annex i. ods banks in the european union1 -...

Annex I: ODS Banks in the European Union

Milieu Ltd & Ecosphere Lda December 2007

Review of the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer

Annex I. ODS Banks in the European Union1 While the use of ODS in the EU has been drastically cut over the past two decades, large amounts of ODS still reside in products and equipment: for example, many types of foam contain their blowing agents; many refrigerators and air conditioners contain their refrigerants. These reservoirs of ODS, which have been produced and used, but not yet released to the atmosphere, are referred to as banks. The ODS in these banks can be released to the atmosphere, either through leakage during product and equipment lifetimes or when the product is destroyed at the end of its lifetime. Global banks of ODS One approach to calculating bank sizes adds the annual differences between global production and emissions (derived from global atmospheric observations). But any persistent biases in production or emission data can lead to large cumulative biases in the bank size estimates. This is a concern in particular for emission data. A different approach is to compile global inventories of equipment and products containing ODSs.2 As noted for example by Hurst et al., (2006) differences between the two methods are apparent in their greatly different estimates of the global bank of CFCs: e.g. 720 ktonnes in 2000 (Montzka and Fraser, 2003), comparing production and emissions; versus 2400 ktonnes in 2002 (IPCC/TEAP, 2005) based on inventory of products and equipment. The method of using the differences between production and emissions seems much more susceptible to systematic errors. In any case, this approach will only deliver global banks. Therefore, the approach followed by IPCC/TEAP will be used in the estimate presented here . According to IPCC/TEAP, the global banks of CFCs amounted to about 2400 ktonnes (i.e. 2.4 * 106 kg) in the year 2002 (all data are provided in metric tonnes). For comparison, the maximum CFC productions were on the order of 1000 ktonnes per year (1987 and 1988, see AFEAS). IPCC/TEAP estimate that the banks of CFC will be on the order of 1400 ktonnes in 2015. This reduction in the banks is mainly due to out gassing of CFCs contained in foams and to the leakage of CFC to the atmosphere during servicing or end-of-lifetime destruction from cooling devices and foams. A part of the banks is also recovered and destroyed, when the CFCs are recovered from the product and destroyed in the waste management cycle. As the use of these substances in developed countries is only allowed for a few very limited applications, this number is rather independent of any future actions. Political decisions can, however, have a strong influence on whether these banks are emitted to the atmosphere or are captured and destroyed. For HCFCs, the IPCC/TEAP report derived a bank of about 2650 ktonnes for 2002, which is expected to increase to 3300 ktonnes in a business as usual scenario, whereas it may be slightly lower (3000 ktonnes) in a so called mitigation scenario: HCFCs are still being used in some countries, e.g. the USA, Japan and developing countries, mainly for non-domestic refrigeration purposes.3 The usage of HCFCs in the EU Member States for new refrigeration systems is forbidden. For Halons, IPCC/TEAP estimates are of 167 ktonnes for 2002, whereas they are estimated to drop to 43 ktonnes in 2015. Halons have mainly been used in fire protection. According to IPCC/TEAP only 4% of the original Halon applications continue to use Halons, whereas the rest have been switched to

1 These estimates were prepared by the project’s scientific advisor, Dr. Andreas Engel. 2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (IPCC/TEAP), 2005 3 see table TS-6, IPCC/TEAP




agents with no climate or ozone impact or to HFCs and HCFCs. Halons continue to be used for fire protection in commercial and military aircrafts, where no alternative has been established yet. Banks are not an important issue in the budget of chlorinated and brominated hydrocarbons, which includes methyl bromide (CH3Br), trichloroethane (methyl chloroform, CH3CCl3) and carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), as these substances are used in applications with immediate release to the atmosphere: trichloroethane and carbon tetrachloride are used as solvents; carbon tetrachloride is a by-products of CFC production; and methyl bromide is used in fumigation. Other brominated and chlorinated hydrocarbons (e.g. methyl chloride, CH3Cl, dibromomethane, CH2Br2, and tribromomethane, CHBr3) are to a large extent of natural origin. EU banks of ODS The best estimates of ODS banks available are from the IPCC/TEAP report (tables 11.5 and 4.1). This report focuses on global issues rather then on regional aspects and only provides global estimates. It is difficult to derive regional bank estimates from these numbers. For instance many European countries (for instance the old member states) have switched refrigeration use from HCFCs (which are ODS) like HCFC-22 to HFCs (e.g. HFC 134a), which are not ODS (although they have long atmospheric lifetimes and significant global warming potentials, GWP). Due to this switch, the HCFC banks in the EU member states are probably lower (per refrigeration unit) than the global average. Due to the lack of reliable data, we have adopted the following strategy for most uses: European ODS banks are approximated by scaling the global ODS banks based on the use of primary energy. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) statistics4, the Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES) of the EU in 2004 (then 25 Member States) was 1 757 249 thousand tonnes oil equivalent (ktoe), whereas the global TPES was 11 223 278 ktoe. This would result in a share of about 15.6%. However, this share was certainly higher during the time when ODS were produced and used most strongly. For example, in 1973, the OECD countries used 61.7% of the global TPES and the European OECD countries accounted for 36.8 % of the OECD total, resulting in a share of 22.7% of global TPES. Using the 2004 values for this same statistics, the European OECD countries would have a share of 17.4%. This shows that the European share of TPES has dropped in recent years and that the 2004 numbers are not representative. We have therefore chosen to adopt a fraction of 20% - rather than the 15.6% derived from the EU25 share of global TPES in 2004 - for the estimates of the EU share in this study. In order to estimate bank sizes for the years 2007 and 2010, a linear interpolation between the estimated global values for 2002 and the BAU (Business as usual) estimates of IPCC TEAP for 2015 has been applied. Further adjustments, however, are necessary. As the banks of HCFCs are still increasing in large parts of the world, this procedure would result in an increase in European banks between 2002 and 2015, while in reality the banks should be decreasing, as new equipment can no longer use HCFCs.5 For all applications where global banks are estimated to increase, we have therefore adopted the 2002 values of tables 11.5 and 4.1 of IPCC/TEAP.6

4 TPES values for most countries are available from the International Energy Agency (IEA) under (http://www.iea.org/Textbase/country/maps/world/tpes.htm). 5 Article 5.1(b)(iv) prohibits the use of HCFCs in the last category of equipment, reversible air-conditioning/ heat pump systems, from 1 January 2004. 6 Adopting the 2002 values may results in a small over-estimate, as the HCFC banks should be declining as equipment is taken out of service.




For foams, which are responsible for a very large fraction of the banks of CFCs and HCFCs, an adjustment is needed to the initial estimate of 20%. This is because European countries (in particular, as shall be shown, those in the EU15 and EFTA) have been amongst the most prominent users of foams, in particular for the thermal isolation of buildings. We have therefore applied a factor of 35 % of global banks of CFCs to estimate European banks instead of 20%, as suggested by the UNEP TFOC report7. Furthermore, a fraction of 25% of the global banks of HCFCs in foams for the year 2007 based on FTOC and 17.5% for the year 2010 has been adopted. The latter reduction in the European fraction of the banks of HCFCs is largely due to an increase in banks in other parts of the world8. The resulting estimates for the EU’s ODS banks are shown in table I.1.

