Council of the
European Union
Brussels, 22 April 2015
(OR. en)
8152/15
Interinstitutional File:
2013/0443 (COD)
LIMITE
ENV 228
ENER 122
IND 56
TRANS 135
ENT 64
SAN 115
PARLNAT 32
CODEC 554
NOTE
From:
To:
General Secretariat of the Council
Delegations
No. prev. doc.:
7442/15 ENV 182 ENER 107 IND 46 TRANS 106 ENT 46 SAN 82
PARLNAT 24 CODEC 397
18167/13 ENV 1235 ENER 600 IND 388 TRANS 693 ENT 356 SAN 555
PARLNAT 325 CODEC 3086 - COM(2013) 920 final
No. Cion doc.:
Subject:
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on
the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants and
amending Directive 2003/35/EC
Comments from delegations
With a view to the Working Party on the Environment (WPE) meeting on 29 April, delegations will
find in the Annex comments received from BE/NL/AT/PL and SE on the Presidency compromise
text (document 7442/15) concerning the abovementioned proposal.
8152/15
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
1
EN
ANNEX
BELGIUM
General
We still have a general scrutiny reservation on all articles and annexes.
This document does not yet cover all provisions from the directive, we are still developing our
position of some (crucial) elements of the directive.
Article 1
The COM explained that ‘and other air pollutants’ refers to these pollutants of which emissions
have to be reported, but for which no reduction obligations exist. In that view, we suggest to
reformulate the article as follows:
“This Directive establishes the limits for the Member States' atmospheric emissions of acidifying
and eutrophying pollutants, ozone precursors, primary particulate matter and precursors of
secondary particulate matter and other air pollutants and requires that national air pollution
control programmes be drawn up, adopted and implemented and pollutant emissions for these and
other air pollutants and their impacts be monitored and reported.”
Article 2
No comments on the text as proposed by the COM. The terminology ‘all sources’ should be kept
here, thus making clear that the directive also covers natural sources (for the reporting of
emissions).
Article 3
The deletion of provisions of CH4 by the Presidency, made member states suggest to delete CH4
from the definition of ozone precursors. We think this is not correct and don’t see a problem in
keeping it in. On the other hand, since the term ‘ozone precursors’ is used only once, in article 1,
we wonder whether it is necessary to include a definition (article 1 also mentions ‘precursors of
secondary particulate matter’ and this is not defined as well). We therefore suggest to delete the
definition (if not deleted, a definition of ‘precursors of secondary particulate matter’ should be
included).
Since emissions from natural sources need to be reported, the ‘of an anthropogenic nature’ should
be deleted from the definition of NMVOC.
Since the LRTAP reporting guidelines only mention SOx (and not SO2), either these guidelines
have to be completed with SO2, either a definition of SO2 needs to be included in this directive,
stating that for this directive, SOx and SO2 are considered equal.
We think the definition of Black Carbon is fine.
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
2
EN
It would be useful to include a definition of ‘all sources’ as used in article 2, to make clear which
sources are included in (mainly) the emission reduction targets. This could be done by referring to
the current version of the EMEP guidebook, though we are open to other approaches.
Article 4
Intermediate targets for 2025 are necessary, to avoid emission reductions being postponed until
2030, thus limiting the improvement in air quality until then. We can accept the sentence added to
paragraph 2 by the Presidency.
Since NOx and VOC emissions from agricultural soils have not been included in the GAINS model
when modelling the emission reduction targets, and since no information is available on emission
reduction techniques for these emissions, BE is op the opinion that these emissions should be taken
out of the scope for this article (as is done in the amended Gothenborg Protocol).
We are sceptical towards the addition of paragraph 1a by the Presidency. We would like to have
more information on the legal uncertainties that are associated with relative ceilings. Since a similar
provision is not included in the GP, this will lead to different targets in NEC and GP, which is to be
avoided. If a similar approach is needed for legal reasons, an approach aligning as much as possible
with the relative ceilings from the GP needs to be looked for.
Article 5
Though we agree with the principle for the flexibility for international shipping, we think this
provision is too complex in reality and hard to control. We therefore agree with the Presidency to
delete this provision.
We insist on taking over the flexibility provided in annex II, point 5 of the amended GP, allowing
member states to evaluate reduction targets on the basis of a 3 year average for the emissions. This
is particularly important for PM2,5, since around half of these emissions comes from domestic
woodstoves, which means that a cold winter inevitably leads to a large increase in emissions.
We are not in favor of other forms of flexibility that take into account the assumptions underlying
the current reduction targets (other than the emission factors related to measures to be taken at
international level, as described in annex IV), because this completely undermines these reduction
targets. This flexibility will be invoked for all assumptions that have evolved in such a way that
emissions are higher than predicted, but not for assumptions evolving the other way.
The flexibility mechanism presented in TSAP-report #15 doesn’t appeal to us either: it is overly
complex (certainly combined with inventory adjustment) and risks shifting all attention to PM2,5emissions and thus neglecting environmental problems such as eutrophication (even though the
report says this risk is limited, we don’t believe this to be correct on the local scale). Moreover,
since PM-inventory is still evolving strongly, it is perfectly possible that a (scientifically correct)
adaptation of this inventory, leads to PM-targets being overachieved (which cannot be avoided by
relative targets) and thus no reductions at all being necessary for the other pollutants.
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
3
EN
We agree with the COM that the evaluation of the use of flexibility should be done within the EU
and according to EU-standards, and not by an external organism such as LRTAP. This being said,
we think both procedures should be fully aligned (certainly on timing and on method of calculation)
and therefore we think that the deadline in paragraph 4 should be moved to 15 February of the next
year (which renders the reporting of provisional emissions in Annex I useless).
Article 6
We are happy with the change proposed by the Presidency in paragraph 3: an update every 2 years
leads to a too high administrative burden, a frequency of 4 years is more realistic.
If on the other hand, the reduction program demonstrates that the selected emission reduction
measures are insufficient to reach the reduction targets, an update of the program is necessary
within a short term. We therefore believe that the 12 months period is paragraph 4, as proposed by
the COM, is a good proposal and that this should not be extended to 24 months. It should be made
clearer in the text when this period starts.
Whereas a foreseen non compliance with the reduction targets should lead to an update of the
reduction program, we don’t see why the use of the flexibilities from paragraph 5 should do so. The
use of these flexibilities is allowed within the directive (contrary to the non compliance with the
reduction targets), which means that there is no reason why using them should lead to the
implementation of additional measures and thus the update of the program. If an updated program is
needed, this updated program will be exactly the same as the first one. We therefore suggest to
delete subparagraph 4 (b).
