1. 1 1 st EIONET Workshop on Industrial Pollution 04 March 2015 Andreas Grangler DG Environment Unit C.4 (new!) – Industrial emissions E-PRTR Refit evaluation

2. To cover: E-PRTR Article 17 official data review E-PRTR REFIT evaluation Project setup – stakeholder consultation 2

3. E-PRTR Article 17 data review (1) Commission to review data provided (Article 7) and assess the operation 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) Quality assurance (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 2007-2009 First Commission report to Parliament and Council COM111(2013) 3

4. E-PRTR Article 17 data review (2) Second report by MS covers years 2010-2013 instead of 2010- 2012 (e.g. IEEG-4 paper sent to expert group on 30 April 2014) Questionnaire the same as first reporting cycle (2010/205/EU) Deadline for reporting was 30 Sept 2014  Next steps: Review of data provided 2010-2013 and assess the Article 16 reports - 2015 Report to Parliament and Council - 2016 4

5. 5 E-PRTR REFIT evaluation (1) Ex-post evaluation to verify, whether the expected results and impacts of EU-regulation have been achieved  is the E-PRTR fit for purpose? 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 E-PRTR selected to be evaluated 1 in 2015 1 Communication “Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT): results and next steps” COM(2013)685

6. Objectives of the E-PRTR (exemplarily) 6 Public access to information Participation in environmental affairs Improve environmental performance Promote transparency and accountability in the sphere of the environment Better knowledge of pollution/exposure to pollutants

7. 7 E-PRTR REFIT evaluation (2) http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/refit/index_en.htm More information

8. Project setup 8 2015 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 of E-PRTR data Scope analysis Stakeholder Consultation Public Consultation Spring 2015 Literature Stakeholder Workshop Autumn 2015 Final report

9. Support by EEA / EIONET 9 Participation in the Steering Committee Participation in stakeholder consultation/workshop Providing information on practices in MS and experiences with E-PRTR Providing information on data quality and completeness

10. Further information: 10 DG ENV Industrial Emissions http://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/stationary/eper/legislation.htm http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/ Andreas Grangler Unit C.4 (new) Industrial emissions Andreas.Grangler@ec.europa.eu +32-2-29-66700 or ENV-IED-INFO @ec.europa.euENV-IED-INFO @ec.europa.eu

11. Effectiveness (exemplarily) 11 Were the initial expectations on the E-PRTR achieved? What other factors contributed to the changes? What unexpected / unintended changes resulting from the Regulation can be identified?

12. Efficiency (exemplarily) 12 To what extent is the effort / are the costs justified compared to the benefits? If identified, what exactly is causing inefficiencies? Costs in comparison to other reporting measures? Evidence for simplification / streamlining?

13. Coherence (exemplarily) 13 Evidence to make the Regulation clearer and easier to understand? Is the Regulation coherent internally? External coherence with other applicable regulations in the field of reporting on industrial emissions/installations?

14. Relevance (exemplarily) 14 Do the objectives of the Regulation still correspond to the current needs within the EU? Are there obsolete, unnecessary or missing provisions or gaps in the Regulation? Has the Regulation (and the website) adapted to technical and scientific progress? Are there any new needs to be addressed?

15. Relevance (exemplarily) 15 Do the objectives of the Regulation still correspond to the current needs within the EU? Are there obsolete, unnecessary or missing provisions or gaps in the Regulation? Has the Regulation (and the website) adapted to technical and scientific progress? Are there any new needs to be addressed?

16. EU-added value (exemplarily) 16 Overall perception of the E-PRTR among stakeholders and citizens? What is the additional value resulting from the E-PRTR Regulation, compared to what could be achieved at national levels? Do the issues addressed by the Regulation continue to require action at EU level?