COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 03.06.1998 
COM(1998) 353 final 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
CLIMATE CHANGE- TOWARDS AN EU POST-KYOTO STRATEGY 

Table of Contents 
Key issues 
- Strategy process 1 
- Implementation - Sharing the responsibilities 1 
- Flexible Mechanisms 2 
-Monitoring 2 
- External dimension 2 
-Next steps 3 
1. Introduction 4 
1.1. The impact of Kyoto 4 
1.2. Developing a strategy process 5 
2. Elements of an EU implementation strategy 6 
2.1. Main criteria 6 
2.2. A comprehensive approach on policies and measures 8 
2.2.1. Gas by gas 8 
2.2.2. Sectors 10 
2.3. Key policy areas for implementation 12 
2.4. Flexible Mechanisms 17 
2.4.1. Participation of Member States and the Community in 
an international emissions trading regime 18 
2.4.2. Use of Joint Implementation and the Clean Development 
Mechanisms in meeting EC targets 20 
2.4.3. Conclusion on application of the flexible mechanisms 
within the Community 20 
2.5. Monitoring 21 
2.5.1. Monitoring in relation to compliance with commitments 21 
2.5.2. Monitoring in relation to the flexible mechanisms 22 
3. External dimension of the EU strategy 22 
3.1. International negotiations of flexible mechanisms 22 
3.1.1. Objective in Buenos Aires 23 
3.1.2. Eligibility to participate in an open, transparent and non­
discriminatory international trading system ... 23 
3.1.3. Step-by-step approach 23 
3.1.4. Supplemental 24 
3.1.5. How to make trading work environmentally and economically 25 
3.1.6. Compliance provisions for the flexible mechanisms 25 
3.1.7. International use of project-related instruments 
(Joint implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism) 
with a view to achieving commitments 26 
3.2. Strengthened international dialogue 26 
4. Next Steps 28 

Key Issues 
Strategy process 
Following Kyoto, the European Union must now develop a post-Kyoto strategy to 
meet its Protocol commitments. The Commission does not yet have all the elements to 
put on the table a detailed implementation strategy. This Communication, therefore, is 
a first analysis of how to shape such a strategy. 
A comprehensive strategy will need to take into account all the provisions in the 
Protocol, including those that still have to be worked out, in particular the so-called 
flexible mechanisms. It will also have to incorporate into the analysis all sectors of the 
EU economy, the possible areas for action and the international dimension. 
To develop this strategy the Community and the Member States need to start an 
interactive process through which a Community framework can be established to co­
ordinate their respective actions, exchange data, track progress and identify areas for 
action to meet commitments. An important first step is agreeing on the most important 
criteria that the EU strategy must respect. 
Implementation - Sharing the responsibilities 
The Member States have the major responsibility for meeting the Kyoto reduction 
target. The Community, as a signatory of, and future party to, the Protocol, has the 
responsibility to ensure that Member States' actions are consistent with the Treaty and 
that their obligations are met under the Protocol. It also has an important role in 
complementing, reinforcing and supporting Member States' actions with common and 
co-ordinated policies and measures. 
A possible way to meet the target would be to develop cost-effective policies and 
measures across all sectors and gases to achieve this overall objective. Indicative 
targets for sectors and gases, derived from the combination of the most cost-effective 
policies and measures, could help define the responsibility for a sector and thereby 
provide a useful yardstick to monitor progress and to mobilise political action. 
As regards the flexibility arrangements, such an approach would also facilitate the 
assignment of the part of the total emissions that can be traded, if it were decided to 
authorise legal entities to participate in emissions trading. In any event, better 
integration of climate change concerns into sectoral policies is necessary as has been 
highlighted in the Communication of the Commission on environmental integration to 
the Cardiff summit. 
The EU needs to know, therefore, what measures the Member States are taking to 
meet their targets and how. The Community can contribute to this effort. 
Flexible mechanisms 
The flexible mechanisms can play an important role in meeting commitments at less 
cost, thereby safeguarding the competitiveness of EU industry. The existence of the 
EU bubble does not prevent the Community from fully participating in international 
emissions trading. Moreover, the particular Community dimension may justify further 
rules or guidelines which should be adopted in respect of the internal market, state aid 
and existing environmental legislation. An EC-wide approach to emissions trading 
could also facilitate the administrative implementation of the system and prevent new 
barriers to trade. 
At Buenos Aires, effort should focus on the minimum requirements that any Party or 
private entity needs to fulfil in order to participate in international trading. These 
rules, in particular those on compliance, should be strict enough to ensure that the 
Protocol's environmental objectives are met, and simple enough not to be 
unnecessarily burdensome. As what is agreed internationally will determine what the 
Community can do, the Community must endeavour to influence constructively the 
rules and modalities of the flexible mechanisms. 
Lack of experience of multi-country emissions trading and uncertainties regarding the 
emissions of some gases and some sources plead for a step-by-step approach. It is also 
necessary to define the Protocol's use of the word "supplemental" in respect to the 
contribution of the flexible mechanisms. 
Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism can both make a 
valuable contribution to the achievement of Community targets, but their rules and 
modalities should be coherent with those for emissions trading, at both Community 
and international levels, as well as ensure their environmental effectiveness. 
Monitoring 
The EC monitoring mechanism needs to be reinforced so that it can provide a 
framework for tracking progress, for regular assessment and peer review in order to 
ensure the EU is meeting its commitments, and for the use of the flexible 
mechanisms. Such a mechanism will require much greater Community involvement, 
in view of the need to respect the Community's own target and in view of the need to 
ensure a level playing field within the Community. 
External dimension 
The EU needs to strengthen its dialogue with other parties in order to ensure that the 
protocol is ratified. The development of an EU position on the participation of the 
developing countries and possible voluntary commitments by the most advanced will 
be of particular importance. 
Next Steps 
A number of key questions need to be resolved if an effective EU post-Kyoto strategy 
is to be put in place. 
The Council is therefore requested to: 
• endorse the main criteria for assessing an EU climate change strategy; 
• examine whether indicative sectoral targets at Community level should have 
a significant role in a post-Kyoto strategy; 
• endorse the areas highlighted in this Communication as those where action is 
needed and to adopt the necessary Community measures, starting with those 
already proposed by the Commission, and recognising the need for adoption 
of national measures; 
• endorse the introduction of the flexible mechanisms in a step-by-step and co­
ordinated way within the Community; 
• endorse the objective of the gradual inclusion of private entities over time, 
and that, as national use of the flexible mechanisms will have to respect the 
Community law, it would be desirable to have a Community framework to 
safeguard the internal market; 
• agree that the definition of supplemental will have implications for the cost-
effectiveness of the overall EU strategy; 
• endorse the need for a considerable strengthening of the Community's 
monitoring system both for tracking progress on implementation and with a 
view to implementing the flexible mechanisms; 
• endorse the orientations outlined in this Communication concerning the 
external dimension of the EU strategy as a basis for the formulation of the 
EU's negotiating position in Buenos Aires; 
• endorse the priorities set out in this document for a strengthened dialogue 
with third countries. 
The key milestones as regards the construction of an EU climate change strategy: 
• end 1998, Member States provide information on their strategies and what they 
expect from the Community; 
• first half 1999, second Communication on an EU climate strategy. 
1. Introduction 
In October 1997 the Commission presented a Communication 'Climate Change- The 
EU Approach to Kyoto^ which underpinned the European Union's (EU) negotiating 
position in Kyoto. The analysis showed that a reduction of a basket of three gases 
carbon dioxide (C02); methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20) by 15% by 2010 
compared to 1990 was technically feasible and economically manageable provided 
other industrialised countries made comparable efforts. 
The October 1997 Communication indicated that following Kyoto the Commission 
would develop a more detailed climate change strategy on the basis of a 
comprehensive analysis of the relevant elements. The present Communication 
contributes to laying the basis for the development of an effective climate change 
strategy. Taking into account the Kyoto Protocol, it addresses the most important 
elements of an EU implementation strategy and the external dimension of the EU 
strategy. 
