1 / 27

Recent Developments Regarding the PRTR Protocol, EPER, E-PRTR and Experience of EU Member States

Recent Developments Regarding the PRTR Protocol, EPER, E-PRTR and Experience of EU Member States. Magda T ó th Nagy Public Participation Program Belgrade, August 31, 2006. Contents. The Legal Base in Aarhus Convention PRTR Protocol From EPER to E-PRTR

paley
Télécharger la présentation

Recent Developments Regarding the PRTR Protocol, EPER, E-PRTR and Experience of EU Member States

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Recent Developments Regarding the PRTR Protocol, EPER, E-PRTR andExperience of EU Member States Magda Tóth NagyPublic Participation Program Belgrade, August 31, 2006

  2. Contents • The Legal Base in Aarhus Convention • PRTR Protocol • From EPER to E-PRTR • Examples from EU Countries (UK, Netherlands, Hungary, Czech Republic)

  3. Legal Base for PRTR Protocol in the Aarhus Convention Aarhus Convention requires each Party take steps: ...“to establish progressively ... a coherent, nationwide system of pollution inventories or registers on a structured, computerized and publicly accessible database compiled through standardized reporting.” . [Art. 5, par. 9] …“At their first meeting, review the experience in implementing provisions of art. 5, par.9 and consider what stepsare necessary to develop further the system referred to in that paragraph, taking into account international processes and developments, including the elaboration of an appropriate instrument concerning pollution release and transfer registers or inventories ….” [Art. 10, par. 2(i)]

  4. Development of PRTR Protocol • Sept 2000: UNECE Committee on Environmental Policy establishes Working Group on PRTR to develop legally binding instrument for adoption in Kiev • Feb 2001 – Jan 2003: Negotiations over draft protocol take place in PRTR WG • 21 May 2003: Kiev Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers of the Aarhus Convention adopted and signed by 36 countries and the EC at 5th ‘Environment for Europe’ Conference

  5. Main Features of the PRTR Protocol • Objective of Protocol: “… to enhance public access to information through the establishment of coherent, integrated, nationwide PRTRs …which could facilitate public participation in environmental decision-making as well as contribute to the prevention and reduction of pollution of the environment” • Public access is fundamental

  6. Main Features of the PRTR Protocol: Core Elements Obligation on each Party to establish a PRTR which is: • publicly accessible and user-friendly • presents standardized, timely data on a structured, computerised database • covers releases and transfers from certain major point sources • begins to include some diffuse sources (e.g. transport, agriculture, small- and medium-sized enterprises) • has limited confidentiality provisions • allows public participation in its development and modification

  7. Main Features of the PRTR Protocol Based on system of reporting which is: • mandatory • annual • multimedia (air, water and land)     • facility-specific (point sources) • pollutant-specific for releases • pollutant-specific or waste-specific for transfers Implies obligations for private sector

  8. Facilities Covered Annex I includes: • Thermal power stations and refineries • Mining and metallurgical industries • Chemical plants • Waste and waste-water management plants • Paper and timber industries • Intensive livestock production and aquaculture • Food and beverage production Total: 64 activities

  9. Pollutants Covered Annex II includes: • Greenhouse gases • Acid rain pollutants • Ozone-depleting substances • Heavy metals • Certain carcinogens, such as dioxins TOTAL: 86 pollutants National registers may include additional facilities and substances

  10. Main Features of the PRTR Protocol PRTRs should: • Be accessible through the Internet free of charge • Be searchable according to the separate parameters (facility, pollutant, location, medium etc) • Provide links to other PRTRs and to other relevant registers Protocol is minimum instrument - ‘a floor but not a ceiling’

  11. Ongoing Actvities • Working Group on PRTRs established in Kiev to prepare for entry into force • Setting up the ‘institutional architecture’: rules of procedure, compliance mechanism, financial arrangements and technical assistance mechanism, international cooperation and reporting • Preparation of technical guidance on implementation

  12. Next Steps for PRTR Protocol • Parties required to work towards convergence between PRTR systems • Co-ordination with other international processes (e.g. IOMC/IFCS, OECD, UNEP, UNITAR, EU, NACEC etc) • Open to non-Parties to Convention and non-ECE States • Possible “Next-step” issues: • Storage • On-site transfers • Cooperation with other MEA reporting instruments (e.g. Stockholm POPs Convention, ICCM) • Convergence of PRTR systems in region and globally

  13. EU Processes towards PRTR Protocol: European Pollutant Emission Register Main objectives of EPER: • enhance public access to and awareness of releases of 50 key pollutants from medium and large sized facilities in EU • provide a new data source for large point sources for development and improvement of indicators and assessments • 15 states +2 delivered their data of reporting year 2001 in June 2003 • 56 industrial activities, 20,000 facilities • Emissions to air and water, transfer off-site of pollutants in water

