 
monitoring)  contributed  to 
a  coherent  approach 
to 
achieving IED objectives. 
Permits  issued  align  with 
conditions based on BAT. 

support 

view 
internally 

Stakeholders 
IED 
as 
coherent. 
Clarity of provisions 
Consistency  of 
articles 
requirements. 

the 
and 

logical 
Qualitative  discussion  based  on 
analysis  and  input  from  stakeholders  on 
whether 
the  provisions  are  all  working 
together  and  the  IED  is  delivered  in  a 
coherent and simple manner. 

- 

review  of 

Desk research.  
Legal  analysis 
legal 
proceedings  and  guidance  that  would 
hint  to  lack  of  clarity  or  coherence  and 
critical review of Directive. 
Questionnaires  and  interviews  with  EU 
and national authorities.  
OPC. 
IED compliance assessment studies. 

is 

To  what  extent 

EQ12. To what extent is the IED coherent with other EU environmental and wider EU policies, and with market-based instruments?  
a. 
the  IED 
coherent  with  wider  EU  policies,  like 
climate  and  energy,  and  market-based 
instruments, in particular the EU-ETS, the 
circular  economy  and  the  sustainable  use 
of  resources,  as  well  as  specific  EU 
those 
environmental  policies  such  as 
concerning  water, 
and 
air,  waste, 
chemicals?  
b. 
adequately 
contribute  to  the  achievement  of  the  EU 
environmental  policy  objectives  and 
targets?  
c. 
How  do  objectives,  provisions 
and implementation compare and what are 
the 
and 
gaps, 
inconsistencies? 
d. 
Are  there  any  changes  needed 
under  the  IED/BREFS  to  improve  its 
contribution to these objectives? 

EU  and  MS  policy  goals 
support IED objectives. 
IED  coherent  with  other 
reduction 
emissions 
policies. 
IED supports targets.  
IED  coherent  with  other 
environment 
EU 
legislation. 
Are 
there  EU  and  MS 
coordination  mechanisms 
coherent, 
supporting 
integrated 
to 
achieve IED objectives? 
Adequate  contribution  of 
to 
the  IED  and  BATc 
environmental objectives.    
Positive 
environmental 
impacts due to IED. 

Degree  of  alignment 
objectives, 
between 
provisions 
and 
implementation. 
Degree 
contribution 
specific 
environmental 
objectives.  
Stakeholders 
view 
IED as contributing to 
fulfil 
these 
environmental 
objectives.   
of 
Instances 
interaction 
and 
existence  of  possible 
inconsistencies. 

Qualitative  assessment  based  on 
logical 
analysis and input from stakeholders whether 
the  objectives  of  the  Directive  is  in-line  with 
other  EU  environmental  and  wider  EU 
there  overlaps  or 
policies  and  whether 
inconsistencies  (e.g.  whether  IED  permits 
take  into  account  the  fulfilment  of  other 
broader environmental objectives/ obligations 
such  as  water  body  status,  ambient  air 
quality). 

approach 

overlaps 

possible 

of 
the 

Does 

IED 

the 

to 

 

Clean 

Economy; 

Eurostat/EEA data. 
Stakeholder consultation.  
Literature review. 
EU  policy  objectives  such  as  Thematic 
strategies;  7th  Environmental  Action 
Programme;  EU  action  plan  for  the 
Circular 
Air 
Programme  for  Europe;  EU  biodiversity 
strategy to 2020. 
IED studies.  
Fitness check of the Ambient Air Quality 
Directives. 
Fitness  check  of  the  Water  Framework 
Directive, 
Groundwater 
Directive, 
Environmental 
Standards 
Quality 
Directive and Floods Directive. 
Evaluation  of  the  Water  Framework 
Directive. 

92 

 
 
 
Extent  IED  is  coherent  with  E-

e. 
PRTR? 
f. 
How  do  objectives,  provisions 
and implementation compare and what are 
and 
gaps, 
the 
inconsistencies? 
g. 
streamlining reporting activities? 

What progress has been made for 

overlaps 

possible 

h. 
To  what  extent  does  the  IED 
complement  or  interact  with  key  EU 
funding programmes  

i. 
To  what  extent  does  the  IED 
comply  with  the  international  regulatory 
framework? For each instrument  

scope and requirements  
How IED contributes to fulfilling 

 
 
obligations 
 
EU  can  be  attributed 
the 
Opportunities for greater synergies? 

What  contributions  made  in  the 
IED? 

to 

IED and E-PRTR coherent 
and complementary.  
Sectors,  pollutants 
and 
activities  aligned  with  the 
E-PRTR. 
EU  Registry  on  Industrial 
Sites established. 

Objectives  of  key  EU 
programmes  support  IED 
objectives  and  use  of 
emerging  techniques  and 
R&I. 

For each instrument:  
IED 
commitments. 

is  coherent  with 

Areas  in  which  the  IED 
contributes to obligations. 

in 

of 
Number 
installations/facilities. 
Pollutants 
IED 
Annex 
II  and  E-
PRTR. 
Sectoral coverage. 
Alignment 
of 
objectives,  provisions 
and implementation 
Interactions 
inconsistencies. 
Alignment 
between 
objectives,  provisions 
and implementation. 

and 

IED 

Quantitative:  assess  proportion  of 
activities covered by E-PRTR by sector. 
Qualitative: compare IED and E-PRTR scope 
definitions (pollutants, sectors, installations). 
Compare monitoring data (concentrations e.g. 
mg/Nm3) 
(mass 
emissions)  and  difficulty  and  uncertainty  in 
converting between these.  

to  EPRTR 

reporting 

check 

E-PRTR.  
REFIT evaluation of E-PRTR.  
Fitness 
environmental 
on 
monitoring  and  reporting  (COM(2017) 
312). 
Stakeholder  feedback  (particularly  MS 
authorities  responsible  for  EPRTR  and 
IED reporting). 

Review alignment. 
Do  programmes  support  use  of  “emerging 
techniques”  and  support  R&I  feeding  the 
BREF process? 

Desk 
stakeholder survey.  

research, 

OPC, 

targeted 

For each instrument:  
Obligations align with 
EU 
international 
commitments. 

Interactions 
possible 
inconsistencies. 

and 

Review relevant international conventions 
including: 
The Convention on Long-Range, 
Transboundary Air Pollution, 
Convention on the Transboundary Effects of 
Industrial Accidents, 
Protocol to Abate Acidification, 
Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone. 

Desk research.  
Questionnaires  and  interviews  with  EU 
level authorities.  
Legal analysis. 
Case studies. 

Table A3-5: Evaluation matrix – EU added value 

Sub-questions 

Assessment criteria 

Indicators 

Data analysis approach 

Data sources and collection methods 

EQ13. What is the added-value from the IED, compared to what is likely to have been achieved by Member States in its absence?  

To  what  degree  has 

a. 
the  IED  enabled 
Member  States  and  their  competent  authorities  to 
take  successful  action  to  improve  beyond  what 
would have been possible without EU action? 

the 

and 

IED 

Does 

b. 
its  means  of 
implementation  create  synergies  or  overlaps  with 
other  Community  objectives,  and  how  has  the 
distribution of responsibilities between EU, Member 
State,  regional  and  local  levels  impacted  on  the 
management of environmental impacts? 

IED requirements 
exceed national law  
requirements. 
Level playing field 
across the EU. 

Overlapping 
scope with IED.  

policy 

Degree 
of 
uptake of BAT. 
Reductions 
in 
emissions. 

Assess  likely  degree  of  uptake  of 
BAT-based  permitting  with  IED 
versus  without.  Triangulation  with 
analysis on effectiveness of specific 
IED  actions  unlikely  to  have  been 
achieved by MS level action. 
Qualitative  discussion  on  synergies 
and overlaps 

Output from EQ1 on emission reductions relative to 
baseline.  Engagement  with  MS  authorities  on 
whether  revised  BREFs  and  BATc  led  to  more 
stringent  permit  conditions  than  under  business  as 
usual (for that MS). 

