Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2018)381 - Alignment of reporting obligations in the field of environment policy - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2018)381 - Alignment of reporting obligations in the field of environment policy. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2018)381  |
| date | 31-05-2018 |
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
In June 2017, the Commission published a comprehensive Fitness Check evaluation on reporting and monitoring of EU environment policy 1 ('the Fitness Check evaluation') and drew up an action plan. Action 1 noted that some streamlining of reporting can best be achieved through amending the relevant legislative provisions. To implement this action, legislative amendments can be prepared one-by-one or grouped together in one proposal, which amends several pieces of environmental legislation in relation to their reporting provisions only (‘the alignment proposal’). This alignment proposal has been prepared on the basis of the evidence in the Fitness Check evaluation and other evaluations that were recently carried out on individual pieces of legislation. The alignment proposal’s objectives are to improve the evidence base for implementing EU policy, increase transparency for the public and simplify reporting with a view to reducing administrative burden.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
The proposal forms part of the activities on better regulation in the field of environment policy. Consistent approaches on environmental reporting and monitoring were part of the Fitness Check evaluation.
The proposal also contributes to priority objective 4, paragraph 65, of the 7th Environment Action Programme 2 , which requires that the public has access to clear environmental information at national level. It will also help the public have an overview of what is happening in the environmental field in Europe as a whole and will help national public authorities handle cross-border issues. To that end, the proposal makes cross-references and guarantees consistency with the requirements of Directive 2003/4/EC on access to environmental information 3 and of the Directive 2007/2/EC on spatial data 4 .
A cross-cutting and comprehensive analysis of reporting obligations in all relevant pieces of environment legislation has been carried out in the context of the Fitness Check evaluation 5 . This also looked at the coherence of existing obligations. As a result, several pieces of legislation were identified 6 where the reporting obligations could be amended to streamline them. The proposal has been prepared to ensure a consistent approach across the various pieces of legislation by, as appropriate:
·increasing transparency;
·providing an evidence base for future evaluations;
·simplifying and reducing administrative burden for the Member States and the Commission.
It is also consistent with the Commission’s recent proposal to revise the Drinking Water Directive 7 , which factored in the results of the Fitness Check evaluation.
• Consistency with other Union policies
Coherence with other EU policies has been analysed as part of the Fitness Check on Environmental Reporting and Monitoring. 8 In general terms of modernising information management, it is in line with the Digital Single Market Strategy and follows the Better Regulation policy, e.g. by reducing administrative burden.
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
In line with the original pieces of legislation which are being amended, the legal basis for this proposal are Articles 114, 192(1) and 207.
• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
The EU has shared competence with Member States to regulate the environment. This means that the EU can only legislate as far as the Treaties allow, and must observe the principles of necessity, subsidiarity and proportionality. The proposal’s aim is to optimise already existing obligations on monitoring implementation, reporting and transparency in EU legislation in order to, inter alia, reduce the burden for Member States. Given the nature of the action set out in the alignment proposal, this can only be achieved at EU level, rather than national level. This approach strengthens subsidiarity and brings information on implementation closer to the citizens.
• Proportionality
The alignment proposal follows the findings of the recent evaluations and translates these into legislative amendments to ensure that the European Commission is getting the right information in the right form at the right time. As was found in the Fitness Check evaluation, the current status of reporting is largely efficient and the administrative burden is moderate, justified and proportionate (estimated costs of EUR 22 million annually). The benefits, such as improved implementation and better information of the public, far outweigh the costs. Efficiency gains are expected through streamlining the process in a more cross-cutting and strategic manner to simplify and reduce burdens. The proposal is proportionate because it simplifies reporting where this is meaningful, strengthens transparency and information to the public where this has not previously been the case and/or increases the evidence base where this has been demonstrated to be insufficient for evaluation in line with the Better Regulation Guidelines.
