Ms. Carmen Falkenberg-Ambrosio, European Commission, DG ...

Minutes from the 1st ECENA Plenary MeetingJanuary 19-20, 2006, Zagreb, CroatiaJanuary 19, 2006Co-chairs: Ms. Carmen Falkenberg-Ambrosio, European Commission, DGEnvironment, E.3 (Enlargement and Neighbouring Countries) and Ms. Josipa Blazevic-Perusic, State Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning andConstructionItem 1. Welcome and Opening RemarksMs. Matulović Dropulić, Minister of Environment, Physical Planning and Construction,welcomed the participants on behalf of the hosting country.Ms. Matulović Dropulić pointed out that the meeting is marked by the start of Croatia’snegotiations for accession in the European Union. She emphasised that a long way has been gonesince the 1970s when Croatia’s awareness of environmental threats started growing. Ms.Matulović Dropulić made a short overview of the Croatian institutional system for environmentalprotection and the efforts to increase the professional capacity of inspectors. She mentioned theadoption of several environmental policy documents: National Environmental ProtectionStrategy, National Environmental Action Plan, the Programme of Waste Management Measures,the Waste Management Strategy. She underlined that Croatia is implementing the MinimumCriteria for Environmental Inspection and is actively cooperation with international inspectionnetworks like ECENA, IMPEL and INECE. Ms. Matulović Dropulić also informed the Plenary ofthe steps that Croatia is taking as a preparation for the EU negotiations.On behalf of the ECENA Secretariat, hosted by the Regional Environmental Center for Centraland Eastern Europe, Mr. Mihail Dimovski welcomed the participants and thanked the CroatianMinistry of Environment, Physical Planning and Construction for its help and efforts to organisethe event in Zagreb.Item 2. Address by the EC (Ms. Carmen Falkenberg-Ambrosio, European Commission,DG Environment, E.3, Enlargement and Neighbouring Countries)Ms. Carmen Falkenberg-Ambrosio welcomed the participants of the 1st ECENA Plenary Meetingon behalf of the European Commission (EC). She stated that ECENA had a key role instrengthening the work of environmental inspection in the region. She underlined thatenvironmental legislation is a very important part of the acquis communautaires.Item 3. Adoption of the AgendaThe Plenary meeting adopted the agenda without comments.Item 4. Report by the Secretariat on activities and results since the 3rd Plenary Meeting(Mihail Dimovski, Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe)The Plenary took note of the presentation from Mr. Mihail Dimovski.1

Mr. Mihail Dimovski presented the Secretariat report on ECENA activities for the period betweenthe 3 rd BERCEN Plenary meeting and the 1 st ECENA Plenary meeting. All the planned activitiesfor the period 2003–2005 were successfully implemented according to the schedule. TheSecretariat also reported that the 24 th IMPEL Plenary had accepted Croatia’s application forIMPEL membership.Detailed progress reports were presented on the following activities:• The Extraordinary BERCEN Plenary Meeting, March 18, 2005, Sofia, Bulgaria. ThePlenary meeting decided on the change of the name of the network from BERCEN toECENA and adopted ECENA’s ToR. Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey were accepted asfull members of ECENA. The ToR of the Peer Reviews of ECENA member countrieswas modified.• Training Programme for Environmental Inspectors and Permit Writers on LargeCombustion Plants Directive, June 1-5, Ireland. The training focused primarily on theLCP Directive, BAT for LCP and its relation with the IPPC Directive. The trainees couldsee the practical implementation of the directive in Ireland. The training included sitevisits to an incinerator, a pharmaceutical company, a peat-fired power station and a coalfiredpower station.• Participation of the Secretariat at the 24 th , 25 th and 26 th IMPEL Plenary Meetings.The Secretariat provided the IMPEL Plenary with updated reports on BERCEN activitiesand achievements.• Peer Review of the Serbian Environmental Enforcement System focused on IPPCdirective and Parliament and Council Recommendation Providing Minimum Criteria forEnvironmental Inspections (RMCEI) implementation and Progress Monitoring andBenchmarking.• 1st ECENA Exchange Programme, 19-21 October, 2005, Cluj, Romania October 19-22, 2005. Countries made an update of IPPC transposition and implementation. Countriesalso updated each other on using progress monitoring benchmarking. Other topicsincluded prioritization of inspections, indicators for inspectors, coordination of permittingprocedures and conditions.• Cooperation with other sister networks: participation of ECENA experts in the PeerReview of the Armenian enforcement and compliance system – May, 2005; participationin the REPIN Annual Meeting – October 2005, Moscow• Maintenance of the BERCEN Web page.Ms. Josipa Blazevic-Perusic (Croatia) shared with the Plenary the benefits from the participationin IMPEL projects.Ms. Hilda Farkas from IMPEL Secretariat encouraged the participants to take part in IMPELprojects.Item 5. Presentation of EU reporting format on IPPC directive implementation and IMPELguidelines regarding reporting on implementation of RMCEI (Ruslan Zhechkov, ECENASecretariat)The Plenary took note of the presentation of Mr. Ruslan Zhechkov.2

