Annex I – Minutes from the Workshop on 22 and 23 March 2022

The countries were represented by delegations from their national authorities representing in-depth knowledge on the processes of the national permitting systems.

Anders Turesson opened the seminar and presented the setting and purpose of the workshop; which was to identify areas where we can have a Nordic dialogue and cooperation and an exchange of views on the permitting systems.

Each country then made a brief presentation of their respective permitting system after which the other countries were given an opportunity to ask questions and comment on the presentations:

What authority is the permitting body? Is it the municipality or a state body?
How does the operator know who to approach with the application?
Is it possible for the ministry to “call in” the permitting process or intervene in a case when the permitting body is a municipality or another state body?
Is it possible to combine and integrate different procedures such as Natura 2000, building plans, water protection, Environmental Impact assessment etc? It is noted that NO and IS have not signed the Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (that means NO and IS don’t have Natura 2000 areas)
Which authority is the supervisory authority? Same as the permitting body?
Public participation: in what stages of the process is the public consulted?

Discussion on scenario A

Scenario A formed the basis of the discussions on the first day of the workshop (22/3).

Scenario A: A new industrial installation that will have effects on the environment. In this scenario it might be interesting to focus on industries where environmental impact assessment is not mandatory and where the national authorities have to decide whether an EIA is needed according to Article 4.2 of the EIA Directive, 2011/92/EU (projects listed in Annex II).

The delegations described how their respective systems would handle different aspects of the permitting process based on questions that had been presented to the delegations before the workshop. Some additional questions were raised during the workshop. The discussions and additional questions were, in summary:

The scope of the permitting process and involvement of the public and stakeholders

Does the permitting process include the environmental assessment process?
Are there multiple processes or one integrated process? Can the decision-making processes under different laws be merged?
In what ways is the public given access to information and participation in the permit procedure?
Which stakeholders and interests are consulted within the frame of the permitting process, and how are they consulted?

In FI the EIA is separated from the permitting process and it is done before the permitting process. The two processes are not handled by the same agency. In scenario A the operator has negotiations in advance with the authorities for permitting and EIA, where they discuss whether EIA is needed or not. It is possible to integrate a water permit in the process, but chemical safety or land use is handled by another competent authority.

Public participation in the permit process and the EIA is separated. The application and information about environmental consequences is made available online by the permitting authority and information about the application is also published in newspapers. The permitting authority involves other authorities. The authority asks for statements from several authorities: municipalities, the Food Safety Agency, Fishery Agency and Chemical Agency.

The EIA process and permitting process in DK is on paper two processes, but the processes are integrated as much as possible, and it is often an integrated process. The permitting authority decides on the quality of the EIA. The permitting authority announces the call for input regarding scope of the EIA-report and the permit on its website. The public concerned or companies that might be directly involved will receive a letter directly.

In IS the permitting process is separated from the EIA and the processes are handled by different agencies. The decision-making process cannot be merged but it is possible to prepare the EIA report and apply for a permit. In most cases that simultaneous procedure is not feasible since the EIA forms the basis of the permit and it is therefore needed before the permit can be applied for. In practice this often means the operator needs a decision on the EIA before making the permit application.

For industrial activity in NO the operator needs to get in touch with the permitting authority to determine whether an EIA is needed. If the activity is in line with the zoning plan it goes to the permitting authority. It is not possible to give a permit according to the Pollution Control Law for an activity that is not foreseen in the zoning plan. If the activity is not in line with the zoning plan the application goes to the municipality. The municipality then asks the operator to issue a program for the EIA which is public. Then the municipality decides on which procedure the operator has to follow. When the EIA is completed it becomes part of the permit application.

The permitting system in SE consists of multiple processes. Some are integrated such as the environmental permit, water permit and the Natura 2000 permit. Other regulations that may affect the activities include the Planning and Building Act and the Electricity Act.

