REVISION OF THE INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS DIRECTIVE AND E … · 2020. 12. 18. · Opportunities to contribute Your views on IED issues and solutions/ Our Outline Timetable: • Open Public

115 December 2020ED13995Public© Ricardo plc 2020

• Welcome and housekeeping

REVISION OF THE INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS DIRECTIVE AND E-PRTR

REGULATION

FIRST STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP

15 DECEMBER 2020

Morning session – Overview and IED revision


Housekeeping

You can submit questions or comments in writing at any time during the Live Event via

the Q&A panel, to the right of your screen.

➢ Just click on the ‘Ask a question’ button to write and submit you comment/question.

Use question bubble icon to

expand or collapse Q&A panel


• Asking questions

– Submit in the “Ask a question” box

– All questions will be logged, but not all will be published in the meeting

– In the meeting we will publish questions that we address in the Q&A sessions

– After the meeting we will also publish and address FAQs

– At the start of your question, please can you add:

• Your organisation name

• The number of the related “Problem area”

• After the meeting

– Slides

– Recording

– Available at https://ee.ricardo.com/industrial-emissions-directive-revision-

stakeholder-workshop

Housekeeping

https://ee.ricardo.com/industrial-emissions-directive-revision-stakeholder-workshop

Revision of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED)

First Stakeholder Workshop

15 December 2020

Michael BENNETTEuropean Commission

DG Environment - Industrial Emissions Unit (C.4)4

Today’s Meeting

▪ To inform you of the “state-of-play” of both Impact Assessments

▪ Signpost the way in which the studies are being undertaken, with the appropriate information on baselines and evidence.

▪ AM = IED

▪ PM = E-PRTR (NB different internet remote meetings platform –see separate invitation and details)

▪ Both IAs – within overview remit of the EU Green Deal, and the Zero Pollution Action Plan

▪ Timetable to produce the Commission’s proposals for both initiatives is end-2021, for deliberation with the co-legislators

5

Opportunities to contributeYour views on IED issues and solutions/ Our Outline Timetable:

• Open Public Consultation (OPC). Joint E-PRTR & IED. Starts this week –open until mid-March 2021

• Targeted Stakeholders’ Survey [TSS] (web survey) – New Year to mid-March 2021

• Interviews, focus groups) – Q1/Q2 2021

• Final stakeholder workshop – Q2 2021

• Adoption of Commission legislative proposals – Q4 2021

What we would like from you:

• Tell us if you would like to contribute

• Respond to the Open Public Consultation (expert part for expert attendees)

• Please take the time to also respond to the TSS

• Encourage input from other stakeholders (industry, NGOs, the public)6

Contacts / more information

E-PRTR IED

European Commission

Desk Officer: Alex RADWAY Desk Officer: Michael BENNETT

Management: Aneta WILLEMS / Chris ALLEN

email [email protected] [email protected]

Evaluation & Revision webpage

https://europa.eu/!uD47Kd https://europa.eu/!QB86dV

CIRCABC https://europa.eu/!cy64Wu https://europa.eu/!nY63hc

Better Regulation

Portal

https://europa.eu/!MR96xJ https://europa.eu/!dY73wT

Supporting contract

RPA Europe consortiumMarco [email protected]

Trinomics consortiumTim [email protected]

7

mailto:[email protected]


https://europa.eu/!uD47Kd

https://europa.eu/!QB86dV

https://europa.eu/!cy64Wu

https://europa.eu/!nY63hc

https://europa.eu/!MR96xJ

https://europa.eu/!dY73wT



Thank you for your attention!