Table A.1 Estimate of the European Union’s ODS banks (thousand metric tonnes)

Refrigeration Air conditioning Foams Medical Fire Others Total stationary mobile Aerosol Protection EU 2007 CFCs 45.5 12.4 19.3 575.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 653.3 HCFCs 91.1 194.1 4.0 317.7 1.0 0.8 2.2 610.8 Halons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.9 0.0 23.9 EU 2010 CFCs 33.3 9.8 13.1 531.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 587.6 HCFCs 90.3 187.1 4.0 237.5 0.6 0.8 2.2 522.5 Halons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.1 0.0 18.1

The estimate of ODS in foams includes foams used as insulation in refrigeration as well as foams used for insulation in buildings and related applications. The amount of ODS used in refrigeration foams should be more or less equivalent to amount of ODS in the refrigerants.9 This suggests that the largest single ODS bank is found in building foams and related insulation foams (other applications include foams to insulate pipes and some road surfaces, such as runways). A comparison of the three categories of ODS in terms of their ODP shows that, while CFCs constitute the largest bank, halons are the second in importance in terms of their potential impact on the ozone layer (see Table A.2).

Table A.2 Estimate of EU ODS banks, 2010 (thousands of ODP tonnes)

EU 2010metric tonnes

ODP tonnes

CFCs 587.6 587.6HCFCs 522.5 30.8Halons 18.1 114.6

7 2006 Assessment Report of the Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical Options Committee, UNEP, 2006, (available on-line from http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/FTOC/) 8 The adjustment for HCFCs is based on the suggestion of Dr. Paul Ashford, Caleb Management Service (United Kingdom) and lead author of chapter 7 on foams of the IPCC/TEAP report. 9 Based on comments by Christoph Becker, RAL: the experience with the recycling of household refrigerators shows that more or less equal amounts of ODS are recovered from refrigerant and foams.




For the refrigeration sector, the IPCC/TEAP data provide a further disaggregation between residential, commercial and industrial sectors. By applying the method described above, this data can be used to estimate European levels for these three sub-categories. Table A.2 provides this disaggregation, using ODP tonnes: this shows that the banks containing CFCs are far larger in terms of their ozone-depleting potential. The CFC banks are generally in older products and equipment that will reach their end of life first.

Table A.3 Estimate of the European Union’s 2010 ODS banks (thousand ODP tonnes): by category of refrigeration

EU 2010 domestic commercial industrial transport CFCs 12.8 15.1 5.2 0.2 33.3HCFCs - 3.5 1.5 0.0 5.0Calculating using the most common refrigerants: CFC-11 (ODP=1) and HCFC-22 (ODP=0.055) The uncertainty of the estimates shown in tables A.1. through A.3 is quite large; this issue is addressed further at the end of this section. Nevertheless, the estimates reveal some important conclusions:

o Building foams are the most important sector for ODS banks, accounting for the great majority of CFCs;

o Within refrigeration, commercial and industrial units together are more important than domestic ones.

This estimate of the European banks is based on a top-down approach. The next section provides estimates from country-based, bottom-up studies. Their data is useful for two reasons: first, some of the country studies provide greater detail on ODS banks; second, a comparison with national studies will help to check if our top-down approach, based on TEAP data, delivers reasonable estimates. National studies of ODS banks Studies from five countries provide detail at national level: Austria, Bulgaria, Finland, Norway, Poland and Sweden. Some data from Hungary is also available. The studies were carried out separately, with various goals. While no estimates of range of uncertainties were found, the Austrian study – which is one of the more in-depth ones – noted that “uncertainties” are high. Austria An Austrian study, using a bottom-up approach,10 provides detailed estimates of ODS banks in building foams. The Austrian estimates assess the evolution over time of the ODS bank, due both to building retirement and also to release of the ODS contained in the foams into the atmosphere. While the study, unfortunately, does not provide a breakdown between CFC and HCFC foams, its comparison of metric tonnes and ODP tonnes shows that CFCs provided the bulk of ODS used in building foams. The study also provides CO2 equivalents in terms of global warming potential: for

10 Richard Obernosterer, Roman Smutny and Erika Jäger, Nachhaltige FCKW – Bewirtschaftung Österreich, Final report to Österreichisches Bundesministeriums für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (BMLFUW), June 2005.




example, in 2010, all building foams blown with ODS will be equivalent to 150 000 GWP tonnes; this will fall to 80 500 GWP tonnes by 2100.

ODS banks 2003 2010 2100

Type of building foam Metric tonnes

ODP tonnes

Metric tonnes

ODP tonnes

Metric tonnes

ODP tonnes

Hard foam panels (PU) 1536 1448 1465 1379 797 740 Sandwich panels (PU) 20658 16393 20163 16000 14760 11713 Pipe insulation (PU) 1100 832 936 708 117 88 Hard foam panels (XPS) 12310 5267 11028 5140 3198 1637 Total 37607 24300 35602 23227 18872 14179

Table A.4 ODS Banks in building foam, Austria

Bulgaria Bulgaria’s national strategy for HCFC phase-out (December 2003) provides estimates on CFC and HCFC banks in the country. 11 According to these estimates, Bulgaria has very little ODS contained in foams: the study provides a total of 500 tonnes. As refrigeration products and equipment typically have an equivalent amount of ODS in its insulation foam as in its coils, this implies that nearly all of Bulgaria’s foam banks are found in refrigeration: in other words, Bulgaria has very little or no ODS banks in building foams.

Inventory (metric tones)

Sector Quantity of appliances

Charge of ODS

CFCs HCFCs Domestic refrigeration 1,500,000 120 g 180 1 Commercial refrigeration 300,000 1 kg 220 80 Industrial refrigeration 200 N/A 30 70 A/C and heat pumps - Central - Individual

400

80,000

N/A

950 g

15

-

75 76

Transport refrigeration 2,500 8 kg 5 15 Insulation foam N/A N/A 500 50 TOTAL 950 447

Source: Bulgarian HCFC Phase-out strategy, December 2003

Table A.5 ODS banks in Bulgaria Finland A 1994 study in Finland provides detail of CFC banks in building and construction foams at that time (see table below).12 The current levels should be somewhat lower, due to end-of-life products and equipment entering the waste stream, as well as emissions from foams, in particular building foams. 11 Nielsen, Assenova and Vassilev, Bulgarian HCFC phase out strategy, prepared for the Ministry of Environment and Water, Republic Of Bulgaria, December 2003. 12 Esko Rossi, Joonas Hokkanen and Minna Koskinen, Rakennustoiminnan CFC-jätteiden talteenotto ja käsittely (Recovery and treatment of CFC wastes from construction), Ymparistonsuojeluosasto, 1990; titles and data kindly translated by Katri Suomi, Ministry of the Environment, Finland




Sector

CFC (metric tonnes)

Buildings 7750 District heating pipes 1600 Frost insulation of railroads 245 Frost insulation of roads 35 Mobile homes and trailers 18 Total 9648

Table A.6 CFC banks in Finland, 1994

A previous Finnish study estimated that CFC banks in both household and commercial refrigeration equipment reached about 6700 tonnes in 1990, without about three-quarters of that total in the insulation and one-quarter in refrigerant. Refrigerators and other cooling equipment have shorter life-times than buildings (15 years or less compared to 30+ years), little of this bank is expected to remain by 2010.13 Hungary According to an expert estimate, foam banks held approximately 3500 metric tonnes of ODS in 2006.14 Norway Data in a recent Norwegian report provides an overview of ODS bank for foams and refrigerators, with a breakdown by type of ODS (all values are given in metric tonnes). 15

Insulation material

Refrigerators and freezers

Other Metric tonnes

ODP tonnes

GWP Ktonnes

CFC-11 2619 725 218 3562 3562 13535CFC-12 210 0 34 244 244 1976HCFC-141b 920 234 163 1317 145 830HCFC-142b 212 0 87 299 19 598HFC-134a 51 243 8 302 0 393Total 4012 1202 510 5724 3970 17332

Table A.7 ODS banks in Norway

Poland In Poland, the 2003 CFC Management Strategy provides data on the banks of this substance: 16

13 Esko Rossi and Joonas Hokkanen, Kylmälaitteiden CFC-jätteiden talteenotto ja käsittely (Recovery and treatment of CFC wastes from cooling equipment), Ymparistonsuojeluosasto, 1990; titles and data kindly translated by Katri Suomi, Ministry of the Environment, Finland 14 Robert Tóth, Hungary 15 Hans T. Haukås (Stiftelsun Returgass and WEEE Recycling), Innhold av miljøskadelige blåsemidler i skumplast ved riving/skroting, Presentation and written report, undated.




