Flexibility Mechanisms- summary of proposed options -

A flexibility mechanism gives a Party options in relation to compliance

Assessment FrameworkElements taken into consideration while analysing options

• OverviewProvides a short description of the mechanism, and considers the issues which are/aren’t addressed by the mechanisms

• Simplicity and TransparencyMechanisms generally need to be simple if they are to be used. Furthermore, it is crucial that the mechanism is transparent so that emission estimates can be readily reviewed and quality assured.

• Associated Costs and EffortThere may be additional costs and/or effort required. This relates not only to additional work required by the Party’s inventory compilers, but also the UN/ECE and its various groups/boards/committees (which may be required to perform some kind of co-ordination role or drafting of guidance).

• Practicality and Method of ImplementationSome of the mechanisms are easier to put in place then others that might require considerably more infrastructure and consideration of the details. These practicalities need to be taken into account. In addition to this, a mechanism may be implemented in different ways. For example, the mechanism may be written into the Protocol itself, or detailed in guidance for reporting emissions.

• AdaptabilityGives an indication of how readily each mechanism could be updated. This can be evaluated in two different ways:• How easily new science and understanding could be incorporated into the mechanism. This reflects technical adaptability, and• How well the method of implementation allows for updates. For example, would an amendment to the Protocol be needed? If so, this has consequences for the associated timeline, which would need to allow for negotiations, amendments and then time for the amendment to enter into force and therefore be effective.

• EquityEach of the mechanisms is assessed for equity - the extent to which any additional costs or burden is shared by countries in a manner that is perceived to be “fair” (this does not necessarily mean equal).

Relative Emission Ceilings Accounting for Change and Uncertainty

• Accounting for New Sources• Accounting for Significant Changes to EFs• Split Ambition Targets

Time Based Mechanisms• Three Year Average• Delayed Compliance

Domestic Pollutant SwappingEmissions Trading Scheme Variants

• ETS• Bubble ETS• Sectoral ETS

Flexibility Mechanisms Considered

Short Explanation of Selected Mechanisms

Accounting for Change and UncertaintyWhere improvements introduce new sources or significant changes to emission factors, guidance would be published that might allow corrections to emissions for compliance purposes.

Three Year AverageAn option to use a three year average for compliance purposes.

Split Ambition TargetsUncertainty ranges would be applied to the ceilings, and updated if/when improvements brought about significant changes to emission estimates.

Delayed ComplianceIf exceeding ceilings in compliance year, an option to take more challenging ceilings with compliance at a later date instead.

Domestic Pollutant SwappingThe option of allowing a Party to reduce emissions of one pollutant at the expense of another, for compliance purposes.

The TFEIP ad hoc group concluded that:

• the Three Year Average mechanism should be included in the revised Gothenburg Protocol as an option that Parties may elect to use, and

• Recommended that it is added to whichever (if any) of the packages of potential flexibility mechanisms is considered the most suitable.

A.

„Package 3a” supported

Package 3a: Relative Emissions Ceilings, Accounting for New Sources and Significant Changes to EFs

• These mechanisms provides effective mechanisms for countering uncertainties impacting on all Parties, but allowed amendments would need to be strictly controlled to be workable in practice.

• This can be seen as a logical extension of the approach used for GHG emissions.

B.

Relative Emission Ceilings Accounting for Change and Uncertainty

• Accounting for New Sources• Accounting for Significant Changes to EFs

• Split Ambition TargetsTime Based Mechanisms

• Three Year Average• Delayed ComplianceDomestic Pollutant SwappingEmissions Trading Scheme Variants• ETS• Bubble ETS• Sectoral ETS

Relative Emission Ceilings

OverwiewThe use of relative, rather than absolute emission ceilings, means that a percentage reduction or an increase on a base year must be achieved by the target year. Different impacts can arise from the introduction of new source, or changing methodologies (or emission factors). These are considered and indicate that the use of a best science emissions inventory with targets calculated using percentage reductions does address some inventory revisions, but not all. Generally, percentage reductions are particularly appealing to Parties where national emission inventories are rather new, and are undergoing significant development and improvement. This is because many of the changes to the inventory would not have a significant impact on progress towards targets based on percentage reductions.

