Presentation on theme: "1 THE GREEK EXPERIENCE IN IMPEL PROJECTS Presentation by: Katerina Iacovidou-Anastasiadou Division of Industries, Directory for Air and Noise Pollution."— Presentation transcript:
1 THE GREEK EXPERIENCE IN IMPEL PROJECTS Presentation by: Katerina Iacovidou-Anastasiadou Division of Industries, Directory for Air and Noise Pollution Control, General Directory for the Environment, Hellenic Ministry for the Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works SEMINAR, Nicosia,7-8/6/2001 Integrated Control of Industrial Pollution and Chemical Substances in Cyprus”
2 EU IMPEL NETWORK PROJECTS EXECUTED BY GREECE z15 th EXCHANGE PROGRAMME FOR EU INSPECTORS, GREECE, November 1999 zIMPEL FOOD PROJECT: Integrated pollution control, compliance and enforcement of EU Environmental legislation to Industries (IPPC and non IPPC) of the food production/processing sector, 9/2000-4/2001 (Workshop in Athens, 29-31/3/2001) Both Projects co-funded by the European Commission (DG Environment) and the Hellenic Ministry for the Environment, and executed by the National Observatory of Athens, on behalf of and in collaboration with the Ministry (Division of Industries).
3 15 th EXCHANGE PROGRAMME FOR EU INSPECTORS, GREECE, November 1999 Background (1/2) z The last one of a series of such Programmes that were initiated by the EU IMPEL Network and had been organised by the competent Authority of each European Union Member State. z Host: The Hellenic Ministry for the Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works (MEPPPW). All technical matters were organised by the “ technical committee ” of the Ministry's Division of Industries. z Organisation: National Observatory of Athens (NOA). zThe Programme took place in Greece, November 15-21, 1999.
4 15 th EXCHANGE PROGRAMME FOR EU INSPECTORS, GREECE, November 1999 Background (2/2) Duration of grant agreement (for EC funding): 4 months ( ) –Signature of grant agreement (between NOA and EC), by the Commission on ; agreement received by NOA approximately 1 month later. –Final report and financial statement to the EC by (3 months after end of grant agreement). Budget: 108,565 € (eligible cost; some additional cost for AC) Funding: 86,852 € (80% of eligible cost)
5 15 th EXCHANGE PROGRAMME Scope of the Project The scope was for participants to: z learn about environmental permitting and environmental inspection and enforcement of environmental legislation in the Greek industry, and zexchange information and views on these issues.
6 15 th EXCHANGE PROGRAMME Participation z Two representatives from each EU Member State (MS) and z One representative from each AC were invited to participate in the Exchange Programme. z In total, 35 EU and AC participants came to Greece: y 20 participants from 12 EU countries y 13 participants from the AC countries (all 11 countries participated, 3 participants from Cyprus), y IMPEL Secretariat (Terry Shears) yEuropean Commission (Susan Hay)
7 15 th EXCHANGE PROGRAMME Activities zOne full week stay in Greece yarrival-welcome reception on Monday, ycultural event-departure on Sunday, y2 days outside Athens (3 plants visited between Athens – Delfi – Patras – Athens) z Conference (1-day): presentations by Greek and EU officials z Visits to industries: 12 plants involved z Workshops (3): presentations on the visits, exchange of views and presentations by persons from the Ministry. zCultural events: visit of the archaeological sites of Delfi and Acropolis.
8 15 th EXCHANGE PROGRAMME Presentations (1/3) zEU & AC y George Kremlis: "Implementation of EU Environmental Law: the role of IMPEL" y Terry Shears: "IMPEL - a brief survey" yAthanassios Balodimos: "The adoption by the applicant countries of the environmental acquis in the framework of the future enlargement: state of play and next steps"
9 15 th EXCHANGE PROGRAMME Presentations (2/3) zGreek system y Katerina Iacovidou: "Legal Framework, Environmental Impact Assessments", "Environmental permitting procedure, and Procedure for public hearing of the Environmental Impact Assessments ", "Inspections" y Nontas Toleris: "Implementation of EU Directives 85/337/EC and 97/11/EC", "Structural Organisation of Greek Services (MEPPPW, Regions, Prefectures)" y Representative from Ministry for Development: "Integrated approach to issuing permits for industrial activities". y Representative from Ministry for Health: "Industrial wastewater: Treatment and Disposal" yDimitris Lalas (Director of NOA): "Monitoring & Enforcing Agency for Environmental Compliance in Greece (Inspectorate)"
10 15 th EXCHANGE PROGRAMME Presentations (3/3) zTechnical issues Presentations by persons from the Division of Industries on: y The metallurgical industry and environmental inspection in Greece y Environmental aspects of electricity production in Greece: the case of Greek lignite y Industrial solid waste management yThe implementation of 96/61 Directive in Greece
11 15 th EXCHANGE PROGRAMME Visits to industries z 5 common visits, 4 of which to “big” plants: y ALOUMINIUM OF GREECE y ACHAIA CLAUSS WINE COMPANY SA y TITAN CEMENT COMPANY SA y Psytalia Wastewater Treatment Plant y Metamorfosis Wastewater Treatment Plant (smaller plant) z 2 visits by groups (choice between 3-4 alternative plants; the industries were typical of Greece food sector): y oil & margarine processing factory y milk & yoghurt, milk & fruit juices y storage of liquid fuel y brick manufacturing y meat processing ybottling of soft drinks and juices
12 15 th EXCHANGE PROGRAMME Evaluation by the participants (1/2) Did the programme live up to your expectations?
