REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on implementation of Directive 2010/75/EU on Industrial Emissions
Date: 2021-12-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU environmental policy, air quality, application of EU law, environmental protection, industrial pollution, pollution control, prevention of pollution, reduction of gas emissions, waste incineration

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 14.12.2021  COM(2021) 793 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on implementation of Directive 2010/75/EU on Industrial Emissions       
 
 
1  Introduction 

The  Industrial  Emissions  Directive1  (IED)  is  the  primary  EU  legal  instrument  to  regulate 
emissions  from  about  52 000  agro-industrial  installations  across  the  EU.  These  include 
among others: power plants, refineries, production of steel, non-ferrous metals, cement, lime, 
glass,  chemicals,  pulp  and  paper,  food  and  drink,  waste  treatment  and  incineration  and  the 
intensive rearing of poultry or pigs. It aims to achieve significant benefits for the environment 
and  human  health,  in  particular  through  the  mandatory  application  of  Best  Available 
Techniques  (BAT).  Sectors  within  the  IED’s  scope  account  for  a  considerable  share  of 
emissions  to  air  and  water  as  well  as  non-household  waste  generation  in  Europe.  It  is 
estimated2 that they contribute to around 23% by mass of the total EU emissions to air and 
around 40% of the total EU greenhouse gases emissions3. 

Regarding emissions to water, the situation is less clear - they are estimated to represent 20 to 
40%  of  emissions  of  heavy  metals  and  30  to  60%  of  pollutants  other  than  nutrients  and 
organic carbon. 

BAT  Reference  documents  (BREFs)  are  prepared  by  the  European  Integrated  Pollution 
Prevention  and  Control  Bureau  (EIPPCB)  of  the  Joint  Research  Centre  of  the  European 
Commission. The development of BREFs involves intense participation of stakeholders in an 
evidence-based,  data-driven  process.  BREFs  contain  BAT  Conclusions  (BATC)  that  are 
given legal force by their adoption in Commission Implementing Decisions. BATC provide 
the  BAT  framework  for  a  given  agro-industrial  sector  and  Competent  Authorities  must  use 
these as the reference for setting permit conditions. 

Article  73  of  the  IED  requires  the  Commission  to  report  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament  on  the  initial  phase  of  implementation  by  7  January  2016  and,  thereafter,  every 
three  years.  The  report  on  the  initial  phase  of  implementation  was  published  in  20174.  The 
present  report  summarises  data  collected  from  the  Member  States  over  the  2013-2018 
implementation  period,  and  factors  in  both,  progress  made  since  the  reporting  system  was 
improved  in  2018  (see  Section 2)  and  the  2020  evaluation  of  the  IED  (see  Section 5).  This 
report also outlines other actions at EU level carried out to support the implementation of the 
IED. 

In its Communication on the European Green Deal5, the Commission announced a revision of 
EU measures to address pollution from large industrial installations, as one of the main pillars 

1  Directive  2010/75/EU  on  industrial  emissions  (integrated  pollution  prevention  and  control),  OJ  L  334, 
17.12.2010, p. 17–119 
2 Contribution of industry to pollutant emissions to air and water (https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/06f33a94-
9829-4eee-b187-21bb783a0fbf/library/c4bb7fee-46df-4f96-b015-977f1cca2093/details)  
3 Staff Working Document SWD (2020)181 final 
4  Report  from  the  European  Commission  to  the  Council  and  European  Parliament  on  the  implementation  of 
Directive 2010/75/EU; COM (2017) 727 
5 COM(2019) 640 final 

1 

 
 
                                                           
of the Commission’s Zero Pollution Action Plan6 that aims also at ensuring consistency with 
climate, energy and circular economy policies.  

In  September  2020,  the  Commission  published  a  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD)  on  the 
evaluation of the IED, which provided comprehensive assessment of its implementation and 
functioning.  In  follow  up  to  the  evaluation’s  conclusions,  the  Commission  started  work  to 
revise the IED. The legislative revision package is planned for Q1 2022. The Commission has 
published  an  Inception  Impact  Assessment  and  has  carried  out  public  and  stakeholder 
consultations7.  In  this  context,  this  report  looks  also  into  the  future  and  contains  useful 
conclusions for the revision of the IED. 

2 

Reporting by Member States 

Article  72  of  the  IED  requires  Member  States  to  report  to  the  Commission  information  on 
their implementation of the IED, as well as detailed annual information on large combustion 
plants.  

