1. “Flexibility mechanisms” TFIEP - Stockholm, Sweden 2-3 May 2010 Andre Zuber European Commission Environment Directorate-General

2. The present Gothenburg protocol offers flexibility in: appliction of measures on existing sources only when techically and economically feasible;appliction of measures on existing sources only when techically and economically feasible; alternative strategies to achieve the same overall effect as ELVs.alternative strategies to achieve the same overall effect as ELVs. The present GP has little flexibility: in application dates and levels of ELVs;in application dates and levels of ELVs; in respecting the 2010 ceilings that were set by negotiations.in respecting the 2010 ceilings that were set by negotiations. Several Parties to the CLRTAP have not ratified the GP due to its complexity and lack of « legal control ». Several Parties to the GP have difficulties (in their view) in respecting the 2010 ceiling due to: stronger than anticipated economic or population growth;stronger than anticipated economic or population growth; Changes in methodology for Inventories (including the fuels used/sold);Changes in methodology for Inventories (including the fuels used/sold); The failure of some policies to deliver anticipated reductions.The failure of some policies to deliver anticipated reductions. Background

3. AT NOx emissions Some examples – Updated activity data (non- road machinery

4. AT NOx emissions Some examples – A new source category Agriculture manure management

5. AT NOx emissions Some examples – A new set of ELVs Anticipated vs real world emissions

6. AT NOx emissions Some examples – Activity projection Anticipated vs materialised activity

7. Potential new flexibility in the GP The EU has invited to a discussion on increased flexibility to address Article 3 BASIC OBLIGATIONS: “…. 1 bis. A Party having an annual emission in year X above the corresponding emission ceiling set in Annex II still fulfils the obligations of paragraph 1 if: (a) the average of the annual emissions of the years X-1, X and X+1 does not exceed that emission ceiling; or (b) the exceedance is caused by: - new source categories found after the adoption of the Protocol and approved by the EMEP Steering Body, or - significant differences between the emission factors and the way emissions of a source are calculated the setting of the emission ceilings and the updated emission factors and the way emissions are calculated in assessing emission inventories as approved by the EMEP Steering Body; -and under the strict provision that the Party also fulfils the obligations of paragraphs 2 to 8 with regard to the pollutant for which the ceiling is exceeded. Any Party intending to make use of one or more of these provisions shall document the underlying data in its Informative Inventory Report as referred to in Article 7, paragraph 1.”

8. What flexibility could/should be included in the GP in relation to compliance checking of emissions in relation to ceilings: -that accounts for new source categories, new ELVs and new methodology; -that accounts for flexibility in averaging over certain time period; -that accounts for significant differences between anticipated (ex ante) and real (ex-post) factors used for emission inventories (E.F. and activity); -that is transparent, and does not create loopholes; -that secures that « best estimates » are provided by parties ? What should be the requirement for parties to document the adjusted IE and on what basis? In which part of the GP or guidance such requirements would be laid down? Summary in a policy perspective

9. What technical guidance can the TFEIP give that addresses the policy issues? To what extent would relative ceilings (for 2020) give flexibility? What technical guidance would have to be developed by the TFEIP to secure both transparent and accurate reporting of emissions and allow for an correct and acceptable « adjustment » of the EI. What are the limitations to actually perform the recalcualtions for adjustment of EI since some information on used factors may not be available? A summary paper by the TFEIP (similar to the chairs paper to the 48th WGSR would be helpful. Summary in a TFIEP perspective