Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Implementing the Community Strategy to Reduce CO2 Emissions from Cars: Third annual Report on the effectiveness of the strategy (Reporting year 2001) {SEC(2002) 1338}
Date: 2002-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: environmental policy, greenhouse gas, motor fuel, motor vehicle industry, reduction of gas emissions, statistics

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 9.12.2002
COM(2002) 693 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Implementing the Community Strategy to Reduce CO2 Emissions from Cars:
Third annual report on the effectiveness of the strategy
(Reporting year 2001)

{SEC(2002) 1338}

I.

INTRODUCTION

The Commission is in the full process of implementing the Community’s strategy to reduce
CO2 emissions from passenger cars and improve fuel economy1,2. The strategy is based on the
following three pillars3:

(1)

(2)

Commitments of the automobile industry on fuel economy improvements, aiming at
achieving an average specific4 CO2 emission figure for new passenger cars of 140 g
CO2/km by 2008/9.

Fuel-economy labelling of cars5 which aims at ensuring that information relating to the
fuel economy and CO2 emissions of new passenger cars offered for sale or lease in the
Community is made available to consumers, in order to enable consumers to make an
informed choice.

(3)

The promotion of car fuel efficiency by fiscal measures.

The annual Commission report on the effectiveness of the strategy meets as well the reporting
requests expressed in Article 9 of Decision 1753/2000/EC6. In addition, this third report, for
the reporting period 1995 to 2001, addresses Article 7 of the same Decision which requires to
report, by 31 December 2002 at the latest, on the operation of the monitoring scheme
established under the Decision.

The Commission believes that such a consolidated reporting will allow all interested parties to
follow the implementation of the Community strategy in the most efficient way7.

II.

BRIEF OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Overall in the Community, considering all measures, including those taken at national level,
the average specific CO2 emission from passenger cars decreased in the period 1995 to 2001
from 186 g CO2/km to about 167 -170 g CO2/km8. The Community’s strategy to reduce CO2
emissions from passenger cars and improve fuel economy aims at achieving an average
specific CO2 emission figure for new passenger cars registered in the EU of 120 g CO2/km by
the Community target of
2005, and by 2010 at

is quite unlikely that

the latest. It

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

COM (95)689 final
Council conclusions of 25.6.1996
These pillars are supplemented by research activities
The term "specific" is taken from the title of Decision 1753/2000/EC and is used in order to indicate that
the CO2 emissions are expressed in grams per kilometre
Directive 1999/94/EC relating to the availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2
emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars
Decision 1753./2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme to monitor
the average specific emissions of CO2 from new passenger cars
Information
can
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/co2/co2_home.htm
The range takes in to account all known potential uncertainties. The lower value is based on data delivered
by the associations, including all corrections carried out by the associations, the upper value corresponds
data delivered by Member States, without any correction. The upper value will be corrected as soon as an
agreement on the appropriate correction factor will have been concluded.

the Community

concerning

the web

strategy

found

site:

also

on

be

2

120 g CO2/km will be reached as early as 2005. However, it is realistic to hope that the target
would be met by 2010 if the necessary measures are taken and all efforts are made.

III.

PROGRESS MADE BY THE CAR INDUSTRY WITH REGARD TO THEIR RESPECTIVE
COMMITMENT.

Commitments have been made by the European (European Automobile Manufacturers
Association – ACEA9)10 the Japanese (Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association -
JAMA11) and Korean (Korea Automobile Manufacturers Association - KAMA12) automobile
associations13.
important
manufactures/affiliations/brands that have been allocated to the respective association for the
monitoring figures shown in this report.

the most

detailed

shows

Table

the

list

of

1

ACEA

ALFA ROMEO, ALPINA, ASTON MARTIN, AUDI, BAYERISCHE
MOTOREN WERKE , BENTLEY, CADILLAC, CHEVROLET, CHRYSLER,
CITROEN, DAIMLER, FERRARI., FIAT, FORD, GENERAL MOTORS
JAGUAR, JEEP, LAMBORGHINI, LANCIA-AUTOBIANCHI, LAND-ROVER,
MASERATI, MATRA, MCC (SMART), MERCEDES-BENZ, MG*, MINI,
OPEL, PEUGEOT, PORSCHE, RENAULT, ROLLS-ROYCE, ROVER*, SAAB,
SEAT, SKODA, VAUXHALL, VOLKSWAGEN, VOLVO

JAMA

DAIHATSU, HONDA,
SUBARU, SUZUKI, TOYOTA

ISUZU, LEXUS, MAZDA, MITSUBISHI, NISSAN,

KAMA

DAEWOO, HYUNDAI, KIA, SSANGYONG

* Please note that although Rover, including MG, is no longer a formal member of ACEA, it was
incorporated within ACEA figures for 2001

Table 1: List of most important manufacturers/affiliations/brands which have been allocated to the
respective association for the monitoring figures shown in this report.

All three commitments constitute equivalent efforts, having the following main features:

(1)

The CO2 emission objective: All commitments contain the same quantified CO2
emission objective for the specific average of new passenger cars sold in the European
Union, i.e. 140 g CO2/km (to be achieved by 2008 by ACEA and 2009 by JAMA and
KAMA).

9

10

11

12

13

European car manufacturers in ACEA: BMW AG, DaimlerChrysler AG, Fiat S.p.A., Ford of Europe Inc.,
Ing. H.c.F. Porsche AG, PSA Peugeot Citroën, Renault SA,
General Motors Europe AG, Dr.
Volkswagen AG
COM (98) 495 final
Japanese car manufacturers in JAMA: Daihatsu, Fuji Heavy Industries (Subaru), Honda, Isuzu, Mazda,
Nissan, Mitsubishi, Suzuki, Toyota
Korean car manufacturers in KAMA: Daewoo Motor Co. Ltd., Hyundai Motor Company, Kia Motors
Corporation
COM (99) 446 final

3

(2)

Means of achievement: ACEA, JAMA and KAMA commit themselves to achieving
the CO2 target mainly by technological developments and related market changes.