Commission Implementing Decision 2012/795/EU8 describes the type of information which 
Member States were required to report to the Commission for the 2013-2016 implementation 
period.  

Building  on  the  lessons  learned,  the  more  recent  Commission  Implementing  Decision 
(EU) 2018/11359  steered  a  significant  evolution  of  the  reporting  process,  which  by  now 
happens  annually  (instead  of  tri-annually)  and  uses  an  electronic  tool  (the  EU  Registry  on 
Industrial  Sites10)  made  available  to  all  Member  States  by  the  Commission.  Although 
encountering some initial issues, Member State reporting is now much more systematic and 
harmonised. 

Member State  reports under both  reporting schemes  (the 2013-2016  and the 2017-201811,12 
periods) have been assessed and summaries of these assessments are available online13.  

6 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) 
7 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/stationary/ied/evaluation.htm  
8  Commission  Implementing  Decision  of  12 December  2012  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 of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions; Official Journal of 
the European Union, L 349, 19 December 2012 
9  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 of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions; 
Official Journal of the European Union, L205, 14 August 2018 
10 Hereafter the EU Registry, accessible via the Industrial Emissions Portal (https://industry.eea.europa.eu/ ) 
11 Slovakia did not report for the years 2017-2018 
12 Although  the United Kingdom  was a Member State in 2017-2018, it is not included in the analysis for this 
period. 

2 

 
 
                                                           
3 

IED implementation14 

Number of installations 

For the year 2018, information was reported for 51 917 installations, showing a 9% increase 
in the number of installations since 2015. 

The largest number of installations is reported for intensive rearing of poultry or pigs sector - 
39% of all installations. The relative share of various IED sectors is shown in Figure 1. 

Figure 1 – Sectoral shares of IED installations in 201815 

Issuing of permits 

According to Article 4 of the IED, no installations under its scope can be operated without a 
permit.  

In  2018,  87%  of  the  operational  installations  were  reported  as  having  a  permit,  but  there 
remains a number of installations reportedly without a permit – in particular those operating 
in  waste  industries  (17%  of  the  operational  installations  for  the  industry)  and  chemicals 
industries  (16%  of  the  operational  installations  for  the  industry).  The  largest  number  of 
installations without a permit was reported for installations operating in the intensive rearing 
of  poultry  or  pigs  sector  (2 685  installations,  accounting  for  14%  of  the  operational 
installations).  Seven  Member  States  reported  cases  of  installations  without  permits,  mainly 

13  CIRCABC>environment>IED>Library>Studies>  2019  -  IED  Implementation  Report  2013  –  2016  and 
CIRCABC>environment>IED>Library>Studies> 2021 - IED Implementation Reports for 2017 and 2018 
14 The information given in this section does not include the reporting made by the United Kingdom 
15  Source:  Assessment  and  summary  of  Member  States’  reports  under  Commission  Implementing  Decision 
2018/1135/EU, RICARDO, 2021 

3 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
located  in  Denmark,  Germany,  Greece  and  Spain.  It  is  however  not  clear  whether  this 
situation  corresponds  to  the  absence  of  a  permit  or  to  misreporting.  For  example,  as  from 
2018,  if  no  permit  has  been  granted,  Member  States  are  required  to  describe  what 
enforcement action has been taken against the concerned installation operator (and to report 
this to the EU Registry). Nevertheless, the number of installations without a permit is greater 
than the amount of cases of enforcement actions reported to the EU Registry, which shows 
that further clarification is needed (see Section 6). 

Emission Limit Values 

According to Article 15(3) of the IED, emission limit values (ELVs) which are set in permit 
conditions shall ensure that, under normal operating conditions, emissions do not exceed the 
emission levels associated with the Best Available Techniques (BAT-AELs), as found in the 
relevant Commission Implementing Decisions. 

France,  Germany,  Italy  and  Sweden  reported  a  total  of  22  cases  where  ELVs  in  permit 
conditions are more stringent than the BAT-AEL range. Out of them, it is worth noting that 
stricter  permit  conditions  were  more  reported  under  Article  14(4)  of  the  IED  (to  achieve 
greater  emission  reductions  than  those  achievable  by  the  use  of  BAT  in  the  adopted  BAT 
Conclusions) in 16 cases and under Article 18 (to meet Environmental Quality Standards for 
air or for water) in 5 cases. For one case reported by Germany, stricter permit conditions were 
set in accordance with both Articles 14(4) and 18 of the IED. Stricter permit conditions have 
most commonly been set for installations operating in the glass industry. This may, however, 
only reflect the fact that the BAT Conclusions for this sector were among the first ones to be 
adopted  under  the  IED  and  technological  advances  in  emission  reduction  techniques  have 
occurred since then. 