Stakeholder  consultation,  particularly  with  EC 
officials  and  MS  national  authorities  across 
thematic  areas.  Literature  sources  e.g.  cumulative 
costs 
and 
impact 
assessments, 
evaluations of other EU law.  

assessments 

93 

 
 
94 

 
 
Annex 4: Stakeholder consultation 

1.  Consultation strategy 

The key objectives of the consultation process were: 

i. 
ii. 

iii. 

to confirm the scope of this evaluation;  
to collect factual information on the implementation of the IED from associated 
stakeholders,  in  order  to  complement  the  desk-based  research  conducted  as  part 
of Task 2, and;  
to ask stakeholders to express their views about the effectiveness and efficiency 
of the IED.  

In the context of the IED evaluation, a broad scope for the stakeholder consultation was 
necessary  to  ensure  that  all  relevant  and  interested  stakeholders  were  given  an 
opportunity to express their opinions and to contribute to the evaluation. 

The  Evaluation  Roadmap56,  including  a  consultation  strategy,  was  published  on  6 
November  2018,  and  feedback  was  received  by  4  December  2018.  The  consultation 
methods  and  tools  outlined  in  the  strategy  have  been  followed,  as  described  in  more 
detail in the following sections. 

2.  Consultation activities 

A number of consultation tools were used to collect data and views. The main ones were:  

  Open public consultation 
  Targeted online survey 
 
Interviews  
  Focus groups  
  Stakeholder workshops 

All Commission’s minimum standards have been met. Details of each of the consultation 
activities are provided below.  

a)  Open public consultation (OPC) 

A 12-week open online public consultation in all 23 official EU languages was open for 
responses  between  27  May  2019  and  4  September  2019  via  the  Commission's  central 
public consultations portal57.  

56 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1913-Evaluation-of-the-
Industrial-Emissions-Directive 
57 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say_en 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The  survey  contained  20  multiple  choice  questions,  using  Likert-scales  of  5  options 
(most  negative  to  most  positive).  The  scales  for  most  questions  included  one  or  more 
“opt-out”  responses,  such  as  “Do  not  know”  or  “I  am  not  familiar”  to  avoid  forcing 
respondents  into  giving  an  opinion  they  do  not  feel  qualified  giving.  Finally,  one  open 
question at the end asked the respondent for any further relevant feedback, information or 
opinions they wished to share. 

b)  Targeted online survey 

The  targeted  survey  was  developed  using  an  open  source  online  survey  tool  (Survey 
Monkey)  and  configured  using  the  tool’s  editing  facility,  with  data  validation  and 
formatting  added  as  required.  The  questionnaire  was  developed  in  discussion  and 
agreement  with  the  European  Commission  including  the  Inter-Service  Steering  Group 
(ISSG) throughout May and June 2019.  

The questionnaire script was based on the relevant evaluation questions, but tailored to 
make  the  survey  more  user-friendly,  and  also  to  reflect  the  relevant  audience.  Closed 
questions  were  complemented  with  open  questions,  which  allowed  respondents  to 
provide further explanations and wider opinions. Similar to the open public, respondents 
were  asked  first  to  identify  themselves  and  indicate  to  which  stakeholder  group  they 
belonged. The survey included questions grouped by 10 key themes relevant to the IED 
that are considered as part of the evaluation.  

The  survey  was  tailored  with  specific  questions  for  three  different  main  stakeholder 
groups  (Member  State  authorities,  industry  representatives,  and  “Others”  respondents). 
Stakeholders were able to provide their input between June and September 2019.  

c)  Interviews 

Targeted  telephone  interviews  to  complement  the  online  survey  took  place  with 
representatives  of  Member  States'  authorities  responsible  for  implementation,  industry 
associations, civil society, and other key stakeholders. Interviewees were identified based 
on a stakeholder mapping taking into account that:  

 

It was important to understand views not only of national but, where applicable, 
also of regional and/or local competent authorities in charge of implementing and 
enforcing the IED requirements.  

  The views of EU level umbrella organisations were important, but so were those 

of businesses impacted by the IED.  

  The  main  civil  society  input  was  expected  to  come  from  non-governmental 
organisations at EU and Member State level. But it was also desirable to receive 
input from local organisations that have used the provisions of the IED. 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The stakeholder interviews were grouped into three categories:  

  Stand-alone interviews with stakeholders who were not the primary target of the 
online  survey  (e.g.  EU  institutions,  such  as  EEA,  JRC  and  relevant  units  of  the 
Commission and NGO. 

  Follow-up  interviews  with  survey  respondents  who  expressed  their  interest  to 
take  part  in  interviews  to  further  discuss  their  inputs  to  the  survey.  Survey 
respondents  included  two  main  stakeholder  groups:  industry  and  Member  State 
authorities. 

  To fill remaining knowledge gaps, a third group of stakeholders was contacted at 
the later stages of the evaluation. These stakeholders included sub-national level 
permitting authorities who have not completed the survey.  

Stand-alone interviews started during the summer of 2019 while the targeted survey was 
still  open.  Follow-up  interviews  mainly  took  place  after  the  closure  of  the  targeted 
stakeholder survey on 13 September 2019. The final group of stakeholders was contacted 
in December 2019. In total, 19 interviews were conducted. 

d)  Focus groups 

Focus  group  discussions  on  the  BREF  process  took  place  in  Brussels  on  15  October 
2019,  back-to-back  with  an  IED  Forum  meeting,  to  complement  the  online  survey  and 
interviews.  This  setting  made  it  possible  to  consult  a  wider  group  of  stakeholders  with 
expertise  in  the  effectiveness  of  the  BREF  process  and  to  explore  differences  in  their 
opinions.  Representatives  of  Member  State  authorities,  industry  associations  and  the 
NGO  community  took  part  in  the  discussion.  Attendance  at  the  focus  group  was  by 
invitation  only  and  the  selection  of  the  participants  was  in  agreement  with  the 
Commission. The focus group was run twice with separate groups of attendees.   

e)  Stakeholder workshops 

Two  workshops  were  held  in  Brussels  before  the  consultation  process  had  started  and 
after it had ended. 

The first stakeholder workshop was held in Brussels on 22 May 2019. The workshop was 
web streamed in order to support access for a wider audience and stakeholders following 
the discussion online also had an opportunity to raise questions via an online tool (Slido). 
The aim of the workshop was to assist in gathering evidence, confirming the evaluation 
methodology,  getting  feedback  from  participants  that  no key  issues  are  overlooked  and 
raising awareness of the evaluation of the IED. 

The second workshop took place on 17 December 2019 in Brussels. A background paper, 
summarising  initial  findings  was  circulated  before  the  workshop.  During  this  final 
workshop the initial findings of the evaluation were presented to stakeholders who were 
invited to provide feedback at the workshop as well as afterwards in writing. 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
3.  Stakeholder groups participating 

The  key  stakeholders  identified  for  consultation  fall  into  three  key  groups:  industry, 
Member State authorities and others. These are summarised in Table A4-1: 

Stakeholder Group 

Stakeholders 

1.  EU  Member  State 
public authorities 

  National level Member State authorities 
  Regional/ local Member State authorities 

2.  Industry 

scope of the IED 

  Key industries in the scope of the IED 
  Business  and  trade  associations  for  sectors  in  the 

3.  Other 

  Technology  providers  and  engineering 

industry 

associations 

  NGOs,  specifically 

the  European  Environment 

Bureau 

  The general public 
  Academics and research institutes  
  Existing  IED  platforms,  including  the  Industrial 
Emissions Expert Group (IEEG), the IED Article 13 
Forum and IED Article 75 Committee 

  Other EU services, such as JRC and the EEA. 