Relative Emission CeilingsSimplicity and Transparency

• The use of percentage reductions is both very simple and very transparent, which makes it an attractive option.

• The only slight issue which can impact on transparency is the year to year revision of the base year emissions, which impacts on the absolute value of the emissions in the target year.

Associated Costs and Effort• The reporting process for emission datasets would remain unchanged, and

therefore there should be no additional burden on Parties or the EMEP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections (CEIP) in terms of their subsequent compilation and assessment of reported emissions data.

• Parties of course could add a table to their Informative Inventory Reports (IIRs) to indicate percentage reductions to date. This would allow progress to targets to be easily tracked.

Relative Emission CeilingsAssociated Costs and Effort

• The annual detailed (Stage 3) emission review process, performed in accordance with the methods and procedures for review (ECE.EB.AIR.GE.1.2007.16) should consider the emissions reported for both the base year and the target year.

• At present the review teams do assess time series consistency across all years of submitted data, but with a focus on data from the most recent year. Therefore the effort needed for this would be slightly increased compared to the levels of effort for the existing Stage 3 review process.

Absorbs many, but not all, impacts of future inventory development and improvement;

Particularly well suited to new/developing emission inventories; Relative emission ceilings do not address significant revisions to the emission

estimates which do not impact on the base year; Very simple to implement; No significant addition to the workloads for CEIP or the emission inventory

review teams (compared to the current Stage 3 review process).

Relative Emission Ceilings - summary

CONCLUSION OF THE TFEIP: This mechanism does have strong support from many of the TFEIP members,

but it is recognised that it does not address all issues in its own right. It is also noted to be familiar and easily implemented with little extra work

by teams/bodies, and is well suited to young/developing emission inventories.

Accounting for New Sources

Overview

Under this correction mechanism the Parties (presumably through the EMEP SB and Executive Body) would decide whether any “new” sources could effectively be discounted from a Party’s inventory for compliance purposes.

The basis for this assessment would need to be clearly defined, but the premise is that the Party could not have known about, or quantified, the existence of this source when absolute ceilings were set. As a result it is permissible to correct best science emissions estimates, to give a dataset for compliance purposes only.

Accounting for New Sources

Efficient way of mitigating impacts of unforeseen changes; Precise definition of “new sources” required; Only small burden increases for EMEP SB activities and CEIP; Increase in the burden for Parties associated with reporting, and the Stage

3 review teams.CONCLUSION OF THE TFEIP

This mechanism addresses issues associated with revisions very well, but is not popular with some members of the TFEIP because it requires inventory compilers to generate and work with two versions of the inventory.

Additional on-going work would also be needed by other EMEP teams. It would be important to limit the number of “corrections” allowed to keep this additional burden to reasonable levels. However, this would not be helpful for young/developing emission inventories.

Accounting for “Significant Changes” to EFs

Overview

This correction mechanism is very similar to that outlined in „Accounting for new sources”, with the exception that rather than considering “new sources”, Parties would collectively decide (through discussions in a relevant EMEP bodies) where the impact on emission estimates caused by “significant changes” to emission factors could be addressed for compliance purposes.

It is expected that this mechanism would be used to address the impact of large changes in emission estimates caused by inventory developments, and not numerous small changes.

Accounting for “Significant Changes” to EFs Efficient way of mitigating impacts of unforeseen changes;

Difficult to define “significant changes” and therefore the breadth of the mechanism;

Burden increase for EMEP SB activities and TFEIP (in maintaining EMEP/EEA Emissions Inventory Guidebook) could be substantial;

Increase in the burden for Parties associated with reporting, and the Stage 3 review teams.

CONCLUSION OF THE TFEIP: This mechanism addresses issues associated with revisions well, but it is

particularly unpopular with some members of the TFEIP. There is potential for a substantial increase in the burden on inventory compilers (in terms of handling data, compiling IIRs and managing version control).