Article 7
The COM explained that the goal of the delegated acts in paragraph 9 is to adapt the annexes to
other agreements, such as reporting obligations under LRTAP. This should be made clear in the
text.
Even though reporting of emission projections under LRTAP is only due every 4 years, BE thinks
that in this framework a timeframe of 2 years is more suited, in line with the obligations for GHG.
We are happy with the change proposed by the Presidency to report LPS data and spatially
disaggregated emission inventories every 4 years instead of every 2 years.
Article 8
Scrutiny reservation, awaiting clarification from the COM on the relation of this article (and annex
V) with other existing obligations.
Article 9
We are happy with the change proposed by the Presidency in paragraph 1 (update every 4 years
instead of every 2 years).
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
4
EN
Once a member state is in compliance with its emission reduction targets, we think that it is useless
to keep on reporting reduction programs after 2030. We therefore suggest to include a sentence in
paragraph 1 that states that if in 2030 or later a member states complies with all its reduction
targets, there is no more need to update and report the reduction program.
Article 10
Since member states have to report their reduction program every 4 years, we think it would be
more logical to have the reporting to the Parliament every 4 years as well (this allows the COM to
build on the information in the member states programs).
Article 11, 12
No comments at this stage.
Article 13
Scrutiny reservation
Article 14
We agree with the suggestion by IT to install a new committee for this directive (and thus not use
the AQC), since both subjects are often dealt with by other experts.
Article 15, 16, 17
No comments at this stage.
Article 18
No comments on the content of the article, but paragraph 1 (b) seems meaningless (it states that
Articles 7(1), 7(2) and (8) remain in force until a certain date, but this is logical since the NEC
directive is repealed from that same date on, so until then they surely remain in force).
Article 19, 20
No comments at this stage.
Annex I
As stated under Article 7, we agree with a 2-yearly reporting of projections, though we think the
added value of reporting every year up to 2030 is limited. We suggest to have projections per
5 years (2020, 2025, 2030).
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
5
EN
Although we are not principally against the reporting of preliminary emissions by 30/9, if there is a
good reason to do so, at this moment, we don’t see the added value of this reporting. Since we think
that the procedure for flexibility should be aligned with LRTAP, and thus the deadline of 30/9
deleted from Art 5, we suggest to delete this reporting. If there would be a good reason to have the
preliminary reporting, we prefer the deadline of 30/9 rather than 31/12, which seems pointless since
already 1,5 months later final numbers have to be reported.
Annex II
No position yet, neither on the reduction targets, nor on the fuel used/fuel sold issue.
Annex III, Part 1 (Measures which may be included)
BE agrees with the principle of this annex and most of the measures contained in it. However:
-
-
In A.3 (d) and A.4.(a) (i) the reference to phosphor should be deleted, since this directive is
not the right place to refer to this pollutant.
A.4 (b) (ii) has to be deleted. The LRTAP guidance document states that there are few
possibilities to do this (only covering with plastic) and that this measure needs furher
investigation.
A. 4 a (iv): We believe farm yard manure that is low in ammonium should be excluded from
the obligation of incorporation within 4 hours after spreading. In these cases the time frame
should be widened to 24 hours after spreading.
Annex III, Part 2 (Minimum content)
We agree with the information requested; the only comment we have is that information on
uncertainties is not always easy to generate. We therefore suggest to request this only when
available.
Annex IV, Parts 1, 2, 3
Scrutiny reservation.
Annex IV, Part 4
Scrutiny reservation.
Annex V
See comments on article 8.
____________________
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
6
EN
THE NETHERLANDS
While most comments (comments to articles 4 to 20 and Annexes) refer to the Presidency
compromise text (doc. 7442/15), the comments to articles 1 to 3 refer to the original Commission
proposal (doc. 18167/13).
Changes to the original Commission proposal or to the Presidency compromise text are marked as
bold, deletions are indicated by […].
Annex II contains very recent research done by Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
(PBL) and the Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI) on the potential contribution of a nitrogen
emission control area to national targets under a revised EU national emission ceiling directive (The
Hague/Bilthoven, 2015, PBL publication number: 1699).
Annex I Netherlands proposals to original Commission proposal, article 1 – 3 and Presidency
compromise text, article 4 – 20.
Article 1, Commission proposal
This Directive establishes the [...] emission reduction commitments for the Member States'
atmospheric emissions of acidifying and eutrophying pollutants, ozone precursors, primary
particulate matter and precursors of secondary particulate matter and other air pollutants and
requires that national air pollution control programmes be drawn up, adopted and implemented and
pollutant emissions and their impacts be monitored and reported.
Rationale: the proposal does not contain limits, but commitments to reduce the emissions of certain
atmospheric pollutants
Article 2, Commission proposal
This Directive shall apply to anthropogenic emissions of the pollutants referred to in Annex I from
all sources occurring in the territory of the Member States, their exclusive economic zones and
pollution control zones. This Directive shall also apply to the monitoring and reporting of
natural emissions.
Rational:by adding ‘anthropogenic’ the wording of this article stays closer to the text of the
original Directive.The Dutch proposal also makes clear that there is no intention to reduce
emissions from natural sources.
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
7
EN
Article 3, Commission proposal
No proposals in this stage
Article 4, Presidency compromise text
1.
Member States shall [...] limit their annual anthropogenic emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds other than methane (NMVOC), ammonia
(NH3) and particulate matter (PM2,5) […] at least in accordance with the national emission
reduction commitments applicable from 2020 and 2030, as laid down in Annex II.
Rationale: the Netherlands proposes to delete ‘as a minimum’ as it might be misread. One might
understand that at least anthropogenic emissions should reduced and possibly also natural
emissions.
Remark: the Netherlands supports the idea of having a national emission reduction commitment for
PM2.5, since the finest particles are the most harmful to the human health. However, we do see a
discrepancy in EU legislation here: this proposal is dealing with PM2.5, just like the Air Quality
Directive and e-PRTR, while the IED and the BREFs very often deal with dust (PM) or PM10. Also
the proposal for the medium sized combustion plants gives proposals for PM. Measures that were
taken to reduce PM in general, do not necessarily reduce PM2.5.
1a
[...]
Rationale: Having heard the discussion on this topic in the latest two meetings of the WPE, the
Netherlands would welcome additional information of the potential lack of legal certainty the
Council legal service signalled. Until there is more information, the Netherlands is not in favour of
including article 1b.
2.
Without prejudice to paragraph 1, Member States shall take all the necessary measures not
entailing disproportionate costs to limit their 2025 anthropogenic emissions of SO2, NOx,
NMVOC, NH3 and PM2,5 […]. The levels of those emissions shall be determined […] by a
linear reduction trajectory established between their emission levels for 2020 and the emission
levels defined by the emission reduction commitments for 2030.
