Europaudvalget 2017
KOM (2017) 0810
Offentligt
1833983_0001.png
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 13.12.2017
SWD(2017) 711 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of the REFIT Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 concerning
the establishment of a European Pollutant Release and Transfer register (E-PRTR)
Accompanying the document
Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on progress
in implementing Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 concerning the establishment of a
European Pollutant Release and Transfer register (E-PRTR)
{COM(2017) 810 final} - {SWD(2017) 710 final}
EN
EN
 kom (2017) 0810 - Ingen titel
1833983_0002.png
The E-PRTR provides accessible environmental data from the largest industrial facilities in
European Union Member States
1
.
Emission data are reported annually by more than 30 000 industrial facilities, covering 65
economic activities. Data covers mass releases to air, water and land, together with waste
transfers off-site.
The E-PRTR Regulation implements, for the European Union as a whole, the Kiev Protocol
2
.
Since Member States have direct reporting obligations as parties or signatories to the
Protocol, the evaluation focused on additional obligations under the Regulation:
a) operators reporting on five additional water pollutants and lower reporting thresholds
for dioxin / furan emissions;
b) annual reporting of data by Member States to the Commission;
c) the Commission incorporating that data into the E-PRTR;
d) a Commission guidance document to facilitate consistent Member State practices; and
e) triennial implementation reporting to the European Parliament and the Council.
To undertake the Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT) evaluation, the Commission
used Member State implementation returns, consultations, a stakeholder workshop and a
consultant's supporting study. Using these sources, the evaluation criteria were assessed as
follows:
The E-PRTR is
effective,
as it provides a highly comprehensive and detailed dataset
on industrial emissions. There is broad stakeholder appreciation of the valuable
contribution to access to environmental information. The completeness and quality of
E-PRTR data is good and improving. Additional data context would help reach a
wider public audience.
The E-PRTR performed well on
efficiency.
Most data providers stated that minimal
effort was needed to meet the additional reporting requirements. Data managers stated
that such effort was proportionate to the broad benefits provided by public data
availability.
While consistent in itself, there were some concerns on
coherence
with data reported
under related environmental legislation, such as the Industrial Emissions Directive
(IED)
3
. Initiatives are under way to further streamline this reporting.
The E-PRTR is still
relevant,
as it provides a detailed dataset that the public can
easily access. This contributes greatly to transparency and public participation in
environmental decision-making.
There is
added value
beyond the requirements of the Kiev Protocol by ensuring
consistent implementation across Member States. This cross-border consistency is
valued by users, as it provides transparency on the pollutant emissions from industrial
activities. This in turn adds value for policy-makers, industry and the general public.
1
2
There is also data for Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Serbia
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/PRTR_Protocol_e.pdf.
3
Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial
emissions
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1489681035236&uri=CELEX:32010L0075
1
 kom (2017) 0810 - Ingen titel
There was no obvious need for major improvement to the existing Regulation, although there
is potential refinement as follows:
while Member States are converging on consistent interpretation, further gains would
come from updating the existing EU-level guidance
gains in efficiency and coherence would flow from further harmonisation with closely
related environmental reporting
there appears to be limited value in the triennial obligation on Member States to report
on E-PRTR implementation, which suggests scope for simplification.
providing more contextual data would improve the E-PRTR's effectiveness as a
comprehensive source of environmental information.
The evaluation concludes that the E-PRTR Regulation is an important instrument in the
European Union’s environmental acquis and is fit for purpose.
2