• Choice of the instrument
The legal instrument chosen is a Regulation.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
This proposal is based on the outcome of the Fitness Check evaluation on reporting and monitoring of EU environment policy 9 . This evaluation covered 181 reporting obligations found in 58 pieces of EU environmental legislation. They require numerical and geospatial information but most are in text format — the hardest to report, structure and analyse. Frequency of reporting varies. Around half are required every two or more years, and around half lead to a Commission report to the other EU institutions. Processes also vary but seem to work best when the European Environment Agency processes the data. It was found that there is room for improvement on some cross-cutting issues (such as streamlining for a process that is more similar in all Member States) and for specific pieces of legislation. The following individual evaluations have provided further, more detailed evidence in relation to the reporting obligations in these pieces of legislation:
·Directive 2002/49/EC (Environment Noise Directive) 10 ;
·Directive 2004/35/EC (Environment Liability Directive - ELD) 11 ;
·Directive 2007/2/EC (INSPIRE Directive) — Infrastructure for spatial information 12 ;
·Directives 2009/147/EC and 92/43/EEC (i.e. Birds and Habitats Directive) 13 ;
·Directive 2010/63/EC (Animal Testing Directive) 14 ;
·Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 (European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register Regulation (E-PRTR)) 15 .
• Stakeholder consultations
The Fitness Check evaluation included a wide range of consultation activities, such as a public consultation 16 where members of the public, public authorities, business and non-governmental organisations across the EU submitted responses. Member States were very active throughout the process, and supported the objectives of streamlining and simplifying reporting. There was also a specific Member State-led initiative making a crucial contribution, the Make It Work project 17 . The Committee of the Regions prepared and adopted an Opinion, on 7 April 2016, that called on the Commission to explore efficiency gains and tackle unnecessary administrative burden in environmental monitoring and reporting in particular by automating reporting tools and looking at synergies across reporting obligations from different instruments 18 . The Commission also organised a number of events to discuss environmental reporting with stakeholders including NGOs, businesses and public authorities in November 2015, April 2016, September 2016 and December 2016. These consultations showed that, in terms of the principles and objectives of reporting, respondents felt that the most important principle is that reporting should collect information once, and share it where possible for many purposes. On the question of whether ‘reporting obligations should be laid down in individual legislation’, the majority of all stakeholder groups, i.e. NGOs (56 %), public authorities (75 %), members of the public (85 %), business (75 %), expressed support. The EU is seen as the most appropriate level of governance for harmonising reporting processes. Respondents generally felt that IT systems have significant potential for supporting streamlining reporting processes and reducing administrative burden 19 . Consultation with Member State experts took place in various thematic groups dealing with carrying out the specific reporting obligations. Overall, these experts broadly supported the specific intentions in their subject area. Some thematic areas have already taken proactive initiatives to streamline reporting beyond amending legislation (e.g. developing a register of industrial installations under the Industrial Emissions Directive, which is beneficial for many other reporting areas).
These consultation activities covered all relevant issues justifying that no further online public consultation has taken place on the details of the current proposal. However, targeted consultations involving the experts dealing with the various pieces of legislation took place prior to the adoption of this proposal.
• Collection and use of expertise
Not applicable.
• Impact assessment
No impact assessment was carried out because the evidence was gathered mainly through the above-mentioned evaluations.
• Regulatory fitness and simplification
As this proposal for revision of several existing pieces of legislation falls under the Commission’s Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme ( REFIT ), the Commission has looked at opportunities to simplify and reduce burdens. Analysis shows that process improvements are possible with regard to reporting in this area. These improvements will reduce costs or increase benefits, in particular by more widely applying the most efficient processes and by increasing the use of electronic tools and templates. This may require an initial investment, which will, however, pay off in the mid-, and long-term. Given the lack of data, as explained in the reporting Fitness Check evaluation 20 , the detailed costs and benefits resulting from the proposed simplification measures have not been quantified. However, Annex 9 of the final project report ‘Support to the Fitness Check of monitoring and reporting obligations arising from EU environmental legislation’ 21 looked at the benefits of streamlining EU environmental reporting obligations in relation to a number of recent or ongoing streamlining initiatives over the 2012-2020 period. It is expected that this will lead to a reduced burden relating to the reporting obligations under EU environmental legislation. It was not possible to quantify all of the benefits of burden reductions in financial terms. However, based on the available figures, the project 22 estimated that these changes together reduce annual administrative burdens for Member States by a minimum of between EUR 1.4 million and EUR 2.0 million annually across the EU28. Hence, the burden reduction as a result of this proposal is likely to be in the same order of magnitude.
