Inspectors in the six seaports in Belgium, Germany, United Kingdom, Poland, Latvia, and the Netherlands participating in the IMPEL-TFS Seaport project carried out nearly 50 inspections in the past year and discovered more than 100 illegal shipments of hazardous waste.

In a period between September 2003 and March 2004, inspectors checked 1,230 shipments, of which 508 contained waste. Inspectors determined that 103 of those waste shipments were illegal. For example, thousands of tons of domestic waste were shipped illegally from Ireland to India, hundreds of refrigerators containing CFC's from Germany and France to Africa, electronic waste from England to Pakistan and cable waste from the Netherlands to China. In most of these cases, the required CCIC certificates or other needed documents were not present with the waste shipments.

The final report of the Seaport project was published in June 2004 and was presented during the IMPEL-TFS Meeting in Malta. In September 2004 it was presented to the Director-General of the DG Environment of the European Commission and representatives of all EU member states.

The main aim of the seaport project was to stimulate the joined enforcement of European waste shipment regulation 259/93 and to level enforcement pressures within the member states. The project is carried out under the umbrella of the European network IMPEL, specifically the IMPEL cluster TFS (Transfrontier shipments). See europa.eu.int/comm/environment/impel/ for more information.

For the operational phase of the seaport project, the six participating authorities made agreements regarding the inspection methods, number of inspections, priorities of waste streams and destinations and the exchange of information, inspectors, signals and experiences.

The outcomes of the project emphasized that cooperation in enforcement of European waste shipment regulation is needed to protect the environment. Illegal waste shipments and infractions have been detected in almost every inspection. The final report of the project also gives an overview of involved enforcement structures. The differences between these structures, such as differences in available enforcement capacity, priority for transfrontier waste shipments, legal powers and means, create possibilities for companies to choose the line of the least resistance for waste streams to be disposed of or exported. Furthermore, a manual and standard forms for inspections were developed, and experiences and information were exchanged. Cooperation with other authorities, mainly with customs, has been set up or further intensified.

To extend and improve international and national cooperation, a European enforcement strategy for waste shipment regulation is recommended. Due to the surplus value of this European enforcement project, a second IMPEL-TFS Seaport project will start in September 2004. Agreements for this second project will be made during a start meeting in Latvia from 13-15 September. To date, 12 member states are participating: Ireland, United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Poland, Latvia, Portugal, Malta, and Spain. France will announce its decision on whether to participate in early 2005. The second Seaport project will conclude in June 2006.

Transition to Integrated Permitting in Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central Asia
By Krzysztof Michalak, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Email: Krzysztof.MICHALAK@oecd.org

Several countries in the region of Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central Asia (EECCA) have expressed their desire to progressively move toward an integrated environmental permitting system for large industrial installations, using as a benchmark the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive of the European Union.

The development of Integrated Environmental Permitting Guidelines for government agencies and industry is a major part of the REPIN Secretariat's 2003-2006 work programme adopted at the 5th annual meeting in October 2003 in Kiev, Ukraine.

As part of this programme, an expert meeting on the Development of Integrated Environmental Permitting Guidelines for EECCA region was held on 24-25 May 2004 at the OECD Headquarters in Paris.

The meeting brought together EECCA and OECD environmental policy-makers and experts to discuss the draft Guidelines and issues related to reforming environmental permitting systems in EECCA countries. The expert meeting reviewed progress in the preparation of the Permitting Guidelines since the REPIN meeting of October 2003 and discussed the new draft of the Guidelines, particularly the recently developed model application and permit forms with instructions. The participants also discussed principal steps as part of a strategy for gradual transition toward integrated environmental permitting for large industry and the role of the forthcoming Permitting Guidelines and other related activities of the EAP Task Force Secretariat in this process.

The participants broadly supported the development of the Permitting Guidelines, which seek to assist EECCA officials and experts to carry out environmental permitting reforms. The Guidelines incorporate a model administrative procedure for issuing an integrated permit and a model permit application form and a model permit form with user-friendly instructions. The report also provides guidance on the combination of the Environmental Quality-Based and Technique-Based approaches in Integrated Permitting for Large Industrial Installations and on the setting of emission limit values in permits. The guidelines also present a strategy for the gradual transition to integrated permitting for Large Industry as well as Small and Medium Size Enterprises.

The development of these products is based on approaches applied in the European Union and draws from experience of the accession countries of Central Europe, but the recommended approaches will be adapted to EECCA conditions. The preparation of the Permitting Guidelines is supported by projects in individual EECCA countries, including Belarus and Ukraine. For more information on the Guidelines, contact Eugene Mazur, OECD, e-mail: eugene.mazur@oecd.org.