1.1 The impact of Kyoto 
The EU succeeded in meeting a number of its negotiating goals at Kyoto, in particular 
the acceptance of legally-binding targets by the EU's main competitors and trading 
partners similar to the EU's own commitment. This ensured that Community 
competitiveness, a major concern, was safeguarded. However, in a number of 
important respects the final text of the Protocol^ that was agreed at Kyoto included a 
number of provisions, especially the so-called flexible mechanisms, which were not 
an integral part of the EU's approach at Kyoto. All these elements and their possible 
implications need to be incorporated into an EU post-Kyoto strategy. Those that 
deserve particular attention are: 
* The European Community's (EC) and Member States' emission reduction targets, 
as well as those of the other industrialised countries are legally binding under the 
Protocol whereas under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 
Change (UNFCCC) there was no legal obligation on parties to actually realise a 
return to 1990 levels of emissions3. 
• The EC's and its Member States' commitments are extended to a basket of six 
gases instead of three. The three additional gases (industrial) are hydrofluorcarbons 
(HFCs), perfluorcarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6 ). The emission 
reductions of these three gases can be measured against either a 1990 or a 1995 
baseline. The Protocol also has provisions for the inclusion of sinks, albeit still 
controversial and needing further detailed study, which would in principle allow 
1 COM(97) 481 final of 01.10.1997 
2 See Commission Staff Working Paper « An Analysis of the Kyoto Protocol » - Sec(1998) 467 of 
13.03.98 
3 The EC , however, made a commitment, albeit not a legal one, to stabilise C02 emissions in the EC 
as a whole by the year 2000 at 1990 levels. This went beyond commitments under the UNFCCC. 
the inclusion of the intake of carbon by forests and agricultural soils in calculating 
emission reductions of parties. 
. The EC and the Member States have commitments to reduce this six-gas basket by 
8% from 1990 levels in the period 2008-2012 rather than by a fixed date (i.e. 
2010). In addition, demonstrable progress has to be made by the year 2005. 
• A key provision of the Protocol for the EU is Article 4, usually referred to as the 
EC bubble, which allows the EC and the Member States to fulfil their 
commitments jointly through a differentiated commitment between Members 
States (burden sharing). The terms of this burden sharing has to be communicated 
at ratification and is effectively frozen for the first commitment period (2008-
2012). Both the EC and the Member States have legally binding targets and share 
the responsibility for meeting these targets. Providing these targets are met the EC 
will be in compliance. In the event of Member States failure to meet their total 
combined obligations this would bring the EC into non-compliance. In this context, 
the EC should play an important role in providing the framework for 
implementation and thereby facilitate the achievement of EC and Member States' 
targets. 
• There are provisions in the Protocol on a number of so-called flexible mechanisms 
- emissions trading, Joint Implementation among Annex I countries and the Clean 
Development Mechanism - details of which still have to be worked out but which 
could play an important role in meeting the targets agreed in Kyoto. 
• The Protocol also provides for reinforced reporting requirements and the 
development of a strict compliance regime which, given the interaction that is 
required between the EC and the Member States, will have an important influence 
on the development of an EU strategy. 
1.2 Developing a strategy process 
This Communication aims to set out an inter-active process for an overall post-Kyoto 
strategy within which both the Member States and Community can meet their 
commitments under the Kyoto Protocol in a co-ordinated and effective manner. In 
implementation the EC should set the framework to ensure that national and EC 
actions are mutually reinforcing to achieve an effective response to climate change. 
This process needs to cover both internal policies and measures and international 
flexible mechanisms since both will contribute to meeting targets. 
In operational terms this process means that within a Community framework: 
• the Member States must provide detailed information to the Commission on how 
they intend to meet their individual obligations and the contribution that they 
expect from the Community; 
• the Commission should take forward on-going analyses^ in co-operation with 
Member States in order to update and to expand the findings of recent 
Communications on policy issues related to climate change; 
• the Community should agree on developing a common EU view on both the 
international and domestic dimension of a number of important outstanding issues, 
in particular the flexible mechanisms and sinks; 
• monitoring emissions actively with a view to ensure that all actors in the EU are 
on track to meet their commitments. 
On the basis of all these elements the Commission will develop, in co-operation with 
all the actors, a comprehensive climate change strategy that needs to be agreed upon 
before ratification of the Protocol. At the heart of this strategy is the rapid adoption of 
existing Commission proposals that contribute to meeting the targets as well as the 
development of new policies and measures. 
2. Elements of an EU implementation strategy 
2.1 Main criteria 
A comprehensive post-Kyoto EU climate change strategy needs to meet some 
important criteria. These are: 
Environmental effectiveness. An essential requirement would be whether the strategy 
can deliver the legally binding reduction targets of the Member States and the 
Community by the agreed date. It would also have to deliver some demonstrable 
progress by 2005 and take account of post 2012 when further substantive emission 
reductions will be necessary. In view of the global nature of the problem, 
environmental effectiveness depends also on the participation of other countries that 
have signed up for binding targets. 
Cost-effectiveness. This element is important for economic and political acceptability 
of a strategy. A cost-effectiveness analysis should identify low cost measures and take 
account of secondary environmental benefits, such as reductions in local and regional 
pollution, other benefits (employment) and the long-term costs and benefits of climate 
mitigation action. Administrative costs of implementing measures should also be 
factored in. 
Equity and political acceptability. The burden sharing of the EC target is designed to 
ensure that all Member States have an equitable share of the overall EU effort. 
Account will also have to be taken of the fact that some sectors and regions of the 
Community may have to cope with significant changes as a result. 
4 The Commission expects to have at the end of June 1998 new consolidated data of greenhouse gas 
emissions for 1990-95, consistent projections for 2000 and 2010 and the results of several modelling 
exercises. These will provide a check on the business-as-usual baseline and what could happen if there 
are no new efforts. The results will permit the development of a more robust and authoritative view of 
the policy packages and the economic implications of previous Communications. 
Adaptability. New and unforeseen developments can modify policy assessment and 
progress towards targets, and hence adaptability of the policy response needs to be 
built into the strategy. 
Inclusiveness. All economic sectors and political players have a shared responsibility 
in meeting climate change goals and should contribute to meeting targets. Since 
sectors have very different structures this means a broad range of targeted instruments 
is needed. 
Consistency. The principle of integrating sustainability into EC policies will ensure 
that EU climate change strategy is consistent with these policies and the instruments 
used to implement them. 
Domestic action. Domestic policies and measures, comprising national and EC 
common and co-ordinated polices and measures, should be the major means for the 
Community to achieve its reduction target of-8% by 2008-2012 compared to 1990. 
The Council confirmed this line at the March 1998 Environment Council. 
Community role in strategy process 
In line with the subsidiarity principle action to address climate change should be taken 
at the appropriate level. Member States have a major role since they are individually 
responsible for their own targets within the agreed burden sharing which must be 
notified at ratification of the protocol by the EC. However, the fact that the 
Community has a target, the integration of the European economy and the need to 
ensure a level playing field requires that actions are also taken at the Community 
level. The Community needs to: 
• provide a coherent strategic Community framework within which the EU post-
Kyoto strategy can be shaped and agreed; 
• put in place Community common and co-ordinated measures that support and 
complement the initiatives of Member States; 
• exchange of experience and co-ordination of policy actions undertaken by the 
Member States and at Community level; 
• ensure a coherent approach to the use of all instruments, in particular the flexible 
mechanisms and their compatibility with the internal market; 
• monitor pro-actively and report back on progress and lack of progress in meeting 
targets by Member States, sectors and stakeholders. 
The Council is requested to endorse these main criteria for assessing an EU 
climate change strategy. 
2.2 A comprehensive approach on policies and measures 
The Commission is developing analysis, based on common assumptions about growth 
rates of emissions and existing policies and measures, to determine the effort required 
to move from the business-as-usual scenario to the allowed level of emissions in the 
Protocol. This analysis is being updated to include the three new industrial gases and 
more recent information on CH4 and N20. According to initial Commission analysis 
the effort required to meet the EC reduction objective under the Protocol is estimated 
to be around 550 to 600 Mtonnes of C02 equivalent.5 
It is essential that the EU strategy be based on a comprehensive assessment of how to 
achieve this effort on time. This assessment will have to cover all elements in the 
Kyoto Protocol - the level of targets, the six gases, sinks and the flexible mechanisms. 
