1. ECENA Study Tour – Copenhagen 19 nd June 2006 Environmental inspection system in Denmark Gudmund Nielsen, DEPA Environmental administrative system The Environmental Protection Act Environmental inspectors work Minimum frequencies for inspection Planning and prioritising inspection (differentiated inspection) Benchmarking of inspectorates

2. MINISTER contact to parliament statutory orders circulars DANISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (DEPA) advising the Minister preparation of bills instructions and guidance instance of appeal marine environment chemicals summary of environmental conditions investigations international work ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL BOARD Second instance of appeal 275 MUNICIPALITIES most industrial plants (app. 80.000) & all griculture (70.000 animal farms) – inspec- tion and approval county plants neighbour complaints waste (collection, treatment and depositing) wastewater cleaning drinking water local planning 14 COUNTIES 2.700 most environmental complicated industrial plants - inspection and approval municipal plants monitoring environment mapping groundwater resources chemical waste sites nature conservation regional planning 900 pers. 1.000 pers. 285 pers. 80 pers. The Environmental Protection System in Denmark

3. MINISTER contact to parliament statutory orders circulars DANISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (DEPA) advising the Minister preparation of bills instructions and guidance marine environment chemicals summary of environmental conditions investigations international work ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL BOARD First and final instance of appeal 98 MUNICIPALITIES most industrial plants (IPPC and other) & agriculture (IPPC and other) - inspection and approval neighbour complaints waste (collection and depositing) wastewater treatment drinking water local and regional planning monitoring environment 7 STATE INSPECTORATES 215 environmental complicated industrial sites - inspection and approval municipal plants (wastewater treatment plants, Incinerators etc.) mapping groundwater resources nature conservation (Natura 2000, Water Frameword Directive etc.) 700 pers. 285 pers. 80 pers. The Environmental Protection System in Denmark 2007 1.200 pers.

4. Danish Environmental Protection Act Objectives to: prevent and abate pollution make regulation reduce use and waste of resources strengthen cleaner technology strengthen recycling

5. The environmental solutions have changed Dilution Purification BAT Sustainability Higher smokestacks Reduced concentrations End of pipe purification Cleaner technology Best av. cleaning tech. Life cycle concept (Product policy)

6. ??? The environmental solutions have changed 1973 Dilution 2001 1980 Purification C.T.(1991) BAT SUSTAINABILITY Life cycle concept Product policy

7. Role of the env. authority Approving: permits/licenses Enforcing: inspection and control Advisory: voluntary dialogue on better env.performance, e.g. cleaner production, env. management schemes etc.

8. National minimum frequencies for total inspections Licensed installations – appr. 7.000 (IPPC or national regulation): 100 % in 3 years Installations regulated by specific branch orders and installations on a specific inspection list – appr. 15.000: 100 % in 4 years Animal farms except IPPC – appr. 40.000: 100 % in 6 years

9. A ”TOTAL INSPECTION” = ”Checking all relevant environmental matters at the installation (industrial plant or animal farm)” Responsibility of the env. authority that all relevant environmental matters are checked by 1 total inspection Authority guarantees in reporting to DEPA that the quality of the single inspection is OK National minimum frequencies for total inspections

10. Purpose of differentiated inspection: - prioritizing inspection resources depending on company’s environmental performance Level 3Level 2Level 1 Company’s environmental effort Minimum frequency for total inspection Authority’s inspection effort

11. DEPA guideline on differentiated inspection - a resource prioritizing tool Categorizing industry and farms into level 1, 2 or 3 depending on: System in environmental work Information to authority Compliance with environmental regulation

12. Categorizing companies and farms

13. Including pollution risk etc. in the overall prioritization Installation’s potential for pollution - including risk in relation to the location Authority’s environmental control campaigns or tracking down of polluting sources

14. Example of total prioritisation of inspection resources

15. Type of installation Company name Raw material andproductsWastewaterAirNuisancesRisksSoil/GroundwaterWasteSum of scores Categorized level SUM TOTAL K02d A 11 1 1 A11 B 112 1 2 E07 C 11114 2 8 D11 D 1113 2 6 E 11114 3 12 K08a F 111115 1 5 D01a G 112 2 4 E07 H 1113 1 3 W02 I 1113 3 9 Prioritizing: Score 1 if environmental important, otherwise score 0

