Integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) in the European Union

Large industrial facility with high chimneys for which the IPPC permit is mandatory. Heavy and grey clouds in the background amplify the severity of the issues involved. — *Patrick Hendry from Unsplash*

Intro

The scope and consequences of industrial pollution in our Brave New World are largely detrimental and hardly comprehensible. One of the attempts to control and alleviate these “aberrations”, directly and indirectly linked to HUMAN HEALTH and WELL-BEING, is embodied in the legislative and technical tool called “Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control” (IPPC).

The evolution of IPPC legislation, practice, and methodology, although not that long, is dynamic and progressive, with inevitable drawbacks and adjustments it has faced along the way.

This article tends to explore the history, implementation, and challenges of Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) within the teeming realm of environmental protection efforts in the EU.

Ambitiously conceived (and tragically induced), IPPC grabbed its strong position as one of the crucial instruments in a whole array of more or less efficient contraptions in environmental law and management.

Initially aiming for the “least biased” approach to this matter, we hastily asked almighty AI, among other reasons, to distinguish the gleaming fiction from the harsh reality.

So, what AI gleefully says (with limited authors’ editing) about this topic, we can read within the following titles and encompassing paragraphs. After these energetically composed foundations (AIs are still not humans), we can dip into the excruciating process of the IPPC development in the EU, which proudly pioneered in this achievement of mankind, too.

What is Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control?

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) is a concept that refers to an environmental management approach aimed at reducing pollution from industrial activities through the integration of various pollution control methods. It involves preventing or minimizing emissions to the environment (air, water, land, biodiversity, and human health) from industrial facilities by using the best available techniques (BAT) in an integrated manner.

Key elements of IPPC

1. Holistic approach: IPPC takes into account all forms of pollution in all mediums (air, water, land, and living organisms) and aims to control them in a coordinated way. This means that rather than focusing on treating pollutants after they are created, IPPC seeks to prevent them at the source and reduce their overall impact.

2. Best Available Techniques (BAT): The concept relies on using the most effective, advanced, and economically feasible technologies and practices for reducing pollution. BATs are considered in the context of environmental protection as a whole, taking into account both technical feasibility and environmental and economic costs.

3. Permit system: Under IPPC, industries are strictly required to obtain permits from environmental authorities, specifying the limits on pollutant emissions and the measures they must take to minimize environmental impact. These permits are based on the use of BATs.

4. Continuous improvement: IPPC encourages continuous improvement in industrial operations and pollution prevention efforts. This means industries are expected to adopt new technologies or practices that improve their environmental performance over time.

5. Sustainability and efficiency: The goal of IPPC is not only to reduce pollution but also to encourage more sustainable and efficient use of resources in industrial processes, promoting cleaner production.

Why is IPPC significant?

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) is significant for several reasons, primarily because it addresses environmental protection in a more holistic, preventive, and efficient manner than traditional pollution control methods. Below are 8 main reasons why IPPC acts as a more proactive mechanism compared to traditional reactive approaches.

1. Prevention over remedy

– Focus on prevention: IPPC emphasizes reducing pollution at the source, rather than just controlling or cleaning up pollution once it occurs. This proactive approach is more effective and sustainable than relying on end-of-pipe treatment solutions.

– Reduced environmental impact: By preventing and/or reducing pollution at the source, IPPC helps protect air, water, land, and living organisms from harmful industrial emissions and waste, leading to a cleaner and healthier environment.

2. Holistic and integrated approach

– Comprehensive management: IPPC considers all forms of pollution (in air, water, land, and living organisms) together (rather than treating them separately), observing ecosystems and the environments as interactive entities as they actually behave in nature and reality. This integrated approach helps ensure that efforts to reduce pollution in one area do not inadvertently lead to increased pollution in another.

– Optimization of resources: By taking a system-wide view, industries are encouraged to minimize the overall environmental impact of their operations, often leading to better resource efficiency and reduced waste production.

3. Use of Best Available Techniques (BAT)

– Technological improvement: IPPC promotes the use of the best available techniques (BAT), encouraging industries to adopt the most advanced technologies that have been proven to minimize environmental harm. In this way, industries are urged to use the latest innovations in environmental protection and technological development.

