REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL ON THE IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFICIENT FUNCTIONING OF DIRECTIVE 2012/18/EU ON THE CONTROL OF MAJOR-ACCIDENT HAZARDS INVOLVING DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES FOR THE PERIOD 2015-2018
Date: 2021-09-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: accident prevention, application of EU law, dangerous substance, disclosure of information, environmental impact, industrial accident, industrial hazard, public health

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 29.9.2021  COM(2021) 599 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL ON THE IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFICIENT FUNCTIONING OF DIRECTIVE 2012/18/EU ON THE CONTROL OF MAJOR-ACCIDENT HAZARDS INVOLVING DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES FOR THE PERIOD 2015-2018  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

1.  SUMMARY OF THE MEMBER STATES’ REPORTS ............................................ 3 

1.1.  Statistics on establishments ............................................................................... 3 

1.1.1.  Number of establishments ................................................................... 3 

1.1.2.  External emergency plans .................................................................... 5 

1.1.3. 

Information to the public ..................................................................... 7 

1.1.4. 

Inspections ........................................................................................... 8 

1.1.5.  Prohibition of use, penalties and other coercive instruments .............. 9 

1.2.  Statistics on major accidents ........................................................................... 10 

2  WAY  FORWARD  TO 

IMPROVE 

INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT 

PREVENTION .......................................................................................................... 13 

3  CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 15 

Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 
Office: BU-9 04/036 - Office: BU-9 04/036Tel. direct line +32 22956872 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

Major accidents involving dangerous substances pose a significant threat to humans and 
the  environment.  Furthermore,  such  accidents  often  cause  substantial  economic  losses 
and disrupt sustainable growth. At the same time,  chemicals play a fundamental role in 
most  of  our  daily  activities,  as  they  form  part  of  virtually  every  device  we  use, 
contributing  to  our  well-being,  protection  of  our  health  and  security  or  providing 
solutions  to  new  challenges  through  innovation.  To  minimise  the  associated  risks, 
measures  are  necessary  to  prevent  major  accidents  involving  dangerous  substances  and 
ensure  appropriate  preparedness,  prevention  and  response  should  such  accidents 
nevertheless happen. 

The European Green Deal Communication requires the Commission to step up its work 
with the Member States to improve the prevention of industrial accidents1. In addition, in 
the  Zero  Pollution  Action  Plan2,  the  Commission  has  announced  that  it  will  further 
consolidate  its  support  to  Member  States,  for  example  when  it  comes  to  assessing  the 
risks  of  establishments,  so  as  to  step  up  prevention  measures,  and  the  consequences  of 
possible accidents. 

Directive  2012/18/EU3  on  the  control  of  major-accident  hazards  involving  dangerous 
substances  ("Seveso-III  Directive")  provides  for  the  relevant  framework  on  risk 
management  measures  to  prevent  major  accidents  and  to  limit  their  consequences.  It  is 
the latest generation of ‘Seveso law’ and came into force on 1 June 2015. Compared to 
its predecessors, it tightens provisions on public participation and information, land-use 
planning,  public  access  to  justice  and  introduces  stricter  inspection  standards  to  ensure 
the safety rules are being effectively implemented. 

Member States provide the Commission with a four-yearly report on implementation, in 
accordance  with  Article  21(2).  The  present  report  summarises  Member  States 
submissions  for  the  period  2015-2018,  pursuant  to  Article  29  (at  this  time  the  United 
Kingdom was still a member of the European Union).  

This report includes two parts: 

-  Part I summarises information provided by the Member States on the implementation 
of  the  Seveso  Directive.  Section  1.1  covers  information  gathered  through  a 
questionnaire4,  which  focussed  on  earlier  identified  problem  areas.  The  aim  of  this 
summary  is  to  assess  the  level  of  implementation  and  to  identify  any  shortcomings 
that  need  to  be  addressed.  Section  1.2  supplements  this  with  data  on  accidents 
resulting from an analysis of the database of major accidents (eMARS5), operated by 

1  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  European  Council,  the  Council, 
the  European economic and social committee and the  committee of the regions  – The European Green 
Deal (COM/2019/640 final) 

