1. Review of the IRI Malta, October 2013

2. What is an IRI? Impel review initiative Voluntary scheme for review of environmental authorities RMCEI and Doing the right things Start in 2000 Revised in 2009 Reviewed again in 2013 19 countries have had an IRI

4. In short IRI looks at implementation of EU directives for: Permitting Inspecting Enforcement And defines: Good practice Opportunities for development

5. Review of the IRI Portugal, Latvia, Romania, Croatia, Italy, Iceland and Slovenia What has been done with the IRI results? Have opportunities for development been implemented? Have results been spread within the host country? Have results been shared with other countries? What needs to be improved in the IRI? How can communication be improved?

6. Why did you have an IRI? Portugalfor expert advice on our working methods Croatia for an objective view of our inspectorate Italyto have EU experts look at our system Latvia to improve our organisation Iceland to improve our environmental program Slovenia we wanted expert opinion whether we work according to EU legislation Romaniato get feedback from specialists and have a good evaluation of our inspectorate

7. Did IRI meet your expectations? Portugal it exceeded expectations very enriching Croatia certainly, was first time for review by ‘ colleagues’ Italy IRI was useful, but time too short for in-depth discussions Latvia good practice and suggestions for development were useful Iceland yes, yes! It pointed out areas where we can improve Slovenia IRI was very useful, because it forces you to study your working process Romania IRI identified strengths and possibilities for improvement

8. What did the IRI teach you? Portugal it spotted gaps we were not aware of and gave us a helicopter view of our whole organisation Croatia improved our prioritization and made us realize we need to think about the demographics of staff (40 – 50 yrs old) Italy we realised what our strengths and weaknesses are Latvia IRI showed us how to analyse inspection results Iceland we got more confidence, we were shown what we do right and learned how we can improve Slovenia we learned more facts about our own organisation Romania better inspection planning, improvement of coordination between authorities

9. Did you implement the findings? Portugalyes, suggestions for improvement were taken on in the following annual activity planning Croatia new Environmental Act implemented some suggestions from IRI (e.g. prioritization of inspection) Italy plans are being developed, findings will be included Latvia some recommendations were implemented Iceland some findings have been implemented, others is progress Slovenia some were implemented, others are still on hold Romania yes, for as far as our regional inspectorate has the power to do so

10. Did you share the report? Portugal report has not been translated, so dissemination within our country could have been more efficient. Translated summary was sent out Croatia report has been put on internet and sent to project experts Italy yes, to staff and management Latvia report was sent to ministry Iceland report was put on internet, open meeting with stakeholders, press release Slovenia report was spread to other agencies, ministry and media Romania yes, report was sent to management, staff and ministry

11. What would you change? Portugal allocate more time and resources and involve other authorities, no more translation of legislation Croatia a longer IRI to allow more time for discussion Italy involve more top-management Latvia ask IRI team for prioritization of recommendations Iceland take more time for preparation Slovenia include a site-visit to the program Romania more top management and include other authorities

12. What methods of communication did you use? Portugal internal communication only Croatia press release, internet, meetings, annual report Italy meetings with staff and management Latvia meetings with staff and management Iceland management meetings, meetings with industrial associations, internet, annual meeting with local inspectorates Slovenia press release, management meetings, internet Romania press release, management meetings, seminars

13. What other fields could be covered by IRI? Portugal ‘green’ and ‘ blue’ issues Croatia soil pollution Italy soil and air quality Latvia soil pollution Iceland - Slovenia- RomaniaManagement plans, nature protection and schipment of waste (TFS)

14. What time period would consider useful to repeat IRI? Portugal minimum of 3 years, so time is given for implementation of former recommendations Croatia 5 years Italy 5 years Latvia 3 – 5 years Iceland 15 years, questionnaire every 5 years Slovenia 5 – 7 years Romania 4 - 5 years

15. Summary (1) Opportunities for development are often not followed up because: Legislation does not allow this Management is not fully involved Political or financial situation makes this difficult

16. Summary (2) Better sharing of report results can be achieved by: Better communication with authorities in one country active interest in other IRI reports (learn from others) Translation of the IRI report in native language More guidance by the review team (give examples) Focus on this point during pre meeting and in report Plan conferences, webinars, meetings and media presentations

17. Summary (3) Proposed changes in IRI: Team leader: use pre-meeting to invite management Team leader: after IRI send letter to management with summary of findings Define qualifications for team members Send cv’s of team members to all participants Plan time to talk about implementation of results Emphazise the importance of follow-up Plan for translation of the summary Put names of contacts in the report Think of possible projects that can follow on from IRI

18. GOOD PRACTICE: Specialised inspectors on Seveso also deal with inspections from other regimes. This is a good example of flexibility; Coordinators meet regularly to discuss environmental issues and performance; Inspection campaigns are held to directly target environmental infringement Slovenia

19. Portugal GOOD PRACTICE: Good use of IMPEL projects (like DTRT) and bilateral cooperation with other EU MS for developing the organization; Inspectorate developed an excellent and flexible risk assessment tool (IPPC); Objectives from the Activity plan are devolved down to the inspectors (sense of ownership by the individual inspectors and creates a ‘line of sight’ between corporate goals and individual inspectors’ goals).

20. Croatia GOOD PRACTICE Professional and systematic training system in place Inspectors checklists and report templates are well developed IT data base system for inspection planning and reporting is well developed General Annual Report and Annual Inspection Reports on Coordinated inspection are available for the public Good use of the results of networks (IMPEL, INECE, ECENA)

21. Iceland GOOD PRACTICE Very good database for inspections (including industry information, inspection reports and letters) Excellent website with information for the public

22. GOOD PRACTICE The planning and the process of inspections is well organized There is a clear and transparent fee structure for inspection costs. Inspectors provide advice on problems noticed during inspections to contribute towards improving operator performance. Italy

23. So who’s next? Malta Austria Czech Republic Hungary Greece Cyprus Slovakia Lithuania Estonia?

24. Remember… “ IRI is a starting point, not the end!” Fabio Carella Italy