Sector CFCs

(tonnes) Refrigeration and air-conditioning 1200 Foams 5500 Total 6700

Table A.8 CFC banks in Poland

No data are available on HCFC banks. Sweden In Sweden, a 2002 study provides estimates of CFC banks in foams, including building foams, for that year, as well as historically (1990) and a projection for 2010. 17

Metric tonnes

Ca 1990 2002 2010 CFC-11 Household refrigeration 2 800 1 800 400 in PU Commercial refrigeration 450 200 20 Cold storage rooms 600 600 500 Refrigeration vehicles 50 25 10 Containers 10 5 1 Buildings 2 800 2 800 2 200 Pipe insulation 2 200 2 200 2 000 Warm water heater insul’n 250 125 25 Sports facilities 20 10 1 Household caravans 400 400 300 Work caravans 200 100 25 CFC 12 Buildings 1 200 1 200 1 100 in XPS Ground insulation 1 400 1 400 1 300 TOTAL Ca 12 400 Ca 10 900 Ca 7 700

Table A.9 Quantities of CFCs banks in insulation material, Sweden (2002)

Comparing national studies with top-down estimates The Austrian study estimates the country’s banks in the form of building foams to be 33 ktonnes for the year 2010. If the same approach as used for our bank estimate is applied only for Austria (based on the TPES value of 33 200 ktOe) , we estimate that about 2% of the European banks are in Austria and derive a bank of about 15.4 ktonnes. The Austrian study also noted that Austria had a particularly high fraction of XPS (extruded polystyrene) foams, higher than any other European country.

16 The Strategy is available in Polish only; the data were kindly provided by Dr. Janusz Kozakiewicz, Head of the Ozone Layer Protection Unit at Warsaw’s Industrial Chemistry Research Institute (personal communication, November 2007) 17 Peter Norderg, EcoManagement, Kartläggning av kvarvarande områden med ozonnedbrytande ämnen och uppföljning, 2002.




On the other hand, the Swedish study estimates for instance, that the banks for 2010 in foams in Sweden should be on the order of 7.5 ktonnes of CFCs. Using our method based on TPES, we derive an amount of 15.9 ktonnes of CFCs. The estimates of ODS banks in Bulgaria and Poland are notable for the low level of ODS in foams.. The Bulgarian study derived a bank of 950 tonnes of CFCs and 447 tonnes of HCFCs for Bulgaria for 2001, of which 500 and 50 tonnes respectively are in the form of foams. Our estimate gives numbers which are in some areas higher by a factor of 10 or more (see table I.2). The polish estimate of 2003 banks of CFC sees 1200 tonnes of CFCs in R&AC equipment and 5500 tonnes of CFCs in foams. Again our estimate yields substantially higher values (see table I.3). These two studies suggest that building foams blown with ODS were hardly used in socialist economies, where other forms of insulation where preferred. This implies that the issue of ODS banks in building foams mainly concerns the EU15 Member States. More generally, the comparison with national studies shows that high uncertainties are associated with the estimation of banks. While the comparison with the Austrian study would suggest that our bank estimate is conservative, the comparison with the Swedish study would suggest that our method overestimates the banks. From a broader perspective, however, the Swedish and the Austrian estimates are in reasonable agreement with our approach, considering the very high uncertainties of both top-down and bottom-up methods.

Table A.10 Comparison of estimated ODS banks from this study with national studies.

Austria Sweden Poland Bulgaria

Bank National

study Top-down estimate

National study

Top-down estimate

National study

Top-down estimate

National study

Top-down estimate

ODS in foams 33 15.4 .. 23.1 .. 40.0 0.5 7.7 CFCs in foams .. 10.6 7.5 15.9 5.5 27.6 0.55 5.3 total ODS .. 22.2 .. 33.3 .. 57.7 1.4 11.1

.. is used where no data are provided The European bank estimates shown in table I.1 have been scaled to the individual countries based on the TPES of the year 2004. All values in thousands of metric tonnes. Uncertainty estimate of the banks The bank estimates shown here are based on a top-down approach, i.e. we have taken the best possible estimates of global banks, which are available from ICPP-TEAP, and have further estimated which fraction of these banks would reside in Europe. As a general European factor we have used a value of 20%, based on the TPES (Total Primary Energy Supply). This factor has been adjusted for building and insulation foams to 35 % in the case of CFCs and to 25% in the case of HCFCs for the year 2007. As HCFC are still being used in other parts of the world and banks are increasing, a factor 0f 17.5% has been assumed for the HCFCs banks for the year 2010. Large uncertainties are associated with such an estimate. No error or uncertainty estimates are given in IPCC-TEAP. However, we assume that the uncertainty in the global bank estimates are on the order of 50%. The percentual uncertainty in the European banks is even higher, as errors in the global banks and in the European fraction have to be taken into account. Assuming again an error of 50% for this European fraction and assuming again that both errors are independent of each other, a simple error propagation shows that the error of the estimated European fraction is on the order of 70%.




The comparison with regional studies based on bottom-up techniques shows significant differences. A Swedish study yields results for CFCs in foams which are less than half of our estimate, while an Austrian study yields values which are about factor of two higher than our estimate. The Polish and Bulgarian studies derive much lower banks than our estimate. This illustrates the uncertainties in both approaches (bottom-up and top-down). Also note that our top-down approach is based on IPCC/TEAP data which have been derived using bottom-up techniques. Therefore, we conclude that our estimates show the correct orders of magnitude. We also conclude that large regional differences exist, as shown by the differences between the Swedish and Austrian studies. We therefore suggest to use these numbers as orders of magnitude of banks, showing that the quantities of ODS remaining in banks are significantly larger that current emissions.

Annex II: Qualitative Impact Assessment Tables



Annex II. Qualitative Impact Assessment Tables



Review of the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer/11

Impact Table 1 Simplification and clarification of the legal text

Discussion of impacts Impact categories (a) Simplify and clarify legal text (0) “zero” option Economic

1. Direct costs (or benefits) to EU industry (with particular consideration of SMEs)

Ease of comprehension and application of text likely to minimise risk of interpretation errors due to removal of opacity in legal text. Potential cost however where requirements of Regulation become clearer, and aspects previously not acted upon require response by business.

Possible legal costs in relation to errors or misinterpretations due to complexity of text. Costs due to different interpretations of the Regulations in different MS.

2. Administrative costs (or benefits) on EU business

Easier to read and understand text likely to reduce administrative cost in reading and applying Regulations for businesses. This is expected to be the case in particular for SMEs and firms that currently do not work with the Regulation.