2 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and social committee and the committee of the regions - Pathway to a Healthy Planet for All EU Action 
Plan: 'Towards Zero Pollution for Air, Water and Soil' (COM/2021/400 final) 

3 Directive  2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of  the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of 
major-accident  hazards  involving  dangerous  substances,  amending  and  subsequently  repealing  Council 
Directive 96/82/EC, OJ L 197, 24.7.2012, p. 1–37  

4  2014/896/EU:  Commission  Implementing  Decision  of  10  December  2014  establishing  the  format  for 
communicating information from Member States on the implementation of Directive 2012/18/EU of the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  control  of  major-accident  hazards  involving  dangerous 
substances (notified under document C(2014) 9335) 

5 Major Accident Reporting System (https://emars.jrc.ec.europa.eu)  

2 

 
                                                 
the  Major  Accident  Hazard  Bureau  of  the  Joint  Research  Centre  of  the  European 
Commission. 

-  Part  II  outlines  the  anticipated  actions  the  Commission  will  take  forward  to  work 
with  the  Member  States  to  further  improve  the  prevention  of  industrial  accidents, 
including by addressing implementation shortcomings. 

Like in the case of previous assessments, the Commission contracted an external service 
provider to analyse the reports provided by the Member States, as well as other relevant 
data.  The  contractor’s  report6  provides  a  detailed  analysis  of  the  information  reported, 
including an analysis for each Member State, and other available information. 

The  full  contributions  of  the  28  Member  States,  as  well  as  the  questionnaire,  and  the 
reports concerning the previous reporting periods are also publicly available7. 

1.  SUMMARY OF THE MEMBER STATES’ REPORTS 

All  28  Member  States8  submitted  their  quadrennial  reports  to  the  Commission  for  the 
period 2015-2018.  

1.1. 

Statistics on establishments 

1.1.1.  Number of establishments 

Member States reported a total of 11 776 establishments as falling under the scope of the 
Seveso-III Directive in 2018 (cf. Figure 1). This is an increase (479) from the previous 
reporting period (2012-2014) by the end of which 11 297 establishments were reported. 
The countries with the largest share of these establishments were Germany (31%), France 
(11%), Italy (8%), the UK (8%) – still a EU Member State during the relevant reporting 
period - and Spain (7%).  

The proportions of upper-tier establishment (UTE) and lower-tier establishments (LTE)9 
was  nearly  constant  during  the  reporting  period,  with  on  average  43%  (5  090 
establishments) being UTE and 57% (6 686 establishments) LTE. 

6 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/df2c6a1c-99bb-4b13-b68c-b8a1e33c95c5  
7 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/4cc9ca17-0920-4d8a-8796-6ffa170612b7  
8 For the period 2015-2018 the UK was a Member State of the EU 
9 The Directive covers establishments where dangerous substances may be present (e.g. during processing 
or storage) in quantities exceeding certain threshold. Depending on the amount of dangerous substances 
present,  establishments  are  categorised  in  lower  and  upper  tier,  the  latter  are  subject  to  more  stringent 
requirements. 

3 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 1: Number of Seveso establishments in 2018 

3655

1295

994

885 857

439 396 388 388 325 263 255 212 210 202 191 163 122 93 83 72 64 62 60 44 30 18 10

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

DE

FR

IT UK

ES

PL NL

BE

SE

FI

RO HU CZ

EL

BG PT

AT DK

Upper tier 1153 678 515 353 418 184 260 216 204 138 112 114 114 76

81

65

88

Lower tier 2502 617 479 532 439 255 136 172 184 187 151 141 98 134 121 126 75

61

61

Lower tier

Upper tier

IE

49

44

SK HR

42

41

37

35

LV

29

35

EE

31

31

SI

24

36

LT

19

25

CY

12

18

LU MT

9

9

8

2

As  shown  in  Figure  2,  a  slow  but  steady  increase  can  be  observed  in  the  number  of 
establishments covered by the Directive. This needs to be put in  context with three EU 
enlargement  rounds  during  this  period  (2004,  2007  and  2013)  and  an  increase  of  the 
dangerous substances under the scope of the Seveso-III Directive following the revision 
of the Seveso-II Directive in 2012. Data on lower-tier establishment were only reported 
as of the reporting period 2009-2011. 

