Extension of EU Emissions Trading Scheme to Other Sectors and Gases: Consequences for Uncertainty of Total Tradable Amount



Emissions trading in the European Union (EU), covering the least uncertain emission sources of greenhouse gas emission inventories (CO2 from combustion and selected industrial processes in large installations), began in 2005. During the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (2008–2012), the emissions trading between Parties to the Protocol will cover all greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) and sectors (energy, industry, agriculture, waste, and selected land-use activities) included in the Protocol. In this paper, we estimate the uncertainties in different emissions trading schemes based on uncertainties in corresponding inventories. According to the results, uncertainty in emissions from the EU15 and the EU25 included in the first phase of the EU emissions trading scheme (2005–2007) is ±3% (at 95% confidence interval relative to the mean value). If the trading were extended to CH4 and N2O, in addition to CO2, but no new emissions sectors were included, the tradable amount of emissions would increase by only 2% and the uncertainty in the emissions would range from −4 to +8%. Finally, uncertainty in emissions included in emissions trading under the Kyoto Protocol was estimated to vary from −6 to +21%. Inclusion of removals from forest-related activities under the Kyoto Protocol did not notably affect uncertainty, as the volume of these removals is estimated to be small.


emissions trading EU greenhouse gas Kyoto Protocol uncertainty 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bartoszczuk, P., & Horabik, J. (2007). Tradable permit systems: Consiering uncertainty in emission estimates.Google Scholar
  2. Dufrêne, E., Davi, H., François, C., Le Maire, G., Le Dantec, V., & Granier, A. (2005). Modelling carbon and water cycles in a beech forest. Part I: Model description and uncertainty analysis on modelled NEE. Ecological Modelling, 185, 407–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. EC (2004). Commission Decision of 29/01/2004 establishing guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, C(2004) 130, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  4. ECCP (2003). ECCP working group on forest sinks, Final Report, ‘conclusions and recommendations regarding forest related sinks & climate change mitigation.’ See Scholar
  5. EEA (2005). Climate change homepage. Emissions trading-national allocation plans,’ see Scholar
  6. EEA (2006). The European Community’s initial report under the Kyoto Protocol. Report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount of the European Community pursuant to Article 3, paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Kyoto Protocol Submission to the UNFCCC Secretariat, EEA, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
  7. European Commission (2005). Emissions trading: Commission approves last allocation plan ending NAP marathon. Press release, IP/05/762, 20 June.Google Scholar
  8. Feldhusen, K., Hammarskjöld, G., Mjureke, D., Pettersson, S., Sandberg, A., Staaf, H., et al. (2004). Sweden’s national inventory report 2004. Report submitted under the United Nations framework convention on climate change, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  9. Gillenwater, M., Sussman, F., & Cohen, J. (2007). Practical applications of uncertainty analysis for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.Google Scholar
  10. Godal, O., Ermoliev, Y., Klaassen, G., & Obersteiner, M. (2003). Carbon trading with imperfectly observable emissions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 25, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gugele, B., Huttunen, K., Ritter, M., & Gager, M. (2004). Annual European Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2002 and Inventory Report 2004, Submission to the UNFCCC Secretariat, European Commission, DG Environment, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
  12. Gupta, J., Ohlstroon, X., & Rotenberg, E. (2003). The role of scientific uncertainty in compliance with the Kyoto Protocol to the climate change convention. Environmental Science and Policy, 6, 475–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heat, S., & Smith, J. (2000). An assessment of uncertainty in forest carbon budget projections. Environmental Science and Policy, 3, 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. IPCC (2000). Good practice guidance and uncertainty management in national greenhouse gas inventories. J. Penman, D. Kruger, I. Galbally, T. Hiraishi, B. Nyenzi, S. Emmanuel, L. Buendia, R. Hoppaus, T. Martinsen, J. Meijer, K. Miwa, & K. Tanabe (Eds.), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  15. IPCC (2003). Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. J. Penman, M. Gytarsky, T. Hiraishi, T. Krug, D. Kruger, R. Pipatti, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, K. Tanabe, & F. Wagner (Eds.), Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Kanagawa, Japan.Google Scholar
