This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52011SC1406
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Summary of the Impact Assessment
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Summary of the Impact Assessment
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Summary of the Impact Assessment
/* SEC/2011/1406 final */
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Summary of the Impact Assessment /* SEC/2011/1406 final */
1. Problem
definition
Because of concerns with the growing threat of global climate change
from increasing concentration of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere, the
EU has been implementing and planning a series of mitigation policies and
actions. The establishment of solid monitoring, evaluation, reporting, and verification
framework is an important component of this process as it enables the EU among
other to more effectively develop and implement future policies and to assess
and demonstrate that it is delivering on its commitments. Decision 280/2004/EC[1]
("Monitoring Mechanism" Decision- "MMD") concerning a
mechanism for monitoring EU greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the
Kyoto Protocol and its implementing provisions (Decision 2005/166/EC)[2] are the main monitoring,
reporting, and verification instruments with regard to GHG emissions. They set
out the details for reporting of anthropogenic GHG emissions by sources and
removals by sinks and for providing information as regards national programmes
to reduce emissions, greenhouse gas emission projections, and policies and
measures in accordance with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC). The six years of experience with the implementation of Decision
280/2004 and its implementing provisions Decision 2005/166 as well as the
additional experience gained through the international negotiations and the
implementation of various UNFCCC requirements have shown that there are a
number of areas where significant improvements could be made. In addition, the
need to enhance our mitigations actions and to fulfil our new or upcoming
international and domestic commitments, including the Europe 2020 strategy,
requires an enhanced monitoring and reporting system to be put in place. Specifically the problems that the revision of the Monitoring
Mechanism Decision will attempt to address are the following: §
The existing monitoring and reporting system is not
adequate to implement new requirements resulting from new legislation. The climate change and energy package as agreed between the Council
and the European Parliament and as adopted by the European Parliament on 17
December 2008 introduced new requirements as regards monitoring and reporting
for MS, which need to be incorporated in a revision of Decision 280/2004/EC to
enter into effect.
There is not adequate data available at the EU level to support
future policy development and implementation
In a number of areas/sectors of great significance in reducing GHG
emissions and taking action at the EU level, there is currently not adequate
data or not accurate enough data collected to enable and support effective
policy design and implementation. Such areas are: a) maritime transport, b)
aviation, c) Land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) and c) adaptation.
The current monitoring and reporting system does not take into
consideration the most recent international developments under the UNFCCC
and is not adequate to ensure compliance with new international
commitments
The EU committed internationally to provide significant fast-start
and long-term climate financing and technological support to developing
countries. Transparency and comprehensiveness on the type and amount of support
provided is key to ensure the EU's visibility, efficient delivery and credibility
vis-à-vis our international partners. The problems identified above have often
led to severe criticism by other countries that the EU and its MS are not
fulfilling their commitments and need to be resolved.
Additional data and information are needed to monitor the
progress towards the emissions limitation target, in particular under the
Europe 2020 strategy.
The Europe 2020 strategy, the new integrated economic policy
strategy for growth and jobs, includes the European and national emissions
limitation targets as headline targets.
There is an observed lack of transparency, timeliness,
consistency, completeness, comparability of the information currently
reported under the Monitoring mechanism Decision
The relatively high rate of non-compliance cases over the last years
indicates that the transparency, accuracy, consistency and efficiency of the
existing monitoring and reporting system could be improved.
Experience has shown that an increased need for simplification
and streamlining of the current reporting requirements is needed.
Experience with the implementation of the monitoring mechanism
decision has shown that certain reporting requirements did not deliver as
expected or the information was not used as anticipated. It has also shown that
some linkages among various reporting instruments could be strengthened.
2. Analysis on
subsidiarity
The legal basis for the legislative proposal is Article 192(1) TFEU.
