Theme #3: Developing an Effective Compliance Monitoring Capability (e.g. Inspection Capability); 

Reporter: Marlies ten Hove

1 Goals

An exploration of different organizational approaches and strategies for monitoring compliance, focusing on inspection capabilities, including whether and how to develop an inspectorate and whether to inspect on a single or multimedia approach.

2 Presentations

Mr. W. Eichbaum, Vice President, International Environmental Quality of the World Wildlife Fund talked about alternative organizational structures for a compliance and enforcement program. Strictly speaking the speech was not part of theme #3, but because the presentation had connection with the theme it will be described here.

He discussed the problem of organizing government institutions to carry out effective enforcement and compliance programs. The ideas are meant to suggest broad answers to several organizational questions as the problem of organizing for enforcement is considered within the context of particular governance systems. Environmental management agencies need to have the responsibility to integrate the various media in their jurisdiction.

 

Ms. M.E. Bierman, Regional Inspector of South Holland spoke about the developing of an effective compliance monitoring capability in the Netherlands.

She discussed the advantages and disadvantages of multi media enforcement. There is a need for an integrated approach. Never the less the multi media approach can be difficult when you have to deal with a lot of acts and, regional and provincial rules based on those acts like in the Netherlands. The complexity of large industries touching on a multitude of environmental issues is another stumbling bloc.

She emphasized the merits of having an overall policy plan such as the National Environmental Policy Plan, so that the priorities for enforcement are clear for the industries. Further it is important that the national objectives are broken down to activities on the local level.

The building of networks forms a broader base for enforcement. In the Netherlands network building benefits from the magazine about enforcement called "Handhaving".

 

Ms. J. Aloisi de Larderel, Director Industry and Environment Program Activity Center from the UNEP presented her paper: "Integrated Licensing, Implementing and Compliance Monitoring."

She stressed the need for an integrated approach because it encourages for example at-source, cleaner production measures and it avoids bureaucracy and confusion for a company because of different officials inspecting the same plant.

Secondly a permitting scheme should be based on environmental impact and risk assessment studies. Clear priorities should be set. Lack of resources often forces authorities to set priorities based on clear criteria. For example on the base of the site of an industry (environmentally sensitive) or the chemicals that are used.

As Ms. Aloisi de Larderel argued: the focus should be on the industrial process itself and the - not so experienced- officers should be trained to monitor specific industries and "specialize" at that whole industry. The task of an inspector goes far beyond inspection. An inspector should not only monitor compliance but also inform and advise industries. Subsequently he should secure compliance and inform the public. The inspector should be independent (also from political influence)

In the end she discussed the monitoring of compliance. It is better to have lower standards which can be complied with than tough standards that can't be complied with.

 

Ms. G. Rödland, Head of Department, State Pollution Control Authority spoke about compliance monitoring in Norway. Because it is not necessary to inspect industries with the same frequency in Norway a classification is used. The classification is based on the potential emissions from the enterprise, their toxicity and also the environmental sensitivity (air and water quality) of the surroundings are taken into account. Industries with a high priority (control class 1 enterprises) are inspected with a higher frequency than the industries with a low priority (class 4).

Norway uses a system in which the polluter pays for monitoring visits and environmental audits. The inspectorate in Norway uses a price list with standard fees for this purpose.

 

Mr. C.G. Wills, Deputy Director of the National Enforcement Investigations Center presented his paper: "USA Experience and Differences between Civil and Criminal Investigations and Use of Central Elite Force to Supplement Local inspectors.".

The multi-media approach has been strongly emphasized by training. In the USA special training institutes have been set up.

A centralized investigative team has been founded which can provide the personnel and resources for quick responses and detailed case preparation activities. Such a team would be useful not only to Regional inspectors but to all levels of environmental enforcement.

 

Mr. I. Handyside, Head of East Division in Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution discussed the UK experience in establishing an inspectorate for integrated pollution control.

The inspectorate uses teams which are made up of "professionals" each with their own specialist background and experience. The team is responsible for a geographical region. Each member will have the same basic training but will continue to develop his specialism.