OECD, REPIN Launch Study On Meeting Costs of Regulatory Compliance
By Angela Bularga, OECD. Email: angela.bularga@oecd.org

Financing of environmental compliance assurance activities is one of the key challenges faced by Environmental Enforcement Agencies around the world. Even though enforcement, as part of the application of the rule of law, is receiving increasing attention, the resources available for compliance assurance and compliance promotion efforts are inadequate to achieve established objectives, even in the most developed OECD countries.

The situation is much more difficult in transition and developing economies where governments face serious budgetary constraints and the inspectorates have to scale down their operations due to lack of funds. At the same time, in countries where economies start to recover from economic depression or crisis, there are strong pressures to reduce inspection activities as part of deregulation and lifting barriers to investment. In many countries, inspectors' operations have been reduced to a minimum and in some cases compliance monitoring systems have collapsed. Since a certain minimum level of compliance assurance has to be maintained, enforcement officials recognized an urgent need to work out effective mechanisms for increasing funding for enforcement actions ensuring, at the same time, that inspectors operations are performed efficiently and effectively.

To address these concerns the OECD, in the context of the work of the Regulatory Environmental Programme Implementation Network (REPIN) in Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central Asia, launched a study which reviews international practice in assessing and meeting costs of regulatory compliance assurance It discusses the challenges in funding compliance assurance faced by environmental enforcement authorities in OECD countries and in the transition economies, as well as presents the results of an analysis of the principles for funding enforcement efforts.

The study describes the sources of funding and the ways in which funds are allocated and managed. It also presents approaches to address gaps in funding environmental compliance assurance activities by effectively using existing means and introducing innovative sources of funding. One of the main issues discussed in the report is whether the application of Polluter Pays and User Pays principles implies that industry and beneficiaries should pay inspectors for the costs of their activities. Some countries accept Polluter Pays principle and inspectorates require fees to be paid by industry for their operations. However, the question arises over requiring administrative costs to reflect actual or potential pollution (or other impacts on the environment which can be difficult to establish). Some countries argue that issuing permits and inspections are part of the general costs of administration so they have to be funded from the general budgets to which companies contribute by paying taxes. It can even be argued that the "users" in this regard are the public and, therefore, general taxation (derived from the public) is the most appropriate means to fund regulatory authorities. The widespread requirement in many countries for self-monitoring by industry (of emissions and even of the ambient environment) is also often justified by reference to the Polluter Pays principle, although again the costs of such monitoring are not necessarily a reflection on the levels of pollution caused.

The report discusses other principles which can be applied to the funding of inspectors' work. They include the precautionary principle, the principle of preventative action - used to differing extents in the development in environmental legislation, and other related approaches such as the full cost accounting and performance-oriented budgeting approaches/principles. The latter is only possible through proper assessments of the delivery of objectives, targeting budget provision to priority areas based on efficiency assessments of those work areas.

Prevention of conflicts of interest is another concept discussed in the report. While some countries charge installations for the cost of inspection activities, others do not, on the grounds that this may lead to a conflict of interest. It is clear that some inspectors may feel uncomfortable with the idea of being paid by the company that they are inspecting. They could feel obliged to provide results that are acceptable to the company and reliance on income from the company could result in a reticence to take severe enforcement action (e.g. seeking closure) which would then result in loss of income for the inspectorate. Some countries get around this by not levying inspection charges directly, but having this as part of permit fees, and some make the distinction between inspection costs per se, and the specific associated costs of testing, monitoring, and laboratory services which they do charge for even if no direct charge is in place for the inspection.

The report, however, does not attempt to cover all issues for all countries; rather it focuses on examples and insights that were readily obtainable. Overall, the report offers case examples and insights that may be of interest and relevance to the inspectorates/enforcement agencies in many countries. It looks at the existing funding patterns of environmental inspectorates in light of their responsibilities, to what they allocate funds, and looks at how funding gaps are assessed and addressed. On the latter point the report looks at approaches for raising the efficiency of compliance assurance programmes, reducing demand (e.g. through redistribution of burdens, out-sourcing), increasing synergies with other authorities and programmes, and developing revenue sources. For more information about the findings of the report, contact Angela Bularga, OECD, e-mail: angela.bularga@oecd.org.

Basel Convention Compliance Mechanism
By Constanza Martinez, Environmental Law Consultant, UNEP. Email: Constanza.MARTINEZ@unep.ch

Nearly two years after adopting the Compliance Mechanism for Promoting Implementation and Compliance with the Basel Convention, the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Basel Convention in October 2004 will provide attendees an opportunity to assess the new mechanism.