Article 15(4) derogations 

According to Article 15(4) of the IED, by way of derogation, the competent authority may, in 
specific  cases,  set  less  strict  ELVs  than  those  set  in  Commission  Implementing  Decisions. 
Such  a  derogation  may  apply  where  the  achievement  of  emission  levels  within  the  BAT-
AELs would lead to disproportionally higher costs compared to the environmental benefits. 

Based  on  reported  data,  a  total  of  133  derogations  have  been  granted  with  respect  to  BAT 
Conclusions  applied  at  98  installations  operating  in  15  Member  States  (Belgium,  Bulgaria, 
Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Italy, 
Portugal,  Romania,  Spain  and  Sweden),  with  the  largest  numbers  granted  by  Sweden,  the 
Czech  Republic  and  Italy.  The  largest  number  of  derogations  have  been  granted  to 
installations  falling  under  the  BAT  Conclusions  for  the  manufacture  of  glass,  followed  by 
installations where the BAT Conclusions for the production of pulp, paper and board apply. 
More derogations have been granted for emissions to air (for 59 BAT-AELs, out of the total 
811 BAT-AELs in BAT Conclusions) than for emissions to water (for 24 BAT-AELs, out of 
the total 252 BAT-AELs in BAT Conclusions). 

4 

 
 
The longest lasting derogation related to BAT Conclusions for the manufacture of glass (up 
to 202 months in one case reported by the Czech Republic). 22 derogations have been granted 
for an indefinite period of time. Long-lasting or indefinite derogations are not in contradiction 
with  the  relevant  IED  provision  which  does  not  set  an  explicit  time-limit,  but  are  being 
investigated under the scope of an on-going IED revision. 

Baseline reports 

According  to  Article  22(2)  of  the  IED,  where  the  activity  involves  the  use,  production  or 
release of hazardous substances, and having regard to certain circumstances, a baseline report 
shall be submitted to determine the state of soil and groundwater contamination at the site of 
the installation16. 

Only  six  Member  States  (Cyprus,  Estonia,  Finland,  Hungary,  Romania  and  Slovenia) 
reported that all baseline reports required were submitted. For the remaining Member States, 
cases have been identified where the baseline reports were required as per Article 22(2) of the 
IED, but had not been submitted. This is an issue, in particular, for installations operating in 
Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Sweden.  

On average 57% of the required baseline reports have been submitted on time. In the case of 
installations  where  BAT  Conclusions  for  the  tanning  of  hides  and  skins  apply,  only  14% 
(four  reports  out  of  28  required)  have  been  reported  as  submitted.  This  suggests  that  there 
may be an implementation or compliance issue for this particular industrial activity. Overall, 
implementation  and compliance  for  this aspect  appear to  be a  challenge  for Member States 
across all industries. 

Enforcement action taken 

According  to  Article  8(1)  of  the  IED,  Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to 
ensure that the permit conditions are complied with. 

Six  Member  States  reported  enforcement  actions  (Croatia,  Cyprus,  Germany,  Italy,  Poland, 
and  Spain).  Most  Member  States  have  reported  between  1  and  11  cases  of  enforcement 
actions. The types of reported enforcement action are predominantly legal proceedings.  

Inspections - site visits 

According to  Article 23 of the  IED, Member States  must  set  up a system of environmental 
inspections of IED installations.  

The frequency of the site visits shall be based on a systematic appraisal of the relevant risks 
and shall be at least yearly for installations posing the highest risks and every three years for 
installations posing the lowest risks. 

16 The baseline report shall be submitted before the start of the installation operation or before the permit of the 
installation is updated for the first time after 7 January 2013. 

5 

 
 
                                                           
On an EU-wide average, Member States have reported that site visits have been conducted at 
49%  of  installations  during  each  reporting  year.  However,  according  to  the  reporting,  in 
France, Greece,  the Netherlands, Portugal  and Spain site visits  have been conducted at  less 
than 25% of installations. It is not possible to conclude from this information whether or not 
all installations have been inspected in due time, for two reasons: 

- 

the obligation to report on the frequency of site visits in the EU Registry only started 
in 2017-2018 period and information is not yet available for a sufficient time-series; 
-  no information is available in the EU Registry on whether site visits of an installation 
are  to  be  carried  out  more  often  than  every  3  years  according  to  its  level  of 
environmental risk.  

