The history of the IMPEL network can be traced back to the early 1990’s. The Dutch Presidency of the EU commissioned a study of EU environmental agencies in 1991 against a background of a concern that the growth of environmental legislation was not matched by improvements in the quality of the environment. One of the principal recommendations was that an environmental enforcement network should be created within member States. The result was the formation of the Network of EC Environmental Enforcement Agencies whose first meeting was held in Chester UK under the UK Presidency in 1992 – hence the Chester network.
The basic structure of the IMPEL network we know today was established at that time. There were to be Plenary Meetings every six months chaired by the current Presidency. National Coordinators were appointed to assist with the organisation and to be a focal point within individual Member States. Four Working Groups were established to look at the Technical Aspects of Permitting; Procedural and Legal Aspects of Permitting; Compliance Monitoring and Inspection; and Managing the Enforcement Process.
The 5th Environmental Action Programme recognised the importance of an Implementation and Enforcement network with the Commission also taking part. Common sense prevailed and rather than setting up a separate network it was agreed that the Chester network could readily take on this role. The Commission’s involvement in the network as co-chair began in 1994 and its Communication in 1996 suggested making proposals for using IMPEL for cooperation and capacity building and in particular for defining minimum criteria for inspections. Further encouragement came from a Resolution adopted by the Environment Council in June 1997 which suggested that IMPEL “could be further developed, inter alia by asking it to consider whether it should broaden the scope of its mandate and the focus of its current work.
At its Plenary meeting in December 1997 IMPEL agreed to a new structure and a broader scope as suggested by the Environment Council Resolution. The four Working Groups, together with the sub-group on transboundary shipment of waste, were replaced by task-oriented project groups, much in the way that IMPEL operates now. The work of the project groups was to be commissioned and supervised by two Standing Committees and dissolved upon completion of their tasks. The Commission agreed to share the costs of the work programme and to host the IMPEL secretariat.
The Standing Committees performed a useful role but in order to minimise the bureaucracy in IMPEL it was agreed that the Standing Committees should be disbanded: this happened in 1999. The Plenary meetings were therefore required to give consideration final reports on projects and progress with projects as well as developing ideas for new projects. In the event this proved too onerous for the Plenary and this work was gradually transferred to the Clusters of which there are now three – on improving permitting, inspection and enforcement, transfrontier shipment of waste and better regulation (practicability and enforceability).
The role of the Clusters has developed over time, reducing the need for detailed discussion at the plenary meetings. They play a role in quality reviewing projects and examining reports in detail. The Cluster on better regulation was the most recent to be formed. It was set up at the Amsterdam Plenary Meeting in 2004 following a workshop to consider the conclusions of the IMPEL report on Better Legislation.
IMPEL continues to develop as it moves towards its next phase. The secretariat is still hosted by the Commission but this will cease in December 2008. In any event the secretariat would need to move out of the Commission by that date because by then IMPEL should have acquired a legal status as an association under Belgian Law as an association. This should put IMPEL in a better position to seek funding under the LIFE+ regulation and other sources.