Table A4-1: Categories of stakeholders consulted 

Specific  consultation  approaches  were  used  to  target  different  stakeholder  groups.  A 
targeted  stakeholder  survey  was  designed  to  target  industry,  Member  State  authorities 
and  others  involved  in  the  IED  process.  This  was  tailored  for  these  stakeholder  groups 
and interviews were conducted with some respondents to collect a more detailed picture 
and  fill  in  any  gaps.  The  open  public  consultation  was  intended  to  capture  information 
from  those  not  directly  involved  in  the  IED  process,  including  EU  citizens  and  other 
interested parties.  

As  described  in  part  2  e)  above,  stakeholder  workshops  were  held  at  two  points  in  the 
evaluation  period,  the  first  was  held  before  the  surveys  were  conducted  and  used  to 
influence  the  data  collection.  The latter  was  conducted  after  both  the surveys  had been 
analysed. Initial findings were presented and additional information was sought to fill in 
gaps and receive clarification on specific issues. 

Figure A4-1 shows the number of respondents broken down by consultation activity. As 
expected, the OPC and the targeted survey received the largest number of responses. This 
was followed by the two workshops and finally the interviews.  

There were 312 respondents to the OPC. Of these, 118 (37.8%) answered on behalf of a 
company  or  business  organisation  and  79  (25.3%)  on  behalf  of  a  business  association 
making 63.1% from business. The remaining 36.9% comprise EU citizens (42, 13.5%), 

98 

 
 
 
public authorities (32, 10.3%), NGOs (21, 6.7%), environmental organisations (8, 2.6%), 
academic/research institutions (5, 1.6%), trade unions (2, 0.6%) and other (5, 1.6%). Of 
those  that  selected  “Other”,  one  was  a  national  chamber  of  commerce,  the  other  four 
responded anonymously. 

Open Public Consultation

Online survey

Interviews

Focus groups

First Stakeholder Workshop

Second Stakeholder Workshop

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Figure A4-1: Number of respondents by consultation activity 

Figure  A4-2  shows  the  level  of  participation  in  the  targeted  stakeholder  engagement 
activities,  broken  down  by  stakeholder  group.  The  largest  was  the  survey  with  285 
responses  of  which  industry  accounted  for  188.  Member  State  participants  are 
distinguished  between  national,  of  which  there  were  33,  and  local  or  regional  level 
responses,  of  which  there  were  55.  There  were  9  responses  from  NGOs  and  other 
organisations. Members States primarily contributed through the targeted survey with a 
small proportion, also choosing to comment through the OPC. A number of the responses 
to  the  targeted  survey  were  chosen  for  follow  up  interviews.  These  interviews  (like  all 
others) were conducted to ensure an even geographical spread, a mix of both regional and 
national  Member  State  authorities  and  to  pick  up  on  any  particularly  noteworthy 
responses. 

Figure A4-2: Participants by stakeholder type for three consultation activities 

99 

 
 
 
In additional to a significant number of companies and sectors that responded through the 
targeted stakeholder survey, we also saw a significant number of responses from industry 
come through the OPC. This includes companies tangentially related or impacted by the 
IED,  such  as  other  industrial  firms,  those  in  the  supply  chain,  or  those  in  the  financial 
sector.  

The  “Others”  respondents  include  several  groups  that  do  not  fall  into  the  previous 
categories. The largest group, as evidenced by the number of responses to the OPC, are 
EU  citizens.  The  group  also  includes  NGOs  and  research  organisations  that  play  a  key 
role in the shaping of the IED and BREFs, including the EEB.  

The  number  of  responses  also  varies  significantly  by  location.  Figure  A4-3  shows  the 
breakdown  by  Member  State,  however  the  type  of  stakeholder  reporting  from  each 
country may be different. For example, Belgium has a number of trade organisations and 
business interest groups based in Brussels that seek to influence the evaluation. Similarly, 
Germany  also  has  a  large  industrial  centre.  The  number  of  regional  authorities  that 
responded varies significantly by Member State. The largest groups of respondents from 
regional Member State authorities were from Sweden and Finland. 

Figure A4-3: Number of responses by Member State across all consultation formats 

4.  Methodology and tools used to process data 

Quantitative  information  was  analysed  using  the  contractor’s  analysis  tools.  For  all 
surveys  and  consultations,  this  included  analysis  of  results  by  stakeholder  type,  taking 
into  account  the  imbalance  in  number  of  respondents  between  different  stakeholder 
groups.  

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The stakeholders were grouped as follows:  

  For  the  OPC,  stakeholders  were  grouped  by:  EU  Citizens,  (Environmental) 

NGO’s, Public authorities, Business organisations, and others. 

  For  the  targeted  consultation,  stakeholders  were  grouped  by:  Industry,  Member 

State: National, Member State: Local/Regional or Anonymous, and Others. 

Qualitative  information  was  received  from:  the  stakeholder  workshops,  interviews,  the 
many free text responses to the targeted stakeholder survey, the open text response to the 
open  public  consultation,  and  papers  uploaded  for  the  targeted  stakeholder  survey  and 
OPC.  This  information  was  analysed  against  the  five  evaluation  criteria:  effectiveness, 
efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value. 

5.  Results of the consultation activities 

To  provide  a  simple  overview  of  the  different  stakeholder  group  opinions  on  the  five 
evaluation criteria, a range of the multiple choice questions that are considered to address 
the various aspects of each criterion have been averaged and are shown in the following 
graphics  as  a  single  chart.  The  number  of  underlying  questions  varies  from  36  for  the 
effectiveness criterion to only four for the EU-added value criterion. 

It can be observed that across all the criteria except efficiency, industry is most positive, 
Member  State  national  authorities  are  second,  sub-national  authorities  third.  The 
responses  from  the  category  other,  which  include  environmental  NGOs  are  the  least 
positive. For all the criteria, except efficiency, the average of the group responses shows 
around  70%  with  a  positive  view.  The  majority  that  are  not  positive  are  neutral.  The 
“Others”  category  also  includes  the  largest  proportion  of  strong  negative  views  for  all 
five criteria. 

a)  Effectiveness: averaged response to 36 questions 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
c)  Efficiency: averaged response to 8 questions 

d)  Relevance: averaged response to 14 questions  

e)  Coherence: averaged response to 9 questions 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
g)  EU added value: averaged response to 4 questions 

6.  Identified campaigns for consultations 

Open  text  responses  to  the  OPC  and  targeted  stakeholder  survey  were  tested  using  a 
cosine  similarity  approach.  This  identifies  sections  of  text  in  responses  that  are 
sufficiently similar,  indicating that  they  may  reflect  coordinated  responses  from  groups 
of  respondents.  For  the  targeted  survey,  responses  considered  to  be  coordinated  were 
identified  for  five  of  the  open  text  responses.  In  each  case,  there  were  several  separate 
groups  of  potentially  coordinated  responses.  The  number  of  groups  per  question  varied 
from  five  to  nine.  Individual  group  sizes  varied  from  three  (the  minimum  number 
considered to be a group) to 20. Most of these groups are entirely or almost entirely of 
business  organisations,  most  frequently  representing  chemicals/petrochemicals/plastics 
sectors  interest.  There  are  also  groups  from  the  metals,  cement,  fertilisers  and 
energy/heating/power  sectors.  One  group  of  three  public  authorities  from  one  Member 
State  also  provided  coordinated  responses  to  some  questions.  The  OPC  included  one 
opportunity  for  open  text  response.  In  this  case,  eight  groups  were  identified,  where 
responses  have  sufficiently  similar  sections  indicating  that  they  may  possibly  be 
coordinated.  Groups  vary  in  size  from  three  (the  minimum  number  considered  to  be  a 
group)  to  45.  Most  of  these  groups  are  entirely  or  almost  entirely  of  business 
organisations.  The  largest  group  comprises  a  broad  range  of  stakeholders.  Within  this 
group, the (environmental) NGOs and EU citizens all point to recommendations made by 
the  European  Environmental  Bureau  in  response  to  the  Roadmap  consultation  on  the 
IED. 