Member States may follow a different trajectory [...] and shall set out the reasons for it and the
revised trajectory in the informative inventory national air pollution control programmes
submitted to the Commission in accordance with Article 9.
Where the emissions for 2025 […] could not be limited in accordance with the determined
trajectory, the Member States shall explain the reasons in their informative inventory reports
submitted to the Commission in accordance with Article 9.
Rationale: the Netherlands agree that there might be various reasons – not just economical more
efficient - to follow a different trajectory to meet the emissions reduction targets for 2025 and 2030.
The Netherlands are therefore not convinced the 2025 target should be binding. On the other hand,
Member States should be able to show they are on track to meet the 2030 values. See also our
proposal for article 6.
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
8
EN
Question for the Presidency on article 4 sub 2 last paragraph: ‘the determined trajectory’ is that the
original linear trajectory or the different trajectory described in the national air pollution control
programme ?
3.
The following emissions are not accounted for the purpose of complying with paragraphs 1
and 2:
(a)
aircraft emissions beyond the landing and take-off cycle;
(b)
[…]
(c)
emissions from national maritime traffic to and from the territories referred to in
point (b);
(d)
emissions from international maritime traffic, without prejudice to Article 5(1).
Rationale:the Netherlands considers the reduction of emissions from the international maritime
traffic a very important measure.We are aware that this flexibilty mechanisme is not available for
all Member States (e.g. landlocked countries). On the other hand, countries like the Netherlands
with a relatively large EEZ will have to deal with considerable contributions to air pollution from
emissions of NOx, SO2 and PM2.5 coming for the maritime traffic. Recent studies 1 estimate that
NOx emissions for the combined EEZ in the North Sea area by 2030 are 448 kilotonnes NOx, of
which 102 kilotonnes in the Dutch Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). A previous study 2 showed that
the emissions from maritime traffic by 2030 are expected to contribute substantially to
concentrations of particulate matter (by 7%) and nitrogen dioxide (by 24%) in the Netherlands and
to depositions of nitrogen to Dutch ecosystems (by 3%).
The flexibility mechanism under the proposal for a revised NEC-Directive would be an extra reason
to strive for a Nitrogen Oxide Emission Control Area (NECA) in the North Sea:the mentioned studie
show that the relative contribution due to NECA implementation to the overall national NOx
reduction targets for nitrogen oxide for the Netherlands would be maximum between 2% - 4.6%.
For these reasons, the Netherlands proposes to reinsert this flexibility mechanism.
1
2
PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency / FMI Finnish Meteorological Institute,
The potential contribution of a nitrogen emission control area to national targets under a
revised EU national emission ceiling directive, The Hague/Bilthoven, 2015. PBL publication
number: 1699.
PBL et al., Assessment of the environmental impacts and health benefits of a nitrogen
emission control area in the North Sea, The Hague/Bilthoven, 2012. PBL publication number:
500249001.
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
9
EN
Proposal for a new article 4 sub 4
Member States shall take all necessary measures, not entailing disproportionate costs and in
line with the latest scientific evidence, to reach their national emission reduction commitments
under this Directive, and under relevant Union source legislation, including Regulation (EC)
No 715/2007, Directive 2010/75/EC, Directive 2003/87/EC, Directive 2009/125/EC, Decision
No 406/2009/EC, Directive (EU) ..../.. on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into
the air from medium combustion plants and Regulation (EU) ..../.. on requirements relating to
emission limits and typeapproval for internal combustion engines for non-road mobile
machinery.
Rationale: this proposal is largely adopted from the draft report of the Rapporteur for the
Committee of the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety of the European Parlement.The
Netherlands think it is very important to have a) a direct link with Union source policy and an
(additional) obligation to fullfill that source policy and b) to make sure this source policy is
ambitiouis enough to make it possible to contribute significantly to the national emission reduction
commitments. See also the proposal under article 6.
Article 5, Presidency compromise text
1.
In order to comply with the intermediate emission levels determined for 2025 in
accordance with Article 4, paragraph 2, and the national emission reduction
commitments set out in Annex II applicable from 2030 onwards for NOx, SO2 and
PM2,5, Member States may offset NOx, SO2 and PM2,5 emission reductions achieved
by international maritime traffic against NOx, SO2 and PM2,5 emissions released by
other sources in the same year, provided that they meet the conditions set in an
implementing act adopted by the Commission.
2.
Member States may establish adjusted annual national emission inventories for SO2, NOx,
NH3, NMVOC and PM2,5 in accordance with Annex IV where non-compliance with their
national emission reduction commitments or their intermediate emission levels would result
from applying improved emission inventory methods updated in accordance with scientific
knowledge.
3.
Members States that intend to apply paragraphs 1 and 2 shall inform the Commission by
30 September of the year preceeding the reporting year concerned. That information shall
include the pollutants and sectors concerned and, where available, the magnitude of the
impacts upon national emission inventories.
4.
The Commission, assisted by the European Environment Agency, shall review and assess
whether the use of any of the flexibilities for a particular year fulfils the relevant requirements
and criteria.
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
10
EN
Where the Commission considers the use of a flexibility not to be in accordance with the
applicable requirements and criteria, it shall adopt a Decision within [...] three months from
the date of receipt of the relevant report referred to in Article 7, paragraph 6, and inform the
Member State that it cannot be accepted. Where the Commission has raised no objections
within nine months from the date of receipt of the relevant report referred to in Article 7,
paragraphs 6, the Member State concerned shall consider the use of the flexibility applied to
be accepted and valid for that year.
5.
The Commission [...] shall adopt implementing acts specifying the detailed rules for the use
of the flexibilities as referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, in accordance with the examination
procedure referred to in Article 14.
Rationale: as motivated under article 4, the Netherlands proposes to maintain the flexibility
mechanism to reduce emissions of the maritime sector.
The Netherlands supports implementing acts on the use of flexibilities, to ensure a level playing
field.Using the flexibility mechanism to reduce emissions of the maritime sector would require an
implementing act in our proposal.
Article 6, Presidency compromise text
Proposal for a new article 6 sub 2a
2a.
The Commission and the Member States shall ensure that all Union source policy under
Article 4(3a) is fit for purpose and capable of dealing with problems under its intended
remit.The Commission shall immediately present a proposal for the Euro 6
requirements on Real Driving Emissions (RDE) as a type approval test method to ensure
the effective limitation of NOx and PM2.5 under real driving conditions.
Rationale: this proposal is largely adopted from the draft report of the Rapporteur for the
Committee of the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety of the European Parlement.The
Netherlands think it is very important to have a) a direct link with Union source policy and an
(additional) obligation to fullfill that source policy and b) to make sure this source policy is
ambitiouis enough to make it possible to contribute significantly to the national emission reduction
commitments. See also the proposal under article 4.
...
8.
The Commission may establish guidance on the elaboration and implementation of national
air pollution control programmes, including information on acceptable motivations to follow
a different trajectory to meet the emissions reduction targets for 2030.
Rationale: as stated under article 4, the Netherlands agrees that a different trajectory to meet the
2030 targets might be justified. However, this different trajectory must be motived. The Commission
may provide guidance on this topic, as part of the guidance on the national air pollution control
programmes.
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
11
EN
Article 7, Presidency compromise text
1.
Member States shall prepare and annually update national emission inventories for the
pollutants set out in table A of Annex I, in accordance with the requirements set out therein.
Member States should […] prepare and annually update national emission inventories for the
pollutants set out in table B of Annex I, in accordance with the requirements set out therein.
2.
Member States shall prepare and update every four years spatially disaggregated emission
inventories, large point source inventories and every two years emission projections for the
pollutants set out in table C of Annex I, in accordance with the requirements set out therein.
3.
The emission inventories and projections referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be
accompanied by an informative inventory report, in accordance with the requirements set out
in table D of Annex I.
4.
Member States that apply the flexibility under Article 5(1) shall include information in
the informative inventory report of the year concerned to allow the Commission, assisted
by the European Environment Agency, to carry out a complete assessment of the
conditions under which the flexibility has been implemented.
The implementing act reffered to in article 5 (6) shall also specify detailed rules on the
required information in the informative inventory report.
5.
Member States that opt for the flexibility under Article 5([...]2) shall include the information
set out in Part 4 of Annex IV in the informative inventory report of the year concerned
allowing the Commission to review and assess whether the requirements of that
provision are met.
6.
Member States shall establish the emission inventories, including adjusted emission
inventories where relevant, emission projections and the informative inventory report in
accordance with Annex IV.
7.
The Commission, assisted by the European Environment Agency, shall annually establish and
update Union-wide emission inventories, projections, and an informative inventory report for
all the pollutants referred to in Annex I, on the basis of the information referred to in
paragraphs 1, 2 and 3.
8.
The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 13 in
order to adapt Annex I in relation to reporting deadlines and Annex IV to technical and
scientific progress.
Rationale: the Netherlands think that using ‘may’ instead of ‘should’ in paragraph 1 is too open
and does not serve a level playing field.
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
12
EN
As motivated under article 4, the Netherlands proposes to maintain the flexibility mechanism to
reduce emissions of the maritime sector. The requirements for the informative inventory report to
make it possible for the Commission and the EEA to assess the flexibility used, should be dealt with
in the implementing act pro- posed under Article 5 (6).
Article 8 and 9, Presidency compromise text
No proposals in this stage.
Article 10, Presidency compromise text
Proposal for a new article 10 sub 1a
Where the report indicates that Member States are unable to comply with this Directive and that
non-achievement is the result of ineffective Union policy, the Commission shall assess where there
is a need for new source legislation and, where appropriate, present legislative proposals. Any such
proposal should be supported by a robust impact assessment and reflect the latest scientific data.
Rationale: this proposal is largely adopted from the draft report of the Rapporteur for the
Committee of the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety of the European Parlement.The
Netherlands think it is very important to have a) a direct link with Union source policy and an
(additional) obligation to fullfill that source policy and b) to make sure this source policy is
ambitiouis enough to make it possible to contribute significantly to the national emission reduction
commitments
Article 11 - 20, Presidency compromise text
No proposals in this stage
Annex II, Presidency compromise text
The Netherlands welcomes the new proposals for Annex II, since these proposals are much more in
line with national data. However, the Netherlands still see a problem meeting the proposed
reduction of NMVOC, due to differences in national projections compared to those of TSAP #16 and
due to limited reduction potential in the period 2020-2030. The Netherlands is trying to solve this
issue bilaterally with the Commission.
In addition, the Netherlands would like to stress that the proposed NOx national reduction
commitment can only be met if there will be agreement on the Euro 6 requirements on Real Driving
Emissions (RDE) as a type approval test method to ensure the effective limitation of NOx and
PM2.5 under real driving conditions.
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
13
EN
Annex III, Presidency compromise text
Part B:
1.
Member States shall […] ban open field burning of agricultural harvest residue and waste and
forest residue, and shall monitor and enforce its implementation. Any exemptions to such a
ban shall be limited to preventive programs to avoid uncontrolled wildfires, to control pest or
to protect biodiversity
Rationale: The Netherlands is in favour of the original Commission proposal.
____________________
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
14
EN
AUSTRIA
Austria would like to thank the Presidency for the compromise text which has been discussed in the
WP on March 30, 2015. Most of the changes are supported by Austria. However, from the Austrian
perspective some concerns still remain – apart from the questions of the emission reduction
obligations in Annex II and delegated/implementing acts, which are not covered in these comments.
Remaining concerns to the draft text relate to the nature of the obligation (relative vs. absolute
ceilings), to black carbon and other reporting issues, the list and content of measures for ammonia
reduction and to ecosystem monitoring.
Art. 4 (1a) – relative vs. absolute ceilings
The new paragraph 1a transforms the relative emission reduction obligations, which are laid down
in the revised Gothenburg Protocol as percentage of base year emissions, to emission ceilings in
absolute figures, fixed after the first inventory review. Austria considers this a step backwards from
the development made during the negotiations of the Gothenburg Protocol. It creates
incompatibility with the Protocol, does not improve legal certainty and is likely to make the use of
the flexibility mechanism unavoidable for all MS in the long term. Reference to existing regulations
for greenhouse gases are in our view no reasonable justification for that approach. The new
paragraph 1a should be deleted for the following reasons:
Incompatibility with the Gothenburg Protocol: Past revisions of emission inventories have not
only led to higher emission figures, but in some cases also to lower figures. Under the Gothenburg
Protocol a 30 % reduction target will remain a 30 % reduction target, independently of any revision
of an emissions time series. Under the proposed NEC regulation, a 30 % reduction target as laid
down in Annex II may result e. g. in a de facto 40 % target if the emissions time series is revised
upwards or in a 20 % target if the time series is revised downwards after the base year emissions
have been laid down in terms of kilotons.
Downward revisions of the emissions time series may therefore lead to the situation that MS meet
their NEC ceilings even if they do not meet their Gothenburg emission reduction commitment.
Under these circumstances the EU would not meet its commitment under the Protocol although all
MS comply with the obligations of the NEC Directive – see figure below.
30 % reduction commitment
NEC reduction
commitment
based on original
inventory (fixed)
original inventory (reviewed
kt
100
data according to Art. 1a)
80
latest inventory (with revised data)
60
G.P. reduction
commitment
based on latest
inventory
40
20
0
Base +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15
year
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
15
EN
No improvement of legal certainty by absolute ceilings: MS – and their stakeholders – should be
able to rely on the emission reduction requirements which have been determined initially. Under
ideal circumstances the emission reduction requirements and the extent of measures to achieve the
target would be predictable from the beginning. Even if relative ceilings do not provide “ideal
circumstances”, revisions of the inventory have considerable less influence on the emission
reduction requirements for relative ceilings than for absolute ceilings:
30% reduction commitment
revised inventory, absolute ceilings
kt
110
kt
reduction 110
demand
100
90
30 kt
inventory
80
revised inventory
100
90
kt
110
38 kt
original inventory
reduction
demand
revised inventory
80
70
target
60
32 kt
original inventory
90
70
target
Base +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8
year
revised inventory, relative ceilings
100
80
70
60
reduction
demand
Base +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8
year
target
60
Base +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8
year
If inventory revisions lead to extensive changes, it may be necessary for MS to make use of the
flexibility mechanism also in the case of relative ceilings. However, we expect that to happen less
frequently than for absolute ceilings, thus avoiding a significant increase of the workload for MS
(calculate and document adjusted inventories) and the Commission (review information provided
by the MS according to Annex IV Part 4).
Fundamental differences to GHG regulations: The reintroduction of absolute ceilings has been
justified with a similar regulation for greenhouse gases in the Effort Sharing Decision. In our view
there are fundamental differences between GHG inventories and inventories for NEC pollutants
which must not be neglected:


Guidelines used for GHG inventories are decided by the Conference of the Parties to the
UNFCCC. The IPCC 1996 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories have been
used for a long time and have remained unmodified during the first commitment period of the
Kyoto Protocol. The change to the IPCC 2006 Guidelines has been done for the first year of
the second commitment period and the guidelines are not expected to change for the rest of
the commitment period. The EEA/EMEP Inventory Guidebook on the other hand, which is
the basis for air pollutant inventories, is continuously updated with respect to methods,
emission factors and sectors – regardless of any commitments which are based on the
inventories.
GHG emissions consist predominantly of CO2 (about 80 % of total GHG emissions for the
EU). CO2 emissions are mainly determined by fuel consumption, and inventory revisions due
to retrospective changes of energy balances usually have quite small effects in relation to total
emissions. Revisions of air pollutant inventories on the other hand are determined by revised
activity data multiplied by revised emission factors and may result in significant changes of
total emissions. The issue of relative vs. absolute ceilings is therefore of much higher
relevance for the NEC pollutants.
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
16
EN
Art. 5 (4) – use of flexibility
As stated by several MS, the notification deadline for the use of flexibility should be aligned with
the requirements of the Gothenburg Protocol and should therefore be changed from
“by 30 September of the year preceeding the reporting year concerned” to
“by 15 February in the year following the reporting year concerned”.
Art. 6 (2) (c) and Annex I – Black Carbon
Compared with other air pollutants an inventory of black carbon (BC) emissions is associated with
considerably higher uncertainty:




The PM2.5 inventory, which already shows the highest uncertainty of the NEC pollutants, is
the basis for calculating BC emissions;
Measurement methods for BC have not yet been standardised;
Emission factors in the EMEP/EEA Inventory Guidebook are derived from studies that used
different measurement methods;
Measures which specifically reduce BC are not reflected in the inventory because BC
emissions are assumed to be proportional to PM emissions (cf. EMEP/EEA emission
inventory guidebook 2013, Sector 1.a.4, page 16).
Significant changes of BC emission factors and inventories must therefore still be expected. The
authors of the EMEP/EEA Inventory Guidebook have made best guesses to derive emission factors
from (partly scarce) scientific publications, and their work is valuable for advancing scientific
knowledge. It is however premature to have binding legal requirements based on such an inventory.
The draft directive demands that MS shall prioritize emission reduction measures for BC when
taking measures to achieve their national emission reduction commitments for PM2.5. In practice
this would mean that the inventory, i.e. the emission factors from the EMEP Guidebook, determine
the choice of abatement measures for PM. Austria suggests taking account of the high uncertainty
of the BC inventory and rephrasing that requirement accordingly:
Delete Article 6 paragraph 2 (c) and insert after “(d) ensure coherence … or Union
legislation.” the following sentence:
“Member States should take into account the effects of black carbon on human health,
environment and the climate system and available knowledge on black carbon emission
sources when taking measures to achieve their national reduction commitments for PM2.5.”
The draft directive contains a mandatory requirement for MS to compile and report BC inventories
(Annex I, Table A). Given the high uncertainty of the BC inventory, we suggest to align Annex I
with the reporting obligations of the UNECE CLRTAP (voluntary reporting). The words
“and BC” should therefore be moved from Table A to Table B.
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
17
EN
Art. 6 (2) – reference to Annex III Part 2
The last sentence of paragraph 2 requests MS to include, as appropriate, measures from Annex III
Part 2 “or measures having equivalent environmental effect” in their programmes. The wording
“environmental effect” can be interpreted as covering environmental effect in general (effect on air
pollution and climate change, water resources, land use, biodiversity, etc.); in that case it would
probably be impossible to find two measures with equivalent effect at all.
Austria suggests rephrasing the wording with respect to the emission reduction commitments:
Replace “environmental effect” by “mitigation effect”.
Art. 9 (4) – review
The provisions foresee that the national inventory data shall be reviewed regularly. Reviews of air
pollutant inventories are already performed under the CLRTAP; the Executive Body of the
Convention has made decisions accordingly (cf. document EB.AIR/GE.1/2007/16 “Methods and
procedures for the technical review of air pollutant emission inventories reported under the
Convention and its protocols”). As the annual inventory reviews under the UNFCCC and the GHG
Monitoring Mechanism Regulation cause considerable workload for inventory compilers already,
additional work should be limited to the extent possible.
Reviews under the NEC Directive should therefore
 be restricted to NOx, VOC, SO2, NH3 and PM2.5 and
 be conducted in accordance with reviews under the CLRTAP.
We furthermore do not see the need to put special emphasis on the review in the first year of
reporting, if Article 4 (1a) is deleted.
We suggest rephrasing the first sentence of paragraph 4 as follows:
“The Commission, assisted by the European Environment Agency and the Member States
shall regularly review the national emission inventory data for the pollutants covered in
Annex II, in accordance with reviews conducted under the UNECE Convention on Longrange Transboundary Air Pollution.”
Annex I Table A – inventory of preliminary national emissions
According to the Commission proposal preliminary emissions shall be reported by 30
September annually (Last line of Table A). Austria wishes to point out that the reason and
terminology for this obligation is unclear and that inventory data cannot be compiled by end
of September.
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
18
EN
The current Directive 2001/81/EC, Art. 8, requires MS to report final emission data for the year X-2
and “provisional” data for the year X-1 by 31 December each year. Although the time schedule is
demanding it is possible to compile an air pollutant emission inventory by the end of the year. The
word “provisional” takes account of the fact that the underlying statistical data is less certain for the
year X-1 than for the years X-2, X-3 etc. Emission figures for the year X-1 are more likely to be
revised in the subsequent inventory submission than emission figures for the rest of the time series.
Nevertheless a complete inventory, split to all NFR categories, can be provided for the year X-1 as
for all other years.
The Commission proposal now introduces a new reporting obligation for “preliminary” data at an
aggregated level by end of September each year. Although the word “preliminary” resembles the
word “provisional” from the existing Directive, the meaning must be different as it is virtually
impossible to provide inventory figures for the previous year by end of September. Important
statistical data which are necessary to compile the emission inventory, like the national energy
balance, are not available in time. (in comparison with the reporting deadline to EUROSTAT:
energy balances have to be reported by November each year.)
We suppose that the “approximated greenhouse gas inventory” according to Art. 8 of the GHG
Monitoring Mechanism Regulation (MMR) has been the blueprint for the proposed reporting of
“preliminary” NEC emission data. The approximated GHG inventory, however, is rather a short
term projection than an inventory, and requires other methods and considerable additional
resources. A short term emission projection may be justified for greenhouse gases with emission
reduction commitments completely different from those of the NEC Directive: The ESD foresees a
linear emission reduction path, which is accounted annually, and the emission reduction obligation
of the Kyoto Protocol comprises the emissions of each year of the commitment period – so an early
warning with respect to the emissions of the preceding year may be reasonable. Nevertheless Art. 8
MMR requires MS to report approximated inventories only “where possible”, and in the past only
part of the MS have been able to provide these short term projections.
The reporting of inventories by 15 February has been aligned with the CLRTAP deadline in the
NEC proposal. The introduction of an additional and costly modelling exercise in order to report
short term emission projections at the end of September – four and a half months before the regular
deadline for inventory reporting – lacks justification. The reporting of a part of the final inventory
by the end of December – one and a half months before the regular deadline – causes extra work
and does not seem justified either. A reporting deadline for air pollutant inventories of 15 February
only allows for a reasonable work schedule for inventory compilers with respect to the preparation
of greenhouse gas and air pollutant inventories:
November
15 January
GHG Inventory MMR
15 February
NEC/CLRTAP Inv.
15 March
QA, NIR and IIR
15 April
UNFCCC Inv.
The last line of Table A (“Preliminary national emissions by aggregated NFR”) should
therefore be deleted as a whole.
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
19
EN
Annex I Table C – projected emissions
The draft Directive requires MS to report projected emissions for “every year from to year X up to
2030 and, where available, 2040 and 2050”. This requirement does neither conform to the
CLRTAP requirements (“for the years 2020, 2025 and 2030 and, where available, also for 2040 and
2050”) nor to the requirements of the GHG Monitoring Mechanism Regulation (“for a sequence of
four future years ending with 0 or 5 immediately following the reporting year”). The text should be
either aligned with CLRTAP or with the MMR.
Annex III Part 2 – agriculture
According to Art. 6 (2) MS “shall, as appropriate, include the emission reduction measures laid
down in Part 2 of Annex III or measures having equivalent environmental effect” in their national
air pollution control programme. The wording “as appropriate” and “or measures having equivalent
environmental effect” suggests that MS have flexibility in selecting measures regarding emission
reduction in the agricultural sector.
On the other hand, Part 2 of Annex III prescribes obligations with “shall” for several measures (e.g.
“MS shall prohibit”) and it is not clear from the text, if the qualifiers “as appropriate” and “or …
equivalent …” in Art. 6 take effect for the “shall” in the Annex.
At previous occasions the Commission has explained that part 2 of Annex III should serve as a
guideline for MS when adopting ammonium abatement measures, however that inclusion of this
part in Annex III should not restrict the freedom of MS to choose the most appropriate and costeffective measures. In addition, our understanding is that the measures contained in part 2 of Annex
III cannot be regarded as an exhaustive list of measures.
In this light, and further, against the background of requirements under e.g. the Rural Development
Fund, Austria strongly believes that further clarification and textual adaptations are necessary.
We reiterate our suggestion to have a meeting devoted to the discussion of Annex III Part 2 with the
participation of agriculture experts.
Annex V – monitoring of ecosystem effects
Austria still is concerned that the provisions in general and the wording “is representative of their
… ecosystem types” in paragraph 1 allows for a broad range of interpretation and may create an
obligation for an extensive and costly expansion of existing monitoring networks. In our view,
the obligation for ecosystem monitoring should stick as close as possible to the relevant obligations
of the CLRTAP. In the discussions in the WP the underlying CLRTAP decisions and
guidelines have not yet been clearly identified and we propose to explore this issue first of all.
____________________
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
20
EN
POLAND
Article
4
Paragraph
Comments
1
A present record regarding deletion of methane from the
commitments is compliant with the Polish statement. Poland
considers that emission reduction levels for methane should not be
introduced, as it would go beyond international commitments.
1a
2
5
general
However, the emission reduction commitments for any year from
2030 should be indicative. There is great uncertainty in the
pollutant emission forecasts of certain sectors and activities.
Therefore, the reduction potential may not be determined with
proper accuracy. Also, the indicated values place too high burden
on the agricultural sector.
The provision of paragraph should be clarified. It is not sure when
exactly (in which year) Member States may first revised the data
for base year 2005. Another question is why the frequency of
revision of the base year is every five years if there is an obligation
to submit the emissions inventory annually (art. 9)? Proposed
revision updating cause on freeze the 2005 data what can have
adverse effects on Member States’ inventory value.
The provision of the paragraph is not concurring with the Annex II.
The emission reduction levels for any year from period 2020-2029
are laid down in Annex II and originate from art. 4 para 1, therefore
setting obligatory linear reduction trajectory for 2025 path is not
justified. To conclude, Poland considers the deletion of this
paragraph.
Deletion of former paragraphs 1, 2 - flexibilities regarding to
international marine transport and sharing methane commitments
with other neighbouring countries is compliant with the Polish
statement. The mechanism of offsetting some reduction
commitments by international maritime transport does not enable
Member States to use this flexibility. The main reason for that is the
fact that the emissions of SO2, NOx and PM 2,5 from the
international maritime traffic are not monitored. However there are
regulations concerning SO2 but indirectly only, by a limit of
sulphur in fuel - International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). In the Baltic Sea territorial does
not exist any regulation concerning emissions of NOx and PM 2,5.
Due to these facts proposed flexibility cannot be useful for any MS.
Thus, the responsibility for compliance the EU requirements in the
field of air protection can’t be shifted to other countries. Moreover,
in the case of the maintenance the current provision, Poland and
most of the Member States (22 MS) will not be able to take
advantage of this opportunity, due to the fact that they don’t comply
with the requirements of Directive 2008/50/EC (CAFÉ).
Considered flexibilities should be connected with the ambition
level of the emission reduction commitments laid down in Annex
II. Accordingly, Poland opts to set the emission reduction levels
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
21
EN
4
5
6
8152/15
ANNEX
2
from Annex II more feasibly. In proposed case, Poland considers
withdrawal of the flexibilities.
“Members States that intend to apply paragraph 1 shall inform the
Commission by 30 September 15 February of the year preceding
following the reporting year concerned. That information shall
include the pollutants and sectors concerned and, where available,
the magnitude of the impacts upon national emission inventories”
This change closely aligns with the process for adjustment
procedures under the Gothenburg Protocol and will ensure Member
States have sufficient time to analyse emissions and decide whether
an adjustment is necessary. Consistency with adjustment
procedures under the Gothenburg Protocol will minimise additional
administrative burden.
“Where the Commission considers the use of a flexibility not to be
in accordance with the applicable requirements and criteria, it
shall adopt a Decision within nine months from the date of receipt
of the relevant report referred to in Article 7, paragraph 6, and
inform the Member State that it cannot be accepted with the
reasons for that decision. Where the Commission has raised no
objections within nine months from the date of receipt of the
relevant report referred to in Article 7, paragraphs 6, the Member
State concerned shall consider the use of the flexibility applied to
be accepted and valid for that year.”
Furthermore, in line 2 of the record submitted above, there must be
clarification what exactly are “applicable requirements and
criteria”.
“When drawing up, adopting and implementing the programme
referred to in paragraph 1, Member States shall:
(a) assess to what extent national emission sources are likely to
impact air quality in their territories and neighbouring
Member States using data and methodologies developed by
the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme
(EMEP), where appropriate;
(b) take account of the need to reduce air pollutant emissions
for the purpose of reaching compliance with air quality
objectives in their territories and, where appropriate in
neighbouring Member States;(…)”
Estimating the emission sources with the neighbouring Member
States will be very complicated in application. Furthermore, this
provision is not supporting countries which border on countries
from outside the EU.
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
22
EN
4
5
6
8
7
2
9
1
13
all
17
1
8152/15
ANNEX
“Without prejudice to paragraph 3, the emission reduction policies
and measures contained in the national air pollution control
programme shall be updated within 12 months 24 months in either
of the following cases(…).”
The requested deadline stems from the necessity to conduct
legislative and administrative procedure, which in Poland is quite
complex.
“(…)Where appropriate, transboundary consultations shall be
ensured in accordance with relevant Union legislation.”
Transboundary consulting of national air pollution control
programmes will extend the implementing and updating period.
“The Commission shall may facilitate the elaboration and
implementation of the programmes, where appropriate, through an
exchange of good practice.”
We propose the deletion of this paragraph because the minimum
content of the national air pollution control programme is laid down
in part 1 of Annex III.
“Member States shall prepare and update every four years spatially
disaggregated emission inventories, large point source inventories
and every two four years emission projections for the pollutants set
out in table C of Annex I, in accordance with the requirements set
out therein.”
Frequency concerning both emission inventories and projections
should be the same.
“Member States shall provide their national air pollution control
programme to the Commission [within three twenty four months of
the date referred to in Article 17, date to be inserted by OPOCE]
and updates every four years thereafter. (…).”
The requested deadline stems from the necessity to conduct
legislative and administrative procedure, which in Poland is quite
complex.
We oppose the uniform approach to the delegated acts. Due to this
fact, we propose to replace the delegated act to implemented act.
“Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive
[eighteen twenty four months after the entry into force - date to be
inserted by OPOCE] at the latest.”
The proposed date would be not possible in the conditions of the
Polish legislative process.
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
23
EN
Annex
I
A
II
all
V
all
Comments
Reporting date of preliminary national emission (SO2, NOX, NH3,
NMVOC, PM2,5) - 30/09 is not reasoned due to the fact that in this
moment full data of energy and agriculture sectors are not
available.
Proposed levels of reduction commitments, especially regarding
ammonia are too ambitious, considering the fact that Poland met all
the emission reduction commitments from former NEC directive.
Implementing such restrictive commitments will result on bearing
extremely high costs by the country. Estimated costs of additional
measures are much higher for Poland (also Slovenia and Slovakia)
14,46 EUR per capita by year, than for other EU countries 0-8
EUR per capita by year – source IIASA TSAP 16A.
The monitoring requirements result in an extension of the present
administrative and inspection actions, and will increase the cost of
national monitoring. There are no harmonized methods of research
and to determine the biological damages.
____________________
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
24
EN
SWEDEN
Article 4.1 – binding reduction commitments for 2020 and 2030
Sweden strongly supports the original proposal of binding national emission reduction
commitments for 2020 and 2030.
Rationale
Binding targets for national emission reduction commitments is the core of the directive and are
essential to ensure the expected benefits for human health and the environment.
Article 4.1 – reduction commitment for methane
Sweden supports the original proposal with reduction commitments for methane as a precursor for
ground level ozone. In our view, both health and environment would substantially benefit from
involving reduction commitments for methane within the NEC-directive.
Rationale
Methane is an important precursor for ground level ozone as well as a potent greenhouse gas. Even
though peak-concentrations of tropospheric ozone have been reduced, the overall background levels
are steadily increasing and it is clear that more measures are needed in the future to abate negative
ozone effects. Ozone has large negative impacts on human health such as respiratory problems and
premature mortality as well as negative impacts on ecosystems including reduce yields of crop in
agriculture and decrease of forest growth.
One of the main objectives of the NEC is to reduce emissions of ozone precursors in order to
protect environment and human health from the effects of ground level ozone. Today there is no
legislation within the EU which directly limits emissions of methane. Methane, as an important
precursor for ozone, is the only precursor that is excluded from the current NEC-directive and it is
clearly justified to include methane within the air pollution mitigation strategy. This would also
ensure positive synergies between air pollution and climate change mitigation. As long as the
reporting obligations for inventories and projections regarding methane are in accordance with
reporting obligations for greenhouse gases any extra administrative burden should be minimal.
