The European Union EIAS, EMAS and audits
Roger H. Charlier
Although EU directives were
issued quite some time ago,
implementation progresses
slowly and at an unequal pace
in Union member states.
Certification of assessors,
auditors and verifiers differs
widely and is sometimes
inordinately complicated; in
some instances accountants
have stepped into the “vac-
uum”, in others “certifica-
tion” documents are issued
by private organizations.
Uniformity is far from being
the rule. This paper takes
Belgium as a case study. In
opposition to what has devel-
oped in the USA where federal
authority can be completed,
even toughened by US regula-
tions, but remained national
(viz. federal), in our example
responsibility has nearly
entirely been devolved to the
next (regional) level of author-
ity. A survey was conducted of
EMAS implementation in 11
European States :its results
are disclosed and commented
on.
Environmental Management
and Health
9/3 [1998] 106–123
© MCB University Press
[ISSN 0956-6163]
[ 106 ]
Haecon Ltd, Brussels, Belgium
Introduction
Overview
This paper gives the background for the
development of environmental legislation,
the connection between European Union (EU)
and Belgian legislation, and a description of
its various elements therein.
Background
The environment has gradually become more
and more important for our future develop-
ment. Politically the environmental dimen-
sion was included in the EU in 1972 about the
time Ministries of Environment, dealing with
pollution problems, were created in Europe.
The European community planned five-
year programs of which the present one, the
fifth, is based on the 7 February 1992 treaty of
which the principal object is the promotion of
sustainable growth.
European legislation
The council’s resolution of February 1993
(93/C 138/01) promotes an environment and
sustainable development community pro-
gram on policy and action.
The program espouses the UN conference
on environment and development approved
principles (Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992).
It adopts the definition of sustainable devel-
opment, of the Report of the World Commis-
sion on Environment and Development
(Brundtland), which meets present needs
without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs. The
program addresses: climate change, air pollu-
tion, depletion of natural resources and biodi-
versity, depletion and pollution of water
resources, deterioration of the urban environ-
ment, deterioration of coastal zones and the
problems of wastes.
More than 200 directives on environmental
protection have been passed to this day, 80
main directives and 120 amendments, cover-
ing groundwater, surface water, sewage, air
emissions, noise, waste, chemicals, major
accident hazards and other areas.
EU Council Regulation 1836/93 of special
interest for environmental management,
allows voluntary participation of industrial
companies in a community undertaking.
Damage to the environment
Considerable activity has taken place
recently within the EU, in environmental
matters, with an eye kept on non-members’
actions, such as, for instance, moves in
Switzerland. The importance of European
regulations, policies and decisions was fur-
ther enhanced when Austria, Sweden and
Finland joined the “club”, while more coun-
tries are clamouring to join (Czech Republic,
Poland).
EMAS is making forward strides, although
not without opposition. Strong groups, e.g.
the EFCA, expressed dissatisfaction with the
EU stand on environmental impact assess-
ment for waste disposal facilities, long-term
aspects having, in its view, been neglected.
Furthermore, several EU member states are
not prepared to enforce a more thorough
approach. The 1994 EU document pertaining
to the clean-up of contaminated sites that
includes a definition of what is a “contami-
nated site” is thus far a contentious matter
and the issue of monitoring systems for the
life cycle of contaminated layers has been
“incompletely examined” to suit various
groups.
An emanation of EU Council Regulation
No. 11836/1993, CEMAS (EcoManagement and
Audit Scheme), a voluntary participation
scheme for industrial sector companies, has
known unequal implementation in the differ-
ent EU states and is only in operation in part
though the deadline of 18 April 1995 is past
and gone. The same is true for the 13 July 1994
deadline of “setting-up bodies for registration
of firms and accreditation of verifiers” within
the individual countries. Illustrating this
point in Germany, for instance, specification
of requirements for verifiers are not spelled
out, two concepts exist for their accreditation
(either a body under the IGA – Executive
Association for Accreditation – or DVUPA –
German Union for Inspection of Environmen-
tal Operation and Accreditation), and DVUPA
and/or an affiliated organization would be
the national eco-audit instrumentality. In
Greece and Spain all these aspects are being
discussed with no solid plan(s) in sight. Italy
has passed Law No. 70/94 stipulating that
certifying organizations are to act as and to
Roger H. Charlier accredit verifiers, while within the frame-
The European Union EIAS, work of that law discussions are conducted to
EMAS and audits decide what national eco-audit organization
Environmental Management will be designated or set up.
and Health The Netherlands, reputed to be one of the
9/3 [1998] 106–123
most advanced in this type of legislation,
provided guidelines under the Council of
Certification to establish verifiers’ specifica-
tion requirements, created a certification
body under the same council and placed
national eco-auditing within the Ministry of
Environment’s competence.
Although a voluntary initiative with sec-
tions on periodic internal and external envi-
ronmental reporting, the Dutch Government
did infer that without sufficient progress, viz.
participation, legislation would be
introduced, making the system mandatory.
Other European Community states do
require a measure of environmental report-
ing, but not auditing as such. In France, for
example, the Service de l’Environnement
undertakes reports on major emitters of 13
air and 23 water pollutants in the form of
pollution maps for particular plants. Norway
and Sweden require a measure of environ-
mental auditing; in Sweden approximately
6,000 industrial organizations produce inter-
nal annual environmental reports. However,
these reports are not subject to third parties’
verification.
CEMAS is to encourage companies to evalu-
ate and improve their environmental perfor-
mance continually. Although directly applica-
ble in all member states, companies may
choose whether or not to participate in the
scheme and indeed whether to register all or
only some of their sites. Scheme participants
will be required to carry out environmental
audits at the sites concerned. This would be
the basis of an environmental protection
system programme. The system would have
to be reviewed periodically to ensure that the
best available technologies (BAT) were being
used.
Under the system the following issues
would be considered:
• energy policy ;
• waste and water management;
• product planning;
• safety;
• staff training and involvement in environ-
mental issues;
• information to be made public;
• complaints handling.
An environmental audit would have to be
carried out at least every three years by
someone not directly involved and a written
report be available to the public. Audit find-
ings would require examination at the high-
est management level and ultimately an
environmental statement prepared for each
site concerned, subject to verification by
accredited environmental verifiers to ensure
compliance with all aspects of the regulation.
The verifier and the auditor should be inde-
pendent of each other.
Participants satisfying the requirements of
the CEMAS scheme will be entitled to use a
logo on their letterhead, brochures, and
financial statements as well as in advertise-
ments, but without reference to specific prod-
ucts. Logo use in relation to sites which fail to
comply with European Community and
national environmental regulations is pro-
hibited. CEMAS also makes provision for
companies accredited under similar national
schemes recognised by the EU under the
regulation. The philosophy in terms of
scheme promotion is to stress that the advan-
tages gained by participating companies will
not only be the implementing of good envi-
ronmental management, but also the com-
pany’s overall credibility relative to its envi-
ronmental efforts will be greatly enhanced in
the eyes of regulators, policy makers and the
community.
Belgium is one of several EU countries
where, at the end of December 1995, industry
was still dragging its feet because it eyes
auditing with suspicion: compliance with
regulations will have to be seriously followed,
and companies will have to establish an envi-
ronmental programme and environmental
management system applicable to all activi-
ties at their site(s) of operation(s).
Belgian legislation
The picture of legislation pertaining to and
regulation of assessors and auditors is com-
plicated, in Belgium, by the new “federal”
structure recently adopted for the country.
Where once such laws were national, some
are now national, but far more are regional,
or community-based, not to speak of addi-
tional provincial and municipal rules to be
followed.
There are three regions and three commu-
nities each with their own legislative powers,
though the Flemish region and the Flemish
community have fused, leaving five levels of
administration with environmental responsi-
bilities. The proliferation of jurisdictions,
which apparently overlap, grew along with, if
not out of, the change-over from a unitarian
state to a federal structure. In matters related
to the environment, the central government
has been left with hardly any competence,
viz. authority, and its responsibilities have
been transferred to the three “regions” –
Brussels-Capital, Flanders and Wallonia[1].
[ 107 ]
Roger H. Charlier So distinct is the separation that codes and
The European Union EIAS, regulations are noticeably different in each.
EMAS and audits Regions being responsible for economic and
Environmental Management social matters while communities deal with
and Health cultural topics, the first regulate environmen-
9/3 [1998] 106–123 tal matters. The Francophone and
Germanophone “communities” exercise no
environmental competences and such mat-
ters on their “territory” fall under Walloon
(or Brussels) region rules and regulations.
The national government
Most matters related to the environment
have been transferred to the “regional”
authorities and though there still is a Min-
istry for “Public Health, Life Environment
and Social Integration”; its competence is
narrowly limited. Remaining thus under
central government authority are the (Bel-
gian) North Sea area, nuclear matters,
enforcement of UNO conventions, transporta-
tion of wastes across international bound-
aries, and trade in tropical forests materials.
The spokesperson for the minister’s office
dryly remarked that the ministry acts mainly
as a post office box to forward dossiers to
regional ministries (Table I).
The ministry’s responsibilities for environ-
mental matters are either clearly matters of
national competence, or “residual” areas
which have not been regionalised.
Where nuclear projects are concerned no
provision in Belgian law affects the EU direc-
tive on EIA. A Royal Decree had been
expected in early 1994. Such EIA would be
aimed at effects of radioactivity on man, flora
and fauna, for the latter two through air,
water and soil contamination, and trophic
origins.
At the international level, however, and
specifically within the EU, it is the National
Minister of Environment who represents
Belgium. A consensus is reached among
regions at regularly scheduled meetings of
the Inter-ministerial Conference for the Envi-
ronment. Regional ministers may attend
meetings of the EU Council.
The non-governmental Federation of Envi-
ronmental Protection Associations comprises
Brussels organizations, Inter-environment
Wallonia and the (Flemish) Better Life Envi-
ronment Association.
Regions
The division of responsibilities is different in
each region. The Brussels Regional Executive
divides political responsibility for environ-
mental matters among four ministries: Envi-
ronment, Water, Waste and Land Use Plan-
ning. Wallonia has three ministries with
environmental among other responsibilities:
technology and external relations. Flanders
[ 108 ]
divides its environmental responsabilities
between two ministries: Environment and
Regional Planning. The latter is responsible
for town and regional planning, monuments
and sites, water, forest management, indus-
trial environment management, agriculture
and fisheries, and public awareness. In addi-
tion, some public health responsibilities are
the responsability of the Flemish community.
The executive structures of the responsible
ministries in each region are also quite dif-
ferent. In Wallonia, two directorates-general
are responsible for environment, one for land
and town planning and one for natural
resources and the environment; the latter
relies on the Office Wallon des Déchets for
waste collection and disposal. Wallonia supp-
ports environmental research through the
Institut Scientifique du Service Public (ISSEP).
The Flemish region
Environmental matters in the Flemish region
territory are handled by its Ministry of Life
environment (Table II), which also adminis-
ters nature conservation and land planning.
But two ministries actually share responsibil-
ity as “Regional Planning” responsible, not
only for planning but also for water, forests,
agriculture, fisheries, monuments and sites.
The Minister of the Flemish Community
takes on some public health responsibilities.
The AMINAL (Administratie Milieu,
Natuur en Landinrichting) Administration
for Environment, Nature and Construction is
under a Secretary General of the Department
for the Environment and Infrastructure
(Departement Leefmilieu en Infrastructuur),
one of four specialized departments of the
Flemish Executive.
The Flemish Region Public Wastes Com-
pany (known as OVAM) has developed a
wastes plan covering the years 1991 through
1995. It takes as its juridical basis the Decree
of 2 July 1981 and runs the gamut of every
waste, except radioactive materials. A previ-
ous plan had spanned the 1986-1990 period.
Briefly, the history of environmental protec-
tion in Belgium starts in 1907 with a law deal-
ing with the placement of water conduits and
the creation of associations of municipalities
and groups of private people in connection
therewith. One had then to wait 26 years for
the next piece of legislation which provided
protection for drinking water (1933) and 58
years for regulation of the transport of
gaseous products (1965). From 1983 on,
intense legislative activity took place on both
national and regional levels until 1990 when
the regional governments took over. An
“Environment and Nature Council for Flan-
ders” was launched in 1991.
Roger H. Charlier Table I
The European Union EIAS, Belgium – Ministry of Health and Environment and location of environment offices
EMAS and audits
Environmental Management 1. General Secretariate Secretary-General
and Health 2. Cabinet and International Relations
9/3 [1998] 106–123 3. Scientific Coordination and Documentation
4. Press and Information
5. Modernization Cells
6. Training Directors
7. Organizational Services
8. Cell-Information
9. Security Offices
10. Councils and Advice Commissions
11. Institute for Hygiene and Epidemiology
12. Director
13. General Services
14. Administrative Services
15. Computer Center
16. Library
17. Documentation
18. Scientific Council
19. Director Council
20. Jury for Appointment and Promotion
21. Microbiology
22. Pharmacology and Bromatology
23. Epidemiology and Toxicology
24. Environment
25. Management Unit for the Mathematical Model of the North Sea and the Scheldt Estuary
26. Directorate for General Services – Director-General
27. Administrative Services
28. Personnel Services
29. Translation Service
30. General Household Service
31. Center for Information Processing
32. General Affairs
33. General Accounting
34. Honorable Distinctions (awards, medals)
35. Legal Service
36. Social Service
37. Directorate for Social Welfare and Emancipation Director
38. Service for Studies and Conflicts
39. Service for Finances and Upkeeps Costs
40. Service for Minimum Living Standard
41. Service for Feeding
42. Service for Social Emancipation
43. Service for Poverty
44. Inspectorate
45. Reception Centre for Political Refugees
46. Translators, Secretaries, Typists
47. Directorate for Environment Director-General
48. Study Service
49. Basis Studies
50. Technology
51. International Environmental Affairs
52. Service for Regulation
53. Air
54. Water
55. Soil
56. Noise
57. Dangerous Materials
(Continued)