After more than three years of negotiations, the Conference of the Parties of the Basel Convention (COP) adopted the Compliance Mechanism for Promoting Implementation and Compliance with the Basel Convention at its sixth meeting held in Geneva in December 2002.

After much debate, the Parties agreed that the mechanism would aim to assist them to "comply with their obligations under the Convention and to facilitate, promote, monitor and aim to secure the implementation of and compliance with the obligations under the Convention." The mechanism is "non-confrontational, transparent, cost-effective and preventive in nature, simple, flexible, non-binding."

A Compliance Committee comprised of 15 members nominated and elected at the COP will administer the mechanism. The Committee will reflect an equitable geographic distribution, with five members (one from each region) elected for one term, and ten members (two from each region) elected for two terms. The mechanism seeks to ensure compliance through several means. Parties unable to comply with the terms of the Convention may request assistance from the committee. The Secretariat, or parties who are affected by the noncompliance of a third party, may also refer to the Committee for assistance.

Before referring to the Committee, the Secretariat or a Party preparing a submission about a third Party must consult with that Party.

Through the mechanism's Facilitating Procedure, the committee can provide the Party facing compliance difficulties with different types of assistance, such as nonbinding recommendations and information on strengthening regulatory regimes, financial and technical assistance, compliance action plans, or help with reporting arrangements. The committee can, under Paragraph 12, also make recommendations to the COP.

After arduous negotiations on submission of information to the Committee by entities other than the Parties and the Secretariat, it was agreed that "a Party may also consider and use relevant and appropriate information provided by civil society on compliance difficulties." (Paragraph 17)

The Basel Convention Compliance Mechanism was adopted following a compromise between those countries aiming for a strong system with some monitoring and enforcement power and those interested in a mechanism that would respond to specific needs of Parties, particularly of developing countries, to increase capacity for implementing the obligations under the Basel Convention.

The nature and scope of the submissions to the Committee will shape the mechanism, particularly those submitted at an early stage, as they will set the precedent on which approach to take with future cases of non-compliance.

At the occasion of the seventh meeting of the COP, Parties to the Convention will to appoint the members of the Committee that serve for only one term. In addition, the Committee will submit a report on its activities to the COP.

Parties may come to the meeting prepared to discuss specific cases or, more likely, to endorse proposals for a wide mandate to carry out activities that would increase the capacity of developing countries to implement the convention and to fulfill the reporting requirement.

The text of the Mechanism for Promoting Implementation and Compliance with the Basel Convention and other related documents can be found in the following Web site: www.basel.int.

Dutch Environment Agency Develops New Approach To Manage Abandoned Industrial Sites

The Environmental Inspectorate of the Netherlands has developed a structured approach to managing the environmental risks caused by abandoned industrial sites that has worked well in the Netherlands and can be applied by local or regional authorities in other countries.

The Environmental Inspectorate identified 69 potentially hazardous sites in the Netherlands in 2003, and visited and assessed 47 of them. Of these 47, there were 7 sites classified as high risk and 7 as medium risk. By the fall of 2004, remedial measures have been taken at 5 of these sites.

The risk to the environment stems largely from hazardous materials that remain on industrial sites after they have been abandoned that can leak from the aging and deteriorating storage containers. Abandoned sites are also targeted for illegal dumping of hazardous waste by third parties. Aging infrastructure can also pose risks as buildings begin to decay and possibly collapse or catch fire. This is particularly dangerous when the site is not adequately fenced off, as these areas can attract children.

The Environmental Inspectorate's approach consists of three steps: (1) to identify all potentially hazardous sites; (2) conduct site visits and risk assessments; and (3) perform remedial measures at sites classified as high risk.

For the first step, the Environmental Inspectorate used local permit records, agency data on historic buildings, industrial consultants, local media, and direct surveys of selected industrial areas. In the northern areas of the Netherlands, the Environmental Inspectorate was able to find several factories that produced potato starch, strawboard, and dairy products that had been inactive since the 1960s.

Sites are classified as high risk when there is widespread contamination in and around buildings or when the structural integrity is severely affected, and when public safety or health is directly at risk. All sites classified as high or medium risk require appropriate follow up.

In performing remedial measures, specialists make detailed assessments of the contamination, danger of structural collapse, and fire safety. If appropriate, samples are taken for more detailed analysis.

Where possible, the last owner/operator of the abandoned site will be forced to pay for any clean up. In cases where the last owner/operator is bankrupt or does not have the resources to pay for a clean up, the local authorities must pay for the clean up themselves, though in some cases they can apply for redevelopment or conservation funding.

For more information, please contact Kees Huizinga kees.huizinga@minvrom.nl or Henk Ruessink henk.ruessink@minvrom.nl.