Mr. Ruslan Zhechkov from the ECENA Secretariat presented guidelines on reporting on IPPCDirective transposition and implementation and RMCEI. The guidelines were drafted as ECENAmember countries need to prepare such reports during 2006 within the ECENA work programmeas it was agreed at the First BERCEN Plenary Meeting in Budapest, 2002. The purpose of thereporting is to highlight common difficulties; to streamline the process of transfer of lessonslearned and best practices; to serve as a tool for measuring achieved progress; and to helpcountries get prepared for reporting to the EC in the future.The IPPC reporting guidelines are based on Commission Decision 2003/241/EC on the IPPCQuestionnaire and are closely linked to the process of ECENA Peer Reviews. Countries withoutnational IPPC legislation may share their plans for transposition. The RMCEI reporting should bebased on IMPEL Guidance on Point VIII of Recommendation 2001/331/EC and is also closelylinked to the process of ECENA Peer Reviews.Item 6. Discussion: Secretariat Report and agreement on the schedule for the next PeerReviewsThe following schedule has been agreed by the participants:- The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – 28 February – 2 March, 2006-01-31- Kosovo, territory under interim UN administration – 3 March, 2006-01-31- Albania – 28 March – 31 March, 2006- Croatia – Second half of May- Bosnia and Herzegovina – First week of June- Serbia and Montenegro,Republic of Montenegro – dates will be agreed afterconsultation with the Montenegrin Ministry of Environment.Bjiljana Djurovic (Republic of Montenegro) suggested that the Peer Review in Montenegroshould focus on assisting Montenegro to draft it subsidiary IPPC legislation as it is too late tochange the IPPC Law.Ms. Anita Pokrovac- Patekar (Croatia) shared that on the IMPEL website there is a report on theimplementation of the IPPC Directive which can be very useful.Ms. Hilda Farkas pointed out that the results of AC IMPEL institutional review have beenpublished on the IMPEL website. The second institutional review will be published within onemonth.Item 7. ECENA draft Multi-Annual Work Programme for the period 2006-2009.Presentation by the ECENA Secretariat (Mihail Dimovski, ECENA Secretariat)The Plenary took note of the presentation of Mr. Mihail Dimovski.Mihail Dimovski from the ECENA Secretariat presented the Multi-Annual Work Programme forthe period October 2006-October 2009. The background information of BERCEN andsubsequently ECENA establishment was shared with the participants. Mr. Dimovski reminded ofthe close links of ECENA with the former AC IMPEL and IMPEL.3

The new ECENA Multi-Annual Work Programme for the periond 2006-2009 will build on theachievement of the previous BERCEN programme for the period 2001-2006. The first phase ofthe BERCEN operations (2001-2003) focused on network establishment, assessment of the legalset up and capacities for enforcement and implementation of projects on capacity building andexchange of experience. The second phase of the BERCEN operations (2003 – 2006) wasdeveloped based on the lessons learned from the first phase, taking into consideration the countiesneeds and priorities as well as the experience of IMPEL work. The multi-annual work programmewas developed in cluster projects merged in one programme. The activities are supported by ECCARDS regional programme and the World Bank.By its scope of application and activities, BERCEN was very much complementary with theformer AC IMPEL work and relied on strong cooperation and links with IMPEL. The EuropeanCommission initiated BERCEN transformation as a network for pre-candidate, candidate andacceding countries, taking over the role previously played by AC IMPEL.The project concept presented the part of the ECENA multi-annual work programme.. Theparticipation Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro, includingKosovo/UNMIK and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the ECENA Multi-AnnualWork Programme will be supported by the EC CARDS reginal programme and implemented bythe REC . The support for the candidate and acceding countries to participate at the ECENAMulti- Annual Work Programme wll be supported by the EC PHARE programme recentlytendered by the European Commission. Both projects the ECENA multi-annual work programmefor the period 2006-2009 that will be implemented in close coordination among the REC asECENA Secretariat and the successful bidder.The project overall objectives are to improve the ability of the pre-candidate, candidate andacceding countries to implement and enforce the environmental acquis and to serve as a supportfor implementing the mission of ECENA and its objectives. The methodology includes thefollowing principles: sustainability; team work approach; participatory and flexible approach;quality assurance; selection criteria for project team.Activities include:• Management of ECENA Secretariat and organisation of Plenary Meetings• ECENA Cluster 1 on Exchange of Best Practices• ECENA Cluster 2 on study and training on IPPC, Waste landfill, Seveso II, VOCSolvents directives and Recommendation Providing Minimum Criteria for EnvironmentalInspections ( RMCEI)• ECENA Cluster 3 on EPER Development and Maintenance• ECENA Cluster 4 on Protection of Environment through Enforcement of Criminal LawItem 8. Discussion: ECENA multi-annual work programme and its endorsementMs. Josipa Blazevic-Perusic (Croatia) expressed worries that the ECENA countries might beseparated in two groups.Mr. Mihail Dimovski from ECENA Secretariat clarified that during the first year there would bedifferent sources of funding for the two groups of countries to participate at the ECENA multiannualwork programme. The participation of Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey in the4