Large combustion plants 

3 162  large  combustion  plants  (LCPs)  have  been  reported  in  the  EU  Registry  in  2018.  The 
majority have a total rated thermal input of between 50 and 300 MWth. The largest number of 
LCPs operate in Germany (534 in 2018). Seven other Member States reported more than 100 
LCPs (Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden). 19 Member States 
have reported fewer than 100 LCPs.  

LCPs  may  be  granted  time-limited  derogations  from  meeting  the  ELVs  prescribed  by 
Annex V of the IED through Articles 31 to 35. Relatively small proportions of the LCPs have 
been granted these derogations (see Table 1). 

6 

 
 
 
 
Table 1 - Number of derogations granted to LCPs as of 201817 

LCP derogation type 

Article 31 - apply minimum percentage of desulphurisation rates instead of 
the SO2 ELVs 
Article 32 - installations included in Transitional National Plans are subject 
to  an  overall  emissions  ceiling  declining  linearly  between  2016  and  mid 
2020 
Article  33  -  derogation  to  account  for  the  limited  lifetime  of  the 
installations and associated to a maximum 17 500 operating hours until no 
later than 31 December 2023 
Article 34 - small isolated systems 
Article 35 - district heating plants 

Waste incineration plants 

of 

Number 
LCPs 
benefitting 
from 
derogations as 
of 2018 
16 

234 

117 

22 
217 

In  2018,  750  waste  (co-)incineration  plants  within  the  IED  scope  with  a  total  nominal 
capacity higher than 2 tonnes/hour were reported to the EU Registry. The largest number of 
such  plants  were  reported  by  France  (179),  Germany  (149)  and  Sweden  (117).  In  the  EU 
overall,  the  majority  are  waste  incineration  plants  rather  than  waste  co-incineration  plants. 
This  is  due to  the very large numbers of waste incineration plants in  France  and Germany, 
whereas the majority of other Member States have mainly waste co-incineration plants, but in 
relatively smaller numbers. The largest proportion of plants have a capacity of between 2 and 
25 tonnes/hour. 

Installations using organic solvents 

In 2018, 26 022 installations have been reported as using organic solvents and falling under 
the scope of Chapter V of the IED. Of these, a small share (3 570, accounting for 14% of the 
total) use the reduction scheme under Article 59(1.b) of the IED and an even a smaller share 
(77 installations accounting for 0.3% of the total) have been granted Article 59 derogations to 
allow installations to exceed ELVs. 

Public access to information 

According to Article 24 of the IED, the permits and results of the monitoring of the emissions 
shall be made available to the public. Similarly, the site visit reports shall be made publicly 
available (Article 23(6) of the IED). 

17  Source:  Assessment  and  summary  of  Member  States’  reports  under  Commission  Implementing  Decision 
2018/1135/EU, RICARDO, 2021 

7 

 
 
 
                                                           
For public access to such documentation (Article 24 of the IED), central permit repositories 
are available at national level in 20 Member States and, at regional level, in 5 Member States 
(Belgium,  Germany,  the  Netherlands,  Poland  and  Spain);  however,  in  such  cases,  the 
repositories  do  not  exist  for  all  regions.  Moreover,  the  ease  of  access  to  and  readability  of 
such  documentation  is  sometimes  negatively  affected  by  its  format  as  well  as  by  the 
multiplication of permits and related documents available for each installation. 

For  site  visits,  the  available  information  is  often  limited.  The  use  of  central  permit 
repositories to publish site visit reports (Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Denmark) 
makes access to them easier, as does the use of a common report template (Austria, the Czech 
Republic, Romania and some regions of Spain).  

For emission monitoring data, the extent to which data are made available for all installations 
is limited. In a few cases, databases have been established, providing access to the data, while 
in most cases, the information is available via annual reports. 

4  Actions at EU level 

At EU level, the Commission has carried out various actions to support the implementation of 
the IED.  

BAT Conclusions 

All plants within the scope of Chapter II of the IED are obliged to apply BAT as per Article 
11(b)  of  the  IED.  At  the  time  of  writing  this  report,  17  BAT  Conclusions  for  various 
industrial  sectors  have  been  published  as  implementing  decisions  in  the  Official  Journal  of 
the EU18. 

Figure  2  below  provides  an  overview  of  the  cumulative  number  of  BAT  Conclusions 
published  since  the  entry  into  application  of  the  IED  and  the  approximate  number  of 
installations covered by these. The BAT Conclusions published to date cover more than 70% 
of IED installations.  

