Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Implementing the Community Strategy to Reduce CO2 Emissions from Cars: - Fourth annual report on the effectiveness of the strategy (Reporting year 2002) [SEC(2004) 140]
Date: 2004-02-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU policy, energy consumption, motor car, motor fuel, motor vehicle industry, motor vehicle pollution, reduction of gas emissions, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 11.02.2004 
COM(2004) 78 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Implementing the Community Strategy to Reduce CO2 Emissions from Cars: 
Fourth annual report on the effectiveness of the strategy 
(Reporting year 2002) 

[SEC(2004) 140] 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  Community’s  strategy  to  reduce  CO2  emissions  from  passenger  cars  and  improve  fuel 
economy1,2 is based on the following three pillars: 

(1) 

(2) 

Commitments  of  the  automobile  industry  on  fuel  economy  improvements,  aiming  at 
achieving  an  average  specific3  CO2  emission  figure  for  new  passenger  cars  of 
140 g CO2/km by 2008/9. 

Fuel-economy labelling of cars4 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.  

Support  is  given  to  pre-competitive  research  activities  through  the  Community  Research 
Framework Programme, with the objective to contribute to the reduction of CO2 through the 
development of advanced component, power train and vehicles technologies.  

According to Article 9 of Decision 1753/2000/EC5 the Commission has to report annually on 
the effectiveness of the strategy6. 

2. 

BRIEF OVERALL ASSESSMENT 

In total, considering all measures, at EU and national level, the average specific CO2 emission 
from passenger cars in the EU decreased in the period 1995 to 2002 from 186 g CO2/km to 
166  g  CO2/km7,8.  This  corresponds  to  a  reduction  of  10.8  %.  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 passenger cars newly registered in the EU of 120 g 
CO2/km  by  2005,  and  by  2010  at  the  latest.  This  corresponds  to  a  reduction  of  35  %.  As 

1 
2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

COM (95)689 final 
Council conclusions of 25.6.1996 
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  concerning 
the  Community  strategy  can  also  be 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/co2/co2_home.htm  
For the first time, official EU data is used in this Communication. The data are delivered by Member 
States  under  Decision  1753/2000/EC.  Prior  2002  monitoring  was  based  on  data  provided  by  the 
associations. As  mentioned in  the  last  Communication  there  are  slight  differences  between  these data 
sets. The average specific CO2 emissions based on association data is 165 g CO2/km 
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. The results of this work will be part of the next year's Communication 

the  web  site: 

found  on 

2 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
already mentioned in the last report, it is unlikely that the Community target of 120 g CO2/km 
will be reached as early as 2005.  

To meet the Community target of 120 g CO2/km in 2010 would require achieving an average 
annual  reduction  of  3.5  %  at  EU  level.  This  is  significantly  higher  than  what  has  been 
achieved  on  average  between  1995  and  2002  (about  1.5  %).  It  was  anticipated  that  the 
reduction would increase over time but it is clear that additional efforts have to be made in 
order  to  meet  the  target  by  2010.  However,  as  far  as  the  Commitments  are  concerned  the 
intermediate  target  was  reached  early  by  both  ACEA  and  JAMA  and  we  therefore  consider 
that these associations are on track to meet their long term targets. 

3. 

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.  Table 
important 
manufactures/affiliations/brands that have been allocated to the respective association for the 
monitoring figures shown in this report. 

the  most 

detailed 

shows 

list 

the 

of 

1 

ACEA14 

ROMEO,  ALPINA,  ASTON  MARTIN,  AUDI, 

ALFA 
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, MINI, OPEL, PEUGEOT, PORSCHE, RENAULT, 
ROLLS-ROYCE, SAAB, SEAT, SKODA, VAUXHALL, VOLKSWAGEN, VOLVO 

JAMA 

DAIHATSU,  HONDA,  ISUZU,  LEXUS,  MAZDA,  MITSUBISHI,  NISSAN,  SUBARU, 
SUZUKI, TOYOTA 

KAMA 

DAEWOO, HYUNDAI, KIA, SSANGYONG 

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

9 

10 
11 

12 

13 
14 

European  car  manufacturers  in  ACEA:  BMW  AG,  DaimlerChrysler  AG,  Fiat  S.p.A.,  Ford  of  Europe 
Inc.,  General  Motors  Europe  AG,  Dr.  Ing.  H.c.F.  Porsche  AG,  PSA  Peugeot  Citroën,  Renault  SA, 
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:  GM  Daewoo  Auto  and  Technology  Company,  Hyundai  Motor 
Company,  Kia  Motors  Corporation,  Renault  Samsung  Motor  Company,  and  Ssangyong  Motor 
Company 
COM (99) 446 final 
It should be noted that although Rover, including MG, is no longer a formal member of ACEA, it has 
been agreed between Rover, ACEA and the Commission to incorporate Rover/MG in ACEA figures 

3 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
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). 

(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 2003/200415. All associations have, as well, 
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  subject  to  a  thorough  and  transparent  monitoring  scheme.  For  this 
purpose  an  annual  “Joint  Report”,  one  with  each  of  the  associations,  is  drafted  and  agreed 
between the parties. They are published in parallel to this Communication as SEC papers.  

For the first time official EU CO2 monitoring data are used for calculating the 2002 figures16. 
In the past the associations have provided the underlying data.  

The main findings for the reporting period 1995 to 2002 are: 

–  Taking  official  Member  States’  data  in  2002  the  average  specific  CO2  emissions  of  the 
fleets  are  165  g/km  for  ACEA,  174 g/km  for  JAMA  and  183  g/km  for  KAMA17.  If 
ACEA’s figures were taken the average specific CO2 emissions of this association was 163 
g/km. (see Table 2). 

–  Compared  to  1995  the  average  specific  CO2  emissions  have  been  reduced  by  10.8%  for 

ACEA (12.1% if using ACEA figures), 11.2 % for JAMA and 7.1 % for KAMA. 