In addition, “estimated target ranges” are set for 2003/200414 for the average new car CO2
emissions. Finally, all associations have committed themselves to review in 2003 (ACEA and
JAMA) or 2004 (KAMA) the potential for additional CO2 reductions, "with a view to moving
further towards the Community objective of 120 g CO2/km by 2012".

The commitments are subjected to a thorough and transparent monitoring scheme15. For this
purpose every year “Joint Reports”, one with each of the associations, are drafted and agreed
between the parties. They are published in parallel to this Communication as SEC paper (see
Annex). Since the official EU CO2 monitoring system was not fully operational in 200216, the
respective associations have, as before, provided the underlying data. The associations’ data
sources are considered as reliable.

The main findings for the reporting period 1995 to 2001 are:
(cid:1)

In the last year all associations reduced the average specific CO2 emissions of their cars
sold on the EU market (ACEA by about 2.5 %, JAMA by about 2.2 % and KAMA by
about 2.6 %17). The fuel efficiency improvements for diesel passenger cars are
significantly better compared to gasoline vehicles (see Table 2).

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

14

15

16

17

18

ACEA shows good progress while JAMA’s is satisfactory. Both can be considered to be
on track (see Figure 1). ACEA reached already in the reporting period 2000 the
intermediate target range envisaged for 2003, and is now at the very low end of this range.
If JAMA can, on average, continue with the reduction rate achieved in year 2001 it would
meet at least the 2003 intermediate target of 175 g/km.

KAMA’s progress is unsatisfactory, although in 2001 it achieved the highest reduction
rate so far. There is a real risk that KAMA will not meet its 2004 intermediate target
range. This could put the whole approach in danger18. KAMA blames the lack of progress

For ACEA 165 – 170 g CO2/km in 2003; for JAMA 165 – 175 g CO2 /km in 2003; for KAMA 165 – 170 g
CO2/km in 2004
The transparency of the figures shown for the year 2001 suffer somewhat due to the fact that the
associations and the Commission could not agree yet on the "correction factor" to be used for the recent
change in test procedures. The Commitments specify that new car CO2 emissions will be measured
according to Directive 93/116/EC, which is the basis on which future targets were established, and the
basis of historical monitoring data in this report. Since the establishment of the Commitments, the
mandatory type approval method of measuring CO2 emissions has been revised by Directive 99/100/EC.
One of the principle changes (being introduced over the period 2000 to 2003 for M1 vehicles) relates to the
drive cycle - the deletion of the initial 40 seconds of unmeasured engine idling just prior to the test. As a
rule, such a change of test procedure increases the measured value of CO2 emissions. A correction factor
therefore needs to be applied to the measured CO2 emissions of such vehicles to broadly bring them into
line with the 93/116/EC procedure
Article 8 of Decision 1753/2000/EC requires that the monitoring system from the year 2003 onward shall
serve as the basis for the voluntary obligations agreed between the Commission and the automobile
industry
All percentage figures based on the data as corrected by the associations. The final figures will be slightly
lower
It should be recalled that the Council invited the Commission ”…to present immediately proposals,
including legislative proposals, for consideration, should it become clear, on the basis of the monitoring
and after consultation with the associations, that one or more of the associations would not honour the
commitments made” (Council conclusions of October 1999)

4

mainly on the economic situation of the Korean car industry, including its restructuring.
They also claim that initially their technology was much behind so it will take longer to
reach the higher reduction rates. However, in the last year at least part of its industry was
showing good profitability,
the Korean economy is recovering rapidly and the
restructuring of the industry is progressing into a more stable situation. Therefore, the
Commission expects that KAMA will catch up in the coming years. KAMA has
reconfirmed its commitment to do so.

In order to meet the final target of 140 g/km additional efforts are necessary as the average
annual reduction rate of all three associations needs to be increased. On average the
reduction rate must be around 2 %, or about 4 g/km per year. Over the reporting period
1995 to 2001, ACEA has achieved on average about 1,9 % per year, JAMA 1.5 % per
year and KAMA 0.9% per year19. However, it was anticipated from the beginning that the
average reduction rates would be higher in the later years.

(cid:1)

On April 30th, 2002 ACEA informed the Commission that the manufacturer Rover - which
was initially covered by the Commitment as part of BMW- is no longer an ACEA member. In
1995, the reference year of the Commitment, Rover sold about 300 000 passenger cars in the
EU; sales has decreased over time and reached about 130 000 units in 2001. Since it is the
first time that a change in membership occurred after conclusion of the commitments, the
Commission services is studying the case very carefully from a legal and competitive point of
view. The Commission will make every effort to ensure that changes in membership will
neither have negative repercussions on the integrity of the Commitments nor on the level
playing field. The figures given in this Communication still include Rover.

19

All percentage figures based on the data as corrected by the associations. The final figures will be slightly
lower

5

ACEA

Gasoline
Diesel
All fuels (1)

JAMA

Gasoline
Diesel
All fuels (1)

KAMA

Gasoline
Diesel
All fuels (1)

EU-15 (2)

Gasoline
Diesel
All fuels (1)

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

CO2
(g/km)
188
176
185
1995

CO2
(g/km)
191
239
196
1995

CO2
(g/km)
195
309
197
1995

CO2
(g/km)
189
179
186

CO2
(g/km)
186
174
183
1996

CO2
(g/km)
187
235
193
1996

CO2
(g/km)
197
274
199
1996

CO2
(g/km)
186
178
184

CO2
(g/km)
183
172
180
1997

CO2
(g/km)
184
222
188
1997

CO2
(g/km)
201
246
203
1997

CO2
(g/km)
184
175
182

CO2
(g/km)
182
167
178
1998

CO2
(g/km)
184
221
189
1998

CO2
(g/km)
198
248
202
1998

CO2
(g/km)
182
171
180

CO2
(g/km)
180
161
174
1999

CO2
(g/km)
181
221
187
1999

CO2
(g/km)
189
253
194
1999

CO2
(g/km)
180
165
176

2000
(3)
CO2
(g/km)
177
157
169
2000
(3)
CO2
(g/km)
177
213
183
2000
(3)
CO2
(g/km)
185
245
191
2000
(3)
CO2
(g/km)
178
163
172

