Coordinated audit on the enforcement of
the European Waste Shipment Regulation
Joint report based on eight national audits
Participating supreme audit institutions

The Netherlands Court of Audit

Bulgaria : Bulgarian National Audit Office

Algemene Rekenkamer

www.bulnao.government.bg

Lange Voorhout 8
P.O. Box 20015

Greece: Hellenic Court of Audit

2500 EA The Hague

www.elsyn.gr

phone +31 70 342 43 00

Hungary: State Audit Office of Hungary
www.asz.hu

Cover
Design: Corps Ontwerpers, The Hague
Photo: Court of Audit of the Republic of

Ireland: Office of the Comptroller and Auditor

Slovenia

General of Ireland
www.audgen.gov.ie
The Hague, October 2013
The Netherlands: The Netherlands court of audit
www.courtofaudit.nl
Norway: The Office of the Auditor General’s
of Norway
www.riksrevisjonen.no
Poland: Supreme Audit Office
www.nik.gov.pl
Slovenia: Court of Audit of the Republic
of Slovenia
www.rs-rs.si

This coordinated audit was launched in
response to a decision taken by the Contact
Committee of Heads of EU SAI’s and was
conducted in close collaboration with the
EUROSAI Working Group on Environmental
Auditing.

Coordinated audit on the
enforcement of the European Waste
Shipment Regulation
Joint report based on eight national audits

2

Joint report based on eight national audits

This cooperative audit on the enforcement of the European Waste Shipment Regulation is based on eight
individual national audit reports, carried out by the supreme audit institutions of Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary,
Ireland, Poland, the Netherlands, Norway and Slovenia. The sai of the Netherlands coordinated the compilation
of the audit findings. The coordinated audit was launched in response to a decision taken by the Contact
Committee of Heads of eu sais and was conducted in close collaboration with the eurosai Working Group on
Environmental Auditing.

Participating supreme audit intstutions

Bulgaria
Bulgarian National Audit Office

The Netherlands
Netherlands Court of Audit

http://www.courtofaudit.nl
http://www.bulnao.government.bg/?lang=en

Greece
Hellenic Court of Audit

http://www.elsyn.gr/elsyn/root_eng.jsp

Hungary
State Audit Office of Hungary

Norway
Office of the Auditor General of Norway

http://www.riksrevisjonen.no/en

Poland
Supreme Audit Office
http://www.nik.gov.pl/en

http://www.asz.hu/en/home

Ireland
Office of the Comptroller and
Auditor General of Ireland

Slovenia
Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia

http://www.audgen.gov.ie
http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrseng.nsf

3

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

Contents
Conclusions and recommendations

5

1

Introduction
1.1
Compilation of eight national audits
1.2
Need for regulation of international waste shipments
1.3
International waste flows
1.3.1
Main international waste routes
1.3.2
Volume of eu waste production and exports
1.3.3
Waste flows in the eight participating countries
1.4
Three options for the shipment of waste
1.5
Requirements arising from the ewsr

9
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17

2

Formal implementation and information management
2.1
Introduction
2.2
Formal implementation of ewsr requirements
2.3
Classification of waste
2.4
Two legal frameworks and two code systems
2.5
Information management within countries
2.6
Information exchange between countries

19
19
19
20
21
22
25

3

The enforcement of the ewsr
3.1
Introduction
3.2
Enforcement network
3.3
Enforcement strategy and implementation
3.3.1
Strategy and annual plans
3.3.2
Number of inspections
3.3.3
Type of inspections
3.3.4
Multilateral cooperation in enforcement activities
3.3.5
Resources
3.3.6
Verification of notifications
3.4
Information on the effectiveness of enforcement activities
3.5
Recent developments
3.5.1
European developments
3.5.2
National developments

27
27
27
29
29
30
31
34
35
37
37
39
39
39

4

Penalising infringements of the ewsr
4.1
Introduction
4.2
Warning letter
4.3
Fines
4.4
Action under administrative law
4.5
Action under criminal law
4.6
Other enforcement measures

40
40
40
41
42
43
45

5

Summary of conclusions and recommendations

46

4

Joint report based on eight national audits

Appendix 1 Audit approach
Appendix 2 Number of inspections and infringements
Appendix 3 Impact of the national audits: follow-up on recommendations
Appendix 4 Summaries of national audits

49
51
52
53

List of abbreviations

65

Literature		

66

5

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

Conclusions and recommendations
The supreme audit institutions (sais) of Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Poland,
Norway, the Netherlands and Slovenia conducted a coordinated audit on the
enforcement of the European Waste Shipment Regulation (ewsr). The questions
answered by the eight sais in this audit were:
1. To what extent do the relevant authorities comply with the requirements arising
from the ewsr?
2. How do the authorities enforce the ewsr?
3. What is known about the effectiveness of the enforcement measures?
This report is a compilation of the findings of the eight national audits, that were
conducted between 2011 and 2013. Besides presenting the main findings, the report
discusses the differences among the eight countries and makes a number of general
recommendations both for the eight countries audited and for other European
countries.1 Some of these might also be of interest to the European Commission.
The Commission could also facilitate the implementation of a number of the
recommendations.
Main conclusion
This coordinated audit shows that all eight countries have implemented the eu
regulation on waste shipments and generally comply with the formal implementation
requirements. However, the audit also identifies wide discrepancies in the
enforcement of the ewsr. The enforcement strategy, the number of inspections, the
interpretation of regulation and the way in which infringements are dealt with all
differ widely from one country to another. The authorities also lack information on the
effects of enforcement measures and on the operation of the ewsr system as a whole.
The differences in the enforcement of the regulation are not in line with the basic
principle of a level playing field. Enforcement pressure and the related costs for
businesses differ from one country to another. This may encourage businesses and
institutions to export their waste via countries where fewer inspections are performed
and where milder sanctions are applied if illegal waste shipments are intercepted.
Such cross-border avoidance increases the risk of waste being shipped illegally, and
this may result in improper treatment of the waste.
All in all, the coordinated audit has identified significant weaknesses and challenges in
the implementation practice of the ewsr.
ewsr implemented in alle eight countries
Formally, all eight countries have implemented the eu regulation on waste shipments.
In all countries, national legislation is ewsr-compliant, a competent authority has
been established, ewsr notification procedures have been defined, inspections are
performed, sanction systems have been put in place, and there is international
cooperation. One exception is the punctuality of reporting by the member states to the
European Commission (and Basel Secretariat): half the countries submitted their
annual reports after the cut-off date.
1 More specific recommendations can be found in most of the eight reports on the national audits.

6

Joint report based on eight national audits

Differences in enforcement
All eight countries have performed at least some inspections of waste shipments.
A closer look at the findings reveals that there are wide differences in terms of the
number and nature of inspections, the existence of an enforcement strategy, the
executive organisations involved and the available resources. The number of checks
of waste shipments varies from a dozen to several thousands a year.
Enforcement policy lacksunderpinning by risk assessment
The enforcement policy in six countries is not sufficiently based on an explicit risk
assessment. This poses a risk that the enforcement effort is not commensurate with
the specific challenges faced by the country in question.
Differences in resources and prioritisations
There are wide differences in the resources available for the enforcement of the ewsr.
Enforcement in five countries is hampered by a shortage of well-trained staff and
technical equipment. This poses challenges for the effective enforcement of the ewsr.
The differences in this area reflect differences in priorities among the authorities of
the eight countries.
Enforcement network
In all eight countries, multiple organisations are involved in the enforcement of the
regulation. This poses challenges in terms of coordination and cooperation among
enforcement agencies. Enforcement in three countries is hindered by a lack of
coordination. The findings in the other countries suggest that enforcement benefits
from cooperation and coordination within the enforcement network.
Classification of waste
The ewsr uses a broad definition of waste based on the European Waste Directive.
While the ewsr distinguishes between different types of waste in its annexes, formal
(quantitative) measures do not exist. Stakeholders find the interpretation of waste
difficult to work with in practice. The broad definition also results in differences of
interpretation within and among countries, thus complicating enforcement and
raising the risk of illegal exports. These differences may also affect statistics.
There is clear evidence in several countries that hazardous waste is imported or
exported as ‘goods’ and/or as ‘green-listed waste’. This is a way of avoiding the
procedures set out in the ewsr.
The situation is further complicated by the existence of two different code systems,
i.e. ewsr/Basel on the one hand and the international tariff codes used by customs
authorities on the other. There is no simple solution to this problem, which is
recognised by all stakeholders. Practical solutions are needed. So far, only one of the
eight countries has developed a conversion table so that tariff codes can be used to
select high-risk shipments for inspection by customs.2
The broad definition of waste and the distinction between ‘green-listed’ and ‘amberlisted’ waste make it important to ensure that proper guidelines and information
material are available to front-line officials.

2 The European Commission (DG TAXUD) is also developing a conversion table.

7

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

Enforcement instruments and cooperation
In addition to inspections of shipments, countries also perform inspections at waste
facilities as well as thematic inspections. All eight countries have taken part in one or
more international enforcement campaigns (i.e. impel-tfs, Demeter, Augias). Such
international cooperation can produce synergetic benefits. National capacity-building
profits from the exchange of information and experiences and the gathering of
knowledge.
Information on enforcement
In all eight countries, information management is inadequate for the purpose of
enforcing the ewsr. There are weaknesses in the information systems used by the
authorities, in the exchange of information within and between countries and in the
registration and reporting of inspections, infringements and sanctions. There are no
clear policies and guidelines for tackling problems with data collection and reporting.
As a result, statistical data could well be incomplete or unreliable and it is more
difficult to pursue information-based enforcement, monitoring and review. The
comparability of statistical data on inspections, infringements and sanctions is
hampered by the lack of an eu protocol for the collection, registration and reporting
of data on the enforcement of the ewsr and the penalisation of violations. Such a
protocol would prevent double counting and harmonise the way in which all-round
inspections and revisions of the initial registration are factored into reports on ewsr
inspections.
Information on the impact of enforcement
The authorities in the eight countries have little or no information on the effects of
their enforcement measures and do not have a picture of the operation of the ewsr
system as a whole. Because insufficient attention is paid to reviewing receipt and
processing notifications, the authorities lack information on the final link in the ewsr
chain, i.e. the processing of the waste.
Penalisation of offences
This coordinated audit reveals wide discrepancies among the eight countries in the
way in which infringements are penalised. The same infringement may be subject to a
very different penalty in one country than in another. The findings also show that most
countries make only limited use of sanction instruments. Further information is
needed to establish whether national sanctions policies are proportionate and
dissuasive, as required by the ewsr.
Impact of national audits
The authorities in most of the eight countries are taking steps to strengthen the
enforcement of the ewsr. In most cases, these measures have been designed in
response to the recommendations formulated in the national audit report. Some audit
teams noted that more attention was paid to enforcement during and after the audit,
and that certain authorities also took extra measures in addition to acting on the
recommendations made in the report. Improvements are frequently sought in the form
of closer cooperation between organisations, information management, training
schemes and guidelines.

8

Joint report based on eight national audits

Reccommendations
On enforcement policy
Countries are recommended to:
• Develop a strategic plan for the enforcement of the EWSR. The plan should be risk-based,
commensurate with the actual risks and should be periodically updated. Both the plan and the
national implementation practice should reflect the national goals set for the enforcement of the
EWSR.
On resources and the enforcement network
Countries are recommended to:
• Appoint staff and allocate resources in line with the risks of illegal shipments.
• Adopt proper training schemes.
• Organise the enforcement network in such a way that it promotes cooperation between the
authorities and makes use of their competences.
On classification of waste
Countries are recommended to:
• Draw up guidelines that help enforcement officers distinguish between the various categories of
waste and between waste and second-hand goods.
• Produce a conversion table for converting customs codes into Basel codes and vice versa, so that
custom declarations can be used to identify waste shipments.
• Address and solve differences in the interpretation and classification of waste within and among
countries. These differences should be discussed within the existing international networks.
On enforcement, cooperation and information management
Countries are recommended to:
• Consolidate and intensify international cooperation, exchange information on waste shipments,
waste flows, businesses and facilities; and facilitate the sharing of experiences and knowledge on
enforcement measures in order to develop and adopt good practices.
• Make a greater effort to use and exchange information and cooperate in verifying notifications.
Perform administrative checks to assess the risk of waste being processed in inadequate facilities.
• Improve their information management in relation to the EWSR.
On Penalisation of offences
Countries are recommended to:
• Assess whether their sanctions policy is proportionate and dissuasive and share information on
the use that is made of sanction instruments, within the existing public prosecutors network.

European Commission can facilitate improvement of enforcement
The EC could facilitate the development of proper guidelines for identifying and classifying waste,
as well as the implementation of a conversion table for converting customs codes into Basel codes
and vice versa. In addition the EC could facilitate the development of an European information
stem for notifications and a protocol for gathering statistical data on the enforcement of the
EWSR.

9

1

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

Introduction
1.1

Compilation of eight national audits
This report is a compilation of the findings of eight national audits on the enforcement
of the European Waste Shipment Regulation (ewsr).3 The ewsr regulates the
shipment of waste within, to and from the European Union (eu) with a view to
protecting the environment both within the eu and internationally. The audits were
conducted between 2011 and 2013 by the supreme audit institutions (sais) of Bulgaria,
Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, Norway, the Netherlands and Slovenia.4 The sai of
the Netherlands coordinated the compilation of the audit findings. The coordinated
audit was launched in response to a decision taken by the Contact Committee of Heads
of eu sais in October 2010. The audit was conducted in close collaboration with the
eurosai5 Working Group on Environmental Auditing.
About the audit
The objective of this coordinated audit is to improve the enforcement of the ewsr by
providing information on the participating countries’ enforcement strategies and
performances (in terms of results and the achievement of the desired effect). To
achieve this objective, the national audits sought to answer the following questions:
• To what extent do the relevant authorities comply with the requirements arising
from the ewsr?
• How do the authorities enforce the ewsr?
• What is known about the effectiveness of the enforcement measures?
This joint report gives insight into the differences among the countries involved, but
does not provide systematic benchmarks. The eight national audits were not designed
to provide specific benchmarks for the enforcement of the regulation. More
information on the audit questions and the audit approach is provided in appendix 1.
Summaries of the eight national audits are given in appendix 4.

3 Regulation (EC) no. 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of
waste (European Waste Shipment Regulation).
4 The SAIs took part on a voluntary basis. All European SAIs were invited to participate.
5 European Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions.

10

Joint report based on eight national audits

Supreme audit institutions
The role of supreme audit institutions (SAIs) is to conduct independent audits of government
activities. These audits provide national parliaments with objective information to help them
examine their government’s public spending and performance.
The heads of the SAIs in the EU member states and the head of the European Court of Auditors
have formed a Contact Committee to discuss matters of common interest.
The international organisation of supreme audit institutions (INTOSAI) is the international
umbrella organisation for supreme audit institutions. As an institutionalised framework, its aim is
to promote the acquisition and transfer of knowledge, improve government auditing worldwide
and enhance the professional capacities, standing and influence of member SAIs in their respective
countries.
The European regional organisation for supreme audit institutions is called EUROSAI. One of its
working groups is the EUROSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing (EUROSAI WGEA).
The aim of this working group is to help raise the SAIs’ capacity for auditing government
environmental policies, promote cooperation and exchange knowledge and experiences on the
subject among SAIs.

Structure of this report
This report consists of five chapters, starting with this introduction, which provides
background information on international waste shipments and the ewsr. The second
chapter discusses the formal implementation requirements, the classification of waste
and the information networks. Chapter 3 examines the enforcement network and
provides information on enforcement practices in each of the eight countries. Chapter
4 looks at the way in which infringements of the EWSR are punished. A summary of
the conclusions and recommendations is presented in chapter 5.

