Work
28.September 2005 - 00:00
Emissions trading: question further to the Commission answers to questions E-2111/04 and E-0215/05
According to Article 21 of the Emissions Trading Directive (Directive 2003/87/EC(1)) the Commission was supposed to have sent an implementation questionnaire to the Member States by the end of 2004, and the Member States are supposed to send back their replies by the end of June 2005. Article 22 states that the Commission may amend Annex III as regards the period from 2008 to 2012 in the light of the replies to the questionnaire. Member States have to submit their 2008‑2012 national allocation plans (NAPs) to the Commission by the end of June 2006 (Article 9), and the Commission will be called upon to propose any necessary amendments to the directive by the same date (Article 30).
Has the Commission sent out the questionnaire to the Member States as required by Article 21? If not, within what time-frame does it intend to do so?
Given that the Commission’s answer to Written Question E‑2711/04 was, to my mind, non-committal and vague, the following more specific point needs to be clarified:
Does the Commission believe that the sensible way to deal with the directive would be to put back the deadline for submitting the NAPs by at least six months, so as to enable the amendments to the annexes, which would affect the period from 2008 to 2012 (as indicated in Article 22), to be based on the findings that emerge from the questionnaire?
Does the Commission consider that the more exhaustive review of the directive scheduled for mid‑2006 should likewise be postponed because
— the date is any case too late to allow the possibility of influencing the 2008-2012 NAPs;
— the date is, on the other hand, too early to enable any information to be obtained about the international negotiations after 2012, and the EU as such might consequently be in danger on that occasion of committing itself to something that would adversely affect our competitiveness?
In addition, in its answer to Written Question E-0215/05 the Commission stated that it had been in touch with the authorities of some non-member countries listed in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol. Could it specify which countries have been involved? How does it think that different emissions trading systems could be combined? On what basis are emission allowances allocated?
Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission
The Commission decision on the questionnaire referred to in Article 21 of Directive 2003/87/EC(1) on emissions trading was adopted on 4 May 2005 and published in the Official Journal(2).
The Commission is engaged in continuous dialogue with Member States in order to propose a change to Annex III and can discuss such changes with Member States and other stakeholders at any time. Therefore, the Commission does not see the timing of these reports as a reason to change the date of 30 June 2006 for Member States’ submission of national allocation plans for the trading period 2008 to 2012. Moreover, the Commission considers it important to maintain the submission date of 30 June 2006 to provide companies with certainty about the allocation well in advance of the start of the second trading period.
The Commission does not see any reason to postpone the mid-2006 review of the directive. If the Commission were to conclude that it would be desirable that certain changes to the scheme take effect as from 2008, it has the right of initiative and could make corresponding proposals to the legislator. The Commission will prepare further guidance (in addition to COM(2003)830 final(3)) to support Member States in their preparations for the second trading period. The further guidance will be developed in the light of experience gained from the assessment of the first round of national allocation plans.
The Commission is aware of the link between the future development of the EU emissions trading scheme and the multilateral process on post-2012 climate policy. It will take this into account when considering changes to the scheme.
The Commission has established informal dialogues with officials in Switzerland, Canada, New Zealand and Japan on the issue of potentially establishing links in the future between the EU emissions trading scheme and other schemes under Article 25 of the directive. In addition, the Commission is discussing with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein the applicability of the directive in the context of the EEA Agreement. In many countries, multiple design parameters for a national scheme are still being deliberated upon and so it is not possible, at this stage, for detailed discussions to take place in the context of a linking agreement under Article 25.
(1) Directive 2003/87/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, OJ L 275, 25.10.2003.
(2) OJ L 126, 19.5.2005.
(3) Communication from the Commission on guidance to assist Member States in the implementation of the criteria listed in Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC, and on the circumstances under which force majeure is demonstrated.
According to Article 21 of the Emissions Trading Directive (Directive 2003/87/EC(1)) the Commission was supposed to have sent an implementation questionnaire to the Member States by the end of 2004, and the Member States are supposed to send back their replies by the end of June 2005. Article 22 states that the Commission may amend Annex III as regards the period from 2008 to 2012 in the light of the replies to the questionnaire. Member States have to submit their 2008‑2012 national allocation plans (NAPs) to the Commission by the end of June 2006 (Article 9), and the Commission will be called upon to propose any necessary amendments to the directive by the same date (Article 30).
Has the Commission sent out the questionnaire to the Member States as required by Article 21? If not, within what time-frame does it intend to do so?
Given that the Commission’s answer to Written Question E‑2711/04 was, to my mind, non-committal and vague, the following more specific point needs to be clarified:
Does the Commission believe that the sensible way to deal with the directive would be to put back the deadline for submitting the NAPs by at least six months, so as to enable the amendments to the annexes, which would affect the period from 2008 to 2012 (as indicated in Article 22), to be based on the findings that emerge from the questionnaire?
Does the Commission consider that the more exhaustive review of the directive scheduled for mid‑2006 should likewise be postponed because
— the date is any case too late to allow the possibility of influencing the 2008-2012 NAPs;
— the date is, on the other hand, too early to enable any information to be obtained about the international negotiations after 2012, and the EU as such might consequently be in danger on that occasion of committing itself to something that would adversely affect our competitiveness?
In addition, in its answer to Written Question E-0215/05 the Commission stated that it had been in touch with the authorities of some non-member countries listed in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol. Could it specify which countries have been involved? How does it think that different emissions trading systems could be combined? On what basis are emission allowances allocated?
Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission
The Commission decision on the questionnaire referred to in Article 21 of Directive 2003/87/EC(1) on emissions trading was adopted on 4 May 2005 and published in the Official Journal(2).
The Commission is engaged in continuous dialogue with Member States in order to propose a change to Annex III and can discuss such changes with Member States and other stakeholders at any time. Therefore, the Commission does not see the timing of these reports as a reason to change the date of 30 June 2006 for Member States’ submission of national allocation plans for the trading period 2008 to 2012. Moreover, the Commission considers it important to maintain the submission date of 30 June 2006 to provide companies with certainty about the allocation well in advance of the start of the second trading period.
The Commission does not see any reason to postpone the mid-2006 review of the directive. If the Commission were to conclude that it would be desirable that certain changes to the scheme take effect as from 2008, it has the right of initiative and could make corresponding proposals to the legislator. The Commission will prepare further guidance (in addition to COM(2003)830 final(3)) to support Member States in their preparations for the second trading period. The further guidance will be developed in the light of experience gained from the assessment of the first round of national allocation plans.
The Commission is aware of the link between the future development of the EU emissions trading scheme and the multilateral process on post-2012 climate policy. It will take this into account when considering changes to the scheme.
The Commission has established informal dialogues with officials in Switzerland, Canada, New Zealand and Japan on the issue of potentially establishing links in the future between the EU emissions trading scheme and other schemes under Article 25 of the directive. In addition, the Commission is discussing with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein the applicability of the directive in the context of the EEA Agreement. In many countries, multiple design parameters for a national scheme are still being deliberated upon and so it is not possible, at this stage, for detailed discussions to take place in the context of a linking agreement under Article 25.
(1) Directive 2003/87/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, OJ L 275, 25.10.2003.
(2) OJ L 126, 19.5.2005.
(3) Communication from the Commission on guidance to assist Member States in the implementation of the criteria listed in Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC, and on the circumstances under which force majeure is demonstrated.