It will need to cover all sectors of the economy and examine the policy options 
available to both the Member States and the EC. In this respect the May Energy 
Council has recognised that it is necessary to prepare a shared analysis of the 
economic impact of greenhouse gas emission reductions and to assess the scope for 
cost-effective emission reductions relating to the production and use of energy. 
2.2.1 Gas by gas 
A gas by gas analysis is useful for selecting policy options and in fact a number of 
Member States have used this approach in developing their own climate change 
strategies. A brief review is given below of the policy options available. 
Carbon dioxide 
C02 is by far the most important and most studied greenhouse gas. Emissions of this 
gas account for approximately 80% of the impact when the gases in the basket are 
weighted according to their Global Warming Potential (GWP) and are mostly linked 
to energy use and production of fossil fuels. An extensive analysis of the policy issues 
related to C02 emissions has been offered in the Communication on Climate Change -
The EU Approach for Kyoto. 
Sinks 
The Kyoto Protocol specifies that sinks including forests and agricultural soils can 
count towards meeting the target. In the first commitment period removal of C02 by 
sinks is limited to afforestation, reforestation and deforestation. Working in this 
direction is the proposed regulation on rural development in the framework of Agenda 
2000 which explicitly recognises that forestry measures should take into account 
climate change. However, in order to have a sound basis for establishing precise 
methods for the quantification and verification of sinks, a number of scientific issues 
have to be addressed. Further work of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate 
5 The use of C02 equivalent makes the greenhouse gases in the basket comparable by using the global 
warming potential (GWP) of each gas. The GWP gives an indication of the radiative potential of each 
gas. C02has a GWP of 1 whereas over a 100 year time span the GWPs for methane and nitrous oxide 
are 21 and 310 respectively ; 
Change (IPCC) is therefore needed to define the categories covered by the Protocol 
and additional categories. Once results are available it would then be possible to come 
forward with further measures on sinks. The EC's research programme, Environment 
and Climate, is contributing significantly to the international research efforts on 
which the IPCC ' s results, conclusions and assessments are made. In the Fifth RTD 
Framework Programme, research on the carbon cycle and respectively on the 
methodologies and verifying of sinks will be continued and further intensified. 
Methane 
The Communication -Strategy Paper for Reducing Methane Emissions (COM (96) 
557 and the pre-Kyoto strategy Communication identified the main sources of EC 
methane emissions from agriculture: livestock digestive processes and manure (45%), 
waste: landfill (32%) and energy: coal production and natural gas distribution (23%). 
Also a number of options were set out to reduce methane emissions, the second most 
important greenhouse gas. Methane emissions are expected to decrease significantly 
by 2010 due to on-going initiatives, mainly at Member State level, in the waste sector, 
the decline of the coal industry and agricultural developments. Additional reductions 
seem to be possible at low cost, depending on the sector, through: 
• the reduction of bio-degradable waste in landfill and methane recovery from 
landfill sites; 
• reductions in gas emissions from natural gas pipelines; 
• environmentally sound animal manure management. 
Nitrous Oxide 
This gas is produced mainly from industrial processes such as nitric and adipic acid 
production and the use of fertilisers in agriculture, however the growing use of 
catalytic converters in vehicles and in fossil fuel combustion processes also make a 
contribution. A number of low cost reduction options, particularly in the industrial 
sector, were identified in the pre-Kyoto strategy Communication. A cost-effective 
reduction potential of up to 100 Mtonnes of C02 equivalent seems to be available in 
chemical processes, mainly in nitric and adipic acid production. 
Industrial gases 
The three industrial gases included in the Kyoto Protocol have very large GWPs and 
long atmospheric lifetimes. Their potential climate impact and their inclusion in the 
basket of gases at Kyoto makes it important to address policy options in an EU 
strategy. Existing data on EC emissions for 1990/95 and for projections for 2010 need 
to be treated with care since sources are not always consistent in their methodologies. 
Nevertheless, all business-as-usual projections show an increase in both HFCs and 
SF6 and a decline in PFCs. 
HFCs were developed largely as alternatives to ozone-depeleting substances (CFCs) 
banned under the Montreal Protocol. PFC emissions are mainly a by-product of 
aluminium smelting but the semi-conductor, steel, cement and fluorine industries and 
incineration plants also contribute. SF6 emissions arise mainly from its use in high 
voltage equipment but magnesium production and a number of specialised uses in 
some Member States also contribute. 
Limitation and reduction of emissions of these industrial gases should be taken at 
Community level in order to ensure a harmonised approach. Work is underway to 
improve data and further analyse possible options in co-operation with industry, as a 
significant reduction at low cost seems to be possible in the perspective of 2010. 
2.2.2 Sectors 
In order to develop appropriate policy responses it is important to complement the gas 
by gas approach with an assessment of the sources of the various greenhouse gases by 
sector or economic activity and the potential contribution they can make to meet the 
targets. The following broad categories can be distinguished: 
Transport 
Transport accounts for around 20% of total EU emissions in 1990. Analysis shows 
that in the absence of new policy measures it is the sector with the greatest potential 
for growth in C02 emissions up to 2010. Emissions of N20 due to catalytic converters 
and HFC emissions from on-vehicle air conditioning are also expected to grow 
strongly over this period. 
Energy 
Energy use and production is by far the most important source of total greenhouse gas 
emissions, representing around 80% of 1990 EU emissions. The most important gas is 
C02 coming from fossil fuel production and use. Around a third of total EU emissions 
of C02 originates from electricity and heat production. Other greenhouse gas 
emissions notably methane emissions from coal production and natural gas leaks and 
nitrous oxide emissions due to fuel combustion contributed around 5% of total energy 
related emissions in 1990. Energy is used by other sectors such as transport, industry 
and the domestic sector, and for that reason energy related emissions need to be 
attributed to these sectors. 
Industry 
Energy related emissions of industry in 1990 amounted to around 18% and with 
improvements in efficiency these emissions are expected to fall slightly under the 
business-as-usual scenario up to 2010. If one takes into account the emissions of the 
three new gases which are mainly done by industry, industry's share of EU emissions 
is increased by about one percentage point in 1990. These new gases deserve 
particular attention, because of their increased use and their long atmospheric 
lifetime. 
10 
Domestic and tertiary sectors 
The domestic and tertiary sectors account for approximately the same share of energy 
related greenhouse gases as the industrial sector in 1990. However, the overall 
contribution of this sector is around 20% because of significant methane emissions 
from municipal waste. This sector's emissions are expected to increase under the 
business-as-usual scenario by 2010. 
Agriculture 
Agriculture is responsible for around 8% of the total EU emissions of the three main 
greenhouse gases (C02, CH4 and N20).6 but accounts for less than 2 % of the energy 
related emissions. Agriculture is the main source of methane emissions and nitrous 
oxide emissions (respectively, 45 % in 1990 and 40.3 % of EU emissions of these 
gases7). Agriculture and forestry may also play a positive role by replacing fossil fuel 
by biomass and by removing in particular C02 through sinks. 
Conclusion 
The above analysis indicates that greenhouse gas emissions are linked to a vast variety 
of economic activities. Any successful policy strategy therefore, will have to be 
comprehensive and for that reason, will have to involve the stakeholders belonging to 
different economic sectors. In this context, a rational approach would consist of 
identifying throughout the economy a range of cost-effective policy measures. On this 
basis it would then be possible to identify indicative emission objectives for the 
sectors mentioned above. 
The elaboration of such indicative sectoral targets would have some attractive 
features. Firstly, it would allow the mobilisation of political action by defining the 
respective responsibilities of and expectations towards the major economic sectors. 
Secondly, the setting of indicative sectoral targets would undoubtedly make the 
monitoring of progress more effective and could therefore become an additional 
anchorpoint within a reinforced monitoring system (see section 2.5). And thirdly, 
sectoral objectives could also be a useful element in an emissions trading system, in 
particular in view of allocating initial emission allowances to legal entities (see 
section 2.4). 
However, the use of sectoral targets also represents some drawbacks. They may play a 
useful function in the policy setting only in as far as they are set and regularly 
reviewed on the basis of cost-effectiveness considerations. In view of the fact that 
Member States may have their own national sectoral targets and strategies, any 
indicative sectoral targets at Community level would have to be made consistent with 
6 Data expressed in C02 equivalents by taking into account the Global Warming Power for 100 years. 
Source: EUROSTAT. "Statistics in focus" based on European Environment Agency data related to the 
draft EU Communication to the UNFCCC, 1998. 
