Electronic Reporting Tool for IPPC Directive
Comments of the Flemish Region
The Flemish Region has taken notice of the background document “Electronic
Reporting Tool on implementation of the IPPC Directive” prepared by AEA and VITO.
It welcomes the action of DGE ENV on the development of an Electronic Reporting
Tool on the implementation of the IPPC Directive. It backs the objective of reducing
the administrative burden on Member States from the need to report, as well as
making the subsequent analysis of information easier and more efficient. Although on
the final format of the electronic reporting tool has not yet been decided, the Flemish
Region has some early comments and remarks on the draft format of the electronic
reporting tool as presented in the background document prepared by AEA and VITO.
The Flemish Region is not convinced that the Electronic Reporting Tool, as
presented in the background document by AEA and VITO, will reduce the
administrative burden on Belgium from the need to report. The Belgian constitutional
laws attribute legal competences in environmental matters to the Regions (the
Flemish Region, the Walloon Region and the Brussels-Capital Region) and to the
Federal Government. For the matter of IPPC policy and law making, the Federal
Government has no legal competence. It is important to stress that the Belgian
constitutional laws do not establish a body that has the competence of
coordinating the federal and regional policies in matters of the implementation
of obligations of EC environmental law. There is no legal provision which obliges
the regions to concertate in matters of IPPC-policy and law making at the national
level. From this it follows that each Region can develop autonomously its own policy
and law making on IPPC issues. Concerning the reporting on the implementation of
the IPPC Directive in particular, each of the Regions has the exclusive and
autonomous constitutional responsibility and duty to do what is necessary to report.
From this it follows that in the Belgian constitutional environmental law context
reporting on the IPPC directive implies three legally separate flows of data and
information (the Flemish Region, the Walloon Region and the Brussels-Capital
Region). In the opinion of the Flemish Region, the Commission should in the case of
Belgium give special consideration to the concern that bundling those three separate
flows of data and information into one electronic reporting tool may not lead to the
loss of a clear view on the regional origin of the data and information reported. It
makes sense that this autonomy of the three regions should be reflected in the
approach of the Commission on the reporting issue. In fact due consideration is given
to this concern when the Commission finally presents a report concerning Belgium as
a Member State clearly focussing on the situation of each region individually.
From a technical point of view, the electronic reporting tool in its present draft format
does not seem to give due consideration to the concern that bundling the three
separate flows of data and information into one electronic reporting tool may not lead
to the loss of a clear view on the regional origin of the data and information reported.
The electronic reporting tool in its present draft format does not seem to be
appropriate to fulfill the needs of Belgium as a member state wich is legally
confronted with separate flows of data and information.
In the opinion of the Flemish Region the electronic reporting tool should technically
enable Belgium as a Member State to report on the IPPC directive focussing on each
Region individually. Second bundling the separate flows of data and information
should require in the case of Belgium the establishment of an interregional
concertation forum. At present, in Belgium no existing concertation forum tackles the
complex issue of bundling separate flows of information in the context of IPPC
reporting. In addition this concertation requirement will increase the administrative
burden on the Regions which contradicts to a certain extent the goals of the action by
DGE ENV on IPPC reporting. For this reasons, the Flemish Region calls on the
Commission to acknowledge the extraordinary situation of Belgium and to enable
Belgium to report on the implementation of the IPPC directive thereby focussing on
the situation of each Region individually.
In the following text, you can find more detailed comments and problems for the
specific Belgian situation.
In principle, open text boxes will cause little problems to fill in: the explanation for
each region can be put one after the other.
Thick boxes and option boxes can cause more problems, especially if the answers or
different for the 3 regions.
We also wonder what will be the prefilled-answers.
We wonder if it is possible to use both French and Dutch in the wording of the
questions, or change the language while reporting.
General remark:
For the pre-filled answers, we prefer the original answer given, instead of the
translation of the summary.
If one of the aims of the Commission is to receive shorter answers, another possibility
can be the summary in the original language.
Q 1.1.
Problems if the options and choises in the option and thick-boxes are different for the
3 regions.
Q 1.2.
There’s no possibility to write remarks if ‘no’ is chosen.
Q. 1.4.
Option box: yes/no causes problems.
Q. 1.5
It seems that he possibility do mention and describe changes in the organisational
structure that don’t change the competent authorities involved, is not forseen in the
tool.
Problems with the thick-boxes if answers are different for the 3 regions.
Q. 1.5.3.
Thick-box: sub-regional level is missing (provinces).
Q 2.9
If the option box remains, an extra open text box may be useful to make the
difference/explain the situation in the 3 regions.
Q. 2.11
It’s not clear what the pre-filled answers will be.
Q. 2.12
Option box causes problems. What will be the pre-filled answers?
The answer to the question “who establishes them?” is not foreseen.
“If known, how many installations (either as an absolute number or a percentage)
were subject to these rules by the end of the reporting period?” (Q. 8.2.) is missing.
Q. 2.13
Option box yes/no: can be different for the 3 regions.
Q. 2.20
Option-box: if differences in the 3 regions, “other” can be choosen, and explained in
the following open-text box.
Q. 3.1.
Option-box: if differences in the 3 regions, “other” can be choosen, and explained in
the following open-text box.
Q. 3.2.
Option-box: if differences in the 3 regions, “other” can be choosen, and explained in
the following open-text box.
Q. 3.3.
Option-box yes/no can cause difficulties.
Q. 3.5.
Answers can be different for the 3 regions.
Q 3.6.
Option-box: should at least be replaced by a thick box.
Q 5.1.
The question in the Decision is more generally. The thick-box requires much more
detailed information.
We see difficulties to fill it in for the 3 regions.
Q 5.3.
Option-box causes problems if the answers for the 3 regions are not the same.