A certain amount of additional work would also be required by other EMEP teams. It would be very important to minimise the number of “corrections” allowed to keep this additional burden to acceptable levels. However this would not be helpful for young/developing emission inventories.

Three Year Average

OverviewThis proposed flexibility mechanism allows a Party to have their compliance with the 2020 ceilings assessed on the basis of a three-year average 2019-2021. The purpose of such a mechanism is to reduce the impact of one-off events that might increase the emissions in a single year (such as exceptional emissions from an industrial source, or a particularly cold winter).

This mechanism is popular with Parties as it protects against events which cannot realistically be predicted. It does so in a very simple way that requires little additional work. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that such a mechanism is unlikely to be used by many Parties because the size of the impact that it can deliver is typically very small, and unlikely to make a difference between compliance and non-compliance.It has also been suggested that if this mechanism is used with relative emission ceilings, it may be sensible to also include the option of using a three year average for base year calculations as well as the compliance year. However, this would increase the complexity of the mechanism, and potentially impact on transparency.

Three Year Average

Simple to implement with no significant additional burden on Parties;

Simple to report, however, Parties using this option would achieve compliance a year later than other Parties;

The emission inventory review process would be slightly more involved than the existing Stage 3 review, but for one year only.

CONCLUSION OF THE TFEIP: This mechanism is simple, and requires no significant additional work, and

has general support from the TFEIP. Policy makers may have issues with the delay of the resulting compliance

year.

Split Ambition Targets

OverviewInstead of considering uncertainty associated with the emission estimate, this correction mechanism applies a revision to the emission ceiling itself. The emissions ceiling is comprised of two components - a fixed value and an uncertainty range. Changes to this uncertainty range can take into consideration unforeseen circumstances that arise during the compliance period of the legislation. The uncertainty range is used in the form of a percentage uncertainty.

Revisions to the uncertainty range could be driven by either national or international issues, although for simplicity it is assumed that only decisions collectively agreed by the Parties (presumably through discussion and evaluation in an EMEP environment) would allow a revision to the uncertainty range.

Revisions to the uncertainty range could account for the addition of sources to the inventory, ineffective international mitigation measures, other inaccuracies in the initial ceiling modelling technique etc.

Split Ambition Targets

Requires the evaluation and negotiation of uncertainty ranges;

Periodic update of uncertainty ranges could be time consuming, challenging and may then require negotiation;

Little extra burden on Parties in terms of effort required for reporting.

CONCLUSION OF THE TFEIP: This mechanism is attractive to inventory compilers because it requires

no additional work associated with compiling and reporting a national inventory, but still addresses issues that arise from inventory development.

However, it is recognised that setting of the ceilings and accompanying uncertainty ranges is challenging and that this would require work by other EMEP teams.

Delayed ComplianceOverviewWhere a Party does not comply with their emission ceilings, this flexibility mechanism gives a new target year with more stringent ceilings. Typically, the more stringent ceiling is derived from the extent to which the Party exceeded the original ceiling. There are parallels with the system that is used in greenhouse gas emissions where adjustments are made to national inventories (corrections are applied to inventories, but a “conservativeness factor” is used which typically results in emissions being corrected to values higher than they would have been if best practice had been used in the first place).

This mechanism therefore provides Parties with more time to comply with ceilings, whilst also applying a penalty rate to the ceiling recalculations to ensure the lowering of the ceilings when a Party does not comply. This could potentially promote a faster rate of emissions reduction in the long run. This mechanism is suited to national situations where mitigation measures have been taken, but the resulting impact on reducing emissions has been slower to develop than originally planned. It may also support the release of funds to invest in further abatement, where pending non-compliance proceedings are a plausible outcome.

Delayed Compliance

Delayed Protocol deadline of three years for non-compliant Parties may affect public perception;

Additional burden for EMEP SB activities because Party-specific penalty rates would need to be agreed on when Parties are non-compliant;

Encourages innovative, short-term reduction methodologies in order to comply with the reduced ceilings.