2001
(4)
CO2
(g/km)
172/174
153/154
164/166
2001
(4)
CO2
(g/km)
175
200
179
2001
(4)
CO2
(g/km)
179/180
234/236
186/188
2001
(4)
CO2
(g/km)
173/174
156/157
167/168

Change 95/01
(4)

(%)
-8.5/-7.4
-13.1/-12.5
-11.4/-10.3
Change 95/01
(4)

(%)
-8.4
-16.3
-8.7
Change 95/01
(4)

(%)
-8.2/-7.7
-24.3/-23.6
-5.6/-4.6
Change 95/01
(4)

(%)
-8.3/-7.8
-12.7/-12.2
-10.4/-9.9

Table 2: Average specific CO2 emissions of new passenger cars per fuel type, for each
association and the European Union

(1) Petrol and diesel-fuelled vehicles only, other fuels and statistically not identified vehicles are not expected to affect
these averages significantly.
(2) New passenger cars put on the EU market by manufacturers not covered by the Commitments would not influence the
EU average significantly.
(3) The figures are not corrected for the change in driving cycle.
(4) The first figure shows the data as delivered by the association, the second figure is uncorrected20. Percentages are
calculated from CO2 integer figures.

20

In December 1999 the Commission launched a study to TNO to get independent expert advice on the
correction factor. ACEA and JAMA provided test data (which, however, are not representative for the
fleets the associations sell on the EU market because the test data delivered came all from large vehicles
which show a higher dependency on the test cycle change) and TNO added its own data. Based on all these
data, and taking into account comments from the association on data representivity, TNO calculated the
correction factor, applying standard statistical methods. However, the associations do not agree to the
calculated correction factor. As a consequence, no agreed correction factor could be applied to the year
2000 and year 2001 figures. Estimates for the effect of the cycle change vary between 0.7 % (Commission
estimate based on independent expertise) and 1.2 % (ACEA). However, the "correction factor" actually
applied cannot be exactly specified because the actual fraction of passenger cars tested under the new cycle
is not known. For the year 2001 ACEA and KAMA delivered corrected figures. ACEA explained it
assumes for 2001 that at least 90 % of all vehicles below 2500 kg were tested in accordance with the new
cycle. It calculated that 90% of a correction factor of 1.2 is equal to 1 % and instructed AAA to reduce
2001 data collected for M1 vehicles up to 2500 kg by an average 1%. In KAMA’s case exact number of

6

It should be mentioned that the CO2 figures shown in this report show the effect of all CO2
related measures taken in the Community. Article 10 of Decision 1753/2000/EC requires the
Commission to report to Council and European Parliament by 2003/4 and 2008/9 about the
reductions achieved by technical and by other measures. In 2002 the Commission launched a
service contract in order to study this issue in greater detail.

Average Specific CO2 Emissions: Relative to 1995 Value

110%

105%

100%

95%

90%

85%

80%

75%

KAMA

JAMA

EU15

ACEA

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

All data as delivered and corrected by the associations

Figure 1: Average specific CO2 emissions of new passenger cars relative to 1995, for each
association and the European Union

The overall average CO2 emissions of new passenger cars registered in 2001 was lower in all
Member States than 1995 and the years in between (see Figure 2). However, it should be
mentioned that in some Member States the specific CO2 emissions of individual associations
increased, e.g., in France, Germany, Ireland, Portugal and Sweden CO2 emission increased for
KAMA. This is not in conflict with the commitments. However, it shows the trends for
individual associations in specific Member State can differ significantly.

vehicles tested under the new test procedure were - according to KAMA - identified. Then a correction
factor of 1 % was applied to these vehicles. JAMA did not apply any correction factor. In the Joint Reports
of ACEA and KAMA the Commission states that it cannot agree to the adjustment made because the
correction factor should be 0.7% and not 1.2% (or 1.0 %, as by KAMA) and the exact number of vehicles
tested in accordance with the new test procedure should be known. The Commission believes that the CO2
emissions of new registered cars should be reduced by an agreed and appropriate correction factor and that
application should start next year. As long as no agreement exists no correction should be applied. In July
2002 it was agreed at Supervisory Group level that a solution needed to be found soon. It should be
mentioned that the effect of correction factor differences was minor in 2001.

7

Weighted Average Specific CO2 Emissions:
ACEA/JAMA/KAMA Combined (g/km)

1995

2001

250

200

150

100

50

0

EU

A

B

DK

F

FIN

GER

IRE

IT

LUX

NL

P

SP

SW

UK

All data as delivered and corrected by the associations

Figure 2: Average Specific CO2 emissions of new passenger cars in the EU and in Member
States in 1995 and 2001 (weighted averages based on the data for diesel and gasoline vehicles
forwarded by the three associations)21

All associations increased further the share of diesel cars in their respective sales within the
reporting period (see Table 3). This was predicted for the short-term. For the 2008/9 target it
was understood that the associations would not meet it by simple increases in the diesel share
only but by technological developments and market changes linked to these developments.22
In this respect it is important to note that the Council invited the Commission “…to make
continued efforts to significantly reduce nano-particulate emissions, and in particular devise
a new measuring procedure for private cars, light duty vehicles and heavy duty vehicles
taking into account the results of recent studies into the health effects of nano-particulate
emissions…”23 and that ACEA recently raised uncertainties associated with the introduction
of gasoline direct injection technology. This technology was supposed to break the strong
trend towards diesel powered passenger cars.