• [email protected]

• For the Keynote Speech, over to:

• Ms Veronica Manfredi, Director, ENV Directorate C, Quality of Life

8



IED revision

Keynote: Overview of the Potential of

the IED Sectors for the EU Green Deal

Veronica Manfredi, Director, Quality

of Life EC DG ENV C

First workshop

© Ricardo plc 2020

Stakeholder workshop, 15 December 2020

Assessment of options for the

revision of the Industrial Emissions

Directive


• IED Impact Assessment – Overview (Tim Scarbrough, Ricardo)

• Summary of problems and policy options being considered for revision of

the IED – 7 short presentations

• Impact assessment steps and consultation methodologies used

(Tim Scarbrough, Ricardo)

• Q&A

• AOB/ wrap up/ close (DG ENV)

Meeting aims and agenda

Primary aims of this workshop are to:

• Explain the impact assessment process for revision of the IED

• Present the problems being considered in the impact assessment, together

with current options being considered

• Introduce the consultation activities

Agenda


• IED Impact Assessment – Overview





• Q&A



IED

eva

luati

on

fin

din

gs

• Under the European Green Deal, the European Commission is committed to review

the legal framework of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (the IED).

• The review aims to support the European Green Deal goals on zero pollution, climate

neutrality, biodiversity and a cleaner, more circular economy.

• An evaluation of the IED was completed in 2020

– Concluding that it largely works well

– Improvements could be made in its design and implementation

– Several IED sectors still contribute significant overall pressures on the environment

• The impact assessment to examine revisions to the IED was launched in 2020

Context to the IED impact assessment

Works well

✓ BREF process

✓ Permitting

✓ Reduced distortion of competition

✓ Reducing industry emissions

(especially to air)

✓ Cost-effectiveness

✓ Promotion of BAT

Works less well

❑ Emerging techniques

❑ Clarification of legal requirements

❑ GHG emissions / decarbonisation

❑ Reducing resource use / supporting circular economy

❑ Availability of data

❑ Implementation of BAT conclusions in permits

❑ Access to information

❑ Public participation in the permitting procedure and access to justice


• The overall purpose of the study is to assist the Commission in carrying out an impact

assessment in line with the requirements of the European Commission’s Better

Regulation Guidelines and its Toolbox

• The contractor team will work with the Commission to

– define the problems to be tackled

– identify and develop a range of options to address them, and

– assess the impacts of those options

• Analysis to be based on quantitative and qualitative evidence, and contributions from

stakeholder consultation (collecting additional evidence)

• The evaluation of the IED identified a number of broad areas where the operation of the

legislative framework might be improved. The Inception Impact Assessment published

on the Better Regulation Portal set out some specific aspects.

• Supporting study to the official impact assessment – will provide the necessary

analytical background to the Commission’s impact assessment

• Contractor team: led by Ricardo and supported by Wood, Vito, E3M and Trinomics

Objectives of the impact assessment study


IA support studyCommission timeline

Revision of the IED impact assessment policy process with

support study adhering to the better regulation guidelines

Define and clarify problem definition

Identify possible EU level actions (long list)

Develop baseline scenario

Develop policy options (shortlist)

Assess impacts of options

Compare options to identify preferred option

2019-2020

Evaluation of the IED→ Commission Staff Working Document

SWD(2020)182 final

Co

nsu

ltati

on

sand r

esearc

h

2020-2021

Impact Assessment of the IEDMar 2020 - Inception Impact Assessment

Jul 2020 to Jul 2021 – Support study

Dec 2020 to Apr 2021 – Consultations

~End 2021

Legislative proposal

for revision of the IED

Consultations

Support study


1a

The environment is polluted (zero pollution ambition)

1b

The environment is polluted(non-toxic environment)

2

Climate crisis is happening (carbon neutrality at EU

level)

3

Natural resources are being depleted

(circular economy)

4

State-of-the-art techniques cannot respond in a satisfactory manner

(deploy breakthrough technologies)

5

Public access to information

(empower citizens, etc.)

6

Excessive burden may affect efficiency of policy (ensure proportionality of

EU law)

Problem areas under consideration in the impact assessment







• Q&A



Presentations and Q&A

Tim Scarbrough, Ricardo

Rob Whiting, Wood

Toon Smets, Wood

Dirk Nelen, Vito

Alfredo Lopez, Ricardo

Harry Smith, Ricardo

Tim Scarbrough, Ricardo

Questions

Questions

Questions

Questions


• A.i. Not all agro-industrial activities that are polluting the environment are covered by the IED

• A.ii. BAT-AELs are not achieved

• A.iii. Lack of clarity and guidance for permitting processes

• A.iv. Varied interpretation of enforcement and insufficient guidance

• A.v. Varied interpretation and not using latest techniques for monitoring and reporting