1.2

Need for regulation of international waste shipments
Waste management has been recognised as an increasingly international challenge in
recent years. European paper and plastic waste, for example, is often recycled in Asia.
Waste from electrical and electronic equipment (weee) is another example. Many
defunct computers and televisions are shipped from Europe to Africa, where they are
incinerated in the open air after precious metals have been removed. The African
countries in question then suffer the human and environmental consequences
(Secretariat of the Basel Convention, 2011). Hundreds of illegal waste shipments
destined for countries outside the EU are stopped every year in Europe (impel, 2011).
A serious risk with such shipments is that the waste is dumped illegally or processed
without protecting humans and the environment.
What is waste?
The EU member states define ‘waste’ in the Waste Directive as any substance or object that the
holder discards, intends to discard or is required to discard. Examples of waste are broken
computers, car wrecks, sewage sludge, paper waste, metal slags, hydraulic fluids, used plastic and
empty lead-acid batteries. The EWSR lists several hundred types of waste.

Economic growth in some countries, especially in Asia, has resulted in greater demand
for raw materials. As resources become more costly, so the incentive and need to

11

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

recycle waste has also risen (eea, 2012). The extent to which waste can and needs to be
reused as a raw material differs from one country to another, depending for example
on the available natural resources and degree of necessity. Moreover, each country has
its own processing capacity, costs, rules and enforcement policy. It may sometimes be
cheaper to export waste for recovery to an Asian country instead of to a neighbouring
eu country. Consequently, waste can be a valuable commodity, even when shipped
illegally. The importance of the enforcement of the regulation is illustrated by the wellknown case of the Probo Koala (example 1).
Example 1: Probo Koala (the Netherlands)
In July 2006, a tanker called the Probo Koala docked in the Port of Amsterdam to
discharge sludge, i.e. washing water and oil residues released after cleaning with
caustic soda. The ship’s operator, a company called Trafigura, planned to have the
sludge processed after it had been offloaded. When the 550 m³ hold was emptied, the
sludge proved to be considerably more polluted than Trafigura had stated. The
recipient company was prepared to accept and process the sludge only at a far higher
cost than originally quoted. The sludge (250 m³) was subsequently pumped back into
the tanker when Trafigura found a company in the Ivory Coast that was willing to
accept and process it. Because the sludge had been pumped back onto the tanker, it
became the Probo Koala’s cargo and hence a waste shipment. The shipment of the
sludge to the Ivory Coast was a violation of the ewsr. According to the court of appeal,
Trafigura was aware of the chemical composition of the sludge and exported it illegally
to the Ivory Coast. A Dutch court imposed a fine of €1,000,000 on Trafigura in 2011.
Basel Convention
A number of incidents in the 1980s raised public awareness of the dangers associated
with the export of hazardous waste. In response, the international community
proposed a global regulation and the ‘Basel Convention on the control of
transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal’ was adopted in
1989. By January 2013, 178 countries, as well as the European Union, had signed up
to the Convention.
Agreements laid down in the ewsr
The ewsr is the instrument by which the eu has implemented its obligations under
the Basel Convention. The eu consolidated international and European agreements
and principles in the ewsr in 1993. In addition to the Basel Convention, the ewsr is
based on the European Waste Framework Directive and an oecd decision.6 The aim of
this regulation is to prevent firms and institutions from exporting waste for processing
in facilities that do not offer a sufficient degree of environmental protection. The
ewsr has also been adopted by members of the European Economic Area, such as
Norway and Switzerland.

1.3

International waste flows
The world produces a huge amount of hazardous and non-hazardous waste every year,
from domestic waste and electrical equipment to industrial waste, batteries and ‘end6 This decision relates to the shipment of recyclable waste that crosses the borders of OECD memer countries.
1992, revised in 2001.

12

Joint report based on eight national audits

of-life’ vehicles. Whether businesses and institutions export their waste usually
depends on the processing opportunities and costs.
The mechanisms described above also drive the export of waste from the eight
countries that participated in the coordinated audit. Several national audit reports
specifically cite the lack of national treatment capacity for specific kinds of waste and
differences in processing costs as key incentives for exporting waste. One of the audits
also found that waste is transported due to policies adopted by certain multinational
companies on the international consolidation of waste treatment. Finally, there is a
risk that waste may be exported within the eu as a result of differences in the
strictness of enforcement practices.

1.3.1

Main international waste routes
The main recipients of global waste are Asia and Africa. Europe, Japan and North
America are the main shippers of waste. The report on the Norwegian audit includes
a map of known routes of illegal exports of hazardous waste from Europe to other
parts of the world (see figure 1.1). This shows that West Africa, Asia and the cis
countries are the main destinations. Illegal cross-border waste flows within Europe are
not shown on the map.

Figure 1.1 - Known routes of illegal exports of hazardous waste from Europe
OECD Countries
Areas where illegal waste
export has been proven
Major illegal waste shipment
routes from Europe
Commonwealth of Independent states
Scrapped cars

West Africa
Scrapped cars
CFC products
WEEE waste

Asia
Cable waste
Plastics
Metal
WEEE waste
Waste paper/mixed
municipal waste

Joris Fiselier Infographics

Source: Office of the Auditor General of Norway, 2012, based on Impel-TFS (2006) Threat Assessment Project, and World
Customs Organization (2009) Operation Demeter final report; supplemented with data from the Dutch national audit
(Algemene Rekenkamer, 2012).

13

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

The following description (example 2) of the Vest Tank accident in Norway illustrates
the complexity of the international waste trade and the importance of the proper
processing of waste and of information-sharing among authorities in different
countries.
Example 2: The Vest Tank accident in 2007 (Norway)
A company called Vest Tank held a permit to receive waste containing oil from ships.
The company signed a contract to receive other types of waste from petroleum
production. Under the terms of this contract, Vest Tank received polluted petrol from
tankers (i.e. coker gasoline), desulphurised it and then loaded it back onto the ships
for sale on the African market. As a result, the company was left with large quantities
of waste that it was not allowed to process. The tanker that delivered the polluted
petrol was Probo Emu. It was the sister ship of the Probo Koala (see example 1) and
carried the same type of polluted petrol, originating from the same company that was
later fined in the Netherlands. The company started to clean the desulphurisation
waste. One of the tanks exploded and the contents of one of the neighbouring tanks
leaked out and ignited. Local residents experienced health problems after the accident
that were linked directly to the explosion. The Norwegian Climate and Pollution
Agency reported the case to the police. The former general manager and chairman of
Vest Tank were given prison sentences.
After the Vest Tank accident, it emerged that the ship that had delivered the polluted
petrol to Vest Tank, the Probo Emu, had not been checked by the environmental
authorities, even though the Dutch customs had notified the Norwegian Climate and
Pollution Agency about the ship. The Agency was also notified by the Norwegian
Coastal Administration that the pilot who had directed the ship to the Vest Tank facility
had noticed a strong smell of sulphur on board.

1.3.2

Volume of EU waste production and exports
The 27 eu member states generated around 2,570 million tonnes of waste in 2010,
including some 94 million tonnes of hazardous waste (Eurostat, 2011). Figure 1.2
shows the total production of waste and the various cross-border flows. Quantitative
information on these shipments is available only for notified waste, because only this
type of waste can be exported with a permit (see section 1.4). The much larger flow of
green-listed waste is not reported in Eurostat’s regular waste figures, nor is it included
in the most recent report published by the European Commission on the
implementation of the ewsr (ec, 2012).

14

Joint report based on eight national audits

Figure 1.2 - Waste production and transboundary waste shipments in Europe
Green-listed waste
(non-quantified)
Amber-listed waste
(notified waste)

Generated waste

2,570 million
tonnes*

Imports
? tonnes

Exports
? tonnes

Exported to other
member states
Exported
to EFTA
Imports
From EFTA

484,000
tonnes**

1.6 million tonnes***

10.8 million
tonnes**

From OECD (non-EFTA)
38,000 tonnes***
Exports
To non-OECD
84,00 tonnes**
To OECD (non-EFTA)
8,000 tonnes**

* Source: Eurostat 2010
** EC (2012) Annex 1, page 43
*** EC (2012) Annex 1, page 81

Joris Fiselier Infographics

From non-OECD
136,000 tonnes***

Notified waste
The ec (2012) reported that the total volume of all notified waste shipped between the
eu member states (eu-27) or out of the eu in 2009 was about 11.4 million tonnes. The
vast majority of these transboundary waste shipments have destinations within the eu
or one of the efta countries (i.e. Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland).
Some 84,000 tonnes of notified waste were exported from the eu to a non-oecd
country in 2009.7
The total volume of all notified waste shipped into e member states was about 12.4
million tonnes in 2009 (ec, 2012). Most of this waste was shipped between member
states or was imported from one of the efta countries.
Exports and imports of green-listed waste
As has already been mentioned, the much larger flow of green-listed waste is not
included in the published waste statistics. This is because green-listed waste can be
exported without notification. This lack of information is reflected in figure 1.2 by the
absence of quantitative data. We do know, however, that both the volume and the value
of recyclable waste exported out of the eu rose considerably between 1999 and 2011.
Plastics, iron and other metals are examples of such waste flows (eea, 2012).

7 Source: EC (2012) Annex 1, page 43.

15

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

Statistics: approach with caution
The EC report on the implementation of the ewsr notes inconsistencies in the
quantities reported by different member states for the same shipments (ec, 2012).
Also, the figures for imports and exports of notified waste among member states
do not tally (also see § 2.5). Eurostat warns that caution should be exercised when
comparing waste levels in member states (Eurostat, 2011). In some countries,
households are considered as sources of discarded vehicles or sources of mineral
waste from construction activities. In other countries, these flows are attributed to
businesses.

1.3.3

Waste flows in the eight participating countries
Figure 1.3 shows how much waste is generated in the eight countries that took part in
this coordinated audit. It also includes information on exports and imports of notified
waste and on aggregate waste exports and imports. Note that some figures are for
2009, others for 2010 and some are estimates.

Figure 1.3 - Key figures on waste for the eight countries included in this audit
Legenda All figures in 1,000 tonnes
A Waste generated from economic
activities and households in 2010a
B Notified waste in 2009b
C Total waste in 2009c

imports

of which
)
hazardous
exports

A

9,433

imports

exports

B

197d

350d

C

279e

767e

Total

(

Norway
(

1,763)

EU 27a
(

94,460)

A

2,569,850

B

11,353

12,431

A

159,458

C

n.a.

n.a.

B

26

37

C

1,159

78

Poland

Ireland

Hungary

1,972)

(

A

19,808

B

5

242

C

70

989

B

2,920

1,017

C

8,800

8,300

(

541)

15,735

B

69

3

C

1,569

371

Bulgaria

4,565)

119,142

(

A

Netherlands
A

1,492)

(

A

165,877

(

13,542)

B

0

29

C

597

178

Slovenia
117)

5,096

B

77

28

C

21f

19f

Eurostat waste statistics, consulted on 2 April 2013
EC (2012) report annex 1, page 19 and page 57
c
Estimate by national SAIs based on different national sources
d
Reported by Norway to Basel convention
e
Environmental data from miljostatus.no
f
Figures for 2010
a

b

Greece
(

253)

A

68,644

B

13

0 / n.a.

C

653

337

Joris Fiselier Infographics

(

A

Most intra-European waste exports by the eight countries in this audit are destined for
neighbouring countries. Most waste exports outside Europe are destined for Asia,
China in particular. Most waste imports by the eight countries originate from
neighbouring countries. Poland, for example, imports most waste from Ukraine and
Norway imports most waste from Sweden and Denmark.

16

Joint report based on eight national audits

The audit showed that different modalities are used for transporting waste. Sea
transport is important for long-distance transport and for oil waste, whereas road
transport is important for intra-European transport of ee waste and used cars, for
example. In some countries, waste is also transported by inland waterway and rail.

1.4

Three options for the shipment of waste
There are three options for transboundary shipments of waste under the ewsr (see
also figure 1.4):
Prohibition
The shipment may not take place. This may be on the strength of a blanket
prohibition, such as a shipment of hazardous waste to a non-oecd country, intended
for final disposal, or where the shipment is not in line with the national policy in the
country of destination.
Notification procedure ('amber-listed waste')
Under this procedure, the shipment may go ahead on condition that a permit is issued
before the shipment takes place. The waste holder must apply for a permit to the
competent authority in the country of origin. The competent authority assesses
whether the proposed shipment is permitted under the ewsr and whether the
shipment is in accordance with national (waste) policy, and communicates with the
competent authorities in the country of destination. After the shipment has taken
place, the competent authorities in the country of origin must be sent two notifications
from the country of destination:
1. a notification of receipt (i.e. confirmation that the waste has arrived); and
2. a notification of processing (i.e. confirmation that the waste has been treated).
The waste shipments that are subject to this procedure are generally considered
harmful to the environment and human health. Examples of shipments made under
this procedure are shipments of used agricultural sheeting from an eu country to
Malaysia for recovery, and shipments of many types of waste for final disposal within
the eu/eea/efta.
General information procedure ('green-listed waste')
Under this procedure, the shipment may go ahead if the waste holder satisfies a
general requirement to provide information (as prescribed in Annex vii of the ewsr)
and guarantees that the shipment is physically accompanied by the requisite
information. The shipper must be able to hand over the information in the event of an
inspection. The waste shipments that are subject to this procedure are generally
considered less harmful to the environment and human health. An example of a
shipment under this procedure is a shipment of waste paper from an eu country to
India for recycling.

17

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

Figure 1.4 - The three EWSR procedures in simplified form
Notification procedure
For example recyclable plastic
from European countries to India
Prior written
approval required

Waste transport
Possible inspection
by inspectorate,
customs, police or
other enforcement
agencies
Sea

No inspection and/or
no violation:
transport continues
In the case of notification
procedure: receipt and
processing notifiction is
compulsory

Prohibition
WASTE

For example hazardous waste
to non-OECD countries

Road

Inland waterways
General information
procedure
For example recyclable waste
paper from European countries to
China or copper scrap to Brazil

Inspection and
violation: punishment,
obligation to return
the waste and/or
possible prosecution

Rail

Annex-VII filled in
before transport
Joris Fiselier Infographics

The notification and general information procedure requisite different international
information flows, which will be further elaborated upon in section 2.6.
Which of the three options applies depends on different factors, including the country
of destination, the type of waste involved, the processing method, national policy or a
combination of these. The following text box uses scrap metal as an example to
illustrate the complexity of the problem.
Which of three EWSR options applies?
Uncontaminated scrap metal is a form of green-listed waste. An Annex VII form is sufficient if the
scrap metal is exported from the Netherlands to France for recovery (e.g. recycling). If the holder
wishes to dispose of the scrap, the notification procedure applies. Scrap metal may not be
exported to a non-OECD country for disposal (prohibition). Although less stringent rules apply to
recycling, the situation still depends on the individual preferences of non-OECD countries.
Argentina, for example, has chosen to prohibit imports of scrap metal, while Mali has opted for the
notification procedure and Hong Kong has adopted additional national procedures.

1.5

Requirements arising from the EWSR
The ewsr applies directly to eu member states. As the regulation gives member states
some latitude in certain areas, amendments have to be made to national legislation.
Important examples of such amendments are the rules on financial guarantees for
shipments, enforcement and the penalisation of infringements. Article 50 of the ewsr
lists the requirements for enforcement (see text box below). The ewsr also stipulates
that a competent authority should be designated.

18

Joint report based on eight national audits

In order to evaluate the implementation of the ewsr, this coordinated audit assessed
how the requirements set out in the ewsr are met in the eight countries. Special
attention was paid to the following points:
• the formal implementation requirements (see chapter 2);
• the number and nature of inspections (see chapter 3);
• international cooperation aimed at preventing and detecting illegal shipments
(see chapter 3); and
• the sanctions designated and as actually used in practice (see chapter 4).
Article 50 of the EWSR (on enforcement in the member states):
1. Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable for infringement of the
provisions of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are
implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Member States shall notify the Commission of their national legislation relating to prevention
and detection of illegal shipments and penalties for such shipments.
2. Member States shall, by way of measures for the enforcement of this Regulation, provide, inter
alia, for inspections of establishments and undertakings in accordance with Article 13 of
Directive 2006/12/EC, and for spot checks on shipments of waste or on the related recovery or
disposal.
3. Checks on shipments may take place in particular:
a. at the point of origin, carried out with the producer, holder or notifier;
b. at the destination, carried out with the consignee or the facility;
c. at the frontiers of the Community; and/or
d. during the shipment within the Community.
4. C
 hecks on shipments shall include the inspection of documents, the confirmation of identity
and, where appropriate, physical checking of the waste.
5. Member States shall cooperate, bilaterally or multilaterally, with one another in order to
facilitate the prevention and detection of illegal shipments.
6. Member States shall identify those members of their permanent staff responsible for the
cooperation referred to in paragraph 5 and identify the focal point(s) for the physical checks
referred to in paragraph 4. The information shall be sent to the Commission which shall
distribute a compiled list to the correspondents referred to in Article 54.
7. At the request of another Member State, a Member State may take enforcement action against
persons suspected of being engaged in the illegal shipment of waste who are present in that
Member State.