Figure 2: Evolution of the number of establishments reported10 

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

6279

6686

5523

3742

3684

3278

3949

4528

4791

5018

5090

1996

1999

2002

2005

2008

2011

2014

2018

UTE

LTE

Among activities used to categorise Seveso establishments, four account for almost 45% 
of establishments: 

(1) 

General chemicals production and distribution (1 850 establishments = 15,1%) 

10  Data  on  1996  and  1999  are  not  fully  comparable  due  to  differing  definitions  on  establishments  and 
installations. Several installations in the same establishment may have been reported individually which 
explains the apparent decrease in 2002. Besides the  classification of hazardous substances classification 
changed with the Seveso-III Directive. 

4 

 
 
 
                                                 
(2) 
Power generation, supply and distribution (1 606 establishments = 13,2%) 
(3) 
Fuel storage (1 190 establishments = 9,8%) 
(4)  Wholesale and retail (930 establishments = 7,6%) 

1.1.2.  External emergency plans  

Article 12 of the Seveso-III Directive requires operators to supply competent authorities 
with  the  information  necessary  for  them  to  draw  up,  for  upper  tier  establishments,  the 
External  Emergency  Plans  (EEPs).  These  plans  are  important  to  allow  rapid  and 
coordinated response to major accidents and play a vital role in minimising their effects.  

They also have to be reviewed and tested at intervals of no longer than three years.  

1.1.2.1. Establishment of external emergency plans  

As shown in  Figure 3, EEPs were established for most upper-tier establishments at  the 
end of the reporting period. On average, 91% of upper-tier establishments had an EEP at 
the  end  of  the  2015-2018  period.  4%  of  establishments  did  not  have  an  EEP,  as  the 
competent  authorities decided on the basis of Article 12(8)  of the Seveso-III  Directive, 
that in view of the information contained in the safety report, the requirement to produce 
an EEP shall not apply.  

The most common ground invoked by competent authorities to justify the absence of an 
EEP  is  that,  based  on  their  assessment,  consequences  of  major  accidents  would  not 
extend beyond the site boundary and/or would have no potential risk to human health and 
the  environment.  Another  explanation  provided  was  that  accident  scenarios  in  certain 
cases were covered by other emergency response plans (e.g. plans for marine and coastal 
emergencies or response plan of the competent fire brigade).  

The  remaining  5%  of  upper-tier  establishments  (i.e.  more  than  200  EU  upper-tier 
establishments)  did  not  have  an  EEP,  indicating  non-compliance  with  the  Seveso-III 
Directive  provisions.  This  is  however  an  improvement  since  the  previous  reporting 
period, where 12% of the upper-tier establishments lacked an EEP.  

5 

 
 
Figure 3: Share of upper tier establishments for which an EEP was established or not required 
during the reporting period11 

87% 88% 88% 89% 90% 91% 91%

96% 97% 97% 97% 99% 99%

78% 79% 82%

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

PT

BG

EL

EE MT

PL

LU

IT

NL

FR

IE

AT

SE

ES

UK

DE

1.1.2.2.Testing and review of external emergency plans 

Concerning  Article  12(6)  of  the  Seveso-III  Directive  and  the  obligation  for  Member 
States to ensure that external emergency plans are reviewed, tested, and where necessary 
updated  at  suitable  intervals  of  no  longer  than  three  years,  the  2015-2018  reporting 
period shows slight improvement compared to previous ones. Indeed, in the 2006-2008 
reporting  period,  60%  of  the  EEPs  were  reviewed  and  tested;  in  2009-2011,  this  share 
increased  to  73%  and  reached  75%  by  the  end  of  2014.  In  the  2015-2018  reporting 
period, out of the total 5 090 upper-tier establishments, 77% of EEPs were tested.  

The Commission notes that the situation varies among the Member States: most Member 
States fully comply with the provisions of the Seveso-III Directive related to EEP testing 
and  review,  while  a  few  others  have  a  very  high  rate  of  non-compliance.  The  reported 
information is presented in Figure 4. 