[ 109 ]
Roger H. Charlier Table I
The European Union EIAS,
EMAS and audits 58. Pesticides
Environmental Management 59. Other Toxic Matter
and Health 60. Waste
9/3 [1998] 106–123 61. Import/Export
62. Directorate for Foods and Drugs Directorate-General
63. Pharmaceutical Inspection Fund for Medication
64. Food Inspectorate
65. Directorate for Hospitals, Clinics et al. Directorate-General
66. Directorate of Healthcare Establishments
67. Accounting and Management of Hospitals
68. Legal Affairs, Legislation and Conflicts
69. Logistics Services
70 Directorate of Medical Practice
71. Medical Practice
72. Inspection for Nursing
73. Hygiene (Health) Inspection
74. Provincial Medical Commissions
75. “100” Service (= Emergency)
76. Cell for Medical-Social Orientation
77. Directorate for Social Medicine Director-General
78. State Social Medical Service
79. Central Administration
80. External services
81. Legal-Medical Service
82. Legal-Medical Service
83. Brussels Expertise (= analysis, checking) Center
84. Directorate for War-Victims – State Commissioner
85. Coordination Office
86. Service for Control of National Institutions for War Victims
87. Service for Pensions of Civilian War Victims
88. Service for Statutes of National Gratitude
89. Service for “Rents” (= Financial Brevets)
90. Service for Searches and Documentation
91. National Institute for War Invalids, War Veterans and War Casualties

MINISTRY OF SOCIAL AFFAIRS,

PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

SECRETARIAT GENERAL

INSTITUTE OF VETERINARY INSTITUTE FOR HYGIENE AND INSTITUT

INSPECTION EPIDEMIOLOGY PASTEUR

GENERAL SERVICES
Human resources Finance and
and Social affairs Informatics

RESEARCH SOCIAL HEALTH PROTECTION MEDICAL SOCIAL WAR

AND ENVIRONMENT
SECURITY CARE OF HEALTH EXPERTISE INSPECTION VICTIMS
INFORMATION

The Decree of 23 March 1989 establishes assessment is obligatorily made up of one or

rules for the accreditation of “experts”, proce- more experts familiar with the potential
dures for EIAs and supervision or control. environmental disturbance(s) typical of the
The “college of experts” charged with an project, and of one or more experts selected
[ 110 ]
Roger H. Charlier from the government approved list, chosen in
The European Union EIAS, such a manner that all disciplines involved in
EMAS and audits the project at hand be represented. Files of
Environmental Management the various administrations dealing with the
and Health environment are open to the “college of
9/3 [1998] 106–123
experts”.
If environmental impact assessment and
environmental permit granting have been the
subject of an impressive code running close to
500 pages, and are apparently well defined,
the situation with auditing resembles a free-
for-all scramble.
In Belgium, and ipso facto in Flanders, no
norms or requirements have been specified
for a person to be an accredited (or
registered) environmental auditor, on an
official (viz. governmental) basis, nor has any
professional organization set up shop to pro-
vide an accreditation process. This is thus in
contrast with the UK, whose registered audi-
tors (of whichever of the three levels
provided) have no standing here and might
eventually not even be allowed to put up shop
in the Flemish region.
The Brussels region
The Brussels-Capital region has its own sec-
retary of state (meaning “junior minister”)
for the environment (Table III). Historical
development of environmental legislation as
described for the Flemish region is equally
pertinent here.
Conceivably the Brussels region could
simply adopt the European “directives”.
Besides the Ministry of the Environment,
three other ministries are involved: Waste,
Water and Land Use Planning.
A “Directorate” deals with planning and
nature protection, while pollution study,
management and licensing matters are dealt
with by the Brussels Institute for Environ-
mental Management. Finally, Brussels-Clean-
liness collects household wastes and Agglo-
Brussels incinerates them.
The Walloon region
Wallonia has three ministries (Environment
and Water, Nature Conservation and
Regional Planning, Research, Technolgy and
External Relations) looking after the environ-
ment (Table IV).
Of two “directorates” one is in charge of
land-use and town-planning; the other of
natural resources and environment with the
Walloon Wastes Office collecting and dispos-
ing. The Scientific Institute of Public Service
supports pertinent research (Table I).
In Belgium, building and operating per-
mits, now called “environmental license”
procedures, are not dissociated: an EIA is
required for a new permit or for an old one to

Table II
Belgium: Flanders AMINAL – Administration of Environment, Nature and Land Use Planning

AMINAL
Administratie Milieu, Natuur en Landinrichting

ALGEMENE LEIDING 1
INSTITUUT VOOR NATUURBEHOUD 2

INSTITUUT VOOR BOSBOUM EN WILDBEHEER 3 CEL PLANNING, MER EN PROMOTIE 4

BESTUUR BESTUUR BESTUUR BESTUUR BESTUUR BESTUUR

ALGEMEEN MILIEU- MILIEU- MILIEU- NATUURBEHOUD EN LANDINRICHTING
MILIEUBELEID 5 INVESTERINGEN 11 VERGUNNINGEN 13 INSPECTIE 17 -ONTWIKKELING 21 EN-BEHEER 27

ALGEMENE LEIDING 6 ALGEMENE LEIDING 12 ALGEMENE LEIDING 14 ALGEMENE LEIDING 18 ALGEMENE LEIDING 22 ALGEMENE LEIDING 28

DIENST LUCHT DIENST VERGUNNINGSVOOR HOOFDINSPECTIE DIENST WATER EN DIENST ORDENING

EN GELUID 7 VAARDEN EN BEROEPEN 15 19 BOSSEN 23 EN PLATTELAND 29

DIENST WATER BUITENDIENSTEN BUTTENDIENSTEN DIENST GROEN LANDELIJKE

EN BODEM 8 16 20 24 WATERDIENST 30

DIENST MILIEU- DIENST NATUUR DIENST POLDERS EN

TECHNOLOGIE 9 BESCHERMING 25 WATERINGEN 31

DIENST GEVAARNJKE DIENST NATUUR BUITENDIENSTEN

STOFFEN EN UNIWIKKEING 26 32
RISICOBEHEER 10

Key
1 Directorate General
2 Nature Conserv. Institute
3 Forests & Wildlife Institute
4 Planning, Env. Protect. &
Promotion Unit
5 Gener. Envir. Manag. Direct.
6 General Leadership
7 Air & Noise Service 12 General Leadership 18 General Leadership 24 Green Areas Service 30 Rural Water Service
8 Water & Soil Service 13 Licensing Conditions 19 Head Inspectorate 25 Nature Protection S. 31 Polders & “Waterings”
9 Environ. Technol. Serv. 14 General Leadership 20 External Service 26 Nature Developm. Serv. Serv.
10 Dangerous Goods & Risks 15 Licensing Conditions & 21 Nature Conservation & 27 Land-Use & -Manag. Admin. 32 External Services
Man. Appeals Service Development Administr. 28 General Leadership
11 Env. Investments 16 External Services 22 General Leadership 29 Land-Use & Tillable Soils S..
Administr. 17 Env. Inspection Director. 23 Water & Forest Serv.

[ 111 ]
Roger H. Charlier
The European Union EIAS,
EMAS and audits
Environmental Management
and Health
9/3 [1998] 106–123
be renewed. In Flanders, projects requiring
an EIA are stipulated on a “list”; the Walloon
“list” is less comprehensive, but on the basis
of a qualitative environmental analysis (IEE),
viz. an initial environmental evaluation, the
permit issuing authority may decide on the
appropriateness of a “full EIA”.
If a project is initiated by a public agency, a
public inquiry if foreseen in Wallonia. No
such public involvement is provided for in
Flanders. The expert is solely responsible for
the preparation of the the EIA, with informa-
tion furnished by the developer in Wallonia,
while in Flanders the EIA process is a joint
effort. “Experts’ certification is on an individ-
ual’s basis in Flanders (and in a specific envi-
ronmental discipline) but on a consultancy
firm level, according to project’s category, in
Wallonia. Here the Walloon Environmental
Council (Conseil Wallon de l’Environnement)
checks EIA quality, advises on environmental
adequacy, counsels on consultants’ certifica-
tion and legislation developments. It includes
industry, environmental organizations,
unions, academe, consumers and officialdom
representatives. Less “open” is the situation
in Flanders where EIA report follow-up and
evaluation is entirely vested in the adminis-
tration.
Communes and provinces
The provinces and communes (municipali-
ties) regulate “everything which is of local
interest” including public health, land use
and environment and are responsible under
regional legislation for certain licensing
procedures.
Both provinces and communes are obliged
to fulfill tasks imposed on them by regional
or national legislation within the framework
of the planning and building laws. The
communes are empowered to adopt laws to
fill gaps in regional or national legislation
in certain areas. Their policy has the obliga-
tion to prosecute local environmental viola-
tions.
In Flanders provinces issue class 2 installa-
tions permits and communes class 3. The
region’s integrated permit structure covers
air, water, wastes, noise, hazards and EIAs.
Wallonia has separate structures for air,
water and waste. Air and noise category I

Table III
Location of “environment” offices. EIA responsibility office in overall schemes
INSTITUT BRUXELLOIS POUR LA GESTION DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT1
DIRECTION2

GESTION TRANSVERSALE RECHERCHE & LOGISTIQUE & PREVENTION &

3 PLANIFICATION INFORMATION AUTORISATION
4 5 6
– Coordination interne – Laboratoire de Recherche en – Actions extérieures spécifiques – Technologies Propres
– Coordination suprarégionale Environnement (air, bruit) – Documentation/bibliothèque – Autorisation et Agrégation
– Etudes d’incendies – Statistiques et Indicateurs – Services généraux
– Bruit – Plan Déchets – Relations publiques
– SHE – CELINE – Publications
ESPACE VERTS INSPECTORAT &
7 SURVEILLANCE
8
– Coordination & Programmation – Conseil Juridique et Technique
–Administratif et Technique – Surveillance des Parcs
– Forêt et Réserves naturelles – Equipe Technique
– Parcs et Jardins – Taxation Eau
– Police
Legend
1. Brussels Institute for Environmental Management
2. Directorate
3. Transversal Management. Internal coordination. Supra-regional coordinational EIAs. Noise
4. Research and Planning. Environment (air, noise) research laboratory. Statistics and indicators. Wastes plan
5. Logistics and information. Specific external actions. Documentation/Library. General services. Public relations. Publications
6. Prevention and Licensing. Own technologies. Authorizations and licensing
7. Green spaces. Coordination and programming. Administrative and technical. Forests and natural reserves. Parks and gardens
8. Inspectorate and surveillance. Juridical and technical council. Parks surveillance. Technical team. Water taxation. Police

[ 112 ]
Roger H. Charlier installations get permits from the province,
The European Union EIAS, category II from the commune.
EMAS and audits Key points raised about implementation
Environmental Management of EMAS can be answered as follows for
and Health Belgium: while no specific representation in
9/3 [1998] 106–123
the competent body has been spelled out,
three bodies – one per region – were created:
the AMINAL the CWE, and the IBGE and
BIM. It was from the onset improbable that
the national consulting organization become
involved in the competent body. No specifica-
tion requirements for verifiers had been
defined by June 1995, though they were under
discussion and undoubtedly would be mod-
eled after EU specifications. Accreditation of
verifiers could be vested in BELCERT, the
Belgian Certification system supervised by
the Federal (Central) Ministry of Economy.
No steps towards a national “eco-audit” orga-
nization have been taken, but some existing
groups are apparently vying for such status.
Progress in EMAS implementation varies
widely from country to country.
There are similar non-negligible variations
throughout the EU in the application of the
“EIA directive”. In all three Belgian
“regions”, formal procedures are required
by the “responsible bodies” for undertaking
an EIA and a formal registration scheme
exists for consultancies wishing to undertake
EIAs. There is also in each region a system
for the review of completed EISs and a
requirement that consultancies be indepen-
dent of engineering design consultancies
which are contractors. The latter require-
ment exists also only in Greece at the time of
writing.
The same “bodies” decide, in Flanders and
Brussels, the scope of the EIA when prepar-
ing the terms of reference, and official advice
may be available to assist in this task. In
Wallonia, the CWE may sometimes dictate
the EIA’s scope, eventually after consultation
and discussion with statutory consultees.
From a survey conducted recently by EFCA,
no response was available from Flanders or
Brussels concerning the value typically
attached to EIA studies; in Wallonia the value
expressed as a percentage of either design
value or capital value was 0.5 to 5. In most
cases, the upper level reflects the costs of
mitigation or improvement, which can be
included in the cost of EIA. The same survey
revealed that 42, 161 and five consultancies,
respectively in Wallonia, Flanders and Brus-
sels, are active in the field of environmental
assessment.
Compliance with the EEC directive
Several amendments to directive 85/337/EEC
are under study. An EU review document
appeared on 1 October 1996.

Table IV
Begium: Wallonia Directorate-General of Natural Resources and the Environment

DIRECTION GENERALE DES RESSOURCES

NATURELLES ET DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT 1

INSPECTION GENERALE DE INSPECTION GENERALE

L’ENVIRONNEMENT ET DES FORETS 2 DE L’EAU 17
SERVICE DES FORETS SERVICE DE SERVICE DES POLITIQUE PRODUCTION SERVICE DE
DE LA CHASSE ET DE LA L’ENVIRONNEMENT RESSOURCES DU GENERALE ET GRANDS GESTION ET DE
PECHE 3 8 SOUS-SOL 13 DE L’EAU 15 TRANSPORTS 22 CONTROLE 23

SERVICE DE PREVENTION DES ETUDES 14 PROGRAMMATION COMITE DE EAUX

POLITIQUE POLLUTIONS 9 TARIFICATION COORDINATION 24 SOUTERRAINES 27
FORESTIERE EXPLOITATION ET ET CONTROLE
GENERALE 4 CONSERVATION DE LA CONTROLE 15 DES PRIX 19 OUVRAGES 25 EAUX DE SURFACE 28
NATURE GESTION ET
CHASSE PECHE SURVEILLANCE DU SERVICES SERVICE AIMENTATION DES FINANCES 29
TENDERIE 5 MILIEU 10 EXTERIEURS 16 SCIENTIFIQUE ET TETES DE RESEAUX
TECHNIQUE DE DE DISTRIBUTION 26 EPURATION DES
AMENAGEMENT L’EAU 20 EAUX USEES 30
GESTION DES
ET GENIE DECHETS 11
FORESTIER ETUDES DES EAUX DISTRIBUTION 31
6
SERVICE SOUTERRAINES ET
DES EAUX DE HYDRAULIQUE
SERVICES D’AMENAGEMENT AGRICOLE 32
DES ESPACES SURFACE 21
EXTERIEURS 7
VERTS 12 SERVICES
EXTERIEURS 33
Key
1 General Directorate for Natural 4 General Forestry Policy 10 Nature Conservation, Env. 16 External Services 21 Surface and subterran 27 Subterranean Waters
Resources & Env. Ser. Management & Surveillance 17 Water Gener. Inspectorate 22 Product & Large Transp. 28 Surface Waters
2 Inspectorate General for Env. 5 Hunt, Fishing & Birding 11 Wastes Management 18 General Water Policy 23 Managem. & Control Serv. 29 Finances
& Forests 6 Use & Forest Engineering 12 Green Spaces Use Serv. 19 Price Programm, Rates & 24 Coordination Commitee 30 Used Waters Purification
3 Forestry, Hunt & Fisheries 7 External Services 13 Undergr. Resources Serv. Control 25 Works 31 Distribution
Service 8 Environment Service 14 Studies 20 Water Scientif & Technical 26 Distribution Nethead Points 32 Agricultural Hydraulics
9 Pollution Prevention 15 Exploration & Control Service Feeding 33 External Services

[ 113 ]
Roger H. Charlier All potential modifications have implications
The European Union EIAS, for consultancy organizations, both in terms
EMAS and audits of potentially increasing markets for ser-
Environmental Management vices, but also placing onus on consultants to
and Health improve the quality of their product; conse-
9/3 [1998] 106–123 quently it is to be hoped that effective tighten-
ing of EIA procedures will see a reduction in
and eventual removal of below-standard oper-
ators.
This situation appears to be occurring as
experience gained in the approach to EIAs
creates a gradual evolution of techniques
and improvement in project execution. EISs
are considered as the “starting point” for
many public inquiries. As such they form an
ever more important step in the formalized
planning procedure, being appropriately
recognized as an integral planning tool, but
not as a panacea for all planning
problems.
EIA implementation
In order to determine how significant are the
variations in the application of the EIA direc-
tive throughout the EU, EFCA has under-
taken a survey through representatives of its
national member organizations. Factors
affecting such practical aspects as costs and
competition have been considered (Tables Va
and Vb):
1 What organizations have responsibility for
the enactment of legislation relating to the
EIA directive?
2 Are there any formal procedures required
by the above organizations or legislature
for undertaking an EIA?
3 Is there any formal or informal registra-
tion scheme for consultancies wishing to
undertake EIAs?
4 Is there a system for the review of com-
pleted EISs and if so, what is the status of
the findings of the organization ?
5 Approximately how many consultancies
are active in the field of environment
assessment?
6 Is there a requirement for consultancies to
be independent of engineering design
consultancies and/or contractors?
7 Who decides the scope of the EIA when
preparing terms of reference and is there
any official advice to assist in this task ?
8 What value is attached typically to EIA
studies, as a percentage of either design
value or capital value ?
Survey results
General
The results of the survey are intended
primarily for the use of the EFCA member-
ship and it is anticipated that respective
national organizations will make the results
of the exercise available to member firms if
[ 114 ]
requested. However, it may be appropriate
to provide copies to technical officers within
DG XI, who may find the information of use
in reviewing their proposals for amendment
of the EIA directive.
Variation between member states is quite
marked. As required by legislation, there is
generally a “formal” procedure with respect
to the contents of an EIA, but this is usually a
straightforward reflection of the dictates of
the EIA directive. Wherever there is discre-
tionary consideration of factors, such as
registration of consultants or review proce-
dure, there are relatively few member states
where such procedures are regularly
followed.
Quality of EIAs
The omission of registration and review from
any formal evaluation requirement has led,
at least in part, to the unsatisfactory situa-
tion that has arisen in many member states
with respect to the quality of EISs. Quality of
EISs is considered to be a major factor in the
success or otherwise of the implementation of
the EIA directive. There is no formal control
over this issue in virtually any of the member
states and client organizations frequently feel
that they do not obtain value for money. Com-
petent authorities, usually the planning orga-
nizations, often do not have the in-house
capability to evaluate EISs, notably for com-
plex process procedures, and are equally
critical of the range in quality of presented
documents.
From discussions with representatives of
the national organizations, it is felt that better
guidance on the approach to undertaking
EIAs would be valuable. If this was achieved,
there could be greater uniformity in approach
and hence improvement in the quality of
EIAs. This fact appears to be recognized by
consultancies, as well as their clients.
There has been suggestion that standard-
ization of approach would be helpful, though
it is appreciated that this may be difficult to
effect in practice. It is of some concern that
the consultants are held responsible for the
quality of environmental statements pro-
duced, and yet there is no formal guidance to
ensure that there is a basis for the equitable
evaluation of statements.
Subsidiarity dictates that each member
state’s competent authority is responsible for
the approach adopted to the EIA procedure.
However, there is little indication that the
various authorities are in a position to pro-
vide the much needed framework to ensure
comparative execution of projects.
As already recognized, defining such a
framework could prove difficult, owing to
the diverse nature of projects which are the
Roger H. Charlier
The European Union EIAS,
EMAS and audits
Environmental Management
and Health
9/3 [1998] 106–123
subject of EIAs. It is doubtful that any one
procedure would satisfactorily accommodate
all project types, since it is only the procedure
of EIA which is common. Different project
categories require different aspects to be con-
sidered with varying degrees of thoroughness.
Registration schemes
The creation of a registration and self-regu-
lating/policing approach to EIAs appears to
be developing in many countries in response
to the criticisms. Only by encouragement of
the emergence of formalized authorities,
institutes or agencies, will EFCA national
organizations be able to ensure that the
profession effects control over the operation
of substandard companies.
There is only one member state (Belgium)
where there is a formal requirement for reg-
istration of EIA consultancies and an infor-
mal requirement in Spain. Otherwise, the
system is purely voluntary and in the major-
ity of cases, there is little evidence of “self-
regulation”.
It is generally considered that the creation
of such organizations throughout member
states would be beneficial to the industry as a
whole. It would have the support of various
client and evaluating authorities and also

Table Va
Summary results of survey of EFCA membership
1 2 3b 4 5 6 7 8
Belgiuma CWE/ Yes/yes/yes Yes/yes/yes Yes/yes/yes 42/161/5 Yes/yes/yes CAc/AMINAL/ 0.5-5/?/?
AMINAL/ (F/F/F)b IGBE
IBGE-BIM
Denmark Ministry of Yes No ? 25 No Ministry of Up to 5f
Environment Environment/
Registration
Administration
Ireland Ministry of Yes No No +20? No Developer/ Uncertain
Environment Consultant
France
Germany
Greece Ministry of Yes No No Ca. 15 Yes Public Uncertain
Environment Authority/
Developer/TOR
by Ministry
Decreed
Italy Ministry of Yes No Yes 10-20 (large) No Developer/ Uncertain
Environment 100-200 Consultant
(small)
The Netherlands MHPP and Yes No Yes (CEIA) 15 No CEIA 0.1-1
E/MANMF/
CEIA
Spain MOPTMA/ Yes Yes (1) No +100 No Developer/ Uncertain
Regional Consultant
Authorities
Switzerland N/Ae BUWAL + No No licensing +100 No Licensing 1-5f
several authority. Authority
cantonal Assess project
executive based on EIA
authorities
UK Department No No On request +300 No Developer/ 0.01-1
of (guidelines) (instruction Consultant/
Environment of EIA) CAc
Notes:
a Situation presented for all three regions of Belgium in the following order (Walloon/Flemish/Brussels)
b F: formal requirement; I: informal arrangement
c CA: Competent Authority sometimes dictates scope of EA, following consultation and discussion with Statutory Consultees
d Local authorities and developers responsible for their own TOR, but Ministerial decree dictates minimum TOR
e Switzerland is not a member of the EU and therefore does not adhere to EU legislation. However, Umweltschutzgestz (USG 1983) and

UVP-Verordnung (1988) apply for EIA issues

f The upper level reflects the cost of mitigation or amelioration, which can be included in cost of EIA

[ 115 ]
[ 116 ]
and Health
EMAS and audits
Roger H. Charlier

9/3 [1998] 106–123

The European Union EIAS,

Environmental Management
Table Vb
Implementation of EMAS – status January 1997
1 2 3b 4 5 6 7
Involvement of
national consulting Specification
Representation organisation requirements for Accreditation of National Registered sites/
Competent body in competent body in competent body verifiers verifiers eco-audit organisation accredited verifiers
Austria Federal Environmental Federal Environmental No Completed Federal Ministry of No 40/12
Agency Agency Economic Affairs,
Zulassungsstelle für
Umweltgutachter
Belgium District level: Only the government No (indirectly Specifications Ministry of Coordination on 2 (Flanders)/0
1 Brussels Institute is represented. In through the have been Economic national level
for Environmental the Regional Council Regional prepared and Affairs, alters between
Management (IBGE) for Environment, which Council) approved by Department of Flanders (AMINAL)
2 Administration for appointed the BELCERT Quality and and Wallonie (AWR)
Environmental competent body, Security, Division
Management various parties are Quality
(AMINAL) (Flanders) represented Accreditation
3 Administration of Service (BELCERT)
Walloon Region
(Wallonie)
Federal level:
Ministry of Environment
and Public Health
Denmark Environmental Council The environmental According to DANAK (Danish Under discussion 13/3 (10.12.96)
under Ministry of management council DANAK accreditation)
Environment has been established as
an advisory body to
Danish EPA and to
DANAK in questions of
EMAS. FRI is represented
in the council

(Continued)
 and Health
EMAS and audits
Roger H. Charlier

9/3 [1998] 106–123

The European Union EIAS,

Environmental Management
Table Vb
1 2 3b 4 5 6 7
Involvement of
national consulting Specification
Representation organisation requirements for Accreditation of National Registered sites/
Competent body in competent body in competent body verifiers verifiers eco-audit organisation accredited verifiers
France Ministry of Through a committee Through COFRAC Guidelines under the Through COFRAC No plans 7/9
Environment with totalling 20 members, committee, which is in COFRAC (Comité Français
consultative with: charge of verifiers’ d’accréditation)
committee – Ministry of accreditation
Environment (one
representative)
– Ministry of Industries
(one representative)
– Ministry of Agriculture
(one representative)
– Ministry of Finance
(one representative)
– Experts of Industry
(seven
representatives)
– Public and its
representative
associations for
environment protection,
bank and insurance
companies (seven
representatives)
– Three qualified
personalities (a
representative of
COFRAC and
inspectors)

(Continued)

[ 117 ]
[ 118 ]
and Health
EMAS and audits
Roger H. Charlier

9/3 [1998] 106–123

The European Union EIAS,

Environmental Management
Table Vb
1 2 3b 4 5 6 7
Involvement of
national consulting Specification
Representation organisation requirements for Accreditation of National Registered sites/
Competent body in competent body in competent body verifiers verifiers eco-audit organisation accredited verifiers
Germany 1 Deutscher Industrie- – Federal Association No The UGA decided in Deutsche Environmental 413/122 (15 organisations,
und Handelstag of German Industries accreditation guideline Akkreditierungs- und Verification Committee 107 individuals)
2 Zentralverband des (BDI) and works on a Zulassungsgesellschaft (Umweltgutachteraus-
Deutschen – German Industry and supervision guideline für Umwelgutachter schuss UGA) which
Handwerks Trade Council (DIHT) for verifiers mbH (DAU) defines accreditation
– Central German Trade and supervision
Board (ZDH) guidelines
– Federal Association of
Non-regulated
professions (BFB)
Greecea Under discussion; no Technical chamber of Possibly yes Under discussion Not yet defined or No specific plans yet
considerable progress Greece discussed
Republic of Ireland The National No answer No Requirements and The National No 2/2 (+2 under preparation)
Accreditation Board procedures in place Accreditation Board
Italya A special committee Through sub-committee Not known, Verifiers will be Verifiers will be No additional
will be created with for eco-audit with: representation within nominated by accredited by organization is foreseen,
subcommittees for – chairman Advisory Forum committee committee thus sub-committee will
eco-label and eco-audit – two members from possible (sub-committee?). (sub-committee) have full responsibility.
Ministry of Verifiers’ qualifications Technical support from
Environment will be defined on the National Agency for
– two members from basis of EU Environmental Protection
Ministry of Industry recommendations (ANPA)
– one member from
Ministry of Public
Health
– one member from
Ministry of Treasury
assisted by Advisory
Forum
(Continued)
 and Health
EMAS and audits
Roger H. Charlier

9/3 [1998] 106–123

The European Union EIAS,

Environmental Management
Table Vb
1 2 3b 4 5 6 7
Involvement of
national consulting Specification
Representation organisation requirements for Accreditation of National Registered sites/
Competent body in competent body in competent body verifiers verifiers eco-audit organisation accredited verifiers
The Netherlands Newly devloped private Government – Indirect by the Special requirements The Dutch Council for No answer 10/2
institute “Foundation Industry representation of the available as paper Accreditation (RvA)b
for Coordination and Environmental Dutch industry
Certification of movement organisation
Environmental – Informal contacts
Management Systems”
fully installed
Norway Bronnoysundregistrene Public institutions No initiatives known Defined by See 4 No plans known 15/5
without representation Justervesenet –
of special interest Norsk Akkreditering
groups
Portugal (proposal DGI – Dirrecçào Geral DGI – Dirrecçào Geral Nothing known Rules to be established DGA and IPQ are Under preparation 3/0
pending) da Indústria da Industria establishing
DGA – Dirrecçào Geral specifications
do Ambiente
IPQ – Instituto
Português da Qualidade
Spain Ministerio de medio Ministerio de medio Not for the moment Member of Comité The national body for No, not for the moment 2(1997)/1
ambiente is the ambiente: direcciôn Técnico Asesor de accreditation (ENAC)
competent body with general de evaluaciôn verificación Mediambiental
subsidiary character ambiental y actuariones As member of Comisión
Three autonomous sectiorales de Acreditación
communities Cataluña, Cataluña: direcciôn de
Madrid and Navarra calidad ambiental
have defined Madrid: DG de Educación
competent bodies y prevention ambiental
Navarra: direcciôn general
de medio ambiente
(Continued)

[ 119 ]
[ 120 ]
and Health
EMAS and audits
Roger H. Charlier

9/3 [1998] 106–123

The European Union EIAS,

Environmental Management
Table Vb

1 2 3b 4 5 6 7
Involvement of
national consulting Specification
Representation organisation requirements for Accreditation of National Registered sites/
Competent body in competent body in competent body verifiers verifiers eco-audit organisation accredited verifiers
Sweden Swedish EMAS Council Swedish EMAS Council No Ongoing meetings with Swedish Board for MIS Swedish 16/5
established since is a limited company, the verifiers on issues Technical Accreditation Association for
Spring 1995 owned by the Ministry of common concern (Swedac) Environmental Auditors
of Environment,
The Federation of
Swedish Industries and
the Association of
Swedish Communities.
The board has ten
members
Switzerland So far, no bilateral Switzerland is – – – Ca. 30 Swiss firms certified
agreement implementing the according to ISO 14001
ISO 14001
standard
UK Department of The Secretary of State No UKAS – United UKAS DoE is responsible for 9.12.96: 20 and 2 units
Environment – on for the Environment Kingdom (supersedes introducing EMAS. under the UK scheme for
behalf of the Secretary and the Registration NACCB) deals with There is privately run local government
of State for the Office within the DoE accreditation of institute of Verifiers: according to
Environment (a team of three verifiers, outlines environmental UKAS
working solely on specified on 20 assessment and a
EMAS, plus others) pages. Requirements privately run institute of
almost exclusively environmental
fulfilled by management
companies