The legislative proposal pursues a legitimate objective within the scope of
Article 191(1) TFEU, namely, combating climate change (mitigation and
adaptation). The purpose of the legislative proposal is to improve the
availability of information for Union policy and decision making and the
coordination and consistency of EU and Member States' reporting under the
UNFCCC. This objective pursued cannot be achieved by less restrictive means
than the legislative proposal. Action at the national level would not allow the
compliance against the internationally agreed commitments and would also not
suffice in the fulfilment of the objectives and the achievement of the targets
set under the Effort Sharing Decision (406/2009/EC). It is therefore necessary
that the Union creates the enabling framework, establishing a harmonised
reporting framework, to the extent feasible, so as to address the specific
international and EU requirements. Action at EU level would also produce clear
benefits compared with action at the national level by reason of its
effectiveness.
3. Objectives of
EU initiative
The general objective is, through timely,
and transparent, accurate, complete, consistent, comparable (TACCC) reporting
at EU and MS level, to: (a) support the EU and the MS in meeting their commitments
under the UNFCCC, (b) support the EU and the MS in meeting their
domestic mitigation and adaptation commitments, (c) support the effective development and
implementation of EU policies.
3.1 Specific and operational objectives
§
Implement the monitoring and reporting
requirements of the Effort Sharing Decision(ESD) and the revised EU Emissions Trading
System (EU ETS) Directive o Operational objectives: §
Establish a review and compliance cycle under
the Effort Sharing Decision; §
Incorporate the reporting requirements for the
use of auctioning revenues as stipulated in the revised ETS Directive; §
Enhance the current monitoring and reporting
framework so as to meet the needs of future EU and international legislation o Operational objectives: §
Establish monitoring and reporting requirements
for maritime transport; §
Establish reporting requirements for non-CO2
climate impacts from aviation; §
Establish reporting requirements on climate
change adaptation; §
Establish additional reporting requirements on
LULUCF; §
Enhance EU and MS reporting on financial and
technology support provided to developing countries ensuring adherence to
international commitments under the UNFCCC o Operational objective: Specify reporting requirements on financial
and technical support provided to developing countries; §
Enhance consistency of reporting under the MMD
with the reporting under other legal instruments in the EU that address air
pollutants o Operational objective: Establish links with the reporting of GHG
emissions under the EU ETS, the reported information under the E-PRTR, the NEC
Directive and the F-Gas Regulation; §
Enhance reporting taking into account
lessons learned from past implementation o Operational objectives §
Improve reporting on projections, policies and
measures; §
Improve the preparation of the national
inventory report;
4. Policy
options and assessment of impacts
The revision of the MMD is supporting the implementation of adopted
EU policies and commitments, in particular the EU’s commitments under the
UNFCCC, the targets and legislative instruments under the Climate and Energy
package, and the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy. Specific environmental,
social and economic impacts have already been assessed for many of the areas in
question when the Climate and Energy Package which included specific targets
and policies was adopted[3].
The revision of the MMD and the implementing provisions contribute to the
environmental benefits identified in the impact assessments of these
instruments by ensuring the appropriate monitoring of the achievement of the
targets. Environmental impacts The MMD is being revised to increase the EU's environmental
performance: a) through ensuring the availability of better quality and more
complete data and information (data quality/completeness), b) through enabling better compliance with domestic and international
targets, commitments and requirements (compliance with domestic and/or
international commitments), and c) through enabling further future policy actions in this field to
be designed, developed and implemented (further policy
development/implementation). The environmental impacts have been assessed for each of the
proposed options based on a combination of the three criteria above as
applicable (ratings used: + or – is used to denote positive or negative impacts
respectively. = signifies no impact, +/- low impact, ++/--, medium impact,
+++/--- high impact). The aspects of compliance and simplification were also specifically
assessed. (Ratings used with regard to compliance: LL: low likelihood, ML:
medium likelihood, HL: high likelihood). Economic impacts The MMD is an instrument through which domestic and international
reporting requirements are implemented. These requirements are at the national
level, hence the main economic impacts linked to the revision of the MMD relate
to the administrative burden that public authorities at the MS level would
incur once these changes were implemented. Other impacts (social, employment, industry, SMEs) The proposed options will have minor social impacts related to the
provision of information to the public, these have not been specifically addressed
in the impact assessment. No direct or indirect reporting requirements are imposed on SMEs or
industry through the MMD and the MMD is not likely to have any impacts on
employment either, thus such impacts were not further assessed.