– Economically feasible solutions: BAT ensures that pollution reduction strategies are viable and affordable for enterprises to adopt by taking into account both economic capability and environmental efficacy.

4. Improved compliance and transparency

– Regulatory framework: Through the implementation of integrated environmental permits, IPPC provides a clear legal framework for industries to follow, imposing their compliance with environmental standards. This framework increases accountability and transparency in industrial operations.

– Public and stakeholder confidence: When industries follow an IPPC-based system, it builds trust with the public, local communities, and regulators by demonstrating a commitment to responsible environmental management.

5. Sustainability and long-term impact

– Sustainable industrial practices: IPPC encourages industries to adopt more sustainable production processes that reduce environmental harm and improve resource efficiency. This reinforces the long-term sustainability of industries and helps reduce their ecological footprint.

– Climate change mitigation: By optimizing energy use, reducing waste, and cutting emissions, IPPC contributes to broader goals like climate change mitigation, which is essential for achieving global environmental targets.

6. Public health and ecosystem protection

– Health benefits: Reducing harmful emissions and pollutants protects the health of nearby communities and ecosystems that are artfully intertwined within a perpetual process of development and natural evolution. IPPC strategies and practices primarily improve air and water quality, directly benefiting public health by lowering the risks of respiratory diseases, cancers, and other pollution-related health issues.

– Ecosystem preservation: Curbing industrial pollution helps preserve ecosystems, protecting biodiversity, water resources, and soil quality, making it essential for maintaining healthy natural systems and food security.

7. Encouragement of continuous economic and overall improvement

– Dynamic regulatory approach: IPPC encourages continuous improvement by promoting innovation and the adoption of new technologies. This ensures that environmental protection keeps pace with industrial development and growing environmental challenges.

– Competitive advantage: Industries that adopt IPPC practices may gain a competitive superiority by being seen as more environmentally responsible, which can help attract customers, investors, and regulatory approvals.

– Economic efficiency: By integrating pollution control measures, industries inevitably develop a wide variety of waste reductions, resource management measures, and cost savings, thus improving comprehensive business efficiency.

8. Global relevance

– International standards: Although IPPC was developed in the European Union, its principles and experience are relevant globally. Many countries are adopting similar approaches to industrial pollution control, contributing to global initiatives to lower industrial pollution and fight climate change

– Global cooperation: As industries become more interconnected and globalised, having standardised methodologies like IPPC guarantees that pollution control efforts are consistent across borders, fostering international collaboration on environmental protection.

“There you have it.” AI said exactly what it (he, she) was paid to say, but let’s see the real action on the ground.

IPPC practice in the European Union

In the European Union (EU), IPPC is implemented through national legislation and regulations. In essence, industrial installations covered by IPPC are required to obtain permits that set specific emission limits and operational conditions. Compliance with these permits is monitored and enforced by national authorities.

The evolution of the IPPC process in the EU has gone through a long course, and it all basically commenced with Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, which laid the foundations of the robust mechanism aimed at the reduction of emissions into air, water, and land and the prevention of waste generation from large industrial installations.

Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24th September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control

In the European Union, the IPPC was formalized firstly under the IPPC Directive (EU Council Directive 96/61/EC), published on 24th September 1996.

Before the adoption of this Directive (96/61/EC), air and water pollution and waste disposal in some EU member states were regulated separately, while others performed some form of integrated pollution control. This has been overcome with the newborn IPPC Directive, which states its primary goal in Article 1:

“The purpose of this Directive is to achieve integrated prevention and control of pollution arising from the activities listed in Annex I. It lays down measures designed to prevent or, where that is not practicable, to reduce emissions in the air, water, and land from the abovementioned activities, including measures concerning waste, in order to achieve a high level of protection of the environment taken as a whole, without prejudice to Directive 85/337/EEC and other relevant Community provisions.”

This means that no medium (air, water, or land) will be compromised in an attempt to protect another.

The aim of the Directive was to harmonize pollution control across Europe, and its implementation should institute a significant step for some member states by increasing the number of industrial installations subject to integrated permitting as well as extending the scope of environmental matters involved in the permit.

Encompassing all environmental considerations, IPPC has remotely moved away from an immeasurably less efficient “end-of-pipe” approach (i.e., reacting to pollution once it occurs) to the legal and operational structure in which environmental considerations are given paramount priority at the very design of an installation.

