1. Improving implementation and Enforcement 17 February 2011 Terry Shears - IMPEL Vice Chair

2. Presentation will cover Introduction to IMPEL How IMPEL work helps improve implementation and enforcement in Europe Cooperation with other networks Conclusions

3. Introduction to IMPEL Set up in 1992 The only network of practitioners looking at implementation and enforcement of environmental law Association established under Belgian law in 2008 A major focus is work relating to the Recommendation on minimum criteria for environmental inspections Work is carried out through a range of projects approved in annual work programme

4. Organisation All 27 Member States plus Norway, Croatia, FYROM Turkey and Iceland are members. Commission continue to participate Biannual General Assembly meetings to approve work programme Funded by LIFE+ and membership fees IMPEL office in Brussels

5. The mission of IMPEL “To contribute to protecting the environment by promoting the effective implementation and enforcement of EC environmental law”

6. IRI – a cornerstone of IMPEL work IMPEL Review Initiative Fulfils a requirement in the Recommendation on Minimum Criteria for Environmental Inspections Informal review of environmental authority Highlights good practice and opportunities for development Started in 2000 and reviewed in 2008/09 New simplified scheme has increased take-up

7. The combined IMPEL/NEPA checklist Assessing practicability and enforceability New and existing legislation Combined with work from the Network of Heads of Environment Protection Agencies (NEPA) Feedback to policy makers Previous assessment on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) and Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment (WEEE) Next proposal is the Waste Shipment Regulation

8. Focus of collaboration improving permitting, inspection and enforcement transfrontier shipment of waste better regulation

9. Cluster 2 - Waste Transfrontier Shipments

10. Waste Shipment Regulation- Exchange of inspectors Waste Shipment Regulation cannot be implemented without international cooperation Inspectors exchange days: Network of national contact points sharing of examples of practical cases share enforcement intelligence Inform participants about new developments

11. Joint enforcement actions Need for cross-border collaboration Joint activities and participation of customs Inspections across many countries in set period of time Results analysed and common problems identified

12. Heads of Environmental Protection Agencies European wide network Focus on strategic issues Range of interest groups – Better regulation to natural resources Vision on improving effectiveness of environmental regulation Seeking greater cooperation with IMPEL

13. INECE International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Global umbrella network Focus on compliance and enforcement Capacity building and regional networks New stream of work on climate compliance 9 th International conference in Canada

14. Value of international collaboration Exchange of good practice Benchmarking of own approach Invaluable development of networks Feedback from practitioners to policy makers Access to information on more efficient solutions

15. Conclusions It is essential to share knowledge Informal networks encourage participants to openly share experiences Cooperation helps achieve better implementation and creates a level playing field Learning from others’ experiences is important to improve efficiency and effectiveness