Review of the IRI

Malta, October 2013

What is an IRI?Impel review initiative

Voluntary scheme for review of environmental authorities

RMCEI and Doing the right things

Start in 2000

Revised in 2009

Reviewed again in 2013

19 countries have had an IRI

In short

IRI looks at implementation of EU directives for:PermittingInspectingEnforcement

And defines:Good practiceOpportunities for development

Review of the IRIPortugal, Latvia, Romania, Croatia, Italy, Iceland and Slovenia

What has been done with the IRI results?

Have opportunities for development been implemented?

Have results been spread within the host country?

Have results been shared with other countries?

What needs to be improved in the IRI?

How can communication be improved?

Why did you have an IRI?

Portugal for expert advice on our working methods

Croatia for an objective view of our inspectorate

Italy to have EU experts look at our system

Latvia to improve our organisation

Iceland to improve our environmental program

Slovenia we wanted expert opinion whether we work according to

EU legislation

Romania to get feedback from specialists and have a good

evaluation of our inspectorate

Did IRI meet your expectations?

Portugal it exceeded expectations very enriching

Croatia certainly, was first time for review by ‘ colleagues’

Italy IRI was useful, but time too short for in-depth

discussions

Latvia good practice and suggestions for development were

useful

Iceland yes, yes! It pointed out areas where we can improve

Slovenia IRI was very useful, because it forces you to study your

working process

Romania IRI identified strengths and possibilities for improvement

What did the IRI teach you?

Portugal it spotted gaps we were not aware of and gave us a helicopter view of our whole organisation

Croatia improved our prioritization and made us realize we need to think about the demographics of staff (40 – 50 yrs old)

Italy we realised what our strengths and weaknesses are

Latvia IRI showed us how to analyse inspection results

Iceland we got more confidence, we were shown what we do right and learned how we can improve

Slovenia we learned more facts about our own organisation

Romania better inspection planning, improvement of coordination between authorities

Did you implement the findings?

Portugal yes, suggestions for improvement were taken on in the following annual activity planning

Croatia new Environmental Act implemented some suggestions from IRI (e.g. prioritization of inspection)

Italy plans are being developed, findings will be included

Latvia some recommendations were implemented

Iceland some findings have been implemented, others is progress

Slovenia some were implemented, others are still on hold

Romania yes, for as far as our regional inspectorate has the power to do so

Did you share the report?

Portugal report has not been translated, so dissemination within our country could have been more efficient. Translated summary was sent out

Croatia report has been put on internet and sent to project experts

Italy yes, to staff and management

Latvia report was sent to ministry

Iceland report was put on internet, open meeting with stakeholders, press release

Slovenia report was spread to other agencies, ministry and media

Romania yes, report was sent to management, staff and ministry

What would you change?

Portugal allocate more time and resources and involve other authorities, no more translation of legislation

Croatia a longer IRI to allow more time for discussion

Italy involve more top-management

Latvia ask IRI team for prioritization of recommendations

Iceland take more time for preparation

Slovenia include a site-visit to the program

Romania more top management and include other authorities

What methods of communication did you use?

Portugal internal communication only

Croatia press release, internet, meetings, annual report

Italy meetings with staff and management

Latvia meetings with staff and management

Iceland management meetings, meetings with industrial associations, internet, annual meeting with local inspectorates

Slovenia press release, management meetings, internet

Romania press release, management meetings, seminars

What other fields could be covered by IRI?

Portugal ‘green’ and ‘ blue’ issues

Croatia soil pollution

Italy soil and air quality

Latvia soil pollution

Iceland -

Slovenia -

Romania Management plans, nature protection and schipment of

waste (TFS)

What time period would consider useful to repeat IRI?

Portugal minimum of 3 years, so time is given for implementation of former recommendations

Croatia 5 years

Italy 5 years

Latvia 3 – 5 years

Iceland 15 years, questionnaire every 5 years

Slovenia 5 – 7 years

Romania 4 - 5 years

Summary (1)

Opportunities for development are often not followed up because:

Legislation does not allow this

Management is not fully involved

Political or financial situation makes this difficult

Summary (2)

Better sharing of report results can be achieved by:

Better communication with authorities in one countryactive interest in other IRI reports (learn from others)Translation of the IRI report in native languageMore guidance by the review team (give examples)Focus on this point during pre meeting and in reportPlan conferences, webinars, meetings and media presentations

Summary (3)

Proposed changes in IRI:

Team leader: use pre-meeting to invite management Team leader: after IRI send letter to management with summary of

findingsDefine qualifications for team membersSend cv’s of team members to all participantsPlan time to talk about implementation of results Emphazise the importance of follow-upPlan for translation of the summaryPut names of contacts in the report Think of possible projects that can follow on from IRI

GOOD PRACTICE:

Specialised inspectors on Seveso also deal with inspections from other regimes. This is a good example of flexibility;

Coordinators meet regularly to discuss environmental issues and performance;

Inspection campaigns are held to directly target environmental infringement

Slovenia

Portugal

GOOD PRACTICE:

Good use of IMPEL projects (like DTRT) and bilateral cooperation with other EU MS for developing the organization;

Inspectorate developed an excellent and flexible risk assessment tool (IPPC);

Objectives from the Activity plan are devolved down to the inspectors (sense of ownership by the individual inspectors and creates a ‘line of sight’ between corporate goals and individual inspectors’ goals).

CroatiaGOOD PRACTICE

Professional and systematic training system in place Inspectors checklists and report templates are well developed IT data base system for inspection planning and reporting is well developed General Annual Report and Annual Inspection Reports on Coordinated inspection are available for the publicGood use of the results of networks (IMPEL, INECE, ECENA)

Iceland

GOOD PRACTICE

Very good database for inspections (including industry information, inspection reports and letters)

Excellent website with information for the public

GOOD PRACTICE

The planning and the process of inspections is well organized

There is a clear and transparent fee structure for inspection costs.

Inspectors provide advice on problems noticed during inspections to contribute towards improving operator performance.

Italy

So who’s next?Malta

Austria

Czech Republic

Hungary

Greece

Cyprus

Slovakia

Lithuania

Estonia?

Remember…

“ IRI is a starting point, not the end!”

Fabio Carella

Italy