Short notes of ECCP meeting II 26 and 27 April 2007
by Anne-Marie Warris for IETA and ETG


Attendance was good though less Member State Representatives this time
The level of presentations were very high and there were some interesting issues
Permit et al sessions








reporting frequency - voice for more frequent and voice for status quo. Not clear
which way European Commission (EC) will go
site visits - I think we agreed
MRG as Regulation not really supported although I detected a sort preference in EC
smaller emitters we agreed they need to be treated separately but I think we
recognised that there were small simple emitters and small complex emitters.
IT big push
Jos Delbeke (Chair) summary of first session:
o importance of MRV and permit need better implementation across EC so
more 'rules' but respecting subsidiary
o cleared delineation of responsibilities within scheme
o common system of accreditation for verifiers
o support for common EC Agency (EU or Commission) to maintain and collect
data etc
o small installations
Shipping - being studied but too early to tell and they are looking at a range of options
Jochen outlined policy options of other gases and activities - nothing new I think
except MRV will be centrally decided for opted in installations not up to MS
Verification and accreditation session:










Marco Lopreno very keen on control by EC and what he calls better institutional
arrangements
As far as Jos was concerned the issue of a centralised body for accreditation was
premature to decide they may work with EA.
The implication for what was said and from talks in the corridors as well as a question
from Jochen is that EC wants to control and develop their own accreditation standard,
their own verification standards and their own process.
The Finnish model of competent authority (CA) issuing permits to verifiers and
requesting additional material and information from verifiers as well as information
such as mandays etc was to a degree approved of
Verification keeps been beaten for all the ills of the scheme, which are more down to
the large variation in verification scope, understanding of reasonable assurance and
materiality.
Clear support from EC, but not member states and others, for a central accreditation
body controlled by EC and where procedures for verification and its accreditation
would be controlled
The USA SOx model was received with great attention many seemed taken with the
'simplicity' and 'elegance' of the model. Despite EPA Reid Harvey admitting that for
installations it was more expensive but for the community at large it was cheaper
Wolfgang Seidel added the voice that said verifiers should not forever be allowed to
work with same company / site
technical capacity of verifiers questions in terms of installation knowledge and also
skills associated with statistical interpretation and analysis as required under fall back
approach
Jos summary:
o learnt a lot
o bridge work between Directive and other documents /activities
o better implementation is the place to start and they will do so within 6 months
o CA central but very different in each MS
o
o
using same standard, how he will get there he did not specify. EC will look
into this
regular checks on Accreditation Body activities needed