Generally, administrative costs increase with the extent to which interpretation is dependent on some kind of specialised knowledge. Impact expected to be limited as those using Regulation regularly are now familiar with the text. Some concern was raised by MS in our research that smaller companies may especially have difficulties understanding and implementing the regulations – due to a lack of technical and legal capacity.

3. Costs (or benefits) to downstream users

Limited. Limited

4. International competitiveness, trade and investment flows

Limited Limited

5. Competition in the internal market

Small but important effect: clarity of regulation likely to encourage the effective working of the internal market.

If MS interpret the Regulations in different ways this can create unintended market distortions – as businesses in one MS are faced with different regulatory conditions to those in others.




Discussion of impacts Impact categories (a) Simplify and clarify legal text (0) “zero” option 6. Specific sectors and regions

(e.g. methyl bromide use in only selected countries)

The questionnaire responses to this study identified that recovery, recycling and destruction were particularly poorly “controlled” by the current regulation. Clarification in this regard may impose specific costs and restrictions to practices on the ODS waste management sector. These are the topic of a specific section, which considers options for recovery, recycling and destruction (see section 11).

No sector specific impacts expected.

7. Innovation and research As point 4 As point 4 8. Public authorities:

administration and enforcement

Clarity of regulation should ease the administrative and enforcement burden on MS and the Commission. The magnitude of this impact will depend entirely on the nature of clarifications made.

A lack of clarity in legal text may lead to problems in administration and enforcement. This can add unnecessarily to administration and enforcement costs.

Social

9. Employment Limited. Very minor positive impact possible for employment, where legal clarity encourages investment and business expansion in the EU.

Limited. Very minor negative impact on employment possible, where investment decisions are put-off due to lack of clarity in the Regulatory environment

10. Health and safety (in particular for methyl bromide)

Limited impact expected Limited impact expected

11. Crime: especially illegal trade Clarity in regulations / legal matters should minimise the likelihood of crime in relation to ODS. Enforcement may be made easier as well.

Where regulatory environment is unclear there is the potential for manipulation of this to conduct illegal activity undetected.

Environmental

12. Ozone layer Limited. Limited. 13. Climate change Limited. Limited. 14. Waste management No impact expected No impact expected 15. Biodiversity, flora and fauna

(impacts of specific ODS – e.g. methyl bromide)

No impact expected No impact expected

16. EC leadership in international negotiations





Impact Table 2

Options for critical use of methyl bromide Discussion of impacts Impact categories (a1) End critical use of MB and

include emergency use clause (a2) continue critical use exemption and clarify procedures

(a3) “zero” option: no change

Economic


Minor negative impact. Possible cost to businesses in identifying alternative procedures and if these are more costly. Also training / finding expertise to administer treatments. However, likely to be limited, especially assuming current trend in MB use (decline) continues to 2012, due to the availability, and economical feasibility of alternatives.

No impact expected. No impact expected.


Minor negative impact. Administration costs linked to identification of alternatives.



(Very) minor negative impact. It is possible in some specific sectors, that a cost increase for businesses (such as farmers) could be passed on to consumers in higher prices.



Limited impact expected. No impact expected No impact expected


Limited impact expected. No impact expected No impact expected

6. Specific sectors and regions (e.g. methyl bromide use in only selected countries)

Impact will effect specific countries and business sectors. In that only some Member States have requested and received critical use exemptions for methyl bromide these are most likely to be





Discussion of impacts Impact categories (a1) End critical use of MB and



effected – in 2007: France, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the UK. It should also be noted that within these use differences are significant, with Italy being the most important user, by a large amount. MB is also only used in specific sectors, with agriculture the main one.

7. Innovation and research Positive impact. Ending critical use exemptions, with a long lead in time (by 2012) may encourage innovation and research into alternatives. This may be limited however due to the small nature of these uses – and thus the potential market.

As for (a3) Minor negative impact. Continuation of critical uses will reduce incentives to develop and refine alternatives.

8. Public authorities: administration and enforcement

Positive effect. Ending critical use exemptions would also bring an end to the administrative efforts involved in this process for Member States and the Commission after 2012.

Minor positive impact (compared to (a3)) Clarification of procedures for Member States may reduce administrative burden by making the procedure easier and clearer.

Negative impact. Administration costs associated with the procedures for granting critical use exemptions will continue after 2012.

Social

9. Employment Limited impact expected. No impact expected No impact expected 10. Health and safety (in

particular for methyl bromide) Positive effect. Although use is limited MB has significant potential local health and environmental impacts. The magnitude of this impact will depend on alternatives used.

As for (a2) Negative impact Continuation of the risks associated with MB use for human health and the environment.

11. Crime: especially illegal trade Uncertain effect. May increase illegal trade in MB, especially if alternatives are considered costly or are difficult to use / apply


Environmental

12. Ozone layer Use and emissions will fall to zero. Same as (a3) Current levels (522 metric tonnes allocated in 2007) may continue to fall.




Discussion of impacts Impact categories (a1) End critical use of MB and



13. Climate change Use and emissions will fall to zero. Same as (a3) Current levels may continue to fall.18 14. Waste management The impacts will depend on the alternatives

employed: chemical alternatives may require waste management for containers and unused remnants.

Same as (a3) A slow but continuing decrease in use would reduce impacts. This would depend also on the alternatives employed.

15. Biodiversity, flora and fauna (impacts of specific ODS – e.g. methyl bromide)

The impacts will depend on the alternatives employed: chemical alternatives may have impacts on biodiversity (as well as water and other factors); non-chemical alternatives may have lower impacts.

Same as (a3) An slow but continuing decrease in use would reduce impacts. This would depend also on the alternatives employed.


An end would provide a positive example for other Parties to the Montreal Protocol.

Limited impact. Limited impact.

18 Based on the global warming potentials presented in the the Report of the 2002 Assessment of the Scientific Assessment Panel (Chapter 1, Table 1-6), 522 metric tonnes of methyl bromide are equivalent to 2 610 GWP tonnes.




Impact Table 3

Options for essential and critical laboratory and analytical uses Discussion of impacts Impact categories (a1) cap and a multi-year

exemption process with mandatory registration

(a2) cap on laboratory and analytical uses

(a3) multi-year exemption process


(b) other initiatives

Economic


No impact predicted. If the cap is set at a level in line with current actual use, the expectation is that there would be no direct impact on laboratories or research institutions.

No impact predicted As (a1)



No impact predicted. As (a1)


Mixed impact predicted. Mandatory registration for laboratories and analytical users may impose an administrative cost on those who are currently un-registered (our research estimates less than half currently registered). However a multi-year exemption process should remove planning uncertainty and reduce administrative cost associated with annual requests for exemptions.

No impact predicted Minor positive impact predicted. A multi-year exemption process should remove planning uncertainty and reduce administrative cost associated with annual requests for exemptions

The “zero” option would imply the continuation of annual exemptions and the associated administrative costs.

Minor positive impact predicted. Where information on alternatives is made available in an accessible format, this is likely to save laboratories and researchers time and administrative effort in identifying these.


No impact predicted. These uses are of such a small scale that the downstream economic impact is likely to be minimal.






No impact predicted. No impact predicted. No impact predicted. No impact predicted. No impact predicted.


No impact predicted. No impact predicted. No impact predicted. No impact predicted. No impact predicted.