In short, the IPPC Directive focuses on source control of pollution, where emissions from a facility should be eliminated, reduced, recovered, or recycled, instead of individually concentrating on air, water, and land protection, as was the previous practice. Only in cases where pollutant emissions cannot be prevented, they should be treated using the best available “end-of-pipe” treatment technologies.

The scope of the Directive

Six main categories of industrial activities that are covered by the Directive include:

Energy industries,
Production and processing of metals,
Mineral industry,
Chemical industry,
Waste management,
Other activities (pulp and paper production, tanning of hides and skins, slaughterhouses, installations for the disposal or recycling of animal carcasses and animal waste, installations for the intensive rearing of poultry or pigs…). (ANNEX I of the Directive)

The Directive targets mainly large installations, and except for the chemical sector, all the other categories are covered by capacity thresholds.

Basic operator obligations

In Article 3 (General principles governing the basic obligations of the operator) of the Directive, obligations for operators are prescribed, as follows:

”Member States shall take the necessary measures to provide that the competent authorities ensure that installations are operated in such a way that:

(a) all the appropriate preventive measures are taken against pollution, in particular through application of the best available techniques;

(b) no significant pollution is caused;

(c) waste production is avoided in accordance with Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste; where waste is produced, it is recovered or, where that is technically and economically impossible, it is disposed of while avoiding or reducing any impact on the environment;

(d) energy is used efficiently;

(e) the necessary measures are taken to prevent accidents and limit their consequences;

(f) the necessary measures are taken upon definitive cessation of activities to avoid any pollution risk and return the site of operation to a satisfactory state.

For the purposes of compliance with this Article, it shall be sufficient if Member States ensure that the competent authorities take account of the general principles set out in this Article when they determine the conditions of the permit.”

Permit application requirements

Permit applications that are to be submitted to the competent authorities must provide detailed descriptions as postulated in Article 6 (Applications for permits) of the Directive:

“1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that an application to the competent authority for a permit includes a description of:

– the installation and its activities,

– the raw and auxiliary materials, other substances, and the energy used in or generated by the installation,

– the sources of emissions from the installation,

– the conditions of the site of the installation,

– the nature and quantities of foreseeable emissions from the installation into each medium, as well as the identification of significant effects of the emissions on the environment,

– the proposed technology and other techniques for preventing or, where this is not possible, reducing emissions from the installation,

– where necessary, measures for the prevention and recovery of waste generated by the installation,

– further measures planned to comply with the general principles of the basic obligations of the operator as provided for in Article 3,

– measures planned to monitor emissions into the environment.

An application for a permit shall also include a non-technical summary of the details referred to in the above indents.

2. Where information supplied in accordance with the requirements provided for in Directive 85/337/EEC or a safety report prepared in accordance with Council Directive 82/501/EEC of 24 June 1982 on the major-accident hazards of certain industrial activities or other information produced in response to other legislation fulfills any of the requirements of this Article, that information may be included in, or attached to, the application.”

The Directive allows the involvement of more than one competent authority, regulated by Article 7 (Integrated approach to issuing permits), which underlines:

“Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the conditions of, and procedure for the grant of, the permit are fully coordinated where more than one competent authority is involved, in order to guarantee an effective integrated approach by all authorities competent for this procedure.”

Decision

In the final stage of the permitting process (Article 8 of the Directive – Decisions), “Without prejudice to other requirements laid down in national or Community legislation, the competent authority shall grant a permit containing conditions guaranteeing that the installation complies with the requirements of this Directive or, if it does not, shall refuse to grant the permit.

All permits, granted and modified permits must include details of the arrangements made for air, water, and land protection as referred to in this Directive.”

Conditions of the permit

Among others “Conditions of the permit” (Article 9 of the Directive), the following particularly prescribe:

“3. The permit shall include emission limit values for pollutants, in particular, those listed in Annex III, likely to be emitted from the installation concerned in significant quantities, having regard to their nature and their potential to transfer pollution from one medium to another (water, air, and land). If necessary, the permit shall include appropriate requirements ensuring the protection of the soil and ground water and measures concerning the management of waste generated by the installation. Where appropriate, limit values may be supplemented or replaced by equivalent parameters or technical measures.

For installations under subheading 6.6 in Annex I, emission limit values laid down in accordance with this paragraph shall take into account practical considerations appropriate to these categories of installation.”

”4. Without prejudice to Article 10, the emission limit values and the equivalent parameters and technical measures referred to in paragraph 3 shall be based on the best available techniques, without prescribing the use of any technique or specific technology, but taking into account the technical characteristics of the installation concerned, its geographical location and the local environmental conditions. In all circumstances, the conditions of the permit shall contain provisions on the minimization of long-distance or transboundary pollution and ensure a high level of protection for the environment as a whole.

5. The permit shall contain suitable release monitoring requirements, specifying measurement methodology and frequency, evaluation procedure, and an obligation to supply the competent authority with data required for checking compliance with the permit.

6. The permit shall contain measures relating to conditions other than normal operating conditions. Thus, where there is a risk that the environment may be affected, an appropriate provision shall be made for start-up, leaks malfunctions, momentary stoppages, and definitive cessation of operations.

The permit may also contain temporary derogations from the requirements of paragraph 4 if a rehabilitation plan approved by the competent authority ensures that these requirements will be met within six months and if the project leads to a reduction of pollution.

7. The permit may contain such other specific conditions for the purposes of this Directive as the Member State or competent authority may think fit.

8. Without prejudice to the obligation to implement a permit procedure pursuant to this Directive, Member States may prescribe certain requirements for certain categories of installations in general binding rules instead of including them in individual permit conditions, provided that an integrated approach and an equivalent high level of environmental protection as a whole are ensured.”

Best Available Techniques (BAT)

One of the main principles of the Directive pertains to the development and implementation of Best Available Techniques (BAT), as postulated within the following articles, starting with the definition of BAT.

The definition of BAT has been provided in Article 2 of the Directive (Definitions):

“11. ‘best available techniques` shall mean the most effective and advanced stage in the development of activities and their methods of operation which indicate the practical suitability of particular techniques for providing in principle the basis for emission limit values designed to prevent and, where that is not practicable, generally to reduce emissions and the impact on the environment as a whole:

– ‘techniques` shall include both the technology used and the way in which the installation is designed, built, maintained, operated, and decommissioned,

– ‘available` techniques shall mean those developed on a scale that allows implementation in the relevant industrial sector, under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into consideration the costs and advantages, whether or not the techniques are used or produced inside the Member State in question, as long as they are reasonably accessible to the operator,

– ‘best` shall mean most effective in achieving a high general level of protection of the environment as a whole.

In determining the best available techniques, special consideration should be given to the items listed in Annex IV;”

In addition, Article 10 (Best available techniques and environmental quality standards) of the Directive states:

“Where an environmental quality standard requires stricter conditions than those achievable by the use of the best available techniques, additional measures shall in particular be required in the permit, without prejudice to other measures which might be taken to comply with environmental quality standards.”

Whereas, Article 11 (Developments in best available techniques) prescribes:

“Member States shall ensure that the competent authority follows or is informed of developments in the best available techniques.”

Other relevant aspects of the Directive

Other relevant provisions of the Directive that necessitate the fulfillment of the entirety of the Directive’s volume are equally important and include:

Changes by operators to installations (Article 12)
Reconsideration and updating of permit conditions by the competent authority (Article 13)
Compliance with permit conditions (Article 14)
Access to information and public participation in the permit procedure (Article 15)
Exchange of information (Article 16)
Transboundary effects (Article 17)
Community emission limit values (Article 18)
Committee procedure referred to in Article 15 (3) (Article 19)
Transitional provisions (Article 20)
Bringing into effect (Article 21)

The role of the competent authority

The Directive provides the competent authorities a strong role, clarified in Article 2 (Definitions): “8. ‘competent authority` shall mean the authority or authorities or bodies responsible under the legal provisions of the Member States for carrying out the obligations arising from this Directive.”

Depending on the country and the size of the installation concerned, these may be national, regional, or local bodies. Authorities at different levels of government responsible for different types of environmental impact may be involved in permitting the same installation, as already mentioned (Article 7 – Integrated approach to issuing permits).

Directive’s annexes

The Directive is complemented by four annexes:

ANNEX I – Categories of industrial activities referred to in Article 1;
ANNEX II – List of the Directives referred to in Articles 18 (2) and 20;
ANNEX III – Indicative list of the main polluting substances to be taken into account if they are relevant for fixing emission limit values;
ANNEX IV – Considerations to be taken into account generally or in specific cases when determining best available techniques, as defined in Article 2 (11), bearing in mind the likely costs and benefits of a measure and the principles of precaution and prevention.

The IPPC Directive 96/61/EC had been in force for over ten years and was eventually repealed by Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, with Article 22 (Repeal) stating:

“Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by the acts listed in Annex VI, Part A, is repealed, without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time-limits for transposition into national law of the Directives as set out in Annex VI, Part B.

References to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex VII.”

Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control

On 15th January 2008, the modified IPPC Directive came into force as Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council Concerning Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. This new Directive did not change the structural essence of Directive 96/61/EC but included all identified amendments as well as some linguistic changes and adaptations, and also retained and upgraded all the basic postulates. It was, moreover, without prejudice to the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control).

Basically, in 2008, the original IPPC Directive was incorporated in Directive 2008/1/EC, maintaining the quintessence epitomized in minimizing industrial pollution throughout the European Union.

The amended and improved Directive 2008/1/EC is still constructed on several main pillars:

1. The integrated approach refers to the need for permits to take into account the total environmental performance of the plant to guarantee the highest possible level of protection of the complete environment that could be affected. This is primarily laid down in Article 3 of the Directive (General principles governing the basic obligations of the operator):

“1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to provide that the competent authorities ensure that installations are operated in such a way that:

(a) all the appropriate preventive measures are taken against pollution, in particular through application of the best available techniques;

(b) no significant pollution is caused;

(c) waste production is avoided in accordance with Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste; where waste is produced, it is recovered or, where that is technically and economically impossible, it is disposed of while avoiding or reducing any impact on the environment;

(d) energy is used efficiently;

(e) the necessary measures are taken to prevent accidents and limit their consequences;

(f) the necessary measures are taken upon definitive cessation of activities to avoid any pollution risk and return the site of operation to a satisfactory state.

2. For the purposes of compliance with this Article, it shall be sufficient if Member States ensure that the competent authorities take account of the general principles set out in paragraph 1 when they determine the conditions of the permit.”

2. Permitting system – Conditions of the permit (Article 9 of the Directive) still include emission limit values (ELVs), with paragraph 3 underlying:

“3. The permit shall include emission limit values for polluting substances, in particular those listed in Annex III, likely to be emitted from the installation concerned in significant quantities, having regard to their nature and their potential to transfer pollution from one medium to another (water, air, and land). If necessary, the permit shall include appropriate requirements ensuring protection of the soil and ground water and measures concerning the management of waste generated by the installation. Where appropriate, limit values may be supplemented or replaced by equivalent parameters or technical measures.”

Emission limit values (ELVs) are firmly based on the best available techniques (BAT), instituted in paragraph 4 of the same Article:

“4. Without prejudice to Article 10, the emission limit values and the equivalent parameters and technical measures referred to in paragraph 3 shall be based on the best available techniques, without prescribing the use of any technique or specific technology, but taking into account the technical characteristics of the installation concerned, its geographical location, and the local environmental conditions. In all circumstances, the conditions of the permit shall contain provisions on the minimisation of long-distance or transboundary pollution and ensure a high level of protection for the environment as a whole.“

The Commission assists licensing authorities and businesses in defining BAT by organizing an information exchange forum between experts from the EU Member States, including industry representatives and environmental organizations. This activity is coordinated by the European IPPC Bureau of the Institute for Prospective Technology Studies at the EU Joint Research Centre in Seville (Spain), and it results in the adoption and publication by the Commission of BAT Reference Documents (BREFs) with executive summaries translated into all official EU languages.

3. The IPPC Directive allows some flexibility in both directions, listing initially such conditions within the reasons for adopting the Directive:

“(19) It is for the Member States to determine how the technical characteristics of the installation concerned, its geographical location and local environmental conditions can, where appropriate, be taken into consideration.”

On the other hand:

“(20) When an environmental quality standard requires more stringent conditions than those that can be achieved by using the best available techniques, supplementary conditions should in particular be required by the permit, without prejudice to other measures that may be taken to comply with the environmental quality standards.”

4. The Directive warrants the public right of participation, which is established in Article 15 (Access to information and public participation in the permit procedure):

“1. Member States shall ensure that the public concerned is given early and effective opportunities to participate in the procedure for:

(a) issuing a permit for new installations;

(b) issuing a permit for any substantial change;

The procedure set out in Annex V shall apply for the purposes of such participation.

2. The results of monitoring of releases as required under the permit conditions referred to in Article 9 and held by the competent authority shall be made available to the public.

3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply subject to the restrictions laid down in Article 4(1), (2), and (4) of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information.

4. When a decision has been taken, the competent authority shall inform the public in accordance with the appropriate procedures and shall make available to the public the following information:

(a) the content of the decision, including a copy of the permit and of any conditions and any subsequent updates; and

(b) having examined the concerns and opinions expressed by the public concerned, the reasons and considerations on which the decision is based, including information on the public participation process.”

As well as,

Access to justice (Article 16):

“1. Member States shall ensure that, in accordance with the relevant national legal system, members of the public concerned have access to a review procedure before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law to challenge the substantive or procedural legality of decisions, acts, or omissions subject to the public participation provisions of this Directive when:

(a) they have a sufficient interest; or

(b) they maintain the impairment of a right, where the administrative procedural law of a Member State requires this as a precondition.

2. Member States shall determine at what stage the decisions, acts, or omissions may be challenged.

3. What constitutes a sufficient interest and impairment of a right shall be determined by the Member States, consistently with the objective of giving the public concerned wide access to justice. To this end, the interest of any non-governmental organisation promoting environmental protection and meeting any requirements under national law shall be deemed sufficient for the purpose of paragraph 1(a).

Such organisations shall also be deemed to have rights capable of being impaired for the purpose of paragraph 1(b).

4. The provisions of this Article shall not exclude the possibility of a preliminary review procedure before an administrative authority and shall not affect the requirement of exhaustion of administrative review procedures prior to recourse to judicial review procedures, where such a requirement exists under national law.

Any such procedure shall be fair, equitable, timely, and not prohibitively expensive.

5. In order to further the effectiveness of the provisions of this Article, Member States shall ensure that practical information is made available to the public on access to administrative and judicial review procedures.”

5. Monitoring, reporting, and inspections: Operators are required to monitor their emissions and other environmental impacts and report the results to the authorities. This information is used to track progress, identify areas for improvement, and ensure compliance with permit conditions.

In this regard, in Article 9 (Conditions of the permit), paragraph 5 says:

“The permit shall contain suitable release monitoring requirements, specifying measurement methodology and frequency, evaluation procedure, and an obligation to supply the competent authority with data required for checking compliance with the permit.”

Additionally, Article 14 (Compliance with permit conditions) insists:

“Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that:

(a) the conditions of the permit are complied with by the operator when operating the installation;

(b) the operator regularly informs the competent authority of the results of the monitoring of releases, and without delay of any incident or accident significantly affecting the environment;

(c) operators of installations afford the representatives of the competent authority all necessary assistance to enable them to carry out any inspections within the installation, to take samples and to gather any information necessary for the performance of their duties for the purposes of this Directive.”

Key implementation measures

The IPPC Directive requires Member States to report on the progress of implementation in three-year reporting periods. In this regard, Member States created four Implementation Reports: the first (2000-2002), second (2003-2005), third (2006-2008), and fourth reporting period (2009-2011), which can be observed on page Reporting under the IPPC Directive.

In the year 2007, in Document 52007DC0843 – Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Towards an improved policy on industrial emissions, complemented with the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), the Commission updated the IPPC Action Plan for the period 2008-2010. During this period, in 2009, a study was completed on the status of the number of IPPC permits issued for existing installations. This resulted in a detailed analysis of the permit processes in the member states.

On 25th October 2010, the European Commission issued a second report on the implementation of the IPPC Directive for the 2006-2008 Reporting Period (REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Report from the Commission on the implementation of Directive 2008/1/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control and Directive 1999/13/EC on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations). Reports from member states on the implementation of the Directive in this period revealed a need for some countries to finalize permit issues to ensure Directive compliance. In addition, case studies undertaken by the Commission showed that permit conditions were not sufficiently BAT-oriented.