• A.vi. Agro-industrial activities continue to contribute to transboundary pollution

A. Overview of problem area

Area #1.a: The environment is polluted (zero pollution ambition)


Issue Options

B.i. Expansion of scope of the IED and

revision of capacity thresholds

• Adding new activities such as intensive farming, mining/quarrying

industries including extractive waste, upstream oil and gas

industries (extraction), more complete coverage of battery

production and recovery

• Revising capacity thresholds for IED activities 1.1, 2.3 (b), 5.2, 5.3

b, 5.4, 6.2, 6.6

• Widening of activities for cold rolling, forging presses, shipyards

• A tailored permitting framework might be worth considering for

intensive rearing of animals

B.ii. Revisions to increase restrictions • Amending/ tightening conditions in Article 15(4); delete flexibilities

in Article 15(3); stricter regime for indirect releases of waste water;

and clarification to Article 18 concerning emission to water when

standards aren’t met

B.iii. Clarification and guidance for permit

process

• Clarifying and providing guidance on articles 16, 22, 23;

harmonising definition of co-incineration

B. Main issues being investigated



Issue Options

B.iv. Revisions to improve enforcement • Amending Article 23 to allow competent authorities to close non-

compliant plants, and elaborate Article 79 on penalties for

infringements; implementation support services

B.v. Improvements on monitoring and

reporting

• Integrating new technologies (e.g. real time monitoring, remote

sensing data, etc.)

• Extending the scope of monitoring/ reporting with installations

granted Article 15(4) derogations

B.vi. Improvements in transboundary

cooperation

• Amending Article 26 for greater cooperation and harmonisation

between MS




• Characterising the status quo, incl.

environmental pressures, barriers preventing

effective implementation, harmonisation and

cooperation, the use of existing guidance

• Exploring views on additional legal

requirements and EU inspector body

• Gathering evidence of potential impacts on

opex, capex, and admin costs;

competitiveness and trade; the environment/

pollution

• C.i. Multiple choice questions

• C.ii. Open text feedback

C. Method of inquiry



• A.(i) Inconsistencies between IED and closely related legislation may be acting as a barrier for the

EU to achieve the zero-pollution targets under the EU’s Green Deal

– Insufficient coverage of chemicals of concern (SVHC, POPs) in BREFs and BAT Conclusions

– New SVHCs added to REACH are not being captured or managed within IED production

processes

– Lack of alignment between IED and the Water Framework Directive - alignment needed

especially for priority substances and atmospheric deposition.


Area #1.b: The environment is polluted (non-toxic environment)




Issue Options

B.i. Alignment with REACH, Water

Framework Directive and POPs

• Prohibiting the manufacture and use of SVHCs within

industrial settings where BAT identifies safer alternatives.

• Requiring operators to move to safer chemicals

continuously, as part of the operator’s ‘resource efficiency

and circular economy plan’

• Including POPs in the BREF process

B.ii. Need for Chemical

Management Systems (CMS)

• Obligation for operators to have a chemical management

system to track, quantify and manage hazardous

chemicals, including developments under related

legislation.

• The CMS should as a minimum include SVHCs, POPs,

priority substances and substances added to the Watch

List under the Environmental Quality Standards Directive.


• Characterising the level of use of CMS,

ECHA’s risk assessment tool, etc.

• Exploring impacts of measures on opex and

admin costs, pollution from toxic substances,

competitiveness, trade, employment, prices

• Seeking suggestions for legislative alignment,

understand status quo e.g. treating waste

water, etc.






Questions


A. Overview of problem area (1/2)

Area #2: Climate crisis is happening (carbon neutrality at EU level)

GHG emissions by main sector, EU-27+UK (source: EEA, 2020)

• Since 1990, GHG emissions

in the EU have been steadily

declining, with emissions in

the EU-27 falling to 24%

below 1990 levels in 2019.

• The largest decrease in

emissions in absolute terms

occurred in energy supply and

industry

• In spite of the good progress in

reducing GHG emissions and

decarbonising the EU economy,

substantial reductions will be

needed for the EU to become a

climate neutral economy by

2050.