Figure 4: External emergency plans not tested during 2015-201812 

??

??

63%

58%

50%

42%

22% 21% 19% 17%

10% 8% 4% 3% 2% 1%

CZ

EL

IT

EE

ES

LT

FR

BG

DE

SE

DK

IE

SI

AT

SK

UK

11  Note:  Member  States  which  are  not  mentioned  in  the  figure  have  reported  being  compliant  with  the 

obligation to establish EEPs for upper-tier establishments 

12 Note: Member States which are not mentioned in the  figure have reported having tested all EEPs over 
the  period  2015-2018.  Greece  and  the  Czech  Republic  have  reported  having  tested  only  a  part  of  all 
EEPs, without indicating however how many were not tested – thus, they are in grey in the figure. 

6 

 
 
                                                 
1.1.3.  Information to the public 

According to Article 14(1), Member States must ensure that the information referred to 
in Annex V is permanently available to the public, including electronically.  

The  information  on  all  establishments  is  kept  permanently  available,  including 
electronically, and is updated where necessary by 17 Member States. The remaining 11 
Member States did not fully comply with Article 14(1)13, even if this information is made 
available to the public upon request. 

Member  States  were  requested  to  report  the  share  of  establishments  for  which  the 
information listed in Annex V to the Directive was not kept available. This information is 
presented in Figure 5. 

Figure 5: Share of establishments for which the information in Annex V is not kept permanently 
available14  

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

70%

30%

23%

16%

8%

8%

17%

20%

1%

6%

4%

30%

DE

EE

EL

ES

IT

LV

MT

PL

RO

SI

UK

NO

Besides,  Article  14(2)  requires  that,  for  upper-tier  establishments  only,  Member  States 
shall ensure that all persons likely to be affected by a major accident receive regularly, 
without having to  request  it, information  on safety  measures and requisite behaviour in 
the event of a major accident.  

In total, 92% of upper-tier establishments have made such information publicly available. 
This  is  a  11%  increase  compared  to  81%  of  upper-tier  establishments  which  had  made 
this information available in the 2012-2014 reporting period. Information reported on this 
implementation aspect is presented in Figure 6.  

13  Infringement  procedures  have  been  or  are  being  launched  against  those  Member  States  where  non-
compliance  with  Article 14(1) stems from incorrect transposition. For other non-compliance issues, the 
Commission  will  investigate  further  the  underlying  reasons  of  non-compliance.  Should  such 
shortcomings, which lead to increased risks of accidents, thus undermining the Directive’s objectives, be 
the  result  of  structural  rather  than  one  off  issues,  the  Commission  will  consider  initiating  infringement 
proceedings as appropriate. 

14 Note: Member States which are not mentioned in the figure have reported having kept the information in 

Annex V permanently available for all establishments on their territory. 

7 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 6: Total and percentage (%) of upper tier establishments for which information on safety 
measures and requisite behaviours were not actively made available to the public15 

36%

36%

30%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

13%

13%

5%

5%

3%

3%

ES

IT

DK

EE

MT

LT

DE

PL

UK

1.1.4.  Inspections 

Article 20 of the Seveso-III Directive requires Member States to establish an inspection 
system and a programme of inspections for all establishments. Upper-tier establishments 
are  to  be  inspected  every  twelve  months  and  lower-tier  establishments  every  thirty-six 
months, unless an inspection program based on a systematic appraisal is deployed. 

According to Article 20(5), the systematic appraisal of the hazards of the establishments 
concerned  shall  be  based  on,  at  least,  the  potential  impacts  of  the  establishments 
concerned on human health and the environment, as well as on the record of compliance 
with the requirements of the Seveso-III Directive. These criteria shall ensure at least the 
same level of effectiveness as inspections carried out on an annual or triennial basis. Both 
upper-ter and lower-tier establishments are covered by this provision.  

