Improving implementation and Enforcement

17 February 2011Terry Shears - IMPEL Vice Chair

Presentation will cover

Introduction to IMPEL

How IMPEL work helps improve implementation and enforcement in Europe

Cooperation with other networks

Conclusions

Introduction to IMPEL

Set up in 1992

The only network of practitioners looking at implementation and enforcement of environmental lawAssociation established under Belgian law in 2008A major focus is work relating to the Recommendation on minimum criteria for environmental inspectionsWork is carried out through a range of projects approved in annual work programme

Organisation

All 27 Member States plus Norway, Croatia, FYROM Turkey and Iceland are members. Commission continue to participateBiannual General Assembly meetings to approve work programmeFunded by LIFE+ and membership feesIMPEL office in Brussels

The mission of IMPEL

“To contribute to protecting the environment by promoting the effective implementation and enforcement of EC environmental law”

IRI – a cornerstone of IMPEL work

IMPEL Review InitiativeFulfils a requirement in the Recommendation on Minimum Criteria for Environmental InspectionsInformal review of environmental authorityHighlights good practice and opportunities for developmentStarted in 2000 and reviewed in 2008/09New simplified scheme has increased take-up

The combined IMPEL/NEPA checklist

Assessing practicability and enforceability

New and existing legislation

Combined with work from the Network of Heads of Environment Protection Agencies (NEPA)

Feedback to policy makers

Previous assessment on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) and Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment (WEEE)

Next proposal is the Waste Shipment Regulation

Focus of collaboration

improving permitting, inspection and enforcement

transfrontier shipment of waste

better regulation

Cluster 2 - Waste Transfrontier Shipments

Waste Shipment Regulation- Exchange of inspectors

Waste Shipment Regulation cannot be implemented without international cooperation

Inspectors exchange days:Network of national contact pointssharing of examples of practical cases share enforcement intelligence Inform participants about new developments

Joint enforcement actions

Need for cross-border collaboration

Joint activities and participation of customs

Inspections across many countries in set period of time

Results analysed and common problems identified

Heads of Environmental Protection Agencies

European wide network

Focus on strategic issues

Range of interest groups – Better regulation to natural resources

Vision on improving effectiveness of environmental regulation

Seeking greater cooperation with IMPEL

INECE

International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement

Global umbrella network

Focus on compliance and enforcement

Capacity building and regional networks

New stream of work on climate compliance

9th International conference in Canada

Value of international collaboration

Exchange of good practice

Benchmarking of own approach

Invaluable development of networks

Feedback from practitioners to policy makers

Access to information on more efficient solutions

Conclusions

It is essential to share knowledge

Informal networks encourage participants to openly share experiences

Cooperation helps achieve better implementation and creates a level playing field

Learning from others’ experiences is important to improve efficiency and effectiveness