7.  Ad-hoc contributions 

As part of the targeted survey, respondents were asked if they wish to provide any further 
information or ad-hoc documentation. A number of respondents did, uploading position 
papers  and  other  relevant  documents.  A4-2  provides  details  of  the  additional  sources 
uploaded.  In  addition,  several  organisations  sent  reports,  position  papers  and  other 
documents  to  the  dedicated  IED  evaluation  email.  A  complete  list  of  the  documents 
reviewed as part of the evaluation can be found in Annex 6 of the contractor’s report. 

103 

 
 
 
Table A4-2: Documents received as part of the Targeted Stakeholder Survey 

Source 
ID 

Title 

Year 
of 
Publication 

Source/ Author 

45 

68 

75 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

Xylem Position paper on the IED 

Position paper from Veolia 

Position paper from VCI 

Position  paper 
Association 

from  CEMBUREAU, 

the  European  Cement 

Position paper from Glencore 

Position paper from Eurometaux 

Position paper from Hazardous Waste Europe 

Position paper from Valmet 

Position Paper Improvement of Sevilla Process 

BioEnergy Europe Comments on the IED Survey 

Dual lobbying in the Industrial Emissions Directive 

Position  paper  from  International  Committee  for  the  Study  of  Cold 
Rolling of Steel Strip 

Position paper from the European Copper Institute 

Position paper from EEB “Detailed EEB draft input to IED Evaluation 
v2FIN” 

Position paper from Energy UK 

Feedback from Lebensministerium 

Feedback from EUROFER 

Feedback 

Feedback from Energy Technologies Europe 

IED feedback 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

Type 
source 

of 

Response  to  OPC  or 
targeted  stakeholder 
survey (TSS) 

Position Paper  TSS 

Position paper 

TSS 

Report 

TSS 

Xylem 

Veolia 

Albemarle Germany GmbH 

CEMBUREAU, the European Cement Association 

Position paper 

TSS 

Glencore 

Eurometaux 

HAZARDOUS WASTE EUROPE 

Valmet Oyj 

Federation of German Industries e. V. 

Bioenergy Europe 

University of Amsterdam 

CIELFFA and FVK 

European Copper Institute 

European Environmental Bureau (EEB) 

Energy UK 

Austrian Ministry of Sustainability and Tourism 

EUROFER 

European Industrial Insulation Foundation 

Energy Technologies Europe 

Department  for  Environment,  Food  and  Rural  Affairs.  UK 
Government. 

104 

Position paper 

TSS 

Position paper 

TSS 

Position paper 

TSS 

Position paper 

TSS 

Position paper 

Position paper 

Position paper 

Position paper 

Position paper 

Position paper 

Position paper 

Position paper 

Position paper 

Position paper 

Position paper 

Position paper 

TSS 

TSS 

TSS 

TSS 

TSS 

TSS 

TSS 

TSS 

TSS 

TSS 

TSS 

TSS 

 
 
Source 
ID 

Title 

Year 
of 
Publication 

Source/ Author 

Type 
source 

of 

Response  to  OPC  or 
targeted  stakeholder 
survey (TSS) 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

Feedback from Aurubis 

Industrial Emissions Directive targeted stakeholder consultation 

IED evalutaion_emission rates 

Feedback from VITO 

Policy  Paper  Evaluierung  IED  Deutsch_16  09  2019  mit  Korrekturen 
zu Kommentaren 

Feedback from PPC SA 

Feedback from Belgium 

Making Europe sustainable and attractive 

Summary Cost of LCP BREF in biomass and peat boilers final 

Position paper from CEFIC 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

AURUBIS AG 

Business Europe 

Ministry of the Environment 

Position paper 

Position paper 

Position paper 

VITO - Flemish Institute for Technological Research 

Position paper 

German Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt) 

Position paper 

Public Power Corporation SA 

Government of Flanders 

Suez Group 

Finnish Energy 

Cefic 

Position paper 

Position paper 

Position paper 

Position paper 

Position paper 

European Environment Agency Draft Indicator on Industrial Emissions   2019 

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Swedish EPA) 

Position paper 

IED Targeted survey response 

2019 

FuelsEurope 

Position paper 

TSS 

TSS 

TSS 

TSS 

TSS 

TSS 

TSS 

TSS 

TSS 

TSS 

TSS 

TSS 

105 

 
 
Annex 5: Methods and analytical models 

1.  Evaluation matrix 

An  evaluation  matrix  (a  summary  is  provided  in  Annex  3)  was  prepared  based  on  the 
twelve  areas  for  assessment  set  out  in  the  evaluation  roadmap  with  some  minor 
adjustments. This sets out the following aspects for each evaluation question: 

  Sub-questions: To draw out aspects of the question. 
  Assessment criteria: The operational questions to answer for each sub-question.  
  Indicators:  This  shows  potential  indicators  to  measure  the  respective  impacts. 
These  provide  a  metric  to  measure  the  different  components  of  the  intervention 
logic and draw on existing indicator frameworks relating to the IED and industrial 
emissions.  

  Data analysis approach: This describes the approach and the methods and tools 
to be used to answer the question. Where possible, data is assessed at sector and 
Member  State  level  before  aggregating  so  that  impacts  can  be  considered  at 
different levels.  

  Data  sources  and  data  collection  methods:  This  describes  the  key  sources  as 

well as the way in which the data may be gathered.  

2.  Data sources and analytical support documents 

a.  Desk research  

Desk research has comprised literature and evidence assessment, as well as quantitative 
assessment related to emission reductions and administrative burden. 

Evidence and literature has been sourced by a number of routes: from references in the 
terms  of  reference  for  the  IED  evaluation  support  study;  from  current  work  being 
undertaken by project partners; from reports and other evidence signposted by EC; from 
a  review  of  literature;  and  from  respondents  to  stakeholder  engagement  for  this  study 
through  responses  to  the  open  public  questionnaire,  targeted  stakeholder  survey, 
interviews and focus groups. 

Evidence and literature have been logged in a data register that includes an assessment of 
the  robustness  and  relevance  of  the  data.  Many  of  the  sources  are  reports  or  other 
documents  prepared  for  the  EC  and  are  considered  to  have  high  robustness.  There  are 
108 items with roughly equal numbers of documents assessed considered to have high, 
medium and low relevance. 

b.  Assessment of emission reduction 

There  are  two  criteria  to  assess  the  level  of  air  pollution:  one  criterion  is  the  change 
(decrease or increase) of the level of emissions from industrial activities. This has been 
evaluated for the IED industrial activities and for the different pollutants.  

However, as the numbers of installations and the production capacities change over time, 
a  better  way  to  assess  the  reduction  of  emissions  is  the  emission  factor  (EF,  in  kg  or 
tonne  of  pollutant  per  tonne  of  product  produced  or  tonne  of  refinery  intake).  The  EF 

106 

 
 
 
provides information on emission reduction measures or process modifications  and will 
change over time.  

In a quantitative analysis, the emission reduction of the pollutants: NOX, SOX and dust, in 
EU-28  industry  and  in  four  specific  sectors  (i.e.  glass  industries,  cement  industries, 
refineries  and  pulp  and  paper  industries)  from  2000  -  2017  have  been  evaluated  in 
Sweden, Finland, Spain, Germany, Romania and the Czech Republic. 

