17th CAFE Steering Group Meeting on
National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD)
28 February 2007, Brussels
1.Opening
Matti Vainio from the European Commission (chair) opened the meeting and welcomed the participants and particularly the new Member StatesRomania and Bulgaria. He also welcomed the representative from Israel who participated as an observer.
Spain and Italy requested not only passive interpretation, but active as well for Italian and Spanish during Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) Steering Group meetings. The chair responded that the language regime had been the same for all CAFE Steering Groups.
The draft agenda sent out by the Commission was adopted.
The minutes of the previous meeting of 2 May 2006 were adopted.
Germany raised a question on the future meetings of the CAFE Steering Group. The chair explained that the CAFE Steering Group was set up to advice the Commission on the strategic direction of the CAFE-programme with as result the launch of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution in September 2005. This Strategy is now in the phase of implementation and each legislative part, like Euro 5/6, Euro VI, IPPC-review/revision, has (had) its own stakeholder consultation process. Specific implementation issues regarding the Air Quality Directives will be tabled for discussion on the agenda of the Air Quality Committee (art.12). As mentioned in the Thematic Strategy, the NEC-Policy Instrument Working Group (NEC-PI) was established specifically to assist the Commission in the technical work associated with the revision of the NECD. Some important political elements are on today's agenda of the CAFE Steering Group. The NECD-proposal however is planned for adoption by the Commission in July 2007. Therefore the chair concluded that it would seem unlikely that the CAFE Steering Group would meet again in 2007 and that issues relating to the implementation of directives would be discussed predominantly in respective committees.Germany showed understanding for this explanation, but would like to see an appropriate stakeholder forum to be continued for air quality issues as laid down in a recent letter from Germanyto DG Environment. Some other MemberStates and stakeholders supported the German view. The chair said that he would bring over these views to those responsible in DG ENV.
Richard Ballaman (CH, chair of the Working Group of Strategies and Review under the Convention on Longe-range Transboundary Air Pollution) informed the CAFE Steering Group about the progress made in the process of the review of the Gothenburg Protocol. The first draft review report will be discussed at the WGSR meeting of 18-20 April and further developed with assistance of the subsidiary bodies for adoption at its September meeting. The decision abouta possible revision will be taken by the Parties at the Executive Body in December 2007.With regard to PM issue, more work is required in relation with the uncertainties on emission inventories. The need for further improvement of the atmospheric modelling of PM was identified inthe draft assessment report of the TFMM. For the time being the atmospheric modelling is less certain for PM than for other pollutants.On-going work of the Expert Group on PM on the different abatement options of PMwill be reported to WGSR in September 2007.
2.Compliance with national emission ceilings
André Zuber (Unit C5) gave an introduction on the issue of compliance to the 2010 ceilings based on the recent reporting from the Member States as summarized in the discussion note[1]. He indicated that most of the Member States are projected to be in compliance with the NEC Directive for 2010, either through the legislation in place (business as usual) or "with measures". However, some Member States have projected to have difficulties to respect some ceilings, in particular NOx. The reasons for the difficulties are often mentioned in the National Programmes. He further explained the possible consequences of non-compliance for the Member States, including the failure to draw up and sending in National Programmes, ultimately leading to an infringement procedure against the Member State, which could result in a Court ruling against the Member State and a costly pecuniary penalty (lump-sum payment and daily a penalty payment for the continuation of the non-compliance).
During the 'tour-de-table' several issues were raised. Some comments were related to the accuracy of the projection data in the Annexes I–IV of the discussion note. The Commission explained that the last column is based on the NECD Member States baseline, ready for use for scenario analysis with GAINS. Another discussion item was how the Commission will deal with uncertainties and if the Commission is going to apply a “margin of tolerance”. The chair answered that the ceilings are fixed and have to be respected. However, uncertainties in the emission inventories and application of a “margin of tolerance” could be a relevant factor depending on the size of the exceedance and the explanation given by the MemberState. Some Member States argued that the disappointing real life emissions of Euro III for Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDV)contribute in such a way to the national emission total that exceedance of the national emission ceiling for NOx is inevitable. A similar problem could exist for the possible 2020ceilings in a revised NECD in case new Community legislation (IPPC-revision, Euro VI for HDV, VOC stage II, etc.) will enter into force later and/or have a lower level ambition than expected at the time of adoption of the 2020-ceilings.
3.Latest modelling results for NECD-revision
Ger Klaassen (DG ENV C5) informed the meeting about the latest modelling results, the changes in the model since the adoption of the Air Strategy, the translation of the objectives of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution to the NEC optimization parameters and the first modelling results. These had already been presented at the NEC-PI meeting of 18-19 December 2006. Progress since December has been made with regard to the review of the RAINS mode of GAINS, further updating of the national energy scenarios of Greece, Lithuania and Switzerland, revision of emission factors for those and some other countriesand IPPC scenarios for power plants and industrial boilers. Several comments on NH3 emissions and emission factors were taken on board as well.
A main concern of the CAFE Steering Group appeared to be the use of urban increments in the modelling (City Delta 3). The delegation of the UK brought forward that apparently only London has a good match, but that the delta for all other cities seem to be underestimated and that in Germany the trend seems to be opposite. As long as there is no good explanation for these differences, the uncertainty remains and the political acceptance of national emissions ceilings based on the City Delta 3 methodology may not be there.The delegation of Spainexplained that City Delta is not providing a good match for most of the Spanish cities for which modelling results are provided. In all cases, the delta seems to be underestimated (measured data is higher than estimated data). Some reasons for these discrepancies are Spanish particular conditions on particle resuspension and rainfall regime that have not been considered in the model. It was also suggested to include in the report measured data for those cities with officially submitted values (for Spain no measured data are presented).Amongst others France and Portugal expressed the view that finalising the work on City Delta 3 should have high priority.
A second concern expressed was related to the use of PRIMES for the creation of alternative baselines and the differences with the NECD Member States baseline. The chair explained that the Commission needs to have alternative baselines because the energy projections of the Member States did not include measures to reduce greenhouse gases to meet their Kyoto obligations and Post 2012 emission reduction. This is particularly relevant with view of the European Spring Council that is poised to adopt a negotiation objective of 30% reduction of greenhouse gases for developed countries by 2020, and a unilateral EU-wide reduction objective of 20% for all Member States. He concluded that the alternative baseline facilitates a better understanding of the costs of the measures needed. The optimization results as such are unlikely to be affected. The CAFE Steering Group was informed that the (energy ministries in) Member States and the Directorate General on Energy and Environment of the Commission are in process of updating of the energy PRIMES baseline up to 2030. This should be finalized by the end of March 2007.
Scenarios
Ger Klaassen also presented the list of policy and sensitivity scenarios to run with RAINS (see Annex I). The geographical area for optimization will be EU-27 + Norway. Sensitivity runs will be done for EU-25 (for comparison with the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution) and EU 27 + Norway + Switzerland.
Richard Ballaman (CH) asked the Commission to examine the benefits of EURO VI for HDV's additionally (is part of scenario A4). He also drew attention to the emissions of non-road mobile machinery. Caroline Raes (DG AGRI) answered a question of Germany about the relation between the Nitrate Directive and the NH3-emissions: the measures taken in the context of the Nitrates Directive have synergistic effects on NH3 emissions; on the other hand single ammonia measures such as stable adaptation and manure storage that lead to an increased concentration of N in the manure can result into an increase in N leaching if no account is taken of the increased N content in the total fertilisation applied, also low emission manure application techniques (injection) can enhance nitrate leaching. The effect of the Nitrates Directive on ammonia emissions should be better reflected in the NEC baseline and the optimised scenario should not include ammonia abatement measures that have antagonistic effects with the measures and objectives of the Nitrates Directive. A brand-new model (MITERRA built by ALTERRA) is able to deal with N-management and will be used for scenario B6.
The Netherlands suggested to use full GAINS with the NECD Member States baseline for scenario B7 and asked to be careful in scenario B8 when using the costs data for 2020 and 2010.
The chair concluded that the list of scenarios appeared to be balanced and that the key scenarios and most of the sensitivity scenarios will be presented at the NEC-PI meeting at 29-30 March 2007 (see agenda item 5).
4.Legal options to revise NECD
After a short introduction of the discussion note by Eduard Dame (DG ENV Unit C5) and Marco Gasparinetti (DG ENV Unit C3) nine Member States expressed their views.
Most Member Statessaid that the content of the revision was more important than the legal form. Several Member States expressed that they preferred a directive;others showed sympathy for a Regulation.The idea of having a regulation instead of a directive seemed rather new to many Member States. In the spirit of better regulation there was a preference of having a clear legal text and having only one legislative act in force at one time and hence avoid potentially conflicting provisions in two directives/regulations.
5.Work plan and time table for the NECD
Eduard Dame (Unit C5) presented the latest time table for the adoption of the NECD in July 2007. A recent unexpected computer problem at IIASA is responsible for a delay of at least one week. The 6th NEC-PI meeting would therefore be postponed to 29-30 March 2007 and will be held at IIASA (Austria). The 7th and final NEC-PI meeting will be held at 29 May 2007 inBrussels. Suzy Baverstock of BUSINESSEUROPE asked if it were possible to have more representatives from industry in the final NEC-PI meetings. The chair said that this will be decided on a case-by-case basis taking into account the overall balance of the group and the space of the meeting room. However, he concluded that as the meeting room for the 7th NEC-PI meeting of 29 May was reserved originally for the CAFE Steering Group, there would be less space constraint on that date and thus, the 7th NEC-PI meeting could be extended in participation.
6.Elements for a revised NECD
6.1 National programmes
Andre Zuber (DG ENV Unit C5) introduced the item. Based on the experiences so far he suggested that the current system of National Programmes functions quite well and that further improvement of the system is far more preferable than to go for a radical change. The interventions of the Member States were indeed along this line. The frequency (4 or 5 years) and the years to report in (2010-2014-2018, 2012-2016 or 2010-2015) were discussed, taking into account the reporting obligations for greenhouse gasses (GHG’s) as well. It was noted further that the frequency to make projections for GHG’s is every two years. All agreed that streamlining the NECD emission reporting, projections and National Programmesshould be made fully consistent with similar obligations relating to GHG's emissions.
6.2 Types of ceilings
Eduard Dame (DG ENV C5) introduced the four parts mentioned in the discussion note: 1. absolute ceilings for SO2, NOx, VOC and NH3 (like in the existing NECD), 2. relative ceilings to start with for PM2.5, 3. the need to have a fair comparison procedure for the national emission total and the national emission ceiling, 4. compliance check against a three year moving average. Overall the approach of the discussion note was seen by the meeting as acceptable.
The UK,Belgiumand other MemberStates queried what year should be used as reference for the relative reduction for PM2.5. In the discussion paper the reference year was suggested to be 2000 as the objectives of the Strategy also relate to that year.Belgiumraised its concern of choosing a base year in the future, such as 2010, as this may cause strategic behaviour andneglects early action on PM emissions. The UK suggested that the use of the year 2000 as a base year could be problematic because essential activity and emission factors data might not be available and thus there could be a preference for using 2010 as the reference year – in line with the starting year for the “average urban background concentration reduction” of the proposed new Air Quality Directive.
Several Member States were in favour of a transparent procedure for ensuring that there would be an incentive for Member States to report new emission sources and to update (either up or down) emission factors as new information would become available. Different views were expressed how this could be achieved. The chair emphasized that the issue related only to technical adaptation (due to new emission sources or emission factors), and not to obligations. The chair also underlined that the process for technical adaptation should be transparent both for MemberStates (through comitology) and others (through public scrutiny/consultation). All agreed that the procedure shall not be used to change the obligations of NECD (through the backdoor).
The idea of using a three year moving average of the emissions (e.g. 2019-2021 to represent the year 2020, and 2020-2022 to represent 2021) for compliance purposes received broad support. Eurelectric saw important advantages as electricity production fluctuates in some Member States from year to year depending on rainfall and temperature. Some Member States suggested using a three or two year average for the reference year emissions for PM2.5 as well.
6.3 “Gliding path” towards 2020
Eduard Dame (ENV C5) presented the idea of having a “gliding path” in the revised NECD from 2010 to 2020. Several Member States raised questions and reflected on the concept in the discussion note. Firstly, the gliding path should not replace the existing system with national programmes (see also paragraph 6.1). Secondly, support for the introduction of a gliding path towards 2020 appears to be dependent of the shape of the gliding path and the consequences of doing better or worse than the gliding path. There was not much support for the translation of a gliding path in intermediate and legally binding targets, although Austria suggested introducing an intermediate target for 2015 as an alternative that could replace the whole idea of a gliding path. Thirdly, Member States argued that every country has its own characteristics and that the shape of the gliding path can't be assumed to be linearas well as that early action is not necessarily similar with early result,thus implicitly suggesting hat Member States themselves could best establish milestones on their own emission reduction path between 2010 and 2020. Fourthly, some Member States expressed that the system with a gliding path can become complicated and will increase administrative burden instead of reducing it. The chair explained that the idea of a gliding path was to give incentives for Member States to act early to reduce their emissions. However, it seemed clear that the way the “gliding path” had been proposed did not meet this purpose and thus the Commission will reflect on other ways of ensuring and encouraging early action.
6.4 Flexibility among Member States