–  Compared  to  2001  all  three  associations  reduced  the  average  specific  CO2  emissions  of 
their cars registered for the first time on the EU market (ACEA by about 1.2 %18, JAMA 
by  about  2.5  %  and  KAMA  by  about  1.8  %19).  Since  1995  the  fuel  efficiency 
improvements for diesel passenger cars are clearly better compared with gasoline vehicles. 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

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 
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 
The  question  to  what  extend  technological  progress  and  related  market  changes,  or  other  aspects  like 
changes  in  consumer  behaviour,  e.g.  due  to  taxation  measures  or  car  labelling,  contributed  to  the 
observed reductions will be studied in 2004 
This  reduction  figure  is  based  on  ACEA  data  for  2001  and  2002.  If  ACEA's  data  for  2001  and  the 
official EU data for 2002 were taken there would be no reduction. However, it can be assumed that this 
is mainly caused by the change in the database. If official 2002 EU data and unofficial 2001 EU data 
are compared the reduction percentage is about the same as identified when using ACEA's figures 
All 2001 and 2002 data are corrected by 0.7 % in order to take into account the change in the test cycle 

4 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
–  JAMA and ACEA show good progress, although ACEA's 2002 performance is lower than 
in  the  previous  years.  However,  ACEA  reached  already  in  2000  the  intermediate  target 
range envisaged for 2003, and is now at the very low end of this range. JAMA achieved in 
2002 the upper end of the intermediate target range. Both associations can be considered to 
be on track. 

–  KAMA’s  progress  is  still  unsatisfactory,  although  it  has  been  catching  up  slightly  in  the 
last  2  years.  There  is  a  real  risk  that  KAMA  will  not  meet  its  2004  intermediate  target 
range of 165 to 170 g/km, seeing that only two years are left to close the gap of 13 g/km. 
20.  However,  KAMA  has  reconfirmed  its 
This  could  affect  the  whole  approach  on  CO2
commitment to meet its targets. 

–  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 3.5 g/km per year 1995-2008/9. In the years 
remaining until 2008/9 the reduction rates must be on average 2.5 % for ACEA, 2.8% for 
JAMA  and  3.4  %  for  KAMA.  However,  it  was  anticipated  from  the  beginning  that  the 
average reduction rate would be higher in the later years (see Table 3). 

20 

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) 

5 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
ACEA 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000  2001 (3)

2002 (3) 

Change 
95/02 [%] (4) 

CO2 
(g/km) 

CO2 
(g/km) 

CO2 
(g/km)

CO2 
(g/km)

CO2 
(g/km)

CO2 
(g/km)

CO2 
(g/km) 

CO2 
(g/km) 

Petrol-fuelled vehicles  

Diesel-fuelled vehicles  

All fuels (1) 

188 

176 

185 

186 

174 

183 

183 

172 

180 

182 

167 

178 

180 

161 

174 

177 

157 

169 

172 

153 

165 

172/171(5) 

-8.5/9.0%(6) 

155/152(5)  -11.9/13.6%(6)

165/163(5) 

-10.8/12.1(6) 

JAMA (2) 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000  2001 (3)

2002 (3) 

Change 
95/02 [%] (4) 

CO2 
(g/km) 

CO2 
(g/km) 

CO2 
(g/km)

CO2 
(g/km)

CO2 
(g/km)

CO2 
(g/km)

CO2 
(g/km) 

CO2 
(g/km) 

Petrol-fuelled vehicles  

Diesel-fuelled vehicles  

All fuels (1) 

191 

239 

196 

187 

235 

193 

184 

222 

188 

184 

221 

189 

181 

221 

187 

177 

213 

183 

174 

198 

178 

172 

180 

174 

-9.9% 

-24.7% 

-11.2% 

KAMA (2) 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000  2001 (3)

2002 (3) 

Change 
95/02 [%] (4) 

CO2 
(g/km) 

CO2 
(g/km) 

CO2 
(g/km)

CO2 
(g/km)

CO2 
(g/km)

CO2 
(g/km)

CO2 
(g/km) 

CO2 
(g/km) 

Petrol-fuelled vehicles  

Diesel-fuelled vehicles  

All fuels (1) 

195 

309 

197 

197 

274 

199 

201 

246 

203 

198 

248 

202 

189 

253 

194 

185 

245 

191 

179 

234 

187 

178 

203 

183 

-8.7% 

-34.3% 

-7.1% 

EU-15 (2) 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000  2001 (3)

2002 (3) 

Change 
95/02 [%] (4) 

CO2 
(g/km) 

CO2 
(g/km) 

CO2 
(g/km)

CO2 
(g/km)

CO2 
(g/km)

CO2 
(g/km)

CO2 
(g/km) 

CO2 
(g/km) 

Petrol-fuelled vehicles  

Diesel –fuelled vehicles  

189 

179 

186 

178 

184 

175 

182 

171 

180 

165 

178 

163 

173 

156 

172 

157 

-9.0% 

-12.3% 

186 

184 

172 

182 

176 

All fuels (1) 
-10.8% 
180 
(1)  Petrol  and  diesel-fuelled  vehicles  only,  other  fuels  and  statistically  not  identified  vehicles  are  not  expected  to  affect 
these averages significantly. 
(2) For 2002 data from Member States is taken. For the ‘change 95/02’ the 95 data from the associations and the 2002 
data from the Member States are taken. 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 for 2001 and 2002 are corrected by 0.7 % for the change in driving cycle.  
(4) Percentages are calculated from unrounded CO2 figures; for 2002 data from Member States is taken. 
(5) The first figure is based one data from Member States; the second figure is based on data from ACEA. 
(6)  The  first  figure  is  based  on  2002  data  from  Member  States  and  1995  data  from  ACEA;  the  second  figure  is  based 
solely on data from ACEA. 

