[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 27.10.2006

SEC(2006) 1412

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

accompanying theREPORT FROM THE COMMISSION PROGRESS TOWARDS ACHIEVING THE KYOTO OBJECTIVES (required under Decision 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol) {COM(2006) 658 final}

Table 1: GHG emissions in CO 2 equivalents (excl. LULUCF) and Kyoto Protocol targets for 2008–12

Aggregate of EU-25 MS with measures projections | 5294 | 5049 | -4.6% | 4938 | -6.7% | 4903 | -7.4% |

Aggregate of EU-15 MS with additional measures projections | 4269 | 4071 | -4.6% | 3961 | -7.2% | 3928 | -8.0% |

Aggregate of EU-25 MS with additional measures projections | 5294 | 4867 | -8.1% | 4757 | -10.2% | 4721 | -10.8% |

Table 4: Status of implementation of important ECCP I identified policies and measures

Measure | Reduction potential EU-15, 2010(Mt. CO2) | Entry into force | Starting to deliver |

EU emission trading scheme | ~ NAP2 | 2003 | 2005 |

Link JI/CDM to emission trading | ~ NAP2 | 2004 | 2005/2008 |

F-Gases Regulation and Directive on Mobile Air Conditioning | 23 | 2006 | 2008 |

Dir. on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources | 100-125 | 2001 | 2003 |

Dir. on the promotion of CHP | 65 | 2004 | 2006 |

Dir. on energy performance of buildings | 35-45 | 2003 | 2006 |

Dir. on the promotion of transport bio-fuels | 35-40 | 2003 | 2005 |

Dir. on the promotion of energy efficiency and energy services | 40-55 | 2003 | 2006 |

ACEA voluntary agreement | 75-80 | 1998 | 1999 |

Energy labeling directives | 20 | 1992 | 1993 |

Total | 393-453 |

Table 5: CO 2 allowance allocations and verified emissions 2005

Member State | Number of installations covered(1) | CO2 allowances per year of the period 2005 to 2007(2) [million allowances] | Verified emissions [million tonnes of CO2] | ETS share in total greenhouse gas emissions(3) |