The EIA is partly integrated. The EIA process starts with a consultation where the operator is responsible for consulting relevant authorities, municipalities and the public. This part is done before the application. The permitting body can demand supplements of the EIA from the operator and then makes a final decision on whether the EIA is complete. In this later part the permitting body is responsible for involving the public and other stakeholders.

The form of the process varies depending on whether the permitting body is a court or a Regional Licensing Board which is part of the County Administrative Board. The permit process in the court has a public hearing and site visit. The Regional Licensing Board normally has a written procedure.

Is there a limit to objections that can be made about the EIA? Can the same questions be raised in the process of the EIA as in the permitting process? Can supplements be made to the EIA?

In FI there are no limitations, it is possible any actor to submit opinions on the EIA and the application. It is not possible to appeal the statement about the quality of the EIA.

In DK the environmental permit process and the EIA process are integrated and will finish at the same time. Normally, there will be one joint decision that can be appealed with regard to both the environmental and the EIA process. The appeal on the EIA can only be a legality control by way of launching judicial review proceedings in court. In an environmental permit appeal, all substantial questions can be reviewed.

In IS there are no limits. The developer of a project or the relevant licensor can at any time request an opinion from the National Planning Agency on whether the developer’s environmental impact statement must be revised, if they believe that the basis of the environmental assessment report has changed. Some questions can be raised in the permitting process, as in the EIA, since the NPA issues Reasoned Conclusion and Scoping opinions that are not decisions which can be appealed to the Environmental and Natural Resources Board of Appeal. The decision on whether to issue a permit is based upon the reasoned conclusion of the NPA. In the case of an appeal to the Environmental and Natural Resources Board of Appeal, the complainant could make the case that the permit is based on a flawed EIA.

If the EIA is not sufficient in NO it is possible for the permitting authority to go back to the operator based on what comes out in the public hearing. This has been done on several occasions.

In SE the permitting body decides on both the permit and whether the EIA meets the requirements of law at the same time. If the decision is on appeal, complaints can be made regarding both the EIA and the permit as such.

Case processing time and quality of the application and other material

Is there available data on the time used for the permitting process in the different countries?
In your view, what factors affect time efficiency in the permitting processes?
Are there good examples of guidance and tools aimed at reducing case processing time? (e.g. digital application, BAT checklists, digital approval guidelines, guidelines in general (air, noise, etc.), standard terms, BAT conclusions as standard terms (general binding rules), industry executive orders (general binding rules).
In what ways are authorities involved in preparing an application?

There is a lot of data about the processing time in FI. In general, the decision on whether or not an EIA is needed or not is given within one month. The EIA process is about 12 months. In general, no binding time limits apply to the permit process.

There are internal performance targets for permitting authorities at state level, the aim is for the permit procedure to be ten months in median months processing time. For new installations it is usually ten months. In average for all, the process is normally just over thirteen months. The permit processing time is counted from when the application is submitted to the authority. However, supplements are often needed. There are some factors that affect the time use; changes in the operator's plans for the activity and lack of resources at the authority.

New regulations have been introduced to speed up the process. The authorities try to give enough guidance to applicants so that the quality of the documents will be sufficient from the beginning. A national client service number has been introduced where applicants can call and be referred directly to the right permitting authority. There is a lot of cooperation between authorities. Digitalization is increasing, in the future the permit process might all be electronic.

There are no set deadlines in the permitting process in DK but there is a service target of 200 days of an IED permit. It varies very much. The screening for the EIA should be made no later than 90 days from when a fully informed application has been submitted to the authority. There is no fixed time for the EIA process but normally it takes between 1½ and 2 years.

Good examples of guidance and tools that can be mentioned are the application system with checklists and appendices of what information should be provided and links to where one may find the necessary information. There are standard terms for certain types of industries, typically those that are given permits by municipalities. There is day to day dialogue with operators, and that way the permitting authority receives information about applications that are coming.

If the applicant does not use the permit within 2–5 years, the applicant has to apply again. If an activity that has a permit is terminated/shut down the operator must apply again after three years if the operator wishes to continue.

