The Sevilla process for supporting the implementation of the IPPC Directive

1. The Sevilla process for supporting the implementation of the IPPC Directive Michael Parth Tallinn – Estonia 27 – 28 March 2008

2. European Council Directive 96/61/ECconcerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) • a framework directive aiming at a high level of protection for the environment as a whole - all environmental media • operating permits for industry with conditions based on “best available techniques” (BAT) • provides for an exchange of information on BAT - Article 16(2)

3. The Sevilla Process The Sevilla Process is an instrument used for the information exchange process between the stakeholders: • Member States • Industry • NGOs

4. The Sevilla Process • Networks of experts representing stakeholder groups - industry, authorities, environmental NGOs • 31 countries involved • Aiming for consensus on what are the “BAT” for an industrial sector in a general (EU) sense • Common framework of “best available techniques” as defined in the IPPC Directive • Results presented in the series of BAT reference documents (BREFs)

5. Information exchange in the Sevilla Process • Initial brainstorming scoping, etc. • Background material submitted • TWG meetings • Contributions from TWG members • EIPPCB research, validation, drafting • Draft(s) for consultation by TWG • Final draft to DG ENV, IEF

6. The Sevilla Process • A major step in stakeholder involvement setting out expectations for future environmental performance • Huge resources already allocated • EU seemingly unique in setting up mechanism to identify BAT with stakeholders and to disseminate results – compared to US.EPA and “MACT” principles which have no delivery mechanism • Global interest in results (BREFs)

7. The Sevilla Process • A positive stimulus not a negative barrier • Results of BAT work feed into future research projects hoping that research feeds back into BAT work • Emphasis could be more positive, so that the Sevilla Process is not a disincentive to innovation but actually provides a weak stimulus

8. The Sevilla Process Scope for improvement? • Better match of expectations to available resources of the community • All stakeholders have limited resources • Data expected to remain suppressed or unavailable especially on economics due to confidentiality.

9. The Sevilla Process The result of the work of an IPPC Technical Working Group, carried out under the rules of the Sevilla Process is a Best Available Techniques Reference Document (BREF)

10. What a BREF is • the result of an information exchange organised under Article 16(2) of the IPPC Directive • technically based and accurate information for the guidance of those who set ELVs and write permits based on BAT • a driver towards better environmental performance (sustainable development) • available to the world via internet

11. What a BREF is not • does not interpret the Directive • does not define or alter legal obligations • does not suggest ELVs • cannot be exhaustive or take full account of detailed local considerations

12. IPPC Implementation • Member States observed to be phasing in permits of certain sectors in advance of the 2007 deadline • Phasing in may follow timetable of BREF development (for existing installations), hence target for all BREFs by end 2005 • National law transposing the Directive may go further than the Directive in terms of scope of application to industry

13. IPPC Implementation • Member States are expected to have their own environmental priorities and policies • First step in IPPC implementation is transposition to national law • Next step is for operators to make their applications for a permit – operators expected to use BREFs as references for application • Finally, authority determines appropriate permit conditions

14. Recital 18 – local considerations Whereas it is for the Member States to determine how the technical characteristics of the installation concerned; its geographical location and the local environmental conditions can, where appropriate, be taken into consideration.

15. Economic balances within IPPC “economically and technically viable in the relevant sector” [Art 2(11)] • implies affordable by (European) sector • not necessarily economically viable at every installation or in every region • no benchmark foreseen for affordability across sectors

16. From BREF to permit conditions Specific issues for an installation may include: • Process integrated with other processes (or not as the case may be) = opportunities for energy or waste management on whole site. N.B. - obligation on operator (and opportunity) to make proposals as part of application for permit • Prioritisation considering current performance close or not so close to general BAT performance (distance to target) • Specific environmental policy priorities • Legal framework for monitoring and enforcement

17. Obligations of the operator • Refer to national law transposing IPPC Directive • Application to the competent authority for permits must contain : • a description of the installation • materials and energy used and generated • sources and nature of foreseeable emissions • proposed technology and techniques for preventing or reducing emissions • and …….

18. Obligations of the operator • measures planned to prevent or recover wastes generated • description of the main alternatives (if any) studied by the applicant • measures planned to monitor emissions • amongst other things…. • a non-technical summary

19. Obligations of the operator • Operation so that waste is: • avoided • recovered • disposed of while avoiding or reducing impact on the environment • On cessation of activities: • measures to avoid pollution risk • site is returned to satisfactory state

20. Thank you for your attention!