The database for this analysis was the air emission inventories of the respective Member 
States  according  to  the  UNECE/LRTAP  Convention  and  the  NEC  Directive,  for  the 
refineries sector complemented with energy balance data from Eurostat. Emissions in the 
inventories  arise  from  activity  data  (AD)  that  is  multiplied  with  an  activity  specific 
emission  factor  resulting  in  emissions  in  tonnes  of  pollutant.  Emissions  from  industrial 
activities  in  the  inventory  are  reported  in  two  main  sectors:  combustion  activities  and 
industrial processes. 

3.  Field research  

a.  Open public consultation (OPC) 

An  online  OPC  offers  an  opportunity  for  interested  individuals  from  any  type  of 
stakeholder groups to give their opinion on the main evaluation questions. The OPC was 
launched on the Commission’s website58. 

The  questionnaire  started  with  an  introduction  of  the  Directive  and  the  consultation 
process. It then presented a first set of questions that identified the respondent. It sought 
to  understand  the respondents’  familiarity  with  the  IED.  The  questionnaire  included  20 
questions about the IED. Respondents were able to answer all questions. However, there 
was a generic part targeted to the wider public and a specific section for participants with 
trade 
more  extensive  understanding 
organisations,  NGOs,  academia  and  relevant  international  organisations  and  third 
countries.  Respondents  had  the  opportunity  to  provide  further  comments  in  a  free-text 
box. 

including  public  authorities,  business  and 

Submissions  to  the  OPC  were  analysed  qualitatively  and  quantitatively.  All  multiple-
choice questions were summarised for results by stakeholder group. A factual summary 
report  highlighting  the  key  outcomes  of  the  consultation  was  published  by  the 
Commission in September 2019.59  

b.  Targeted stakeholder engagement: online survey 

To  gather  information  from  stakeholders  who  have  a  good  understanding  of  the 
implementation of the IED, a combination of targeted stakeholder consultation methods 
was  used.  A  targeted  online  survey  was  used  to  gather  the  views  of  key  groups  of 
stakeholders, including Member State authorities (at any level of administration and IED 
implementation),  industry  (individual  company  or  trade  body)  or  other  type  of 
organisations (e.g. NGO, research body). 

58 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2018-4758971/public-consultation_en  

59 Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2018-4758971/public-

consultation_en  

107 

 
 
                                                            
The questionnaire script was based on the relevant evaluation questions, but tailored to 
make  the  survey  more  user-friendly,  and  to  reflect  the  relevant  audience.  The 
questionnaire included a range of semi-quantitative questions, based on a 5-point Likert 
scale, for assessing the degrees of options on an issue, and was complemented with open 
questions which allowed respondents to provide further explanations and wider opinions. 
The survey included questions grouped into 10 key themes relevant to the IED that are 
considered as part of the evaluation. The survey was available only in English. 

The submissions to the online survey were analysed qualitatively and quantitatively. The 
analysis was done in parallel and with the same methodology as the OPC.  

c.  Targeted stakeholder engagement: interviews 

Telephone  interviews  were  used  to  complement  the  online  survey  and  gather  more  in-
depth  views.  The  interviews  were  in  two  categories:  stand-alone  interviews  with 
stakeholders  not  targeted  by  the  online  survey  (e.g.  EU  institutions,  such  as  EEA,  JRC 
and relevant units of the Commission) and follow-up interviews with survey respondents 
who  expressed  an  interest  to  further  discuss  their  input  to  the  survey.  The  interview 
questions built on the survey questionnaire but went into more details on specific points 
to  ensure  that more in-depth  stakeholder  insights  were  gathered, and specific  data gaps 
were filled. Responses from interview were analysed. 

d.  Targeted stakeholder engagement: focus groups 

A  focus  group  discussion  was  organised  in  Brussels  on  15  October  2019.  This  setting 
made it possible to consult a group of stakeholders in one setting with expertise on the 
effectiveness of the BREF process. Representatives of Member State authorities, industry 
associations and the NGO community took part. The focus group was invitation only and 
participants were selected in agreement with the Commission.   

e.  Stakeholder workshops 

The  first  stakeholder  workshop  was  organised  in  Brussels  on  22  May  2019  and  web 
streamed to access a wider audience. The aim of the workshop was to assist in gathering 
evidence, confirming the evaluation methodology, getting feedback from participants that 
no key issues are overlooked and raising awareness of the evaluation of the IED. 

The  second  workshop  took  place  on  17  December  in  Brussels  which  was  also  web 
streamed. The preliminary finding were presented and discussed with the stakeholders.  

4.  Robustness of the evidence 

The  level  of  credibility  that  can  be  placed  in  each  source  of  information  that  has  been 
used in the course of the evaluation varies. In principle, sources of information that are 
based  on  measured  or  reported  information  are  believed  to  be  quite  certain.  However, 
even in these cases the robustness depends on the correct measuring and reporting of the 
parameter concerned. It is assumed that even if there are errors, these are not systematic 
and there is not concerted manipulation. 

In other cases, literature may draw itself on a lot of stakeholder opinion, or be based on a 
small sample or have other features that weaken its robustness. 

Literature which originates from stakeholders with a particular vested interest are treated 
with greater caution. Such literature may selectively present information or present it in a 
certain manner to support an argument they wish to pursue. 

Stakeholder  opinion  presents  similar  risks  to  stakeholder  sourced  literature.  In  their 
opinions stakeholders may be seeking to manipulate the results to support their preferred 

108 

 
outcome. In the case of this evaluation it is striking that industry generally has the most 
positive  opinion  on  virtually  all  aspects  among  stakeholder  groups.  Conversely,  NGOs 
and Others tend to have the least positive opinion. It is possible that this is an attempt to 
either  lead  to  no  change  (probably  industry  desired  outcome)  or  conclude  that  the 
legislation  is  insufficiently  demanding  (probably  the  NGO  desired  outcome).  It  seems 
relatively  likely  that  Member  States’  opinions  would  be  more  objective,  although 
individual  Member  States  may  also  have  specific  outcomes  in  mind.  It  is  therefore  not 
surprising that Member States’ opinions are largely found to lie between those of NGOs 
and industry. 

Fortunately,  stakeholder  opinions  can  be  compared  across  the  different  stakeholder 
groups  and  in  view  of  their  different  interests,  a  composite  stakeholder  view  can  be 
derived that is probably more robust. 

5.  Level of confidence 

A  large  amount  of  information  sources  have  been  used  to  answer  the  questions  in  the 
evaluation matrix. The level of confidence in the answers is a result of the robustness of 
each of the individual sources used and the degree to which the different sources could be 
used to corroborate each other. 

The  weakest  confidence  is  considered  to  be  associated  with  answers  where  the  only 
information available is a stakeholder opinion. Because most questions are answered by 
all stakeholder groups, there is some certainty that these answers are not corrupted by a 
concerted effort to manipulate the findings. Where the different stakeholder opinions are 
largely convergent, we can probably have a higher confidence that they are less biased. 

For  many  issues,  the  pure  opinion  expressed  in  the  surveys  can  be  supported  and 
contrasted with the opinions expressed in interviews or in the case of the BREF process, 
in the focus group. 

Where  it  is  possible  to  compare  findings  from  literature  with  stakeholder  opinions,  we 
begin to get a much higher degree of confidence in the findings. 

The  highest  degree  of  confidence  is  provided  where  multiple  sources  of  information 
corroborate  each  other  and  multiple  stakeholder  opinions.  An  example  of  that  is  the 
degree to which the IED has contributed to reducing emissions of pollutants to air. Here 
there  is  evidence  from  stricter  emission  limits,  emissions  reporting,  a  decomposition 
analysis for one sector and the view of all stakeholder groups. 