Article 4.1a – emission levels for base year 2005
Sweden supports the proposal to define and set total national emission for the base year 2005. This
enables clear and transparent reductions commitments that are easy to communicate.
Rationale
A fixed total national emission for the base year 2005 would allow the reduction commitments to be
clear and transparent and also more straight forward and easy for communication with the general
public as well as policy makers. The regular update starting from year 2022 would be sufficient to
avoid any misalignment between commitments within the Gothenburg protocol and the new NECD.
This would also make sure that the introduced flexibility with relative ceilings in the Gothenburg
protocol is sufficiently fulfilled.
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
25
EN
Article 4.2 – linear trajectory and fuels “sold or used”
Sweden is in favor of a linear reduction trajectory and an intermediary target for 2025. The target
should be set based on reduction commitment levels and not on actual emissions from national
inventories. We support the possibility for Member states to follow a different trajectory given that
they still can demonstrate compliance with their reduction commitments in 2030.
Regarding the option of basing national emissions on “fuels used” or “fuels sold” Sweden prefer
“fuels sold” but accepts the proposal which means that some Member states may use “fuels used”
since this is in alignment with the Gothenburg protocol and also would help to facilitate the
directive for certain Member States without having impact on the purpose of the directive.
Rationale
Keeping track of and maintaining a linear reduction trajectory towards the year 2030 is a crucial
tool ensuring that we meet our targets. An intermediate target for 2025 would also be an incentive
for speeding up Member States process of setting up mitigation strategies and introducing effective
measures for reducing emissions in time before 2030.
Article 6 – National air pollution control programmes
Frequency of updates
Sweden is in favor of a biannual update of the national air pollution control programmes.
Rationale
It is motivated to have a biannual update for National air pollution control programmes since they
are a central element in a national mitigation strategy and for evaluation of progress being made to
reach the reduction commitments in 2020 and 2030.
Reference to Annex III
It is still not clear whether the proposed Part 2 Annex III is binding or not. Sweden has earlier raised
the question if the Part 2 Annex III could be included in a guidelines document.
Rationale
An important principle of the NEC Directive is that it is incumbent on Member States themselves to
decide how to attain the emission ceilings. All relevant sectors should be included to achieve the
emission ceilings in the most cost-efficient way. Since the conditions for achieving the goals differ
between Member States measures should be taken on national level. In line with the
abovementioned principle it is necessary that the directive does not prescribe specific detailed
measures as is proposed in part 2 Annex III. This is essential in order to allow Member States to
deploy the most cost-effective measures across sectors.
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
26
EN
Article 7 and Annex I – Emission inventories and projections
Reporting preliminary data
Sweden prefers to delete the reference to reporting preliminary data for national emission
inventories.
Rationale
Since the reduction commitments are set on a national basis there is no obvious rationale for having
preliminary data reported in 30 of September every year. Considering the extra resources needed for
a preliminary update it should be sufficient with an annual update of emission inventories by 15th
of March every year.
Biannual updates for projections
Sweden support the proposal of having biannual updates for projections and update of large point
sources and spatially disaggregated data every 4th year.
Rationale
It is important to have regular updates of projections on a biannual basis since this is one important
input for the national abatement strategy and essential for evaluation of progress being made.
Conditions and underlying conditions for assumptions in projections may change significantly
between years. It is also central to synchronize the updates of projections and national air pollution
control programmes since they are both interlinked with each other.
Calculation of projections
Sweden prefer that projections are reported for four future projection years ending with 0 or 5
immediately following the latest reporting year.
Rationale
In the proposal, Annex I, Table C, it is stated that projections should be calculated for every
projection year up until 2030. This is not in line with the reporting of projections of greenhouse
gases were they calculated data for projection years with a 5 year frequency. It is important to have
consistency between reporting obligations for emissions of air pollution and greenhouse gases as far
as possible since this reduces administrative burden.
Annex IV
Sweden would like the reference to year X-3 in Part 2, para 3 to be deleted and keep the original
proposal.
Projections shall be consistent with the latest national annual emission inventory for
the year X-3 and with projections reported under Regulation No 525/2013.
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
27
EN
Sweden proposes a new wording for paragraph 3 in Part 1 of Annex IV
For emission from transport, Member States should calculate and report emissions as
consistent as possible with national energy balances reported to Eurostat.
Rationale
It is important to have consistency between projections reported for air pollution in the NECdirective, CLRTAP as well as for greenhouse gases as far as possible, there is no reference to year
X-3 in the reporting guidelines for CLRTAP and greenhouse gases and it should be removed here.
Article 8 and Annex V – Monitoring
Sweden supports in principle monitoring but we are still waiting for the description of how the
selection has been made in relation to monitoring performed within the CLRTAP.
Rationale
Monitoring is expensive but necessary for the evaluation of progress in actual emission reductions
and the following expected effects for humans and in environment. Having specified monitoring
singled out in an Annex may strongly affect priorities in our ongoing national monitoring
programme. Hence, it is important that the selection reflects the most important effects in the
environment that needs to be evaluated.
New Article – Review
Sweden proposes to add a new article regarding a review process accordingly;
1.
In light of projections for expected future emissions of air pollutants in 2020, 2025 and 2030,
combined with scientific and technological progress, the situation regarding exceedance of
critical loads and levels and WHO guideline values for air pollution, and based on the aim of
achieving the long-term objective for air quality in accordance with the Union’s Seventh
Environment Action Programme, the Commission shall conduct regular reviews of this
Directive.
2.
The first review shall be completed at latest by the end of 2019, and be accompanied by
proposals designed to safeguard achievement of the long-term objective for air quality by
2030, including proposed changes to the national emissions reduction commitments in Annex
II, proposed sectorial and other pollution control measures that will help ensure the
achievement of the national emission reduction commitments, and proposed measures for
reducing emissions from international shipping, particularly in Member States’ territorial
waters and exclusive economic zones.”
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
28
EN
Rationale
The proposed Article 10 of the original proposal only obliges the Commission to report on progress,
not to review and propose changes. The proposal lacks an article on review corresponding to
Article 10 of the current National Emission Ceilings Directive (2001/81/EC). A new article that
clearly defines and describes the review process is needed. This would guarantee implementation of
an effective review and revision process as well as ensure the achievement of the long-term
objective for air quality by 2030.
8152/15
ANNEX
CM/nv/mb
DG E 1A
LIMITE
29
EN