19

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

2 Formal implementation and information
management
2.1

Introduction
The ewsr requires member states and other countries that have adopted the
regulation to check shipments of waste. However, various formal arrangements need
to be made before countries can start enforcing the regulation. This chapter begins by
describing the implementation of these arrangements (section 2.2) before discussing
the classification of waste and the two relevant legal frameworks. Finally, information
management in relation to the ewsr is discussed in section 2.5 en 2.6.

2.2

Formal implementation of EWSR requirements
Designation of competent authority
All eight countries have designated a competent authority that has overall
responsibility for issuing permits, reporting to the European Commission and
communicating with the competent authorities in other countries about notification
procedures. In most countries (except Ireland, see example 3), the tasks of the
competent authority are performed by a national inspectorate, ministry or agency.
Example 3: Public and private enforcement tasks (Ireland)
In Ireland, a local authority, i.e. Dublin City Council, has been designated as the
national competent authority for the ewsr. The City Council has established a
National Transfrontier Shipment Office (the ntfso) to implement and enforce the
regulation. The ntfso also performs related functions to educate stakeholders about
the implementation of the regulation and to collaborate and coordinate with the
business community and external agencies.
The enforcement tasks in relation to the ewsr are performed by a private enforcement
company employing nine staff. The enforcement team is fully accountable to Dublin
City Council and reports directly to the head of the ntfso. Inspections are made of
imports, exports, waste facilities, dealers and brokers. Following an inspection, the
enforcement officer concerned makes a recommendation to the ntfso on what, if
any, enforcement action needs to be taken. The ntfso takes the final decision on the
action to be taken.
Inspections are performed and rules on sanctions are in place
The audit shows that inspections are carried out in all eight countries and that
sanction measures have been incorporated in national legislation. Moreover, ewsr
procedures (both the notification and the general information procedures) have been
put in place and different types of inspections are carried out. Inspections and
sanctions are discussed in detail in chapters 3 and 4.
Bilateral cooperation
The auditors found that all eight countries had bilateral cooperation agreements or
routines (i.e. cooperation not based on a formal cooperation agreement) with other
countries, in most cases their neighbouring countries. Bilateral cooperation consists

20

Joint report based on eight national audits

of information-sharing between the competent authorities about specific shipments,
meetings (such as expert meetings), bilateral enforcement operations and
arrangements for shipments that are returned due to infringements of the regulation.
In two countries, the agreements or cooperation structures have a specific ewsr
focus. Norway, for example, cooperates with the other Nordic countries in forming
a single common market for the treatment of hazardous waste in accordance with the
principles of self-reliance and proximity. In other countries, bilateral cooperation has
a broader and less specific focus: Greece and Bulgaria have agreed to cooperate in
general terms in the field of environmental protection.
Example 4: Bilateral cooperation
The Netherlands cooperates with its neighbours (i.e. Belgium, Germany and the
United Kingdom) as well as with countries such as China and Ghana. Cooperation
which China is on the rise due to the volume of European waste, plastic in particular,
that is shipped to China via Dutch ports. In suspicious cases, the competent authority
in the Netherlands may request the Chinese authorities to inspect certain shipments.
Multilateral cooperation
All eight countries were found to be involved in multilateral cooperation. The most
common activities are Impel-tfs operations and Demeter (see chapter 3 for further
information).
Reporting to the European Commission (and Basel Secretariat)
The audit teams found that all eight countries reported to the European Commission
and/or the Basel Convention on the implementation of article 50 of the regulation.
However, four of the eight countries were late in presenting their annual reports. In
two countries, the delay was caused by staff shortages at the competent institutions.
In one of the other countries, the delay was due to the large number of corrections that
needed to be made to improve the reliability of statistics.
In its most recent report on the enforcement of the ewsr, the European Commission
refers to the missing and delayed reports from member states (ec, 2012). The
Commission writes that, although no infringement action has been taken to date, it
has nevertheless launched eu Pilot Requests to investigate the missing reports.

2.3

Classification of waste
The definition of waste given in the ewsr is based on the European Waste Directive.
Waste is defined as ‘any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is
required to discard’. This broad definition means that the competent authority has to
place its own interpretation on the term, for example when assessing whether a
shipment should be classified as electronic waste or as second-hand computers.
Classification is also necessary in order to determine whether a shipment is greenlisted or amber-listed and hence whether the notification or general information
procedure applies.
In many cases, the auditors found differences of interpretation in identifying and
categorising waste shipments. For example, in an inspection of plastic waste, one
inspector might classify the goods as clean plastic (requiring the general information

21

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

procedure), while another inspector might conclude that the plastic is contaminated
with metal scrap and paper, which means that the notification procedure needs to be
followed.
Differences of interpretation between inspectors are unavoidable, however, as the
ewsr does not explicitly define the difference between clean and mixed waste. The
fifth example illustrates the Dutch situation, where an attempt was made in 2011 to
introduce policy guidelines. The example shows the practical and legal difficulties
faced by national authorities in attempting to harmonise their interpretation of the
ewsr.
Example 5: Dutch attempt to harmonise the interpretation of waste
When does waste paper become so contaminated that it becomes domestic waste? The
ewsr does not set quantitative limits. In 2011, the Dutch environmental inspectorate
tried to set quantitative limits in the form of contamination standards for three
common types of waste: scrap metal, plastic and paper. In preparing these standards,
the inspectorate consulted several industry organisations and studied the standards
used in other countries. In practice, however, the standards met with resistance. The
inspectorate even lost a court case, although it did launch a successful appeal.
Two consequences of the broad definition of waste are:
1. That it complicates the enforcement of the ewsr, especially where waste is
intentionally shipped under the general information procedure (for green-listed
waste), despite the fact that the notification procedure (for amber-listed waste) is
required.
2. That information management becomes less valid, because it causes an overall bias
in recording data on waste, and also in comparing information among different
organisations and countries.

2.4

Two legal frameworks and two code systems
Enforcement agencies have to deal with two legal frameworks: the international
statutory framework for customs and the Basel/ewsr framework. The differences
between the frameworks complicate the enforcement of the EWSR, because the codes
used in custom declarations need to be converted into Basel codes in order to identify
waste.
For example, a shipment may be declared as aluminium partials at customs, despite
actually being aluminium waste. Similarly, a shipment may be documented as being
electronic equipment components, even though the goods are classified as waste
under the ewsr. Without an explicit or automatic linkage to the Basel codes, waste
shipments may not be identified as such, which means that customs may not always
‘realise’ that a passing shipment of goods is in fact waste. For customs the conversion
can be difficult to do, for example in the case of mixed types of waste and because
customs officers usually lack detailed technical knowledge.
The differences complicate the use of customs declarations for the risk-based
enforcement of the ewsr. Although the ec (dg taxud) is currently working on a
conversion table, it is not yet operational. One of the eight countries involved in the
audit (i.e. the Netherlands) has also started building a conversion table linking

22

Joint report based on eight national audits

customs (goods) codes with the Basel codes and other relevant sources. Since eu
goods codes and the country data constantly change, the table requires regular
updating.
The ec (2010) recognises the challenge of the Basel codes versus customs codes and
the Directorate-General of Taxation and Customs Union is currently adapting and
harmonising some of the Basel codes and integrating them with the custom codes.
The idea is for some of the codes to be harmonised by 2017.
The second difference between the two frameworks is that the ewsr requires the
waste-holder to disclose the final destination in the documents, whereas the customs
regulation requires the next country in transit to be disclosed on the customs
declaration; the final destination is not always stated. This difference complicates
enforcement of the ewsr. An example is where a waste shipment from a European
country is destined for India, but is shipped via the United Arab Emirates (uae).
According to the ewsr, the waste is allowed to be shipped to uae but not to India.
Under the ewsr, the documentation should name India as the country of (final)
destination. However, if the documentation states that the destination is the uae, the
customs may allow the shipment to pass. From a customs perspective only the next
destination has to be documented, which is not necessarily the final destination. This
is not correct, however, from the perspective of the ewsr, as the export of the waste to
India may require other procedures to be followed or may even be prohibited.

2.5

Information management within countries
The eight sais assessed how information management (see text box) is organised in
their country and how this affects the enforcement of the ewsr.
An information management system in the context of the EWSR refers to all data, IT systems
and facilities concerned with information flows and the storage and filing of information. The
central audit standard is that both within and between countries, IT systems and information on
enforcement activities, findings and evaluations exist and are shared, so that enforcement activities
can be monitored, evaluated and improved. The enforcement information should be reliable, valid
and up to date. This implies, for example, that different sources of information and databases are
well-connected, so that no gaps or double counts are registered. Also, the way in which
information is gathered and processed by all enforcement agencies should be based on the same
principles and definitions.

Registration of ewsr data within countries
ewsr data is any information that is relevant to the ewsr (and its enforcement).
i.e. data on a country’s waste production and treatment, on the number of waste
shipments (both green and amber), the number of notification procedures, the
number of inspected shipments, the number and type of ewsr infringements
detected, the waste stream involved and the quantity of waste, and the sanction
measures applied.
The eight audits show that the reliability of the recorded data is weak in many
countries and that the way in which data is recorded varies from one organisation
to another.

23

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

Example 6: Electronic information exchange and access to databases (Poland)
In Poland, the computer databases used by the Inspectorate of Environmental
Protection, the Customs Service and the Border Guard were not linked and functioned
separately. The limited sharing of data on cross-border waste shipments by the above
agencies caused delays in the exchange of information on permits, shipments and
disclosures of illegal shipments. This detracted from the effectiveness of the
enforcement of the ewsr.
1. Data on total waste production
To a greater or lesser extent, all the audits reported problems with the reliability of the
information on waste production, which was rated as very low in relation to two
countries. This is because data on different types of waste is collected from annual
reports drawn up by waste producers and then processed by various competent
institutions, but is not cross-checked and verified before being entered, first in
administrative databases, and later in official databases. Consequently, there can easily
be wide discrepancies between data from different sources.
The method of calculation may be another reason for the unreliability of data on the
total volume of waste generated. For example, quantities of municipal and
construction waste in Slovenia are sometimes estimated rather than being measured.
Also, the statistics do not include all waste and ignore waste that does not fall under
the notification procedure. Finally, figures on annual waste production may not be
comparable on a year-on-year basis because of changes in the definition of waste.
2. Data on waste treatment facilities
Four countries stated that they did not have precise data on waste treatment facilities,
e.g. recycling and processing facilities, and their domestic treatment capacities. They
do not maintain comprehensive national registers and central databases on all
treatment facilities, which means that their competent institutions do not have a full
picture of disposable treatment capacities for all waste types and all treatment
procedures. As a result, it is difficult to assess their self-sufficiency in terms of waste
treatment and explain the reasons for exports and imports of waste.
Example 7: No central data collection (Bulgaria)
In Bulgaria, a large amount of data is registered on waste imports and exports.
However, all this information is collected by different organisations for different
purposes and the statistics generated from them are not comparable. There is no
national authority that collects and systemises data on waste shipments.
3. Data on export and import
Some countries reported, to a greater or lesser extent, a lack of comprehensive data on
waste exports and imports. For this reason, it is difficult to estimate the actual volume
of waste exported from or imported to a given country each year. The first reason for
this is that green-listed waste does not require an export permit.8 The second reason
lies in the fact that businesses apply for a notification for the maximum amount of
8 The notification and general information procedure require different international information flows, which will
be further elaborated upon in section 2.6.

24

Joint report based on eight national audits

amber-listed waste they expect to ship. In most cases, no information is available on
the volume of waste actually shipped.
Problems with data quality are also mentioned in the most recent report from the
European Commission on the implementation of the ewsr (ec, 2012). In a large
number of cases, the data reported by the country of dispatch does not tally with the
data reported by the country of destination. More specifically, there was a 27%
mismatch between reported exports and imports of hazardous waste among eu
member states in 2009, with a higher margin of error for exports than for imports. In
the same year, the gap between reported exports and imports of other notified wastes
among eu member states was about 36%; the margin of error was higher for imports
than for exports.
The European Court of Auditors (2012) has also pointed to the problem of producing
reliable and credible European statistics.
4. Data on the number of ewsr inspections
The competent agencies in most countries provide information on the number of
inspections carried out each year, as well as on the number and subject of
infringements detected. However, the information is not always complete and
accurate, because inspections are conducted by different organisations, each of which
has its own method for recording inspections. Inspections of waste shipments are
often performed as part of broader inspections or investigations of waste and are
therefore not always identified as such.
Extensive data on the enforcement of the ewsr is available in Hungary. The Hungarian
authorities have data on waste production, waste flows and on detected infringements.
The total number of inspections is unknown, however, because customs officers often
perform all-round inspections by checking waste shipments as part of the customs
clearance procedure and do not categorise inspections of waste shipment as separate
inspections.
The audit teams found that the eight countries had not formulated policies for giving
inspectors guidance on registrations and for avoiding gaps in registration and double
counting of inspections and infringements.
5. Data on illegal shipments
All countries have data on the number of intercepted shipments and detected
infringements. However, most countries do not keep records on the enforcement of
sanctions. Different organisations are involved in these procedures and they do not
always share information with each other.
Information systems not integrated
The enforcement agencies in all the participating countries have it systems for
recording data in support of the enforcement of the ewsr. However, no country has
information systems that are fully compatible with each other (e.g. in terms of the
interpretation of definitions and the registration of activities), nor are they linked with
other organisations’ databases. None of the eight countries has a fully integrated
database containing all relevant data. Without such a comprehensive database, it is
difficult to use the information for enforcement purposes, such as risk analysis.

25

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

2.6

Information exchange between countries
The ewsr procedures (as described in section 1.4) envisage two type of information
exchange between countries. As is shown in Figure 2.1, three data flows are relevant to
the notification procedure, whereas the general information procedure does not
require a structural information flow between countries.

Figure 2.1 - Requisite international information flows for the notification and general information procedures.
Country of origin

Waste transport

Country of destination

Notification procedure
(Amber-listed waste)

1

Notification
document

2

Notification
after arrival

3

Notification
after treatment

General information
procedure
(Green-listed waste)

Joris Fiselier Infographics

Annex VII
filled in

Information flows in relation to amber-listed waste
Under the notification procedure, the international exchange of information on
shipments consists of three information flows:
1. Information from the country of origin to the country of destination on the
(intended) notification approval of a waste shipment. The competent authority in
the country of origin exchanges information about the planned shipment with the
competent authority in the country of destination;
2. A receipt notification is sent from the country of destination to the country of
origin, to inform the latter that the waste has arrived at its destination.
3. A processing notification is sent from the country of destination to the country of
origin, to inform the latter that the waste has been treated.
There is an initiative to develop an system for the exchange of digital notifications
(European Data Interchange for Waste Notification System). At the moment, the
eudin-initiative is still limited to some European countries.
Example 8 illustrates that the possible unreliability of notification (see also section
3.3.6). Example 9 illustrates the difficulties faced by Norway in following a shipment
from its origin to its destination.