167 

166 

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

6 

 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
The overall average CO2 emissions of new passenger cars registered in 2002 was lower in all 
Member  States  than  1995  and  the  years  in  between  (see  Figure  1).  However,  it  should  be 
mentioned that the reduction rates differ somewhat from country to country21. 

  1995 

2002 

 140g/km 
Target : gap 
(% from 
2002) 

 140g/km 
Target : gap 
(g/km from 
2002) 

 140g/km 
Target : gap 
(% from 
2002) 

 140g/km 
Target : gap 
(g/km from 
2002) 

  CO2 
(g/km) 

CO2 
(g/km) 

Total 

Total 

Per annum 

Per annum 

ACEA All fuels*  

185  165/163  15,2%/13,9%

25/23

2,5%/2,3% 

4,2/3,8

JAMA all fuels** 

196 

174 

KAMA all fuels** 

197 

183 

19,5%

23,5%

34

43

2,8% 

3,4% 

4,9

6,1

* First figure is based on Member States’ data; second figure is based on ACEA’s figure 
**Based on Member States’ data 

Table 3: Meeting the 140g/km target in 2008/2009 

Weighted average specific CO2 emissions: ACEA/JAMA/KAMA combined [g/km]

1995

2002

250

200

150

100

50

0

EU

A

B

DK

F

FIN GER GR IRE

IT LUX NL POR SP

SW UK

1995 data as delivered by the associations; for 2002 the official EU data are displayed 
2002 data are corrected by 0.7 % for cycle change adjustment 
Figure 1: Average Specific CO2 emissions of new passenger cars in the EU and in 
Member States in 1995 and 2002 (weighted averages based on the data for diesel and 
gasoline vehicles)22 

21 

No figure can be given for Greece and Finland for 1995 since data are not available 

7 

 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
All associations increased further the share of diesel cars in their respective sales within the 
reporting period (see Table 4). This was predicted for the short-term. For the 2008/9 target it 
was understood that the associations would not meet it by a simple increase in the diesel share 
only, but by technological developments and market changes linked to these developments.23 
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…”24. Recently the Commission started work on EURO 5 emission limit values to 
be applicable around the year 2010. It can be expected that, inter alia, the limits for particle 
emissions and other gaseous pollutants will be tightened. In parallel an increasing number of 
manufacturers  have  declared  that  they  intend  to  equip  their  diesel  passenger  cars  with  a 
particle  filter.  Moreover,  in  the  past,  ACEA  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.  These  developments  must  be 
considered when looking at a further "dieselisation" of the EU passenger car fleet.  

The  ACEA  figures  given  in  this  Communication  include  Rover/MG.  However,  since 
Rover/MG - which was initially covered by the Commitment as part of BMW- is no longer an 
ACEA  member,  ACEA  has  stated  that  the  association  cannot  take  any  responsibility  for 
Rovers CO2 achievements up to 2008.  

This is the first time that a change in membership has occurred. The Commission will make 
every effort to ensure that changes in the membership will neither have negative repercussions 
on the integrity of the Commitments nor on the level playing field. 

22 

23 
24 

EU  1995  does  not  include  data  for  Greece  or  Finland  because  of  insufficiency  of  available  data.  For 
2002 these two Member States are included 
The three “Joint Reports” do not address this complex question of market changes further 
Council conclusion of 18/19.12.2000 

8 

 
 
  
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Change 

'95-02' 

ACEA 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 (4) 

(2) 

Gasoline 

73.4% 

72.9% 

73.1% 

70.3% 

65.8% 

60.9% 

58.2% 

56.3% 

-17.1 

Diesel 

24.0% 

24.3% 

24.3% 

27.0% 

31.0% 

35.8% 

39.4% 

43.6% 

19.6 

All fuels  10 241 651 10 811 011 11 226 009 11 935 533 12 518 260 12 217 744 12 552 498 11 649 782

13.8% 

JAMA 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 (4) 

(2) 

Gasoline 

82.1% 

82.1% 

83.2% 

81.6% 

80.4% 

80.8% 

79.1% 

77.3% 

Diesel  

9.5% 

10.4% 

11.2% 

13.1% 

14.9% 

16.5% 

17.4% 

22.6% 

-4.8 

13.1 

All fuels 

1 233 975  1 342 144  1 510 818 1 666 816 1 716 048 1 667 987 1 520 643  1 501 937

21.7% 

Change 

'95-02' 

KAMA 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 (4) 

(2) 

Gasoline 

87.9% 

87.6% 

89.2% 

85.9% 

81.9% 

80.9% 

85.2% 

77.8% 

-10.1 

Diesel  

1.6% 

1.8% 

2.3% 

6.1% 

7.4% 

8.3% 

13.9% 

22.0% 

20.4 

All fuels 

169 060 

236 454 

275 453 

373 230 

463 724 

491 244 

396 792 

325 436 

92.5% 

Change 

'95-02' 

Change 

'95-02' 

EU-15 (1) 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 (4) 

(2) 

Gasoline 

74.5% 

74.2% 

74.6% 

72.1% 

68.0% 

63.9% 

61.2% 

59.2% 

-15.3 

Diesel  

22.2% 

22.4% 

22.3% 

24.7% 

28.4% 

32.6% 

36.4% 

40.7% 

18.5 

11 644 686 12 389 609 13 012 280 13 975 579 14 698 032 14 376 975 14 469 933 13 477 155

All fuels 
(3)(5) 
(1) New passenger cars put on the EU market by manufacturers that are not covered by the commitments do not affect the 
numbers significantly 
(2) The change over the period 1995 to 2002 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 
(4) For 2002 the data provided by Member States is taken 
(5)The  total  registration  figure  given  in  the  table  for  2002  is  based  on  Member  States  data.  They  exclude  a  number  of 
vehicles, e.g. those to which no CO2 value could be associated. The total registrations reported by the associations are about 
500.000 vehicles higher. This has no significant impact on the displayed petrol/diesel share 

15.7% 

Table 4: Trends in composition of new cars registered on the market, for each 
association and the EU 

9 

 
 
  
 
 
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),  Variable  Valve  Lift  (VVL),  as  well  as  other  technical  improvements, 
and Alternative Fuelled Vehicles (AFVs) as well as 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). ACEA reached over 580 000 and JAMA 
about 44 000 registrations of such cars in 2002. KAMA is still to introduce such models on 
the market. 

