2. Carl Bro a/s - Team Leader - IPPC-experts - Quality Assurance
PROJECT TEAM
Carl Bro a/s - Team Leader - IPPC-experts - Quality Assurance
Ifo - Economists
Regional Environmental Center - IPPC-experts
© 2005, Carl Bro as - page 2

3. Assessments of competitiveness – focus on cases
FOCUS OF STUDY
Assessments of competitiveness – focus on cases
No focus on general binding rules
No specific analysis of different approaches implementation
© 2005, Carl Bro as - page 3

4. Impacts on competitiveness
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Impacts on competitiveness
Does the main conclusions from the 2001 “Hitchens” study also apply in other selected sectors, and are they still valid ?
What effect has implementation of IPPC and BAT on competitiveness within particular sectors within EU ?
Does implementation of IPPC and BAT have an effect on the competitiveness for EU-installations compared to non-EU competitors ?
What is the influence of the different approaches taken by selected Member States on SME’s competitiveness in selected sectors?
© 2005, Carl Bro as - page 4

5. HITCHENS STUDY
Starting point: Hitchens et al., (2000), “The Impact of BAT on Competitiveness of European Industry”
Aim of the “Hitchens study”: to develop a methodology to assess the impact of the introduction of BAT (as defined in Directive 96/61/EC (IPPC) Directive), on firm competitive performance, both in relation to the EU's competitors and within the EU.
The selected case study approach was applied to three industries: cement, paper and pulp and non ferrous metals (more than 100 cases incl. overseas visits)
Two main questions: Is a BAT plant viable? Is the application of BAT to existing plants likely to lead to a significant number of closures?
© 2005, Carl Bro as - page 5

6. HITCHENS STUDY Overview of results of the “Hitchens study”:
The use of BAT in the selected sample of firms yielded no evidence of distortion of national or international competitiveness;
Study made the stringent implementation assumption that sample plants were required to meet all the BAT requirements as stated in the BREF;
List of factors favouring and hindering the take-up of BAT was identified.
© 2005, Carl Bro as - page 6

7. HITCHENS STUDY Methodology of “Hitchens study”:
Set of hypotheses capturing negative and positive factors which influence the costs or benefits arising from an adjustment to the adoption of BAT; use of questionnaire for interviews.
Cement: the average performance of plants in different countries with different environmental stringencies, and therefore different mixes of BAT and emission standards, was compared country by country.
Non ferrous metals/paper and pulp: economic and environmental performance of individual plants with and without BAT irrespective of the European country of origin were compared
© 2005, Carl Bro as - page 7

8. HITCHENS STUDY Main strengths of “Hitchens study”:
A micro study recognizes differences between plants. Important when considering the implementation of IPPC.
Managers can answer the detailed questions about the impact of specific environmental initiatives on firm performance.
Broad categorization by critical variables related to the adoption of BAT by all firms in the industry is important to judge the impact on the industry as a whole.
© 2005, Carl Bro as - page 8

9. HITCHENS STUDY Main weaknesses of “Hitchens study”:
There can be problems identifying plants with the full range of BATs and plants which also reach strong environmental performance standards.
To show which BATs are sensitive needs analysis of emission reduction associated with the BAT.
Difficult to achieve statistical representativeness with a case study approach.
© 2005, Carl Bro as - page 9

10. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY - TASKS
Case selection
Data gathering
Assessments
Project reporting
© 2005, Carl Bro as - page 10

11. METHODOLOGY – TASK 1: Case selection
Case sectors
Selection criteria
Environmental significance
Economic significance
Actual competition
Large and SMEs within sector
Focus on particular products
Proposed sectors (4 to be selected)
Steel (e.g. tubes/wires/profiles)
Paper (e.g. Kraft pulp)
Glass (e.g. reinforced glass fibre)
Pig farms
LVOC
Slaughterhouses ?
© 2005, Carl Bro as - page 11

12. METHODOLOGY – TASK 1: Case selection
Case Member States
Selection criteria
Relevance of the MS for the sectors selected
Centralized and regional/local issuing of IPPC permits
Old and new MS´s
As many regions of Europe as possible should be represented
Proposed Member States
Germany
Poland
Czech Republic/Hungary
Spain/Italy UK
Denmark/Sweden
Belgium ?
© 2005, Carl Bro as - page 12

13. METHODOLOGY – TASK 1: Case selection
Case installations
Methodology
List of installations within sectors in MS´s
Collection of information about installations (date of permit issue, environmental significance – e.g. EPER)
Select installations within each chosen sector
Selection criteria
Installations that comply with IPPC – not too recent permits
“New” and “existing” installations
SME´s and large installations
Scale of investments induced by IPPC-implementation
Environmental significance
All chosen sectors and MS´s represented
© 2005, Carl Bro as - page 13

14. METHODOLOGY – TASK 2: Data gathering
Questionnaire on competitive issues for case installations (50-100)
Collect IPPC-permits and economic data from case installations
Interviews with industrial organisations in selected countries
Training of experts and site visits (about 20 installations)
© 2005, Carl Bro as - page 14

15. METHODOLOGY – TASK 3 Assessments of impacts on competitiveness
Suggestion for draft methodology concerning this study:
Step 1 - Sector level: Assessment of impact of IPPC implementation on competitiveness within the EU in the light of industry and market structure.
Step 2 – Micro level: Questionnaire-based approach in selected installations of EU Member States.
Step 3 – Combining sector and micro level: Analysis of financial strength of selected sectors and analysis of international context.
© 2005, Carl Bro as - page 15

16. Expected role of Advisory Group in first stage:
DISCUSSION ISSUES
Expected role of Advisory Group in first stage:
Comments to proposed methodology and approach
Comments on the proposed sectors/MS´s
Expected role of Advisory Group in later stage:
Support in the selection of case installations
Facilitate contacts with operators and authorities
© 2005, Carl Bro as - page 16

17. Selection of sectors and MS´s
NEXT STEPS
Selection of sectors and MS´s
Preparation of questionnaire (January-February)
Selection of case installations (February-March)
Sending out questionnaires to case installations (March)
Site visits (May/June)
Assessment phase (June – Sept)
Final report (Oct)
© 2005, Carl Bro as - page 17