In IS the EPA issues a scoping opinion within seven weeks from when the developer submits a scoping report. The time can be extended. The time frame for consulting the public and relevant authorities is a minimum of six weeks. The NPA then issues a reasoned conclusion within seven weeks. The Environmental Agency of Iceland has an internal benchmark of 240 days to issue a permit. The public health authorities do not have the same benchmark. The draft permit must be advertised during four weeks before a decision can be made. The decision then needs to be made within four weeks.

Consultations with municipalities can delay the EIA process. Other factors that can delay case processing time are the quality of the application, lack of supplements from the operator and contacts with the municipalities and NPA, and the workload at the agency. The public health authority has meetings every week.

The NPA will launch a new digital application tool that will hopefully contribute to reducing the case time. A BAT-checklist has helped. The Environmental Agency has issued standard terms for the public health authorities which also has helped shorten the time. Teamwork on permits has improved permits, but it hasn’t really shortened the case processing time.

NO is aiming towards 6 to 9 months for straightforward permits. If the permit includes EIA the benchmark is 9–12 months. There are no strict rules, only benchmarks. There are examples where complicated cases, such as mining, have taken 6–7 years. The problems seem to be the same in SE and DA. If the project is controversial the process is prolonged. The appeal process at the ministry can sometimes take several years. There is no time limit for the EIA in NO. Miljödirektoratet involves other authorities in the process. Remits are made to other authorities, regional agencies, labour issues, Seveso, water management, etc. Miljödirektoratet remits target specific agencies and use public notification as well. Miljödirektoratet handles large installations. Wind farms and hydro power are handled by another agency (Norges Vassdrags- og Energidirektorat). Miljödirektoratet have guidance documents. The guidance document clarifies what the authority needs in order to handle an application.

There is some data regarding case processing time in SE. The permitting process takes a little more than a year in first instance when the first instance is the Land and Environment Court. The courts are aiming at 12 months for decision, but it generally takes between 14–15 months. The permitting process in first instance takes 6–12 months when the first instance is the Regional Licensing Board. There are more complicated cases that take more time.

There are guidelines from relevant authorities, for example, information to the applicant on what the courts require. The permit body – including the courts – have an obligation to investigate the case and to guide the applicant. Cooperation between the Regional Licensing Boards has also helped in reducing case time.

Are permits given for a limited time? Is it possible to revoke permits?

FI: According to the environmental act permits are valid until further notice, but they can be set for a fixed time limit in exceptional situations. It is possible to give a license that is limited in time, for example 10 years, if there is a special reason, but for the time being there is no time-limiting in general. Time limit is an exception and can for example be used when the environmental impact is not yet known and there is a need to evaluate before giving an indefinite permit. There are multiple ways to address this in the permit. It is possible to revoke permits.

DK: The permits are issued for a limited time in some cases, but it is not usual. As a general rule, approvals are without expiration. If the permit is time limited and the time runs out they will have to apply again. Time limit is usually only applied for activities that involve testing of new products or processes. When the operator applies for a new permit, the EIA process is often faster because there is only need to do a screening to test if the former full EIA can still be seen as valid.

IS: Permits are required to be issued for a specified period and to be reviewed at least every 16 years. The permits issued by the Environmental Agency are usually issued for 16 years. This means the permits have to be reviewed every 16 years. The public health authorities usually issue permits for 12 years. If the operator does not apply for a new permit within the time limit the old one expires. Getting a new permit is usually a shorter process. An EIA that has been done previously can often be used. A review of the permit can be initiated if it is needed due to new technology or increased pollution. It is usually not possible to revoke permits. This process is in review by the agency. The Environmental and Natural Resources Board of Appeal recently concluded that a new operating license can only be issued when the applicant does not have a valid operating license for the activity for which he is applying for a license. https://uua.is/urleits/43-2021-eldsneytisbirgdastod/

NO: Permits are open-ended, there is no time limit. Permits that are limited in time are used for activities that involve testing of new products or processes when there is a need to find out how the activity affects the environment. It is generally possible to review the permits after 10 years. That is because it is assumed that new techniques have developed during that time, and that the activity can be given new conditions. There is also a possibility for the operator to apply for changes in the permit. It is possible for the authorities to step in and stop the activity if there is an emergency. Having a permit should be predictable for the operator. Therefore, the authorities have options, but they do not have free hands. It is good to have open ended permits but there is a need to be able to intervene to reflect the development of new techniques etc.