ECENA Multi-Annual Work Programme ( 2006-2009) be covered from EC PHARE Programmeand an independent contractor will manage the project. ECENA Secretariat will try to createsynergies between the two projects but for the time being the Secretariat is not aware of thecontractor’s proposal. ECENA Secretariat intends to work in close cooperation with thecontractor .Ms. Carmen Falkenberg-Ambrosio (EC) pointed out that the Commission is looking at the bothprojects as one programme.Ms. Anita Pokrovac-Patekar (Croatia) pointed out that ECENA must remain flexible in definingthe programme. However, activities in the work programme are well-described. There is also agood opportunity to link activities from Cluster 4 with IMPEL project on transboundary shipmentof wasteMs. Josipa Blazevic-Perusic (Croatia) found the work programme good, ambitious and interestingfor all countries.Mr. Mihail Dimovski made some clarifications: experts on different topics will be selected laterdepending on the need; the selected company for the EC PHARE Programme tender is not knownyet; participation in IMPEL events will be covered by EC PHARE Programme for the 4 accedingand candidate countries. The rest will be funded by EC CARDS Programme.Ms. Hilda Farkas pointed out that during AC IMPEL the contractor was responsible only forlogistics. The budget covered only travel and accommodation.Ms. Anita Pokrovac- Patekar underlined that Croatia had just started a project on EPER and thatECENA will have to include in its EPER-related activities colleagues from the CroatianEnvironmental Agency.Ms. Bjiljana Djurovic found the programme well done, comprehensive and detailed but pointedout that national coordinators did not have enough time to analyse it in details. A decision wastaken to give participants two weeks for sending written comments. Ms. Djurovic said that theEPER register will be based in the to-be-established Executive Environmental Agency. Sheinquired how the environmental inspectors are involved in environmental crime matters and whythe VOC Emission Solvent Directive was preferred to the Large Combustion Plants Directive.Mr. Mihail Dimovski explained that VOC Directive covers lots of small installations avaliable inall the countries.However, if the plenary agrees, LCP Directive can also be included in the workprogramme instead of VOC solvents Directive.Ms. Ljiljana Stanojevic (Serbia and Montenegro) emphasized that the role of ECENA lies incapacity building. There should be also trainings for permit writers. Serbia expressed readiness tohost an exchange programme and possibly training for EPER.Mr. Mihail Dimovski reminded that the programme includes 16 trainings but more can beincluded if there is a need. The Interactive Multi-media Training Manual avaliable CD-ROMwill help increase the number of trained inspectors on national level.Mr. Muhamet Malsiu (Kosovo, Territory under Interim UN Administration) found theprogramme interesting and important. He emphasised that Kosovo benefited from ECENAevents since the Sofia Plenary Meeting. He suggested finding ways to increase the number of5