26

Joint report based on eight national audits

Example 8: Export of plastic waste from the Netherlands to Hong Kong9
It is estimated that half of all the plastic waste in the Netherlands is exported to Hong
Kong, despite the latter’s limited capacity for handling such waste (vromInspectorate, 2010). Most likely the bulk of the waste (possibly all of it) is sent through
to China, with no guarantee of processing by a licensed recycler. With the last link in
the chain out of the picture, information on the operation of the waste chain as a
whole is limited.
Example 9: Declaration and administration errors (Norway)
In Norway, the current declaration system is based on the submission of paper forms.
Much waste is incorrectly declared, and errors are also made during the manual
transfer of data to the declaration database. Although the system is particularly
important in relation to the supervision of the waste producers’ duty to hand over their
waste for processing, not all of it can be traced all the way to final disposal. The
declaration system is thus not suited to documenting whether waste has been properly
handled, making it is more difficult to effectively check the progress of waste that is
submitted for processing. Errors also result in inaccuracies in statistics, which may be
glaring in relation to certain types of waste.
Information management in relation to green-listed waste
Waste shipped under the general information procedure does not require case-by-case
registration, as is required for waste shipped under the notification procedure. All
countries reported that waste shipped under the general information procedure was
not included in statistics. There is no international information system for monitoring
and evaluating waste shipments under the general information procedure. The
statistics used internationally about these shipments are based on annual declaration
reports produced by waste shipping companies, reports published by the waste
processing industry, trade statistics or other secondary sources. It is generally
recognised, for example, by cross-checking the total figures, that it is only possible to
estimate the volume of green-listed waste in each country, except for countries on the
eu’s borders, where the customs authorities register all cross-border shipments.
However, these situations are complicated by the problem of customs codes and Basel
codes.

9 An in-depth discussion of the position of Hong Kong within the international waste trade can be found in a
study commissioned by the European Commission (O’Laoire Russell Associates, 2011).

27

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

3 The enforcement of the EWSR
3.1

Introduction
The ewsr requires member states, and other countries that have adopted the
regulation, to check waste shipments. In other words, they are obliged to enforce the
ewsr. However, it is up to the national authorities themselves to decide how to do so.
They are free to design their own policies for the type and number of inspections, and
other types of enforcement measures. As a result, the way in which the ewsr is
enforced tends to differ from one country to another.
This chapter describes how the eight countries included in the audit enforce the ewsr
and whether the measures taken are in line with the aim of the ewsr in general, and
with the provisions on enforcement in particular (see section 1.5). This implies that
checks should be organised that include documents and, where appropriate, a physical
check of the waste. The authorities are also required to cooperate in combating illegal
shipments.
Section 3.2 discusses the enforcement network. Section 3.3 examines the enforcement
strategy, its implementation, the resources available for enforcement and the
verification of notifications. Section 3.4 focuses on the information available on the
effectiveness of enforcement measures. The chapter concludes with a discussion of a
number of recent developments (section 3.5).

3.2

Enforcement network
Enforcement agencies
In all eight countries, multiple organisations are involved in the enforcement of the
ewsr. The enforcement network usually consists of the competent authority, customs
and the police. Customs play a key role in inspecting waste shipments at the European
borders, while police forces in many countries check inland shipments by waterways,
road and rail. Other organisations that form part of the network in some of the eight
countries are public prosecution services, inspectorates, border agencies and agencies
for administrative policy implementation. Most, if not all, of the enforcement agencies
have other tasks to perform besides enforcing the ewsr.
The number of enforcement agencies differs from one country to another: in some
countries, three organisations are involved, in others more than six. Figure 3.1 is a
diagrammatic representation of the enforcement network and the organisations
involved.
As a result of the many organisations involved, the enforcement of the ewsr is
fragmented in most countries, This poses challenges for the coordination of the
network. The national audits show that fragmentation hinders enforcement in three
countries; in the other countries, there is sufficient coordination of enforcement
activities and cooperation among the organisations involved.

28

Joint report based on eight national audits

Figure 3.1 - Possible EWSR enforcement networks in the eight countries

Customs and
border guard

Executive
agency
Other national
inspectorates

Private
companies

Competent authority
Often a national inspectorate
or ministry

Public
prosecutor

Regional
inspectorates

Other
partners

Courts

Local
authorities

Joris Fiselier Infographics

Police

Cooperation between network partners
In most countries, the enforcement agencies have signed cooperation agreements, in
some cases specifically in relation to the ewsr. No formal agreements exist in two
countries, although there is an informal cooperation network.
The level of cooperation also differs from one country to another. Some audit teams
reported extensive cooperation, including joint inspections, while no regular joint
enforcement campaigns are held in other countries. In some of the audited countries,
the enforcement agencies also cooperate in staff training. Most audit reports rate the
level of cooperation as adequate in the light of the agreements or lack of them, as the
case may be. Most audit teams concluded that cooperation had a positive impact on
enforcement activities.
The exchange of digital information within the enforcement network is limited in all
eight countries (see also section 2.5). There are no comprehensive databases holding
all sorts of data relevant to inspections and the evaluation of enforcement activities.
Most of the national audit reports suggested that the lack of information-sharing may
complicate inspections and cooperation. Some audit reports also noted that the lack of
a digital interface hampered information-based enforcement and the evaluation of
enforcement policy.
Some examples of cooperation are given below (examples 10-12).
Example 10
Customs in Hungary have started to harmonise customs, environmental and police
regulations in the form of a common operating procedure. The customs authorities
have also drafted new cooperation agreements with the competent authorities and the
organisation responsible for checking hazardous goods and performing disaster
management.

29

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

Example 11
The all-round road transport checks performed in the Netherlands are an example of a
comprehensive approach by multiple enforcement agencies. Compliance with a wide
range of regulations, including the ewsr, is checked with the aid a check list that
takes 20 to 30 minutes to complete. Police officers are assisted by customs officers and
inspectors from a number of national inspectorates who can either assist with or take
over the more complex cases.
Example 12
The enforcement agencies in Greece decided to use a model ‘autopsy report’ for their
ewsr inspections. This model report is now also used by environmental inspectors.

3.3

Enforcement strategy and implementation
This section first discusses the strategy and annual plans in the eight countries. It goes
on to examine the number and type of inspections and describes the multilateral
cooperation employed in enforcing the ewsr, the resources available for enforcing the
regulation and the verification of notifications.

3.3.1

Strategy and annual plans
The participating sais sought to ascertain whether the authorities had developed a
strategy for enforcing the ewsr and whether the organisations involved had drawn
up a plan for their inspections. They also analysed the contents of the strategy and
inspection plans and assessed whether priorities had been set and whether a risk
assessment had been carried out.
The audits showed that all but two of the eight countries had produced an enforcement
strategy and/or annual plans for the enforcement of the ewsr. However, the nature of
the strategy and plans was found to differ from one country to another. Two countries
have adopted a detailed strategy or a comprehensive annual plan. In all but one of the
other countries, annual audit plans for the organisations involved are available
specifying the number of inspections to be performed by the organisation involved. In
some countries, these are to some extent based on previously identified risks.
An important difference between the countries that have prepared a strategy or a
comprehensive plan and the other five countries is that enforcement in the former
group of countries is more risk-based. They seek to focus inspections on shipments
where there is a relatively high risk of non-compliance. In order to pursue such a
strategy, the authorities need to have information on the main waste flows and the
market forces behind them. Also, they need to have analysed the risks of noncompliance and to have an it infrastructure enabling them to select high-risk
shipments for inspection by well-trained front-line inspectors. In the two countries
with an enforcement strategy, these conditions are satisfied in full or in part. No
explicit risk analysis underpins the enforcement activities in the other countries.
Example 13 describes the strategy adopted in Poland.

30

Joint report based on eight national audits

Example 13. The Polish strategy
In Poland, the Inspectorate of Environmental Protection, the Border Guard and the
Ministry of Finance (the Customs Service is subordinated to the Minister of Finance)
approved annual inspection plans outlining the work to be performed by the
inspection services. The heads of regional units were made responsible for the detailed
planning of the number, frequency and location of inspections.

3.3.2

Number of inspections
Information on the number of inspections performed in 2008, 2009 and 2010 is given
in figure 3.2 (with more detailed information given in Appendix 2). During this period,
all eight countries performed at least some inspections of international waste
shipments.10 Full or partial information is available for seven countries: the number of
inspection performed on an annual basis ranges from around ten to many thousands.
The Netherlands and Ireland perform by far the most inspections. In relation to the
Netherlands in any event, this reflects its status as a big exporter of waste and as a
important transit country for waste exporters in other European countries. For most
countries, however, it is difficult to draw any conclusion about the adequacy of the
number of inspections in relation to the size of the international waste flow. This is
due to the lack of reliable data on the number of inspections, the lack of information
on the compliance rate and the effectiveness of enforcement measures (see section
3.4), and the absence in most countries of any risk analysis underpinning the
enforcement strategy.
Several national audits raised questions about the reliability of the number of
inspections and the number of infringements reported by the authorities. For example,
in one country the information supplied by the competent authority was not consistent
with the information supplied by customs and the police, because different methods
where used to improve data-quality. In several countries, data on certain years or in
relation to certain enforcement agencies was missing. This may be due to the absence
of a comprehensive information system (see section 2.4), errors during initial
registration and the lack of guidelines for dealing with these, double counting in joint
inspections and incomplete registration during all-round inspections (i.e. front-line
officers may not report a check if no infringement is detected). Also, a broad definition
of waste may distort the figures, for example where waste is shipped as second-hand
goods (see section 2.3).

10 No information is available on the number of inspections performed in two countries, but the fact that
infringements were reported implies that inspections did take place there.

31

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

Figure 3.2
EWSR inspections performed and infringements detected by the authorities in the eight participating countries in 2010

Country

Year

Customs
No. of
inspections

No. of
violations

10-50

50-250

250-1.000

Environmental authority

Police

No. of
inspections

No. of
inspections

No. of
violations

n.a.

>1.000

No. of
violations

Bulgaria

2008-10

n.a.

Greece

2010

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Hungary**

2010

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Ireland*

2010

Netherlands***

2010

Norway

2010

0

0

Poland****

2010

Slovenia

2010

See Customs
n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0

n.a.
n.a.

n.a.

*
The figures include joint inspections.
** The number of infringements reported by the Environmental Authority includes infringements detected by other agencies.
*** The number of checks by the Environmental Authority covers on-site inspections of companies only.
**** The figure for the Police refers to inspections carried out by the Border Guard and the Inspection of Road Transport.

Joris Fiselier Infographics

1-10

Example 14: Efforts intensified in Hungary
Hungary’s sai concluded that enforcement activities increased after the audit period,
i.e. in 2011. Regulations were harmonised and procedures were updated. There was
also an increase in the number of audits, specialist courses followed and other
educational activities.

3.3.3

Type of inspections
Member states are obliged to take action to enforce the ewsr by inspecting
establishments and performing spot checks of waste shipments or of the related
recovery or disposal. These checks may be performed at the eu borders and/or during
shipments within the eu. It is up to the national authorities to decide on the number
and nature of these inspections.
Checks should include documentation and, where appropriate, the nature of the
waste. It also follows from the ewsr that the following criteria should be applied:
• no waste may be exported to a prohibited destination;
• waste must be exported in line with the notification procedure; or
• the Annex vii document must be present and complete.
Inspections of shipments
All countries use traditional inspections of shipments by customs officers, the
environmental authorities, police officers, border guards or a combination of the
above. The selection of shipments is either random or risk-based. Half of the audited
countries used risk-based inspections or both types, and the others relied on random
sampling. It was not possible to compare the results of the two strategies due to the
problems with data quality discussed above.

Joint report based on eight national audits

Figure 3.3 shows an example of a risk-based enforcement strategy using both riskbased and random inspections.
Example 15
In Ireland, the ntfso has adopted a risk-based approach to inspections at waste
facilities. However, all inspections carried out at ports on imports, exports and
products are carried out on a random basis.
Figure 3.3 - Risk-based strategy for inspections by a customs organisation

All Customs declarations

Filter of EWSR risk profiles
? Has Customs identified EWSR risks?
For example:
computers destined for West Africa
? Is the shipment an EWSR priority?
For example:
non-OECD destination

Yes

No

!
Suspicious or
priority

Not suspicious
or priority

Check
(sometimes
check rate)

No check

Sampled
check

Joris Fiselier Infographics

32

Inspections of facilities
The enforcement strategy in six countries includes inspections at waste collection
points or at waste exporters’ facilities. Inspections may also include the handling of
return goods. In Norway, for example, the monitoring of weee take back companies
has uncovered illegal waste shipments. Inspections of this type can help both to raise
awareness of ewsr procedures among businesses and to prevent waste from entering
the illegal circuit.

33

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

In two of the countries, the environmental inspectorates also performed ‘back to the
source’ checks of the source of intercepted waste; such inspections may also form part
of a criminal investigation.
Example 16
The customs authorities in Greece gather information in order to conduct audits
focusing on customs and financial offences. The audits carried out by environmental
inspectors are based on specific information obtained from past reports, complaints
about environmental offences or any other available data.
Thematic enforcement operations
Two of the audit teams found that the authorities conducted thematic checks of
specific types of illegal waste. The checking of containers and second-hand vehicles
destined for West Africa at loading sites is one example. Another example is where the
bulk of enforcement activities are targeted at a given waste flow over a set period. Such
an approach can also generate information on the proportion of illegal shipments in a
specific waste flow.
Ex-post inspections
The authorities in most countries can conduct ex-post inspections to find out whether
a shipment reached the destination cited in the notification and whether it can be
established that the waste in question was recycled in a suitable installation. Postexport checks are important because there are indications that the system of receipt
and processing notifications is inadequate (see example 7). However, most of the
national audits showed that ex-post inspections are rare.
Information as an enforcement measure
In all countries information is constantly distributed to stakeholders by the competent
authority and the media, including during the course of enforcement campaigns, even
during international inspections of waste shipments. This may help to induce
compliance. Example 17 shows how this approach works.
Example 17
To reach a broad audience, the competent authority in Norway tries to make use of the
media in cases where hazardous waste is returned to Norway after an attempted export
to non-eu or non-oecd countries (via Germany or the Netherlands, for example).
Such cases are likely to often involve weee, used products containing cfcs or used
cars. So as not to unwittingly export illegal waste, Norway has prepared a leaflet in
English describing the regulations and setting out practical criteria for deciding
whether or not a particular cargo may be classified as waste. The leaflet is illustrated
with photographs and focuses on weee waste and end-of-life vehicles.
AEO-certification
A relatively new strategy for custom organisations involves basing supervision and
enforcement on trust rather than on suspicion, and hence reducing the supervisory
burden placed on businesses. This is done by means of a system of ‘horizontal
supervision’, in which the number of audits or checks depends on the quality of a

34

Joint report based on eight national audits

firm’s operating procedures. A mechanism for certifying ‘authorised economic
operators’ (aeos) has been introduced to this end. Under this system, individual
goods shipments made by aeos do not need to be checked as often as other
shipments. aeo certification is based on the standards applied by the World Customs
Organization.
One of the audit reports stated that national customs had started working with aeo
certifications. The audit team pointed out that fewer checks might not be desirable if
the party filing a customs declaration was certified but the exporter was not.

3.3.4

Multilateral cooperation in enforcement activities
There are several international networks and projects for strengthening capacity for
enforcing the ewsr (and related regulations). This is achieved by exchanging
information and experience, developing enforcement tools, capacity-building (during
on-site inspections) and also by organising joint and/or coordinated inspections. The
following organisations and networks should be mentioned in this regard:
• the World Customs Organisation (wco);
• the European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of
Environmental Law (impel);
• the International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement
(inece);
• the Waste Shipments Enforcement Platform.
The network of public prosecution services, Europol and a number of European police
forces also play a role in multilateral cooperation. The following example describes the
most important joint enforcement activities: impel-tfs, Demeter (wco) and Augias
(police). All eight countries involved in the audit have taken part in at least one of these
joint enforcement campaigns.
Example 18
Polish enforcement agencies have participated in joint inspection operations
organised as part of the impel tfs, Demeter and Augias programmes. For example,
nine inspection operations were performed in Poland in 2008-2011 in the framework
of impel-tfs. Over 8,500 shipments were inspected during these operations: 23
illegal transboundary waste shipments and 27 violations of statutory regulations were
identified. In the framework of impel tfs, the enforcement agencies also participated
in an exchange programme for inspectors and in inspection operations in Belgium,
the Netherlands and Lithuania.
International cooperation in impel-tfs, Demeter and augias operations
impel is the eu Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental
Law. To improve the enforcement of the ewsr (one of impel’s priorities), impel has
organised two ‘Transfrontier Shipment of Waste’ (tfs) enforcement operations. The
most recent operation was tfs Enforcement Actions ii (October 2008 to March 2011),
in which 25 European countries took part (impel, 2011). A total of 3,897 checks were
performed of waste shipments and businesses (some risk-based, some random).
Infringements of the ewsr were detected in 833 cases; 95 additional ewsr violations
were detected during follow-up checks.