There is a possibility to revoke permits if the operator fails to meet the requirements of the permit or is not able to perform the conditions. This is extremely rare; it has been done once since 1981.

SE: There is no general time limit for permits in SE. Time limited permits are used for some industries and activities: windmills, fish farms, ground water, and quarries. It can also be used in complicated cases and when there is not enough data. It is possible to revoke permits but in practice it never happens

Is it possible for the permit body to prioritise between applications?

It is possible to prioritise in NO, but the permit authority aims to handle the applications in turn.

It is possible to prioritise in FI. Some cases can be taken before others, for example those with the largest environmental impact, a positive environmental impact or if there is an application for a new big installation. Currently, there is no regulation on how to prioritise.

DK has the possibility to prioritise between applications. There are no rules in the legislation regarding the priorities but in practice the authorities do prioritise. New installations that cannot start without a permit are prioritised. Companies that have more than one ongoing permit process at the same time notify the agency about which of the applications is more important for them.

It is possible to prioritise in IS, but it is a bit limited by the administrative law. The permitting authority normally takes up permit applications in date order but if it is something important and there is a good reason to prioritise, it is possible.

In SE one of the difficulties is that the people working with permitting in the Regional Licensing Boards do not work there full time, they have other work as well.

One of the difficulties for the courts is that the courts handle many different cases and they handle them in the order they came in. It is not easy to prioritise. It is possible to take emergency into account. Cases that have been remanded from a higher instance are prioritised.

Do you have one permit decision or layers? Is it easy for the public to know what is regulated in this activity?

FI: There are layers of permits; an operator can have 20 permit decisions and that can be a problem. There are some old permits but there are also many cases where the legal requirement has changed. For example, monitoring has been stricter in recent years, and that needs to be reflected in the permit There is also cases when changes have taken place and the whole permit has been updated. It can be difficult for the public to know what the regulation for a specific industry is. The plan is to introduce consolidated permits and to introduce an e-service where to permits are accessible to the public. All permits issued by the state environmental permit authorities are published in the internet database for environmental permitting.

NO: When a permit is issued the document contains information on what the permit is issued for and why certain conditions have been set. The permit can be amended if there are changes in the activity or limits.

DK: There are multiple layers of applications as in FI. Often but not always there is one basic permit and supplements to the basic permit.

IS: There is only one permit. If the authority changes the permit, the permit will be updated.

SE: There are layers of permits, but it is also possible if there are many amendments for the County Administrative Board to require that the operator apply for a new permit.

What are the main challenges in the permitting process?

FI: The quality and information from the operators is key to a successful process. There is pressure coming from the outside, for example to make the process smoother and introduce time limits. Permit practise is quite long in terms of number of pages. Monetary resources are a limitation at the government agencies; there are not enough people in the permitting offices as well as in the appeal courts. There is a need for experienced people handling the permit and sometimes the different government agencies compete for the same persons.

DK has pretty much the same challenges as Finland but also the Seveso part of the permitting process extends the processing time because there are several authorities involved.

The main challenges in IS vary from project to project. It is common for data to be of such a nature that it is time consuming to determine whether it is satisfactory or not.

The frequency of changes in laws and regulations is quite rapid.

The formulation of requirements in the license depends on many considerations. The results of the Planning Agency must be taken into account, among other things, and it has sometimes been the case that the plans described in the application for a permit are not in accordance with the project that was notified to the Planning Agency or the environmental impact assessment. In this case, the data needs to be harmonized. Solutions to this problem vary from project to project, but in all cases the applicant needs to take some action.