  14. EPER WEBSITE: www.eper.cec.eu.intPublished on Internet in Feb. 2004 by the EC and EEA

  15. EU Processes towards the PRTR Protocol: EPER Reporting years / to Commission: 2001 EPER June 2003 (15 + NO+HU) 2004 EPER June 2006 (25 states) 2007 E-PRTR 2008 E-PRTR • In 2003: 9376 facilities reported

  16. From EPER to E-PRTR EPER E-PRTR • 50 pollutants 86 pollutants • 56 activities 64 activities + releases to land + off-site transfers (waste) + diffuse sources ??? • reporting every annual reporting three years + public participation • European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) Regulation developed and adopted (166/2006, January 2006) • EC ratified PRTR Protocol February 2006

  17. Examples from EU Countries: UK • England and Wales National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) serves four separate “acts” • Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPC) • Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) • Radioactive Substances Act 1993 • Sewage treatment works in England subject to a Ministerial Direction under the Water Industries Act • Covers 170 chemical substances and 65 radioactive substances • Information available online, may also be accessed through In Your BackyardWeb mapping site, along with environmental monitoring data • Scotland’s Pollutant Release Inventory covers 173substances released to air and water • Information about individual pollutants, sites that returned data and background information is accessible online by post code, pollutant and company name

  18. Examples from EU countries: The Netherlands • Pollutant Emission Register (PER): 32 years history • until April 1, 2004 run by Inspectorate of VROM; • policy aspects: substances, methodology, financial aspects, priority setting; • for GHG: separate process (WEB); • since April 1: NL Environmental Assessment Agency is responsible for annual set of emmisson data • Responsibilities of VROM: provides financial means on an annual basis, decides upon priorities, new / improved methodologies; reporting obligations (EU, UNFCCC, UNECE); • Different institutions participate in coordinating Working Group and Task Forces • Includes about 170 substances in the PER (most of them because of international reporting obligations)

  19. Examples from EU countries: The Netherlands • Data collection from August, processing until February, reporting in “Environmental Balance” in May, processing until June, validation, registered in EEA database in August, available to public in September in “Milieucompendium” and “Datawarehouse” • Annual Environmental Report (by individual companies): • Activity Data and Emission data; • Companies responsible for correct data; • Data validation by Regional/ local Authority • Electronic format: since 2004 • Operation: • 50 people involved (~20 at EAA) • Annual budget: ~ €2,5 Mio at EAA, activities of other institues are financed “in kind”

  20. Examples from EU countries: The Netherlands • Standard reporting format to industry • Reporting: • About 250 facilities: individual reporting based on Environmental Reporting Decree • About 500 facilities: individual reporting based on voluntary agreements with industrial branches • About 40.000 facilities: emissions calculated by combining statistical information, emission factors, etc. • Estimate is calculated for all industrial sector and for non-point sources

  21. Examples from EU Countries: Hungary • Gradual approach • EPER established based on IPPC regulation,193/2001(X.19.) • 1000 IPPC facilities in Hungary • 86 facilities in first EPER reporting in 2003 (18 combustion installations, 4-4 pulp and paper industry, basic organic chemicals industry and pharmaceutical industry,..) • Database prepared, partial data availability: waste will be included in 2006 (on 2004) • 2nd EPER reporting underway

  22. Examples from EU Countries: Hungary - Steps 2003-2005 • Methodology and minimum requirements created for EPER • 1st EPER reporting in 2003 • Evaluation of experiences (data quality, new databases, software to support reporting) 2006-2007 • 2nd EPER reporting (2006) • Amendments to legal base to implement Protocol and E-PRTR • Further databases and their integration (expansion of EPER with waste transfer and discharges to land and underground waters database) • Inclusion of data on hazardous materials and activities • Examining requirements of PRTR Protocol 2008-2009 • Establishing integrated E-PRTR • 1st E-PRTR Report • Ratification of PRTR Protocol

  23. Examples from EU Countries: Hungaryhttp://eper-prtr.kvvm.hu

  24. Examples from EU Countries: Hungary

  25. Examples from EU Countries: Czech Republic • Czech Integrated Pollution Register (IPR) established in 2005 based on the law No. 76/2002 on setting up IPR, including reporting requirements and the responsibility of reporter (EPER and PRTR) • The regulation No. 368 /20003 includes details about the list of facilities, thresholds, methodology of defining the pollutants, reporting forms, NOSE-P code, etc. • On-line database including data on 72 pollutants • Hosted by the CENIA Agency

  26. Examples from EU Countries: Czech Republic • From 2009, 88 pollutants will be included • Some of the thresholds have been defined higher than required by EPER or PRTR Protocol • Reporting both electronically and in written paper form • Deadline for submitting reports about previous year: February 15 • Customer service • Brochures, publications for promotion, guide for capacity building and training • Website: www.irz.cz www.ceu.cz www.bezk.ecn.cz/irz

  27. Further Information Magda Tóth Nagy Public Participation Program REC tmagdi@rec.org www.rec.org www.rec.cz www.unece.org/env/pp/prtr aarhusclearinghouse.unece.org www.eper.cec.eu.int

More Related