7 EUROSTAT. "Statistics in focus" based on European Environment Agency data related to the draft 
EU Communication to the UNFCCC, 1998. 
11 
them. Account will also have to be taken of the internal burden sharing of the EC 
target. For all those reasons, more attention needs to be given to the question of 
whether indicative sectoral targets should play a significant role in the future 
Community strategy. 
The Council is requested to examine whether indicative sectoral targets at 
Community level should have a significant role in a post-Kyoto strategy. 
2.3 Key policy areas for implementation 
In addressing climate change there are a wide range of policies and measures that 
have been developed at both national and Community level which depend on a broad 
range of instruments The pre-Kyoto Communication and some recent strategy 
documents, notably in the energy and transport areas, indicate a mix of cost-effective 
policies and measures and a broad range of policy instruments for achieving emission 
reductions. 
In their past national climate strategies Member States have already identified a 
number of areas for action, as well as ways to implement Community measures. In the 
framework of subsidiarity, burden sharing and the emphasis on domestic action most 
of which presently is done by member States; national measures, reflecting the 
different situations of Member States, will be to the fore in the development of a post-
Kyoto strategy. 
The EC has to ensure that measures being taken at both the Member State and 
Community level are consistent with other Community policies and that they respect 
the Treaty. Further analysis within an agreed framework will help to refine existing 
options and to identify others for implementation, particularly for the medium term, 
and to determine what is best done at national and Community levels respectively. 
The Community, being responsible under the Kyoto-Protocol for the fulfilment of the 
reduction obligation it has subscribed to, needs to establish instruments which ensure 
that the overall reduction is effectively achieved. If instruments in the area of external 
trade, agriculture or affecting the single market are to be used they can only be 
decided at Community level. In other areas where there are common policies such as 
transport, energy or taxation, Community measures obliging Member States to take 
certain measures may prove necessary if action undertaken by Member States on their 
own initiative appear to be insufficient to ensure the fulfilment of the obligation of the 
Community. In addition the Community can play a catalyst role for actions taken by 
Member States. The Community has already shown to be a forum for exchange of 
experience and research results. Taking a longer perspective, scientific analysis that 
has contributed to the success of Kyoto should be further developed in the framework 
of the 5th RTD Framework Programme, in order to underpin relevant policy decisions. 
12 
It should be underlined that if demonstrable progress is to be realised by 2005 then 
certain elements need to be in place by 2002 which requires a confirmation to move 
on certain actions now. The main priority areas for action at the national and EC 
levels for the main EC sectors are identified below. A number of key measures which 
can only be done at EC level are singled out for implementation. 
Energy 
In its conclusions on the energy response to Kyoto (11.5.1998), the Council of Energy 
Ministers noted that "in the field of energy the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions 
requires responses such as a sustained commitment to energy efficiency and energy 
saving, developing the use of safe energy sources with low or no C02 emissions 
within the framework of Member States' policies, and reducing the impact of the use 
of energy sources with high carbon content". Such measures, for example, could be 
useful in industrial and power generating activities. 
Areas for priority action at this stage are set out in the three recent strategy 
Communications8 on Combined Heat and Power, Energy Efficiency and the White 
Paper on Renewables. The Energy Council urged the Commission to continue its 
work in these fields and to submit concrete proposals on the development of such 
measures where appropriate. In this respect, priorities for specific action include: 
• Measures to promote a substantially increased use of renewables, aiming to double 
their share in the Community's energy balance to 12% by 2010, including a 
proposal for a harmonised Community framework for fair access of electricity 
from renewables to the grid, increased support for biomass within the Common 
Agricultural Policy, and greater emphasis on renewables in the revised Structural 
Funds. 
Promotion of rational use of energy, focussing in particular on efficiency measures 
in the building sector (including amending Directive 93/76/EEC), electrical 
appliances, lighting and office equipment, long-term agreements with industry, 
promotion of energy services, dissemination of information on best practice and 
further development of financing instruments. It is important that the revised 
proposed Directive on Rational Planning techniques should be adopted. Energy 
efficiency must also be promoted in other relevant Community policies and 
subsidies and tax schemes counteracting efficient energy use should be 
progressively reduced. 
Measures to promote the use of CHP, aiming to exploit achievable potential of 
doubling the share of CHP in the Union to 18% by 2010, including the 
encouragement of voluntary agreements with industry, improved technology 
procurement, and increased and higher quality information dissemination. 
8 COM(97)514 final; COM(98)246 final; COM(97)599 final. 
13 
Action is required both at Member State and Community level in all these areas in 
order to adopt and implement common and coordinated policies and measures. The 
ALTENER II and SAVE II Programmes will provide support for some of the 
Community actions, and increased use will be made of other existing Community 
programmes towards the objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the 
energy field. 
Transport 
In the transport area the broad priority areas have been mapped out in the 
Communication on Transport and C02 (COM(98)204). The measures presented in this 
Communication are estimated to be capable of at least halving C02 emission growth 
by 2008-2012. The main priority areas where low cost emission reductions can be 
achieved are: 
• measures to reduce emissions from passenger cars; 
• progress with fair and efficient pricing in transport; 
• the completion of the internal market in rail transport; 
• the integration of the various modes of transport, both in freight and in passenger 
transport, into an intermodal transport system. 
There are many measures falling in these four categories that should be taken at local 
and national level and would entail significant transport, economic and environmental 
gains. Examples are policies to promote best practice in freight transport, improved 
urban transport systems and the development of adequate public transport 
infrastructure. 
However, some measures would have to be developed at Community level because 
they have a direct impact on the internal market or are covered by the Common 
Transport Policy. The Commission has already tabled proposals and drafted action 
programmes on some of these measures, but progress has, so far, been slow. 
Important examples are a proposal aiming at the further opening up the rail market 
made in 1995 (COM(95)337), a proposal from 1996 for amending the Community 
system for road charges and taxes (COM(96)331) and a Communication on Freight 
Intermodality published in 1997 (COM(97)243final). The Council has not yet been 
able to decide on the first two proposals and has, so far, not had any discussion on the 
Communication on Freight Intermodality and the attached action programme. 
The Commission considers that urgent progress on these and other proposals is 
required to further the efficiency of the transport system as well as its environmental 
sustainability. 
As regards international aviation the Commission is of the opinion that the 
Community and the Member States should act together to negotiate the limitation or 
reduction of greenhouse gases with IC AO. To that effect the Commission has recently 
adopted a Communication (COM (98) 265) in which one of the aims is to secure an 
endorsement of an ICAO workplan aimed at securing internationally agreed 
reductions of emissions from aviation. 
14 
Agriculture 
In the agricultural sector the main areas for action derive from Agenda 2000. In this 
sector there is the need for more quantitative analyses on how the evolution of the 
agricultural markets, as well as the existing and proposed rural develoment measures, 
will influence climate change. 
The Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) is a key EU common policy and actions taken 
in this sector to address climate change will have to be taken within a Community 
framework. However, there are also a number of possibilities for action under the 
CAP which are relevant for climate change, notably in the field of rural development, 
that are the main responsibility of national and regional authorities. In the context of 
Agenda 2000, there are a number of concrete EC common measures, as well as other 
measures that provide a wider scope for action at the national and regional level, that 
would contribute to reducing emissions in this sector. 
Priority areas for action by the EC are: 
• intensified research in the framework of the Fifth Framework Research 
Programme; 
• using appropriate afforestation measures in the field of rural development; 
• promoting renewable energy crops in the framework of the voluntary set-aside, 
notably by increasing or differentiating the voluntary set-aside rate in the case of 
non-food production; increasing state aid ceilings for multiannual non-food crops 
and through rural development measures for the use of Member States; 
• for methane emission reduction: (a) by using the rural development measures, 
especially investment support, to promote better storage and treatment of animal 
manure; and, (b) by encouraging research on improved feeding of animals; 
• for nitrous oxide emission reduction: (a) by promoting a decrease in the use of 
fertilisers, the main agricultural source of nitrous oxide, through the price 
reductions proposed in Agenda 2000; (b) by increasing support to agro-
environment measures to ensure a further reduction and a better use of fertilisers; 
(c) by maintaining and enhancing low-input farming systems and other sustainable 
agricultural practices through the development of the Less-Favoured Area 
Scheme; and, (d) in the framework of the proposed Regulation concerning rules 
for direct support schemes, Member States may be willing to make direct 
payments conditional upon the respect of requirements concerning fertilisation. 
