E-PRTR Refit evaluation and Article 17 official data review 1 2 nd Global Round Table on PRTRs 25 November 2015 Andreas Grangler

E-PRTR Article 17 data review (1) Commission to review data provided (Article 7) and assess the operation/implementation of the E-PRTR Member States (MS) and other reporting countries to provide information on practice and measures taken (Article 16) regarding The reporting by operators (Article 5) QA and assessment (Article 9) Access to information (Article 10(2)) Awareness rising (Article 15) Confidentiality (Article 11) Penalties (Article 20) Questionnaire Commission Decision 2010/205/EU First reporting cycle covered years First Commission report to Parliament and Council COM111(2013) 2

E-PRTR Article 17 data review (2) Second report by MS covers years Questionnaire the same as first reporting cycle (2010/205/EU)  Current activities: Review of data provided and assess the Article 16 reports by Member States – 2015 – This is merged with the ongoing policy evaluation Consultant interim report by in September 2015 Commission will prepare a short report to the European Parliament and the Council. This will be complemented by a more detailed report prepared by the Commission services (Staff Working Document) –

4 E-PRTR REFIT evaluation (1) In 2015 the E-PRTR selected to be evaluated 1, 2 Commissions “Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme” (REFIT), objectives: Check if fit for purpose against needs/objectives Simplify legislation, Cut red tape, reduce administrative burden and costs improve reporting and knowledge basis on industrial emissions 2016 Commission work programme: "The Commission's commitment to better regulation is about looking at the evidence and making sure that when the EU intervenes it does so in a way that actually will make a positive difference on the ground." 2016 work program COM(2015)610 final, Annex II: follow up to the E-PRTR evaluation

Project setup (1) E-PRTR REFIT Evaluation Criteria: Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence Relevance EU-added value Triennial Article 17 review Assessment of the implementation (Article 16) Analysis of the use and users of E-PRTR data Scope analysis Stakeholder Consultation Public Consultation Spring 2015 Research Stakeholder Workshop 4 Nov 2015

Project setup (2) Commission to adopt a report to Parliament and Council  Setting out conclusions from the evaluation and data review  Describing potential ways to address issues identified (legislative, non-legislative) Supported by a detailed Staff Working Document prepared by the Commission services Final reports by consultant – will be published on web CIRCABC: ropa.eu/w/browse /f80de80b-a5bc- 4c2b-b0fc- 9c597dde0e – follow up work

7 Interim findings (1) Original objectives are still relevant, E-PRTR valuable tool, added benefits with each year, allowing more detailed trend analysis.  based on the draft report of stakeholder workshop (to be confirmed by the Commission) New needs identified, e.g. for comparisons to national totals, performance assessments, benchmarking… consequently potential need for additional contextual information.

8 Interim findings (2) EU-added value on harmonisation of reporting and monitoring processes, objectives largely achieved, enhanced comparability and quality of data due to QA efforts by the EEA Could be increased by improving coherence (alignment with other EU datasets, e.g. Industrial Emissions Directive, Water Framework Directive, CLRTAP) and by including major sources currently not covered such as transport, domestic heating (diffuse emissions)

9 Interim findings (3) Fostering awareness of E-PRTR and thus use and public participation? Quality and completeness still possible barriers to making E-PRTR as effective as it could be (gaps, reporting thresholds, pollutants) Particular challenges for certain data (e.g. releases to soil, waste transfers) Linking with other available information where useful and relevant (e.g. environmental permits)

10 Interim findings (4) Efficiency – reporting viewed as time consuming Efficiency savings through streamlining, report once, use for several purposes, alignment with other reporting (e.g. IED, or on waste with Eurostat), is it more burdensome to report aggregated data at facility level Role of INSPIRE

Thank you very much! European Commission, DG ENV C.4 (E-PRTR) /eper/implementation.htm +32.(0)

References 1 “Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT): results and next steps” COM(2013)685 1 “Better Regulation for Better Results - An EU Agenda” COM(2015)215 final 1 “State of play and outlook” SWD(2015)110 final 2 Roadmap E-PRTR REFIT evaluation: prtr_en.pdf Commission work programme No time for business as usual COM(2015)610 incl. Annex 2 REFIT initiatives: