Strasbourg, 07/09/2006 (Agence Europe) - On 5 September in Strasbourg the European Parliament sharply criticised the negligence of Member States in the elaboration of and implementation of national plans for green house gas emission quotas for 2008-12. Some MEPs even went as far as proclaiming that the system had failed. Some of the most virulent of them included EPP-ED and Greens-EFA MEPs. The Commission was formally invited to examine one of the rare national plans that had been sent to it. Many MEPs believe that the EU's credibility depends on this approach.
In his speech to the plenary, Stavros Dimas, Commissioner for the environment, also deplored the fact that on 30 August, two months after the deadline Member States were supposed to respect, only 9 Member States (Germany, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia, the United Kingdom and Ireland) had sent the Commission their national plans, a situation, he described as “unacceptable”. Denmark, Greece, Malta, Slovenia, Sweden and the Czech Republic had still not sent theirs in. The plans of other Member States: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Spain, Finland, France, Italy and the Netherlands are still being negotiated. The Commission, which is currently examining them cannot at this stage say anything about their content. The Commissioner pointed out, however, that the plans should not only comply with the commitments made in the Kyoto Protocol but that they should also present a reduction in quotas in relation to the volume allocated in 2005. Reduction projects also need putting into practice, therefore Member States with fewer emissions, issue fewer quotas during the first allocation period (2005-07). Mr Dimas warned that, “We place a lot of importance on the national plans. Warning letters have already been sent out to countries producing them late. The Commission could go further if Member States are persistently late” warned Mr Dimas.
Nonetheless, the Commission reiterated his confidence in the emissions quota system, a key tool in the fight against climate change, and which, according to Dimas, “is working well” but could be improved by 2012. This is the objective of the assessment system his services are preparing.
The Finnish presidency of the Council, Paula Lehtomaki, is convinced that the emission quota exchange system is “one of the pillars of the EU's climate policy” and welcomed the pioneering role that the EU played in implementing it. However, she did recognise that there were certain malfunctions during the first experimental year of the system and that the assessment report being prepared by the Commission would provide an opportunity for improvements and getting the system to better fulfil its objective, “an opportunity to assess how the EU ETS can be further improved to meet its goal, reducing green house gas emissions in a cost effective way”. The president of the Council also appealed for transparency in the system to be improved by taking into account he experience acquired in the communication of data on real emissions, “greater transparency would help us guarantee that access to market relevant data is available to all relevant actors in a coherence and coordinated way”. With regard to the second national plans for emission quotas, the president of the Council left it to the Commission to decide. Revision of the directive which instituted the emissions exchange quota system will begin under the Finnish presidency. In this perspective, Ms Lehtomaki said that, “it is important for the system to send a clear signal to business: investment in low carbon, environmentally-friendly technologies pay off”.
Speaking for the EPP-ED group, Avril Doyle from Ireland asked for pressure to be kept on the 25 Member States to respect their commitments in Kyoto. She said that “the theory is good, but the practice has been awful” and deplored the fact that in 2005 in 21 countries Co2 emissions were above the 44 million tonnes in the quotas.
Dorette Corbey speaking for the PES could not hide her irony about the optimism regarding the Commissioner and Finnish presidency. She said that she was delighted to hear that according to the Council and Commission the system was working well. She said, however, that it was a shame that only nine countries had submitted their plans and that recently, allocations had been too generous and the unexpected profits made by gas emitting companies were unacceptable. She asked whether the solution should really be an auction on quotas. Speaking for the ALDE, Chris Davies from the United Kingdom was more moderate. He said that the system was perfecting itself daily and that the second phase would allow for lessons to be drawn. He called on the Commission to remain firm on latecomers and added that Parliament expected the objectives to be respected and that conditions were the same for all in order to guarantee a fair system.
Speaking on behalf of the Greens/EFA, Luxembourg MEP Claude Turmes openly accused France, Germany and Poland of 'cheating', and slammed the German plan which had a special clause for the benefit of four big electric companies, which would not allow new entrants or investors in gas. Roberto Musacchio (GUE, Italy) said the aim was for CO2 to have a price attached to encourage investment in clean energy, but over-allocation of CO2 quotas would demolish the system. He said the quota exchange system (carbon trading) was an important, but risky, part of the Kyoto Protocol because it was a system for bartering with the right of the most powerful to continue to pollute to the detriment of the poorest. Ahead of the next UN conference on climate change (in Nairobi, Kenya), he said it was important to ensure a pollution market was not set up and to help developing countries get more developed by polluting less. He called for genuinely good cooperation policies. German Christian Democrat Pieter Liese said that carbon trading should be one of the main tools for combatting climate change but the first results were not very convincing. For this reason, he added, the heterogeneity of allocation criteria should be rectified to stop distortions of competition, and a mechanism should be foreseen to combat over-allocation in some Member States. The Commission should therefore go back to the drawing board.
Responding to the strongest criticism, Commissioner Dimas said that 'the infrastructure for emissions trading is sound, and the market in allowances is developing rather well.' He added that according to World Bank statistics, during the first year of trading, 2005, EUR 320 million quotas were traded for more than EUR 6 billion, so nobody could say that the system had failed.