21

22

23

EU does not include data for Greece or Finland as insufficient data available
The three “Joint Reports” do not address this complex question of market changes further
Council conclusion of 18/19.12.2000

8

1995
82.1%
9.5%

2000
60.9%
35.8%

1999
65.8%
31.0%

2001
58.2%
39.4%

1996
72.9%
24.3%

1995
73.4%
24.0%

1997
73.1%
24.3%

1998
70.3%
27.0%

1996
82.1%
10.4%

1997
83.2%
11.2%

1998
81.6%
13.1%
1,233,975 1,342,144 1,510,818 1,666,816 1,716,048 1,667,987 1,520,643

Change
'95-01'
(2)
-15.2%
15.3%
10,241,65110,811,01111,226,00911,935,533 12,518,26012,217,74412,552,498 22.6%
Change
'95-01'
(2)
-3.0%
7.9%
23.2%
Change
'95-01'
(2)
-2.7%
12.3%
134.7%
Change
'95-01'
(2)
-13.4%
14.2%

1997
89.2%
2.3%
275,453

1996
87.6%
1.8%
236,454

1998
85.9%
6.1%
373,230

1999
81.9%
7.4%
463,724

2000
80.9%
8.3%
491,244

2001
85.2%
13.9%
396,792

1995
87.9%
1.6%
169,060

1999
80.4%
14.9%

2001
79.1%
17.4%

2000
80.8%
16.5%

1997
74.6%
22.3%

1998
72.1%
24.7%

1995
74.5%
22.2%

1996
74.2%
22.4%

2001
61.2%
36.4%

1999
68.0%
28.4%

2000
63.9%
32.6%

11,644,68612,389,60913,012,28013,975,579 14,698,03214,376,97514,469,933 24.3%

ACEA
Gasoline
Diesel
All fuels

JAMA
Gasoline
Diesel
All fuels

KAMA
Gasoline
Diesel
All fuels

EU-15 (1)
Gasoline
Diesel
All
(3)

fuels

(1) New passenger cars put on the EU market by manufacturers that are not covered by the commitments do not effect the
numbers significantly.
(2) The change over the period 1995 to 2001 for gasoline and diesel driven cars represents the change in the absolute
share of each fuel type of total registrations. The change for the total cars is the growth or drop in absolute new
registrations. The change in total cars represents the growth in the EU-15 new registrations over the period.
(3) Totals include statistically unidentified vehicles and vehicles using 'other fuel' types.

Table 3: Trends in composition of new cars registered on the market, for each association and
the EU

As already mentioned all associations declared in their respective commitment that they
would meet the final target by mainly technological developments and market changes linked
to these developments. Such developments contributed indeed to the reductions achieved so
far (mainly the introduction of High Speed Direct Injection Diesel (HDI) engines, and to less
extent by the introduction of Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) engines, Continuously Variable
Transmission, (CVT) “Mini Cars”, and Alternative Fuelled Vehicles (AFVs) and Dual
Fuelled Vehicles (DFV). Since the year 2000 ACEA and – to a lesser extent - JAMA
introduced passenger cars emitting 120 g CO2/km or less (meeting one of the commitments);
in 2001, ACEA sold over 305,000 such cars (almost a doubling of sales compared to the year
2000), JAMA about 5600. KAMA is still to introduce such models on the market.

9

With regard to the assumptions underlying the commitments the associations have, in the
“Joint Reports”, drawn attention to a number of issues, e.g. enabling fuels24,25, distortion of
competition26, promotion of
technologies27, End-of-Life Vehicle (ELV)
Directive28, new regulatory measures29, fiscal measures30 (see Table 4 for details).

fuel efficient

There are some differences in the interpretation of the text of the Commitments. This is partly
due to a difference of understanding of the role of the Commitments within the Community
strategy “policy frame”. Apart from the Commitments the strategy has, as mentioned before,
two additional pillars: consumer
information and taxation - measures which aim at
influencing the demand side. All three pillars together aim at achieving the Community target
of 120 g CO2/km in 2005, and 2010 at the latest. The Commitments focus strongly on
technical measures, and market changes linked to technical measures31, which are supposed to
bring the average emissions down to 140 g CO2/km, leaving scope for consumer demand
measures which are necessary in order to meet the Community target of 120 g CO2 /km. The
associations accepted the consumer information part, but expected that no use of the fiscal
pillar would be made32, or at least to await the results of the 2003 review of the Commitment,
before re-addressing the issue33.

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

The associations made their commitments on the basis of the fuel quality requirements laid down in
Directive 98/70/EEC, although they expect that better fuel qualities might be available in the market in the
future. In this respect the associations expected that some gasoline (e.g. Super-Plus 98 octane) and some
diesel plus with a maximum sulphur content of 30 ppm are provided in 2000 on the whole EU market in a
sufficient volume and geographical cover; in 2005 full availability of fuels on the whole EU market which
satisfy the following: gasoline with a maximum sulphur content of 30 ppm and of a maximum aromatic
content of 30% and diesel with a maximum sulphur content of 30 ppm and a cetane number of minimum
58
See COM(2001)241 final of 11.5.2001 which indicates, inter alia, that “…The impact of these fuels in
relation to the attainment of the 140 g CO2/km target will, therefore, be taken account of in the joint
monitoring mechanism. The availability of zero sulphur fuels resulting from this Directive, will also
provide a basis for the Commission to explore with the automobile manufacturers additional commitments
aimed at the attainment of the Community’s target of 120 g/km for the average CO2 emissions of the new
car fleet when the current environmental commitments with the automobile manufacturers are reviewed
in 2003...”
The ACEA Commitment contains the assumption that "…the Community will use its best efforts to
continue to seek that other car manufacturing countries, notably Japan, USA and Korea, will undertake
equivalent car CO2 reduction efforts, in line with the Kyoto Protocol spirit ensuring that the European
automobile industry is not put at a competitive disadvantage in world markets by CO2 reduction
commitments in Europe."
The Commitments are based on "… the assumption of an unhampered diffusion of these and other car CO2
efficient technologies into the market…"
Directive 2000/53/EC
The Commitments require that "… The impact on CO2 emissions of new regulatory measures…" has to be
monitored
The Commitments are based on the assumption that they provide "…complete and sufficient substitute for
all new regulatory measures to limit fuel consumption or CO2 emissions, and for any additional fiscal
measures in pursuit of the CO2 objectives…" of the Commitments. Any fiscal measures, including their
added value to the Commitments, will be taken into account in the monitoring procedure and their
potential effects will be assessed in good faith. In addition to the concern mentioned in Table 4 ACEA
considers fiscal measures as potentially in conflict with the unhampered diffusion of CO2 efficient
technology
“…These targets will mainly be achieved by technological developments affecting different car
characteristics and market changes linked to these developments…”
On 2 October 1998 the ACEA President wrote to the Commission saying that " …the communication
adopted by the Commission in July represents an accurate analysis of ACEA's commitment. I wish,
nevertheless, to repeat that although we do not question the right of the Community and its member States