4.1 Establishment of an EU review and
compliance cycle under the Effort Sharing Decision
Option 1: No internal review at EU level. Rely on current UNFCCC review.
("no policy change"). (This sub-option was discarded at an early
stage.) Option 2: An internal
inventory review at the European level is implemented for target setting purposes
(initial review) while the EU continues to rely on the inventory review under
the UNFCCC, as in the current MMD, for the annual compliance cycle under the
ESD. (This sub-option was discarded at an early stage.) Option 3: Establish a
"light" EU-level annual review and compliance cycle for the
implementation of the ESD and a comprehensive initial review. (The annual
review would be performed in a shorter time frame with mostly automatic
checking routines supplemented by an analysis of the previous UNFCCC review
reports, building on existing checks and procedures currently carried out by
the European Environment Agency (EEA) under the MMD). ("Light
review") Option 4: Establish a
comprehensive EU annual review process and compliance cycle for the implementation
of the ESD along with a comprehensive initial review. This review would be
mirrored after the UNFCCC review but in a shorter time-frame to allow for a
compliance assessment during the calendar year. ("Comprehensive
review") || Environmental Impacts[4] || Administrative burden Option 3:Light review || + || €15,000-30,000 Option 4: Comprehensive review || +++ || €50,000-100,000 Suboptions related to the treatment of recalculations
resulting from a) the business as usual annual methodological or data
improvements in the greenhouse gas inventories (case 1), and b) from a change
in the reporting rules at the international level (case 2), in the annual
reporting, review and compliance cycle were also considered.
4.2 Incorporate the reporting
requirements for the use of auctioning revenues under the revised ETS Directive
The revised ETS Directive has clearly specified that the additional
reporting requirements related to the use of revenues from auctioning of
allowances shall be reported in the reports submitted under Decision No
280/2004/EC[5].
4.3 Establish monitoring and reporting requirements
for emissions from international maritime transport
Option 1:
Continue with current monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions from domestic
and international maritime transport in GHG inventories without establishing
the basis for improved underlying data. ("no policy change") Option 2: Establish detailed monitoring
and reporting requirements for Member States.(This option would include
defining the basis for monitoring, the criteria for the allocation of emissions
to MS and the administrative details related to reporting. ("Detailed
reporting requirements now") Option 3: Establish the basis for new
monitoring and reporting guidelines allowing for the detailed provisions to be
adopted in future legislation through comitology once a measure has been
adopted by the International Maritime Organization or the EU. ("Framework
now, details later") || Environmental Impacts || Compliance || Administrative burden Option 1: no policy change || - - || na || na Option 2: Detailed reporting requirements now || + || ML || - - - Option 3: Framework now, details later || + + + || HL || -
4.4 Establish reporting requirements related to the non-CO2
impacts of aviation on the global climate
Option 1: Continue with current
reporting of GHG emissions from domestic and international aviation in GHG
inventories limited to CO2 emissions.("no policy change") Option 2: Require that Member States
report on the non-CO2 climate impacts of aviation by multiplying the
CO2 impacts by a pre-defined factor. (This factor would be changed
by the Climate Change Committee to reflect the latest scientific results.)
("Multiplier Approach") Option 3: Require that Member States
report the non-CO2 climate effects of aviation based on detailed models.
("Modelling approach") Option 4: Adopt new reporting
requirements for the non-CO2 effects of aviation for MS based on a
two-tiered system. (Under this option, those Members States which reported more
than 3% of the total EU CO2 emissions from aviation would report the
non-CO2 effects of aviation based on detailed models. (Currently,
this would apply to France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and UK which are jointly responsible for approx. 80% of the CO2 emissions.) All
other MS could report using detailed models but, if not feasible, they could
use the multiplier approach instead. ("Tiered approach") || Environmental impacts || Compliance || Administrative burden Option 1: no policy change || - || = || = Option 2: Multiplier Approach || + || HL || € 24,000 Option 3: Modelling approach || ++ || LL || € 6.75 million Option 4: Tiered approach || +++ || ML || € 1.52 million
4.5 Establish reporting requirements on climate
change adaptation
Option 1: Continue with current
reporting on climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation in Member
States’ national communications under the UNFCCC and use this information for
EU purposes. ("no policy change") Option 2: Require that MS
comprehensively report on an annual basis on their climate change impacts,
vulnerability and adaptation actions.(This option would cover among other the
observed and projected impacts per sector, the assessment of key
vulnerabilities per region and per sector, the existing national and/or
regional adaptation strategy and implemented and planned measures, information
on strategies and on bilateral and multilateral projects on adaptation and the
respective budget allocated). ("Comprehensive reporting") Option 3: Require that MS report on an
annual basis on their implemented and planned climate change national
adaptation actions. In this option an indicative list of information to be
reported would be provided. ("Reporting on actions") || Environmental impacts || Compliance || Administrative burden Option 1: no policy change || - || = || = Option 2:Comprehensive reporting || +++ || LL || € 1 to 2.24 million Option 3: Reporting on actions || ++ || HL || € 120,000
4.6 Establish additional reporting
requirements on LULUCF
Option 1: Continue with current
reporting on land use, land use change and forestry. ("no policy
change") Option 2: Establish revised reporting
requirements for LULUCF activities, based on information from the ongoing
international negotiations (and in addition to existing reporting
requirements), in the following areas ("Detailed requirements now"):[6] § Estimate and report emissions and removals from forest management
activity on a mandatory basis § Estimate and report data on emissions from the harvested wood
products pool (mandatory) § Estimate and report emissions and removals from rewetting and
drainage[7]
(voluntary) § Estimate and report emissions and removals subject to “force
majeure”[8]
(voluntary) § Updating of forest management reference level values based on new
data or methodological improvements Option 3: Establish the basis for new reporting guidelines allowing for the
detailed provisions to be adopted in future legislation once relevant measures
have been adopted at the EU level or internationally. (Effectively, this means
that the scope of reporting would be determined through the co-decision
procedure of legislating on the role of LULUCF in the EU's GHG emission
reduction commitment whilst the technical details would be established through delegated
acts ("comitology") within the framework agreed by the European
Parliament and Council.) ("Framework now, details later") || Environmental impacts || Compliance || Administrative burden Option 1: no policy change || - - - || = || = Option 2:Detailed requirements now || + + || ML || € 610,000 to € 710,000 Option 3:Framework now, details later || + + + || HL || < € 610,000 to € 710,000
4.7 Establish reporting requirements on
financial and technology support provided to developing countries
Option 1: Continue with current
reporting of financial and technology support to developing countries through
MS’ national communications under the UNFCCC without separate reporting requirements
at EU level.("no policy change") Option 2: Require MS to voluntarily
report information on financial and technology support provided every 2 years
based on the national communication guidelines. ("Voluntary
reporting") Option 3:
Require that MS report on an annual basis through streamlined formats the
financial and technical support provided to developing countries building on
the existing national communication guidelines but requiring more comprehensive
information on technology programmes and the use of methodologies developed
within EU for reporting on financial support and indicators for financial flows
of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC). ("Comprehensive reporting") || Environmental impacts || Compliance || Administrative burden Option 1:no policy change || - - - || = || = Option 2: Voluntary reporting || + || ML || €65,000 Option 3:Comprehensive reporting || +++ || ML || €195,000
4.8 Enhance consistency with other legal
instruments in the EU targeting
air pollutants
Option 1: Deal with reporting
requirements in the MMD and other legal instruments separately and do not streamline
the reporting under different instruments. ("no policy change") Option 2: Establish requirements to
report on the consistency of information between the reporting under the MMD
with the reporting under the EU ETS, the E-PRTR, the NEC Directive and the
F-Gas Regulation and to report on the QA/QC checks conducted to ensure consistency
across the different legal instruments (including share of ETS emissions).
("Report on consistency") Option 3: Establish requirements that
MS' existing inventory national systems are amended to allow access to data
resulting from other reporting instruments (e.g., ETS, EPRTR, NEC) and
consequently that inventory data is also being made available for reporting
under other reporting instruments. ("Amend national system") Option 4: Establish requirement to use
the data reported via other instruments directly, such as EU ETS, EPRTR, F-Gas
Regulation, NECD, by aligning reported pollutant data via reconciling the: disaggregation,
contents, procedures, tools and formats they use/define.(This sub-option was
discarded at an early stage.) || Environmental impacts || Simplification || Compliance || Administrative burden Option 1:no policy change || - || - - || = || Potential costs if lack of QA/QC is raised by UNFCCC review Option 2 :Report on consistency || + + || ++ || HL || € 525,000 (not including simplification benefits) Option 3:Amend national system || + + + || +++ || HL || € 380,000
4.9 Enhance reporting taking into account
lessons learned from past implementation
Option 1: Keep existing reporting
guidance under the MMD and the implementing provisions and rely on the
methodological guidance specified under the UNFCCC. Pursue changes of the
reporting guidance under the UNFCCC. ("no policy change") Option 2: Require annual reporting and
further specify type of information/data to be reported, and/or the relevant
formats (" Streamline formats") Option 3: Further specify methodological
guidance for the effects of policies and measures and the preparation of GHG
emission projections. ("Harmonize methodologies") Option 4: Require the establishment of a
national system for reporting on projections, policies and measures [9] (along similar main principles
as for that established for GHG inventories) ("Establish national system") || Environmental impacts || Compliance || Simplification || Administrative burden Option 1: no policy change || = || = || - - - || Option 2: Streamline formats || ++ || HL || + + || €980,000-€1.3million Option 3:Harmonize methodologies || +++ || LL || - || Higher than for option 2 Option 4:Establish national system || +++ || ML || + + + || 290,000
5. Comparison of
options
Main objective of the MMD is to support the EU and its MS in meeting
their, domestic and international, commitments and goals, and future policy
development, through ensuring transparent, accurate, consistent, comparable,
complete reporting. The preferred scenario ensures that these objectives will
be met in an efficient and effective way. The overall administrative burden
linked to the preferred scenario is in the range of € 4-5 million for the
EU-27. Given the uncertainties linked to a future climate regime, the
preferred scenario foresees the establishment of an EU level review process of
the GHG data submitted by the MS so as to ensure that compliance with the ESD
targets is assessed in a comprehensive, transparent, credible and timely manner
as foreseen in the Climate and Energy package. With regard to reporting on
emissions from international maritime transport and the LULUCF sector where
policy discussions, both domestically and internationally, are on-going a
prudent approach is followed by ensuring that the MMD provides an adequate
framework for establishing the detailed reporting requirements at a later stage
when a concrete policy outcome is reached (either domestically or
internationally). This way coherence with a future policy framework is ensured
and duplication of efforts is avoided while it is also ensured that the EU is
able to most efficiently implement the detailed requirements. With regard to the non-CO2 climate impacts of aviation
coherence is again ensured with existing domestic policy which requires that an
effort be made to take into consideration its impacts. The proposal included in
the draft Regulation on the non-CO2 climate impacts of aviation, which
requires that the Commission assess biennially those impacts on the basis of
the latest available emission data and scientific advancements, differs from
those explored in the impact assessment and reflects the useful input received
by other Commission services during the interservice consultation process. This
new proposal was included in the draft Regulation as it was deemed to ensure
coherence with existing Union policy, and to achieve equivalent benefits at a
significantly lower administrative burden. With regard to finance and
technology support the preferred option of enhancing reporting based on common
methods is again coherent with the EU's obligation to provide transparent and
complete information on the financial and technology support it has been
providing to developing countries and results in limited burden. With regard to
adaptation, the annual reporting on adaptation actions will help further define
an EU-wide adaptation strategy and will also support the EU Clearinghouse
Mechanism. This is an efficient option as it is linked to limited
administrative burden while it also ensures that the EU is better able to
address its international reporting obligations. Finally, the preferred
scenario also foresees the enhancement of the existing national system in the
MS to also address reporting on projections and policies and measures, as well
as consistency with other legal instruments targeting air pollutants. This is
an efficient way forward as despite the related burden it leads in the long-run
to better compliance, simplification of efforts and an eventual reduction of
costs. The preferred scenario also foresees better QA/QC provisions and the
introduction of streamlined reporting formats and guidance so as to increase
the quality and completeness of the data provided and to simplify existing
reporting requirements without imposing undue administrative burden.
6. Monitoring
and evaluation
As all the policy options relate to monitoring and reporting
requirements the completeness, transparency, and adherence of the resulting
reports to the domestic and international requirements will in itself
demonstrate whether the objectives set have been achieved through the revised
MMD. A set of specific indicators corresponding to
the general, specific and operational objectives set in this impact assessment
will also be used to monitor and evaluate the performance of the MMD. These
indicators will focus among other on the extent to which the resulting reports
and data adhere to the established guidelines and/or guidance, their
timeliness, completeness, and the identified cases of non-compliance. The reports prepared under the MMD will continue to be assessed at
the EU and/or the international level annually, every 2 years and/or every 4
years. The actors that have been traditionally involved at the EU level in
the monitoring and evaluation exercise, besides DG CLIMA, are the EEA, the JRC
and Eurostat. These same actors will continue to assist in this exercise in the
future. The results of both the EU and the international assessment besides
being used for compliance purposes will also continue to be used to most
effectively direct improvement efforts and capacity building activities at the
EU and the MS level. [1] OJ L 49, 19.2.2004, p.1 [2] Commission
Decision 2005/166/EC of 10 February 2005 laying down rules implementing Decision
No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning a
mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for
implementing the Kyoto Protocol (OJ L 55, 1.3.2005, p. 57) [3] The impact assessment is contained in the Commission
staff working document on the impact assessment document “accompanying the
Package of Implementation measures for the EU's objectives on climate change
and renewable energy for 2020” (SEC (2008) 85/3) and its annex SEC (2008)85)
Vol II. [4] Ratings
used: + or – is used to denote positive or negative impacts respectively. =
signifies no impact, +/- low impact, ++/--, medium impact, +++/--- high impact [5] The
use of the reports submitted under Decision No 280/2004/EC for the reporting of
the auctioning revenues is not specifically provided for the
"aviation" allowances in Article 3d(4), nevertheless, for consistency
will be implemented accordingly. [6] The
detailed elements are based on a draft decision under the Kyoto Protocol [7] Rewetting and drainage” is a system
of practices for rewetting and draining on land with organic soil that covers a
minimum area of 1 hectare. The activity applies to all lands that have been
drained and/or rewetted since 1990 and that are not accounted for under any
other activity as defined in this annex, where drainage is the direct human
induced lowering of the soil water table and rewetting is the direct
human-induced partial or total reversal of drainage; [8] Events beyond the control and not
materially influenced by the country including a demonstration that no land use
change has occurred on lands subject to force majeure events, a demonstration
that the occurrences were beyond the control of the Party, a demonstration of
efforts taken to rehabilitate the lands subject to force majeure events, a
demonstration that emissions associated with salvage logging were not excluded. [9] The
objective of the national system, as known under the Kyoto protocl is to
guarantee the preparation of an annual greenhouse gas inventory, which complies
with the quality criteria set for the inventories, and its reporting to the
secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCC) and the Commission of the European Union. The national system produces
the emission and background data of the inventory. Included are also the
archiving of the data used in emission calculations, the publication of the
results, participation in inventory investigations and the quality management
of the inventory.