13 15 th EXCHANGE PROGRAMME Evaluation by the participants (2/2) Organisation of the programme of today?
14 15 th EXCHANGE PROGRAMME Results of the Evaluation by participants 1.The Programme lived up to the expectations of practically all participants. 2.The organisation of the Programme was considered to be good by the vast majority of the participants. 3.The Programme was considered as informative and useful, but rather “heavy” (with late lunches and late dinners!). 4.Subject coverage was good. The selection of industries to be visited and the visit agenda seemed to be good. 5.The cultural event at Delfi was appreciated by all participants. 6.Overall evaluation: a useful exchange Programme, at the right level.
15 IMPEL FOOD PROJECT Background (1/2) zOne of a number of such Projects initiated by the IMPEL Network. z The purpose of the Project was to exchange information between EU Member States and Accession Countries in order to develop options for integrated pollution control, compliance and enforcement for food production/processing industrial activities (IPPC and non IPPC). z Three food sub-sectors of interest were identified during the initial phase of the project: milk industry, meat processing, and breweries. z Data on those sub-sectors were collected using a Questionnaire that was circulated among the IMPEL and AC-IMPEL Network (National Coordinators). z Workshop, March 29-31, 2001 in Athens, to discuss results and exchange views.
16 IMPEL FOOD PROJECT Background (2/2) Duration of grant agreement: 8 months ( ) –Signature of grant agreement (between NOA and EC), by the Commission on ; agreement received –Final report and financial statement to the EC by (3 months after end of grant agreement). Budget: 114,180 € Funding: 68,508 € (60% of eligible cost)
17 IMPEL FOOD PROJECT Scope Collection & exchange of information for: Comparison of legal requirements and their implementation, and of licensing and enforcement practices in the EU MS and AC, for the 3 selected food sectors. Comparison of these food sectors in MS and AC with respect to classification (e.g., size, type of units), effect of the IPPC Directive (96/61/EC), Clean Technologies used/ potential BATs, etc. Identification of common problems or country peculiarities, and suggestions for appropriate approaches. Results will be shared with the TWG FOOD&MILK of the IPPC Bureau in Seville (started work in January 2001).
18 IMPEL FOOD PROJECT Project overview (1/2) zSelection of 3 food –sectors and preparation and circulation (among IMPEL Network) of a Questionnaire. yPreparation & distributing of a “Selection Form” to EU NCs. yDraft Questionnaire prepared (help of Greek Expert Group) yPreparatory project meeting (Paris, 8/12/2000, views of EU) yFinal Questionnaire circulated by
19 IMPEL FOOD PROJECT Project overview (2/2) zCollection and processing of data and Workshop yDeadline for receipt of data (extended, in practice). yWorkshop in Athens, March 29-31, yFinal Report with the results of the Questionnaire yand the minutes/conclusions of the Workshop.
20 IMPEL FOOD PROJECT Participation zQuestionnaires completed by 12 EU and 9 AC yEU: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, United Kingdom yAC: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia. z60 participants at the Workshop; 27 national representatives from countries other than Greece and from the European Commission
21 IMPEL FOOD PROJECT Conclusions (1/4) Meat processing and Milk industry are among the most important food industry sub-sectors in the majority of the MS and AC. The Brewery sector is relatively “smaller”, but it is still considered as very important in most countries. So, these food sub-sectors could be considered to be among the priorities for the establishment of BREFs. The transposition of the IPPC Directive (96/61/EC) is fully completed in 8 of the MS and is expected to be completed by year 2002 in the remaining of the MS. Transposition by year 2003 is also expected in at least 7 of the AC. For the milk and meat industry, the plants that fall within IPPC represent a small fraction of the total number of plants in each country (generally less than 10%; exceptions, notably Nordic countries). The opposite is the case for breweries, where the IPPC plants generally represent at least 10% of the total number of plants (only 2% in Germany).
22 IMPEL FOOD PROJECT Conclusions (2/4) Out of the 21 countries, only 6 use a single permit system for any food industry (plus UK has a single permit for milk industries). Lithuania the only AC among this group. The authorities usually involved in permitting are the Ministry for the Environment, local authorities and regional authorities. Generally, no special provisions exist for the 3 food sub-sectors (the applicable permitting/inspections/compliance legislation is that applicable to any industry). The IPPC Directive limits ( >200 tn milk/day; >75 tn meat product/day; >300 tn beer/day) are used (or will be used) by all countries. References on national standards or guidelines for Clean Technologies or BATs for the three food sub-sectors of interest (existing or under preparation in EU countries) were recorded.
23 IMPEL FOOD PROJECT Conclusions (3/4) There are generally no toxic and hazardous substances associated with these three food sub-sectors, neither in terms of raw materials used nor in terms of emissions. Therefore, the need to emphasize prevention in BATs (adoption of the best operation practice, the improvement-modification of the production processes etc.) as opposed to treatment techniques and benchmarking as part of BATs, especially for water, energy, raw material consumption, etc. was identified. However, solid waste management is an important issue for part of the meat industry due to the EU decision about the ban of by-product reuse. It seems that guidelines from the EU Commission regarding acceptable methods of disposal of by- products from meat processing are essential. Self-monitoring is considered to be essential for all industrial plants of the three food sub-sectors.
24 IMPEL FOOD PROJECT Conclusions (4/4) High consumption of water and energy are among the common problems encountered in some industries of all three food industry sub-sectors, along with the absence of sufficient recycling, material recovery and reuse, weak supervision of discharges to municipal sewers, and solid waste management. It is generally acknowledged that the main problems are from the non-IPPC industries (re-think about mini-IPPC Directive?). Dissemination of the know-how in BATs and exchange of the information is important and should be done through main channels such as IMPEL. It was also proposed that: a) the EU Commission bears the costs of the BREFs translation (for the AC); b) a "BAT Helpdesk" be established and operated at an EU level, so that all countries, MS and AC, can consult for help; and, c) educational and training meetings be organized.
25 IMPEL FOOD PROJECT Lessons learned zMembers of the EU and AC IMPEL Networks welcome such Projects. yMost useful part is considered to be the Workshop (opportunity for exchange of information and discussion and for establishment of good personal relationships/networking). z Combination of presentations/Working Groups and site visit(s) is preferred. y Diversity is highly encouraged in the presentations (different points of view: administration, scientists/experts, industry). y Working Groups best for active participation/ expression of views. z A clear target with respect to the dissemination of the project results is important (an appropriate body or national authorities) yIn the case of the IMPEL Food Project, the fact that the results would be communicated to the EBIPPC was viewed favourably.
26 IMPEL FOOD PROJECT Administrative issues - technicalities zTOR approval: IMPEL Plenary Meeting in Helsinki (11/1999) y[Revised TOR: IMPEL Plenary Meeting in Porto (6.2000)] zDraft proposal for funding to IMPEL Secretariat: zFirst Proposal submission: (re-submitted in June 2000) zUnofficial notification (IMPEL Secretariat) on approval: zSigning of the grant agreement by EC: zReceipt of the agreement by NOA: zProject duration: – y“Overtime” in terms of work: until preparation and distribution of Final Report (submitted for adoption in Falun IMPEL Plenary meeting) yFinancial statement submitted with the Final Report to the EC by ; includes supporting documents (invoices); contract budget should be respected (deviation of 10% for individual headings: travel, consumables, …)
27 SOME GENERAL POINTS FOR IMPEL PROJECTS zEvaluation forms are useful for getting feed-back from the participants. zReview of the final Report by participants is needed. This should also facilitate the adoption of the final Report by IMPEL (at a Plenary Meeting). zDissemination activities should be foreseen (early decision needed as to whom and how –e.g. contacts, CD-ROM, home page-). z Flexibility in the organisation and personal contact are important (IMPEL members have busy schedules and, to some degree, they are investing “ personal time ” for the network activities).
28 OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE GREEK EXPRERIENCE FROM IMPEL PROJECTS z A very useful experience – highly recommended! z Administrative issues are very important, both before and after signature of a grant agreement with the European Commission y Project executor, TOR approval, preparation and submission of the proposal using appropriate procedure/forms, national funding. z The role of the IMPEL Secretariat is critical. Terry Shears was a BIG help in both occasions!!! y Review/useful comments, information on the funding procedure, contact with the financial Unit, IMPEL contacts, advise during the project (use his experience!), etc. z Proper project planning and cost estimation are essential. y Take into consideration potential delays in: submitting for funding, signing/receipt of the agreement; getting participants to “ react ” (confirmation of attendance, review of documents, etc.), and review. y Some costs depend on the time-schedule (travel, hotel, etc.) or participation; need to plan activities well (at the stage of the proposal), but also allow some flexibility (unforeseen costs of program changes!).
29 CONTACTS FOR MORE INFORMATION zKaterina Iacovidou, Division of Industries, Directory for Air and Noise Pollution Control, Hellenic Ministry for the Environment, Physical Planning & Public Works, fax./tel.: z Natasha Kotronarou, Institute for Environmental Research & Sustainable Development, National Observatory of Athens, tel , fax zFor information on the IMPEL Food Project:
30 Terms of Reference (TOR) zThere has to be a Lead Country, and a Project Manager (for the financial subjects of the Project) zthe Project proposal, during the Plenary meeting of IMPEL must be supported, at least, by 3-4 countries, in order to be adopted zthe legal base of the Project has to be a Directive, a Regulation, etc zthe funding by the Commission is about 50%, of the eligible cost, with some exceptions (up to 80%).