EU-15 |

Austria | 199 | 32.6 | 33.4 | 36.6 % |

Belgium | 310 | 59.8 | 55.4 | 37.4 % |

Denmark | 384 | 31.0 | 26.5 | 38.9 % |

Finland | 595 | 44.5 | 33.1 | 40.6 % |

France | 1 087 | 150.5 | 131.3 | 23.3 % |

Germany | 1 850 | 495.0 | 474.0 | 46.7 % |

Greece | 140 | 71.1 | 71.3 | 51.8 % |

Ireland | 109 | 19.2 | 22.4 | 32.7 % |

Italy | 950 | 207.5 | 223.6 | 38.6 % |

Luxembourg | 15 | 3.2 | 2.6 | 20.5 % |

Netherlands | 210 | 86.4 | 80.4 | 36.9 % |

Portugal | 244 | 36.8 | 36.4 | 43.1 % |

Spain | 825 | 162.1 | 182.9 | 42.9 % |

Sweden | 705 | 22.5 | 19.3 | 27.8 % |

United Kingdom | 775(4) | 209.3 | 242.5 | 36.8 % |

EU-10 |

Cyprus | 13 | 5.6 | 5.1 | 57.3 % |

Czech Republic | 395 | 96.6 | 82.5 | 56.1 % |

Estonia | 44 | 18.7 | 12.6 | 59.3 % |

Hungary | 234 | 30.2 | 26.0 | 31.3 % |

Latvia | 94 | 4.0 | 2.9 | 26.7 % |

Lithuania | 99 | 11.4 | 6.6 | 32.5 % |

Malta | 2 | 2.1 | n.a.(5) | 65.6 % |

Poland | 1 088 | 239.1 | 200.8(6) | 52.0 % |

Slovakia | 175 | 30.3 | 25.2 | 49.5 % |

Slovenia | 98 | 8.6 | 8.7 | 43.4 % |

Notes (1) Exact numbers vary slightly continuously due to closures and new entrants. The number of installations and verified emissions are taken from the CITL as of 5 September 2006. In Poland, Malta and Cyprus the registry is either not yet functional or only few operators have opened an account. For these countries the final allocation decision was used as data source.(2) The average amount of CO2 allowances 2005–2007 excludes the national new entrants reserves and takes into account temporary exclusion and opt-ins of installations in accordance with Articles 24 and 27 of the Emissions Trading Directive.(3) The ETS share is calculated as verified emissions in 2005 divided by 2004 national greenhouse gas emissions.(4) The number of covered installations will be higher in 2007, as some installations were only opted out for 2005 and 2006.(5) Malta has not yet submitted its verified emissions. For the calculation of the share the total national allocation has been used. For Member States where verified emissions for more than 1 % of allocated allowances are missing the emissions for the outstanding installations have been estimated for the calculation of the share.(6) This figure comprises verified emissions of 793 installations. For a further 295 installations, which receive an annual average allocation of 3.284.285 allowances no verified emission figures were available at the time of writing this report.

Sources Community Independent Transaction Log (CITL); first national allocations plans of Member States; EC 2005e.

Table 6: Planned use of Kyoto mechanisms

Which Kyoto mechanisms? (ET, CDM, JI) | Projected emission reduction 2008–12 through the use of Kyoto mechanisms [Million tonnes CO2-equivalents per year] | Allocated budget |

Austria | Yes | Priority on JI and CDM | 7.0 | Up to € 288 million for 2003-2012 |

Belgium | Yes | ET, CDM, JI | 8.55 | Federal Government: € 60 million Capital Region: € 9 million Flemish region: € 22 million in 2005 € 15 million in 2006 Walloon region: USD 5 million |

Denmark | Yes | CDM, JI | 4.5 | € 152 million for public procurement programme of JI and CDM credits 2003-2008 |

Czech Republic | No | - | - | - |

Estonia | No | - | - | - |

Finland | Yes | ET, CDM, JI | 2.4 | Pilot Programme: € 9 million PCF[1]: USD 10 million BASREC[2]: € 1.75 million € 30 million for 2005 |

France | Yes | Priority on JI and CDM | Not yet decided | No arrangements yet |

Germany | Use of Kyoto mechanisms allowed at company level, no acquisition by government planned. (Germany does not intend to use Kyoto mechanisms to reach its target.) | ET, JI, CDM | No projected estimate as the amount will depend on private action | € 8 million for climate fund € 5 million for BASREC |

Greece | Not yet decided | Not yet decided | Not yet decided | No arrangements yet |

Ireland | Yes | Not yet decided | 3.6 | € 20 for 2006 |

Italy | Yes | ET, CDM, JI | 39.6 | € 169.5 million already allocated: € 58.7 million for World Bank funds € 8.5 million for GEF Trust Fund €10.3 million for MEDREP € 8.5 million for MEDREC € 79 million for China-Italian Facility € 4.5 million for various funds € 1,150 million for the years 2006-2011 |

Which Kyoto mechanisms? (ET, CDM, JI) | Projected emission reduction 2008–12 through the use of Kyoto mechanisms [Million tonnes CO2-equivalents per year] | Allocated budget |

Luxembourg | Yes | ET, CDM, JI | 3.0 |

Netherlands | Yes | CDM, JI | 20.0 (CDM and JI) | € 600 million |

Portugal | Yes | ET, CDM, JI | 1.86 | No arrangements yet |

Slovakia | No | - |

Slovenia | Yes | ET, CDM, possibly JI | Not yet decided |

Spain[3] | Yes | Priority on ET and CDM | 20.0 | € 200 million for World Bank Funds € 49 milllion in CAF € 0.6 million with Inter American development Bank |