• IED implementation has not been effective in contributing to GHGs emission mitigation (not its

primary objective). However, identifying GHG emissions abatement and energy efficiency

techniques is within the scope of the IED for all sectors and a number of BAT and BAT-AEPLs on

energy efficiency have been established.

• Drivers:

– GHG emissions from installations within the EU ETS are not regulated under the IED -

exemption under Article 9(1)

– Energy efficiency BAT-AEPLs set in BREFs and BATC are not interpreted as mandatory

– Though indirectly covered (through energy efficiency), GHG emissions and mitigation are

typically omitted from BREF reviews (among Techniques, Emerging Techniques or in BAT-AEL

setting)

• There has so far been little investigation into the potential of the IED to support industry

decarbonisation and this merits further reflection (IED evaluation). Little attention has been given

to date to the synergies that may be achievable through decarbonisation techniques other

than those related to energy efficiency.

A. Overview of problem area (2/2)


HLG on energy-intensive industries:

“The IED permitting process should

be adapted to support GHG

abatement measures in energy-

intensive installations throughout

the transition.“

• In the medium/long-term, avoiding interaction between ETS and IED

will become impossible: future breakthrough technologies will

contribute to both carbon neutrality and pollutant emission reduction.

Once viable, such technologies would qualify as BAT, and IED would

foster their roll-out and promote a level playing field.


B. Main issues being investigated (1/2)


Issue Options

Expansion of scope of the IED • Include additional industrial and agro-industrial activities

generating GHG emissions in the IED scope (e.g. cattle,

mining, full coverage of landfills, including methane

recovery) (links with Problem 1a)

Promoting synergies to deliver

pollution abatement and GHG

emission reduction

• Establishing a trade-off/compensation mechanism to

promote technological and investment synergies to

deliver pollution abatement and GHG emission reduction.

For example: grant longer deadlines for the

implementation of pollution abatement BAT, if GHG

reducing technologies are also being implemented.

Integrating BAT on GHG and setting

GHG emission and/or energy

efficiency minimum requirements

IED permit conditions to include

GHG ELVs and/or energy efficiency

standards

• See next slide


B. Main issues being investigated (2/2)


Issue Options

Integrating BAT on GHG

and setting GHG

emission and/or energy

efficiency minimum

requirements

IED permit conditions to

include GHG ELVs

and/or energy efficiency

standards

• Deleting the provision that exempts (agro-) industrial plants from setting GHG

ELVs in permit conditions if they are regulated by the EU ETS (IED Article 9(1)).

• Identify GHG as mandatory key environmental issues (KEIs), so that GHG

emissions are considered when identifying BAT for decarbonisation

• Identify decarbonisation BATs and set BAT-AELs for GHG emissions, so that BAT-

based GHG ELVs are set in permit conditions

• Set directly binding GHG emission limits and/or energy efficiency standards in the

IED, with a long-term view, in line with EU climate neutrality targets adopted as

part of the Green Deal

GHG as KEIs

Decarbonisation BAT

BAT conclusions / BAT-AELs

for GHG emissions Permit GHG ELVs / energy efficiency

standards (BAT based or general)




Multiple choice questions

Open text feedback

• Added benefit of the IED for further GHG emission reductions by setting mandatory ELVs

• Exploring impacts of measures on:

• GHG emissions and energy efficiency (added value of identifying BAT and BAT-AELs /

setting ELVs)

• investment requirements - how future investments related to decarbonisation will impact

the necessary investments required to fulfil BAT (environmental pollution)

• Competitiveness, trade, consumer prices

• administrative activity and costs

• Seeking additional evidence on the significance of the impacts and/or the status quo


Questions


Break


• A.(i) The IED has not been very effective in addressing resource efficiency and circular economy

aspects

– Quantitative resource efficiency BATs that are expressed as BAT-AEPLs, not binding in some

Member States

– IED does not require monitoring of plant-level measures for improvement of resource efficiency

in the value chain

– BREFs currently do not consider sufficient information that allows for mutual/ reciprocal benefits

from cross sector effects, outputs and inputs (Industrial Symbiosis)


Area #3: Natural resources are being depleted (circular economy)




Issue Options

B.i. Making resource efficiency

BAT-AEPLs binding

• Revisions to make resource efficiency BAT-AEPLs binding

in the same way as BAT-AELs

• Considering mandatory and binding energy efficiency

BATs and BAT-AEPLs in BAT Conclusions, regardless of

whether a plant is covered by EU-ETS

B.ii. Introducing reporting

obligations for resource efficiency

and circular economy

• Establishing an operator ‘Resource Efficiency and Circular

Economy Plan’ through BAT 1 on EMS of BAT

Conclusions; aimed at organising and strengthening

provision to promote/ require the continuous improvement

of resource efficiency at the plant level

B.iii. Promotion of industrial

symbiosis

• Revisions to: (i) promote industrial symbiosis through

national plans; (ii) to support EU guidance on good

practices and information included in BREFs


• Characterising how resource efficiency BATs

are considered in permit conditions;

• Exploring impacts of measures on the use of

resources; opex, capex and admin costs;

competitiveness, employment, consumer

prices

• Primarily to learn about measures promoting

industrial symbiosis






• A.i. Slow uptake of innovation in BREFs & BAT conclusions

– BREF reviews (life cycles) are slow

– BAT-AEL are ‘backward looking’ and set every 10 or 12 years

– BREF reviews focus on existing BATs being used

– There are no/few technology suppliers/developers in the BREF TWGs

• A.ii. IED not promoting innovation sufficiently (Emerging Techniques)

– No evidence of effective action taken by Member States under Art. 27 IED to promote

development and application of emerging techniques; no Commission guidance published

– Art 15(5) derogation used in very limited occasions


Area #4: State of the art techniques cannot respond satisfactorily to

problem areas #1 to #3 (deployment of breakthrough technologies)



Area #4: State of the art techniques cannot respond in a satisfactory

manner to problem areas #1 to #3 (deployment of breakthrough

technologies)

Issue Options

B.i. IED not promoting Emerging

Techniques

• Current impact of BREFs on innovation

• Revision of IED (Art 15(5)) to facilitate development and testing of

emerging techniques

B.ii. BREF cycles are slow and time-

consuming

• How often permits are/should be reviewed for BAT

• How often BATs are/should be published/revised

B.iii. Considering the feasibility and

opportunity of shorter BREF cycles

or long-term BAT-AELs

• Shorter BREF cycle, e.g. to allow for more rapid deployment of

innovative decarbonisation technologies

• Establish stricter long-term BAT-AELs e.g. 10-year timeframe for

more ambitious environmental performance levels towards

performance at lower BAT-AELs

B.iv. Revisions to avoid “locking-in”

existing good rather than best practice

(best performers)

• Upscale and formalise the Industrial Emissions Innovation

Observatory as a platform monitoring the technology readiness levels

of innovative and breakthrough technologies. Reaching an advanced

TRL would lead to triggering of BREF reviews

• More systematic coverage of emerging techniques in BREFs

• Dynamic BATs and BAT-AE(P)Ls to reflect ‘Best Not yet Available

Techniques’ (BNAT)

B


• Exploring the level and type of impact of

potential measures (such as long-term stricter

BAT-AE(P)Ls, formalising the Innovation

Observatory, etc.)

• Seeking additional evidence on the

significance of the impacts and/or the status

quo




Area #4: State of the art techniques cannot respond in a satisfactory

manner to problem areas #1 to #3 (deployment of breakthrough

technologies)


Questions


• Aspects within the IED could be enhanced to improve public access to information and

public participation.

– (A.i) Heterogenous approaches between and within Member States when providing public

access to information, various formats making identifying relevant information potentially

challenging.

– (A.ii) Currently, there is insufficient information made publicly available to monitor the impact of

Art. 15(4) derogations.

– (A.iii) Insufficient public access to information on emissions monitoring, with respect to Article

24(3) of the IED, enhancing the links between the IED and the E-PRTR could enhance public

access to information of emissions.

– (A.iv) Art. 24 provisions do not cover all permitting procedures (e.g. there is no requirement to

invite the public to participate in cases where a permit is updated to reflect BAT conclusions).