Where  appropriate,  relevant  findings  of  inspections  carried  out  under  other  Union 
legislation shall also be taken into account. 
 Based on data reported by the competent authorities in this last reporting period, by now 
most  upper-tier  establishments  (3  556  out  of  total  5  090  upper-tier  establishments)  are 
inspected  on  a  yearly  basis  (cf.  Figure  7).  For  the  remaining  establishments,  the 
inspection  programme,  including  the  frequency  of  site  visits,  is  based  on  a  systematic 
appraisal of the major-accident hazard of the establishment concerned. 

15 Note: Member States which are not mentioned in the figure have reported that all establishments on their 

territory have provided such information to the public. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 7: Share of upper-tier establishments inspected by Member State 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK

% Subjected to yearly site visits

% Based on Systematic Appraisal

When it comes to lower-tier establishments, almost all of them (6 140 out of total 6 686 
lower-tier  establishments)  are  inspected  every  three  years  (cf.  Figure  8).  For  the 
remaining  establishments,  the  inspection  programme,  including  the  frequency  of  site 
visits,  is  based  on  a  systematic  appraisal  of  the  major-accident  hazard  of  the 
establishment concerned. 

Figure 8: Share of lower-tier tier establishments inspected by Member State 

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK

% Inspected every 3 years

% Based on Systematic Appraisal

1.1.5.  Prohibition of use, penalties and other coercive instruments 

Under Article 19 of the Seveso-III Directive, Member States shall prohibit the operation 
of  any  establishment  where  the  measures  taken  by  the  operator  for  the  prevention  and 
mitigation  of  major  accidents  are  seriously  deficient,  like,  inter  alia,  serious  failures  to 
take  the  necessary  actions  identified  in  the  inspection  report.  Furthermore,  Article  28 
provides  for  Member  States  to  determine  penalties  applicable  to  infringements  of  the 
national  provisions adopted pursuant  to  the Seveso-III Directive. The penalties shall be 
effective, proportionate and dissuasive. 

Most Member States reported no prohibition of operation of any establishment  because 
the measures taken by the operator for the prevention and mitigation of major accidents 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
were seriously deficient during the reporting period (cf. Figure 9 and 10). In total, 8 207 
coercive  measures  were  recorded  during  the  reporting  period.  The  Netherlands  (4  023) 
and Romania (3 586) reported the most cases by far.  

Some Member States have provided details of the total amount of sanctions applied (e.g. 
Slovakia with € 25 250 and Latvia with € 6 335). 

In  general,  priority  is  given  to  corrective  actions,  like  issuance  of  warnings,  over 
enforcement. Closer cooperation with the operators generally works well, hence coercive 
action and penalties tend to be an exception. 

Figure  9:  Total  number  of  establishments  for  which  the  use  has  been  prohibited  during  the 

10

6

5

2

1

1

1

1

DE

NL

BG

IT

BE

LV

PL

PT

reporting period 

1

FI

1

1

HU

DK

Figure 10: Total number of coercive measures reported by type of measure 

7285

30

143

749

Prohibition of
use

Administrative
sanction

Penalty

Other measure

1.2. 

Statistics on major accidents 

The  number  of  major  accidents  is  one  of  the  key  indicators  to  measure  the  overall 
effectiveness of the Seveso-III Directive in minimising them and their harmful impacts. 
Under Article 18, Member States shall report to the the Commission the major accidents 
meeting the criteria set out in Annex VI which have occurred within their territory. 

Between 2000 and 2018 a total of 518 accidents were registered in the eMARS database. 
Out of those 518 accidents, 442 (85%) have been identified as major accidents meeting 
the criteria specified in Annex VI of the Seveso-III Directive. As shown in Figure 11, the 
overall  number  of  major  accidents  presents  a  stable  trend  in  recent  years  despite  the 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
increase in the number of establishments covered by the Seveso-III Directive. Over the 
2005-2015  period,  the  number  of  accidents,  based  on  verified  data,  is  less  than  25  per 
year, for the total 11 776 establishments subject to the Directive’s requirements. 16 

Considering the very high rate of industrialisation in  the EU, the following data shows 
that  the  Seveso-III  Directive  significantly  contributes  to  achieving  a  low  frequency  of 
major  accidents.  It  is  also  widely  considered  as  a  benchmark  for  industrial  accident 
policy and has been a role model for legislation in many countries world-wide. 