With regard to the assumptions underlying the commitments the associations continue to draw 
attention  to  a  number  of  issues  they  consider  as  negative  for  CO2  reduction  measures  (see 
Joint  Reports).  Among  other  issues  mentioned  already  in  the  past,  ACEA  drew  attention  to 
the difficult economic situation of the car industry. The Commission shares the view raised by 
ACEA  that  the  economic  situation  in  Europe  has  been  rather  sluggish  lately  and  that  this 
might have an impact on the financial performance on the auto industry and on consumers. If 
these conditions continue over a longer period it may affect industry’s possibilities to get new 
technology  to  market.  However,  ACEA  confirmed  that  the  currently  experienced  economic 
situation will not change its Commitment to reach its CO2 target in 2008. 

Apart from the work on fiscal measures (see chapter VI), the 2003 review (2004 for KAMA) 
will be of major importance for the further development of the Community strategy. Presently 
there are no legal requirements which oblige industry to reach 120 g CO2/km by 2012 or any 
other  date  but  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". Informal consultation between ACEA and the Commission and JAMA and 
the  Commission  started  in  September  2003.  Both,  ACEA  and  JAMA  have  declared  their 
intention  to  present  the  result  of  their  respective  review  by  December  2003  at  the  latest. 
Irrespective  of  the  outcome  of  the  review  mentioned  above,  in  the  monitoring  year  2003 
(2004 for KAMA) comparisons between actual achievement and "estimated target ranges"25 
will  be  carried  out,  as  a  part  of  the  "Major  Review".  This  "Major  Review"  will  address,  in 
addition, questions related to the assumptions of the Commitments. In addition, as requested 
by  Article  10  of  Decision  1753/2000,  the  Communications  for  the  intermediate  target  year 
(monitoring  year  2003  for  ACEA  and  JAMA,  and  2004  for  KAMA)  will  address  questions 
related to the reasons for the observed reductions. It has to be thoroughly assessed whether the 
reductions  registered  are  due  to  technical  measures  taken  by  the  manufacturers,  or  due  to 
changes in consumer behaviour. 

25 

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 

10 

 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
4. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISION 1753/2000/EC 

The so-called “Monitoring” Decision came into force on 30 August 2000. The data collected 
under  this  Decision  have,  for  the  first  time,  been  used  in  2002  as  official  data  for  the 
monitoring of the voluntary commitments by the automobile industry to reduce emissions of 
CO2  from  passenger  cars.  All  Member  States  delivered  data  for  2002,  although  some  were 
quite late. 

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

The first two deliveries by Member States (2000 and 2001) were mainly used to compare the 
data with those submitted by the car manufacturers' associations 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).  

However, with official EU data becoming available, a discontinuity from the past data series 
exists  and  because  of  underlying  differences  (see  below)  it  is  not  correct  to  simply  adjoin 
official data for most recent years, onto the associations' historical data. 

The main dimensions of this discontinuity are: 

Country Coverage: The EU data for 2002 covers 15 Member States. Whereas, ACEA's and, 
apart  from  2001,  KAMA's  CO2  data  has  never  included  Greece,  and  has  not  until  recently 
included Finland; JAMA's data cover all Member States. 

Methodology  Differences:  AAA  and  Marketing  Systems  link  registrations  to  their  own, 
highly  analysed,  vehicle  specification  information  bank,  which  is  then  used  for  all  Member 
States’ registrations. For EU data, each Member State has its own vehicle specification set, to 
which  it  links  its  national  registrations;  national  variations  in  these  vehicle  specifications 
exist. This could cause small differences in the overall results as well as in some of the more 
detailed trend analysis data. 

Registration  Data  Differences:  The  official  EU  data  seems  to  miss  a  sizeable  percentage  of 
new  car  sales.  In  2002,  the  difference  is  about  500  000  vehicles  (equal  to  4  %  of  total 
registrations)26. It should also be noted that EU data disregards car registrations with no CO2 
data  provided,  whereas  if  no  CO2 information was  available  in  the case  of association data, 
and the data provider were unable to close the data gaps with the help of their own data, any 
such vehicles would be included under an "unknown" category. 

Grey Area Problem: ACEA believes that some Member States register vehicles in accordance 
with  the  fiscal  regime  (commercial  or  private  vehicle),  not  in  accordance  with  M1/N1 
category definitions. This issue needs to be studied further. 

26 

It  should  be  noted  that  such  a  difference  does  not  automatically  lead  to  differences  in  the  calculated 
CO2  averages.  This  would  be  only  the  case  if  the  characteristics  of  the  missing  data  deviate 
systematically from the characteristics of the total fleet 

11 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
Data  Scope:  The  official  EU  data  covers  -  as  laid  down  in  the  Commitment  -  the  CO2 
emissions of cars using all fuels, including AFVs. The associations' CO2 data has consistently 
been on the basis of petrol and diesel cars27.  

Currently the variance between EU and association data in terms of the overall average CO2 
figure is only a little more than 1% for ACEA and about 0.1 % for JAMA28. The Commission 
invited  the  car  manufacturers'  associations  to  clarify  some  of  these  issues  by  establishing 
direct contacts between their data providers and the responsible national organisations. Some 
work on comparability of data was done on 2002/2003 but only little progress could be made 
for cost reasons and for reasons of commercial confidentiality claimed by the data providers. 
The  work  on  data  quality  will  be  continued  and  it  is  expected  that  over  the  long-term  data 
differences should narrow. 