trainees. The needs of Kosovo are mainly linked to the IPPC Directive. He also supported theinclusion of the LCP Directive in the programme.Ms. Hulya Gozu (Turkey) apprecited the programme and pointed out that it is closely linked tothe Turkish transposition efforts. Some more time is also needed for discussion within theMinistry. Ms. Gozu reminded the participants that Turkey does not have an integrated permittingsystem yet. Last year there was a project in Turky on IPPC and this year there will be some pilotpermitting. There is also an ongoing twinning project with Germany on the LCP Directive.Mr. Henk Ruessink (The Netherlands) approved of including both inspectors and permit writersin the programme. He emphasised that environmental crime is a big business and that there is atendency to do more crime worldwide.Nikola Ille (World Bank) reminded that other agencies are looking at various types of crime andhe suggested including all ‘enforcement agencies’. He also pointed out that the LCP Directivetransposition is very important.Ms. Karin Sheperdson (World Bank) expressed hopes that countries will continue working onbenchmarking and progress monitoring in environmental enforcement and complinace after theend of the World Bank-funded project.Mr. Mihail Dimovski explained that benchmarking is a crosscutting issue and it fits in any of theclusters.Ms. Micheala Beu (Romania) found the document valuable. Cluster 3 and 4 are more appropriatefor the Romanian level of transposition and implementation. Including benchmarking andindicators would be most welcome. Ms. Beu suggested including Emission Trading and GMOs.Mr. Dimovski reminded that Romania is not a beneficiary country under the project but ECENASecretariat will make sure that all countries get all products. Emission Trading and GMOs areinteresting topics but resources are limited so the network should focus on priorities.Ms. Farkas agreed that the work programme cannot cover all aspects of interest. She invited theparticipants to attend IMPEL events especially on Emission Trading and Benchmarking.Ms. Falkenberg-Ambrosio thanked Ms. Farkas for opening IMPEL to ECENA members.Mr. Kalin Iliev (Bulgaria) acknowledged the fact that the programme cannot be fitted to thepriorities to all the countreis. He suggested merging Clusters 1 and 2 and leaving some space forother issues like Emission Trading and GMOs.Mr. Dimovski reminded the participants that for some years BERCEN/ECENA continuouslyfocused only on IPPC Directive and RMCEI in order to have an impact in improving capacity ofthe countires.Ms. Falkenberg-Ambrosio supported Mr. Dimovski that ECENA should focus on several thingsand develop them well.Mr. Iliev pointed out that the trainings so far has been focused mainly on IPPC and remained ontheoretical level.6

Mr. Darko Blinkov (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) gave his full support to the workprogramme. Especially Clusters 3 and 4 are of great interest. He suggested adding a cluster onbenchmarking and inspection budget planning. He supported Montenegrin proposal to have sometime for written comments and the Kosovo proposal to find ways to increase the number oftrainees.Mr. Dimovski agreed that benchmarking should be a part of the work programme as well asinspection budget planning. This activity is part of the World Bank support to ECENA, and willbe added in the ECENA Multi-Annual Work Programme.Ms. Falkenberg-Ambrosio emphasised that countries are on different levels and that Cluster 1should be tailored to specific needs.Mr. Dimovski pointed out that not all countries have to participate in all activities.in case theyfeel that certain issues are not an immediate priority.Mr. Nesad Seremet (Bosnia and Herzegovina) fully supported the programme but expressed someconcerns. It has to be ensured that the work of the PHARE project contractor is in compliancewith the programme. The integrity of the group should be kept and it should not be split. It wouldbe good to intensify the transfer of accession lessons learned from Bulgaria and Romania to theother countries. A concern was expressed that the big number of activities might not fit in thediscussed amount of 1.2 million EUR.Ms. Falkenberg-Ambrosio shared the concern that the group should not be split.Ms. Laureta Dibra (Albania) appreciated the work programme and is mainly interested in the bignumber of trainings for inspectors. The focus for Albania will be IPPC and RMCEI.Mr. Zhechkov from the Secretariat pointed out that usually the ECENA training combine theIPPC Directive with some other related piece of EU legislation like the IPPC Directive, BAT andits impact on the industry competitiveness, etc. Therefore keeping the focus on IPPC does notmean that the other important pieces of EU legislation will be neglected.Ms. Arin (World Bank) suggested that one area that should not be overlooked is SMEs. She alsosuggested to keep an eye on the problems of illegal discharge at the coastal areas.Mr. Iliev proposed to merge Clusters 1 and 2, focus on practical issues, and then leave space forEmission Trading and other new legislation.Mr. Dimovski agreed with the proposal and underlined that the ToR for each event is to be sharedwith the beneficiaries.Mr. Farkas reminded that AC IMPEL project used to group several directives.Following a proposal from Ms. Falkenberg-Ambrosio a decision was taken to give participantstwo weeks for comments with a deadline of February 2 nd , 2006. Another week will be needed forthe Secretariat to develop the full integrated work programme.Ms. Falkenberg-Ambrosio agreed that not all countries should participate in all events but shewould not like to see a situation where only advanced or only lagging countries take part inseparate events.7

Item 9. EC update on EU Accession Process and its relevance to the ECENA long termstrategic goals (Ms. Carmen Falkenberg-Ambrosio, EC DG Environment)The Plenary took note of the presentation from Ms. Carmen Falkenberg-Ambrosio.Ms. Falkenberg-Ambrosio pointed out that the countries are at different levels in their accessiontowards the European Union: Bulgaria and Romania are Acceding Countries; Croatia, Turkey andThe former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are Candidate Countries; Albania, Bosnia andHerzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro are Stabilisation and Association Countries. Sheemphasised that the adoption of the acquis in environment in the New Member States was amajor challenge and that countries faced many institutional challenges: administrative structure,inter-ministerial cooperation, involvement of stakeholders, etc. Ms. Falkenberg-Ambrosioenumerated key environmental legislation adopted in 2003 and 2004 as well as key directivesunder discussion.Item 10. Note by The World Bank on the support on strengthening the ECENA membercountries environmental institutions ( Ms. Karin Shepardson, The World Bank)The Plenary took note of the presentation from Ms. Karin Shepardson.Ms. Shepardson made an overview of the work that the World Bank is doing in the regionincluding range of client support and links with environmental institutions. She emphasised thatthe focus of work is related to the EU accession; seeks to facilitate inter-regional and internationalexchange; and promotes good tools for economic development. Ms. Shepardson shortly presentedthe project that is being carried out together with REC including ECENA.Item 11. Preliminary results of The World Bank-funded project on strengthening the W.Balkans Environmental Institutions (Ruslan Zhechkov and Mihail Dimovski, ECENASecretariat)The Plenary took note of the presentation from Mr. Ruslan Zhechkov.Mr. Zhechkov made an overview of Tasks 1 and 2 of the World Bank funded Study onStrengthening Environmental Institutions in New Member States, Bulgaria and Romaniaincluding objectives and outcomes. He enumerated the EU tools to assess environmental capacityin EU-25. He also mentioned preliminary findings from focus groups discussions. There is a needfor long-term ssources for environmental financing; mechanism is needed for involvement ofstakeholders on drafting of laws from the very beginning; continuity of people is very important;good inter-ministerial cooperation is needed. Mr. Zhechkov also presented the activities and theoutcomes of Task 3 on benchmarking.8

January 20, 2006Co-chairs: Ms. Carmen Falkenberg-Ambrosio Ambrosio, European Commission, DGEnvironment, E.3 (Enlargement and Neighbouring Countries) and Ms. Josipa Blazevic-Perusic, State Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning andConstruction.Item 12. Recent developments in IMPEL Network. Presentation by IMPEL Secretariat onthe major IMPEL activities/outcomes relevant for ECENAThe Plenary took note of the presentation from Ms. Hilda Farkas.Ms. Farkas made an overview of IMPEL members and IMPEL events in 2005. She also remindedthe objectives and tasks of AC-IMPEL. Ms. Farkas listed the different IMPEL clusters includingImproving permitting, inspection and enforcement; Waste shipment; Better legislation. She alsolisted ongoing and future IMPEL projects.Ms. Farkas invited the The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to join IMPEL.Henk Ruessink stressed the importance of the IMPEL project on illegal shipment of waste andsuggested to include similar projects in ECENA.Item 13. Turkish environmental compliance and enforcement system vs. transposition ofrelated EU legislation.The Plenary took note of the presentation from Ms. Hulya Gozu.Ms. Gozu made an overview of the institutional setup in the field of environment in Turkey. Sheunderlined that currently Turkey does not have an integrated environmental permitting systemand existing environmental permits are media based. The Turkish Environmental Agency, whichis to be established in the near future, will begin to implement the integrated permits.The Turkish delegation expressed its satisfaction of being present in Zagreb and being a part ofECENA in general.There were several questions on the environmental inspection system in Turkey.The Turkish representatives clarified that: there is a new regulation for integrated inspectioncovering all media; 1 inspection involves 2 inspectors including a permit writer; annualinspection plan is prepared at the end of each preceding year at the Ministry of Environment;there are 81 provinces in Turkey with Regional Environmental Directorates; in case of accidentsboth the Ministry of Environment and the Regional Inspectorates visit the site; the number ofinspectors is not enough; other state institutions also have responsibilities in the field ofenvironment.Item 14. Competent authorities in the field of IPPC in BulgariaThe Plenary took note of the presentation from Mr. Kalin Iliev.9