Discussion of impacts Impact categories (a1) cap and a multi-year






6. Specific sectors and regions

Impacts in specific sectors. Due to the nature of the option, laboratory and research sectors will be affected. No regional specific impact expected.

As (a1) As (a1) As (a1) As (a1)

7. Innovation and research Mixed impact predicted. A cap on uses set at the level of current use will not impact on innovation or research, however a multi-year exemption process is likely to aid planning, and may benefit some research – especially multi-year projects which rely on ODS use. A cap may hinder unexpected needs (e.g. for drug research). Were a cap to be lower than current use, this may also drive innovation, as alternative techniques are sought.

Same as (a1). Positive impact predicted. As (a1)

Minor negative impact predicted. The continuation of annual exemptions may impact upon the ability of laboratory and research users to plan effectively, and may thus restrict certain research activities.

Minor positive impact predicted. Easy access to information on the availability and use of alternatives to ODS laboratory and research uses may streamline the uptake of alternatives and have a positive effect on both innovation and research.


Mixed impact predicted. Agreeing and setting a cap on these uses may require administrative work, as well as research by the Commission and Member States. However granting multi-year exemptions should reduce the administrative burden associated with current annual exemptions. Unexpected research needs will require special attention.

Minor negative impact predicted. Agreeing and setting a cap on these uses may require administrative work, and research by the Commission and Member States. Unexpected research needs will require special attention.

Minor positive impact predicted. Granting multi-year exemptions should reduce the administrative burden associated with current annual exemptions.

Minor negative impact predicted. Continuation of the annual exemptions process will mean that the costs associated with this also continue, after 2012.

Minor negative impact predicted. Administrative cost associated with establishing and maintaining web-site for the Commission and Member States. Once established the annual cost should be low.

Social

9. Employment No impact predicted. No impact predicted. No impact predicted. No impact predicted. No impact predicted.




Discussion of impacts Impact categories (a1) cap and a multi-year






10. Health and safety No impact predicted. No impact predicted. No impact predicted. No impact predicted. No impact predicted. 11. Crime: esp. illegal trade No impact predicted. No impact predicted. No impact predicted. No impact predicted. No impact predicted. Environmental

12. Ozone layer The cap may provide incentives for reduction of ODS use and a resulting small reduction in emissions.

The cap may provide incentives for reduction of ODS use and a resulting small reduction in emissions.

Laboratory and analytical uses are expected to continue at the same rate (just under 150 ODP tonnes/year)

Laboratory and analytical uses are expected to continue at the same rate (just under 150 ODP tonnes/year) 19

The information provided may encourage some reduction in these uses and their resulting emissions.

13. Climate change The cap may provide incentives for reduction of ODS use and a resulting small reduction in emissions.

The cap may provide incentives for reduction of ODS use and a resulting small reduction in emissions.

Laboratory and analytical uses are expected to continue at the same rate

Laboratory and analytical uses are expected to continue at the same rate (about 400 000 GWP tonnes/year)

The information provided may encourage some reduction in these uses and their resulting emissions..

14. Waste management No impact expected No impact expected No impact expected No impact expected No impact expected 15. Biodiversity, flora and

fauna No impact expected No impact expected No impact expected No impact expected No impact expected


The cap could provide a model for managing laboratory and analytical uses.

Same as (a1). No impact expected No impact expected No impact expected

19 Laboratory and analytical uses based on the 2003 study for the European Commmission: ICF Consulting, The Use of Ozone Depleting Substances in Laboratories in the European Community. GWP tonnes calculated using the GWPs presented in the Report of the 2002 Assessment of the Scientific Assessment Panel (Chapter 1, Table 1-6), 100-year time horizons.




Impact Table 4 Options for HCFC exemptions

Discussion of impacts Impact categories (b1) end to HCFC exemptions (b2) a later phase-out of HCFC

exemptions (0) “zero” option: no change

Economic


Minor negative impact. Alternatives are expected to be available for nearly all current exemptions. Ending HCFC exemptions from 2012 will impose cost on some specific users – those who currently make use of these exemptions, as they will be required to change practices / equipment or use alternatives.

Minor negative impact. As (b1) however with a longer time horizon to develop and implement alternatives, the economic cost is expected to be reduced.

Very minor positive impact. By allowing the continued use of exemptions, those uses which currently benefit from these will be allowed to continue.


Minor negative impact. There may be some administrative costs associated with identifying alternatives.

Minor negative impact. As (b1) however given longer time horizon this impact is expected to be smaller in magnitude.

No impact predicted


Potentially minor negative impact. It is possible that some beneficiaries of current exemptions may pass on the cost (if these are indeed greater) of alternatives to end users in the form of higher prices. The specific nature of these use exemptions means that these impacts are likely to be very small in nature.

Potentially very minor negative impact. As (b1) however given longer time horizon this impact is expected to be smaller in magnitude.

No impact predicted


No impact predicted No impact predicted No impact predicted




Minor negative impact predicted in those specific sectors which make use of exemptions.

Minor negative impact predicted in those specific sectors which make use of exemptions.

No impact predicted

7. Innovation and research Minor positive impact Ending use exemptions may encourage the

Minor positive impact. As (b1)

No impact predicted




Discussion of impacts Impact categories (b1) end to HCFC exemptions (b2) a later phase-out of HCFC

exemptions (0) “zero” option: no change

development and marketing of alternatives – and thus encourage innovation and research. However, given the small scale of these uses, the market is also expected to be very small, and thus the magnitude of this effect will be slight.


Minor positive effect. Given end to exemptions the cost of granting them will be avoided.

Minor positive effect. As (b1) however offset by number of additional years in which exemptions are allowed.

Minor negative impact. Administrative cost in granting of exemptions.

Social

9. Employment Very minor negative impact. Possible where alternatives are not technically or economically viable. Some businesses may be effected and jobs lost.

Very minor negative impact. As (b1) however given longer period before end of exemptions, greater possibility to develop technically and economically feasible alternatives.

No impact predicted



11. Crime: especially illegal trade Minor negative impact. It is possible that ending these exemptions may encourage the trade / sale of illegal HCFCs.

Minor negative impact. As (b1)

No impact predicted

Environmental

12. Ozone layer Small reduction in HCFC use and thus emissions. Small reduction in HCFC use and thus emissions. By 2012, alternatives may be introduced for some of these uses, thus reducing emissions.

13. Climate change Small reduction in HCFC use and thus emissions. Small reduction in HCFC use and thus emissions. Same as above 14. Waste management No impact expected No impact expected No impact expected 15. Biodiversity, flora and fauna


No impact expected No impact expected No impact expected


Ending these exemptions would provide a further strengthening of EC’s leadership in ozone discussion.

Somewhat less strong than (b1). No impact expected.




Impact Table 5 Import of Substances and Products / Equipment

Discussion of impacts Impact categories (0) “zero” option: no

change (a) ending inward processing regime for MB

(b) imports of “products and equipment”

(c) non-legislative initiatives

Economic


No impact expected. Minor negative impact. As far as this study is aware only one company in the EU is involved in the inward processing of MB, so impacts will depend on the scale and nature of their operations, and the share of them which are involved in inward processing.

Minor negative impact. The current text allows the import of certain products and equipment (e.g. fridges) which given a strict interpretation should not be legal. Ending this trade would produce a cost for some EU businesses, however as strictly speaking current activity in this regard is illegal, this cost should perhaps not be considered an “impact” of the option.