35

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

The Demeter operations (i and ii) performed by the World Customs Organization are
targeted at illegal waste shipments. Their objective is to encourage organisations in a
variety of countries to work together in order to map out international illegal waste
flows and destinations. The first Demeter operation was held in 2009 (wco, 2009).
The participants included customs organisations and their network partners from 65
countries (including many European countries but also China, New Zealand, Malaysia,
Ivory Coast, Ghana, Egypt, India and Indonesia). The operation included more than
2,000 physical checks of waste shipments in over 300 ports. The customs authorities
also worked with the other national inspectorates and services. The World Customs
Organization carried out a second Demeter operation in early 2012.
The Augias programme, which was funded by the eu and initiated by the Belgian
Federal Police, was aimed at combating international illegal waste shipments. The
practical testing of the knowledge gathered in the course of the Augias programme
was completed in 2010 as an international operation.
According to the national audits, countries that took part in multilateral enforcement
initiatives such as impel-tfs and Demeter reported positive effects on the
enforcement of the ewsr at both national and international levels. Among the
frequently cited benefits were more information on existing and new inspection
techniques, the detection of illegal shipments, the opportunity to gain experience with
inspection methods, and the sharing of knowledge and experience among inspectors
from different countries. A further benefit of multilateral inspections, in addition to
the outcome of the operations themselves, is that they result in the production of
instruction materials, formats and manuals that can help to harmonise the
international enforcement of the ewsr. Joint or coordinated enforcement activities
also generate information on differences between countries and as a result provide
input for a debate on the creation of a level international playing field. Some of the
positive effects are described in example 19.
Example 19: Operation Demeter II in Hungary
This was a high-priority operation, according to customs, and helped to prevent illegal
waste shipments. The operation was conducive to cooperation at both a national and
an international level and helped to boost knowledge of inspection techniques. The
experiences were used to improve national inspection procedures.

3.3.5

Resources
The national audits looked at the resources available for enforcing the ewsr. More
specifically, they focused on the availability of well-trained staff, equipment and
information on waste shipments. As the available resources at least partially reflect
political priorities, these were also taken into account.
The national audits found that the enforcement of the ewsr is a political priority in
only one country. However, three other countries have decided to attach greater
priority to the issue. The audit team in one country concluded that not much political
priority was given to enforcing the EWSR. The conclusion drawn in another country
was that customs does not prioritise waste. In two audits, political priorities were not
rated.

36

Joint report based on eight national audits

Training and support from specialists
The presence of a well-trained team of staff, including specialists who can advise
front-line officers, is essential for the enforcement of the ewsr. The need for training
and the presence of specialists team members follows from the complexity of the
ewsr (see chapter 2).
Five countries reported challenges ensuing from a shortage of well-trained staff.
Although some specialists are available in most countries, only a small number of
specialist staff are employed in certain countries. Four countries reported that
specialists can only be consulted during office hours. As shipments in some countries
can be held up only for a limited amount of time, this problem may severely hinder the
enforcement of the ewsr.
Example 20: Help desk in Greece
In Greece, a help desk was set up to provide information and clarification to customs
officers during inspections of cross-border shipments. However, the help desk
operates only during office hours on working days. There are often not enough
specialists available to help customs officers working around the clock. The Greek
audit concluded that priority had not been given to the enforcement of the ewsr and
that the agencies involved had not been given the legal powers they need.
Example 21: Flexibility in Ireland
In Ireland, the enforcement team (consisting of one environmental manager and eight
enforcement officers employed by a private company) are required to work flexible
hours. Training procedures are in place to ensure that all team members receive
adequate training to effectively perform their enforcement work.
Staff training programmes have been set up in a number of countries. Some examples
are:
• In Hungary, customs officers are encouraged to acquire specialist knowledge.
More training courses were provided in 2012 than in 2011.
• In Poland, all agencies involved in enforcement have provided training for their
staff. Front-line officers were given training, at least once at the beginning of their
contracts. Most of them also attended professional training courses.
• At the Bulgarian Customs Agency, newly appointed customs inspectors receive a
seven-month course of basic training. One of the topics addressed in this course is
the transboundary shipment of waste. Customs inspectors were also trained as
ewsr trainers as part of a twinning project.
• In Ireland, detailed guidelines and briefing documents are available for all
stakeholders. An annual forum is organised by the enforcement agencies to update
the police on new developments in the field of waste management. Quarterly
briefings are given to the association representing private waste management
companies.
• In the Netherlands, some front-line customs officers are given ewsr training and
are instructed as to when to consult a specialist from the environmental
inspectorate. Other front-line officers are told that, when dealing with an actual or
potential waste shipment, they should always consult a colleague who has had
special training in the enforcement of the ewsr.

37

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

Equipment
There are wide differences among the eight countries in terms of the technical
equipment used for inspections. For instance, customs officers in Ireland and the
Netherlands have installed x-ray scanners to inspect containers in ports.
Example 22
In Greece, environmental inspectors have access to basic inspection equipment, but
lack equipment for performing chemical analyses of solid waste and for detecting
metals or radioactivity. Customs officers do not have facilities for storing seized
shipments of waste.
Information
One of the national audit reports pointed out that access to information may also be a
problem. Insufficient information was available during inspections about the number
and types of permits granted to companies or about the current state of utilisation of
the permits in terms of the amount of waste shipped.

3.3.6

Verification of notifications
Five of the eight audits found that the receipt and processing notifications were not
properly reviewed by the competent authorities, in two countries this was not part of
the audit. For example, one of the national audit reports stated that the authorities did
not check whether the receipt and processing notifications were substantively correct;
the only check performed was of whether a processing statement had been compiled
for every disposal notification. The authorities did not check, for example, whether the
recycling facility in the country of destination was actually operational or whether the
waste had actually been processed there. It is up to the authorities in the country of
destination to check these things. In another audit it was found that notifications were
reviewed only occasionally. When confronted with a new the treatment facility, the
authorities contact their counterparts to check if the facility has a permit.
There are several methods that the authorities of exporting countries could use to gain
insight into validity of the processing notifications. Contacting the authorities in the
importing countries, post-export control procedures by Customs and administrative
controls of the exporting firm. Some of the countries in this coordinated audits
occasionally carry out such checks, but it is certainly not part of standard procedure.
One obstacles faced by the authorities is that there is no specialised international
database on waste processing facilities and waste exporters.

3.4

Information on the effectiveness of enforcement activities
This section examines the extent to which the authorities know how successful they
are at intercepting illegal shipments and how this contributes to achieving the
objective of the ewsr, i.e. protecting the environment. Information on both these
aspects is important for evaluating the ewsr at both national and international levels.
It is absolutely vital for refining the enforcement measures taken.
Effectiveness of enforcement measures
Measuring the effectiveness of enforcement measures is easier said than done.
Establishing causal effects requires a carefully planned research method, access to

38

Joint report based on eight national audits

information and enough time and other resources. The difference between output and
outcome should be taken into account, as well as possible unintended effects (such as
cross-border avoidance). Apart from basic methodological problems, measurement is
also complicated by the fact that illegal transboundary goods flows are difficult to
study by nature. This also applies to the illegal export of waste. It is therefore difficult
to relate the number of ewsr offences to the total number of illegal waste shipments.
In other words, it is difficult to estimate how much of the illegal flow is intercepted
and to draw conclusions about ewsr compliance and the effectiveness of enforcement
activities.
Notwithstanding these difficulties, the national audit teams examined what is known
about the effectiveness of enforcement measures. The audits show that the authorities
in the eight countries have little or no idea about the effects of their enforcement
measures. Past reviews in four countries focused typically on the number of
inspections and infringements, the practical aspects of enforcement measures, and on
cooperation between the agencies involved. These reviews do not provide any insight
into the effectiveness of enforcement measures.
Compliance rate
Establishing the compliance rate is even more difficult where enforcement activities
are risk-based. Although such an approach is in itself an efficient strategy, the number
of offences detected cannot be used to calculate the overall level of compliance. A
rough estimate of the compliance rate was available in only one country. This is based
on multiple investigations and statistical data on electronic waste, thematic
investigations of plastic waste and the outcome of transport inspections by the police.
The lack of information in certain countries is due to the small number of inspections
performed in practice. In other countries, it is due to the lack of reliable information
on inspections and infringements. Weaknesses in the IT systems used to manage
inspections can also make it very hard to perform the necessary analysis.
Example 23
Ireland exemplifies the overall finding that performance effectiveness has not been
reviewed. The competent authority has information on the level of enforcement
activity, such as the number of inspections and investigations carried out. It also
records the numbers and nature of infractions detected but information in relation
to the quantities and types of waste involved is not readily available. This poses
difficulties in reporting on performance effectiveness.
Chain supervision essential for achieving ewsr objective
The objective of the ewsr can be achieved only if the entire system functions correctly
- from the creation of waste to its ultimate processing. Accordingly, there must be
adequate supervision of the various links in the chain and supervision itself must form
a chain. A comprehensive analysis of the whole ewsr chain not only requires
cooperation between the authorities in the exporting and the importing countries, but
also needs to take account of procedures, the quality of notifications, enforcement,
cooperation and information exchange. To date, none of the eight audited countries
has performed such a comprehensive analysis.

39

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

As a result, the authorities may not have a clear picture of the operation of the system
as a whole, which they could then use to refine their EWSR enforcement activities.
A comprehensive analysis might reveal, for example, that certain destinations are
suspect. Businesses exporting to these destinations could then be checked more
rigorously. The findings might also prompt inspections of the businesses concerned.

3.5

Recent developments

3.5.1

European developments
During the past couple of years, a debate has arisen among the eu member states and
within the European Commission (i.e. dg Environment) on the degree of freedom that
is available to countries in terms of the way in which they enforce the ewsr. In its
report on the implementation of the ewsr (for 2007-2009), the European
Commission stated that the vast majority (i.e. 89%) of stakeholders in the member
states favoured new eu legislation strengthening inspection requirements. Some of
the options proposed were upstream inspections, the training of officials and the
imposition of an obligation on operators to produce evidence in certain cases where
there are reasonable grounds to suspect circumvention of the regulation. The
European Commission (i.e. dg Environment) has conducted an impact assessment of
the environmental, economic and social consequences of strengthening the
enforcement of the ewsr. On 11 July 2013, the Commission adopted a proposal to
strengthen inspections on waste shipments through an amendment of the Waste
Shipment Regulation (ec, 2013). It proposes risk-based inspections to be carried out
regularly by Member States, with greater co-operation between authorities and better
training of inspectors.

3.5.2

National developments
The authorities in most of the eight countries audited are taking action to strengthen
the enforcement of the ewsr. Most of this action is based on the findings and the
recommendations formulated in the national audit report (see Appendix 3 for an
overview). Some audit teams found that more attention was given to enforcement
during and after the audit in question, and that, in addition to acting on the
recommendations, the countries concerned had also taken a number of extra
measures. Improvements are frequently sought in the form of better cooperation
among the agencies involved, information management, training courses and the
production of guidelines. Appendix 3 shows the impact of the national audits.

40

Joint report based on eight national audits

4 Penalising infringements of the EWSR
4.1

Introduction
While the basic principle is that infringements of the ewsr must be penalised, the
member states are free to pursue their own policies on the penalisation of
infringements. This chapter examines the penalties available and the extent to which
they are used in the eight countries audited.11
Types of sanctions used
Penalties come in different forms and the member states are responsible for choosing
those penalties which they expect to have the maximum effect. The audit teams found
that, while all eight countries had put a penalty system in place, some penalties were
more common than others. All eight countries are empowered to impose fines and
administrative measures, while seven countries may impose custodial sentences, four
countries send warning letters, and three countries have chosen to use the following
additional measures: community service, the confiscation of cargo and the suspension
of the offender’s business operations.
These measures are discussed in further detail in the following sections. While the
measures are formally in place in the eight countries, the audit teams found that most
countries make only modest use of them, and that the number of infringements
actually brought to court (whether an administrative or a criminal court) is very small
in most countries. This makes it difficult to compare the situation in different
countries.

4.2

Warning letter
In the event of a minor infringement of the ewsr, some countries do not wish to go so
far as to impose a fine or an administrative measure. Although the ewsr does not
define a ‘minor’ infringement, this is typically a violation which was not committed on
purpose, can be undone, and has caused no harm to the environment or to public
health. A warning letter is a possible enforcement instrument in four of the eight
countries. In the other four countries, an infringement always results at least in an
administrative procedure.
Ireland issued 565 letters in 2010, while the Netherlands generally issues a couple of
dozen a year.12 In Slovenia, three warning letters were sent in 2010. The Norwegian
authorities did not send any during the audit period.

11 The central audit standards for this chapter are based on article 50 of the EWSR (discussed in section 1.5):
Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable for infringement of the provisions of this
Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided
for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
12 The exact numbers are not known due to registration problems and overlaps.

41

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

4.3

Fines
All eight countries are empowered to impose fines. The number of fines imposed each
year differs widely from one country to another; see figure 4.1. The figures quoted for
the number of fines are estimates, as it was not possible to obtain comprehensive,
reliable data.
The Netherlands and Hungary issue the largest number of fines (80 and 60
respectively). Other countries that impose relatively large numbers of fines are Poland
(46) and Bulgaria. Greece and Ireland stand out as imposing relatively few fines
compared with the other countries. In Norway, the competent authority has chosen not
to use fines and to rely instead on administrative measures.
Figure 4.1 - Estimated number of fines imposed in different countries (2008-2010)

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Bulgaria

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

The
Norway
Netherlands

Poland

Slovenia

The numbers are estimates in some cases, as it was not possible to obtain comprehensive, reliable data.

Differences in the size of fines
All eight countries have designated fines as a formal penalty, yet the audit identified
certain differences between countries. The maximum fine ranges from around
€25,000 13 to around €2 million. In most countries, the fines for ewsr infringements
are lower than €4,000. In Poland and Slovenia, the average fine is higher, i.e. between
€10,000 and €14,000.
The method used to fix the size of the fine also differs from one country to another:
• In one country, the size of the fine depends on the type of waste. Fines for
infringements of the rules on green-listed waste are lower than for infringements
of the rules on amber-listed waste;
• In one country, the size of the fine is the result of a mathematic formula linked to
the volume of the waste. The basic amount of the fine is multiplied by a number
indicating the volume of waste;
• In one country, all proceedings are criminal proceedings, i.e. no administrative
action is taken.

13 Precise figures cannot be quoted due to exchange rates.

42

Joint report based on eight national audits

•

The other countries apply factors or combinations of factors that influence the size
of the fine. Among the factors taken into account are the damage caused by the
infringement, the volume of waste, and prior infringements.