Note:
a No answer as per 13 January 1997
Roger H. Charlier provide some form of “protection” for those
The European Union EIAS, consultancies who strive to maintain profes-
EMAS and audits sional standards and quality. However, it is
Environmental Management also appreciated by most EFCA national orga-
and Health nizations that such bodies will not readily be
9/3 [1998] 106–123 created, unless there is an obligation to do so.
It remains to be seen whether such require-
ments will eventually emerge from the Euro-
pean Commission.
Consultancy independence
With the exception of Belgium and Greece,
there is no requirement for consultants
undertaking EIAs to be independent of the
project proponent. This has sometimes
engendered a feeling of suspicion between
consultants and potential opposition parties,
questioning the independence of views given
in environmental statements that are being
financed by a developer.
The need to instill a considerable amount of
confidence in both referees and active partici-
pants in the decision-making process lends
further weight to the need for:
• a more formalized registration of approved
consultancies;
• an approach to EIA methodology which
allows better comparison of procedures and
greater homogeneity in statement prepara-
tion.
Only by an obviously visible development of
such a self-regulatory process will it be feasi-
ble to convince the wide range of participants
in the EIA procedure of the efficacy of this
valuable planning approach.
Statement value
Of considerable interest is the wide range in
the perceived value of EIA projects. Denmark
and Switzerland, and potentially Belgium,
appeared to include project mitigation and
monitoring costs in the overall estimate of fee
value for EIA studies. As a result, the costs of
an EIA could represent up to 5 per cent of the
project value. However, in the majority of the
remaining member states, the fee figure was
considerably lower, being as little as 0.01-0.1
per cent of project value in The Netherlands
and the UK.
Implications of amendments to
85/337/EEC
Amendments of the requirements of the EIA
directive could result in improvements to the
execution of environmental statements, pro-
vided that the criticisms of the present proce-
dures are taken into account. However, any
modifications will take time to enact.
Modifications may have financial implica-
tions which governments and competent
authorities alike will have to consider before
integrating such modifications into the legis-
lation. Such implications may have an
adverse effect on the willingness of relevant
enacting authorities to effect change. Experi-
ence suggests that any move may have major
financial implications which will not prove
popular unless positive benefits can be
demonstrated.
Belgium
Key points raised about implementation
of EMAS can be answered as follows for
Belgium: while no specific representation in
the competent body has been spelled out,
three bodies – one per region – were created:
the Administration for Environmental
Administration of the Walloon Region (CWE),
and the Brussels Institute for Environmental
Management (acronyms IBGE and BIM). It
was from the onset improbable that the
national consulting organization become
involved in the competent body. No specifica-
tion requirements for verifiers had been
defined by June 1995, though they were under
discussion and undoubtedly would be mod-
eled after EU specifications. Accreditation of
verifiers could be vested in BELCERT, the
Belgian certification system supervised by the
Federal (Central) Ministry of Economy. No
steps towards a national “eco-audit” organiza-
tion have been taken, but some existing
groups are apparently vying for such “status”.
Progress in EMAS implementation varies
widely from country to country (Table V).
There are similar non-negligible variations
throughout the EU in the application to the
“EIA directive”. In all three Belgian
“regions”, formal procedures are required by
the “responsible bodies” for undertaking an
EIA and a formal registration scheme exists
for consultancies wishing to undertake
EIAs. There is, also in each region, a system
for the review of completed EIAs and a
requirement that consultancies be indepen-
dent of engineering design consultancies
which are contractors. The latter require-
ment exists also only in Greece at the time of
writing.
The same bodies decide, in Flanders and
Brussels, the scope of the EIA when prepar-
ing the terms of reference and official advice
may be available to assist in this task. In
Wallonia, the CWE may sometimes dictate
the EIA’s scope, eventually after consultation
and discussion with statutory consultants.
From a survey conducted recently by the
EFCA, no response was available from Flan-
ders or Brussels concerning the value typi-
cally attached to EIA studies; in Wallonia the
value expressed as a percentage of either
design value or capital value was 0.5 to 5. In
most cases, the upper level reflects the costs
of mitigation or improvement which can be
included in cost of EIA. The same survey
[ 121 ]
Roger H. Charlier revealed that 42, 161 and five consultancies,
The European Union EIAS, respectively in Wallonia, Flanders and Brus-
EMAS and audits sels, are active in the field of environmental
Environmental Management assessment.
and Health
9/3 [1998] 106–123
Eco-auditing
So far, no specific provisions concerning eco-
auditing have been implemented or orga-
nized in Belgium. Authorities consider that
there is still some time for it. There is com-
mitment to aim at simplicity, in other words
to use the existing EIA framework or existing
procedures at the national level, viz. certifica-
tion procedures in other fields.
Environmental auditing may take the form
of internal, second, or even third party
audits; it may even be an accredited audit in
connection with certification or verification.
An auditor is subject to what may be labeled
risks resulting from a determination of non-
observance of the law, or non-thorough check-
ing of an item, and yet issuance of a require-
ments conformity statement (Table VI).
This points out the need for a clearly
spelled-out work [auditing] contract,

Table VI
Flow chart of the eco-management and audit scheme procedure (draft)

Company

Environmental Management System

• environmental policy
Validated Statement of
• (initial) environmental review Environmental environmental participation
• environmental programme statement statement in the scheme
• environmental audits
• environmental objectives

submission
Selection of track 1 or 2

Accreditation body
Accredits:
• certifying Institutes for certification of
environmental management systems
• environmental verifiers

Certifying Institutes/environmental verifiers

(can be the same organisation)

Track 1
certifying Institute certifies environmental verifier verifies and Validated
environmental management validates environmental statement environmental
systems (on a regular basis) (incidentally) statement

Track 2
environmental verifier examines the
environmental management system
and verifies/validates the
environmental statement (incidentally)

The competent body

• registration
• permits and controls use of statement of participation
• controls submission of a new environmental
statement

[ 122 ]
Roger H. Charlier stipulating reporting conditions and audi-
The European Union EIAS, tor’s responsibility. Additionally, the auditor
EMAS and audits should be covered by an adequate
Environmental Management professional indemnity insurance policy,
and Health covering the client, but definitely providing
9/3 [1998] 106–123 protection to the auditor in case of claims
directed at him/her. It is this latter aspect
that has been a topic of high current interest
in Belgium, where obtaining such coverage
has proven all but impossible.
In another vein, environmental legislation
has shown to be so involved, even according
to some “ununderstandable”, that for both
Flanders and Wallonia “conferences” are in
progress to streamline and simplify rules.
Their outcome(s) were to have been publi-
cized by Spring 1996, but were not.
Conclusions
Concluding, there are EU regulations on
environmental auditing (CEMAS). Participa-
tion is currently voluntary within the mem-
ber states. Verification by accredited verifiers
must be carried out and national systems
developed by individual member states may
be accredited under the scheme, for instance,
in Denmark.
Environmental auditing is an invaluable
process in assessing compliance with existing
and future legislation and policy, and high-
lighting areas of environmental risk/liability.
Note
1 For historical accuracy it ought to be men-
tioned that the name Flanders, actually
Flemish Region, does not coincide with the
former County of Flanders, but includes large
territories which were never part of it. Simi-
larly, Wallonia, more correctly Walloon
Region, includes territories which were inde-
pendent (prior to 1814), and does not coincide
with a historical entity. Brussels was never a
separate “region”.
For terminology accuracy “community” and
“commune” are not synonymous. A commu-
nity is a linguistic-cultural entity. A commune,
which may be a city, town, village, agglomera-
tion of several former communes, is best ren-
dered in English by the designation municipal-
ity. Still another administrative unit is the
arrondissement (Kreis in Germany) which
encompasses a group of municipalities (com-
munes), but has no environment-related
responsibilities.
Further reading
Charlier, R.H. (1996), “Environmental impact
legislation. Assessments and audits”, Interna-
tional Journal of Environmental Statistics,
Vol. 51, pp. 1-19.
Ecole de Santé Publique, ULB (School of Public
Health, Free University of Brussels) (1991),
Aspects Pratiques du Fonctionnement des
Infrastructures Environnementales en
Belgique, (in French), April, University of
Brussels, Brussels.
EFCA (1996), “EMAS implementation by coun-
tries member of the European Federation of
Consulting Engineers Associations”, EFCA
(in-house document), Brussels.
EIA Centre, Belgium (1991), in Review of Imple-
mentation of Directive 85/33 7, The Center, The
University, Manchester.
[ 123 ]