Issues addressed in the proposal:
·the relevance and need for certain reporting obligations is no longer clear;
·the timing and frequency for reporting obligations does not meet major policy cycle needs;
·the extending of access to information and the sharing with the public;
·the roles of the Commission and European agencies are not always clear and explicit;
·aligning the content, timing and procedures with the evaluation cycle under the Better Regulation agenda.
The proposal is therefore designed for the purpose of regulatory fitness and simplification.
• Fundamental rights
Information systems that support better reporting could raise issues affecting a number of Charter rights, such as the right to good administration and the right to an effective remedy (Articles 41 and 47). Nothing in this proposal should be interpreted or implemented in a manner that is inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights.
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
Not applicable.
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
A detailed implementation plan was prepared to facilitate implementation of the proposed amendments. It highlights the main problems, challenges and what specific actions are planned to address these.
There is no specific monitoring planned for this proposal, as it proposes a series of amendments in multiple pieces of legislation, and evaluation of the new provisions is expected within the framework of the amended individual legal acts.
Contents
- Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
- Directive 86/278/EEC
- Directive 2002/49/EC
- Directive 2004/35/EC
- Directive 2007/2/EC
- Directive 2009/147/EC
- Directive 2010/63/EU
- Regulation (EC) No 166/2006
- Regulation (EU) No 995/2010
- Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97
- Council Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005
- Main legal provisions of the proposed Regulation
- Article 1
- Article 2
- Article 3
- Article 4
- Article 5
- Article 6
- Article 7
- Article 8
- Article 9
- Article 10
- Article 11
Table 1. Overview of acts and topics covered by the proposal for a Regulation
| Legal acts covered | Improving transparency and subsidiarity | Simplify/ eliminate reporting | Align timing of reporting | Simplify EU-wide overviews / clarifying roles of Institutions | Prepare for future evaluations |
| 1) Directive 86/278/EEC (Sewage Sludge Directive) | ü | ü | |||
| 2) Directive 2002/49/EC (Noise Directive) | ü | ü | ü | ü | |
| 3) Directive 2004/35/EC (Environmental Liability Directive) | ü | ü | |||
| 4) 2007/2/EC (INSPIRE Directive) | ü | ü | ü | ü | |
| 5) Directive 2009/147/EC (Birds’ Directive) | ü | ✓ | |||
| 6) Directive 2010/63/EC (Animal Testing Directive) | ü | ü | ü | ü | |
| 7) Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 (E-PRTR Regulation) | ü | ü | ü | ü | |
| 8) Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 (EUTR) | ü | ü | ü | ü | |
| 9) Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (CITES) | ü | ||||
| 10) Council Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005 (FLEGT Regulation) | ü | ü | ü | ü | |
| No. of acts covered | 8 | 7 | 3 | 8 | 5 |
·Explanations for the general terms used in Table 1
Improving transparency and subsidiarity in 8 legal acts:
In the context of this proposal, this means improving transparency and making it possible for the public to access environmental information in a more user-friendly manner, in line with the requirements of the Directive 2007/2/EU and Directive 2003/4/EC, requirements on public access and potential exemptions based on confidentiality and protection of personal data (see in particular Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2003/4/EC). Increased transparency will better serve the European Union institutions, the Member States, members of the public and other stakeholders. This also has an impact on subsidiarity, because Member States will be empowered to provide information directly to members of the public on the implementation of EU environmental legislation, not just via EU-level information-sharing systems, as is currently the case. The EU-level comparison of data builds on the information published by Member States and this therefore strengthens subsidiarity and accountability at national level.