Training in the UK consists of classroom training in combination with training on the job. The public should be taken along and as much information as possible should be made available.

 

Mr. J. Jendroska spoke about the current state and development of compliance monitoring in Poland.

At this moment the Polish inspectorate is badly equipped, badly trained and does not have enough staff. To further improve monitoring compliance this situation should be changed significantly.

Lack of funding need not to be a problem in monitoring compliance. In Poland a company pays for inspections when it results in finding non-compliance.

 

Because one of the Panelists' presentations had been cancelled, there was an opportunity for the following people to speak for a few minutes:

 

Mr. R. Glaser gave a real example how to help a country start up an inspectorate.

 

Mr. M. Kotaska presented a summary of the paper which has been printed in the Proceedings volume I as an additional paper: "The Enforcement of the Environmental Policy in the Field of the Montreal Protocol in the CSFR".

 

Ms. M. van der Voet discussed the benefit from information campaigns to enforcement of environmental laws. The paper has been printed in the Proceedings volume I as an additional paper.

3 Open Discussion Session

Following is a summary of the major points raised during the discussion session.

3.1 Krämer, EEC

The Inspection system was started up in the eighties. But only from 1884/1985 inspectors have been used. How can you decide on that?

Rödland:

We have gone through a process from using others to do the inspections to doing the inspections ourselves. We had inspectors before too. Apart from the inspection these people did the licensing and gave permits. Later consultants did the work, and after that we had our own inspectors.

3.2 Adegoroye. Nigeria

In Norway the government charges industries for doing inspections and audits (the polluter pays). How is it possible that industrialists accept this?

Rödland:

Industry pays for the job the government does, otherwise they would pay for it by the taxes.

The big companies (class 1-3) do not complain, only the small ones do (class 4).

Because the industries pay for the inspections and audits the government is forced to give quality. The government had success with their audits.

Aloisi de Larderel:

Yearly fees, based on the number of employees is another possibility, and audits they have to pay for themselves.

Wills:

We don't charge industries for doing inspections. Sometimes through negotiated settlements or court orders the government is reimbursed for the costs of major investigations. The funds go to the General Treasury and not to the EPA.

Adegoroye:

In Nigeria the agency is set up like the US EPA. One regional EPA charged industrialists. The national EPA didn't agree because the paying can be seen as a sort of license to pollute.

3.3 Popescu, Romania:

A question concerning the characteristics of an enforcement program to act rapidly.

Eichbaum:

The reason why the need to act rapidly was mentioned was because governments tend to be not very swift. Swiftness of action is enhanced by careful planning, training and enough resources.

3.4 Popescu, Romania:

The Dutch inspectorate is so unitary and coordinated. But only 50 % of the industries work on the base of a permit. How many of these are only allowed - by law - to work on the base of a permit?

Bierman:

Some of the facilities may work on the basis of a notification. In Holland we are dealing with a historical backlog. We don't as a rule solve non-compliance by penal actions or administrative fines etc. We tend to have a more soft approach and convince industries to comply to with the laws by a system of "push and pull" up to a certain point.

3.5 Popescu, Romania:

Inspectors should have credibility. What would be a proper guide to countries with less experience to train their inspectors. In some countries inspectors are maybe even not allowed to enter enterprises. Also the inspectors are not very well trained.

Handyside:

Inspectors should have credibility in connection with:

- Industry: inspectors should be technically competent and understand the problems of industry;

- public: the public has to know that inspectors do their job fairly and firmly. Inspectors have to be sensitive to public needs and concerns.

4. Conclusions

The integrated multi media approach is the best option to use. Practical difficulties should be solved by using either/or:

Informing the public is a factor of importance. Greater involvement of citizens results in necessary monitoring by democratic means of authorities responsible for permitting and enforcement.

The public needs tools to enable it to play a "watchdog" role. We must raise public awareness by reporting systematically about the results of monitoring and enforcement activities.

Inspectors must be accountable and act with integrity.

There is a long way to go: it is impossible to "leap from the floor to the ceiling in one jump". However, much progress has been made. This is true as much for the performing standards of industry as for the development of high quality inspection capabilities. The most important thing is to get started and to learn with experience.