5. 

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  October  2003  all  Member 
States but Germany had implemented the Directive. Under Article 226 EC, the Commission 
has brought the case to the Court of Justice which has delivered its ruling on 24/09/200329. 

In  2003  Annex  III  of  the  Directive  has  been  amended30  and  the  Commission  published  a 
Recommendation with regard to "other media"31. 

The  Commission  now  awaits  Member  States'  reports  under  Article  9  -  which  are  due  by 
31 December 200332 - in order to study the need for further steps, e.g. how to address best the 
other issues still to be solved as mentioned in Article 9. 

27 

28 
29 
30 
31 
32 

It should be mentioned that the number of AFV was so small in the past, and still is, that these vehicles 
are negligible for the calculated CO2 average 
KAMA did not collect own data for the monitoring in 2002 
C-74/02 
O.J. L 186/34 of 25.07.2003 
O.J. L 82/33 of 29.03.2003 
Article 9 of Directive 1999/94/EC reads: “Any amendments which are necessary in order to adapt the 
Annexes to this Directive shall be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure set out 
in Article 10 and following consultation with consumer organisations and other interested parties. 
In order to assist this adaptation process, each Member State shall transmit to the Commission, by 31 
December  2003,  a  report  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  provisions  of  this  Directive,  covering  the  period 
from  18  January  2001  until  31  December  2002.  The  format  of  this  report  shall  be  established  in 
accordance with the procedure set out in Article 10 not later than 18 January 2001. 
Furthermore,  the  Commission  shall,  in  accordance  with  the  procedure  laid  down  in  Article  10,  take 
measures aiming at: 
(a) further specifying the format of the label referred to in Article 3 by amending Annex I; 
(b)  further  specifying  the  requirements  concerning  the  guide  referred  to  in  Article  4  with  a  view  to 
classifying new car models thus enabling a listing of the models according to CO2 emissions and fuel 
consumption  in  specified  classes  including  a  class  for  a  listing  of  the  most  fuel  efficient  new  car 
models; 
(c) establishing recommendations in order to enable the application of the principles of the provisions 
on  promotional  literature  referred  to  in  the  first  paragraph  of  Article  6  to  other  media  and  material.” 
Proposals for the amendment of the Directive, if necessary, could most likely not be made before 2005, 
coming into force most likely not before 2006/2007 

12 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
6. 

WORK ON FISCAL MEASURES 

6.1. 

Vehicle related work 

In  2002  the  Commission  published  the  results  of  its  work  on  fiscal  framework  measures33. 
Focusing on registration (RT) and annual circulation taxes (ACT) the Commission concluded 
that: 

•  Fiscal  measures  are  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; 

•  National  vehicle  taxes  should  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 average fuel consumption of newly registered 
cars. Existing vehicle taxes should be replaced by taxes fully based on CO2 emissions or, 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 4 standards. 

The  European  Parliament  reacted  positively  to  the  Communication34.  The  Council  started 
discussions in May 2003; they are still not finalised. 

6.2. 

Fuel related work 

Although currently not directly related to the Community Strategy to reduce CO2 emissions 
from  cars  it  might  be  of  interest  to  take  note  of  Directive  2003/96/EC  which  the  Council 
adopted  in  October  2003.  This  Directive  is  restructuring  the  Community  framework  for  the 
taxation of energy products and electricity. It established higher or introduces new minimum 
levels of taxation for a number of energy products and provides incentives for the promotion 
of the use of more environmentally friendly energy products. In the long run this work could 
gain  importance  for  the  CO2  and  cars  strategy,  e.g.  if  more  cars  switched  to  electricity  or 
hydrogen as an energy source. 

7. 

OTHER RELATED MEASURES  

The Environment Council conclusions of 10 October 2000 requested the Commission to study 
emission reduction measures on light commercial vehicles (LCV, in technical terms equal to 

33 
34 

COM(2002)431 final 
Report A5-0265/2003, adopted by the EP on 6 November 2003 

13 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
category N1 vehicles35) and mobile air conditioning systems used in passenger cars36. In the 
following the state-of-play of the work is presented. 

7.1. 

LIGHT COMMERCIAL VEHICLES 

Light  commercial  vehicles  are  the  third  largest  category  of  on-road  CO2  emitters  after 
passenger  cars  (PC)  and  heavy-duty  vehicles  (HDV).  In  the  year  2000  LCV  accounted  for 
about 13 % of total on-road CO2 emissions, emitting about 90 Mt CO2. On current trends, it is 
predicted that these emissions will increase both in absolute and relative terms in the coming 
decade37. 

Standardised  rules  and  procedures  for  the  measurement  of  CO2  emissions  are  a  prerequisite 
for  studying,  developing  and  implementing  emission  reduction  policy  options  for  LCV.  For 
this reason, the Commission adopted in 2001 a proposal concerning the measurement of CO2 
emissions  and  fuel  consumption  of  light  commercial  vehicles38.  Under  this  proposal  fuel 
consumption  and  CO2  emissions  for  these  vehicles  would  be  determined,  for  type  approval 
purposes, more or less in the same way as for M1 (passenger) vehicles. In September 2002, 
this  proposal  passed  the  1st  reading  in  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council’s  Common 
Position  was  adopted  September  2003.  The  European  Parliament  is  likely  to  accept  the 
Common Position in December 2003 in which case the act would be deemed to be adopted in 
accordance with the Common Position.  

The amendments made to the Commission's proposal by the two institutions are significant in 
so far as they propose to set a later date for the implementation of mandatory CO2 and fuel 
consumption measurements: 2009, compared to the 2007 in the Commission's proposal. Full 
information  on  class  I  vehicles,  including  multi-stage  vehicles,  would  be  required  from 
1.1.2007  onwards.  Full  information  on  classes  II  and  III  vehicles,  including  multi-stage 
vehicles,  would  be  required  from  1.1.2009.  The  information  on  measured  consumption  and 
CO2 figures of registered N1 vehicles as such would be available one year later, i.e. 2008 for 
class I vehicles and 2010 for classes II and III vehicles. 