Simplification / elimination of reporting in 7 legal acts:
In order to reduce administrative burden while making more information available to the public, and based on the findings of the Fitness Check evaluation, it would be helpful to reduce the amount of textual reporting so that delays in processing information are reduced. In some cases, simplifying or eliminating the process of reporting textual information and focusing on improving public access to information would be useful.
Aligning timing of reporting in 3 legal acts:
In some cases the reporting mechanisms were established, without aligning the different requirements within the same legal act or between different legal acts. It would help to reduce the administrative burden if the dates and timing of these different reporting streams were aligned. Reducing the frequency or giving Member States more time between different reporting steps would also reduce the administrative burden and/or improve the effectiveness of the process.
Simplification of EU-wide overviews / clarifying roles of EU institutions in 8 legal acts:
There are currently a number of reporting streams under the environmental acquis. As a result, the roles that the Commission and, in some cases, the European Environment Agency play already in the respective reporting processes should be clarified. Providing a regular overview of factual information on the implementation of legislation and the state of the environment in the EU is simplified if up-to-date information is published using modern information technology (e.g. through web pages) rather than preparing paper-based reports adopted by the Commission. Instead, the Commission’s formal role should be focused on carrying out evaluations where relevant (see below). The tasks that are now proposed to be laid down in legislation will have no impact on the budget for the European Environment Agency (EEA) for tasks undertaken by the EEA in other areas such as climate policy. There will be no re-allocation of resources for the work by the EEA in other areas such as climate action towards the tasks set out in the proposal. For other pieces of legislation that are currently not covered, the role and resourcing of the EEA in relation to supporting the Commission in environmental reporting will be addressed following the finalisation of the ongoing evaluation.
Preparation for future evaluations in 5 legal acts:
In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines, there should be regular evaluation of the functioning of the acquis in this area. In order to have information on the implementation of EU legislation in this area and the fulfilment of the legislation’s objectives, the Commission should carry out evaluations and request Member States to provide the necessary information for these evaluations.
·Explanations for the need for amending legislation in this proposal
It is necessary to amend the reporting obligations laid down in articles 10 and 17 of Directive 86/278/EEC of the Council of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture. While Member States should continue collecting and publishing the relevant data annually, the reporting obligation to the Commission should be simplified. At the same time, Member States should be required to ensure a higher level of transparency, whereby the relevant information will be made available in an easily accessible manner, electronically, in line with the requirements of Directive 2003/4/EC and the Directive 2007/2/EC, in particular on public access, data-sharing and services.
A number of amendments to the reporting and monitoring provisions under Directive 2002/49/EC 23 are proposed, based on the outcome of the recent evaluations 24 , the second implementation report 25 , the requirements under Article 11 i of the Directive itself, and the need to align the provisions of Directive 2002/49/EC with the requirements of Directive 2007/2/EC 26 .
During the evaluation, representatives of Member States’ competent authorities proposed extending the time period between reporting on noise mapping and reporting on action plans from one year to two. This adjustment would help Member States to better prepare their action plans — which must be based on the noise maps — and to effectively consult the public on these, as required by the Directive.
Feedback received as part of the evaluation does not suggest that the process of reporting itself constitutes a significant administrative burden, as it consists mainly of electronically sending to the Commission documentation that already exists (noise maps and action plans). The reporting mechanism itself is managed by the European Environmental Agency and used by nearly all Member States to submit information to the Commission. Making the reporting mechanisms compulsory for Member States will allow the Commission and the European Environmental Agency — who assesses the data for the Commission — to gain a better and faster overview on the noise exposure of people in the EU, saving time and unnecessary administrative work. This will help achieve the Directive’s objectives. The power to make detailed technical specifications on the methodology to be followed when reporting the data is delegated to the Commission, to be adopted by the comitology procedure.