10

Apart from the work on fiscal measures, the 2003 review (2004 for KAMA) will be of major
importance for the further development of the Community strategy. According to the text of
the Commitments, as well as the Commission's Recommendations, ACEA and JAMA shall in
2003 "… review the potential for additional CO2 reduction, with a view to moving further
towards the Community’s objective of 120 g CO2/km by 2012." The Commission proposed to
the associations in July 2002 to discuss the planning for the review, e.g., the timetable and the
procedures. The Commission believes the work concerning the different elements of the
review need to be prepared and planned at an early stage.

Finally, and irrespective of the outcome of the review mentioned above, in the monitoring
years 2003 and 2004 comparisons of these years average and the respective "estimated target
range" will be carried out34. The Communication of these years will also address for the first
time the request of Article 10 of Decision 1753/200035.

to exercise their prerogatives in the field of fiscal policy,
the Commitment does not constitute an
agreement on the part of ACEA that fiscal measures that would have the effect of changing the structure of
the market should be taken by the Community or its Member States in the filed of vehicle taxation. Not
does ACEA find the use of this instrument relevant in the light of its ambitious CO2 objective. Such
initiatives could have serious consequences for the competitiveness of the industry and the employment in
the sector, while actions at the Member States level can have serious repercussions on the internal
market". The Commission presented the letter to the Council at its meeting of 6.10.1998.
On 8 June 2000 the President of ACEA reacted to the work on fiscal measures which the Commissions
launched in the year 2000. In a letter to the Commission he reiterated ACEA's concern that "…fiscal
measures that would have the effect of changing the structure of the market will be counter productive…"
and mentioned that the Commission "…seeming to forget that after a long negotiation the Commission
endorsed ACEA's Commitment which states that in '2003 ACEA will review the potential for additional
CO2 reduction with the view to moving further towards the Community objective on 120 g/km by 2012'…"
For ACEA 165 – 170 g CO2/km in 2003; for JAMA 165 – 175 g CO2/km in 2003; for KAMA 165 – 170 g
CO2/km in 2004
"The reports for the intermediate target years and the final target years will indicate whether the
reductions are due to technical measures taken by the manufacturers or to other measures such as changes
in consumer behaviour". The three “Joint Reports” do not address this question in great detail.

33

34

35

11

Details of concern

Commission's comments

Raised
by

ACEA
JAMA
KAMA

ACEA

Issue

Enabling fuels

Distortion of
competition

Promotion of
fuel efficient
technologies

New regulatory
measures

Fiscal
measures

Concern because the full market availability of fuels
with a sufficient quality to enable the application of
technologies is imperative for the industry to achieve
its CO2 commitment.

Disappointment that the European Community has
hitherto failed to ensure that the EU’s automobile
industry is not put at a competitive disadvantage as a
consequence of the differences of views on “Kyoto".

ACEA

Concern about anti-diesel policies in a number of
Member States, including the UK and Sweden.

ACEA
JAMA
KAMA

KAMA

Concern that
the End of Life Vehicle (ELV)
Directives will have adverse implications for the fuel
efficiency of cars.

on Pedestrian
the Commitment
Concern that
Protection will have adverse implications for the fuel
efficiency of cars.

The "zero sulphur fuels" proposal, see COM(2001)241 final, should guarantee that the required fuels would be
available in sufficient quantities throughout the Community from 2005 onwards. The mandatory date for 100%
availability is 2009 for gasoline and diesel, subject to a review process for diesel fuel. The Commission draws
attention to the fact that the provision of 10 ppm fuels wents well beyond the expectations at the time of the
signature of the Commitment.
The Commission draws attention to its efforts to convince, inter alia, Japan and the United States to ratify the Kyoto
Protocol. Moreover it draws attention to fuel efficiency measures taken or planned in other parts of the world
(Japanese Energy Efficiency Law, US CAFÉ rules, declaration of US manufacturers to reduce the fuel consumption
of special types of cars by 25 %, California's warming bill 1793). On the EU market all manufacturers require
equivalent efforts, and in this respect the Commitments guarantee a level playing field.
The Commission takes note of ACEA's arguments but believes that the consequences of national fiscal measures
have to be studied taking a wider view, considering, inter alia, that Member States have all rights to exercise their
prerogatives in the field of fiscal policy.
The Commission believes that the ELV Directive will not have any adverse effects on fuel efficiency given that it
does not limit the use of any material.

There is no evidence shown that technical measures to increasing pedestrian protection increase the CO2 emission
from cars. The Commission cannot accept that voluntary commitments made by car manufacturers with regard to
pedestrian safety be taken into account within the monitoring of the CO2 Commitment.

KAMA

Concern about meeting the required EU-legislation
NOx levels and the CO2 target at the same time.

It is the Commission's opinion that KAMA was fully aware of the emission standards laid down in the amended
Directive 70/220/EC.