Mr. Iliev made an overview of the Bulgarian IPPC legislation, competent authorities andprocedures for issuing of integrated permits. He also reviewed the implementation of the EPERdecision in Bulgaria.Item 15. Romanian experience in implementing the EC decision from 17 July 2000 onEPER.The Plenary took note of the presentation from Ms. Daniela Florea and Ms. Michaela Beu.Ms. Florea and Ms. Beu made an overview of the transposition of the EC Decision on EPER, theadvantages and benefits from its implementation as well as responsible bodies for itsimplementation. The first report was realised in 2003 and the second one – in 2005.There were some questions by the participants.The Romanian delegation made clarifications: costs for implementation of EPER can hardly beestimated; collection of data is done on regional level and aggregation – on national level.Validation is done by an interministerial committee.Item 16. Croatian progress report related to starting of the negotiations on chapter 27 -environment, with emphasis of DG environment project on supporting the accessionprocess of the candidate e countries.The Plenary took note of the presentation from Dr Nikola Ružinski, State Secretary.Dr. Ružinski shared with the Plenary the Croatian the experience from the first steps of thenegotiation with the EC on Chapter 27 – Environment. Accession negotiations opened on 4October, 2005. The preparations for screening were initiated in December. The NationalProgramme for the Integration into the EU is the basis for the harmonization of the Croatianlegislation with the EU. For 2006 it envisages the adoption of 47 acts, 22 out of which are underthe competences of the MEPPPC. There is an ongoing DG Environment project going onsupporting the accession process. It covers a big number of sectors and directives. Then Dr.Ružinski made an overview of the harmonization work to be done by sectors: horizontal, airquality, waste, water quality, nature protection, industrial pollution and control and riskmanagement, chemicals, GMOs, noise and forestry.In industrial pollution and control and risk management the new Environmental Protection Act(due in 2006) will provide a legal framework for adoption of implementing legislation that willully transpose the IPPC and Seveso Directives. MEPPPC has already initiated a pilot project onIPPPC permitting procedures in selected companies and the Environment Agency has startedcreating a database of risky and potentially risky facilities.Dr. Ružinski concluded that most of the transposition activities will take place in 2006 andtherefore strong coordination is needed, in particular in the area of chemicals and GMOs.There were some questions by the participants.Dr. Ružinski underlined that Croatia had studied the example of New Member States andacceding countries but the terms are changing. Before embarking on an institutional reform theresults of the transposition effort have to be clear.10

Item 17. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – Update on strengthening theimplementation and enforcement of EU environmental legislation /Forthcoming obligationsrelated to implementation and enforcement of EU legislation after granting a status ofcandidate country .The Plenary heard the presentation by Mr. Darko Blinkov.Mr. Blinkov made an overview of the EC Opinion on the application from the Former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia for EU membership. On 9 November 2005 the Commission recommendto The Council that The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia should get a status of candidatecountry. In December 2005 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was granted a status ofCandidate Country for EU Membership.According to the opinion, the basic elements of a legislative framework are in place butimplementation and enforcement are in some cases only in their initial stages. Areas that needstrengthening are: data collection; administrative capacity; management of responsibilities; localresources for implementation. Mr. Blinkov made an overview of the present status ofharmonization, the institutional framework as well as the main obstacles.Short term priorities include the adoption of several strategic document, 2 pieces of horizontallegislation and pieces of legislation in all sectors. Institutional reform is also on the agenda.Pilot IPPC permits will be issued for a company in the cement industry (Titan) and Makstil.There are 140 A installations in Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia but the number of Binstallations is not known yet.Item 18. Bosnia and Herzegovina – Progress Report/obligations on enforcement andcompliance of EU legislation, part of the environmental priorities under the SecondEuropean Partnership. Country update in developing a plan, including time table andspecific measures to address the European Partnership Priorities in the environmental field.The Plenary heard the presentation by Mr. Nesad Seremet.Mr. Seremet presented information prepared by the ECENA National Coordinator Azra Gackic.BiH obligations under the European Partnershio include: institutional strengthening and capacitybuilding in the domain of environmental protection; implementation of already adoptedlegislative instruments; ensuring the efficient functioning of the environmental monitoringsystem. The institutional strengthening component also includes a reform of the inspectionsystem: establishing a joint inspectorate at entity and cantonal level; reorganizing theinspectorates including rationally organised, regionally grouped and independent inspectionnetwork.Mr. Seremet that coordination in the field of environment is functioning at the moment. By theend of the year environmental protection will be on state level.Item 19. Albania – Update on strengthening the implementation and enforcement of EUenvironmental legislation according to the recommendations from the EC 2005 ReportThe Plenary took note of the presentation from Ms. Laureta Dibra.11