Industry 
The potential for reducing C02 emissions in the industrial sector is well researched, 
and most energy intensive sectors of EU industry have improved energy efficiency 
and thereby reduced emissions. However, there is still scope for further energy 
efficiency gains and sectors such as aluminium, cement, steel, chemicals and motor 
vehicles are active in promoting technological improvements to reduce emissions. 
Industry can also play an important role in providing the right products for energy 
15 
efficiency improvements in buildings and the domestic sector The Kyoto Protocol 
presents a major new challenge for industry: apart from the reduction of C02 
emissions, powerful greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide and the three new 
industrial gases require immediate investigations and commitments by industry 
There are many measures addressing the areas for action referred to above. Given the 
differences in industrial structure in the Member States and the different progress 
made to date in reducing emissions in this sector in the Member States, many of the 
actions to reduce emissions will be taken by member States. Nevertheless, there are a 
number of measures that need to be taken at Community level for internal market 
reasons or because with a Community measure the overall reduction of emissions 
would be greater. 
• Proposal on a Directive on Electrical and Electronic Waste which could be a 
useful vehicle for reducing HFC emissions. 
• Negotiation and conclusion of Environmental Agreements with specific sectors 
that are major emitters of C02 and other greenhouse gases at the EC level are also a 
flexible option. C02 reduction for passenger cars is a notable example but the 
Commission is engaged in discussion with other sectors such as the detergent 
manufacturers with reduced energy consumption from detergent use a major goal; 
• Development of a framework covering all fields of production and use of the three 
industrial gases for their emission reduction and the development of 
environmentally sound alternatives. 
Cross- sectoral policies 
There are a number of cross-sectoral policies that are particularly appropriate for 
action at EC level. Some of the most important are 
• The proposal for a Council Directive re-structuring the Community framework 
for the taxation of energy products (COM (97) 30 which enlarges the scope of the 
Community minimum rate system beyond mineral oils to cover all energy 
products. This proposal would also have direct environmental benefits and would 
also give Member States the option to differentiate national taxes according to, 
inter alia, C02 emissions. This proposal should be viewed as a separate, but 
complementary, tool to the flexible mechanisms, given that it is first and foremost 
an internal market instrument. 
• Among various actions on waste the Directive on the Landfill of Waste. Its aim is 
to reduce the biodegradable component of municipal waste that is being landfilled, 
thereby reducing methane emissions as well as ensuring that landfill gas from both 
new and existing landfills is collected and controlled. It would have an impact 
notably on the domestic and tertiary sector. 
• The Fifth RTD Framework Programme (1998-2002) will cover, through its 
specific programme "Preserving the ecosystem" and one of its key-action on 
16 
"Global Change, climate and biodiversity" (400 millions ECU), the scientific and 
socio-economic research regarding climate detection and impacts assessment as 
well as mitigation and adaptation responses to climate change. Such research is 
intended to provide analytical underpinning to the identification, evaluation and 
implementation of effective, cost-efficient and equitable policy options to tackle 
climate change in the short and long-term period. The Fifth RTD Framework 
Programme will also cover the R&D and the innovation policy related to clean and 
efficient energy technologies. This activity is expected to deliver, already in the 
short and medium term, new technologies which could have a substantial impact 
on greenhouse gas reduction; complementary innovation measures taking into 
account socio-economic assessment would help to strengthen the deployment of 
these new technologies into the market. Two relevant key actions of the specific 
programme "Preserving the ecosystem" address energy related issues ^Cleaner 
energy systems, including renewables" and "Economic and efficient energy for a 
competitive Europe") with a total amount of approximately 1 billion ECU. Another 
specific programme entitled "Competitive and sustainable growth" also includes 
key actions dealing mainly with new technologies in industry and transport which 
could have a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions reduction. 
The Council is requested to endorse the areas highlighted in this document as those 
where action is needed and to adopt the necessary Community measures, starting with 
those already proposed by the Commission. The Council should further recognise the 
need for adoption of national measures. 
2.4 Flexible Mechanisms 
The Kyoto Protocol allows for the use of three flexible mechanisms: international 
emissions trading, Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism. 
• International emissions trading allows Parties to the Protocol who reduce 
emissions below their assigned amount to sell part of their emission allowance to 
other Parties. If Parties need an additional emissions allowance, they can buy the 
extra from other Parties who have spare capacity and are willing to sell. 
• Joint Implementation is a specific form of emission trading at project level. Annex 
I Parties to the Convention can undertake projects (e.g. fuel switching for a power 
station) with other Annex I Parties which result in additional emission reductions 
in the country where the project is located. Those reductions can be used to 
increase the emission allowance of the Party financing the project, while the 
emission allowance of the Party where the project is carried out would be 
correspondingly reduced. 
• The Clean Development Mechanism is also project based, but the Parties where 
the projects are located and the reductions undertaken do not have quantified 
commitments. For that reason, projects not only need approval by the Parties 
concerned, but emission reductions resulting from them must also be certified by 
independent agents. 
17 
The rules and modalities for use of these mechanisms have to be further defined at 
COP4 in November 1998. The Community and the Member States have to decide 
how they intend to use these mechanisms both within the Community and 
internationally. Coherence needs to be ensured between what the Community intends 
to do and what international rules are agreed at COP4. 
2.4.1 Participation of Member States and the Community in an international 
emissions trading regime. 
The specific role for the Community in emissions trading within the EU 
The EC bubble is an open system: it is a way of distributing the effort between EU 
Member States so as to ensure that the EC's target under the Protocol is fulfilled. 
There is, therefore, compatibility between the EU bubble and international flexible 
mechanisms. To the extent that the EC and the Member States actually use the 
flexible mechanisms, the domestic action within the EC to fulfil its "assigned 
amount" will lead to emissions within the Community's territory below or above the -
8% target. The amount by which the actual emissions differ from the initial assigned 
amount will depend on whether the EC is a net acquirer of emissions credits or 
permits from outside the EU, or a net transferor. 
The bubble agreement to the Protocol will indicate the assigned amount for each 
Member State at the beginning of the period. The use of emissions trading (as well as 
Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism) will increase or 
decrease this assigned amount according to the acquisitions and disposals of each 
Member State (directly or through authorised entities). 
Not everybody nor every sector would be interested necessarily in participating in 
emissions trading arrangements, but everybody and every sector should contribute in 
different ways to the attainment of targets, whether through taxation, energy-
efficiency standards, voluntary agreements, or a combination of these and other 
instruments. Different measures each have their own attractions, and are targeted at 
particular sectors. For those entities that are to be involved in trading, however, it is 
clear that a legally binding assigned amount of the particular gas or gases open for 
trading needs to be set quantitatively. A comprehensive trading system across sectors 
would help ensure that the overall reduction target is met in a cost-effective way. 
Internal market and state aid 
For internal market reasons, it would appear to be preferable for an EC-wide permit 
market to be considered. It would not be desirable to have widely different trading 
arrangements in different Member States. The Community's role could be twofold. 
On the one hand, to co-ordinate the actions of the Member States, and, on the other 
hand, to harmonise the trading system to the extent necessary for the proper 
functioning of the internal market. To avoid distortion of competition and 
discrimination, the EC needs a common framework, setting common principles and 
minimum rules, similar to those that exist on state aid or for the common Value 
Added Tax system. 
18 
Of particular relevance is the state aid context as competition within the internal 
market coulo>be distorted due to different modalities of national trading programmes. 
The issue of state aid is intricately related to the crucial question of whether, and to 
what extent, private entities are allowed to participate in emissions trading. The 
Protocol allows each Party to choose whether to participate in the international trading 
system or not. Any authorisation allowing private entities to trade will have to respect 
the choice of the Member States who have, as Parties to the Protocol, to take the 
decision whether to trade at all. Differences of approach within the Community could 
themselves give rise to private companies facing different economic conditions in one 
Member State from what comparable businesses face in another Member State, 
thereby potentially undermining the internal market. 