Sweden | Not yet decided, under consideration (Pilot programme to gain experiences) | ET, CDM, JI | Investments made are estimated to amount to 1 Mt/year in emission credits | € 10 million (SEK 94 million) in CDM-SICLIP € 6.5 million (SEK 61 million) in JI-SICLIP € 3.5 million in BASREC USD 10 million in PCF |

United Kingdom | Use of Kyoto mechanisms allowed at company level, no acquisition by government planned | ET, CDM, JI | No projected estimate as the amount will depend on private action |

Table 7: Preliminary projected net carbon stock changes under Article 3.3 for the first commitment period

Member State | Net carbon stock change during 2008–12 (million tonnes CO2 per year) | Type of carbon pools included |

Austria | -0.7 | Not indicated |

Belgium | No net change expected | Not indicated |

Czech Republic | Probably small net sink | Not indicated |

Denmark | - 0.28 | Forest biomass |

Finland | + 0.9 | Not indicated |

Ireland | - 2.1 | Forest biomass |

Italy | - 6.48 | Not indicated |

Luxembourg | Probably net sink | Forest biomass |

Netherlands | - 0.11 | Not indicated |

Portugal | -3.36 | Not indicated |

Slovak Republic | Probably small net sink | Not indicated |

Slovenia | -0.36 | Not indicated |

Spain | Approx. - 3 | Not indicated |

Sweden | Probably small net source | Not indicated |

United Kingdom | - 2.71 | Above-ground and below-ground biomass, litter and soil organic matter |

EU-15 total (9 Member States) | -17.8 |

Table 8: Potential projected net carbon stock changes from forest management under Article 3.4 for the Kyoto Protocol commitment period

Belgium | No | No | No | No | -3.1 to -3.3 | - 0.11 |

Czech Republic | Yes | No | No | No | Amount is likely to be larger than maximum allowance | - 1.17 |

Denmark | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | - 0.2 to - 0.6 | - 0.18 | Not clearly indicated |

Estonia | No | No | No | No | No data provided | - 0.37 |

Finland | No | No | No | No | No data provided | - 0.59 |

France | Yes | No | No | No | -3.23 | - 3.23 |

Germany | Not yet decided | Not yet decided | Not yet decided | Not yet decided | No data provided | -4.55 |

Greece | Not yet decided | Not yet decided | Not yet decided | Not yet decided | No data provided | -0.33 |

Hungary | Yes | No | No | No | No data provided | - 1.06 |

Ireland | No | No | No | No | No data provided | - 0.18 |

Italy | Yes | No | No | No | - 4.11 | - 10.2 | Not clearly indicated |

Latvia | No | No | No | No | No data provided | - 1.25 |

Lithuania | Yes | No | No | No | No data provided | - 1.03 |

Luxembourg | No | No | No | No | No data provided | - 0.04 |

Netherlands | No | No | No | No | Unclear whether the country-specific maximum threshold for forest management activities will be fully utilized | - 0.04 | Not clearly indicated |

Poland | Yes | Not yet decided | Not yet decided | Not yet decided | No data provided | - 3.00 |

Portugal | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | - 0.8 from forest management, -0.5 from crop-/grazing land management | - 0.81 | Not clearly indicated |

Slovakia | No | No | No | No | No data provided | - 1.83 |

Slovenia | Yes | No | No | No | - 1.32 | - 1.32 | Not clearly indicated |

Spain | Yes | Yes | No | No | Approx. -3 | - 2.46 | Not indicated |

Sweden | Yes | No | No | No | Amount is likely to be larger than maximum allowance | - 2.13 | Not clearly indicated |

United Kingdom | Yes | No | No | No | - 8.5 | - 1.36 | Above-ground and below-ground biomass, litter and soil organic matter |

[1] Prototype Carbon Fund of the World Bank

[2] Baltic Sea Region Energy Co-operation Testing Ground Facility

[3] Figures are being reviewed in conjunction with the NAP 2008-2012 elaboration.