ACEA

With regard to the proposal for CO2 differentiated
taxes ACEA draws attention to the fact, that these
taxes should not distort
the market as this could
contravene its Commitment, for example, they could
jeopardise product diversity (by driving larger more
powerful cars out of the market), or could damage
financial performance.

The Commission draws attention to the fact that fiscal measures form the third pillar of the strategy, as outlined
already in the 1995 Communication, and that the text of the ACEA Commitment clearly specifies that ACEA
assumes that the Commitment provides complete and sufficient substitute for any additional fiscal measures in
pursuit of the CO2 objectives of this Commitment. The fiscal measures considered do not aim at providing
additional support to meet ACEA's target of 140 g/km in 2008, but aim at supporting the overall achievement of the
Community target which is 120 g/km by 2012 at the latest. It should also be noted that the Environment Council
reiterated in October 199936 the need to study the possibility of establishing a reference framework for fiscal
incentives.

Table 4: Summary of issues listed by the car manufacturers' associations with regard to the assumptions of the Commitments, and brief
comments which illustrate the Commission's position.

36

Council conclusions of 6.10.1999

12

IV.

IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISION 1753/2000/EC

The so-called “Monitoring” Decision came into force on 30 August 2000. The data collected
under this Decision will be used by the Commission services in order to monitor the voluntary
commitment by the automobile industry to reduce emissions of CO2 from passenger cars.

According to Article 7 of the Decision the Commission "…shall report to the European
Parliament and to the Council by 31 December 2002 at the latest on the operation of the
monitoring scheme established under this Decision." In the following this report is delivered.

The main obligations of the Decision are:

a)

b)

c)

According to Article 5 Member States are required to designate a competent authority

for the collection and communication of the monitoring information.

According to Article 6 Member States have to report to the Commission on how they

intend to implement the provisions of this Decision.

According to Article 4 Member States shall transmit data on specific CO2 emissions of
transmissions shall be

new passenger cars no later than 1 July 2001; subsequent
completed by 1 April.

Step a) can now be considered as completed, although not all Member States managed to do
so by the required date.

Step b) is completed as well. However, for some Member States details of the methods of
implementation are still under discussions. This is mainly caused by the fact that a number of
Member States - as a consequence of the Decision - are reorganising their national data
collection systems. It should be mentioned that the national data collection systems might
undergo - due to requests coming from other parties - additional modifications in the future in
order to up-date methodologies, incorporate new data processing routines and so on. There is
no “final” system, and it will consequently be an ongoing task to exchange information on
methodologies, data treatment and data transfer routines.

With regard to c) a number of Member States failed to deliver data on time in 2001 (Austria,
Belgium, France, Greece, Luxembourg, Spain and Sweden were late) and in 2002 (Greece
was late). Nevertheless, most of these Member States managed to forward data with some
delay. There is a clear progress and the Commission is optimistic that the data delivery by
these Member States will be in time in 2003. Most worrying, however, is the fact that Ireland
did not deliver data at all up to now, and Portugal - with a delay of more than one year - for
the year 2000 only37. The Commission started infringement procedures last year and is
preparing cases against these two Member States.

In order to identify and solve potential problems associated with the implementation of the
Decision the Commission - in application of Articles 3 and 6 of the Decision - established an
expert group in 2001. To support the group the Commission launched a study aiming at
improving the data transfer and identifying potential data inconsistencies. Up to now the

37

Due to the late delivery the Portuguese data could not be incorporated in this Communication

13

group has met three times and made progress on a number of methodological and data transfer
issues.

The first two deliveries by Member States were mainly used to compare the data with those
submitted by the car manufacturers' associations for the year 2000 and 2001 joint monitoring
reports. It should be recalled that the associations in their reports have used CO2 statistics
supplied by the AAA (Association Auxiliaire de L'Automobile - ACEA and KAMA) or by
Marketing Systems (JAMA). Marketing Systems and AAA base their estimates on statistics
delivered by Member States, supplemented and combined with their own technical passenger
car data, including data on fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. This means the data sources
are nearly identical to those used by many Member States. For example AAA's CO2 database
covers, in a consistent manner, over 90% (90-92%) of the EU registrations, the rest are
unknown figures. Uncertainties within the associations' data result from the incompleteness of
the data sets. They could not be numerically quantified in the past, however, they are
estimated to be small. Member States' data are the ones that are valid for the monitoring
process. Uncertainties in the Member States' data bases are mainly caused by problems to link
the registration data to the CO2 emissions of individual passenger cars, a problem known as
well by AAA and Marketing Systems. A few Member States face in addition problems to
obtain a complete data set of all M1 passenger cars. These Member States are currently
making all efforts to close the gaps.

Nevertheless, overall the error margins are quite small and in summary the associations' data
sets correspond quite well with the data delivered by Member States (see Table 5)38.

2000 difference
in g/km
-2
-2
-2
-5

2000 difference
in %
-1.3
-1.1
-1.2
-2.7

2001 difference
in g/km
1.8
2.4
-1.4
-1.9

2001 difference
in %
1.1
1.4
-0.8
-1.0

EU
ACEA
JAMA
KAMA

"-" means the association data are higher

Table 5: Comparison of specific CO2 data delivered by Member States and the car
manufacturers' associations

38

Please note: All figures given in this chapter are uncorrected data as delivered by Member States

14

For individual Member States' and associations' combinations the situation looks as follows
(see Tables 6 to 9):

EU – Specific CO2 Emissions

Member States'
Data
(g/km)
165.6
163.6
172.9
178.1
159.8
179.5
166.0
-
158.3
177.0
174.2
-
156.2
200.2
177.9
169.7

Associations'
Data
(g/km)
162.7
161.4
176.1
179.2
159.6
175.7
167.9
170.8
157.0
171.2
173.5
156.9
161.0
199.5
176.6
167.9

Country
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
EU-13

Difference
(g/km)
2.9
2.2
-3.2
-1.1
0.2
3.8
-1.9
-
1.3
5.8
0.7
-
-4.8
0.7
1.3
1.8

Difference
(%)
1.8
1.4
-1.8
-0.6
0.1
2.2
-1.4
-
0.8
3.4
0.4
-
-3.0
0.4
0.7
1.1

Table 6: Comparison of specific CO2 emissions data of Member States and combined
association data (2001 data)

The data for the three associations show partly larger error bands. It has been decided to look
into these differences in greater detail within bilateral contacts between the respective
association and the Member State concerned.