18 The BAT Conclusions for Large Combustion Plants (Commission  Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442) 
have been annulled by judgement of the General Court of the Court of Justice of  the EU of 27 January 2021. 
However they remain applicable until the entry into force of a new Commission Implementing Decision, which 
must take place within 12 months from the date of the judgement, i.e. by 27 January 2022 at the latest. 

8 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 2 - Evolution of BAT Conclusions and of installations covered 

Compliance promotion and implementation support 

The  main  responsibility  for  effective  implementation  of  the  IED  rests  on  the  national 
competent  authorities.  Their  tasks  include  issuing  permits,  assessing  appropriate  ELVs  and 
other conditions, considering derogation requests and generally ensuring that installations are 
correctly  operated.  The  Commission  supports  these  authorities  to  ensure  comparable, 
harmonised approaches at national level in line with EU law. 

In  2019,  the  Commission  set  up  an  online  platform19  for  Member  States  and  competent 
authorities’  representatives  to  discuss,  exchange  knowledge  and  experience  and  access 
resources related to IED implementation. In addition, the Commission is organising a series 
of  workshops  and  webinars  to  facilitate  the  exchange  between  Member  States  competent 
authorities  on  specific  issues.  At  the  time  of  writing  of  this  report,  eight  such  events  have 
been organised. 

Finally, the Commission has made available on the Internet a summary of answers given to 
implementation questions20. 

International activities 

One strand of the Commission's work relating to the IED has been to support organisations in 
other parts of the world using, or interested in, BAT and to share information and experience 
with them. The Commission has supported work ongoing in  Israel, Kazakhstan, Russia and 
South Korea as they seek to develop industrial permitting regimes broadly based on the EU 

19 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/stationary/ied/implementation.htm  
20 CIRCABC>environment>IED>Library>Questions answered by DG ENV  

9 

 
 
 
                                                           
BAT and BREF approaches. The Commission has also supported the Energy Community21 in 
its steps to implement the environmental goals of the IED for Large Combustion Plants. 

With a view to wider outreach, the Commission supports an OECD project22 in this field and 
has started to translate BAT Conclusions in non-EU languages23. 

5  Main findings from the IED evaluation  

The evaluation was supported by an external study that gathered evidence through literature 
and desk research, targeted consultations, a 12-week public consultation and two stakeholder 
workshops.  A  SWD  presenting  the  results  of  the  evaluation  was  published24  in  September 
2020. The main findings of the evaluation are as follows: 

Effectiveness 

Through  establishing  BAT-based  permitting,  the  IED  has  been  effective  in  reducing  the 
environmental impacts of sectors within its scope and in reducing competitive distortions in 
the  EU.  The  collaborative,  inclusive,  evidence-based  process  for  producing  BREFs  and 
identifying BAT has worked well; this is recognised as a model of collaborative governance.  

The  IED has  led to  substantially  reduced pollutant emissions to  air  (and associated damage 
costs  as  shown  in  Figure  3)  and,  to  a  lesser  degree,  to  water.  Scarce  data  also  suggests 
minimised  emissions  to  soil from  IED installations. For a number of other aspects,  such as 
contribution to resource efficiency and the circular economy, as well as to a less-toxic way of 
producing, it is much harder to draw any strong conclusions; however the indications are that 
the IED has made a positive contribution, even though of significantly lesser magnitude.  

21 https://www.energy-community.org/  
22 http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/risk-management/best-available-techniques.htm  
23 Arabic, Chinese and Russian versions of BAT Conclusions are available at 
https://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/translation/index.html  
24 https://europa.eu/!hR34Qx 

10 

 
 
 
                                                           
  SOX (sulphur oxides) 
  PM10 (particular matter smaller than 10 microns in size) 
  NOX (nitrogen oxides) 
  NMVOC (non-methane volatile organic compounds) 

Figure 3 – Annual damage cost of emissions to air from IED installations by pollutant, 
expressed in euros25 

The IED has made a limited contribution to innovation. Other aspects, such as public access 
to  information  and  access  to  justice,  appear  to  have  improved  somewhat,  although  more 
remains to be done.   

Efficiency 

The  IED  is  a  largely  efficient  instrument  and  has  simplified  the  EU  acquis.  The  overall 
benefits of implementing BATC substantially outweigh the costs. There is no part of the IED 
where costs have been identified as disproportionate and no unnecessary administrative costs 
have been identified. There are mixed impacts on EU competitiveness, however no evidence 
is available that these are significant.  

