LEGISLATION
Designed by committee
The European Union Emission Trading System is the largest multi-national emissions trading
scheme in the world. Miles Austin examines recently passed legislation in the EU ETS.
T
HE EUROPEAN Emissions Beneath her were shadow rapporteurs who draw a line in the sand, indicating from that
trading Scheme (EU ETS) runs report to the different factions within the point onwards the quality of CERs, which is
in consecutive phases. Phase I parliament, namely left wing, right wing, liberal, actually to say the provenance and technology
ran from 2005-2007, Phase II independent and green. The shadow rapporteurs used was on the table.
runs from 2008-2012, and Phase III will run also act to communicate the positions of the The fact that the European Parliament
from 2013-2020. The negotiations between different factions within parliament to the didn’t simply come out with clear guidelines
Member States, the European Parliament and rapporteur so that their views are taken into also by omission highlighted that this is an
the European Commission over how phase III account. immensely complex area. In the end the EU
of the EU ETS will function took place over ETS amendments contained three classifi cations
2008 as part of the European climate and energy
‘Gold standard type’
of CERs that can be used in Phase III of the
package negotiations. The controversy around the use of emission EU ETS. The fi rst two classifi cations allow the
The climate and energy package has three reductions in phase III came to a head in the use of CERs from projects that were registered
main legs; Member State emissions reduction parliamentary negotiations with the rapporteurs’ before 2013 and are of a type that would have
targets for non EU ETS sectors 2013 to 2020, report. The report contains suggested been acceptable to any Member State for EU
emissions reductions targets for the EU ETS amendments to the proposed legislation tabled ETS compliance. The distinction between the
2013 to 2020, and fi nally renewable energy by MEPs, and amendments proposed by Avril two lies in when the CERs from these projects
targets. The EU ETS negotiations were by far Doyle herself. One of the key amendments are issued. The fi rst grouping allows use of
the most fraught and controversial of the three put forward by Doyle contained the caveat CERs from these projects issued pre-2013
negotiating rounds, with EU ETS Certifi ed that CERs used post-2012 should be of ‘Gold and the second post 2012. The third grouping
Emission Reductions (CER) use being one Standard type’. allows the use of CERs from projects registered
of, if not the most controversial area of the The Gold Standard is an offsetting standard after 2012, if they are based in least developed
negotiations within that. for the clean development mechanism (CDM) countries (LDCs).
and voluntary markets that was originally set up From the perspective of the private capital
Qualitative restrictions
by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Although that funds CDM projects this provides a fairly
From a very early stage the issue of qualitative ironically in a ‘pythonesque’ twist, having set clear guide for where that capital should fl ow
CER use appeared on the agenda of the the Gold Standard up, factions within the WWF if it wishes to fund projects that can sell their
negotiations. The European Parliamentary won’t unequivocally endorse the Gold Standard, credits to Europe. Or it would do if it weren’t
system appoints MEPs to act as guides for but that is another story. The use of the phrase for an extra complication provided by a process
pieces of legislation. These guides are known as ‘Gold Standard type’ was never intended to be called comitology.
rapporteurs. The rapporteur for the passage of exactly that, as this would have handed over
the EU ETS legislation through the European control of industrial CER use in the EC to a
What is comitology?
Parliament was Irish MEP, Avril Doyle. Swiss-based NGO. Instead it was designed to Comitology may sound like an obscure
10 SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS April 2009
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60