Figure 11: Number of major accidents meeting at least one criterion of Annex VI over the period 
2000- 2018 

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

6

6

16

11

2

8

7

5

4
1

8

1

21

19

17

3

29

10

0

21

2

6

19

1

8

1
5

1
3

21

18

19

0
6

1
5

16

14

8

7

15

15

7

13

1

11

11

5

8

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Upper Tier

Lower Tier

Tier not known

Although  in  recent  years,  there  has  been  a  fairly  low  number  of  fatalities  due  to  major 
chemical  accidents,  as  recently  as  in  2014  and  2015  fatalities  were  much  higher, 
demonstrating the importance of maintaining vigilance in the face of chemical accident 
risks (cf. Figure 12 and Figure 13). 

Figure 12: Number of onsite and offsite fatalities in 2000- 2018 

50

40

30

20

10

0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Offsite

Onsite

4

23

9

33

0

11

0

27

0

9

0

5

0

10

0

6

0

7

0

7

0

12

0

10

0

2

2

2

0

25

0

18

0

8

0

2

0

2

16 This report covers the period 2015-2018, however the information provided by te Member States for the 
years 2016-2018 should be read with caution, as it is likely to be incomplete in eMARS database due to 
investigation delays, internal reviews and translation. 

11 

 
 
                                                 
 
Figure 13: Number of onsite and offsite injuries in 2000-2018  

400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Offsite

Onsite

76

22

300

48

0

12

0

41

8

13

10

13

9

15

0

24

4

57

8

21

7

26

2

19

0

83

13

23

0

18

19

45

0

44

0

1

0

1

Throughout the 2000-2018 period, the most commonly reported criteria, out of the 6 ones 
provided in Annex VI, for the notification of a major accident to the Commission, have 
not changed and are: 

-  Quantity of substances involved; 
- 
Injury to persons; 
-  Damage to property. 

Figure 14: Criteria for reporting major accidents in eMARS for the period 2000-201817, 18 

Quantity of substances involved

Injury to persons

Damage to property

Interesting for lessons learned

Immediate damage to the environment

No reason

Cross-border damage

6

124

87

30

30

193

189

0

50

100

150

200

250

When it comes to the industrial activity involved, the collected data shows that chemicals 
manufacture  (114  major  accidents)  and  the  petrochemical  &  oil  refineries  sectors  (105 
major accidents) are the most prone ones to major accidents (cf. Figure 15).  

17 The sum of the criteria for reporting is higher than the total number of reported accidents reported as an 

accident may fulfil several criteria. 

18 Criteria provided for in Annex VI for the notification of a major accident to the Commission.  

12 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 15: Number of accidents and incidents by activity type in years 2000-2018  

General chemicals manufacture

Petrochemical / Oil Refineries

Other activity

Chemical installations

Processing of metals

Wholesale and retail storage and distribution (excluding LPG)

Production and storage of explosives

Production of basic organic chemicals

Processing of metals using electrolytic or chemical processes

24

23

21

15

15

20

0

114

105

42

33

40

60

80

100

120

2  WAY FORWARD TO IMPROVE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION 

The  data  reported  by  the  Member  States  on  the  implementation  of  the  Seveso-III 
Directive  provide  useful  information  to  identify  actions  needed  to  further  improve  the 
prevention  of  industrial  accidents.  For  this  purpose,  three  main  levers  have  been 
identified, which allow for a meaningful assessment of its scope: 

1.  Improving implementation and compliance 

2.  Improving and streamlining the reporting 

3.  Strengthening  exchanges  between  the  Member  States  and  the  Commission  on 

lessons learned and good practices 

Improvement of the Seveso-III Directive implementation and compliance  

The Seveso-III Directive had to be transposed into the legislative regimes of the Member 
States by 1 June 2015. In the absence of timely transposition by 16 Member States, the 
Commission  pursued  non-communication  infringement  procedures  in  the  period  2015-
2017. All cases were subsequently closed following communication of the transposition 
measures. 

The  Commission  has  also  been  closely  monitoring  the  correct  transposition  of  the 
Directive. Transposition problems were detected in 16 Member States, and infringement 
procedures have been or are being launched to tackle those.  