109 

 
 
 
Annex 6: Rating of robustness and stakeholder sentiment  

Robustness of findings 

As discussed in Annex 4, the degree of confidence that can be placed in the findings of 
the  evaluation  varies,  depending  on  the  information  sources  used  and  the  degree  of 
agreement among those different sources. To ease the reading of this document, a simple 
rating, [High], [Medium] or [Low], is provided to inform the reader without having to 
explain all of the underlying sources employed. 

The ranking is based upon the robustness of each of the individual sources used and the 
degree  to  which  the  different  sources  could  be  used  to  corroborate  each  other.  The 
criteria applied are as follows: 

[High]  indicates  that  multiple  independent  sources  of  information  corroborate 
each  other  and  there  is  a  good  basis  to  compare  with.  This  would  often  include 
official data or reports. Those are triangulated with multiple stakeholder opinions 
and found to agree. An illustration is the IED contribution to reducing emissions 
of  pollutants  to  air.  Here  there  is  corroborating  evidence  from  BAT-AELs  in 
BREFs, stricter emission limits in permits, emissions reporting, a  decomposition 
analysis for one sector and the view of all stakeholder groups. 

[Medium]  indicates  that  either  the  underlying  evidence  is  weaker  or  there  are 
divergences  between  different  sources  or  the  absence  of  a  clear  baseline  for 
comparison.  

[Low]  generally  indicates  that  there  is  no  evidence  other  than  stakeholder 
opinion.  

Stakeholder sentiment 

As  explained  in  Annex  3,  a  large  amount  of  stakeholder  opinions  have  been  gathered. 
These  are  set  out  in  full  in  the  report  of  the  supporting  study  to  this  evaluation.  It  is 
desirable  to  provide  a  simple  overview  of  the  views  expressed  by  the  four  stakeholder 
groups  (Industry,  National  authorities,  Sub-national  authorities  and  others  (which 
includes  environmental  NGOs)  and  in  particular  the  degree  to  which  they  converge  or 
differ. 

In  the  targeted  survey  there  were  around  70  5-point  Likert  scale  type  questions.  These 
ask for stakeholder responses to a statement that range from strong agreement via neutral 
to strong disagreement. The approach that has been taken is to allocate a value to each of 
the  5  answers  and  to  compile  an  average  score  for  each  stakeholder  category.  In  some 
cases this is done for a single question and in other cases it is more appropriate to average 
over a number of questions (for example for the overall views on the five criteria).  

110 

 
To avoid misrepresentation of the responses through this simplification, a neutral answer 
is given the value of zero. Positive answers receive a positive value and negative ones a 
negative value.  

A worked example is given below for responses to “To what extent do you think that the 
IED  has  contributed  to  reducing  and  (as  far  as  possible  eliminating  pollution  arising 
from  industrial  activities?”  The  graphic  below  shows  the  responses  by  stakeholder 
group: 

Step  1:  The  stakeholder  responses  to  the  question  are  shown  in  tabular  form  including 
the total number of responses by stakeholder category.  

Responses 

Strongly 
agree 
94 
Industry (IND) 
4 
National (MS) 
Sub-national (REG)  0 
1 
Other (OTH) 

Agree 

76 
26 
27 
4 

Neither agree 
nor disagree 
10 
1 
14 
2 

Disagree  Strongly 
disagree 
0 
0 
0 
1 

2 
0 
1 
0 

Total 
responses 
182 
31 
42 
8 

 Step 2: The scoring for each answer category is multiplied by the number of responses 
for each to each category. These scored responses are then summed to give a total score 
for each stakeholder category.  

Scoring of the responses (number of responses times score) 

Strongly 
agree 

Agree 

Score 
IND 
MS 
REG 
OTH 

+2 
188 
8 
0 
2 

+1 
76 
26 
27 
4 

Neither 
agree 
disagree 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

Disagree 

nor 

Strongly 
disagree 

Category 
sum score 

-1 
-2 
0 
-1 
0 

-2 
0 
0 
0 
-2 

262 
34 
26 
4 

Step 3: The total sum score for each answer stakeholder category is divided by the total 
number of responses for that category. The result (in the right hand column of the table 
below)  is  a  score  representing  the  average  of  the  overall  answers  given  by  that 
stakeholder category. This can be equated with the raw scores given to each answer, i.e. 
above 1 represents “agree”, 0 represents neither agree nor disagree and a negative value 
represents disagreement. 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Normalising score for number of answers (score divided by total responses for the group) 
Final sentiment score 
Category 
1.4 
IND 
1.1 
MS 
0.6 
REG 
0.5 
OTH 

Total sum score  Total responses 
262 
34 
26 
4 

182 
31 
42 
8 

The resulting scores for the four categories (Industry: IND, National: MS, Sub-national: 
REG, Other: OTH) are then shown graphically against a scale ranging from ++  to --. The 
equivalent  values  are  ++:  2,  +:  1,  0:  0,  -:  -1  and  --:  -2.  The  resulting  graphic  for  the 
illustrated values [MS (red) 1.1; REG (blue) 0.6; IND (grey) 1.4; OTH (green) 0.5] is as 
follows: 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 7: Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation 

Citizens  

Businesses 

Administrations 

Qualitative  Quantitative 

/ 

Qualitative  Quantitative / monetary  

Qualitative 

monetary 

Quantitative 
monetary  

/ 

From 
IA (all EU) 

2007 

€30m 
administrations) 

(shared 

From 
IA (all EU) 

2007 

€2m 
administrations) 

(shared 

with 

with 

From 
IA (all EU) 

2007 

€150-300m 
administrations) 

(shared  with 

From 
IA (all EU) 

2007 

€19m  

From 
IA (all EU) 

2007 

€14m 

From  2007  IA  (all 
EU) 

€18m 

From  2007  IA  (all 
EU) 

€26m 

Benefit 

Benefit 

Benefit 

Cost 

Cost 

Cost 
(annual) 

Cost 
(annual) 

Expected 
permitting 

from 

combined 

Expected 
monitoring and reporting 

from  streamlining  of 

Expected 
in 
administrative  burden  in  Member 
States 

reduction 

Expected  from  extension  of  the 
scope of the Directive 

Expected 
strengthen 
increase 
improvements 

from 

compliance 

actions 

to 
and 
environmental 

Expected 
reconsideration 

cost 

of 

permit 

Expected cost of inspections 

Cost  (per-
BREF) 

Expected  cost  of  production  of 
BREF 

113 

From  2007  IA  (all 
EU) 

5 yearly: €22–80m 
10 yearly: €11–40m  
15 yearly: €7–27m 

From  2007  IA  (all 
EU) 

€80m/year 

From  2007  IA  (all 
EU) 

€5-10m 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cost (one-
off) 

Baseline  report  (estimate  based  on 
50 steel works and 197 Electric Arc 
Furnaces) 

Cost 
(per-
BREF) 

Production of BREF 

Cost (one-
off) 

Cost  of  permit  reconsideration 
(estimate  based  on  50  steel  works 
and 197 Electric Arc Furnaces) 

Cost 
(annual) 

Cost 
(annual) 

Cost 
(annual) 

Investment  costs  to  comply  with 
Iron and Steel BAT conclusions 

Monitoring  costs  (estimate  based 
on  50  steel works and 197 Electric 
Arc Furnaces) 

Inspection costs (estimate based on 
50 steel works and 197 Electric Arc 
Furnaces) 

Cost 
(annual) 

Administration  BAT  conclusions 
implementation cost 

Based  on  survey 
responses (all EU) 

€19.9m 
robustness] 

[Low 

€1.6-13m 
robustness] 

[Medium 

Based  on  survey 
responses (all EU) 

€1.8-7.4m 
robustness] 

[Medium 

Based  on  survey 
responses (all EU) 

€14.9m 
robustness] 

[Low 

€134m [High robustness] 

on 

Based 
survey 
responses (all 
EU) 

From 
detailed 
study 
EU) 

(all 

Based  on  survey 
responses (all EU) 