Directive 2007/2/EU will require to make noise-relevant geospatial data with a geospatial property discoverable and available through metadata and network services on national geoportals. At the same time Directive 2002/49/EC requires data to be made available to the public. The proposed changes clarify the obligation to publish data on national geoportals, thus ensuring alignment of the two Directives.
The Directive’s REFIT evaluation 27 found that the availability of information can be further improved, in particular for certain key data that potentially affect the environment and human health. This would:
·inform the public about instances of environmental damage, in particular where people are likely to be affected by such instances;
·enable operators and authorities to undertake the necessary preventive and remedial action in such instances; and
·provide the Commission with the required evidence base enable a proper evaluation in relation to the purpose and performance of the Directive.
To minimise the administrative burden, the focus should be on ensuring the electronic or online availability of information and on ensuring that the information meets relevant EU standards and is easy to use, of sufficient quality and comparable. In doing this, publicly accessible environmental information should meet the requirements of Directive 2007/2/EC, in particular in relation to services and accessibility of data for the public and the authorities.
The Commission INSPIRE implementation report to the Council and the European Parliament and the REFIT evaluation were completed in 2016 28 . The implementation report recommended that the Commission review and possibly revise the rules under Directive 2007/2/EC. To simplify implementation of the Directive and reduce the administrative burden related to monitoring by Member States, the obligation for triennial reporting will be removed, keeping only the monitoring requirement based on monitoring indicators calculated directly from the metadata of spatial data sets and spatial data services to be provided by Member States as laid down by Directive 2007/2/EC. This will help ensure that the information on implementation is more up to date and available to the public in a transparent manner. In practical terms, Member States will be asked to provide annual updates, if necessary, on the country-specific information the Commission already publishes 29 . The Commission will provide simple tools and procedures for Member States to update this information.
As a yearly overview by the European Environmental Agency is envisaged, there is no further need to prepare a Commission report to Council and European Parliament because the relevant information will be publically available online and annually updated. Therefore, the reporting obligation will be removed. In addition, regular evaluation by the Commission based on the monitoring indicators, in line with the Better Regulation Guidelines, is being proposed instead of an implementation report.
A Fitness Check of the EU Nature Legislation, covering Directives 2009/147/EC 30 and 92/43/EEC, 31 was completed in 2016 32 . It concluded that while a three-year reporting cycle is required under the Birds Directives, whereas reporting has in practice followed a reporting cycle of six years as for the Habitats Directive, with a similar primary focus on providing up-to-date information on status and trends of species. The need for more streamlined implementation of the two Directives explains the need to adapt the legislation to better suit the practice in place in Member States. This will also facilitate the preparation of the six yearly reports on the application of the Directives that Member States submit to the Commission. In the reporting format currently used, Member States are required to provide relevant data in the report necessary for the assessment of the implementation progress. In particular information on status and trends of wild bird species, the threats and pressures on them, the conservation measures taken and the contribution of the network of Special Protection Areas to the objectives of the Directive need to be reported on.
The existing obligations on transparency and reporting under Directive 2010/63/EU 33 aim to improve understanding of the reasons for and the value of the use of live animals for research, testing and educational purposes, and allow for a more objective assessment of the actual welfare harm to animals. These obligations include collecting information on the implementation of the Directive, statistical data, exemptions to methods of killing, and in particular publishing non-technical project summaries on authorised projects that use live animals.
Member States are also required to carry out a retrospective assessment of certain projects to:
·identify whether the use of animals has enabled the achievement of the objectives set for the project;
·evaluate the actual harm inflicted on animals; and
·identify any elements that can further contribute to implementing the requirement to replace, reduce and refine the use of animals.
Member States may publish the results of these retrospective project assessments.