The following text box illustrates the differences among countries.
Differences in penalties imposed
The situation: a private company illegally ships 15 containers of plastic waste (weighing about 200
tons) to India. Domestic waste is an amber-listed type of waste and India requires a notification
procedure. Instead of following the notification procedure, the company deliberately follows the
general information procedure, which is less stringent.
Bulgaria: In principle, a company (i.e. a legal person) receives a fine ranging in size from A 10,000 to
A 20,000 and is also subject to a coercive administrative measure, i.e. the company is ordered to
process the waste in an environmentally sound manner.
Greece: The offender is given an administrative fine of about A 28,000, and may also have its
business operations suspended either temporarily or permanently. A criminal court may impose a
prison sentence of between 1 and 10 years on the offender, as well as a supplementary fine ranging
from A 1,000 to A 500,000.
Hungary: The size of the penalty depends on the weight of the waste: 200 tons of waste equals
A 133,330, that is A 667 per ton. The basic minimum penalty is A 667. If the volume of waste is exactly
200 tons, the penalty is A 140,000.
The Netherlands: The fine would be around A 90,000, although circumstances such as prior
infringements may affect the size of the fine.
Poland: Depending on the circumstances (i.e. the amount and type of waste and whether it
constitutes an environmental hazard and public health risk), the size of the fine ranges from around
A 12,500 to around A 75,000. Under the Polish Criminal Code, offences against the law on
transboundary waste shipments carry a custodial sentence of between three months and five
years.
The other countries were not able to indicate the size of the fine.

4.4

Action under administrative law
In the event of an infringement of the ewsr, the enforcing agency may decide to apply
an administrative measure. Administrative measures are used primarily to ‘undo’
violations, i.e. to revert to the prior situation rather than to penalise the offender.
Administrative measures include, for example, an obligation to take back a shipment
and undo the infringement (e.g. where the infringement involves a failure to complete
the relevant form). If the offender does not comply with the administrative measure,
other measures are taken, such as the imposition of a fine or the withdrawal of the
offender’s licence.
All eight countries have designated certain administrative measures as enforcement
instruments, although the actual use made of them again varies. Four countries have

43

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

either never used this instrument or only used it on a few occasions in the past few
years, while others report using it dozens of times a year.

4.5

Action under criminal law
If an offender has infringed the ewsr in a way that cannot be dealt with by applying
administrative measures, for example due to the gravity of the case, the public
prosecutor may look into the possibility of taking the matter to court. This may result
in either of the following decisions:
1. a decision not to prosecute;
2. a court case resulting in a custodial sentence if the offender is convicted.
In all countries except Norway,14 a custodial sentence (under criminal law) may be
imposed on a person who has committed an infringement of the ewsr. As figure 4.2
shows, the maximum prison sentence in the eight countries varies from three to ten
years. The number of years of imprisonment depends on the circumstances. In Greece,
the maximum sentence is ten years, but if the environmental pollution or degradation
caused by the infringement is found to be due to negligence, the term of imprisonment
may not exceed one year. Similarly, in the event of negligence, the maximum sentence
imposed by a Bulgarian court is two years or probation.
Figure 4.2 - Maximum custodial sentences (in years) for EWSR infringements

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Bulgaria

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

The
Norway
Netherlands

Poland

Slovenia

In practice, prison sentences are very rare. In most cases, either the offender is fined or
the charges are dropped.
A number of examples follow. In Hungary, no criminal proceedings were instigated
under the ewsr between 2008 and 2010. The most recent case dates from 2006. In
Bulgaria, one instance of criminal proceedings followed from the detection of an
illegal shipment. In Greece, no information is available on the number of court cases,
as there is no database that allows such information to be extracted.

14 After the audit was completed, the Norwegian Ministry of the Environment proposed introducing a custodial
sentence of no more than two years’ imprisonment for illegal export and import of hazardous waste.

44

Joint report based on eight national audits

In the Netherlands, many prosecutions are dropped15 by the public prosecutor: of the
505 cases that might have ended in court between 2008 and 2010, the public
prosecutor decided not to press charges in around 21% of cases. This is a high
proportion given that the public prosecution department has set itself an internal
target of no more than 10% of potential cases dropped. The department is not able to
explain why this target was not reached in cases relating to the ewsr. The department
has launched an investigation into the high proportion of cases that do not go to court.
Whereas the number of dropped charges would appear to be a typically Dutch
problem, court cases are rare in other countries. For this reason, there are again few
examples of dropped charges in four other countries. No specific information is
available on the number of dropped charges in three countries. Example 21 is an
illustration of a case dismissed in court.
Example 21: Dismissal due to lack of evidence
In 2010, the Austrian police returned a shipment of waste accumulators to Slovenia,
because the shipment was not accompanied by a valid export permit and there was no
reliable evidence detailing where the accumulators would be recycled. The
Environmental Inspectorate decided that the owner of the waste and the transporter
did not have the right licences or equipment for storing and handling such waste. The
Inspectorate passed on the case to the public prosecutor, but the case was
subsequently dismissed because the court could not find enough evidence to prove
that the illegal shipment had actually harmed or destroyed the environment, posed a
threat of environmental destruction or constituted a danger to human life.
The audits revealed wide differences among the eight countries in the way in which
infringements are penalised. The same violation may be punished very differently in
one country than in another. The European public prosecution departments have
recently started a cooperation project for exchanging information on the penalisation
of offences.
The audits also revealed that most countries make only limited use of penalties.
Further research is needed in order to assess whether national policies on penalties are
proportionate and dissuasive, as is required by the ewsr.

4.6

Other enforcement measures
Two countries use community service as a penalty. The competent authority in one of
the other countries is empowered to suspend a company’s business operations and to
confiscate cargos and trucks. These penalties are seldom imposed, however: all three
countries reported only a few cases. One of them, for example, confiscated only one
waste shipment in 2009 and just two in 2010.

15 A case is dropped where the public prosecutor is planning to take a case to court, but decides not to proceed
before it actually gets to court.

45

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

International cooperation in prosecutions
The findings in this chapter show that there are wide differences in the way in which
the eight countries deal with offences. Until recently, public prosecutors in the
European countries did very little in the way of information-sharing about guidelines
for the prosecution of ewsr infringements. Also, the courts do not exchange
information on penalties or on the interpretation of the ewsr (De Rijck, 2011). An
important new development in this regard is the establishment of a public
prosecutors’ network in 2012. The network aims to facilitate such exchanges and has
started developing an international database of court rulings on ewsr offences.

46

Joint report based on eight national audits

5 Summary of conclusions and
recommendations
This chapter contains a summary of the conclusions and recommendations presented in the report.
Section

Conclusions

Recommendations

To what extent do the relevant authorities comply with the requirements arising from the EWSR?
2.1

Formal implementation

All countries have implemented the

requirements

regulation. All eight countries:
have ensured that their national
legislation is in compliance;
have designated a competent
authority;
have adopted the EWSR notification
procedures;
perform inspections;
have put penalty systems in place;
are involved in international
cooperation.
There is one exception to the above
rule: not all member states report in
time to the European Commission
(and the Basel Secretariat).

2.2

Classification of waste

Stakeholders find it hard to agree on

The broad definition of waste and the

and two existing legal

a strict definition of the term ‘waste’ .

distinction between ‘green-listed’ and

frameworks

As a result, in several countries

‘amber-listed’ waste mean that it is

hazardous waste is imported or

important for proper guidelines and

exported as goods and/or as ‘green-

information material to be made

listed waste’. This is more likely to

available to front-line officers. Countries

lead to EWSR inspections being

are recommended to draw up

avoided.

guidelines that pay specific attention to
second-hand goods and green-listed
waste shipments. The EC could
facilitate the development of such
guidelines.

47

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

There are differences of

Differences among countries in the

interpretation within and among

interpretation and classification of

countries, which complicates

waste need to be addressed and

enforcement and increases the risk of

resolved. The authorities are

illegal exports. These differences may

recommended to discuss these

also affect statistics.

differences within existing international
networks and with the EC.

2.3

Information management

The situation is further complicated

Countries are recommended to use a

by the existence of two different

conversion table for converting

code systems (i.e. EWSR/Basel and

between Basel and tariff codes. The EC

the international tariff codes used by

could facilitate the production of such a

customs).

conversion table.

Information management for the

Countries are recommended to

purpose of enforcing the EWSR is

improve their information management

inadequate in all eight countries.

in relation to the EWSR. The EC could

There are weaknesses in information

facilitate the development of an

systems within countries and in the

European information system for

exchange of information within and

notifications.

among countries. This hampers

The comparability of statistical data

comprehensive, reliable monitoring

would benefit from the development of

and the evaluation of enforcement

EU-wide guidelines for the collection,

practices.

registration and reporting of data on
the enforcement of the EWSR and the
penalisation of infringements.

How do the authorities enforce the EWSR and what is known about the effectiveness of the enforcement measures?
3.1

Enforcement network

Multiple organisations are involved in

Enforcement benefits from cooperation

enforcement in all countries. This

and coordination in the enforcement

poses challenges in terms of

network. The countries are

coordination and cooperation among

recommended to organise their

enforcement agencies.

enforcement network so that it
promotes cooperation among the
authorities and uses the competences
of different authorities.

3.2

Enforcement strategy and

Enforcement policies in many

Countries are recommended to draw

its implementation,

countries are not sufficiently based

up a strategic plan for enforcing the

including international

on explicit risk assessments. There is

EWSR. This plan should be risk-based,

cooperation for

a danger in these countries that the

commensurate with the actual risks and

preventing and detecting

enforcement effort may not be

periodically updated.

illegal shipments

commensurate with the specific risks
faced by the country in question.

48

3.3

Joint report based on eight national audits

In addition to inspections of

Countries are recommended to

shipments, countries also carry out

consolidate and intensify international

inspections at waste facilities and

cooperation, exchange information on

undertake theme-based inspection

waste shipments, waste flows

campaigns. Coordinated national and

businesses and facilities, and facilitate

international campaigns are

the sharing of experiences and

important for obtaining synergetic

knowledge on enforcement measures

benefits, for exchanging experiences

in order to develop and adopt good

and gathering knowledge.

practices.

Resources available for

There are wide differences among

Countries are recommended to appoint

enforcement

national authorities in terms of

staff and allocate resources in line with

resources and prioritisation. There is

the risks of illegal shipments. They

a shortage of resources in five of the

should adopt proper training schemes.

eight countries audited, especially
technical equipment and well-trained
staff. Insufficient priority is given to
enforcement in some countries. This
poses a challenge to the effective
enforcement of the EWSR.
3.4

Information on the

All countries have access to little or

Countries are recommended to

effectiveness of the

no information on the effects of

improve their information management

enforcement

enforcement measures and no

in relation to the EWSR. Countries are

information on the operation of the

recommended to step up their efforts

EWSR system as a whole. The

to use and exchange information, and

authorities do not have information

work together in verifying notifications.

on the final link in the EWSR chain,

Administrative checks should also be

i.e. the processing of waste.

performed to assess the risk of waste
being processed in a facility that is not
up to standard.

Penalisation of EWSR infringements
Different penalties and

There are wide differences among

Further research needs to be performed

the degree to which they

the eight countries in terms of the

in order to assess whether national

are used in practice

use made of sanction instruments.

penalty systems are proportionate and

The same infringement may attract a

dissuasive, as is required by the EWSR.

very different penalty in one country

Countries are recommended to assess

than in another. Most countries make

whether this is the case and share

only limited practical use of penalties. information on the use made of
sanction instruments, within the
existing public prosecutors network.

49

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

Appendix 1 Audit approach
Audit objective and questions
The objective of this coordinated audit is to improve the enforcement of the ewsr by
providing information on the enforcement strategies used by the participating
countries and on their performance in terms of results and the achievement of the
desired effect. In order to achieve this objective, the national audits asked the
following questions:
• To what extent do the relevant authorities comply with the requirements arising
from the ewsr?
• How do the authorities enforce the ewsr and what is known about the impact of
enforcement measures?
About the national audits
The audits focused on the legal and institutional implementation of the ewsr,
including cooperation among the competent authorities; the enforcement of the ewsr
and the punishment of offenders; and information systems and reporting obligations.
A design matrix was used to achieve uniformity among the eight audits. This matrix
listed the audit questions and the information that was needed in order to answer them
(see below).16 For most sais, the main forms of fieldwork were interviews with staff of
the relevant authorities, analysis of documents and procedures, analysis of
administrative databases and statistics on inspections, infringements and penalties,
and observations during enforcement operations.
About the joint report
This joint report is a compilation of the findings of the eight national audits. It
highlights good practices, weaknesses and challenges. As the coordinated audit is
limited by the scope of the national audits, the findings apply only to the participating
countries. However, the conclusions and recommendations could also be relevant to
other countries. Each audit institution is responsible only for its own national audit
findings.

16 Differences in national legislation on SAIs and different audit traditions inevitably meant that there were slight
differences between the audits. Moreover, the Norwegian audit formed part of a wider-ranging audit of
hazardous waste management that began before this coordinated audit was launched.

50

Joint report based on eight national audits

Design matrix
Question 1

How much waste is imported and exported each year (to and from EU and EEA countries as well as
non-European countries; what is the mode of transport)? What are the main types of waste? What
are the main countries of origin and destination? How does the volume of imported and exported
waste relate to the national output of waste and to the capacity of domestic recycling and
processing facilities? How many illegal waste shipments are intercepted by the authorities each
year (i.e. number of shipments and tonnage)? Are estimates available of the total volume of waste
illegally imported or exported each year?

Standards

The information must be clear and of good quality.

Question 2

When and how were the provisions of the EWSR incorporated into national legislation?

Standards

In accordance with the EWSR, in good time and with clear provisions on enforceability.

Question 3

How are offenders punished? How many and what kinds of penalties have been imposed during
the past two years?

Standards

Article 50 (1) of the EWSR: Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable for
infringement of the provisions of this Regulation
and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided
for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Phrased in less legal terms: the available
penalties should be such as to effectively correct offenders’ behaviour.

Question 4

What organisations have been charged with enforcing the EWSR and with issuing permits for and
clearing international waste shipments? What are their tasks and responsibilities? Do they have
sufficient powers (i.e. a legal framework) to discharge their responsibilities? What are their
objectives in relation to the enforcement of the EWSR? Is their organisational structure adequate
for enforcing the EWSR?

Standards

A clear division of responsibilities (among and within organisations).
Sufficient powers and an adequate organisational structure for discharging their responsibilities.

Question 5

What agreements have been reached on cooperation among the organisations responsible for
enforcement? To what extent do the organisations concerned observe cooperation agreements?
To what extent is cooperation adequate for ensuring that the EWSR is properly enforced?

Standards

Agreements on communications and coordination at various levels. Compliance with agreed
procedures. Exchange of information required for proper enforcement.

Question 6

Do the organisations concerned have enough funding, time, staff, information, equipment and
other resources to discharge their responsibilities?

Standards

Sufficient capacity in terms of funding, time, staff and other resources to carry out enforcement
tasks.

Question 7

What sort of enforcement strategies do the organisations pursue? How do these strategies
differentiate between compliance with EWSR procedures and measures for countering illegal
waste shipments? How did these strategies come about? How are they pursued in practice? What
guidelines are used to define ‘waste’, ‘disposal’, ‘recovery’ and other relevant terms, and how are
these guidelines used in an enforcement context? What are the results of enforcement activities?
How do the organisations concerned account for their enforcement performance?

Standards

See below.

Question 8

What kind of information do the organisations concerned exchange with environmental
authorities in other countries? How is this exchange of information organised? Is it adequate for the
proper enforcement of the EWSR?

Standards

Agreements on communication and reliable information. Compliance with agreed procedures.

Question 9

What obstacles do the enforcement agencies encounter? What factors affect the effectiveness of
enforcement practices?

Standards

None.

51

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

Appendix 2	Number of inspections and
infringements
Country

Bulgaria

Year

Ireland2

Hungary3

Netherlands4

Norway

Poland5

Slovenia

Environmental authority

Police

No. of

No. of

No. of

No. of

No. of

inspections

infringements

inspections

infringements

inspections

infringements

n.a.

5

n.a.

9

n.a.

17

2008

n.a.

n.a.

3

2

n.a.

13

2009

n.a.

n.a.

16

15

n.a.

7

2010

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

20

20082010

Greece 1

Customs
No. of

14

14

2008

4,950

511

2009

4,395

429

2010

4,271

389

2008

n.a.

n.a.

1

31

n.a.

n.a.

2009

n.a.

n.a.

6

96

n.a.

n.a.

2010

n.a.

n.a.

7

56

n.a.

n.a.