Although the situation is overall improving, year after year, as indicated by the analysis 
of  the  Member  States  reports,  the  Commission  has  identified  certain  shortcomings  and 
will investigate the underlying reasons of non-compliance (e.g. on EEPs and information 
to the public).  

13 

 
 
 
Should such shortcomings, which lead to increased risks of accidents, thus undermining 
the  Directive’s  objectives,  be  the  result  of  structural  rather  than  one-off  issues,  the 
Commission will consider initiating infringement proceedings as appropriate19. 

Improvements and streamlining of the reporting 

The Commission will continue working to improve and streamline the reporting process, 
as  well  as  to  maximise  synergies  by  linking  the  various  databases  containing  data  on 
industrial  establishments.  This  aims  at  improving  the  relevance  and  quality  of  the  data 
provided by the Member States, whilst reducing administrative burden.  

Firstly,  the  Commission  wishes  to  improve  the  database  on  major  industrial  accidents 
(eMARS20),  which  currently  includes  limited  information  about  the  wider,  longer  term 
socio-economic  consequences  (e.g.  lost  or  damaged  property,  long-term  environmental 
damage,  job-loss,  image  loss,  long-term  impact  on  the  neighbourhood),  as  the  reported 
inforrmation typically relates to the immediate impacts (e.g. injuries and deaths). A more 
detailed  assessment  of  the  socio-economic  and  environmental  impacts  of  accidents  is 
relevant to better mitigate the long-term consequences of major industrial accidents.  

Secondly, the Commission wishes to improve the reporting of “near misses”. These are 
incidents during which no property was damaged and no personal injury took place, but 
where damage or injury could have easily occured. Therefore, it is a valuable source of 
information for sharing lessons learned across the EU.  

Thirdly,  reporting  of  recent  years’  major  industrial  accidents  is  likely  to  be  incomplete 
due to the time needed for full judicial investigations and the difficulty to provide a two-
step  reporting  under  the  current  reporting  system.  The  reporting  system  should  be 
improved  in  the  future  to  facilitate  the  two-step  reporting  with  (1)  a  brief  preliminary 
report  submitted  shortly  after  the  occurrence  of  the  accident  and  (2)  a  complete  report 
introduced once all relevant investigations have taken place.  

Finally,  establishing  more  statistical  indicators  in  the  Member  States  reporting  (e.g.  on 
the  number  of  inspectors  and  inspections)  would  allow  for  a  better  follow-up  of  the 
requirements laid down by the Directive. This would be another important information, 
especially for lessons learnt to improve industrial accident prevention, and could usefully 
feed the integrated Zero Pollution Monitoring and Outlook Framework. 

Strengthening exchanges between the Member States and the Commission  

The  work  on  lessons  learned  from  major  industrial  accidents  and  inspection  are  key 
elements to maintain industrial safety culture across the European Union and to improve 
accident prevention and mitigation.  

The Commission carries out important missions related to industrial accident prevention. 
This  is  particularly  the  case  for  analysing  industrial  accidents,  providing  support  to  the 
Member States on risk and consequence analysis, leading the technical working group on 
inspection  and  delivering  inspections  tools.  This  work  must  be  continued  and 
strengthened to meet the objectives set out in the European Green Deal. 

19  In  line  with  the  enforcement  priorities  as  stipulated  in  the  Communication  ‘EU  law:  Better  results 

through better application’; C(2016)8600 final. 

20 The Minerva Portal of the Major Accident Hazards Bureau, A Collection of Technical Information and 
Hazards, 

of  Major 

Chemical 

Control 

on 

Tools 
EU 
https://emars.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/emars/accident/search  

Supporting 

Policy 

14 

 
                                                 
During the period this report covers, the Commission worked closely with the Member 
States  on  improvement,  where  needed,  of  their  capacity  building  and  on  defining  a 
framework  for  action  to  be  implemented  to  improve  the  prevention  of  industrial 
accidents.  In  the  coming  years  this  could  include  further  support  on  reporting  of  near 
misses,  incorporating  the  long  term  impacts  in  the  reporting  and  furthering  the 
understanding of the socio-economic and environmental impacts of accidents.  