However, one third of Member States do not currently require non-technical project summaries to be updated with these results. This significantly hinders wider access for the scientific community, the general public and policy makers to essential information on the actual benefits, research outcomes and inflicted harm resulting from the use of live animals. The lack of systematic dissemination may also slow down the uptake of new ways to implement replacement, reduction and refinement, defeating the very reason for the obligation to carry out retrospective assessments.
These issues were also reflected in the Commission report on the Directive, published on 8 November 2017 34 , which made specific recommendations on transparency and non-technical project summaries in the accompanying SWD 35 in particular the following recommendations:
–41. Member States should ensure that non-technical project summaries are published in a timely manner.
–43. The Commission, Member States and stakeholders should explore possibilities for a central repository of (or provide easy, searchable access to) all non-technical project summaries at EU level, taking into account legal requirements and linguistic limitations.
There is an annual obligation to publish national statistical data on the use of live animals and to submit these data to the Commission. Implementation reports need to be submitted every 5 years to the Commission. These reports should be made available at EU level in a more timely fashion, using electronic tools and centrally accessible and searchable databases.
The Commission’s obligations include making a formal statistical report to the European Parliament and the Council every 3 years and reporting to the European Parliament and the Council every 5 years, based on Member States’ implementation reports. These obligations should be replaced by submitting data electronically to central data repositories. This statistical data should be updated annually, replacing the current rigid requirement to report data that is up to 5 years old.
The reporting obligations in Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 36 need to be amended to rationalise and simplify reporting obligations in this area and pursue the objective of better regulation, 37 the changes required are as follows:
·The reporting obligations laid down in Article 7 need to be changed by abolishing the reference to the reporting format in Annex III and instead granting the Commission implementing powers to set that format through implementing acts (comitology) and repeal Annex III accordingly. This would improve coherence with reporting under Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions 38 , which covers almost the same activities. This will allow a more streamlined approach and increased interoperability of data collected under Directive 2010/75/EU and under Regulation (EC) No 166/2006, in line with the provisions of the Directive 2007/2/EC. It will also enable the development and use of more efficient and consistent electronic reporting tools, to be developed and maintained with the assistance of the European Environmental Agency.
·The specific reporting obligations for Member States in Article 16 and the corresponding Commission reporting obligation in Article 17 should also be repealed, as the information referred to is of limited value and/or does not meet policy needs. This avoids excessive administrative burden.
·Coherence with reporting obligations on similar facilities under other pieces of EU law (e.g. Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions and Directive 2012/18/EU on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances) needs to be improved by amending Article 11 on confidentiality, to clarify that confidential information must also be reported to the Commission, but this will not be made public.
To improve and facilitate public access to information on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 39 , data provided by Member States on the implementation of the Regulation should be made publicly available through a Commission-managed EU-wide overview. This proposal modifies the frequency for providing data on how the Regulation is being implemented so that it will be updated annually to cover the previous calendar year, in line with the FLEGT Regulation. This will make the data comparable with other available datasets, such as those providing information on timber trade between the EU and non-EU countries. The Commission, assisted by the Committee set up under Article 18 of the Regulation, will be given implementing powers to set the required format and procedure for Member States to make information available under the Regulation. The proposal also provides for the Commission to publish annual EU-wide overviews of implementation of the Regulation. Formal reporting from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council will take place at least once every 6 years, reporting on the results of the regular review of the Regulation’s functioning and effectiveness.
Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 implements in EU law the provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora (‘the CITES Convention’), to which the EU and all EU Member States are parties. In Article VIII(7), the CITES Convention provides that parties to the Convention must report annually on trade in CITES-listed species and they must also report every two years on a number of measures taken to implement the CITES Convention (‘implementation reports’). These provisions have been implemented in EU law through Article 15 i of Council Regulation 338/97.
At the 17th Conference of the Parties to the CITES Convention in 2016, the CITES parties 40 decided that:
·the frequency of implementation reports should be amended, so that these reports are submitted by CITES parties one year before each Conference of the Parties, which usually take place every three years, rather than every two years;
·a new annual report on illegal trade should be submitted by 31 October each year by all CITES parties to the CITES Secretariat, covering actions in the preceding year.
