1. WFD CIS Working Group Meeting Brussels, 4/4/2019
Evaluation of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) 2010/75/EU IED Contribution to Water Policies
WFD CIS Working Group Meeting
Brussels, 4/4/2019

2. IED - the main EU instrument regulating pollution from industrial installations
IED aims to achieve a high level of protection of human health and the environment taken as a whole by reducing harmful industrial emissions across the EU in particular through application of Best Available Techniques (BAT) in Permits.
Covers more than installations in Europe
Large variety of industrial or agro-industrial activities:
Industrial sectors covered (annex I):
1. Energy industries 4. Chemical industries
2. Metal industries 5. Waste management
3. Mineral industries 6. Other – e.g. intensive livestock farming

3. Share of emissions to water
Source: “Contribution of industry to pollutant emissions to air and water” 2014
(agro)industrial under IED
(agro)industrial regulated elsewhere or unregulated
non-(agro)industrial

4. Emissions to water by chemical and sectorCl Fl
Metals
TOC
Total P
Total N
AOX

5. Change in emissions to water
Absolute emissions and GVA
Sum of ecotoxicity

6. Important IED provisions
Member States must ensure installations use best available techniques (BAT) (Article 11)
Permit conditions must include emission limit values for all relevant pollutants (Annex II) based on using BAT (Article 14)
Monitoring requirements (Article 16)
Based on BATc, competent authority determines frequency
Groundwater every 5 years, soil every 10 years
Environmental Quality Standards (Article 18)
Site closure & remediation – Baseline report (Article 22)
Environmental inspections (Article 23)
Inspection plans and programmes
Site visit frequency based on risk appraisal of installation (highest risk yearly )–(lowest risk 3-yearly)
Access to information/ public participation (Article 24) and access to justice (Article 25)

7. Installation level data (techniques, emissions, ...)
BAT information exchange (Technical Working Group) a.k.a. “Seville Process”
Installation level data
(techniques, emissions, ...)
Commission
(IPPC Bureau +DG ENV)
Member State
experts
Industry
experts
NGO
experts
Four main groups of stakeholders
Relies on the TWG having equal access to instant the installation level data i.e. what techniques are used and the environmental performance associated with that technique.
Two outputs of the process; a BREF and, within the BREF, BAT conclusions
Key elements of the process:
Cooperative
Consensual
Technical
Transparent
BREF (BAT reference document
(with BAT conclusions)
Committee adoption of BAT conclusions
BAT
conclu-
sions 12

8. Why? IED Evaluation 7 predecessor Directives Evaluation
Impact Assessment COM(2007) 843
Member State reporting
EPRTR emissions data
IED adopted 2010/75/EU

9. What? IED Evaluation Evidence-based judgement
Ex-post - how (well) does the IED work?
Assess performance versus initial objectives
Gather a factual basis for assessment
Assess:
What has happened?
Why has it happened?
How much has changed due to the IED?
What are intended / unintended effects?
Evidence of causality
Broad public and stakeholder consultation

10. What? IED Evaluation IED initial objectives Generic
prevent, reduce and as far as possible eliminate pollution arising from industrial activities
Specific (from impact assessment)
Increase legislative effectiveness by supporting MS to implement BAT based permitting
Strengthen provisions on enforcement and environmental improvement, while stimulating innovation,
Cutting unnecessary administrative burden and simplifying legislation,
Better contribute to the objectives of the Thematic Strategies

11. IED Evaluation Roadmap Effectiveness: Efficiency: Relevance:
The extent to which the IED objectives have been achieved;
The process of elaborating BREFs and BAT Conclusions;
The emissions monitoring and reporting process.
Efficiency:
The extent to which the costs are justified, given the impact of the IED and the benefits it has delivered;
Whether there are significant differences between Member States in implementation;
Whether efficiency could have been improved;
The extent to which administrative burden has been reduced with respect to initial expectations.
Relevance:
The extent to which the IED objectives still correspond to the needs of the EU;
Whether the IED is able to respond to new or emerging environmental issues.
Coherence:
The extent to which the IED is internally consistent and coherent;
The extent to which the IED is coherent with other EU environmental and wider EU policies, and with market based instruments.
EU added value:
What the added-value from the IED is, compared to what is likely to have been achieved by Member States in its absence.

12. When? IED Evaluation Evaluation process (indicative timing)
Political validation
Roadmap published*
Comments assessed
2019: Bulk of the process (in progress)
assistance from contractors
addressing evaluation questions
mid-2019: stakeholder consultations
2020: Dissemination & Follow-up *
Commission Staff Working Document

13. IED Evaluation Stakeholder consultation Mid 2019 (indicative)
Public Consultation (12 weeks)
Generic part
Specific part
Targeted Consultation
Interviews
Focus Groups
2 Workshops
Confirm scope of consultation
Increase participation
Validate findings
5 broad stakeholder categories

14. IED Evaluation 3 Questions to WFD Experts
Is the IED ensuring that industry contributes sufficiently to achieving the goals of EU water legislation?
If not, what are the problems?
In water bodies with compliance problems are IED provisions correctly applied?
Feedback welcome (possibly with evidence) ! by 30/4/2019

15. IED Evaluation
Thank you