If a Member State buys permits on the open market, and then gives them to certain 
enterprises of its own industry for free or without imposing conditions, then this could 
constitute state aid and would need to be authorised in advance by the Commission, 
since it could distort competition with enterprises in other Member States, where 
industry must buy the permits it needs at the market price. Clear guidelines will have 
to be established in this context. Similarly, the initial allocation of permits to 
individual companies, in the case that private entities are authorised to trade, will also 
need to be in conformity with the state aid rules: in the Commission's view the 
allocation should be transparent, non-distortionary and based on common criteria and 
principles. The market will also have to be left open to new entrants who have not 
received credits at the time of the initial allocation. Particularly with respect to initial 
allocations but also in respect to rules for monitoring and compliance, there must be 
no discrimination between participants of a trading system that would infringe the 
internal market. Finally, account must also be taken of the specificities of the 
Common Agricultural Policy. 
Step-by-step approach 
Theoretically the Community could immediately opt for a comprehensive internal 
emissions trading scheme covering all gases and all economic sectors. However, in 
view of the lack of national and international experience, the Community and its 
Member States may prefer to follow a prudent step-by-step approach in the 
development of their internal emissions trading. Trading requires a high degree of 
certainty in monitoring actual emissions. There are three different ways of 
implementing this step-by-step approach: (1) by limiting the number of gases, as, at 
present, C02 emissions emanating from certain sources are subject to less uncertainty 
than other gases; (2) trading could in the first instance be limited to the best known 
emissions sources, such as large combustion plants and big emitters; and, (3) although 
the possibility of allowing private entities to trade is being considered, it may be 
appropriate to limit, trading initially to Parties. In view of enhancing overall 
effectiveness, there is a clear case for Member States to move towards similar regimes 
in a co-ordinated way. 
19 
2.4.2 Use of Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanisms in 
meeting EC commitments * 
Contrary to emissions trading as described above, Joint Implementation and the Clean 
Development Mechanism are project-based instruments that allow for the creation of 
emission reduction units or certified emission reductions. They can be added to the 
assigned amount of Parties and therefore can contribute, to a certain extent, to 
compliance with the EC commitments. Joint Implementation is restricted to projects 
undertaken between the Annex I Parties (i.e. those Parties who have targets set under 
the Protocol), and the Clean Development Mechanism concerns projects undertaken 
in countries of non-Annex I Parties to the Convention. Consequently, the credits 
earned by Annex B Parties under the Clean Development Mechanism would increase 
the total allowed emissions of Annex I Parties, although this has to be balanced 
against the decrease of emissions that a well-designed and operated Clean 
Development Mechanism will produce in non-Annex I countries. 
The Protocol allows Parties to authorise any legal entity to participate in Joint 
Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism activities. In particular for 
those companies who do not accept the imposition of an initial emission allowance of 
gas that they can trade, Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism 
would offer them flexibility on a project basis. However, private company 
involvement will still require a strict project and certified emission reduction unit 
tracking and accounting system at both national and Community level. 
Furthermore, it should be considered whether project funding for Joint 
Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism could be made in part 
through public funds (including EU funds). In general, there is a need to ensure that 
Clean Development Mechanism projects go further than state of the art investments, 
and that projects and technologies that go beyond the "no regrets" options are 
implemented and transferred. Finally, Member State and Community aid programmes 
to support Clean Development Mechanism activities should result in reductions in 
emissions that are additional to any that would occur in the absence of the 
programmes, nor should they result in the diversion of aid flows. 
2.4.3 Conclusion on application of the flexible mechanisms within the 
Community 
Under the Protocol, international emissions trading will not become operational 
before the year 2008. However, the Community could set up its own internal trading 
regime by 2005 as an expression of its determination to promote the achievement of 
targets in a cost-effective way. This would provide the Community with invaluable 
practical experience of trading, and its accompanying monitoring regime, in a multi-
country context. Such an internal trading regime would not fall under the rules and 
modalities of international emissions trading under the Kyoto Protocol, and nor would 
it be designed to generate early credits for when international trading starts. Such a 
Community emissions trading regime would rather ensure that the Community will be 
better prepared at the start of international emissions trading with effect from 2008. 
Finally, emissions trading introduced within a single Member State would be a 
20 
domestic policy and measure that would not fall under the rules and modalities of 
international emissions trading under the Kyoto Protocol. 
As all the Member States are Parties to the Protocol, the intra-EC trading 
arrangements will have to be in conformity with the rules and modalities agreed in 
Buenos Aires for emissions trading at an international level. Consequently, any 
definition of the Protocol's requirement that the contribution of the flexible 
mechanisms is "supplemental" will also have to be respected for trading between 
Member States. 
The Council is requested to endorse the introduction of the flexible 
mechanisms in a step-by-step and co-ordinated way within the 
Community. 
The Council is requested to endorse the objective of the gradual inclusion 
of private entities over time, and that, as national use of the flexible 
mechanisms will have to respect the Community law, it would be desirable 
to have a Community framework to safeguard the internal market. 
The Council is further requested to agree that the definition of 
supplemental will have implications for the cost-effectiveness of the overall 
EU strategy. 
2.5 Monitoring 
2.5.1 Monitoring in relation to compliance with commitments 
Progress needs to be monitored. In this respect the EC monitoring mechanism has an 
important role to play in the development and implementation of an EU strategy 
owing to the fact that both the Member States and EC have joint responsibility for 
meeting their commitments under the Kyoto protocol. 
So far the monitoring mechanism has been relatively weak and data has been late. The 
revised monitoring mechanism9 being adopted that enters into force in 1999 will help. 
It requires, inter alia, the Member States to provide information on the effects of 
measures on their emissions so that the Commission can assess annually whether the 
EC is on course to meet its Kyoto commitments. The monitoring mechanism should 
be a pro-active basis for continuing dialogue, tracking progress according to indicative 
sectoral targets which will show each year whether demonstrable progress is being 
made, and whether all sectors are contributing as expected, towards the attainment of 
targets. Continuous assessment, peer pressure and review between all the participants 
- the Commission and Member States - will ensure that necessary action to improve 
performance is taken if objectives look as though they are not being achieved. 
9 Proposal for a Council Decision amending Decision 93/389/EEC for a monitoring mechanism of the 
Community for C02and other greenhouse gases -COM(98) 108 final of 02.03.98 
21 
Certainly there is a need for enhanced dialogue within the monitoring mechanism 
framework even before the revised monitoring mechanism delivers given that the EU 
needs to show demonstrable progress by 2005. Also in this framework the question of 
whether we should set interim Community target for 2005 to help ensure that 
measures we need are adopted in time needs to be considered. If the EU wants to 
continue to drive the process forward and recognises that Kyoto targets are but a first 
step, there is a case for setting an ambitious target for 2005 which gives the EU 
certainty that the EC will meet its legal commitments and be ready to go further in the 
second commitment period. 
2.5.2 Monitoring in relation to the flexible mechanisms 
Use of the flexible mechanisms, by Parties and, in particular, by private entities to the 
extent that they are allowed to participate, must be accompanied by a robust and 
transparent monitoring system. Such a monitoring system should also cover 
accounting for transfers, and consequential adjustment of assigned amounts as 
appropriate, verification of emission reduction units and of certified emission 
reductions obtained through Joint Implementation and the Clean Development 
Mechanism. In addition, compliance (including eligibility to use each of the flexible 
mechanisms) needs to be settled. In view of the need to ensure a level playing field 
within the Community, it is therefore unavoidable that such a comprehensive 
monitoring system would require much greater Community involvement. The 
Community monitoring system that will be applicable from 2000 on will, therefore, in 
all likelihood have to be substantially modified. 
Once in the commitment period (2008-2012), the Community's monitoring 
mechanism will help ensure that the Community as a Party complies with its legally 
binding target, as well as with the rules and procedures that will have been agreed on 
for the flexible mechanisms. 
The Council is requested to endorse the need for a considerable 
strengthening of the Community's monitoring system both for tracking 
progress on implementation and with a view to implementing the flexible 
mechanisms. 