ACEA - Specific CO2 Emissions

Country
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
EU-12

Member States'
Data
(g/km)
162.2
161.9
173.5
180.3
157.8
178.9
165.9
-
156.4
175.2
173.6
-
155.8
201.7
176.8
168.3

ACEA
Data
(g/km)
158.6
158.8
174.6
181.1
157.6
174.3
-
166.9
154.6
169.0
172.7
155.5
158.1
201.1
175.4
165.9

Difference
(g/km)
3.6
3.1
-1.1
-0.8
0.2
4.6
-
-
1.8
6.2
0.9
-
-2.3
0.6
1.4
2.4

Difference
(%)
2.3
2.0
-0.6
-0.4
0.1
2.6
-
-
1.2
3.7
0.5
-
-1.5
0.3
0.8
1.4

Table 7: Comparison of specific CO2 emission data of Member States and ACEA
(2001 data)

15

Country

JAMA - Specific CO2 Emissions

Member State
Data
(g/km)
182.5
175.0
168.4
170.8
185.7
182.0
164.4
-
169.6
193.6
173.9
-
164.2
189.1
181.7
178.2

Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
EU-13

JAMA
Data
(g/km)
183.0
179.9
180.2
173.5
185.8
183.1
167.2
177.0
170.9
191.4
173.5
164.3
180.4
189.2
181.5
179.6

Difference
(g/km)
-0.5
-4.9
-11.8
-2.7
-0.1
-1.1
-2.8
-
-1.3
2.2
0.4
-
-16.2
-0.1
0.2
-1.4

Difference
(%)
-0.3
-2.8
-7.0
-1.6
-0.0
-0.6
-1.7
-
-0.7
1.1
0.2
-
-9.9
-0.1
0.1
-0.8

Table 8: Comparison of specific CO2 emission data of Member States and JAMA
(2001 data)

KAMA - Specific CO2 Emissions

Member States'
Data
(g/km)
196.2
188.8
182.6
202.7
217.6
207.6
168.7
-
175.0
191.0
185.7
-
-
197.7
191.0
186.6

Country
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
EU-12

KAMA
Data
(g/km)
197.6
189.7
183.7
206.3
217.5
209.5
168.7
189.7
179.2
190.2
185.5
172.6
188.3
199.1
189.2
188.5

Difference
(g/km)
-1.4
-0.9
-1.1
-3.6
0.1
-1.9
0.0
-
-4.2
0.8
0.2
-
-
-1.4
1.8
-1.9

Difference
(%)
-0.7
-0.5
-0.6
-1.8
0.0
-0.9
0.0
-
-2.3
0.4
0.1
-
-
-0.7
1.0
-1.0

Table 9: Comparison of specific CO2 emission data of Member States and KAMA
(2001 data)

16

In summary, the data of the majority of Member States can be considered as being of very
high quality. A few Member States will have to improve the data quality further. For this
reason, and due to the fact that some Member States delivered data for the period 2001 late,
Member State data were not used for the official monitoring of the commitments for the 2001
calendar year. As agreed with the car manufacturers' associations they will, however, be used
as the basis for the monitoring process from year 2002 (report of 2003) onwards. Wherever
necessary additional bilateral meetings between particular Member States and the
associations39 will be organised in order to study the reasons for identified differences
between the two data sets.

In any case the work to improve the quality of the data will be continued, and is, as a matter
of fact, a permanent task.

V.

IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE 1999/94/EC

The “Labelling” Directive was adopted on 13 December 1999;
the implementation by
Member States was required by 18 January 2001. By the end of August 2002 the following
Member States had not implemented the Directive: France, Germany, Italy, Spain and United
Kingdom for some parts of its territory. Under Article 226 EC, the Commission has already
delivered the cases to the Court of Justice40.

In July 2001 the Commission launched - in response to the obligation mentioned in Article 9
of the Directive - a study on the “Establishment of Recommendations to enable the
application of the principles of the provisions on promotional literature to other media and
material”. The final report was delivered in July 200241. At a meeting of the Committee
established under Article 10 of the same Directive the results of the study were discussed in
detail. A majority of Member States was in favour of covering, as soon as possible, "Internet
marketing" of passenger cars, and other electronic storage media, with requirements
equivalent to those requested for promotional literature which is already covered by the
Directive. None of the Member States showed any interest to cover TV and radio. Two
procedural options for the next step to be taken with regard to "other media" were considered:
To await Member States' reports under Article 9 which are due by 31.12.200342, or to submit
a Commission Recommendation which could be published next year (roughly in line with the
dates mentioned in the "block exemption proposal")43. Most Member States expressed their
preference for a Commission Recommendation on Internet and other storage media. Based on
the results of the study and the discussions in the Committee the Commission intends to put
forward a proposal in near future.

In addition, several Member States explained difficulties identified with regard to the practical
implementation of the Directive: The requirement of Annex III, last sentence, to add new
vehicles to the poster, cannot be met in practice because, as a rule, too many new models have
to be added. This jeopardises the lay-out of the poster and is often difficult to manage in a

39

40

41

42

43

KAMA explained that it sees no need to meet Member States bilaterally
France (C-161/02), Germany (C-72/02), Italy (C-22/02), Spain (C-28/02), and United Kingdom (C-62/02)
TNS (2002): "Enable Application to other media and material of Directive 1999/94/EC". Final report to
study contract ENV.C.1/ETU/2001/0009
In this case proposals for the amendment of the Directive could most likely not be made before 2004,
coming into force most likely not before 2005/2006
Commission Regulation 1400/2002

17

practical way. Moreover, many dealers would like to present the information on an electronic
screen that allows easy up dating. It was proposed to modify the Annex as soon as possible
and to consider laying down special requirements for electronic screens. The Commission will
consider this case without delay.