35 

36 

37 

38 

N1 vehicles are defined as vehicles used for the carriage of goods and having a mass not exceeding 3.5 
tonnes  
The Environment Council of 10 October 2000 concluded, that 
“In the field of transport policy, the Council requests the Commission to study and prepare measures in 
the following areas, taking into account the rate of increase in emissions from the transport sector, as 
well  as  the  need  to  reflect  the  social  and  environmental  costs  for  each  mode  of  transport,  as  also 
outlined in the report to the European Council of Helsinki: 
-  reduction  of  CO2  emissions  from  vehicles,  in  particular  to  reduce  CO2  emissions  from  light  duty 
vehicles 
- reduction of all greenhouse gas (GHG) from air conditioning in vehicles" 
Year 2000 figures. Passenger cars account for about 420 Mt and heavy duty vehicles, including buses 
for about 200 Mt. For details, see European Environment Agency: National and central estimates for air 
emissions from road transport. Technical Report 74 
Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  amending  Council  Directives 
70/156/EC  and  80/1268/EEC  as  regards  the  measurement  of  carbon  dioxide  emissions  and  the  fuel 
consumption of N1 vehicles. COM(2001)543 final 

14 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
 
 
 
The  Council  and  European  Parliament  also  incorporated  possibilities  to  group  vehicles 
together  into  families.  This  grouping  -  in  conjunction  with  the  "6%  derogation"  rule39  -  has 
unclear  repercussions  on  the  accuracy  of  the  CO2  and  fuel  consumption  values  finally 
reported  for  a  particular  vehicle  type  or  version  or  variant.  Therefore,  one  amendment 
requests  the  Commission  to  study  the  repercussions  of  the  ”grouping  together”  concept  as 
well as of some of the other incorporated amendments within two years of the entry into force 
of  the  Directive,  with  the  aim  to  present,  if  appropriate,  measures  for  the  adaptation  of  the 
Directive to technical progress. 

The  Commission  has  recently  carried  out  an  initial  study  on  options  for  CO2  emission 
reduction and policy development for LCV - covering the period 2005 to 2015 - with close 
stakeholder involvement. The results of this study are now available40. The main conclusions 
are: 

The N1 market: Around 20 million N1 light commercial vehicles are estimated to be 
on  the  market.  There  has  been  a  steady  growth  of  newly  registered  N1s  from  just 
above  1  million  in  1995  to  over  1.5  million  in  2000.  ACEA  has  a  market  share  of 
around  90%  of  N1  vehicles,  JAMA  about  6-8%,  and  KAMA  holds  most  of  the 
remaining 2-4%. Diesel engines dominate the majority of the N1 vehicle market with 
around 95% penetration of new sales.  

Expected future market trends: Sales of N1 vehicles in the EU are expected to grow 
by 2% annually. The future shares of the subclasses remain uncertain. A continuation 
of the trend seen 1995 to 2000 would further increase the share of classes II and III.  

Development  of  CO2  emissions:  As  CO2  emissions  of  N1  vehicles  are  not  yet 
included in the EU test procedures, no reliable base data exists. Therefore - according 
to the study - only a few estimates are available from a broad range of sources. The 
estimates suggest that the specific CO2 emissions of new N1 vehicles in recent years 
have  been  decreasing.  In  this  respect  it  should  be  noted  that  the  AUTO  OIL  II 
scenarios41 predict an annual reduction of the specific CO2 emissions of N1 vehicles 
of about 1.2 %. At the time the figure was approved by the car industry, and can be 
taken  presently  as  the  best  indicator  of  expectations  about  future  technology 
development. In comparison, the required annual CO2 reduction figure for passenger 
cars under the CO2 Commitments is about 1.9 %. As far as future CO2 emissions are 
concerned,  estimates  show  that  -  in  a  business  as  usual  scenario,  and  keeping  the 
market shares of the three subclasses constant - the emissions of new N1 vehicles are 
likely to increase from about 9500 Kt in 2005 to 11500 Kt in 2015. 

Driving forces in the market: According to manufacturers the priorities of customers 
when buying N1 vehicles are in the following order: cost of ownership, functionality, 

39 

40 

41 

According  to  point  11.1  of  Annex  I  to  the  draft  amendment  the  type-approval  can  be  extended  to 
vehicles  from  the  same  type  or  from  a  different  type  differing  with  regard  to  the  characteristics 
reference mass, maximum authorised mass, overall gear ratios and engine equipment and accessories, if 
the CO2 emissions measured by the technical service do not exceed by more than 6 % for vehicles of 
category N1 the type-approval value  
"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)626 final 

15 

 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
robustness,  safety  and  dynamics.  Since  incremental  savings  due  to  improved  fuel-
efficiency  are  a  relatively  small  part  of  the  total  costs  of  ownership,  they  are  not 
likely  to  play  the  major  role  in  decision  making,  neither  for  customers  nor  for 
manufacturers. 

Technology  options:  A  large  number  of  currently  available  technologies  have  been 
identified which could reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of N1 vehicles - 
see  Table  5.  While  the  figures  on  CO2 savings are considered as quite reliable, the 
cost estimates are less certain. They are based on a literature review of costs for the 
end-consumer. It is realistic to assume that the actual costs for the manufacturers are 
significantly lower. As a rule, it is estimated that the production costs are by a factor 
of 2 to 3 lower than the prices for the end consumer. However, the actual costs for 
the end-consumer are ultimately a question of competition and marketing so it is an 
important factor for the manufacturers. 