Article 15 i of Council Regulation 338/97 therefore needs to be amended to reflect these decisions, changing the frequency of the submission of the implementation reports and implementing in EU law the requirement for an annual report by the EU Member States on illegal trade.
To improve and facilitate the access of the public to information on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005 41 , the data provided by the Member States on the implementation of the Regulation should be made publicly available at national level and through a Commission EU-wide overview of this data.
FLEGT licences were issued for the first time in November 2016. The experience that the Commission and Member States gained from first year of FLEGT licensing shows that some of the Regulation’s provisions on reporting have become obsolete. In particular, the description of the contents of Member State reports in Article 8(1)(a), (b) and (c) is ambiguous, internally inconsistent and prone to differing interpretations. Even if these descriptions are non-exhaustive, they provide an incomplete basis to monitor progress on the licensing scheme and on the implementation of the Regulation. Therefore, this proposal deletes these paragraphs. Instead, the proposal introduces a mechanism to carry out checks, through the Committee set up under Article 11 of the Regulation, allowing the Commission to exercise its implementing powers to set the format and procedure for Member States to make the necessary information available. The proposal also sets up a regular review of the FLEGT Regulation every 6 years (aligned with that required under the Timber Regulation), instead of the current one-off review required in Article 9, and includes an obligation to formally report to the European Parliament and the Council on the results.
In line with these findings, and the proposal’s general objectives of streamlining and modernising reporting, speeding up the availability of data and reducing administrative burden, the amendments proposed are strictly limited to reporting obligations and therefore are as follows:
Amends Council Directive 86/278/EEC by amending Article 10 and Article 17 on information and reporting requirements.
Amends Article 8 of the Directive 2002/49/EC on the deadlines for submitting action plans, Article 9 to increase transparency by referring to Directive 2003/4/EC and the Directive 2007/2/EC, Article 10 on availability of information electronically in the data repositories, and updating Annex VI to set up the mechanism for providing information on implementation.
Amends Directive 2004/35/EC by:
–deleting Article 14(2);
–replacing Article 18 by requiring information on implementation and evidence base;
–updating Annex VI with the information referred to in Article 18(1) on instances of environmental damage and instances of liability.
Amends the Directive 2007/2/EC 42 by:
–amending Article 21(2) on monitoring;
–deleting Article 21(3) on reporting; and
–replacing Article 23 with provisions to create a regular EU-wide overview and prepare for the future evaluation of the Directive.
Amends Article 12 of Directive 2009/147/EC by extending the reporting cycle from three to six years.
Deletes Article 57 of Directive 2010/63/EU and amends the following provisions:
–Article 43(2)-(4) on provisions relating to project summaries and setting up an online database;
–Article 51 on exercise of delegated powers; and
–Article 54 on information on monitoring implementation and provision of statistical data.
Amends Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 to:
–delete the triennial reporting requirements in Articles 16 and 17;
–amend Article 7 to facilitate better integrated reporting under the Industrial Emissions Directive;
–repeal the reporting format in Annex III, instead giving the Commission implementing powers to set the format and frequency of E-PRTR reporting through the Committee procedure set out in Article 19(2); and
–amend Article 11 on confidentiality, to ensure all relevant data are reported to the Commission, while avoiding disclosure to the public.
Amends Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 by replacing Article 20(1)-(4) on monitoring on implementation and access to information, setting the frequency of EU-wide overviews to be annual and updating provisions on evaluating the Regulation.
Amends Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 to replace Article 15 i (b), (c) and (d) that require the publication of an EU-wide overview.
Amends Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005 to replace Articles 8 and 9 on information requirements and requiring an EU-wide overview on the basis of the data collected by the Member States. It also updates the provisions on evaluating the Regulation.
Enacts the entry into force of the draft proposal for a Regulation.