2008

7,664

146

95

29

1.187

85

2009

5,915

182

47

14

1,075

76

2010

5,238

145

75

14

920

83

2008

0

11

0

0

0

0

2009

60

17

See Customs

0

0

0

2010

133

48

See customs

0

0

0

2008

n.a.

32

n.a.

36

n.a.

27

2009

n.a.

27

n.a.

30

n.a.

37

2010

n.a.

37

n.a.

26

n.a.

42

2008

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2009

6

3

10

5

n.a.

n.a.

2010

7

3

18

13

n.a.

n.a.

1. Greece: Although inspections were performed by Customs and Police and infringements may have been detected,
there is no record of the total number of inspections and no data is available on the number of infringements detected
by Customs.
2. Ireland: The NTFSO coordinates inspections. The figures include joint inspections performed with other enforcement
agencies.
3. Hungary: The number of infringements reported by the Environmental Authority includes offences subject to
administrative proceedings instigated by Customs, Police and other organisations. Although customs and police are
known to perform general inspections, no information is available on the number of inspections performed.
4. T
 he Netherlands: the number of checks by the Environmental Authority covers on-site inspections of companies only;
several hundred road checks are excluded.
5. Poland: The data for the Police refers to the number of infringements disclosed by the Border Guard and the Inspection
of Road Transport.

52

Joint report based on eight national audits

Appendix 3 I mpact of the national audits:
follow-up on recommendations
Bulgaria

The authorities have already implemented four of the seven recommendations and are currently
acting on the remaining recommendations. The recommendations focus on training, organisational
issues and policy information on waste shipments.

Greece

The authorities accepted the basic thrust of the audit team’s observations. The recommendations
focus on the formulation of an enforcement strategy and guidelines, and inter-agency cooperation,
information management.

Ireland

The final report has not been presented to the authorities yet.

Hungary

The competent authority and customs have drawn up activity plans in response to the audit
findings. The main recommendation focuses on inter-agency cooperation. The audit team
observed that the authorities had started making a number of improvements after the audit period
and had stepped up the number of inspections and training activities.

The Netherlands

The authorities were pleased with the general conclusion drawn by the audit team. They
acknowledged that improvements could be made in certain areas and said that measures had
already been taken to improve information management, coordination and the exchange of
information. The authorities had also launched an investigation into the reasons for the relatively
frequent decisions not to prosecute EWSR violations. The authorities did not act on a
recommendation to analyse the operation of the entire EWSR system and the enforcement chain.

Norway

The Norwegian parliament stressed the importance of strengthening controls of hazardous waste
exports by means of both regular and risk-based border checks. It also emphasised the need to
check notifications of the final treatment of the waste. The Norwegian parliament acknowledged
that the quality of databases and statistics needed to be improved in order to provide a better basis
for follow-up action.
The Ministry of the Environment is preparing a strategy for addressing the problems associated
with hazardous waste. A proposal has been made for amending the Pollution Control Act so as to
improve the action taken in combating illegal exports of hazardous waste. This includes
strengthening the penalties for illegal exports of hazardous waste.

Poland

The authorities have taken measures to implement the recommendations made in the national
audit report. The recommendations focus on supervising the relevant organisations, the timely
exchange of information and ensuring that officers have on-line access to a central database.

Slovenia

The authorities will have to report on the implementation of the measures taken in response of the
audit. The most important measures concern the reporting system for the processing of waste,
establishing a register of national treatment facilities, the re-evaluation of sanction policy and the
improvement inter-agency cooperation and information management.
The authorities have not yet announced what improvements they are planning to make in response
to the audit. The relevant audit findings include a lack of information on transboundary waste
shipments and national treatment facilities, a sanctions policy, inter-agency cooperation and
information management.

53

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

Appendix 4 Summaries of national audits
National abstract for Bulgaria
Name of audit: Performance audit on the effective enforcement of the European Waste
Shipment Regulation during the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2010.
Publication Date: 23 February 2012.
Website: http://www.bulnao.government.bg/index.php?p=2062&lang=en
Objective
1. To provide the legislative and executive authorities, the management of the audited
entity and other users of information with an independent and objective
assessment of the effective enforcement of the European legislation on waste
shipments;
2. To support the management of the audited entity in improving the enforcement of
European legislation on waste shipments.
Scope
The audit assignment includes:
1. analysis and assessment of the normative provisions and the resources for
enforcement of the Regulation;
2.	analysis and assessment of the activities concerning the enforcement of the
Regulation as regards:
2.1 waste shipments for which a notification is required;
2.2 inspections of waste shipments;
2.3 maintaining and exchanging data on shipments;
2.4 interaction between the competent authorities.
The audit was carried out in the period from May to December 2011.
Main findings
The necessary normative preconditions for the performance of activities relating to the
enforcement of the Regulation have been put in place.
Structural units have been set up at the Ministry of the Environment and Water
(moew) and the Regional Inspectorates of the Environment and Water (riew) with
clearly defined functions as regards the issuing of permits for shipments in accordance
with the Regulation and the inspection of transboundary shipments of waste through
the country’s territory. The responsible units at other authorities that perform checks
of waste shipments at the Community borders and/or during shipment within the
Community have been designated in accordance with their powers.
The lack of sufficient knowledge and expertise outside the moew constitutes a risk for
the effective enforcement of the Regulation and the legislation.
Notifications are issued in accordance with the normative requirements. The lack of
control of the facilities as regards the quantity of waste recovered is a precondition for
inappropriate management decisions on the import of waste into Bulgaria.

54

Joint report based on eight national audits

The six types of activity performed in the application of coercive administrative
measures by the enforcement agencies when an illegal waste shipment is detected
suggest there is a problem either with the application of the Waste Management Law
regulating these matters or with the Regulation itself.
As there are few legal proceedings with final rulings (at a court of first instance or a
court of appeal), no conclusions may be drawn about the effects, the effects of fines
and penalty payments and their enforcement.
The interaction between enforcement agencies responsible for transboundary waste
shipments done without statutory rules and procedures creates a precondition for the
ineffective enforcement of the Regulation.
The information on the quantity of waste notified, imported, exported and transited
through the country’s territory is not sufficient and reliable, thus creating a
precondition for ineffective and inefficient management decisions on transboundary
shipments of waste.
The format and contents of registers are not regulated, nor is the process of
submission, entry and update of data. This means that the quantity and quality of the
information contained in the registers is not guaranteed.
The conditions for the implementation of activities for the enforcement of the
Regulation have been created. Activities for supervising and inspecting transboundary
shipments of waste are undertaken. The lack of sufficient expertise outside the moew
and the insufficient quantity and quality of the information collected means there are
no guarantees that the Regulation is effectively enforced.
Recommendations
1. The functional characteristics of the Waste Management and Soil Protection
Directorate and the job descriptions of the experts responsible for transboundary
waste shipments should be updated in accordance with the moew Rules of
Procedure adopted in 2009.
2. The necessity of training all bodies and persons responsible for performing
transboundary inspections should be explored and relevant training should be
provided.
3. Files on notifications issued should be organised and kept in accordance with the
moew’s instructions for record-keeping.
4. The format and contents of the registers, as well as the technology for submitting,
entering and updating data, should be defined.
5. The established differing practice concerning the application/non-application of
cam should be analysed in order to standardise the response of the enforcement
agencies to detected illegal shipments of waste.
6. A procedure for regulating interrelations between the competent authorities and
the enforcement agencies in enforcing the Regulation and the wma should be
elaborated.
7. Rules and procedures should be formulated for the type, quantity and quality of the
information to be collected from the various authorities on transboundary
shipments of waste.

55

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

Government response
A follow-up audit was conducted to check whether the recommendations had been
implemented. The Ministry of Environment and Water had implemented four
recommendations, i.e. nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5. Three recommendations, i.e. nos. 2, 6 & 7,
were in the process of implementation.

National abstract for Greece
Name of audit: The implementation of the ewsr in Greece from 2008 to 2010.
Publication Date: September 2012.
Website: www.elsyn.gr (available in Greek).
Objective
To find whether and to what extent the relevant authorities complied with the ewsr
requirements during the above-mentioned period.
Scope
• evaluation of national policies and activities relating to the enforcement of the
ewsr;
• results and impact of the enforcement of the ewsr by the Greek competent
authorities;
• weaknesses and challenges arising from implementation practices;
• evaluation of relevant information systems and of the competent authorities’
reporting activities under the ewsr, as well as of the legal framework for penalties
for infringements of the ewsr.
The audit was carried out from June 2011 to April 2012.
Audited authorities: The Department of Environmental Planning and the
environmental inspectors of the Ministry of the Environment, Energy and Climate
Change, customs offices, the police force (i.e. the Road Traffic Police), the national
statistical office, public prosecutor’s offices, criminal and administrative courts.
Main findings
The audit team found that national legislation is generally in compliance with the
ewsr. A competent authority (i.e. the Ministry of the Environment, Energy and
Climate Change) has been designated and notification procedures have been adopted.
Inspections by environmental inspectors, customs and the police have been
performed, albeit on a random basis, although the penalties for ewsr infringements
have not been adapted specifically to waste shipments.
The audit team noted the absence of a strategic plan for the implementation and
enforcement of the ewsr, as well as a limited degree of cooperation between the
competent authorities in seeking to achieve the objectives of the Regulation. There
were two exceptions to the latter: the establishment of a help desk to assist customs
officers with their checks and inspections under the ewsr, and the issue of a model
‘Autopsy Report’ used by environmental inspectors during their ewsr inspections.

56

Joint report based on eight national audits

There is no effective mechanism for monitoring the enforcement of penalties imposed
on ewsr offenders or offenders’ compliance with ewsr procedures, due to the
absence of a unified information and communication system.
The existence of two different code systems for waste (i.e. the ewsr/Basel codes and
the international tariff codes used by customs officers ), the unreliable waste data
supplied by the national authorities, as well as the shortage of well-trained staff and
the lack of sufficient funding and equipment for conducting inspections all affect the
effective enforcement of the ewsr.
Recommendations
1. A joint committee should be set up consisting of representatives of the
enforcement agencies. The committee should be charged with the following tasks:
a) designing and periodically updating a multi-annual risk-based strategy as well as
annual audit plans for enforcing the ewsr, b) issuing detailed guidelines and audit
manuals for inspectors, and c) evaluating the efficiency and competence of
enforcement measures (especially inspections).
2. The competent authorities should improve cooperation, and share experiences
with and knowledge of enforcement measures so as to develop good practices.
3. Every competent authority should also develop a fully integrated information
system linked to the information systems of other enforcement agencies, so that all
relevant data is made available.
4. A number of customs offices should be designated for the sole purpose of
inspecting waste exported to or imported from countries outside the eu, in order
to improve the monitoring and effective control of this type of transport.
Government response
The authorities were in general agreement with the audit team’s observations and had
no serious objections to them. Regarding the enhancement of cooperation and
coordination among the authorities, the customs offices argued that, under national
legislation, the authority implementing the ewsr notification procedures was solely
responsible for taking the initiative in this respect.

National abstract for Hungary
Name of the audit: Audit on the enforcement of the European Waste Shipment
Regulation.
Publication Date: May 2012.
Website: www.asz.hu (in Hungarian and English).
Objective
The main audit objective was to evaluate whether the institutional and legal
frameworks established for the supervision and control of transboundary waste
shipments and their operation were consistent with the requirements of the European
Waste Shipment Regulation (ewsr).
Scope
The audit focused on the legal and institutional framework, resources, inspections, the
exchange of information at national and international levels, and the system of
penalties.

57

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

Audit period: 2008-2010. The on-site audit took place between 28 October and 12
December 2011.
Audited entities: national organisations designated under the ewsr, i.e. the
competent authority, the supervisory body of the competent authority, the customs
office and two local agencies on eu customs borders.
Main findings
In order to comply with the ewsr, the Hungarian authorities have set up mechanisms
for supervising and controlling cross-border waste shipments. The supervision and
the control of waste shipment have not yet been implemented in full compliance with
the ewsr and its objectives. There were discrepancies as regards cooperation among
authorities, the exchange of data and information, as well as the detailed regulation of
controlling processes and the harmonisation of rules on commodities and waste. This
practice did not contribute to the prevention of illegal shipments. The emphasis was
on the detection of illegal shipments.
It was forward-looking that, following the audit in 2011, the government began taking
action to harmonise statutory regulations on customs, police, and environmental
protection - including regulations on waste shipments and financial management and to prepare and update detailed procedural rules. The number of audits, specialised
training courses and educational activities increased.
Recommendation
For the purpose of controls of waste shipments based on different perspectives
(i.e. hazardous, non-hazardous; within or outside the eu customs territory; using road
or rail transport), the cooperation agreements in force among all the designated
authorities should be revised in order to strengthen cooperation, and a coordinated
protocol should be developed.
Government response
According to the Act on the State Audit Office of Hungary, the audited entities were
obliged to make action plans to implement the audit findings requiring further
measures. The customs office and competent authority drew up the relevant action
plans which the Hungarian sai can audit in an ex-post audit.

National abstract for Ireland
Name of the audit: An examination of the enforcement of the European Waste
Shipment Regulation.
Publication date: Not yet published.
Website: Publication will be available at www.audgen.irlgov.ie.
Objective
To examine Ireland’s compliance with European Waste Shipment Regulation (ewsr).
Scope
The examination focused on the implementation and enforcement of the ewsr by the
National Transfrontier Shipment Office (ntfso). The ntfso was established by

58

Joint report based on eight national audits

Dublin City Council (the national competent authority for Ireland) in 2007 and has
overall responsibility for the enforcement of the ewsr.
Main findings
Dublin City Council currently contracts out the enforcement role to a private
contractor. The enforcement role includes carrying out inspections on imports,
exports, waste facilities and dealers and brokers.
While the competent authority adopts an annual plan setting out the planned
enforcement actions for the coming year, there is no enforcement strategy in place
outlining the strategic direction of the ntfso over a 3-5 year period.
All inspections carried out by the private contractor on imports and exports as set out
in the annual plan are performed on a random, rather than a targeted basis.
The ntfso has information on the level of enforcement activity, such as the number of
inspections and investigations carried out. It also records the numbers and nature of
infractions detected but information in relation to the quantities and types of waste
involved is not readily available. This poses difficulties in reporting on performance
effectiveness.
The ntfso database used by the private contractor to record enforcement information
is not linked to the other it systems used by the ntfso.
Government response
The report has yet to be finalised. A final draft report including recommendations will
be submitted to the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government
seeking specific responses to each recommendation made. The Department’s
responses will be incorporated in the final report.

National abstract for the Netherlands
Name of the audit: Enforcement of the European Waste Shipment Regulation (ewsr).
Publication date: 4 October 2012.
Website: www.rekenkamer.nl (in Dutch and English).
Objective
The main objective is to improve the enforcement of the ewsr by providing an insight
into the enforcement strategies and performance of the participating countries (in
terms of results and the achievement of the desired impact).
Scope
The audit focused on the regular enforcement of the ewsr by the Dutch competent
authority, i.e. the Environmental Inspectorate and its enforcement partners (mainly
customs and police). The prosecution of infringements was also included in the audit.
Audit period: 2008-2011.