  16. McGettigan, M., & Duffy, P. (2003). Ireland, National Inventory Report. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1990–2001. Report to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Environmental Protection Agency, Johnstown Castle Estate, Wexford, Ireland.Google Scholar
  17. Monni, S., Peltoniemi, M., Palosuo, T., Lehtonen, Mäkipää, A., & Savolainen, I. (in press). Uncertainty of forest carbon stock changes — Implications for the total uncertainty of GHG Inventory of Finland. Climatic Change.Google Scholar
  18. Monni, S., Syri, S., & Savolainen, I. (2004). Uncertainties in the finnish greenhouse gas emission inventory. Environmental Science and Policy, 7, 78–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nahorski, Z., Horabik, J., & Jonas, M. (2007). Compliance and emissions trading under the Kyoto Protocol: Rules for uncertain inventories.Google Scholar
  20. Nilsson, S., Shvidenko, A., Stolbovoi, V., Gluck, M., Jonas, M., & Obersteiner, M. (2000). Full carbon account for Russia. Interim Report IR-00-021, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria.Google Scholar
  21. OECD (1997). Questions and answers on emissions trading among Annex I Parties. Information Paper, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and International Energy Agency, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  22. Official Journal of the European Union (2003). Common Position (EC) No 28/2003 of 18 March 2003 adopted by the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, with a view to adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC,’ Official Journal of the European Union C 125 E/72-95.Google Scholar
  23. Ogle, S., Breidt, J., Eve, M., & Paustian, K. (2003). Uncertainty in estimating land use and management impacts on soil organic carbon storage for US agricultural lands between 1982 and 1997. Global Change Biology, 9, 1521–1542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Paul, K., Polglase, P., & Richards, G. (2003a). Sensitivity analysis of predicted change in soil carbon following afforestation. Ecological Modelling, 164, 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Paul, K., Polglase, P., & Richards, G. (2003b). Predicted change in soil carbon following afforestation or reforestation, and analysis of controlling factors by linking a C Accounting Model (CAMFor) to Models of Forest Growth (3PG), Litter Decomposition (GENDEC) and Soil C Turnover (RothC). Forest Ecology and Management, 177, 485–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peltoniemi, M., Palosuo, T., Monni, S., & Mäkipää, R. (2006). Factors affecting the uncertainty of sinks and stocks of carbon in finnish forests soils and vegetation. Forest Ecology and Management, 232, 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rypdal, K., & Winiwarter, W. (2001). Uncertainties in greenhouse gas emission inventories — evaluation, comparability and implications. Environmental Science and Policy, 4, 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Salway, A., Murrells, T., Milne, R., & Ellis, S. (2002). UK greenhouse gas inventory 1990 to 2000, Annual report for submission under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, AEA Technology, Harwell, UK.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, J., & Heat, L. (2001). Identifying influences on model uncertainty: An application using a forest carbon budget model. Environmental Management, 27(2), 253–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Suutari, R., Amann, M., Cofala, J., Klimont, Z., Posch, M., & Schöpp, W. (2001). From economic activities to ecosystem protection in Europe. An uncertainty analysis of two scenarios of the RAINS Integrated Assessment Model,’ CIAM/CCE Report 1/2001, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria.Google Scholar
  31. UNFCCC (2004). National Inventory Submissions 2004, Annex I. See, Scholar
  32. UNFCCC (2005). Modalities, rules and guidelines for emissions trading under Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol. Decision 11/CMP.1, CCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.2.Google Scholar
  33. Vandenbygaart, A., Gregorich, E., Angers, D., & Stoklas, U. (2004). Uncertainty analysis of soil organic carbon stock change in Canadian cropland from 1991 to 2001. Global Change Biology, 10, 983–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Verbeeck, H., Samson R., Verdonck, F., & Lemeur, R. (2006). Parameter sensitivity and uncertainty of the forest carbon flux model FORUG: A Monte Carlo analysis. Tree Physiology, 26, 807–817.Google Scholar
  35. Winiwarter, W., & Rypdal, K. (2001). Assessing the uncertainty associated with national greenhouse gas emission inventories: A case for Austria. Atmospheric Environment, 35, 5426–5440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Winiwarter, W. (2007). National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Understanding Uncertainties versus Potential for Improving Reliability.Google Scholar
  37. Zhang, X.-Q., & Xu, D. (2003). Potential carbon sequestration in China’s forests. Environmental Science and Policy, 6, 421–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Benviroc LtdEspooFinland
  2. 2.VTT Technical Research Centre of FinlandEspooFinland
  3. 3.Statistics FinlandHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations