Seveso Directive Implementation Analysis 2012-2014 Report Summary

1. 19 January 2017 SEG Meeting Analysis and summary of Member States’ reports on the implementation of Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances

2. OverviewPresentation structure • Presentation • Initial conclusions on implementation the Seveso Directive • Trends on major accidents and establishments • Benchmarking • Indicators

3. Presentation of the project • Assessment and summary of Member States’ implementation reports forthe Seveso Directive for 2012-2014 • Covering: • Last reporting period under Seveso II • Objectives of the project • Final report to be submitted February 2017 Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required. Delivering on our promises

4. Initial conclusions on implementation of Directive • A total of 11 297 Seveso establishments by end of 2014 Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if vrequired. Delivering on our promises

5. Initial conclusions on implementation of DirectiveActivities of establishments Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required. Delivering on our promises

6. Initial conclusions on implementation of DirectiveActivities of establishments Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required. Delivering on our promises

7. Initial conclusions on implementation of Directive • Reporting • Information on implementation reported by all Member States • Clarifications sought from several Member States, most responded • External emergency plans • Small share of establishments exempted • Overall, average 4% of upper tier establishments applying Article 11(6) • 407 establishments without external emergency plans – 8% of total upper tier establishments • 1,214 establishments with external emergency plans not tested • Range of criteria reported as being used for testing plans Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required. Delivering on our promises

8. Initial conclusions on implementation of Directive • Informing the public • Overall compliance with requirements of the Directive • Increased reliance on internet and social networks • Dedicated tools being created (e.g. BE ALERT, MoLaRi) • 81% of upper tier establishments made safety information available Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required. Delivering on our promises

9. Initial conclusions on implementation of Directive • Inspections • Upper tier establishments • 79% had annual inspections • 86% inspected over the previous three years Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required. Delivering on our promises

10. Initial conclusions on implementation of Directive • Inspections • Lower tier establishments • 77% inspected over the previous three years Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required. Delivering on our promises

11. Initial conclusions on implementation of Directive • Overall compliance with provisions on domino effect and land-use planning. • Lessons learned are valuable and to be further encouraged • IT tools for monitoring implementation available in 8 Member States Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required. Delivering on our promises

12. Recommendations on reporting • Next reporting: • Clarify dates for the data to be reported – variations in responses • Emphasise sharing of actual practices and practical steps taken • Encourage sharing of lessons learned • Feedback from Member States on simplifying / improving reporting questionnaire? Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required. Delivering on our promises

13. Trends on major accidents and establishments • Since, 2005, gradual increase of establishments under the scope of Directive

14. Trends on major accidents and establishments • Since, 2005, gradual decrease in number of accidents and incidents reported per establishments NB: the data provided by MAHB for the last period are stillpreliminary

15. Seveso Directive III4 July 2012 Seveso Directive II9 December 1996 Seveso Directive I24 June 1982 Tentative correlationbetween the directive and the trends on major accident

16. Trends on major accidents and establishments • Several approaches to estimating socio-economic impacts of accidents • UK – HSE • France – information by categorisation in ARIA • Germany – direct cost of losses in ZEMA • In eMARS, only few information on socio-economic impacts of accidents ; some detailed reports provide information

17. Trends on major accidents and establishments • Extrapolating HSE costs estimate Rough estimate only – more work needed!

18. BenchmarkingMethodology • Background - Better Regulation Agenda and upcoming Commission report under Article 29 • Five steps: • 1st step: Identification of the accident databases; • 2nd step: Cleaning and compilation of the data; • Identification of major accidents in the databases • Merging of the data • 3rd step: Compilation of the number of reported major accidents; • 4th step: Building meaningful statistics; • Ratio with population • Ratio with GDP • 5th step: Analysis of the statistics. Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required. Delivering on our promises

19. BenchmarkingResults: Number of reported major accidents by period Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required. Delivering on our promises

20. BenchmarkingResults: Number of reported major accidents per GDP (thousands of billions of $) per period Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required. Delivering on our promises

21. BenchmarkingResults (2) • Difficult to compare objectively reported major accidents in the EU with other countries • Lack of major accident definition • Difficulty of accessing data • Significant and continuous decrease of the number of reported major accidents in the EU • Differences of reporting of major accidents in eMARS and the other databases • Very preliminary work – more work needed! Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required. Delivering on our promises

22. IndicatorsMethodology • Upcoming report under article 29 of the Seveso III Directive • Better Regulation Guidelines • Other source of indicators • Review of guidelines on safety indicators • OECD • UNECE • CCPS • UN • INERIS • Metrics • Targeted public • Types of indicators suggested • Aspects to be monitored. Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required. Delivering on our promises

23. IndicatorsResults • Categories of indicators • Measuring safety achievements and identifying rooms for improvements requires the combination of different types of indicators. • Implementation and enforcement • Compliance • Intermediate outcomes of concern • Final outcomes of concern • Series of indicators based on five evaluation criteria • Many unidentified data needs • Stakeholder engagement • Literature review • Prioritisation of the indicators • Very preliminary work – more work needed! Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required. Delivering on our promises

24. Thank youQuestions?Victoria.cherrier@amecfw.com