Relevance 

All  different  stakeholder  groups  consider  that  the  IED  remains  relevant  to  the  needs, 
problems and issues of the EU. It is able to respond to new or emerging environmental issues, 
although there are limitations to this, due to the nature and length of the processes of BREF 
review.  

Coherence 

25 Source: Staff Working Document SWD (2020)181 final 

11 

 
 
 
                                                           
The  IED  has  a  high  degree  of  internal  coherence.  However,  there  are  interpretation 
challenges  in  relation  to  various  aspects,  illustrated  by  the  number  of  inquiries  received  by 
the  Commission.  These  do  not  point  to  fundamental  contradictions  or  inconsistencies,  but 
several aspects could be further clarified. The IED is largely coherent with other EU policies 
and  supports,  at  least  to  some  extent,  their  delivery.  There  is  however  scope  for  greater 
contribution in some areas, such as water policy. 

EU added value 

The IED provides significant EU added value, as it generates a number of important benefits. 
EU  action  has  ensured  a  more  consistent  approach  in  the  adoption  of  environmentally 
effective industrial emission standards and their monitoring and enforcement with relatively 
limited deviation among Member States. The BREF process itself could not be replicated by 
Member States’  individual actions  with  similar impacts.  Absence of EU  action would have 
led to  less demanding  environmental standards, at  least  in  many Member States. The result 
would  have  been  a  higher  overall  level  of  emissions  and  impacts  on  health  and  the 
environment.  Moreover,  continuation  of  the  initial  situation  of  inconsistent  environmental 
requirements would have perpetuated and possibly aggravated distortions of the EU internal 
market,  i.e.  by  favouring  installations  that  are  not  required  to  invest  in  environmentally 
effective techniques. The IED BAT system has led to some degree of action in third countries 
globally, and has been taken up in a number of multilateral environmental agreements. The 
subsidiarity  and  proportionality  principles  are  well  reflected  in  the  IED,  with  the 
responsibilities of Member States and the EU and interactions between them working well.  

6  Conclusions 

Following up the first implementation report issued in 2017, this report provides the second 
Commission overview of the state of implementation of the  IED. The Commission draws a 
number  of  conclusions  from  the  data  reported  by  the  Member  States  over  the  2013-2018 
period, which largely concur with conclusions from the 2020 IED evaluation: 

  A number of time-limited IED provisions to grant derogations to LCPs have come to 
an  end  (Articles  32  and  34)  or  are  approaching  their  end  (Articles  33  and  35).  As 
LCPs  are  a  major  source  of  emissions,  notably  to  air,  the  Commission  is 
systematically monitoring the situation after the end date of such derogations to verify 
the compliance of the concerned LCPs with the applicable ELVs. 

  There  are  still  implementation  difficulties,  for  example  related  to  the  submission  of 
baseline  reports.  The  Commission  has  provided  support  to  the  Member  States’ 
competent  authorities  for  a  number  of  years:  such  difficulties  highlight  the  need  for 
continued support and communication.  

  Although  permit  documentation  is  accessible  to  the  public  in  a  large  number  of 
Member  States,  there  is  still  room  for  improvement,  including  in  terms  of  technical 

12 

 
 
 
 
issues  (on-line  accessibility,  format/clarity  and  language  of  the  documents),  ease  of 
locating  the  documents  (especially  when  they  are  not  handled  at  national  level), 
availability  of  site  visits  reports  and  monitoring  data.  This  is  also  a  point  which  is 
being investigated in the on-going IED revision. 

  The new reporting system under the EU Registry clearly simplified the reporting and 
improved  its  completeness  and  consistency.  However,  as  a  result  of  the  assessment 
undertaken, a number of reporting issues will need to be addressed, e.g. information 
on permits, permit updates, derogations. 

In the coming  years, the Commission  will continue to  improve the  reporting quality  and to 
progress  on  various  work  strands:  continued  support  for  the  IED  implementation  and 
compliance assessment. 

The Commission will further analyse the identified cases of significant non-implementation 
with IED provisions. Should it conclude that this results from systemic breaches of the IED, 
the Commission will take appropriate enforcement actions. 

Finally,  the  Commission  is  committed  to  revising  the  IED  for  it  to  become  a  key  legal 
instrument  accompanying  the  transformation  of  EU  industry  needed  for  the  EU  to  meet  its 
objectives under the European Green Deal. 

13