3. External dimension of the EU strategy 
3.1 International negotiations of flexible mechanisms 
3.1.1 Objective in Buenos Aires 
In this Communication, the Commission puts forward a set of guiding principles on 
international trading and other flexible measures. At the Fourth Conference of the 
Parties (COP4) in Buenos Aires, it is expected that a position on the main trading 
principles, and possibly modalities, will be agreed. The Community should do its 
22 
utmost to ensure that there is a positive outcome to COP4 that clearly establishes the 
modalities and rules for use of the flexible mechanisms at an international level, as 
well as laying the foundations for an enhanced participation of non-Annex I countries 
in global greenhouse gas reduction efforts. The Community will have to decide after 
Buenos Aires to what extent stricter internal Community rules than those agreed at 
COP4 are warranted in respect, in particular, of the internal market and monitoring. 
Irrespective of whether any individual Member State ultimately wishes to use the 
flexible mechanisms or not, a firm and common EC position towards the 
establishment of minimum rules for the international trading system should be 
presented at Buenos Aires. 
3.1.2 Eligibility to participate in an open, transparent and non-discriminatory 
international trading system 
Although the Protocol says that the Parties may trade, they do not need to do so even 
if eligible. During the course of the budget period, a Party may decide that it needs to 
trade if its target is to be reached. Such flexibility can only be preserved, however, if 
Parties fulfil all eligibility criteria for trading. 
The EC and the Member States have an interest in establishing and fulfilling the 
eligibility criteria for all Parties involved in trading, irrespective of whether they wish 
to trade or not, as this will keep options open for the future. 
The EU should insist on an international greenhouse gas trading system that is open, 
transparent and non-discriminatory. Available permits should be accessible to all 
Parties and other authorised entities wishing to acquire them, and there should be an 
open information flow on the terms and reporting of trades, which must be made 
regularly and be accessible to all Parties and other stakeholders. 
3.1.3 Step-by-step approach 
There is a lack of practical experience with the flexible mechanisms. If too much is 
done too soon, the international trading system may prove unworkable. 
Internationally, the EU should therefore urge that a gradual approach be adopted, both 
in terms of participants, in terms of quantities, gases and sources. This is to reflect the 
uncertainties related to the emissions of certain gases and certain sources, and to 
reflect that accountability of the Parties must be maintained as it is the Parties who 
remain responsible for their own compliance. One option would be to limit, for the 
first period 2008-2012, the number of actors involved in trading to Parties, and, if 
trading by private entities is allowed by the rules and modalities, to initially restrict 
trading to large sources whose emissions are more certain and who are able to monitor 
their emissions with satisfactory accuracy. This step-by-step approach to trading could 
start with emissions that can be accurately measured, such as C02 emissions. 
23 
In the case of Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism, 
uncertainties need to be addressed through project criteria, and agreed methods for the 
verification of reductions. 
It may be decided, at an international level, that private entities could be involved in 
trading. As it stands, the Protocol confines trading to the Parties themselves, whereas 
private entities may also participate in Joint Implementation and the Clean 
Development Mechanism. The involvement of private entities in trading would, on 
the one hand, enhance the economic benefits of trading, but, on the other hand, would 
increase the complexity of regulation and control to ensure that the environmental 
goals of the Protocol are met. Whatever the decision on who can trade, Parties should 
be free to authorise or not private entities within their jurisdiction, as long as strict 
minimum requirements, to be agreed at the level of the Conference of the Parties, are 
fulfilled. 
3.1.4 Supplemental 
The reason for the Protocol's inclusions of the word "supplemental" is to ensure that 
the main means of meeting commitments agreed in Kyoto should be provided by 
domestic action. Domestic policies and measures do have benefits other than reducing 
greenhouse gases. Such benefits include the reduction of other pollutants, the 
improvement of urban air quality, for example, and even beneficial effects in other 
policy areas (reductions of road congestion, security of energy supply, lowering of 
statutory charges on labour with tax receipts and encouragement of technological 
development). Furthermore, some measures, such as taxes on energy, have other 
objectives than environmental protection. 
One option to ensure that emission trading is "supplemental" is to limit the net 
amount of the assigned amount that can be traded. Such a limit, or "concrete 
ceiling"10, on all three flexible mechanisms taken together is one way to ensure that 
real reductions are achieved by the introduction of other policies and measures, while 
still benefiting from the cost savings that can be derived from the flexibility offered 
by emissions trading and the other flexible mechanisms. For this reason, and to 
preserve the maximum flexibility within a cap, the Community should continue to 
insist on a common ceiling as a condition of participating in the international trading 
system, but that this ceiling should be applicable to the Community as a whole. 
If the Community wishes to have a quantitative ceiling, it should develop a clear basis 
for fixing the amount of the cap at a particular level, taking cost-effectiveness into 
account. On the other hand, the cap may not be necessary if it is judged that the rules 
and modalities on international emissions trading are sufficiently strong to guarantee 
supplementally and an effective Protocol. A cap could create an administrative 
burden, in so far as checks would have to be carried out to ensure compliance with the 
cap, and, in limiting the degree of flexibility, the cost-effectiveness of trading would 
be reduced. Similar arguments would apply when establishing the quantitative or 
qualitative limits on the "part" of credits that can be brought into the trading system 
10 "Concrete ceiling" is the terminology used in the March 1998 Environment Council Conclusions, 
24 
via projects under the Clean Development Mechanism with countries that do not have 
a legally binding emissions target under the Protocol. However, for the Clean 
Development Mechanism, the wish to encourage the participation of non-Annex I 
countries is important. 
3.1.5 How to make trading work environmentally and economically 
Strict monitoring of trading is necessary for Parties to be sure that they will fulfil their 
international commitments. Equally, adequate monitoring of actual emissions is 
necessary to ensure that trading is matched by the seller making emission reductions 
that go further than what is necessary to comply with the assigned amount allocated to 
him. For emissions trading to be of real benefit to the environment, whatever permits 
one Party buys should be matched by a corresponding reduction in emissions by the 
Party that is selling. 
The certification and tracking of trades, ex-ante and ex-post evaluation of trading 
systems and participants will be necessary if there is to be widespread confidence in 
the trading mechanisms and the purchase of credits or permits under the system. 
Transfers could be reported annually, published by the Secretariat and, if necessary, 
broken down by year of emission, country of origin, and gas. Parties could also be 
required to report on national mechanisms for the certification and verification of 
emission reduction credits. Such rules of operation could be compared to a stock 
exchange or comparable well-structured and organised market, where there are 
obligations designed to maintain the transparency and efficiency of the market. 
Similarly, ex-post verification by independent bodies should be envisaged as part of 
the transparency and reliability of the trading mechanism. 
Those strict rules would have to be adopted by all the Parties involved in international 
trading. In this context, the rules must be co-ordinated as much as possible at 
Community level. 
3.1.6 Compliance provisions for the flexible mechanisms 
Under the Protocol, Parties (including the EC as Party) are responsible for 
compliance. It would be unwise to depart from this principle, even if it is decided that 
private entities are allowed to trade as well as Parties. 
As a corollary to monitoring and evaluation, and apart from the general compliance 
provisions for the Protocol as a whole, specific compliance provisions are necessary 
to ensure that the flexible mechanisms deliver environmental benefit. Compliance 
should include international sanctions, even penalties, which can be imposed on those 
trading if they fail to comply with the rules. Sanctions could include suspension from 
trading until compliance with the trading rules has been re-established, the automatic 
deduction from the next budget period of emissions which exceed the allowed 
amounts after trades have been taken into account, and even the possible annulment of 
trades that are not matched by emissions reductions (so called "buyer beware"). 
Penalties could possibly include a stricter target being required of a Party in the 
25 
subsequent budget period. Clearly, the respective responsibilities of actors in trading 
will have to be established, so as to avoid liability litigation. 
3.1.7 International use of project-related instruments (Joint Implementation and 
the Clean Development Mechanism) with a view to achieving commitments. 
To the extent that Joint Implementation gives rise to emission reductions in the 
recipient country which are transferred to the investor's country, the transfer is similar 
to an acquisition of part of an assigned amount through trading by the investor's 
country, except that the part would not have been bought, but earned through actual 
investments in projects. The COP should define further guidelines. The guidelines for 
Joint Implementation and the rules and modalities for the Clean Development 
Mechanism should be consistent (e.g. methods for defining project baselines, for 
verification of the emissions reduction achieved and other project related criteria). 