€5.5m 
[Low robustness] 

Based  on  survey 
responses (all EU) 

€4.5m 
[Low robustness] 

Based  on  survey 
responses (all EU) 

€5.5m 
[Low robustness] 

Benefit 
(annual) 

Cost 
(annual) 

Benefit  from  reduced  emissions  to 
air from compliance with Iron and 
Steel BAT conclusions 

From 
detailed 
study 
(all EU) 

€932m 
robustness] 

[High 

Investment  costs  to  comply  with 
IED  Large  Combustion  Plant 
emission  limits  to  air  (solid  fuel 
>300MWth) 

From 
detailed 
study 
EU) 

2020: €1.0bn 
2025: €0.75bn 
[Medium robustness] 

(all 

Benefit 

Benefit  from  reduced  emissions  to  From 

2020: €11.2bn 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(annual) 

Cost 
(annual) 

Benefit 
(annual) 

air  of  compliance  with  IED  Large 
Combustion  Plant  emission  limits 
(solid fuel >300MWth) 

detailed 
study  
(all EU) 

2025: €9.9bn 
 [Medium robustness] 

Investment costs in 2025 to comply 
with Large Combustion Plant BAT 
conclusions  for  emissions  to  air 
(solid fuel >300MWth) 

Benefit 
in  2025  from  reduced 
emissions to air of compliance with 
Large  Combustion  Plant  BAT 
conclusions (solid fuel >300MWth) 

From 
detailed 
study  
(all EU) 

BAT-AEL: 

Upper 
€3.4bn  
Lower 
€14.2bn 
[Medium robustness] 

BAT-AEL: 

From 
detailed 
study 
EU) 

Upper BAT-AEL: €0.59bn 
Lower BAT-AEL: €5.7bn 
[Medium robustness] 

(all 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 8: Coherence with related EU legislation 

The IED has a large number of interactions with other legislation and its coherence with 
them  was  assessed  during  the  evaluation.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  whilst  there  may  be 
coherence regarding the objectives to achieve, it is not excluded that ambition levels may 
be different, as is discussed in Section 2.7 in relation to the European Green Deal. A brief 
summary of the interactions and the issues identified is given below: 

With regard to the National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD), the modelling to set 
achievable reductions was based in part on assumptions of the use of BAT in industry. 
BAT  conclusions  contribute  to  achieving  the  reduction  targets  set  under  the  NECD. 
However, there is no evidence of Member States systematically choosing to set stricter 
requirements for IED sectors to contribute to national emission ceilings. 

Regarding  the  European  Pollutant  Release  and  Transfer  Register  (E-PRTR)  a 
primary coherence issue is the divergence between the sectors covered. In addition, the 
value of the data reported is reduced because of the E-PRTR’s high emission thresholds. 
Furthermore, the E-PRTR scope is limited to the pollutants listed in its annexes, which 
have  not  been  adapted  to  technical  progress,  e.g.  regarding  emerging  environmental 
issues,  such  as  per-  and  poly-fluoroalkyl  substances  (PFAS).  Another  issue  is  that 
emissions reported in E-PRTR correspond to the facility level which may include several 
IED installations. 

Concerning the Aarhus legislation, issues have been flagged as to whether the provisions 
of the IED have been correctly implemented to give full effect to the rights of access to 
information and public participation in decision making. The draft findings of the Aarhus 
Compliance Committee60 refer in particular to a lack of public participation with regard 
to reconsiderations and updates of permits under Article 21 (3), (4), (5)(b) and (5)(c) of 
the IED, failing to comply with Article 6(10) of the Convention. 

Regarding  water  legislation,  there  are  issues  about  allowing  priority  hazardous 
substances  to  be  emitted  based  on  the  use  of  BAT,  compared  with  the  Water 
Framework  Directive’s  ultimate  aim  to  eliminate  their  emissions.  There  are  also 
problems with the practical implementation of the interactions between IED installations 
and urban waste water treatment plants, because water treatment plants are mostly not fit 
for treating industrial waste waters and the relevant IED provision lacks clarity.  

A  specific  issue  is  the  coherence  with  climate  legislation.  At  present,  there  does  not 
seem to be any incoherence, since Article 9 of the IED prohibits setting ELVs for GHGs 
for installations under the EU ETS. However, it can be questioned whether this will be 
appropriate  in  the  future,  given  the  European  Green  Deal  ambition.  It  needs  to  be 

60 ACCC (2019), “Draft findings and recommendations with regard to communication ACCC/C/2014/121 
concerning 
www.unece.org/environmental-
European 
policy/conventions/publicparticipation/aarhus-convention/tfwg/envppcc/envppcccom/acccc2014121-
europeanunion.html 

compliance 

Union”, 

the 

by 

116 

 
 
 
                                                            
considered whether coherence challenges will arise in relation to future decarbonisation 
techniques and their impact on pollutant and GHG emissions.  

Regarding the coherence of energy efficiency measures and the EU ETS, this has been 
debated widely in the past. The interaction of the two does not alter the GHG emissions 
reduction that will be achieved by the ETS (which is determined by the cap61), but may 
weaken the price signal. In view of this, there might have been impacts from EU energy 
efficiency  measures  such  as  those  in  the  IED.  However,  despite  our  attempts  to  gather 
evidence  on  energy  savings  caused  by  BAT  conclusions,  we  have  no  information  on 
whether this has happened and therefore also not on the impact this might have had on 
GHG emissions. Consequently, we cannot draw any conclusions on this. 

Energy  use,  which  is  to  a  degree  a  proxy  for  GHG  emissions,  is  a  factor  taken  into 
account when defining BAT, e.g. a technique reducing emissions of an air pollutant but 
requiring an unreasonable amount of energy would likely not be considered as BAT. This 
also  means  that  a  decarbonisation  technique  that  has  a  positive  overall  environmental 
outcome (e.g. also reducing pollutant emissions to air), would qualify for considering as 
BAT under IED. 

Regarding  the  Montreal  Protocol,  chlorofluorocarbon  (CFC)  and  hydrofluorocarbon 
(HFC) emissions, have been addressed where appropriate – e.g. in the Food, Drink and 
Milk BAT conclusions.  

Regarding the Environmental Crime Directive (ECD), the penalties established under 
the  IED,  implemented  after  the  ECD  entry  into  force,  should  have  been  set  consistent 
with it. However, this has not been assessed. 

With regard to REACH, the evaluation of that legislation did not find any incoherence 
with the IED. No problems were identified and several consulted stakeholders, including 
industry respondents were less concerned, noting that there are no links between REACH 
and  IED,  except  that  the  environmental  permit  needs  to  disclose  the  use  of  hazardous 
chemicals.  

61 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/cap_en 

117 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Annex  9:  Summary  of  outstanding  problems  with  the  IED 
implementation (March 2020) 

Outstanding cases  
Member 
State 

Current status 

Austria 
Czech 
Republic 
Bulgaria 
Germany 
Denmark 
Croatia 
Finland 
Latvia 
Portugal 
Slovenia 
Sweden 
Slovakia 
Poland 
Greece 

Italy 
Romania 

Non conform transposition 
Commission assessing response to EU pilot 
Commission assessing response to EU pilot 

Letter of formal notice sent 
Commission assessing response to EU pilot 
Commission assessing response to EU pilot 
Commission assessing response to EU pilot 
Commission assessing response to EU pilot 
Commission assessing response to EU pilot 
Commission assessing response to EU pilot 
Commission assessing transposition measures 
Commission assessing response to EU pilot 
Commission assessing response to EU pilot 
Commission assessing response to EU pilot 
Letter of formal notice sent 
Bad implementation 
ILVA Steel plant in Taranto – Breach of IPPCD AND IED  
Breach  of  IED  relating  to  lack  of  permits  and  compliance  of  2  plants 
under TNP 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 10: List of relevant EU legislation  

Term used 

IPPCD 

IPPCD  implementation 
reporting 

LCPD 

WID 

SED 

IED 

Legislation title 

2008/1/EC 

pollution 
concerning 
Directive 
prevention  and  control  (based  on  the  original  Directive 
96/61/EC) 

integrated 

Commission  Implementing  Decision  (2011/631/EU)  of  21 
September  2011  establishing  a  questionnaire  to  be  used  for 
reporting on the implementation of Directive 2008/1/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council concerning integrated 
pollution prevention and control.  