Technology Option 

CO2 Saving 

Estimated Cost, 
Expressed in 
Consumer Price 

(cid:131)  Engine 

(cid:131)  Injection system 
(cid:131)  Valve gear 
(cid:131)  Exhaust control systems 
(cid:131)  Turbo-charging, down -sizing 
(cid:131)  Hybrid 

(cid:131)  Fuel 

(cid:131)  Alternative Fuels 
(cid:131)  Energy Management 
(cid:131)  Accessories 
(cid:131)  Starter/generator 

(cid:131)  Drive Train 

(cid:131)  Transmission concept 
(cid:131)  Drive train automation 

(cid:131)  Body / Chassis 

(cid:131)  Optimisation of aerodynamics 
(cid:131)  Optimisation of rolling resistance 
(cid:131)  Lightweight design 

- 15% to - 20% 
- 10% to - 15% 
+ 2% 
- 25% (class 1) 
- 11% to - 20% 

+ 700€ to + 1000€ 
+ 250€ 
+ 100€ to 3.500€ 
+ 20% engine cost 
+ 2500€ to + 7000€ 

- 10% to - 19% 

+ 1500€ 

- 1% to – 2% 
- 6% to – 30% 

+ 50€ 
+ 1000€ 

- 3% to – 18% 
- 3% to – 15% 

+ 260€ to + 900€ 
+ 100€ 

- 4% 
- 2% 
- 4% to – 7% 

+ 1500€ 
+ 100€ 
+ 1600€ 

Table 5: Possible CO2 savings in 2010 and estimated technology costs, expressed in 
consumer prices 

Scenario  calculations:  Based  on  the  identified  technology  options  and  costs,  the 
study developed two scenarios, a realistic one and an optimal one, in order to assess 

16 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the future evolution of CO2 emissions and associated specific costs42. Table 6 shows 
the results of these investigations. If the realistic technology options were applied for 
all  cars  sold  in  2005,  CO2  emissions  would  be  reduced  by  6.7  %  from  9550  Kt  to 
8910  Kt.  If  the  optimal  technology  options  were  applied  the  reduction  would  be 
13.3 %. In 2010 the figures are 11.3 % and 23.1 % respectively for the two options. 
In 2015 the figures are 22.8 % and 28.5 %. All these reduction figures are in relation 
to the business-as-usual scenario. It should be mentioned that the annual reductions 
assumed for the 'realistic scenario' are very close to the reduction rate incorporated in 
AUTO OIL II. That means they are in line with the future technology expectations of 
the AUTO OIL II expert groups. 

Constant market scenario 

2005 

2010 

2015 

Baseline 

Total CO2 of new LCV (Kt) 

9,550 

Total CO2 of new LCV (Kt)  

8,910 

Abatement costs (EURO/ton)* 

-18 

5 

9,818 

8,704 

11,463** 

8,848 

14 

Total CO2 of new LCV (Kt) 

8,280 

7,558 

8,196 

Abatement costs (EURO/ton)* 

-8 

54 

52 

"Realistic 
scenario" 

"Optimal  
scenario" 

* The abatement costs include investment costs (see Table 5) and fuel savings, taking into account estimated 
future fuel prices  

** Please note: the increase of emissions from 2010 to 2015 is due to the expected increase in the number of new 
N1 vehicles within this period of time 

Table 6: CO2 emissions and annualised specific abatement costs in 2005, 2010 and 2015 
for two scenarios, taking into account investment costs and fuel savings 

Cost-effectiveness  considerations:  According  to  this  study  an  analysis  of  the  two 
technology options shows that figures for cost-effectiveness range between a saving 
of  18  EURO  per  tonne  abated,  up  to  a  cost  of  about  54  EURO/tonne  abated, 
depending on the scenario. Table 6 sets this out in more detail, based on the costs for 
consumers shown in Table 5. For comparison a benchmark figure between 20 and 50 
EURO/tonne  is  mentioned  in  the  European  Climate  Change  Programme  as  an 

42 

The  study  group  estimated  the  base  case  CO2  emission  for  years  2005,  2010  and  2015  using  the 
TREMOVE model. They first estimated the total and new N1 fleet numbers, then the CO2 emissions 
for new vehicles by class. With this as a basis the technology options were evaluated. The base case for 
CO2  emission  is  based  on  extrapolating  the  current  fleet  and  current  technologies.  The  average 
kilometres driven are estimated to go up only slightly from 19,738 in year 2000 to 20,016 km by 2015. 
Finally, CO2 emissions reductions associated with different scenario settings were calculated 

17 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
indicator of cost efficiency43,44. 

The  specific  costs  depend,  inter  alia,  on  the  vehicle  class.  Most  cost  efficient  are 
measures  implemented  in  class  I  vehicles,  followed  by  the  combination  of 
technologies applied in both classes I and II. For some of the scenarios - in particular 
for the more demanding measures for the sub classes II and III, envisaged to be taken 
in 2010 and 2015 - the costs would be slightly above the 50 EURO/tonne cut. 

The  work  on  N1  vehicles  is  inconclusive  and  has  not  yet  been  finalised.  It  is  therefore  too 
early to present final policy options.  

Nevertheless, in the light of the findings up to now the Commission is considering measures. 
Among these are:  

–  the introduction of labelling requirements similar to those which have been introduced for 

M1 vehicles (see Directive 1999/94/EC), 

–  the monitoring of emission trends for N1 vehicles (see Decision 1753/2000/EC), 

–  CO2 emission reduction measures for N1 vehicles 

The timing of implementation of these measures will depend on the outcome of discussions at 
Council  and  European  Parliament  level  on  the  proposed  amendments  to  Directive 
80/1268/EEC and the results of additional studies to be carried out in the coming years. 

Measures  concerning  CO2  emission  reductions  from  light  commercial  vehicles  can  only  be 
considered when we have comprehensive and reliable emission data, measured in accordance 
with  the  proposal  concerning  the  measurement  of  CO2  emissions  and  fuel  consumption  of 
light commercial vehicles. 