Minor negative impact. Requirement of certification attesting the nature of ODS included in imported products and equipment may impose some cost on EU businesses, especially importers. They may be required to test the nature of substances contained within products and equipment, if these cannot be guaranteed by the third party exporter. This impact will be minimised by the fact that it is expected that the majority of products and equipment containing ODS will already be require certification under the WEEE Directive.


Minor negative impact. Legislative uncertainty as to whether certain products / equipment fall under the current Regulations may impose some cost on Businesses.

Minor negative impact. As above.

Minor negative impact. As above.

Minor negative impact. Administrative cost incurred in ensuring that products and equipment are certified correctly. This impact will be minimised by the fact that it is expected that the majority of products and equipment containing ODS will already be require certification under the







(c) non-legislative initiatives WEEE Directive.


No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. Minor negative impact. It may become more difficult for importers to import products and equipment from certain (high-risk) third countries, where the nature of substances used / included cannot be guaranteed. This may reduce the availability on the market of some low-price consumer electronics, such as fridges. In all cases substitutes are expected to be readily available however, so these impacts would be limited.


It may be the case that the ambiguity regarding current Regulations vis-à-vis imports of certain products may be enabling trade which strictly speaking should not be occurring.

No impact expected.

Mixed impact. By ending the current ambiguity, certain (strictly speaking illegal) trade may be restricted, however greater clarity for the import of certain products and equipment (such as those exported for maintenance purposes) should ease the correct functioning of the international market with respect to this activity. It will also ease planning due to ongoing legal clarity.

Minor negative impact. By controlling more carefully the import of certain products and equipment containing ODS, and imposing a certification requirement, the costs associated with, and difficulty of export to the EU from third countries may be increased. As noted the fact that the majority of products and equipment in practice seem likely to fall under the requirements of the WEEE directive, the scale of this impact is not predicted to be large.


No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected.









No impact expected. However there is only one company involved in inward processing of MB – thus they are a current beneficiary of the inward processing regime.

Specific impact due to the fact that only one business is engaged in inward processing.

These impacts only affect products and equipment containing HCFCs, such as foams in ships.

These impacts will only affect importers of products and equipment.

7. Innovation and research No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. 8. Public authorities:


Minor negative impact. Where there is a lack of clarity in certain aspects of the Regulation, is likely to raise the administrative and enforcement costs / effort required.

Positive impact. By removing the need to issue a licence for this specific use, administrative costs for the Commission will be reduced.

Minor positive impact. Greater legal clarity should enable more effective enforcement with regard to the specific matters of importing products and equipment.

Negative impact. Implementing and enforcing a testing and certification regime will impose administrative and direct costs on the Commission and Member States.

Social

9. Employment No impact expected. Possible minor negative impact. In relation to the specific impacts on the one company involved.



No impact expected. Minor positive impact in specific locations. By removing this particular use of MB.


11. Crime: especially illegal trade

Negative impact. The ambiguity of current legal text vis-à-vis definitions of “placing on the market” and “products and equipment” may be enabling certain imports to pass un-regulated, even where with a strict interpretation they should be illegal. This matter is addressed by option (b).

No impact expected. Positive impact. By ending current ambiguity vis-à-vis “placing on the market” and “products and equipment” the possibility for trade in certain products, which strictly speaking is illegal, will no longer be possible.

Positive impact. By requiring certification of substances contained within products and equipment, the import of illegal substances contained within new or used products and equipment will be much easier to monitor and control, and less attractive to exporters and importers involved.

Environmental








12. Ozone layer 13. Climate change 14. Waste management 15. Biodiversity, flora and

fauna (impacts of specific ODS – e.g. methyl bromide)





Impact Table 6 Exports of ODS


change (a) establishing PIC or export notifications for ODS

(b) introducing a notified ex ante export licensing procedure in the ODS Regulation

(c) establishing an authorisation regime for each export shipment

(d) establishing a cross-check on import bans based on declarations under Decision X/9 of the Montreal Protocol

Economic


No impact expected. Minor negative impact. The process can potentially delay an export by up to 30 days ( time allowed for 3rd country confirmation), which may impose a direct cost due to the need to hold export / storage. There is also a risk that licences may not be granted, where a third country declines the export.

Minor negative impact. As (a)

Negative impact. Although strictly an administrative cost, the requirement to request authorisation prior to each export shipment could impose a direct cost on businesses. For example if they need to hire new staff simply to manage this procedure. Equally the potential delays to each shipment may increase costs associated with shipping and / or storage.

No impact expected.


No impact expected. Minor negative impact. Exporters are currently require to apply for annual export licences. Export notifications will impose an additional administrative cost on businesses in completing the relevant

Minor negative impact. This option would mean that additional information would need to be supplied to the existing annual licence application. This would impose an additional administrative cost.

Negative impact. An administrative cost will be imposed on businesses due to the requirement to complete an authorisation request for each shipment.

No impact expected.









details on (proposed) online form. The magnitude of this cost will depend on the number of countries to which are involved / exported to.

This may be less than under option (a) as it will not require a separate notification, simply a modification to current licence application procedures.


No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected.


Minor positive impact. A general lack of control over the transboundary movements of ODS may be in some cases facilitating legal trade, as well as allowing illegal trade to continue un-regulated.

Mixed impact. Although the additional requirement of an export notification regime may act as a minor barrier to some exportation, it will also ensure that relevant authorities in third countries as fully informed and thus should ease the overall procedure of export, and avoid possible mis-understanding and unnecessary delays,

Minor negative impact. By imposing additional requirements on exporters it may complicate the export process. However the control is less significant than under (a).

Negative impact. The requirement to have an authorisation regime for each shipment would rely upon in all cases the third country responding. This may not always be the case, and this may act as a significant barrier to the trade in ODS to certain countries.

No impact expected.




No impact expected. Businesses involved in the export of ODS and ODS contained in products and equipment will be the only

As (a) As (a) As (a)









sectors affected. 7. Innovation and research No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. 8. Public authorities:


Negative impact. Seeking to control illegal trade and movements of ODS and ODS contained in products and equipment, without effective and efficient mechanisms (addressed by the proposed options) will impose un-necessary, and potentially significant costs on the Commission and Member States, especially as the EU moves to a complete phase out of ODS.

Initial negative impact, long-term positive impact. Establishing a process of export notification / prior informed consent will impose an initial cost in setting up a web-based system and providing information to businesses involved and an ongoing maintenance cost. A further administrative cost may be imposed if tonnage “triggers” are deemed necessary. This cost could be minimised by the inclusion of ODS in the EDEXIM website. However the greater degree of control enabled and the ease of access to information regarding exports of ODS should

Negative impact. Including ODS in a website for export control would impose administrative costs on the Commission, as well as annual maintenance costs. This could be minimised if this process is simply added to the EDEXIM website. Training of customs officials may also be necessary, to build understanding of the new mechanism.

Negative impact. This would impose potentially significant administrative cost on the Commission, since each shipment would require authorisation, including the need to contact the importing country in the case of each shipment. It would also require the establishment (and associated cost) of a satisfactory system for the exchange of customs information. This could be linked to EDEXIM. It would also increase costs for Member State exporting countries, since they will be required to request numerous export authorisations each year.

Minor negative impact. Although minimal, the Commission would be required to cross-check with declarations made under Decision X/9 of the Montreal Protocol before issuing a licence. This may require some additional administrative effort, though this is expected to be limited.









reduce administration and enforcement costs in the long-term, especially for customs authorities.

Social

9. Employment No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. 10. Health and safety (in

particular for methyl bromide)

Negative impact. Where controls of the movement of ODS are weak, the possibility for dangerous, or banned substances finding their way onto the general market is high. These may pose specific health and safety risks, especially combined with the fact that their presence may be unknown, and thus correct health and safety procedures not necessarily followed.



Negative impact. The current regulation is considered to be deficient in the control of transboundary movements of ODS. As the EU moves to a complete phase out

Positive impact. This proposal explicitly seeks to make the illegal transboundary movements of ODS less easy. Thus it is expected that illegal trade will fall, once more

Minor positive impact. A notified ex-ante licensing procedure will impose some additional controls on exports, and the ability to identify illegal traders.

Positive impact. This option would impose close control over each export, and enable importing countries to make a decision in the case of each individual shipment.

Very minor positive impact. Only a few countries have made declarations under Decision X/9, so the level of additional control over possible illegal exports will be minimal, except in a few









ODS, it is expected that, given the current poor controls, the illegal trade in ODS will continue.

strict controls are in place. However as it is an ex-ante control, it does not control exports as such.

This will provide a high degree of control over exports and thus should minimise the opportunities for illegal trade.

specific cases.

Environmental







Impact Table 7 Exports of products and equipment containing ODS

Discussion of impacts Impact categories (0) “zero” option: no change (a) use of ODS for manufacturing

products and equipment for export (b) the general export ban on products and equipment and used products and equipment

Economic


No impact expected. No impact expected. This option is a simple clarification of the current text with regard to the export of certain products and equipment using HCFCs where this use is allowed up until 2009. As this provision will be obsolete before 2012, the impact of this option in economic and social terms is zero.

Negative impact. Whichever option for greater control is preferred (2 are proposed in Task 2 part 1 report), there will be some additional cost imposed on EU businesses who currently export new and used products and equipment, where the current conditions under Article 11 are met. Identifying the extent and magnitude of these costs would require additional research.


No impact expected. No impact. Negative impact. Modifications to the Regulation to impose greater control over the export of products and equipment containing ODS will impose additional administrative costs on those businesses affected.


No impact expected. No impact No impact expected.





6. Specific sectors and regions No impact expected. No impact Sector specific impact.






(e.g. methyl bromide use in only selected countries)

In that these are relatively specific cases, the overall extent of these costs are likely to be low, however they may be significant in the context of specific sectors or businesses. An example might be vehicle exports, where these vehicles include foams containing HCFCs.

7. Innovation and research No impact expected. No impact No impact expected. 8. Public authorities:


No impact expected. No impact Mixed impact. Establishing a more rigorous control regime for the export of products and equipment containing ODS will require additional administrative and enforcement effort, and associated costs on the part of the Commission and Member States. However, in the long-term, a better system of information sharing, as well as a more clear procedure of control should reduce enforcement costs, particularly for Member States.

Social

9. Employment No impact expected. No impact No impact expected. 10. Health and safety (in

particular for methyl bromide) No impact expected. No impact No impact expected.

11. Crime: especially illegal trade Negative impact. The provisions for controlling the export of used products and equipment in the Regulation are less stringent than for substances. This may mean, in some cases, that illegal trade is

No impact Positive impact. This option is proposed due to concern raised over the level of control over trasnboundary movement of products and equipment being lower than is the case for substances.






passing undetected, and inappropriate (such as to developing countries) exports of used products and equipment would continue, leading to avoidable releases of ODS to the atmosphere.

Whichever procedure is favoured, greater controls over the export of products and equipment will decrease the opportunities for and increase detection of illegal trade.

Environmental

12. Ozone layer 13. Climate change 14. Waste management 15. Biodiversity, flora and fauna






Impact Table 8 New Substances

Discussion of impacts Impact categories Economic (0) “zero” option: no change (a) re-establish Annex II, with two parts and establish

links with REACH 1. Direct costs (or benefits) to

EU industry (with particular consideration of SMEs)



Minor positive impact. As Annex II not included in revision, current situation remains post 2012. This would mean that businesses (producers) currently producing substances which could be considered for inclusion in a re-established Annex II are able to continue to produce and distribute these substances with little control In practice the number of substances not covered by the provisions of other pieces of Regulation, such as REACH, could be small.

Minor negative impact / negative impact. Administrative cost for those businesses who produce substances listed in the re-established Annex II.B due to new reporting obligations This would be quantifiable perhaps using costs data from existing reporting requirements. There may also be cost associate with uncertainty as to whether a substance is to be de-listed where data showed non significant ODP, or added to Annex II.A if the Scientific Assessment Panel considered it necessary. This could increase uncertainty for businesses who produce these substances. In practice the number of substances not covered by the provisions of other pieces of Regulation, such as REACH, could be small. Equally if Annex II were linked to notification and registration under REACH the costs are likely to be low, as most producers would be expected to be familiar with these requirements. The scale of these impacts will depend entirely upon the number of substances, producers and scale of their current market penetration / potential. Further research would be required to identify this information. The inclusion of four new ODS in Annex II could impose a significant specific cost on producers of these. Two of the four new substances identified through research by this study are thought to have potentially significant markets in the EU. Their inclusion in Annex II.A could thus





links with REACH impact significantly on producers of these. Their inclusion would also face industry opposition.


No impact expected. Minor negative impact. Where substances or new substances (such as the four identified) have significant market potentially, and are listed in Annex II.A there may be an indirect cost for consumers of these substances as they become unavailable. The magnitude of this impact will depend entirely on the availability of alternatives.







7. Innovation and research No impact expected. Minor positive impact. It is possible that awareness of the risks of the possible inclusion of a substance in Annex II.A will encourage innovation and research into alternatives.


Minor negative impact. The lack of specific control over new substances with potential ODP may increase administration costs for the Commission and Member States, especially where ad-hoc procedures are required.

Mixed impact. Small increase in administrative cost for the Commission associated with “presenting candidates” for assessment under the Montreal Protocol, and for Member States and the Commission in monitoring and responding to reporting on substances included in Annex II.B. However potential cost saving in form of greater control over these substances, and more effective monitoring and enforcement.





links with REACH Linking Annex II to the REACH notification and registration process would reduce / minimise the magnitude of additional administrative costs on the Commission and Member States.

Social

9. Employment No impact expected. No impact expected. 10. Health and safety (in

particular for methyl bromide) No impact expected. Minor positive impact.

Where new substances have potentially negative health effects, bringing them into a system of greater monitoring and control should minimise the risks associated.

11. Crime: especially illegal trade No impact expected. No impact expected. As these substances are not currently illegal, the modifications will not produce any impact on illegal trade etc..

Environmental

12. Ozone layer 13. Climate change 14. Waste management 15. Biodiversity, flora and fauna






Impact Table 9 Quarantine and Pre-Shipment


change (a1) adjust the cap mechanism

(a2) end QPS uses of MB

(b) harmonising definitions

(c) other initiatives

Economic


Negative impact. Differences between Member States in setting, or not standards for recapture of MB used in QPS may create differences in the costs associated with export, and thus impose a direct cost on businesses exporting from those countries with recapture requirements compared to those in other countries.

No impact expected. Specific negative impacts. By ending outright the use of MB for QPS this would require all current activities in this regard to cease, and alternatives be used. This would impose a direct cost on EU businesses (fumigators, exporters) in identifying alternatives, developing new techniques and expertise. The magnitude of this impact would depend on the availability of economically and technically feasible alternatives.

Specific negative impacts. Not expected to lead to any major additional costs for EU businesses however may lead to the stopping of certain unnecessary applications, and impact on the demand for some fumigation businesses: representing a loss of demand. This impact could be significant in the case of those businesses affected.

Mixed effect. By providing guidelines for the use of methyl bromide for QPS, businesses may choose to change or adapt their procedures, which could impose additional direct costs. However in that these would be guidelines the decision to make these changes (it is assumed) would be voluntary. Harmonising practice within the EU, may, in the long-term reduce costs through specialisation of expertise, and the development more efficient techniques.


Minor negative impact. Where standards differ between Member States, this may lead to administrative costs for businesses, in identifying the appropriate standards nationally, especially for those who operate in more

No impact expected. Minor negative impact. An administrative cost may be imposed on EU businesses in identifying alternative substances and techniques for QPS.

No impact expected. Minor positive impact. By providing businesses (fumigators, exporters) with guidelines for good practice, this may reduce administrative costs – by clarifying good practice, and removing the need for business to identify these









than one Member States. independently. 3. Costs (or benefits) to

downstream users No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected.


No impact expected. No impact expected. Possible negative impact. An industry stakeholder has suggested that ending MB uses for QPS may present a problem in relation to certain exports, as some third countries only accept exports where MB has been used for QPS purposes (such as on the wooden pallets used). This matter relates to the ISPM15 conditions, related to the IPPC. It is unclear at present how widespread this issue may be, and this could be a matter for further research, if this option is to be taken forward.



Negative impact Differences in standards between Member States represents a potential challenge to the correct functioning of the internal market (due to uneven costs associated with exports in different Member States).

No impact expected. No impact expected. Minor positive impact. Although likely to be limited in magnitude, clarifying definitions concerning QPS uses of methyl bromide is likely to lead to greater harmonisation of these uses in the internal market.

Minor positive impact. Harmonising guidelines for the use of MB for QPS in the EU will in the long-term remove barriers that may currently exist due to more stringent controls in some countries compared to others.










Sector specific impact expected. By its nature this option would impact on the QPS fumigation sector specifically and exporters of products requiring fumigation prior to export.

As (0) As (0) As (0) As (0)

7. Innovation and research No impact expected. No impact expected. Positive impact. Evidence suggests that there are alternatives for all QPS applications of MB, however a survey in 2004 stated that the cost, location and acceptance (by trading parties) of these alternatives acts as a barrier to their implementation. Imposing a ban on QPS uses of MB from 2012 would drive research and innovation in alternatives, as the market for these alternatives would be guaranteed from this date.



Negative impact. A lack of legal clarity surrounding QPS uses of methyl bromide may also lead to administration and enforcement costs for Member States and the Commission.

Minor negative impact. Procedures for setting and adjusting the cap in light of future changes will impose some administrative costs on the Commission.

Minor negative impact. A blanket ban on MB use for QPS would not require much additional administrative effort or cost on the side of the Commission.

Negative impact. The requirement of future modifications to definitions internationally (through Montreal Protocol) would impose administrative costs on the commission in having to modify the

Negative impact. Developing guidelines would represent a direct cost to the Commission, and a recurring cost if these require (annual?) update due to changing international









However such a ban may require strong enforcement from Member State competent authorities (customs) certainly for the first few years.

regulations to account for these changes.

circumstances.

Social

9. Employment No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. 10. Health and safety (in


Negative impact. Due to lack of clarity surrounding these uses of MB, it is possible that unnecessary uses may continue, representing an avoidable risk to health and safety due to these uses.

No impact expected. Positive impact. Ending the use of MB will reduce the health and safety risks associated with this. The magnitude of this effect will depend on the alternative methods adopted. Some, may be as dangerous.

Positive impact. By clarifying legal requirements for QPS applications of methyl bromide should end certain unnecessary uses, and thus reduce the health and safety risks associated with these.

Positive impact. By setting EU wide guidelines for this use of MB it is expected that standards of use would rise, and the risks associated fall. This impact may be limited by the fact that, as guidelines, it is assumed that adopting these standards will be a voluntary matter.


No impact expected. No impact expected. Minor negative impact. Banning the use, may lead to some illegal applications, especially where alternatives prove costly to administer.


Environmental





Impact Table 10 Member State Reporting

Discussion of impacts Impact categories (0) “zero” option:

no change (a) Electronic and online reporting

(b) single yearly report

(c) single article reporting

(d) aligning reporting requirements with F-Gas Regulation

(e) cancelling the reporting requirement of Article 5 for HCFCs replacing halons

Economic


No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected.











7. Innovation and research No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. 8. Public authorities:


Negative impact. Current administration costs associated with this reporting would continue after 2012 for both Member States and the Commission.

Mixed impact. Could significantly reduce the administrative costs associated with reporting for Member States. Would also reduce costs for the Commission related to

Positive impact. A single yearly report would reduce the administration costs for Member States associated with multiple reporting. This would also

Minor positive impact. This option will make it easier to identify reporting requirements, and will thus reduce the administrative burden associated with this.

Mixed impact. As the F-Gas Regulation does not explicitly include reporting obligations for Member States, alignment with these could significantly reduce the

Minor positive impact. Reduction in the administrative cost imposed on Member States associated with this unnecessary reporting, and for the Commission in processing this










receiving and interpreting reports, as well as in the dissemination and sharing of information within the Commission. Establishing an online or electronic reporting system would represent a cost for the Commission. Training and user information would also need to be developed for Member States, which would also represent a cost for the Commission and Member States.

reduce costs for the Commission, which currently prepares and distributed templates for the five annual reports.

administrative costs for Member States associated with reporting. However in that it is required to gather Member State information, this option may impose a cost on the Commission.

requirement.

Social

9. Employment No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. 10. Health and safety (in




Minor positive impact. The high level of reporting may facilitate effective compliance











and the minimisation of potentially illegal business activities (such as illegal trade).

Environmental







Impact Table 11 Company Reporting


change (a) harmonising reporting requirements with the F-Gas regulation

(b) sanction for non-reporting

(c) online reporting

Economic




Minor negative impact. Some companies will be required to produce reports both for ODS and for F-Gases. However the reporting requirements are different, which can impose an unnecessary administrative cost on businesses.

Mixed impact. As this represents a simplification of current reporting requirements it will reduce administrative costs for businesses who currently report under both of these regulations. For companies who only report under the ODS Regulation, and do not use any F-Gases, this option could marginally increase reporting complexity and may lead to confusion.

No impact expected. Minor positive impact. Given the current reporting situation for undertakings (emails to contractors who compile reports) the cost savings of a move to online reporting would be expected to be relatively small.









7. Innovation and research No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. 8. Public authorities: Negative impact. No impact expected. Positive impact. Positive impact.





change (a) harmonising reporting requirements with the F-Gas regulation

(b) sanction for non-reporting

(c) online reporting


Some companies receiving licences and authorisations may be not reporting to the Commission. This means that in these cases the Commission does not have accurate information required to ensure compliance with the Regulations, and for reporting to the Montreal Protocol Secretariat.

This seems likely to help ensure that the Commission has complete reporting from all undertakings, and thus should improve compliance monitoring and enforcement.

Online reporting would ease the quick and transparent transfer of data, and would facilitate easy data analysis, representing a cost saving for the Commission.

Social

9. Employment No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. No impact expected. 10. Health and safety (in





Environmental




annex i. ods banks in the european union1 -...

Documents