The  progressive  advances  in  the  field  of  risk  management  of  chemicals  (e.g. 
identification  of  substances  of  very  high  concern,  definition  of  criteria  for  essential 
uses21, proposal to entrust the Commission with the duty to carry out audits in Member 
States)  expected  to  result  from  the  implementation  of  the  European  Green  Deal,  most 
notably  its  Zero  Pollution  Action  Plan  and  the  related  Chemicals  Strategy  for 
Sustainability22, will further improve the knowledge necessary to better prevent industrial 
accidents.  

3  CONCLUSIONS 

The Seveso-III  Directive, which covers around 12 000 estsblishments  where dangerous 
substances may be present,  plays  an important  role in  steering the highly  industrialised 
EU towards zero pollution ambition by prevention of industrial accidents. Over the 2005-
2015 period, there have been, on average, less than 25 major accidents each year in the 
EU,  with  increasingly  reduced  impacts.  This  Directive  is  widely  considered  as  a 
benchmark  for  industrial  accident  policy  and  has  been  a  role  model  for  legislation  in 
many countries worldwide. 

The  analysis  of  the  Member  States  reports  shows  that  in  almost  all  areas  (public 
information,  establishment  of  EEPs,  number  of  injuries,  etc.)  there  has  been  an 
improvement in  the implementation of the Seveso-III Directive provisions compared to 
the data reported in previous periods.  

However,  every  accident  is  an  accident  too  much,  and  further  efforts  are  needed  to 
improve  their  prevention,  as  called  for  in  the  European  Green  Deal  and  the  Zero 
Pollution  Action  Plan.  Therefore,  the  Commission  will  step-up  its  efforts  to  support 
proper 
the 
enforcement steps,  whenever  necessary,  to  ensure  that  these  provisions  are  effectively 
complied  with  and  deliver  the  intended  environmental  and  health  benefits.  It  will  also 
strengthen  its  cooperation  with  Member  States  to  improve  the  prevention  of  industrial 
accidents. 

the  Seveso-III  Directive  provisions  and 

implementation  of 

take 

In this regard, DG  ENV  and DG ECHO will develop synergies between the Seveso-III 
Directive  and  the  Union  Civil  Protection  Mechanism,  in  order  to  improve  prevention, 
preparedness  and  response  in  the  event  of  a  major  industrial  accident.  These  efforts 
comprise  to  upcoming  work  to  enable  the  integration  of  the  electronic  Seveso  Plants 

21 Taking into account the definition of essential uses in the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete 
the  Ozone  Layer,  which  was  introduced  to  assess  whether  the  use  of  certain  chemicals  is  actually 
necessary,  while  acknowledging  that  the  scope  of  chemicals  covered  by  the  EU  chemicals  regulatory 
framework is much broader than the specific scope of chemicals covered by the Montreal Protocol. 

22 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, Towards 
a Toxic-Free Environment, Document COM(2020) 667 

15 

 
 
                                                 
Retrieval System (eSPIRS) into the Global Disaster Alert and Coordination System23 to 
enable  operators  and  Member  States  competent  authorities  to  be  alerted  in  case  of  an 
event that could trigger a major industrial accident. The Commission (DG Environment 
and the Joint Research Centre) and the European Environment Agency will also initiate 
work  to  improve  and  streamline  the  reporting  obligations  on  establishments  and  major 
accidents. Furthermore, the Major Accident Hazard Bureau of the Joint Research Centre 
will continue to provide scientific and technical support to the Member States, especially 
in  the  framework  of  the  technical  working  group  on  inspections  and  its  program  of 
mutual joint visits.  

This report presents the latest collected data and aims to objectively inform on the actual 
state  of  functioning  of  the  Seveso-III  Directive  and  on  progress  made  in  light  of  its 
objectives. Together with information that will be provided in the future report covering 
the  2019-2022  period,  it  will  enable  the  Commission  to  assess  the  need  to  review  the 
scope of the Directive in 2023, as required by Article 29(1). 

23 https://www.gdacs.org/  

16