The fact that the permitting process, the EIA, and the permit application are divided between governmental agencies in Iceland can affect the processing time from start to finish, from EIA to the permit publication.

It might also complicate the process that there are different governmental agencies issuing permits so it is often necessary to analyse whether the permit should be issued by the Environment Agency or the public health authorities. Act no. 7/1998 lists which operations fall under the jurisdiction of the Environment Agency or the relevant public health authority, but it is still sometimes unclear. In some cases, an operator needs a permit from both the Environment Agency and the relevant public health authority for the same project, simply because the scope of each permit includes different operations. In that respect, it is sometimes unfortunate that the process is handled by different government agencies in Iceland.

NO: One of the main challenges is to get the information needed from the applicant, in particular regarding the BAT conclusions. The hearing process gives very different views on what documentation is needed and sometimes it is hard to reach an agreement.

There are challenges in SE regarding prolonged processes. For example, the courts handle many cases at the same time. The assessments and legislation are sometimes complicated. Applications often need supplements, for example, more certain data. Another factor that can delay the process is that the applicants and authorities, especially municipalities, often ask for more time to complete the application or respond to the court's questions.

Discussion on scenario B

Scenario B formed the basis of the discussions on the second day of the workshop (23/3).

A change of a permit in an existing industrial installation as part of the effort to achieve climate neutrality, that is, a change that aims to lower the facility's carbon footprint. Such changes may include increased energy efficiency in the installation, or a change of fuel or processes (such as electrification). In this scenario, it might be interesting to see how the national systems deal with the application of Article 20 of the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75).

Changes in an installation and special regulations for processes that are part of the green transition

Is it possible to apply for a permit that covers only the change in the installation (Article 20 3 of the IED)?
Is the permitting process for a change in an installation different from the permitting process for a new installation?
Are there any special regulations for permitting processes regarding installations or changes in installations that are part of the green transition, such as giving the cases priority over others?

FI pointed to the fact that it is in the operator’s interest to have changes in operation if the operator wants to keep up with the market. The supervising authority needs to know what is going on in the factory. Based on the information the supervisory authority can make decisions and take actions. In FI there are many small changes that do not require a change in the environmental permit, these changes are handled by the supervisory authority. If the changes are big however, for example if the change leads to the emissions going up, there is a need to change the permit.

Changes that aim to lower carbon footprint are changes that rarely require a change in the environmental permit. This is because there are improvements to the industry that rarely increase the emissions.

Is a possibility to change only part of the permit when the changes are small. The most common environmental permit applications when we talk about IED, are not handled as a whole permit, but only the change itself. The legislation gives the supervisory authority the authority to ask the operator for statements in order to see how big the change is. One effect of the possibility to change only parts of the permit is that some operators can have multiple permit decisions that are valid at the same time, sometimes up to 20 permit decisions.

Public notification can be done in a simplified form for changes in a permit compared to the full permitting process.

For a permit decision there is a right to appeal for public concerned, resulting in a time period of normally 2–3 years before the operator has a legal valid decision if both appeal stages are needed in order to resolve the dispute. In general, the operator can start operating even if there is a legal process pending in the court. Since there is always a risk that the appeal court will not approve the use of a change in permit it may sometimes be better to apply for a full new permit for the entire installation.

In FI the permitting and supervising authorities are separated on state level. At municipal level the permitting authority also supervises the permit. In case of changes, the supervisory authority gets annual reports from the operator about changes and has a dialogue on changes during regular inspections. The supervisory authority informs about recent changes in legislation which may lead to changes in the permit. The operator informs about plans for the future and there is a dialogue about the need to change the permit.

The supervisory authority can use administrative enforcement in order to get the operator to apply for a new permit, but it is usually not needed.

The permit conditions in FI are relatively updated since there was a big review before 2010.

In DK, any change in the installation that entails changes in the amount of pollution or waste generation needs an environmental permit. It is possible to only change a part of the permit. As in FI an installation can have several different permits. The application for a change in the permit is almost the same as for a new permit; the requirements are the same.

If the operator applies for a change there is a need to apply for an EIA at the same time, but normally a screening is enough. It is decided on a case-by-case basis whether a new EIA is needed. Usually, a new EIA is only needed if the change is so big in itself that the operator decides it will be as easy for them to get a new EIA. The operator provides material so that the agency can do a screening process and then decides whether the change is big enough to require a new EIA.

DK doesn’t have any special regulation regarding the green transition, it is the same legislation.

The system in IS is pretty similar to the system in DK. New permits are not issued when there is a change. The permitting authority reconsiders the permit to see if the change fits within the scope of the permit; if not, the authority changes the permit. The process is very much the same as for a new permit, with consultation for 4 weeks etc. The system in Iceland is also similar to DK regarding the EIA, if the change fits within the EIA after a screening. The IS law gives the authority the possibility to review if there is a need to make a new EIA process. Permits are issued every 12 or 16 years and the authorities have regular overviews to see if it is up to date. If there is a new technology or if the law has changed, the permit can be reviewed. A review can be initialised by the operator or the agency.

The operator is required to notify the supervisory authority about changes in the operation. The supervisory authority and permitting authority are the same authority.

Regarding the question about green transition there are no special processes for this in the permitting process. However, there are some other tools such as tax relief promoting green transition.

NO regulates the activity, not the installation. In many ways a permit is a combination of decisions made over a time period of many years. For changes in a permit that extend emissions the operator has to apply for a change as a new activity. The process is the same as for a new permit. In the process the authority has to assess if the increase has an effect on the pollution. The operator is required to do a new EIA if the thresholds for when an EIA is needed are exceeded. It is then a new hearing process as if there were a new application. However, if there are no changes to the emissions or nuisance to the environment, there is no need for a new EIA.

The operator is required by law to work continuously to reduce emissions from the industry. The operator also is responsible to have a permit that reflects the activity carried out, based on how the activity is described in the application. Not all changes require a change in permit or notification to the authority, only increases in emissions, but if the activity is no longer in line with the permit, then a change in the permit is needed. The operator must then begin a dialogue with the permitting authority.

The operator reports to the supervisory authority every year and there are regular inspections.

SE concluded that the systems are quite similar in this aspect. There is a possibility to make a change in the permit unless the change is too great; the process is pretty much the same as a new permit.

In SE, if the change in the operation is small, the operator can just inform the supervisory authority. If the supervisory authority deems that the change is too big to be subject to notification, if there have been many changes to the activity, or if the permit is old, it is possible for the supervisory authority to require the operator to apply for a new permit.

The supervisory authority is separated from the permitting authority.

There is so far no priority or possibility to prioritise installations for the green transition.

If the authorities think that there is a need for a new application and the operator does not agree, what happens? What happens when the system builds upon a joined organisation for supervision and permitting, and you don’t agree with each other? Can the authorities make changes to the permits of their own accord?

In DK the supervising and permitting authority is the same. If the operator does not agree with the authority’s assessment an administrative procedure is initiated.

It is basically the same in NO as in DK. When an inspection is performed and the activities are out of the scope of the permit, the operator is informed that they operate illegally. If the operator does not take action, there are enforcement activities. The decision can be appealed in an administrative order (decisions from statsförvalter can be appealed to miljödirektoratet).

A change in the existing permit is a part of the supervising process and not the permitting process. The supervisory authority inspects if the operator acts within the permit or in a manner that creates pollution outside the frame of the given permit. Also there has to be a proportionality between the need for change in the existing permit and the costs of a new application.

IS: If the operator does not want to apply for a change in the permit, the authority can make changes to the permit. The authority can for example make changes to conditions and demand information from the operator. This is not done frequently; it is only for big and important changes, and the procedure needs to follow administrative law. The situation where the officers responsible for supervision and the officers responsible for permitting do not agree has not occurred yet. If the public health authority and the Environmental Agency do not agree the conflict is referred to the Minister for a final ruling.

In NO It is possible for the authority to make changes to the permit. There are conditions in the law that describes when and the authority must inform the operator. The operators need predictability, and the change has to be reasonable. Necessary investments and costs must be considered. For example, if the authority is informed that new technology is developed that can decrease emissions and the industry does not adopt this new technology the authority can have a dialogue with the operator and inform the operator that the authority intends to change the permit. NO lost many pulp and paper industries because the industry could not keep up with the new techniques. As in IS, the possibility for authorities to change permits is not used on a frequent basis.

In FI changes in permits can no longer be initiated by the permitting authority, but changes can be initiated by the supervisory authority, by the relevant authority protecting the public interest or a party suffering harm, or by certain registered associations or foundations (whose purpose is to promote the protection of the environment, human health or nature conservation, or the pleasantness of the living environment), and in whose operating area the environmental impacts in question arise. There has been a concern that the information in these cases is not the same as in the cases where the change is initiated by the operator. Changes are being made in the regulation to increase the possibility for permitting authorities to ask for supplements to the application.

What are the main challenges in the permitting process?

FI: One challenge is of course to define which changes are major changes. If there are no numbers or any exact data to base the decision on, it can be problematic to decide if the change is big enough to change the permit.

In principle the problems are very similar as the ones discussed regarding scenario A: to get the proper information and quality of the applications, to make sure there are enough supervisors to maintain a dialogue, keep track of developments and to work proactively, and to ensure enough resources for the permitting authorities. The legislation is comprehensive, and that is necessary, but some processes can take years.

DK: As the permitting process for changes is pretty much the same the challenges are pretty much the same: the quality of the applications, and the need to ask for more information. The authorities struggle with baseline reports, the habitat directive and the water frame directive because they are time consuming and legally difficult.

IS agrees with DK; the same problems occur in IS. It can be time consuming to go over the data and to see if it is satisfactory or not. One of the latest changes that was not implemented in Iceland until 2018 is the requirement for a baseline report. It has proved complicated to get started with these reports, but it is getting better.

NO: In short, we can echo what others said.

The challenges in SE are the same as in the other countries. A main challenge is to determine whether a whole new permit is needed or not.

Can you charge for the time spent?

IS It is possible to charge the applicant for the time. For a new permit and for some changes a basic fee is charged in the beginning then an hourly rate if the time spent on the permit is more that the basic fees assume.

SE: The operator pays for time spent through an annual fee for supervision that is same year after year. If the municipality is obliged to supervise, the municipality also has a right to charge for the cost through a notification procedure. Some municipalities also have an annual fee, but if the application is minor the fee is based on the work spent.

NO: The authority can charge when the application is filed but there is no possibility to charge for the activities leading up to the application. The authority can also charge for the inspecting activities.

DK have a fixed fee for each hour spent on processing a permit application and for environmental inspections.

Have you found anything interesting in the other countries' systems? Is there anything to study further together in the Nordic countries? Is there anything we could continue to discuss in this Nordic format?

FI have tried to improve the permitting instrument. Some things works well and some less well. Political leaders and the industry are concerned about the time consumption. The feedback is in general is quite positive. We are interested to hear about the Iceland process, where is the draft of the permit announced. Does that in the end improve the quality of the public participation in the hearing? Does this kind of procedure have the effect that there are fewer appeals?

FI tries to make the permitting process shorter, but at the same time to do it properly and not risk several hearings.

Most application should be handled within 10 months after the application. A digital application system is being tested at the moment. Maybe in 2024 FI will be giving permits through a new system. In the future FI will hopefully have shorter time and better participation from the public.

NO: We heard that FI is about to digitalise the process and we are also working towards this. We hope this will improve the communications between the authority and the industry. We hope to guide the industry better so the applications will have better quality. We are interested to hear where other Nordic countries are on digitalisation.