Revision of the IPPC Directive

At the end of 2005, the Commission launched in its first IPPC report a review process of the IPPC Directive and related legislation on industrial emissions. The review is based, inter alia, on the outcome of the consultation organized on the basis of the 2003 Commission Communication. In addition, ten main studies have been undertaken by the Commission to enlighten the process.

A public hearing was organized in May 2007, and public consultation was carried out between mid-April and mid-June 2007, ensuing in the summary results of the consultation.

After a 2-year review process, the Commission adopted on 21^st December 2007 the following package created to improve the EU policy on industrial emissions:

A proposal for a Directive on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control);
A Communication “Towards an improved policy on industrial emissions”;
An Impact Assessment and its Executive Summary.

The purpose of the review process of the IPPC Directive was to improve measures to avoid industrial pollution and implement controls enabling better health standards and natural environment protection. Among other aspects, this was achieved by combining and recasting the following Directives into a single, unified, clear, and coherent legislative instrument, namely:

Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC).
Directive on Large Combustion Plants (LCP).
Directive on Waste Incineration.
Directive on the Limitation of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds.
Three Directives on regulating Titanium Dioxide Pollution.

The Proposal for a Directive on industrial emissions also provided implementation guidance as an informal document for experts and stakeholders on the new procedures and “on the use of the recast technique, and indicates the way in which recast proposals are agreed through the co-decision process.” [1]

Thus, the IPPC process entered a new phase.

The Directive on industrial emissions 2010/75/EU (IED)

Following inter-institutional negotiations, the Directive on industrial emissions 2010/75/EU (IED) was adopted on 24th November 2010. It entered into force on 6th January 2011 for transposition into national legislation by Member States by 7th January 2013. As of 7th January 2014, the IED repealed the IPPC Directive, whereas Sectoral Directives (with the exception of the LCP Directive) were to be repealed with effect from 1st January 2016.

Given that we have depicted the importance and details of the IPPC Directive and its sibling in the previous sections, we will now look at the other, less prettified but constructively vital side – the challenges that every area of meticulously designed and equally harsh reality inevitably abounds.

So, besides all the goals IED Directive and its predecessors IPPC Directives were supposed to achieve (and many of them they certainly did), numerous stumbles got in the way and served as corrective gears in this hardly stoppable machinery.

Key challenges in implementing the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) 2010/75/EU

The Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) 2010/75/EU, like the entire IPPC regulation and execution, faces persistent operational challenges across the EU, largely due to the complexity of industrial activities, the diversity of national systems, and the demanding technical requirements of Best Available Techniques (BAT). The main obstacles in the implementation of the Industrial Emissions Directive (which applies to all its predecessors and will definitely continue to occur), identified in EU evaluations and expert analyses, are described below.

1. Complexity and diversity of industrial activities. The IED covers a wide range of sectors, from the energy sector and the chemical industry to waste management and intensive livestock farming. This diversity makes harmonised implementation difficult, as national authorities must interpret and apply rules to very different types of installations. [20]

2. Challenges linked to BAT conclusions (BREFs):

The information exchange process is resource‑intensive.
Updating BREFs takes years, delaying the adoption of new standards.
Operators often struggle to meet BAT‑based emission limit values (ELVs) within required timelines.
Authorities face difficulties ensuring consistent interpretation of BAT requirements across Member States. [17]

3. Administrative and regulatory burdens. Many Member States report:

High administrative workload for permitting, monitoring, and enforcement.
Need for significant investment in regulatory capacity and digital tools.
Smaller authorities and operators face disproportionate burdens. [20]

4. High investment costs for operators. Compliance with BAT often requires major capital investments (e.g., new abatement technologies, process redesign). Some sectors, especially older installations, struggle with financial feasibility, thus slowing implementation. [20]

5. Monitoring, reporting, and data quality Issues. Monitoring requirements are technically demanding and costly. Data quality varies significantly across Member States, affecting:

Comparability,
Enforcement,
EU‑level evaluation.

Also, some installations lack adequate continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). These issues combined complicate EU‑wide assessments of IED effectiveness. [28]

6. Enforcement and compliance gaps. Some Member States show high levels of non‑compliance, especially in sectors overlapping with other directives (e.g., Waste Framework Directive). Enforcement actions vary widely, leading to uneven environmental protection across the EU. [20]

7. Interaction with other EU environmental legislation. The IED intersects with:

Water Framework Directive,
Waste Framework Directive,
Climate and energy legislation.