To attain more information on the issues mentioned above the Commission decided to launch 
a follow-up study focussing on  

i 

ii 

43 

44 

measuring,  in  accordance  with  the  amended  Directive  80/1268/EEC,  the  fuel 
consumption and the CO2 emissions of a representative number of light commercial 
vehicles, 

addressing the questions listed by Council and the European Parliament in Article 345 
of the amended Directive 80/1268/EEC, as applicable to category N1 vehicles, and 

A common feature of the different ECCP working groups was the identification of a criterion “below 
20€/t  CO2eq”  and  “below  50€/t  CO2eq.”  as  a  benchmark  to  evaluate  the  cost-effectiveness  of  each 
potential  measure.  However,  it  should  be  mentioned  that  the  ECCP  cost  criterion  is  only  used  for 
measures  for  the  first  commitment  period.  For  technology  to  be  introduced  in  2015  future  costs-
efficiency assessments might come to different conclusions 
ECCP report of March 2003. However, the 20 to 50 EURO/tonne should not be regarded as a strict cut-
off  point  but,  taking  into  account  the  uncertainties  related  to  the  specific  implementation,  gives  a 
general  indication  of  the  cost-effectiveness  of  a  certain  measure,  while  other  considerations  (for 
instance  benefits  related  to  security  of  supply,  related  to  other  environmental  issues  or  in  the  longer 
term,) need to be taken into account as well. Other common criteria for the cross-sectoral assessment 
and  comparison  of  measures  were  the  time  frame  for  implementation  and  the  impact  on  other  policy 
areas, see Second ECCP Progress Report: "Can we meet our Kyoto targets?" 

18 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
iii 

developing further the evaluation of policy options for reducing emissions from this 
category or its subclasses, including Candidate Countries. 

The result of this study will be available by the end of 2004. 

7.2.  MOBILE AIR CONDITIONING  

The Commission started work on mobile air conditioning 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 Programme46. The results of the work on the coolant are presented 
elsewhere47. 

With  regard  to  fuel  consumption  there  is  growing  evidence  that  the  use  of  air  conditioning 
systems  in  passenger  cars  could  add  significantly  to  CO2  emissions.  This  is  a  source  not 
covered by the existing legislation on fuel consumption and CO2 emission measurements and 
therefore  not  covered  by  the  Commitments  of  the  car  industry48.  Estimates  show  that  the 
additional emissions are in the range of 3 to 8 %49. Moreover, there seems to be a potential to 
reduce the impact on fuel consumption of the use of the equipment by about 50 %. 

Again,  a  prerequisite  for  studying  the  impact  of  the  use  of  air  conditioning  systems  are 
reliable test procedures. Therefore the Commission aims at finalising the work as quickly as 
possible,  while  striving  to  establish  internationally  harmonised  test  procedures,  where 
appropriate. 

8. 

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 passenger cars newly 
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  2002  was  166  g  CO2/km50,  compared  to 

45 

46 
47 
48 

49 

50 

This new draft Article requests the Commission, not later than two years after the entry into force of 
this Directive, to: 
a) present a study on the possibilities to obtain representative CO2 emissions and fuel consumption data 
for completed multi-stage vehicles and vehicles whose emissions are measured according to Directive 
88/77/EEC in order to take into account the “cost-efficiency” aspects of these measurements 
b) present an evaluation of the vehicle family concept introduced in this Directive 
c) if appropriate, present draft measures on the adaptation of this Directive to technical progress to the 
Committee established by Art. 13 of Directive 70/156/EEC 
COM(2001)580 final 
COM (2003)492 final 
The  Commitments  specify  that  new  car  CO2  emissions  will  be  measured  according  to  Directive 
93/116/EC, which is the basis on which the targets were established. This test does not include the use 
of  mobile  air  conditioning.  In  any  case  changes  of  the  test  procedure,  as  happened  last  time  with 
Directive  99/100/EC,  need  to  be  taken  into  account  in  the  monitoring  of  the  CO2  Commitments  by 
correcting the measured CO2 emissions in order to bring them into line with the 93/116/EC procedure. 
The last correction made is the 0.7 % adjustment mentioned in the footnote of Table 2 
“Options  to  reduce  Greenhouse  Gas  Emissions  due  to  Mobile  Air  Conditioning”  Summary  of 
discussions of the ‘MAC Summit’ held in Brussels on 10/11/ February 2003. 
(see http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/mac2003/pdf/macsummitdiscussion.pdf) 
Figure based on official EU data 

19 

 
 
  
 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
 
 
 
186 g CO2/km in 1995, the reference year of the Community strategy. While it is unlikely that 
the  120  g  CO2/km  target  would  be  met  as  early  as  2005,  it  remains  realistic  to  meet  the 
objective by 2010 if the necessary measures are taken and all efforts are made. It is important 
that ACEA and JAMA achieved early their intermediate target set for 2003.  

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. However, 
in  order  to  meet  the  final  target  of  the  Commitments  (140  g  CO2/km)  all  three  associations 
have  to  increase  their  efforts  to  a  greater  or  lesser  extent.  Based  on  the  Joint  Reports  the 
Commission  has  no  reason  to  believe  that  ACEA  and  JAMA  would  not  live  up  to  its 
respective  commitment.  With  regard  to  KAMA  there  is  valid  reason  to  be  concerned. 
Additional and significant efforts will be necessary by KAMA if it is to meet its intermediate 
target for 2004. This has been emphasised to KAMA and it has reiterated its determination to 
achieve the targets to which it has committed. 

The implementation of Directive 1999/94 and Decision 1753/2000 made good progress and is 
nearly complete. 

The  Commission  is  continuing  its  work  concerning  CO2  emissions  from  light  commercial 
vehicles and started to work on CO2 emissions due to the use of mobile air conditioning. 

51 

2003 for ACEA and JAMA, 2004 for KAMA 

20