CONCLUSION OF THE TFEIP:

This mechanism provides a solution of sorts, but requires additional work and is not as well supported by the TFEIP in general as other mechanisms.

Policy makers may have issues with the delay of the resulting compliance year.

Domestic Pollutant Swapping

Overview

This flexibility mechanism enables a Party to ‘swap’ emissions from one pollutant to another with pre-defined exchange rates. This enables a Party that may not be compliant with all ceilings to redistribute their emissions across the ceilings to ensure compliance with more or all emission ceilings (whilst at the same time achieving a comparable effects outcome).

The predefined exchange rates between pollutants are typically set to ensure that it is disadvantageous to use the flexibility mechanism compared to implementing emission reductions to comply with the emission ceilings directly. This should avoid any significant “skewing”, where a Party considered the most effective approach to reduce emissions of only selected pollutants by a substantial amount, and then “swapped” to ensure compliance across all pollutants. Exchange rates would also need to reflect the implications of the virtual transfer between acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone – in line with the Gothenburg Protocol.

Domestic Pollutant Swapping Feasibility of this mechanism will need to be assessed by effects modellers. Attempts to counter non-compliance with over-compliance rather than slackening

ambition. No significant burden on Parties as it is simple to report in the IIR with a small

additional section including the simple calculations; A significant additional burden on EMEP SB activities to quantify the complex

relationships between required exchange rates for each Party and each pollutant; Parties would not have to emit under their ceilings in order to comply with the

Protocol, which could have adverse effects on public perception.

CONCLUSION OF THE TFEIP: This is an effective but simple mechanism for emission inventory

compilers, and it is therefore liked by the TFEIP members. However, input would be needed from effects modellers to comment on

whether it is practical (or even feasible) to determine exchange rates with to acceptable level of confidence. This may remove this mechanism from consideration.

Emissions Trading

Overview

This flexibility mechanism is based on the same principles as Domestic Pollutant Swapping, but countries can off-set their over-compliance with other Parties. If one country emits above its ceiling, it can transfer these emissions to a different country that has emitted less than its own ceiling. Unlike greenhouse gases, the impacts of air pollutants depend upon the location of the emissions. Thus exchange rates could or would be used to address geographical issues such as the change in proximity to vulnerable ecosystems, the distance between countries, as well as issues indicated in the Domestic Gasp Swapping mechanism (for example that emissions reduction should be generally favoured over the option of trading).

Technically this mechanism is not really a trading scheme. It is better described as “ex post compliance phase gas swapping on an international scale”. But it is included in this Section for simplicity. Trading schemes are typically more dynamic systems, with more regular exchanges/sales.

Emissions Trading

Bubble Emissions Trading

This is a variant on the Emissions Trading flexibility mechanism whereby trading would be restricted to being within a specific geographical area. The logic to this is that it has the potential to remove the need for exchange rates between countries that correct for the differing impacts of the same amount of emissions due to geographical location. As a result, the trading should be simplified and more transparent.

The individual bubbles would need to be defined, and collectively agreed by the Parties. The infrastructure to support each of the trading schemes within these bubbles would then need to be put in place. All of this would require funding. It may be that geography then has a significant impact on the availability of emission credits for a particular Party.

Emissions Trading

Sectoral Emissions Trading

This is a variant on the Emissions Trading flexibility mechanism whereby trading would be restricted to particular sectors, and trading only within a sector. This scheme allows effective alignment with cost benefit studies, and has the potential to reduce the complexity of such studies.

Limiting the sources which are included in the trading scheme would be simpler and more transparent. However, there may be substantial variability across the different Parties in the extent to which they have the potential to be involved in, and benefit from, the trading scheme.

Emissions Trading

Additional burden for EMEP SB activities associated with defining the complex exchange rates taking into account long-range transportation of pollutants;

Time required for designing and implementing a trading scheme is probably more than is available;

The review process would need to verify all the trading, which should not be a significant burden as an efficient reporting database could be established.

CONCLUSION OF THE TFEIP:

Whilst this mechanism has potential for some applications, it is complex and involved to implement. Timescales mean that this option is not considered realistic.