These overlapping requirements create regulatory complexity and sometimes conflicting obligations for operators and regulators. [20]

8. Expanding scope and new sectors (e.g., Livestock). The revised IED (“IED 2.0”) expands coverage to more sectors, including intensive livestock farming. This introduces new administrative and technical challenges, especially for Member States with large agricultural sectors. [16]

Despite all the difficulties it endures stoically, and a sizeable assemblage of not-that-favourable findings in the implementation of the Directive(s) in practice, today it still forms the backbone of the EU industrial pollution regulation.

Directive (EU) 2024/1785

The persistent process of perfecting IPPC/IED regulations finally led to the latest of the endeavors on this journey, embodied in legal act with longer name – the Directive (EU) 2024/1785 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 amending Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) and Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste.

Directive (EU) 2024/1785 was adopted on 24th April 2024 and came into force on 15th July 2024. It technically “only” amends the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU), which itself, as we exhaustively illustrated above, effectively superseded the original IPPC Directive.

Practically, Directive (EU) 2024/1785 introduces the most significant revamp of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) since 2010, expanding its scope, tightening emission rules, and strengthening enforcement. In this regard, in the following section, we will focus only on the key changes that this new Directive has produced.

Key changes introduced by Directive (EU) 2024/1785

1. Expanded scope of the IED. The Directive now covers additional industrial activities:

Intensive poultry and pig farms (more categories included).
Ore mining operations.
Large battery manufacturing plants (reflecting EU Green Deal priorities).

This expansion is one of the most impactful changes, which means that more installations require permits and must comply with Best Available Techniques (BAT). This is especially relevant for those Member States in which agricultural and manufacturing sectors are still slowly evolving, trying to catch up to others.

2. Stricter emission limits and performance requirements. The revised IED introduces:

Tighter Emission Limit Values (ELVs) for pollutants to air, water, and soil.
More ambitious environmental performance targets, aligned with climate neutrality goals.
Stronger requirements for monitoring and reporting of emissions.

These changes are devised to urge installations to adopt cleaner technologies faster.

3. Stronger BAT (Best Available Techniques) framework:

BAT conclusions will now drive more stringent permit conditions.
Faster updates to BAT reference documents (BREFs) ensure the regulatory framework keeps pace with technological progress.
Authorities must ensure shorter compliance timelines after new BAT conclusions are published.

4. Enhanced permitting and transparency. The Directive strengthens governance by requiring:

More detailed permit conditions for all covered installations.
Greater public access to environmental information and permit decisions.
Improved complaint-handling mechanisms for citizens.

This aligns with the EU’s stronger ambition for environmental transparency and public participation.

5. Amendments to the Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC). Directive 2024/1785 also updates landfill rules by:

Tightening environmental protection requirements for landfill operations.
Improving alignment between landfill permitting and IED permitting.

6. Implementation deadlines. Member States must transpose the Directive into national law by 1st July 2026. New rules apply progressively as updated BAT conclusions are adopted. [13] [26]

Conclusion

In summary, IPPC was aspiringly designed as an environmental strategy that focuses on the need for integrated and preventive measures to reduce pollution at the source using the best available technologies and sustainable industrial practices.

IPPC is significant because it moves beyond traditional pollution control by integrating pollution prevention, promoting the best available technologies, public participation, and encouraging continuous improvements.

Main goals in this process are a cleaner and healthier environment as well as human and public health, which should be achieved by the development of sustainable industrial practices and socioeconomic efficiency. By considering all forms of pollution and focusing on prevention rather than cure, IPPC helps industries become more responsible managers of the environment, aligning economic growth with long-term ecological well-being.

Besides all drawbacks and challenges, which are always an inherent part of the evolution of tools and mechanisms in environmental and all the other management systems, the IPPC strategy and practice will (slowly but inescapably) continue to exercise its relevance and effectiveness in the EU.

Although born and raised in Europe, it has the power to spread its influence and expertise across the globe, especially when emphasising the fact that this approach in environmental management is yet to be developed, adopted, and implemented in most of the countries of our environmentally endangered planet.