59

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

Main findings
The Minister of Infrastructure & the Environment has access only to limited
information on the impact of enforcement activities. For most waste flows, the
enforcement partners (i.e. the Netherlands Shipping Inspectorate, customs and the
police) do not know precisely what impact enforcement has on compliance with the
ewsr. It is therefore not entirely clear whether the enforcement of the ewsr deters
illegal waste flows. This is partly because illegal flows are difficult to spot and partly
because of weaknesses in the partners’ IT systems. The computer system used by
customs, for example, cannot calculate compliance rates.
Information on the operation of the waste system as a whole is limited. There are
indications that the system of receipt and processing notifications issued by importing
countries does not work properly. The minister does not know for sure whether the
company issuing the notification is also the company that actually processes the waste.
Since there is no information on this final link in the chain, the minister does not have
a clear picture of whether the ewsr’s objectives have been achieved.
In three out of every ten cases, the public prosecution department decides not to
prosecute ewsr infringements. This is far higher than the service’s own 10% target for
the dropping of environmental charges. We found no explanation for this high nonprosecution rate and are concerned that it means either that ewsr offences go
unpunished or that time is wasted preparing official reports on cases that have no
chance of success.
Recommendations
1. The State Secretary for Infrastructure & the Environment and the State Secretary for
Finance should together improve information management so that they gain a
clear insight into the impact of enforcement and individual enforcement
instruments.
2. The Minister of Infrastructure & the Environment should gain an understanding of
the operation of the EWSR system as a whole. The Netherlands Shipping
Inspectorate can investigate this by sampling the plausibility of receipt and
processingznotifications.
3. The Minister of Security & Justice should investigate the reasons for the relatively
large number of decisions not to prosecute ewsr infringements and should seek
ways to reduce the non-prosecution rate. The public prosecution department
should also better inform customs and the Dutch Police Agency of the outcomes of
ewsr cases so that they can take them into account when preparing new official
reports.
Government response
The State Secretaries for Infrastructure & the Environment and Finance agree with our
recommendations on information management. The State Secretary for Infrastructure
& the Environment and the Minister of Security & Justice believe the Inspectieview
system and system modifications at customs will produce more information on the
impact of enforcement.
The State Secretary for Infrastructure & the Environment is not planning to act on our
recommendation to improve information on the operation of the waste system as a
whole. He notes that measures have already been taken to improve enforcement

60

Joint report based on eight national audits

activities, such as the introduction of Inspectieview, the transfer of tasks from nl
Agency to the Netherlands Shipping Inspectorate, and a study by the Strategic
Environment Centre. We note that there is a risk that these separate measures might
not produce a coherent overall picture.
The Minister of Security & Justice shares our concern about the high rate of nonprosecution of EWSR infringements. The public prosecution department is studying
the causes and its findings will be used to improve criminal proceedings.

National abstract for Norway
Name of the audit: The Office of the Auditor General’s investigation into the
management of hazardous waste. Document 3:7 (2011-2012).
Publications date: 31 January 2012.
Website: http://www.riksrevisjonen.no/en/Reports/Pages/hazardouswaste.aspx
Objective
To evaluate the authorities’ work in ensuring that hazardous waste is properly handled.
Scope
Among the four main issues that were pursued were: ‘to what extent do the authorities
have control of the export of hazardous waste?’ Responsibility for ensuring that
hazardous waste is properly handled lies with the Ministry of the Environment. The
Norwegian Climate and Pollution Agency is responsible for processing applications
for the export of hazardous waste and for supervisory activities. Norwegian Customs
and Excise is the responsible border control authority.
The time frame of the audit was from May 2010 to June 2011.
Main findings
According to official statistics, Norway exported 15 per cent of the hazardous waste
submitted in 2009, and exports are on the rise. The Norwegian Climate and Pollution
Agency performs proper checks of applications for waste exports. However, the agency
does not always receive confirmation that the waste has been treated in line with the
application. Moreover, the authorities do not have a clear picture of re-exports from
the countries to which the waste is initially exported. This means that there is a risk
that Norwegian waste may end up in countries that lack the capacity to treat the waste
properly. This also implies that the statistics may underestimate the actual amount
exported and may give misleading information about the destination of waste exported
from Norway.
Controls performed by the Norwegian Climate and Pollution Agency have uncovered
several cases of illegal exports, in particular of ee waste and scrapped cars. The EWSR
does not require a permit to be issued by a country’s authorities for the export of
products or pure waste fractions for recovery in an eu country. Some types of
hazardous waste are illegally exported as products or pure fractions for recovery, thus
bypassing the requirements for an export permit.
Norway is obliged to supervise transboundary waste shipments. Although the
Norwegian Climate and Pollution Agency has started to cooperate with the customs
authorities, few supervisory activities have been carried out to uncover illegal exports

61

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

of hazardous waste. Nor have adequate systematic procedures been put in place for
uncovering attempted illegal exports. Moreover, the authorities have few sanctions
available to them to penalise illegal exports of hazardous waste. Accordingly, the
authorities do not deem supervisory activities to be expedient.
Government response
The Ministry of the Environment has prepared a strategy for addressing various forms
of waste, including hazardous waste. A proposal has been made to amend the
Pollution Control Act, in order to in order to strengthen possible sanctions against
illegal waste exports and import.
National abstract for Poland
Name of the audit: Execution of chosen provisions of the European Waste Shipment
Regulation.
Publication Date: January 2013.
Website: www.nik.gov.pl (available in Polish).
Objective
The purpose of the audit was to assess the governmental administration organs’
compliance with their obligations under Regulation (ec) No 1013/2006 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste,
hereinafter referred as the European Waste Shipment Regulation (ewsr).
Scope
The scope of the audit included examinations of:
• the adjustment of the Polish law to the requirements of the ewsr;
• ensuring the administration organs, hereinafter referred as the services,
responsible for implementing the ewsr have access to appropriate resources in
terms of staff and equipment;
• the operation of these services in terms of planning, issuing permits, supervising
and checking waste shipments, including the prevention of illegal waste
shipments;
• national and international cooperation among the services responsible for
implementing the ewsr.
The audit was conducted between 6 March and 13 June 2012, at nine organisational
units responsible for implementing the ewsr, i.e. the Chief Inspectorate for
Environmental Protection, the Ministry of Finance (the Customs Service is
subordinated to the Minister of Finance), the Headquarters of the Border Guard, two
voivodship inspectorates for environmental protection, two customs offices and two
regional units of the Border Guard.
Main findings
In Poland, the rules for implementing the ewsr are laid down in the Act of 29 June
2007 on International Waste Shipments hereinafter referred to as the act on iws, and
its seven executive acts. The national legislation describes organisational and
procedural issues related to the implementation of the ewsr, sets the size of penalties
for infringements of obligations in relation to international waste shipments, and lists
a number of waste products which may not be imported into Poland for disposal.

62

Joint report based on eight national audits

Under Article 3 (1) of the act on iws, the authority responsible for enforcing the ewsr
as stated in Article 53 of the Regulation is the Chief Inspector for Environmental
Protection, hereinafter referred as ciep. This is the competent authority especially in
matters of waste imports, waste exports and waste transit through the territory of the
country.
The Head of the Customs Service, the Commander-in-Chief of the Border Guard, the
Chief Inspector of Road Transport and voivodship inspectors for environmental
protection supervise international waste shipments, hereinafter referred as iws.
From 2008 to 2011, a total of over 5 million Mg of waste was imported into, exported
from Poland and transported through Polish territory. Waste shipments - the
observance of permits and other ciep decisions relating to iws were not adequately
supervised.
The difficulties occurred in inspections of waste transports performed by the Border
Guard and the Customs Service, and during checks of waste recovery and disposal
performed by the Inspection of Environmental Protection. These difficulties were
caused by a lack of information on the iws and inconsistencies in the activities
performed by the services enforcing the ewsr in preventing illegal shipments.
There was no comprehensive, rapid exchange of information among the abovementioned services , for example on iws permits issued by the ciep, transports of
waste carried out, and detected illegal shipments. IWS databases held by the Customs
Service and the Border Guard operated independently as internal systems, and were
fed with data from the ciep, which was often delayed.
The register of iws notifications and decisions held by the Chief Inspectorate for
Environmental Protection was incomplete. A new database was created in ciep in
2011, and data input subsequently commenced in 2012.
The ciep’s decisions relating to the recognition that damaged vehicles imported into
Poland are waste or goods were issued without paying proper attention to the
collection of evidence. Some of these decisions were based on an assessment of the
technical state of vehicles and the loss in their value reported by vehicle owners.
The Polish Supreme Audit Office did not raise any objections to the cooperation
among the audited entities in relation to inspections of international waste shipments,
nor to the reporting to the European Commission by the Chief Inspector of
Environmental Protection.
Recommendations
In addition to the recommendations presented in the post-audit statements to the
heads of the audited entities, the Polish Supreme Audit Office formulated the
following general recommendations:
1. Minister of the Environment: effectively supervise the Chief Inspector for
Environmental Protection in performing tasks related to iws, for example by
conducting periodic audits;
2. Chief Inspector of Environmental Protection, among others: send notifiers timely
confirmations of properly completed notification on intended iws and timely issue
of permits for the iws; immediately send the competent authorities copies of

63

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

permits issued and decisions taken in relation to the iws; ensure on-line access to
the iws database for services responsible for monitoring the iws; perform internal
audits of iws tasks;
3. Voivodship’s Inspectors for Environmental Protection: perform internal audits of
tasks related to the supervision of the iws.
The recommendations mentioned above were presented in the national report on audit
findings.
Government response
The audited governmental entities did not object to the audit team’s conclusions and
recommendations and took action to implement the recommendations made

National abstract for Slovenia
Name of the audit: Transboundary waste shipments
Publication date: September 2013.
Website: http://www.rs-rs.si/rsrs/rsrs.nsf/uvod?openForm
Objective
The objective of the national audit was to determine whether:
• the competent institutions had established a comprehensive and up-to-date
database on transboundary waste flows and waste shipments;
• the competent institutions had set up an efficient system of checks and inspections
of waste shipments.
Scope
The audit covered the implementation and enforcement of the ewsr, the creation of a
database, the monitoring of transboundary waste flows and waste shipments, and the
effectiveness of inspections of waste shipments performed in the period from 2009 to
2011. The national audit was conducted in 2012.
Main findings
The audit revealed that no comprehensive, reliable information was available on
transboundary waste flows. Although information is available on waste shipments
made with permits, there is no reliable information on flows of green-listed waste. The
competent institutions do not have full information on recycling and disposal
facilities, which makes it difficult to conduct ewsr-based procedures and guarantee
Slovenia’s self-sufficiency in exporting waste for disposal. The data on recycling and
disposal is questionable, because different sources quote different figures, and the
data is often not compatible. The audit team asked for a complete overview of
Slovenia’s disposal and recovery facilities, so as to know whether the ewsr’s main
objectives had been achieved.
The ewsr is a very complex regulation and requires demanding and time-consuming
procedures. The audit team found delays in reporting to the European Commission
because of a shortage of competent staff to carry out the requisite duties and maintain
an up-to-date database on shipments. The audit team asked the competent institutions
to undertake an in-depth analysis of all tasks required by the ewsr and estimate and
recruit the number of staff required to perform the statutory procedures.

64

Joint report based on eight national audits

The audit team found that Slovenia has a very rigid system of penalising ewsr
infringements. The penalties imposed do not depend on the quantity of waste shipped
illegally, which therefore raises the risk of illegal shipments of large quantities of
waste. The audit team suggested analysing the systems of penalties used by other
countries and adopting a system of sanctions that would have a more preventive effect.
There was a big rise in the number of illegal shipments detected in 2012 compared
with the number detected in the period from 2009 to 2011. This was due to a more
focused, comprehensive and risk-based approach to the planning of inspections.
However, there is still not enough cooperation and exchange of basic information
among the competent authorities, such as on permits issued or shipments made, as
well as on the outcome of investigated cases. The audit team therefore recommended
establishing a permanent system for sharing all relevant information and establishing
a common database so that the competent authorities have access to all the requisite
information.
Government response
The audited entities are required to prepare a report setting out the corrective action
they are planning to take, within 90 days of the publication of the final report.

65

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

List of abbreviations
aeo		
cfc		
cc		
cic		
ec		
eea		
efta		
eu		
eurosai
ewsr
inece
		
impel
		
ntfso
oecd
sai		
tfs		
wco		
weee

Authorised Economic Operator
Chlorofluorocarbon
Contact Committee
Commonwealth of Independent States
European Commission
European Economic Area
European Free Trade Association
European Union
European Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions
European Waste Shipment Regulation
International Network for Environmental Compliance and
Enforcement
European Union Network for the Implementation and
Enforcement of Environmental Law
National Transfrontier Shipment Office (Ireland)
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
Supreme Audit Institution
Transfrontier Shipment of Waste
World Customs Organisation
Waste from Electric and Electronic Equipment

66

Joint report based on eight national audits

Literature
Algemene Rekenkamer (Netherlands Court of Audit) (2012). Enforcement of European
Waste Shipment Regulation.
Bulgarian National Audit Office (2012). Audit report No 0300001411 on performance
audit on the effective enforcement of European waste shipment regulation covering
the period 01.01.2007 - 31.12.2010.
Comptroller and Auditor General of Ireland (2013). Not yet published.
Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia (2013). Not yet published.
European Commission, dg taxud (ec dgtaxud) (2010). Study on the role of
customs in enforcement of European Community legislation governing the protection
of the environment and its best practice.
European Commission (ec) (2012), Report from the Commission to the Council and
the European Parliament on the implementation of Council Regulation (eec) No
259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste
within, into and out of the European Community, and on the implementation of
Regulation (ec) No 1013/2006 of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste Generation,
treatment and transboundary shipment of hazardous waste and other waste in the
Member States of the European Union, 2007-2009. Brussels, com (2012) 448 final.
European Commission (ec) (2012), Proposal for a regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (ec) No 1013/2006 on shipments
of waste. Brussels, com(2013) 516 final.
European Court of Auditors (eca) (2012). Did the Commission and eurosat improve
the process for producing reliable and credible statistics? eca Special Report no
12/2012, eca, Luxembourg.
European Environment Agency (eea) (2012). Movements of waste across the eu’s
internal and external borders. eea report No 7/2012], eea, Copenhagen.
Eurostat (2011). Europe in figures - Eurostat yearbook 2011. Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union.
Hellenic Court of audit (2012). The implementation of the ewsr in Greece from 2008
to 2010 (available in Greek).
Impel-tfs (2006) Threat assessment project.
impel (2011). impel-tfs Enforcement Actions II, Final Project Report October 2008
- February 2011 (report no. 2011/18)

67

C o o r d i n a t e d a u d i t o n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f E u r o p e a n Wa s t e S h i p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

O’Laoire Russell Associates (2011), Study on the role of customs in enforcement of
European Community legislation governing the protection of the environment and its
best practice. Commissioned by European Commission Directorate-General Taxation
and Customs Union (Service Contract taxud/2009/DE/321)
Riksrevisjonen (Office of the Auditor General of Norway) (2012). The Office of the
Auditor General’s investigation into the management of hazardous waste. Document
3:7 (2011-2012).
Secretariat of the Basel Convention, 2011. Where are weee in Africa? Findings from the
Basel Convention e-waste Af rica Programme.
State Audit Office of Hungary (2012) Audit on the enforcement of eu Regulations on
Waste shipments.
Supreme Audit Office of Poland (nik) (2013). Execution of chosen rules of the eu
regulation on shipment of waste.
vrom Inspectorate (2010), Handhaving van de evoa bij de export van
kunststofafval in 2009 (Enforcement of the ewsr on the export of plastic
waste in 2009), The Hague.
World Customs Organization (wco) (2009) Operation Demeter, Executive Summary.
Brussels, wco.

Coordinated audit on the enforcement of
the European Waste Shipment Regulation
Joint report based on eight national audits
Participating supreme audit institutions

The Netherlands Court of Audit

Bulgaria : Bulgarian National Audit Office

Algemene Rekenkamer

www.bulnao.government.bg

Lange Voorhout 8
P.O. Box 20015

Greece: Hellenic Court of Audit

2500 EA The Hague

www.elsyn.gr

phone +31 70 342 43 00

Hungary: State Audit Office of Hungary
www.asz.hu

Cover
Design: Corps Ontwerpers, The Hague
Photo: Court of Audit of the Republic of

Ireland: Office of the Comptroller and Auditor

Slovenia

General of Ireland
www.audgen.gov.ie
The Hague, October 2013
The Netherlands: The Netherlands court of audit
www.courtofaudit.nl
Norway: The Office of the Auditor General’s
of Norway
www.riksrevisjonen.no
Poland: Supreme Audit Office
www.nik.gov.pl
Slovenia: Court of Audit of the Republic
of Slovenia
www.rs-rs.si

This coordinated audit was launched in
response to a decision taken by the Contact
Committee of Heads of EU SAI’s and was
conducted in close collaboration with the
EUROSAI Working Group on Environmental
Auditing.