SE: Digitalisation has been looked into, but we have not come as far as Finland. There is reason to believe that communication would be easier. The progress is rather slow since there are several different authorities with different digital systems. Another conclusion is that it seems that the processes take about the same time – do you agree? At the end of the day the time consumption does not differ very much?

DK use a digital application system. It is mandatory to use it. The system is used no matter what authority the operator applies to (the Environmental Agency or the municipality). Up to now the system has mainly been used to send in the application, not to communicate. The authorities have not seen the improvements in the applications they were hoping for when implementing the digital application system. There is a public web site where information about industries is available such as the permits, inspections, enforcements etc.

IS showed their electronic system to the other participants of the workshop. There is a website accessible for all with information. When the permitting authority receives an application, it is announced on the website. Later on in the process a draft of the permit is announced and then the issued permits and all the comments received in the process. The information is in Icelandic.

NO: Regarding language, the communication is in Norwegian. A summary in English of what the application is about is offered to the public.

DK wonder if other Nordic countries has a threshold as to when a new permit is needed regarding a change? What change does not require a new permit?

IS: regarding thresholds for change in permits, normally the operator needs a new permit if its production has doubled.

The initiative from IS led to that the other countries shared links to relevant websites after the workshop (the links are on the last page of this document).

Separated or joint permitting and supervision agencies? What is the advantage of having separated supervision authority and permitting authority?

FI have the separated systems now on the state level but only since 2010, before that it was partly a joint system. The previous parliament planned a major revision where the plan was to bring it back to a joint authority. In the future it would be beneficial to have one governmental authority that handles both permits and supervision. The municipalities are independent and handle both permits and supervision.

There have been projects looking into how BAT conclusions have been implemented, and the difference is not very big. Even though the system is different, some things are done in very similar manner.

IS thinks it’s only positive to have it joint. The permitting agency often get feedback from the inspectors who have visited the site.

SE: There were two reasons for having the permitting and supervision functions separated in SE. The first is objectivity. Experience from supervision should not affect the permitting. The second is resources. The County Administrative Boards used to handle both permitting and supervision with the result that the permitting was always prioritized over supervision. One may consider a solution with joint authorities but within the Swedish discourse it has not been seen as a possibility.

DK In regard to the permitting and supervising being joint it works well on both state level and municipal level. Public trust to the joint system has never been an issue. There are many advantages to the way the system is organised, it’s good to have knowledge of the industrial installation and it would be more time consuming to have it separated.

BAT conclusions

NO: We struggle to keep up with the four-year rule of the BAT conclusions; do you have the same experience?

IS: The trouble with four years of BAT conclusions exists in IS as well. Permits are to be reviewed after four years from when the permits have been published. It has now been made clear that it has been published once it’s in the Official Journal of the European Union but not the EEA supplement to the Official Journal although Iceland is an EEA/EFTA state. That changed things so now IS have a lot of permits to get through since these four years have passed.

In SE the county administrative board can give extended time to implement the BAT conclusions. The BAT conclusions are implemented through generally binding rules so it is a bit different. This means we do not have to review each permit.

FI: For the BAT conclusions there is a system where the BAT conclusions are applied directly in supervision and permit process. The process starts immediately after the BAT conclusions are published and typically permits are reviewed 2 years after the BAT conclusions have been published. FI don’t have major problems with the deadline because of the way its implemented.

DK are challenged as well regarding the BAT and 4 years. In DK the authority announces that there will be a review of the permits. The authority strives to start in the first two years and then give the operators two years to implement the changes in the activity.

NO has the same system regarding BAT conclusions as DK, not general binding rules as in Sweden. A question to Sweden is therefore how it works to have general binding rules? Do the operators follow the requirement within 4 years and how do you supervise this?

SE: The operators report every year to the supervisory authority. The report contains information on how the operator complies with the permit and the new BAT conclusions. If an operator cannot comply, the operator may have to change the operation and might have to get a new permit – all within these four years. There have been questions regarding the Swedish system from the Commission. As far as we know we have not gotten an acceptance that the system is ok. It probably will not happen until after the review on the IED directive.