Ms. Dibra made an overview of the environmental legislation adopted in the last quarter of2005. She also shared details of Environmental Inspectorate activities in 2005. The number ofofficers in the Ministry is 4, while the number of officers in the Regional EnvironmentalAgencies (REA) is 39. Inspectors are powerless to fully enforce the implementation ofenvironmental legislation. The number of inspections carried out is increased but in mostcases fines are not collected. The efficient mechanism for their collection is not found yetTotal number of activities with environmental impact is 3800. The small and medium sizedenterprises is appr. 3700. The total number of activities with environmental permit is 2585.Annually 2600 inspection visits are carried out and 102 administrative fines are imposedamounting to 200,000 EUR. However, this is only 7.8% total of collected fines.Item 20.1. Serbia – Update on strengthening the implementation and enforcement of EUenvironmental legislation according to the recommendations from the EC 2005 Report.The Plenary took note of the presentation from Ljiljana Stanojevic.Ms. Stanojevic listed the European Partnership priorities including the adoption of Law onEnvironmental Protection; the establishment of an Agency for Environmental Protection;adoption and implementation of legislation on environmental impact assessment; adopting andimplementation of different media protection strategies;. Priorities also include the strengtheningof environmental capacity and the developing of a multi-annual plan for environmental financing.Ms. Stanojevic also made an overview of newly adopted environmental laws.Serbia has recently adopted an IPPC Law. Serbia has about 242 existing IPPC installations. Pilotpermit will be issued to Holcim Group Company in Novi Pazar. The deadline for compliance ofexisting installations is 2015. Other accompanying measures include development of a capacitybuilding programme; development of BAT guidance; support from financial and other institutionsfor further implementations of IPPC. Ms. Stanojevic also reviewed the inspection system inSerbia, the structure, the number of inspectors, etc. In the end of 2005 ”Manual for environmentalinspectors” was published by the Republic Environmental Inspection. It was suggested that themanual be disseminated within the ECENA network.Item 20.2. Kosovo as defined by UNSCR 1144 - Update on strengthening theimplementation and enforcement of EU environmental legislation according to therecommendations from the EC 2005 Report.The Plenary took note of the presentation from Mr. Muhamet Malsiu.Mr. Malsiu made an overview of the environmental legislation in force and legislation stillpending to be adopted including an IPPC Law. He mentioned several policy documents that havejust been approved or are to be approved in the new future. Mr. Malsiu briefly described thesystem of environmental inspecting in Kosovo, territory under interim UN administration. At thecentral level inspecting competences are attributed to the Environmental and Water Inspectorateand to the Inspectorates for Housing/Construction and for Spatial Planning. At the local levelthere are more than 30 inspectors, one for each municipality. The number of inspectors on centrallevel is 7. The number of inspections is not very high because inspectors are also involved inother activities like law drafting. The IPPC Law is expected to be drafted this year by a Belgiumcompany and a working group has already been established.Item 21. Montenegro – Update on strengthening the implementation and enforcement of EUenvironmental legislation according to the recommendations from the EC 2005 Report.12