Area #5: Private individuals have limited opportunities to get

informed on and take action regarding impacts caused by large

industrial and agro-industrial plants (empower citizens, etc.)






Issue Options

B.i. Revisions to harmonise

approaches between and within

Member State

• Amend IED Article 24 to state that ‘the competent authority shall

make available [permits] to the public by publishing open-access

on the internet’.

• Require a publicly available uniform permit summary and a clear

overview of permitting process, via new provisions to the IED.

B.ii. Revisions to enhance links

between IED/E-PRTR to enhance

public access to information

• Link the IED Article 24(3) requirement to provide public access to

information on emissions monitoring with reporting to the E-

PRTR.

• Formalise the legal basis of EU Registry.

B.iii. Revisions to make the results of

emission monitoring available for

specific derogations granted under

IED Article 15(4)

• Ensure that information to monitor the impact of Art. 15(4)

derogations is made publicly available, amending the legal scope

of the IED.

B.iv. Revisions to widen the scope of

public participation under the IED to

all permitting procedures

• Revisions to widen the scope of public participation under the

IED to all permitting procedures, including permit updates,

particularly when expected to have a significant environmental

impact.



• Seeking additional information on the reasons

why more information is not made available

now and associated potential costs, and any

other factors that may affect public

participation


• Characterising the availability and access to

information in the status quo

• Exploring impacts of measures, especially on

admin costs






• A.i. Excessive administrative Burden

The evaluation made it clear that in general no excessive burden was identified. Provisions may need

clarification or simplification to reduce unnecessary burden (incl. but not only due to internal

overlapping provisions in the IED)

• A.ii. Incoherence between Industrial Emissions policy and related environmental policies

There may be overlapping provisions between the IED and other pieces of European environmental

legislation (e.g. the EU-ETS)


Area #6: Excessive burden may affect efficiency of policy (ensure

proportionality of EU law)





Issue Options

B.i. Conflicting operating regimes

internally within the IED leads to

excessive burden

• Rationalise IED minimum requirements for LCPs (Annex V + LCP

BATC), including averaging periods

• Rationalise IED minimum requirements for WI plants (Annex VI + WI

BATC)

• Clarify terminology for WI plants on effective operating time and

normal operating conditions

B.ii. Interaction of IED and EU-ETS • There is currently a lack of alignment in how combustion plants are

defined under the IED (>50 MW, below this regulated by the MCPD)

and the EU-ETS (>20MW).

• In light of policy options under Problem 2 to remove Article 9 of the

IED, future developments of lack of alignment will be investigated

B.iii. Interaction of IED and legislation

relating to accidents and

environmental damage

• There may be overlapping burden between Article 7 of the IED

relating to accidents and provisions of the Seveso Directive (Article

8 on accident prevention and Article 12 on emergency plans), and

the Environmental Liability Directive (Article 6 and Article 7)


– Exploring overlaps between IED and different

regulations and the resulting burden

– Considering impacts of measures, especially on

admin. costs

– Seeking additional information on the current

administrative costs and most burdensome aspects

associated with the permitting framework







Questions







• Q&A



Describe problems

• Define and clarify the problems to be addressed

Option long list

• Desk-based review

• Structure policy options according to the drivers/objectives that they target

Develop options

• Develop shortlist of policy options and describe in more detail

• Screening criteria (legal feasibility, technical feasibility, effectiveness and efficiency, proportionality, EU added value, coherence)

Assess impacts

• Screen impacts (relevance, significance, likelihood, importance for horizontal EC objectives)

• Quantify economic, environmental, social impacts – bespoke calculations, standard cost model

• Assess other impacts qualitatively (likelihood, stakeholders impacted, scale etc.)