VI.

WORK ON FISCAL MEASURES

The work of the “Expert Group on Fiscal Framework Measures”, supported by a study carried
out by COWI44, showed that further CO2 reductions could be achieved with a differentiation
of vehicle taxes basing it on CO2 emissions of passenger cars. The Commission’s work on
fiscal framework measures has, based on the study, recently been presented in a Commission
Communication45. It is focusing on registration (RT) and annual circulation taxes (ACT). In
the Commission's opinion vehicle taxation:

• is an important complementary instrument to support the realisation of the EU-
target of 120 g CO2/km for new cars by 2005, and 2010 at the latest, and to
contribute to the accomplishment of the EU engagements under the Kyoto
Protocol;

• needs to establish a more direct

relation between tax level and the CO2
performance of each new passenger car. Vehicle tax differentiation has been
identified as an important parameter for improving the overall fuel-efficiency of
new passenger cars. Existing vehicle taxes should be replaced by taxes fully based
on CO2 emissions or, alternatively, a CO2 sensitive element should be added to
existing RT and ACT. Add-on elements would also allow taking into account
other national environmental objectives, e.g., the early introduction of EURO IV
standards.

The repercussions of fiscal measures have to be taken into account within the monitoring
process.

VII.

OTHER RELATED MEASURES

The Commission's proposal concerning the type-approval for CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption of light commercial vehicles46 (N1 vehicles) is under discussion in Council and
the Commission has launched a study on CO2
the European Parliament. Furthermore,
reduction measures for N1 vehicles47. The Commission services intend to present the results
of this study in a Communication next year. The Communication will also take into account,
if necessary,
the discussions on the Commission's Communication on "Environmental
Agreements"48.

44

45

46

47

48

COWI (2001): "Fiscal measures to reduce CO2 emissions from new passenger cars." Final report to study
contract ENV.D.3/ETU/2000/0027.
See http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/co2/co2_home.htm
COM(2002)431 final
COM(2001)543 final
"Preparation of measures to reduce CO2 emissions from N1 vehicles", study carried out by RAND Europe,
Institut für das Kraftfahrtwesen Aachen, Tansport&Mobility Leuven
COM(2002)412 final

18

The Commission started work on mobile air conditioning49 focusing on possible options to (i)
measure and, if possible, reduce the additional fuel consumption and related CO2 emissions,
and (ii) to reduce emissions of the coolant (HFC-134a).

Both activities are part of the European Climate Change Programme50.

VIII. CONCLUSIONS

The Community’s strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars and improve fuel
economy aims at achieving an average specific CO2 emission figure for new passenger cars
registered in the Community of 120 g CO2/km by 2005, and by 2010 at the latest. The specific
CO2/km value achieved in the calendar year 2001 is in the range of about 167 to 170 g
CO2/km, compared to 186 g CO2/km in 1995, the reference year of the strategy. By any
measure it is quite unlikely that the target set out in the Community Strategy would be met as
early as 2005. However, it remains realistic that the objective will be met by 2010 if the
necessary measures are taken and all efforts are made. It seems clear that to achieve the
overall target the implementation of all three pillars of the strategy will be necessary.

The recently published Communication of the Commission on passenger car taxation
presents, inter alia, options for taxation schemes that can support the Community Strategy to
reduce CO2 emission. In addition the results of the 200351 review of the potential for
additional CO2 reductions by the manufacturers' associations with a view to moving further
towards the Community's objective of 120 g CO2/km by 2012 will be of great importance.

The implementation of the commitments by the car industry shows good progress. The “Joint
Reports” show that ACEA and JAMA so far made significant progress while KAMA has to
increase its efforts significantly. In order to meet the final target of 140 g CO2/km all three
associations have to maintain or increase their efforts. Based on the Joint Reports the
Commission has no particular reason to believe that ACEA and JAMA would not live up to
its respective commitment. With regard to KAMA there is reason to be concerned about the
progress made so far. Additional and significant efforts will be necessary by KAMA if it is to
meet its target. It should be noted that the car manufacturers' associations have listed a
the respective
number of issues with regard to their commitments. Having said this,
association has in the discussions reconfirmed its intention to live up to the commitment.

A number of Member States are still
implementation of Directive 1999/94 and Decision 1753/2000. This hampers
implementation of the strategy and its monitoring.

lagging behind schedule with regard to the
the

The Commission continued in the monitoring period its work on CO2 reduction measures for
light commercial vehicles and started work on mobile air conditioning.

49

50

51

In its conclusions on 10 October 2000 EU’s environment ministers requested the European Commission to
“…study and prepare measures in reduction of all greenhouse gas emissions from air conditioning in
vehicles”
COM(2001)580 final
2003 for ACEA and JAMA, 2004 for KAMA

19

ANNEX {SEC(2002) 1338}

(1)

(2)

(3)

Monitoring of ACEA’s Commitment on CO2 Emission Reduction from Passenger
Cars (2001), Joint Report of the European Automobile Manufacturers Association and
the Commission Services, Final version of 25.06.2002

Monitoring of JAMA’s Commitment on CO2 Emission Reduction from Passenger
Cars (2001), Joint Report of the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association and the
Commission Services, Final version of 28.06.2002

Monitoring of KAMA’s Commitment on CO2 Emission Reduction from Passenger
Cars (2001), Joint Report of the Korea Automobile Manufacturers Association and the
Commission Services, Final version of 28.06.2002

The annexes are available only in English

20