The Plenary took note of the presentation from Biljana Djurovic.Ms. Djurovic made an overview of the European Partnership with Serbia and Montenegro. Theshort-term priority is the adoption of a Strategy on Waste Water and Solid Waste. The mediumtermpriorities include the development of an overall environmental strategy and theestablishment of an Environmental Protection Agency. The Action plan for Implementation ofEuropean Partnership Recommendations was adopted by the government in December, 2004. Theimplementation of the plan is regularly examined by the government and the EuropeanCommission. In 2004 and 2005 both general and sectoral strategies have been adopted as well asseveral pieces of environmental legislation including a Law on IPPC. Ms. Djurovic listed thepolicy documents and legislation that is to be adopted in 2006-2007.In the EC 2005 progress report it was mentioned that “Montenegro has made some good progressin implementing the EP`s short-term priorities, and also started to address some of the mediumtermones. The implementation of the priorities has affected in some cases by lack of legislativedevelopments and rather frequently by the lack of administrative capacity”. The second EuropeanPartnership short-term priorities focus on continued approximation of the legislation as well asthe implementation of the already adopted legislation.Item 22. Recent developments in INECE network (Henk Ruessink, VROM)The Plenary took note of the presentation from Henk Ruessink.Mr. Ruessink made an overview of the history, functioning and objectives of INECE network.The Plenary took note of the presentation from Henk Ruessink. INECE is such a network whichsolves the “trilemma” of a need for more global rules, without centralized power, but withpolitical accountability. He mentioned about relevant INECE work on environmental complianceand enforcement indicators; water governance course and judicial remedies. He presented thepublication “Making Law Work” as well as plans to start a new Maghreb network.As to the work on indicators, Mr. Ruessink underlined that they are trying to find the rightindependent indicators. They can be qualitative and quantitative and be on different levels.Item 23. Combating Environmental Crime: Presentation on INTERPOL ECO-MESSAGEproject and its relevance to ECENA ( Henk Ruessink, VROM)The Plenary took note of the presentation from Henk Ruessink.Mr. Ruessink made an overview of the current problems with environmental crime and ofEcomessage as Interpol’s reporting system for environmental crime. Ecomessage covers: illegaltransborder movements & illegal dumping of wastes and ODS; vessel pollution; illegaltransborder activities involving radioactive substances; and illegal trafficking in wild flora andfauna. There were approximately 800 Ecomessages filed before 2000. Some drawbacks are thatthe presented data is not statistically valid and that the Ecomessage database is still much toosmall to be the basis of serious analysis. Mr. Ruessing presented the Ecomessage award and theimportance of ECENA’s participation in this effort.As an answer to some questions Mr. Ruessink clarified that a country can become a member if itis a member of Interpol. He would also provide to the participants a list of persons to beapproached in the different countries. Customs are also connected to Ecomessage and entries13

come mostly from them. Analysis of collected information is done centrally at the InterpolHeadquarters in Lyon.Item 24. Recent development in REPIN networkThe Plenary took note of the presentation from Ruslan Zhechkov.• Mr. Zhechkov presented the information prepared by Ms. Angela Bularga from EAPTask Force at OECD as, unfortunately she could not attend the meeting. Mr. Zhechkovmade an overview of REPIN’s history, objectives and current projects. He listed theactivities that took place in 2004 and 2005. Mr. Zhechkov presented the OECDpublications “Integrated Environmental Permitting Guidelines” and “FundingEnvironmental Compliance Assurance”. Key activities in 2006 include regional andnational trainings on integrated permitting and inspection (Moldova, Ukraine, Russia);institutional strengthening projects in Georgia and Kazakhstan; REPIN meeting in midJune 2006; and EECCA Environmental Policy Conference in mid September 2006.Summary ConclusionsSummarising the conclusions of the Plenary meeting, Ms. Josipa Blazevic-Perusic stated that bothreports from the Secretariat were a proof of great experience and excellent cooperation. ECENAmade a big progress as IMPEL sister network. The multi-annual work plan is solid, open anddynamic basis for cooperation. Countries will be able to participate according to their interest,capacity and stage of progress. The work programme should be revised within three weeks aftercountries send their comments within two weeks. The existence of two EU contracts is a bitconfusing to the participants. Ms. Blazevic-Perusic underlined the good EU, World Bank andcountry presentations. She conclude that a big progress in capacity had been made since theprevious meeting and that countries are ready not only to adopt legislation but to implement ittoo.On behalf of the Commission, Ms. Falkenberg-Ambrosio conclude that this was a good and frankmeeting which decided on the way forward. To what Ms. Blazevic-Perusic said, Ms. Falkenberg-Ambrosio added that the Plenar also heard the activities of other networks as well as interestingproject on environmental crime. She thanked the participants and closed the meeting.Mr. Mihail Dimovski thanked the EC, the Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning andConstruction and the participants for organising an excellent meeting and for being open,dedicated and enthusiastic.List of items that need further actionItem Comments and action Delegation WhenItem 6 Fix date for the BiH Peer Review Secretariat and BiHdelegationBy the end ofFebruaryItem 6 Fix date for the Croatian PeerReviewSecretariat andCroatian delegationBy the end ofFebruaryItem 6 Fix date for the Montenegrin PeerReviewSecretariat andMontenegro delegationBy the end ofFebruary programmeItem 8 Countries submit comments on Country delegations February 6th, 200614

Item 8Item 20.1.Item 23the Multi-annual WorkProgrammeThe Multi-annual WorkProgramme is reworked based onall comments during the PlenaryDisseminate ”Manual forenvironmental inspectors”Provide to participants a list ofpersons to be approached in thedifferent countries regardingEcomessageSecretariat February 13th, 2006Serbian delegation March, 2006through the SecretariatHenk Ruessink March, 200615