Directive 2001/80/EC on the limitation of emissions of certain 
pollutants into the air from large combustion plants 

Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste 

Directive 1999/13/EC on the limitation of emissions of volatile 
organic  compounds  due  to  the  use  of  organic  solvents  in 
certain activities and installations 

Council  Directive  78/176/EEC  on  waste  from  the  titanium 
dioxide industry 

the 
Council  Directive  82/883/EEC  on  procedures 
surveillance  and  monitoring  of  environments  concerned  by 
waste from the titanium dioxide industry 

for 

Council Directive 92/112/EEC on procedures for harmonising 
the programmes  for the  reduction and eventual elimination of 
pollution caused by waste from the titanium dioxide industry 

Directive  2010/75/EU  on  industrial  emissions  (integrated 
pollution  prevention  and  control)  -  The  Industrial  Emissions 
Directive 

Decision  setting  up  the 
Forum 

Commission  Decision  of  16  May  2011  establishing  a  Forum 
for  the  exchange  of  information  pursuant  to  Article  13  of  the 
Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions 

BREF Guidance 

Commission  Implementing  Decision  (2012/119/EU)  of  10 
February  2012  laying  down  rules  concerning  guidance  on  the 
collection  of  data  and  on  the  drawing  up  of  BAT  reference 
documents and on their quality assurance 

IED  Reporting 

First 
Decision 

Commission  Implementing  Decision  (2012/795/EU)  of  12 
December 2012 establishing the type, format and frequency of 
information to be made available by the Member States for the 

119 

 
 
 
 
Second  IED  Reporting 
Decision 

purposes  of  reporting  on  the  implementation  of  Directive 
2010/75/EU 

Commission  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2018/1135  of  10 
August  2018  establishing  the  type,  format  and  frequency  of 
information to be made available by the Member States for the 
purposes  of  reporting  on  the  implementation  of  Directive 
2010/75/EU  (repealing  Commission  Implementing  Decision 
2012/795/EU) 

E-PRTR 

European  Pollutant  Release  and  Transfer  Register  Regulation 
(EC) No 166/2006 

INSPIRE Directive 

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.  

EU ETS 

Effort 
Regulation  

Sharing 

Directive  (EU)  2018/410  amending  Directive  2003/87/EC  of 
the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13  October 
2003  establishing  a  system  for  greenhouse  gas  emission 
allowance trading within the Union. 

Regulation (EU) 2018/842 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 30 May 2018 on binding annual greenhouse gas 
emission  reductions  by  Member  States  from  2021  to  2030 
contributing to climate action to meet commitments under the 
Paris Agreement. 

Monitoring 
Reporting Regulation 

and 

Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 of 21 June 2012 on 
the  monitoring  and  reporting  of  greenhouse  gas  emissions 
pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament 
and of the Council. 

Seveso Directive 

REACH 

NECD 

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

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. 

Directive  (EU)  2016/2284  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of 
the Council of 14 December 2016 on the reduction of national 
emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants. 

Ambient  Air  Quality 
Directive 

Directive 2008/50/EC 

120 

 
Water 
Directive 

Framework 

Directive  2000/60/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  of  23  October  2000  establishing  a  framework  for 
Community action in the field of water policy. 

Environmental  Quality 
Standards Directive 

Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council  of  16  December  2008  on  environmental  quality 
standards  in  the  field  of  water  policy  (amended  by  Directive 
2013/39/EU). 

Nitrates Directive 

Directive 91/676/EEC 

Groundwater Directive  Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
the  protection  of 

Council  of  12  December  2006  on 
groundwater against pollution and deterioration 

Waste 
Directive 

Framework 

Directive  2008/98/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council of 19 November 2008 on waste. 

Landfill Directive 

Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill 
of waste. 

Medium  Combustion 
Plants 
Directive 
(MCPD) 

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

121 

 
 
 
 
Annex 11: Reference list (main sources) 

This  list  shows  the  main  sources  of  work  carried  out  for  the  Commission  which  were 
used  as  evidence  underpinning  this  evaluation62.  All  reports  can  be  found  under  the 
following link: https://europa.eu/!nY63hc. 

1.  Ricardo Energy & Environment, Umweltbundesamt (AT), Milieu (2020), “Support to 

the evaluation of the Industrial Emissions Directive (Directive 2010/75/EU” 

2.  Eunomia  Research  &  Consulting  (2019),  “An  Assessment  of  IED  Permitting 

Stringency” 

3.  European Commission, DG Environment (2019), BAT AEL tool 
4.  Ricardo  Energy  &  Environment,  Umweltbundesamt 

(AT),  VITO 

(2019), 

“Environmental Performances of Technologies Used in MCPs” 

5.  Ricardo Energy & Environment (2019), “IED Implementation Report 2013 - 2016” 
6.  Ricardo  Energy  &  Environment,  VITO  (2019),  “IED  Contribution  to  the  circular 

economy” 

7.  Ricardo  Energy  &  Environment,  Umweltbundesamt  (AT),  VITO,  ELLE  (2018), 

“Key Environmental Issues” 

8.  ICF, Aether (2018), “Indicators for Industrial Emissions Policy” 
9.  Ricardo  Energy  &  Environment  (2018),  “Summary  on  IED  Contribution  to  Water 

Policy” 

10. Ricardo  Energy  &  Environment  (2018),  “Industrial  emissions  policy  country 

profiles” 

11. Ricardo Energy & Environment, Umweltbundesamt (AT), VITO, ELLE (2018), “Ex-
post  assessment  of  costs  and  benefits  from  implementing  BAT  under  the  Industrial 
Emissions Directive” 

12. AMEC, REC (2018), “Application of IED Article 15(4) derogations” 
13. Ricardo  Energy  &  Environment,  TNO,  ECN,  VITO  (2017),  “Technical  support  for 
developing  the  profile  of  certain  categories  of  Large  Combustion  Plants  regulated 
under the Industrial Emissions Directive” 

14. European Commission (2016), “IED Success Stories” 
15. AMEC,  Milieu  (2016),  “Assessment  and  summary  of 
implementation reports for the IED, IPPCD, SED and WID” 

the  Member  States 

16. Ricardo Energy  &  Environment, EMRC,  VITO (2016),  “Analysis  and development 
of  methodologies  for  estimating  potential  industrial  emissions  reductions  and 
compliance  costs  of  BAT  conclusions  adopted  under  the  Industrial  Emissions 
Directive” 

17. ICF (2015), “Information Exchange on Emerging Techniques” 
18. AMEC  (2015),  “Assessing  the  potential  emission  reductions  delivered  by  BAT 

conclusions” 

19. AMEC,  Bio  Intelligence  Service,  Milieu,  IEEP,  REC  (2014),  “Contribution  of 

industry to pollutant emissions to air and water” 

62 The complete list of references can be found in the evaluation support study [1]. 

122 

 
                                                            
 
20. ICF (2013), “IED Article 30(9) Review (LCP)” 
21. AMEC (2012), “Guidance on Baseline Report” 
22. Milieu  (2011),  “Provisions  on  penalties  related  to  legislation  on  industrial 

installations” 

23. AMEC,  IOM,  Aether  (2011),  “Industrial  emissions  of  nanomaterials  and  ultrafine 

particles” 

123