Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Network for Accession (ECENA) Peer Reviews

The carrying out of peer reviews of IPPC Directive transposition and implementation and of the Recommendations on Minimum Criteria for Environmental Inspections (RMCEI) was agreed upon during the 2nd BERCEN Plenary Meeting in September, 2003. The main purpose of the peer review is to assist the country in its EU accession process by spotting and analysing potential weaknesses of the IPPC legislation as well as RMCEI implementation in inspection practice. The experts in the peer reviews are fellow members of the ECENA network and external IMPEL countries consultants on an equal basis. The ECENA Secretariat provides management of the process, they wrote some of the texts and they have carried out the benchmarking part of the peer review in its entirety. The methodology of the peer reviews included a preliminary preparatory phase, followed by a mission in the country, drafting of the key findings and recommendations and compiling them into one document. The host country provided feedback which was incorporated in the final text. The peer review is strictly confidential and is to be used only by the European Commission as well as the host country for the purposes of improving legislation, implementation and inspection practices. Croatia was the fourth country to undergo a peer review. The following ECENA member counties were peer reviews in the period 2005-2006: Serbia , October, 2005 The Former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia , February, 2006 Kosovo as defined by the UN Security Council resolution 1244, March, 2006 Croatia, June, 2006 Bosnia and Herzegovina, September, 2006 Albania, March 2006. If you would like to know more details about the individual reports, please contact the ECENA network coordinators. Potential Benefits of Peer Reviews providing a clear picture of the situation regarding enforcement systems and integrated permitting in ECENA countries; assisting countries with recommendations for follow-up steps to improve enforcement systems and IPPC implementation; encouraging action in these countries in order to speed up reforms in the enforcement system and IPPC implementation; encouraging further collaboration between inspection bodies of ECENA member countries, as well as with the inspectorates of EU member states on common issues or problems, on exchange of experience and development and dissemination of good practices in environmental regulation; providing advice to inspectorates who may be seeking an external view of their structure, operation or performance by trusted, knowledgeable and independent counterparts for the purpose of benchmarking; spreading good practices, which will lead to improved quality of inspectorates and inspections, and contributing to continuous improvement of quality and consistency in applying environmental law; creating closer links to IMPEL and transferring experience from the Impel Review Initiative; assisting countries in the EU accession process; and providing the European Commission with expert views on the situation in ECENA member countries regarding environmental permitting and enforcement. Purpose of the peer review Peer reviews provide an opportunity to examine each country’s policy in a particular area. The IPPC Directive and the RMCEI are examined by fellow members of the ECENA network and external IMPEL countries consultants on an equal basis, and this lies at the heart of the process. A country seeking to improve its system can learn valuable lessons from its peers on what has worked and what has not in other countries. This can save time and costly experimenting in establishing the best policies for a particular country. The recommendations resulting from such a review can also help governments win support at home for difficult measures. Methodology The peer review starts with a preparation phase when ECENA Secretariat, together with the country counterparts, collects all information relevant to the peer review. These include IPPC laws and subsidiary legislation, MCEI laws or decrees, relevant reports, relevant templates, country background, etc. All documents are provided in English where possible. Whenever an important document is not available in English, a short summary of the main points is drafted. All documents are sent to the consultants well in advance so that they can get acquainted with the materials. ECENA Secretariat identifies all possible informers to the peer review team. An agenda is drafted. The mission in the country is the second phase of the peer review process. Meetings last between 1 and 3 days depending on the scope of the discussed issues. Whenever an ECENA member country has adopted IPPC legislation, an entire day is dedicated to it. MCEI and benchmarking issues are covered in a day. There is a day dedicated to site visits. During the meetings and the interviews consultants facilitate the sessions and ask questions. Each consultant is responsible for a certain section of the report. ECENA Secretariat compiles and edits the individual reports. The drafting of the reports is the third phase of the process. It is managed by the ECENA Secretariat. The consultants discuss the findings, conclusions and recommendations. The draft final report is sent to the host country for comments and corrections. These are discussed and incorporated in the report. The final report is shared with the host country and remains confidential.

Back to activities On this page: Potential Benefits of Peer Reviews Purpose of the peer review Methodology