• Home
  • Topics
    • Industry and air
    • Waste and TFS
    • Water and land
    • Nature protection
    • Cross-cutting tools and approaches
  • Tools
    • Permitting
    • Inspections
    • Doing the right things
    • Better regulation
    • IMPEL Review Initiative
    • PREVENT
  • Projects
    • IMPEL projects
    • IMPEL-ESIX
    • LIFE SWEAP
    • WasteForce
    • SPIDER WEB
  • News
    • Latest news
    • Press releases
  • Publications
    • Outreach material
    • IMPEL Documents
    • General Assembly Meetings
    • Conference reports
    • EU Documents
  • Events
    • Internal meetings
      • General assembly
      • Board meetings
      • Expert team meetings
    • Project meetings
    • Conferences
  • About IMPEL
    • Strategy
    • Organisation
      • Board
      • Secretariat
    • Members and observers
    • Becoming a member
    • Contact
  • 
  • 
  • 

IMPEL

European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law

You are here: Home / Doing the right things / Part 2 Permitting / Strategic (permitting) cycle / Step 1B Priorities

Step 1B Priorities

In this step we look at priorities. Setting priorities is necessary in case we do not have enough resources and first in, first out is not an option for different kind of reasons.

Permitting Departments are responsible for a range of tasks which directly or indirectly relate to permitting. Available staff do not always provide for the operation of a first in first out application completion method. Where a first in first out method is not feasible a prioritisation model is required.

The aim of a prioritisation model is to identify the factors which influence the prioritisation of permit applications. These factors can then be used to rank permit applications received and those due to be received within the upcoming year.

The figure below is an example of a working set of prioritisation factors for permit applications. This model can be used as a starting point, however, due to variations across IMPEL Member countries these factors should be tailored to ensure relevance.

In random order:

a) Environmental Outcome: In some cases installations may be negatively impacting the environment due to e.g. historic contamination or current emissions. Inspection authorities bodies may wish to regulate activities at an installation that may be causing issues locally or perhaps the installation needs to be closed in a regulated manner.

b) Green or significant Investments: There may be a requirement nationally for a particular economic sector or emerging industry type to be given a priority where investments have been made in order to get these industries operational.

c) Statutory deadline/infringement risk: Applications may need to be prioritised where they have links to statutory deadlines (e.g. implementation of Commission Implementing Decisions relating to BAT conclusions), known infringements, any complaints being made to the Commission, petitions from the European Parliament, queries from MEPS or reports being submitted to the Commission which point to infringements of Community environmental law. Applications should be prioritised to ensure the risk of infringement is reduced.

d) Client and third party demand: Regulatory bodies may have a history of on-going communication with various clients and third parties. As a means of optimising stakeholder focus specific applications may need to be prioritised.

e) Revenue: It may be the case that applications which have higher fees are a priority depending on the financial climate of the regulatory body.

f) Policy drivers: Overall organisation policies require consideration in addition to local enforcement and permitting policies. National policies should also be considered e.g. circular economy, climate, greenhouse gases and national emission ceilings.

g) Age of the Application: If for any reason a permit application has not been progressed for an extended period of time it may need to be prioritised in order to ensure the information within the application remains relevant. Abandonment procedures may need to be progressed in some instances.

h) Enforcement Priority Sites: the Permitting Department should formalise a means of communication with the Permit Enforcement Department. This should ensure that enforcement staff relay their priorities with regard to specific installations and the justification for their prioritisation requirement.

Once the prioritisation model has been decided and agreed by management it can used to assess the current staffing level versus the permit applications which have been submitted and applications due to be submitted in the following year. This will enable permitting managers to allocate permit applications to permit writers with a justified priority ranking as part of the annual working plan for permitting.

It is important to note that this approach requires a certain degree of flexibility as factors which influence prioritisation of permit applications may change over the course of the year.

See Good practice

Table of contents

  • Introduction
  • Part 1 Legislation
    • Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU
  • Part 2 Permitting
    • Permitting cycle
    • Strategic (permitting) cycle
      • Step 1A Context
      • Step 1B Priorities
      • Step 1C Strategy
      • Step 1D Planning
    • Operational (permitting) cycle
      • Step 1D planning
      • Step 2 Permitting framework
      • Step 3 Permitting procedure
        • Step 3A Application
        • Step 3B Decision making
        • Step 3C Acces to justice
      • Step 4 Monitoring
  • Part 3 Inspection
    • Inspection cycle
    • Strategic (inspection) cycle
      • Step 1A Context
      • Step 1B Priorities
      • Step 1C Objectives and strategies
      • Step 1D Planning
    • Operational (inspection) cycle
      • Step 1D Planning
      • Step 2 Inspection framework
      • Step 3 Inspection, Compliance Assessment and Enforcement
        • Step 3A Preparation
        • Step 3B Inspection
        • Step 3C Reporting
      • Step 4 Monitoring
  • Part 4 Evaluation and feedback
  • Factsheets

Regulatory cycle

Permitting cycle

Inspection cycle

Menu

  • Home
  • Topics
    • Industry and air
    • Waste and TFS
    • Water and land
    • Nature protection
    • Cross-cutting tools and approaches
  • Tools
    • Permitting
    • Inspections
    • Doing the right things
    • Better regulation
    • IMPEL Review Initiative
    • PREVENT
  • Projects
    • IMPEL projects
    • IMPEL-ESIX
    • LIFE SWEAP
    • WasteForce
    • SPIDER WEB
  • News
    • Latest news
    • Press releases
  • Publications
    • Outreach material
    • IMPEL Documents
    • General Assembly Meetings
    • Conference reports
    • EU Documents
  • Events
    • Internal meetings
      • General assembly
      • Board meetings
      • Expert team meetings
    • Project meetings
    • Conferences
  • About IMPEL
    • Strategy
    • Organisation
      • Board
      • Secretariat
    • Members and observers
    • Becoming a member
    • Contact
  • 
  • 
  • 

IMPEL

Chemin des deux maisons 73, box 3
1200, Brussels
Belgium
Phone: +44 (0)20 3289 7442
Email: info@impel.eu
Skype: impelsecretariat


Become a member

Membership of IMPEL is open to organisations or authorities working in the public sector who implement and enforce environmental legislation. Learn all about the benefits​ of being a member to our network.
Read More

Copyright © 2021 IMPEL · Data protection · Cookie policy · Webdesign: Alva Design