Compare options

• The balance of economic, environmental and social impacts

• The effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and proportionality of options

• Trade-offs and synergies (e.g. among various stakeholder groups)

Process for each problem area


Modelling work

1.Economic/

Environmental

modelling

2.Case studies

1.a. 2050 baseline • Baseline modelling, including overall macroeconomic

scenarios, will be produced using the GEM-E3 macro-

economic model. This will be based on work carried out with

DG CLIMA- DG ENER

• Economy-wide modelling complemented by more detailed

bespoke (off-model) calculations that reflect sufficient

granularity of the IED activities to assess impacts

• A Standard Cost Model approach will be developed to cover

net impacts on admin. burden

• Bottom-up data collection and quantification of e.g. additional

activities proposed to be brought inside the scope of the IED

and their impacts

• Bring together a set of inputs to use as package for main

CLIMA/ENER overall climate scenario modelling by using

case studies and/or an IED overview from on-going study

2.a. Highly energy intensive

industry e.g. steel

1.b. Bespoke modelling of

key indicators/ impacts

1.c. Policy scenario for

CLIMA/ENER modelling

• Identification and characterisation of 2-3 IED/BREF sectors

as case studies drawing on the targeted stakeholder

consultation (survey and interviews)2.b. Low energy intensive

sector e.g. food processing

2.c. Intermediate sector if

possible


• Provide opportunity to relevant

stakeholders to contribute to the

impact assessment

• Build on and update information

collected as part of the

stakeholder engagement

activities undertaken for the

evaluation of the IED

• Validate the problems defined.

• Gather stakeholder opinion on

the proposed policy options, in

particular any data and/or

qualitative input concerning the

expected impacts of the policy

options considered, where

relevant taking into account

simplification or administrative

burden issues

Project tasks

Stakeholder consultation objectives

Stakeholder groups

Public authorities

Industry

NGOs

Citizens

Workers associations

EC/ other EU services

/ expert groups

Third countries

with links to IED

Academia/ research


Project tasks

The main stakeholder consultation activities

1) open public consultation

2) targeted stakeholder consultation

3) stakeholder workshops

Dec 2020

Open public

consultation

Workshop 1

Jan 2021 Targeted

stakeholder

surveyFeb 2021

Stakeholder

phone

interviewsMar 2021

Apr 2021 Focus groups

May 2021 Workshop 2

Target: Public Target: specialist views


• Joint OPC: IED and E-PRTR impact assessments

• Gather views (and data) on:

– The problem definition (scale of the problem and scope of those affected)

– EU added value

– Objectives and level of policy ambition

– Available policy options (and suggestions for alternatives to those suggested)

– Initial screening of impacts related to the policy options considered

• Target audience: 1st part: general public 2nd part: any with more expertise

– (specialist views please use the targeted consultation)

• Platform: online on the Commission’s “Have your say” website

• Languages: English, French and German

• Dates: expected launch late December 2020

– Will be open until 22 March 2021

– (12 weeks excluding Christmas/ New Year)

Project tasks

Open public consultation (OPC)

Illustration


• Survey dedicated to IED impact assessment

• Target audience: EU level actors, national and sub-national authorities, industry trade

associations, business and economic actors, technical experts, academia and

researchers, and civil society organisations.

• Platform: online – link will be circulated – you are welcome to forward it

• Language: English

• Dates: Expected launch: early January

– Will be open until 22 March 2021

Project tasks

Targeted stakeholder survey (TSS)

Illustration


• Stakeholder interviews by phone:

– By invitation

– Follow-up to some responses to targeted survey to:

• (1) seek more specific feedback on options

• (2) fill specific data gaps identified for the impact assessment

– Will run over a three-month period (partially in parallel with the TSS)

• Stakeholder focus groups:

– By invitation

– Follow up to the targeted survey to gather more information as needed

– Held online, each involving 10-12 stakeholders representing national authorities,

industry and non-governmental organisations.

• Stakeholder workshops:

– 1: [today] to raise awareness and announce consultations

– 2: [early summer] to present preliminary findings and gain feedback

Project tasks

Further targeted stakeholder engagement through interviews, focus

groups and workshops


Questions

James Tweed

[email protected]

Tim Scarbrough

[email protected]




IED revision

AOB/ Wrap-up & Next Steps/ Close of

the Workshop

Aneta Willems, HoU DG ENV C4

First workshop

Documents

REVISION OF THE INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS DIRECTIVE AND E … · 2020. 12. 18. · Opportunities to contribute Your views on IED issues and solutions/ Our Outline Timetable: • Open Public