16. Report to Danish EPA May 2006 _________________________ (Type of installation) Level 1Level 2Level 3 Number of installations which had a total inspection in 2005 Inspection fee for the above inspections (35 € per hour) Number of inspection hours for voluntary dialogue with the industry / farm

17. Example on distribution of resources Average distribution of inspection resources per type of installation for 1 total inspection, compared to categorisation

18. IMPEL Report on Benchmarking of Environmental Inspectorates Why benchmarking? To promote uniformity in inspection approach To make inspection procedures more transparent To make inspectorates’ decisions more uniform To stimulate efficiency in inspectorates

19. Ideas of parameters ( input, output or outcome) - suitable for benchmarking Resources - staffing, equipment, salaries etc. Average time for licensing/inspection etc. Education level/variety of education in inspectorate Proportion of installations for inspection/inspector Proportion of permits with public participation Customers’ (companies’) satisfaction Quality and quantity of public relations (press information, prints, websites etc.) Auditing of licenses/inspections Risk classification systems for prioritisation Positive changes of operators’ behaviour Better EMS in comparable installations Etc.

20. How to connecting goals/targets with parameters/indicators 1. Goals/targets (what to achieve?) 2. Justification (why?) 3. Parameter (what to measure) 4. Indicator (Are we on the right track?) 5. Means of verification (How to measure) 6. Barriers/obstacles?

21. 1. Goal or Target A top qualified inspectorate staff 2. Justification  Effective organisation  Attractive organisation  Being a vocation for staff members 3. Parameter 1. Salary state - within the country (e.g. the private sector) 2. Variety of education 3. Inspectors’ "independency" 4. Inspectors’ responsibility 5. Inspectors’ motivation 6. Inspectors’ initiatives 7. Customers’ (citizens & companies) satisfaction 8. Short time for a permit or fixed time 9. Clear conditions in permits 10. Enforceable and achievable permits - also seen from the industry point of view 4. Indicators  Ability to recruit staff  Staff turnover  Investigation / interviews / auditing of reports etc.  Number of appeals against authority's decisions - approved/rejected  Salary 5. Means of verification  Audits, internal and external  Co-operation internal  Surveys of internal satisfaction  Statistics  Ability to do the job - linked to education/vocation  Resources for training 6. Barriers/Obstacles  Lack of "standards"  Salaries  Political priorities  Conflict of interest between private and public sector

22. 1. Goal or TargetA. Inspectorates are working consistently (not uniformly!), site specific but with similar approach and fairness. B. Guarantee for citizens that the environment gets same level of treatment throughout country or area. 2. Justification  The expectations to inspectorates' work are well known  Ensures minimum standard (legally compliant) 3. Parameter1. Measurement of activity (according to working programme) 2. Work based on same structure/plan (including philosophy, principles, procedures and systems) 3. Meetings/Networks/Co-operation between inspectorates 4. Exchange of staff (inland and between countries) - for cross fertilising of ideas 5. No. of issued guidelines - based on working groups and/or review system 4. Indicators  Increased knowledge/experience  Common working system  Funds for promotion, Encouragement, Cooperation  Presence of National campaigns 5. Means of verification  ISO 9000 at basic principle level - same procedure used (Not international comparison)  Working programme, specific system - e.g. exchange of staff  Benchmarking – e.g. do you have a system? 6. Barriers/Obstacles  Different cultures - entranced views  Lack of initiative because success not guaranteed  Lack of cooperation  Lack of funds to promote cooperation  No review system for guidelines etc.

23. Benchmarking of inspectorates Quality system (ISO 9000, EMAS) Quality ensurance procedures Training in inspection principles Inspection and planning procedures/guidelines Multi-agency enforcement actions Registration and reporting systems (number, time, costs etc. per main item) Existing or planned quality measurement systems in environmetal inspectorates (national and/or regional and/or local authorities)

24. FIN