Analogously, the cost-effectiveness could be enhanced through the tradeability of 
certificates generated by the projects. 
For the Clean Development Mechanism, there can be no corresponding downward 
adjustment of the target of the recipient country, given the absence of any legally 
binding target for this country. The credits have to be compared with an estimated 
reduction on the basis of specific criteria rather than in relation to targets. This 
justifies why some additional requirements might be necessary for the Clean 
Development Mechanism. In particular, definition of the "part" that the Clean 
Development Mechanism can contribute is a priority, in view, among other things, of 
the possibility to generate early credits between 2000 and 2008. This part could be 
limited in order to place more emphasis on domestic action of Annex I countries. It is 
also essential to define the key criteria for "additional" which, if not carefully defined, 
could undermine the environmental effectiveness of Clean Development Mechanism 
activities. 
The Council is asked to endorse the orientations outlined above on the 
external dimension of the EU strategy as a basis for the formulation of the 
EU's negotiating position in Buenos Aires. 
3.2. Strengthened international dialogue 
In the run-up to Buenos Aires and beyond the EU needs to be effective in reaching 
out to its partners and so it needs an external strategy. A continuing dialogue with 
the main players in the negotiations will help in communicating the EU position and 
rallying support to it as well as reaching a better understanding of third countries' 
position. The key topics of the dialogue are signature, ratification, domestic actions, 
emissions trading, clean development mechanism, participation by developing 
countries, helping countries to meet their existing commitments and international 
monitoring and compliance. 
26 
As we work on completing the outstanding issue under the Protocol and in preparing 
implementation, all Member States, the Presidency and Commission, operating 
within an EU co-ordinated framework, should use their resources effectively to 
ensure that partner countries receive consistent and specific messages that reflect the 
priorities of the EU and the specific concerns of these countries. 
A major aim of the EU is the entry into force of the Protocol and so it will therefore 
need to give particular attention to USA and Russia who because of their high share 
in Annex I emissions will have an important influence on this. Equally the EU must 
strengthen its dialogue with all other industrialised country. Russia is not only 
important for ratification, but along with Ukraine poses particular issues since these 
are the only countries whose assigned amount are likely to be significantly above 
their domestic emissions in the first commitment period 2008 - 2012. 
In the run up to Kyoto the EU developed an effective dialogue with the Associated 
countries which need to be continued and strengthened. In this context it will also be 
essential to discuss possible joint implementation projects with them. Under the terms 
of the Protocol the Associated States will not be counted as part of the Community -
8% target for the period 2008 -2012. Nevertheless as they work towards accession the 
evolving acquis on climate change will be a major focus of debate. 
Turkey and the new OECD members Korea and Mexico are important for the EU's 
objective of gradually extending the number of countries with binding commitments. 
The EU needs to enter into a constructive dialogue about the possible nature and level 
of commitments these countries might be willing to undertake. 
AOSIS, a group of 41 mainly ACP islands and coastal states, have the most ambitious 
goals of all countries. Being among the most vulnerable of all countries they are 
increasingly concerned about impacts of climate change. A satisfactory solution of the 
question of the share of proceeds from the Clean Development Mechanism which 
shall be used for adaptation projects will certainly be important for them. At the same 
time, as members of the G 77 they play an important role in trying to broker 
compromises between industrialised and major developing countries. 
Some African states are also concerned about the impacts of climate change and are 
potential allies on climate issues in the context of our wider privileged relationship. 
They are looking for support in unravelling the implications of the remaining 
negotiating issues 
Argentina has played a crucial role throughout the negotiations on Kyoto and of 
course hosts the Buenos Aires meeting. A topic for further consultations with 
Argentina is their intention to submit a proposal for voluntary commitment of non 
Annex I countries under the Kyoto Protocol. Brazil is also a leading player. It 
submitted last year a proposal how to arrive at differentiated commitments for all 
Parties, which will be discussed in the upcoming meetings and it played a crucial role 
in defining the Clean Development Mechanism. 
27 
China and India deserve particular attention because of the high projected increase in 
emissions. They are very concerned about equity and trade implications of the flexible 
mechanisms and have also made clear that the arrangements for emissions limitations 
in the Kyoto Protocol, which are designed for mature industrialised economies, cannot 
be extended to countries at a very different level of development. Thus they are 
concerned about the type of precedents that the continuing negotiations on the Kyoto 
rules will create for the long term. Energy producing countries, Indonesia, along with 
Malaysia and the Philippines have a keen interest in these issues and have been active 
in the negotiations. The oil producing countries also have a vital interest in climate 
change issues. Reinforced dialogue, in particular with the Gulf Co-operation Council, 
needs to be maintained 
Greater visibility should be given to existing EU efforts and consideration given to 
what more could be done within existing mechanisms including the European 
Investment Banks 's role. The aim would be to provide public support to build 
capacity so that countries could benefit from the opportunities provided by both the 
clean development mechanism and joint implementation. It will be important to make 
clear that existing aid flows from Member States and Community aid programmes are 
not themselves being diverted to obtain emissions reduction. 
The Council is requested to endorse the priorities set out in this document for a 
strengthened dialogue with third countries. 
4. Next Steps 
If an effective EU post-Kyoto strategy is to be put in place the Council needs to agree 
on a number of elements developed in this Communication. These are: 
For Implementation 
• First, a common understanding between the Community and the Member States 
on the strategy process and the respective contributions of the Member States. In a 
coherent strategy all actors need to know what each of them are doing and what 
they are planning to do. The Commission will formally request this information by 
end July. In practical terms the Member States need to, inform the Commission by 
the end of this year of the national strategies they intend to put in place to meet 
their emission reduction target and what they expect Community measures to 
contribute. To be useful this information needs to indicate in a quantified form the 
expected impact of national and Community measures on their emissions as well as 
the state of implementation of national measures. 
• Co-ordination between the various Council formations has to be improved in order 
to strengthen the consensus on the need for action on climate change. Agreement 
on emission reduction targets by the Environment Council must go hand in hand 
28 
with action by other Councils such as Ecofin, Transport, Energy and Agriculture. 
The Council has been innovative in developing Joint Councils and informal 
Councils that focus on cross-sectoral issues and which attempt to involve relevant 
actors. These initiatives on policy co-ordination which usually focus on principles 
are moves in the right direction but there is still a general lack of co-ordination 
when it come to the translation of political commitments into concrete actions. 
• The need for improved policy integration and the development of an interactive 
process between Councils on this issue is recognised by both the Commission and 
the Member States and steps have been taken to, advance the concept of " shared 
responsibility". On the basis of a Commission Communication the Cardiff 
European Council will address in June the need for integrating more effectively 
environmental policies such as climate into other policy areas. 
• On the basis of all these elements the Commission intends to come forward with a 
more complete post-Kyoto strategy in the first half of 1999. 
A priority is adopting and implementing Community policies and measures in the 
areas set out in this document, given the need for the EU to make demonstrable 
progress by 2005 and that it should achieve its target mainly through domestic 
policies and measures. Progress in this area will be an important measure of the 
success of greater policy integration and co-ordination between Councils. An 
assessment of progress will be made in the first half of 1999. 
For a Negotiating Strategy 
In order to define its negotiating strategy for COP-4 in Buenos Aires in November the 
Community needs to agree after the meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies to the 
UNFCCC in Bonn a position on a number of outstanding issues, in particular the 
flexibility issue and developing country participation. Questions that need to be 
resolved are the establishment of strict rules for the flexible mechanisms and the 
nature of the concrete ceiling that should be set to limit the amount of the target that 
can be traded These issues will require extensive consultations immediately following 
the June Bonn meeting when issues have been further clarified and the position of our 
negotiating partners is clearer. To assist this process the Commission will provide the 
necessary input. The aim should be for the Environment Council of October to take a 
decision on these issues. 
Buenos Aires is expected to set out the broad principles in relation to the outstanding 
issues, notably the flexible mechanisms. Further work will be required for making 
these instruments operational. Following Buenos Aires and depending on the outcome 
the Commission will bring out a document that will examine in more detail the 
possible operational use of flexible mechanisms in the EU. 
29 


ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(98) 353 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 14 12 11 05 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-98-378-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-37094-0 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg