Important legal notice

|

52007SC0291

Recommendation for a Council opinion in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the updated convergence programme of Latvia, 2006-2009  /* SEC/2007/0291 final */

	[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |Brussels, 7.3.2007SEC(2007) 291 finalRecommendation for aCOUNCIL OPINIONin accordance with the third paragraph of Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the updated convergence programme of Latvia, 2006-2009(presented by the Commission)EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM1. GENERAL BACKGROUNDThe Stability and Growth Pact, which entered into force on 1 July 1998, is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation. The 2005 reform of the Pact acknowledged its usefulness in anchoring fiscal discipline but sought to strengthen its effectiveness and economic underpinnings as well as to safeguard the sustainability of the public finances in the long run.Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies[1], which is part of the Stability and Growth Pact, stipulates that Member States have to submit, to the Council and the Commission, stability or convergence programmes and annual updates thereof (Member States that have already adopted the single currency submit (updated) stability programmes and Member States that have not yet adopted it submit (updated) convergence programmes). The first convergence programme of Latvia was submitted in May 2004. In accordance with the Regulation, the Council delivered an opinion on it on 5 July 2004 on the basis of a recommendation from the Commission and after having consulted the Economic and Financial Committee. In accordance with the same procedure, updated stability and convergence programmes are assessed by the Commission and examined by the Committee mentioned above, while the Council may examine them.2. BACKGROUND FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF THE UPDATED PROGRAMMEThe Commission has examined the most recent update of the convergence programme of Latvia, submitted on 12 January 2007, and has adopted a recommendation for a Council opinion on it (see box for the main points covered by the assessment).In order to set the scene against which the budgetary strategy in the updated convergence programme is assessed, the following paragraphs summarise:1.  the economic and budgetary performance over the last ten years2.  the most recent assessment of the country’s position under the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact (summary of the Council opinion on the previous update of the convergence programme) and3.  the Commission’s assessment of the October 2006 national reform programme.2.1. Recent economic and budgetary performanceLatvia is a catching-up country undergoing structural transformation with very high economic growth, and which has been making substantial progress in closing the gap with EU-25 income per head. It faces relatively high inflation reflecting the convergence process, product and factor market rigidities and more recently an increasingly evident overheating. Unemployment has fallen (though is still at a high level in some regions) and labour shortages have appeared in key sectors. Labour market participation is low. Taken together with demand pressures, labour supply constraints, exacerbated by significant outward migration and a progressively declining working-age population, have resulted in upward wage pressure. Consequently, although labour productivity is growing, unit labour costs are increasing more rapidly than in Latvia's main trade partners, thus undermining competitiveness. High trade deficits in goods are only partly compensated by surpluses in services. Behind the external deficit lies a structural private sector saving-investment gap: increasing saving of the private sector has been outweighed by higher and more rapidly increasing private sector investment. High external imbalances imply reliance on equally-large financial inflows, mainly in the form of bank credit, and their scale has led to the gross external debt-to-GDP ratio having risen to a very high level. From a viewpoint of long-term sustainability, public finances in Latvia appear healthy, in view of the low public debt ratio and relatively high potential output growth in the long term. However, from a macro-financial stability perspective, while nominal general government deficits have remained moderate in recent years, these mask significant demand injections through expenditure financed with EU funds and in the current context of evident overheating the underlying pro-cyclical fiscal stance is of great concern.2.2. The assessment in the Council opinion on the previous programmeOn 14 February 2006, the Council adopted its opinion on the previous update of the convergence programme, covering the period 2005-2008. Due to "the need to ensure sustainable convergence, including by reducing the external imbalance and containing inflation, the Council invited Latvia to pursue more ambitious budgetary positions than planned, including for 2006, notably by bringing forward the attainment of the MTO set in the programme, maintaining it during the programme period and avoiding pro-cyclical fiscal policies in “good times”".2.3. The Commission assessment of the October 2006 national reform programmeThe implementation report of the national reform programme of Latvia, provided in the context of the renewed Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs, was submitted on 17 October 2006. Latvia's national reform programme identified as key challenges/priorities: securing macro-economic stability; stimulating knowledge and innovation; developing a favourable and attractive environment for investment and work; fostering employment; and improving education and skills.The Commission’s assessment of this programme (adopted as part of its December 2006 Annual Progress Report[2]) showed that Latvia is making progress in the implementation of its National Reform Programme, in particular in the micro-economic and employment areas. However, policy responses to address the macro-economic key challenge are less comprehensive.Against the background of strengths and weaknesses identified, Latvia was recommended to pursue a more restrictive fiscal policy; take action in the areas of R&D and innovation; and promote labour supply and productivity by improving mobility, education and training.Box: Main points covered by the assessment As required by Article 5(1) (for stability programmes) and Article 9(1) (for convergence programmes) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, the assessment covers the following points: whether the economic assumptions on which the programme is based are plausible; the medium-term budgetary objective (MTO) presented by the Member State and whether the adjustment path towards it is appropriate; whether measures being taken and/or proposed to respect that adjustment path are sufficient to achieve the MTO over the cycle; when assessing the adjustment path towards the MTO, whether a higher adjustment effort is made in economic good times, whereas the effort may be more limited in economic bad times, and, for euro-area and ERM II Member States, whether the Member State pursues an annual improvement of the cyclically-adjusted balance, net of one-off and other temporary measures, of 0.5% of GDP as a benchmark to meet its MTO; when defining the adjustment path to the MTO (for Member States that have not yet reached it) or allowing a temporary deviation from the MTO (for Member States that have), the implementation of major structural reforms which have direct long-term cost-saving effects (including by raising potential growth) and therefore a verifiable impact on the long-term sustainability of public finances (subject to the condition that an appropriate safety margin with respect to the 3% of GDP reference value is preserved and that the budgetary position is expected to return to the MTO within the programme period), with special attention for pension reforms introducing a multi-pillar system that includes a mandatory, fully-funded pillar; whether the economic policies of the Member State are consistent with the broad economic policy guidelines. The plausibility of the programme’s macroeconomic assumptions is assessed by reference to the Commission services’ autumn 2006 forecast, using also the commonly agreed methodology for the estimation of potential output and cyclically-adjusted balances. The assessment of consistency with the broad economic policy guidelines is made against the broad economic policy guidelines in the area of public finances as included in the integrated guidelines for the period 2005-2008. The assessment also examines: the evolution of the debt ratio and the outlook for the long-term sustainability of the public finances, which should be given “sufficient attention in the surveillance of budgetary positions” according to the Council report of 20 March 2005 on “Improving the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact”. A Commission Communication of 12 October 2006 sets out the approach to the assessment of long-term sustainability[3]; the degree of integration with the national reform programme, submitted by Member States in the context of the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs. In its cover note of 7 June 2005 to the European Council on the broad economic policy guidelines for the period 2005-2008, the ECOFIN Council stated that the national reform programmes should be consistent with the stability and convergence programmes; compliance with the code of conduct[4], which inter alia prescribes a common structure and set of data tables for the stability and convergence programmes. |-  Recommendation for aCOUNCIL OPINIONin accordance with the third paragraph of Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the updated convergence programme of Latvia, 2006-2009THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies[5], and in particular Article 9(3) thereof,Having regard to the recommendation of the Commission,After consulting the Economic and Financial Committee,HAS DELIVERED THIS OPINION:(1) On [27 March 2007] the Council examined the updated convergence programme of Latvia, which covers the period 2006 to 2009[6].(2) The macroeconomic scenario underlying the programme envisages a soft-landing of the economy, with real GDP growth slowing from 11.5% in 2006 to 8.0% on average over the rest of the programme period. Assessed against currently available information, this scenario appears to be based on plausible growth assumptions. Nevertheless, there is a significant probability of much less favourable macroeconomic developments in view of large external imbalances and the overheated state of the Latvian economy. The programme’s projections for inflation appear to be on the low side.(3) For 2006, the Commission services’ autumn 2006 forecast estimated the general government deficit at 1.0% of GDP, against a target of 1.5% of GDP set in the previous update of the convergence programme. The updated programme presents a deficit estimate of 0.4% of GDP, which is plausible in view of the higher than expected revenues and despite the impact of budgetary amendments adopted in October 2006, which increased expenditures by an estimated 1.5% of GDP.(4) The main goal of the medium-term budgetary strategy is to gradually improve the fiscal outlook and achieve a balanced budget by 2010. This goal will require a considerable consolidation effort after the deterioration in 2006 and 2007 by almost 1½ percentage point of GDP. The envisaged adjustment in 2008 and 2009 is identical in the headline and in the primary balance, respectively 0.4 and 0.5 percentage points of GDP. Compared to the previous update, the planned budgetary targets are more stringent, but the adjustment remains back-loaded against a more favourable macroeconomic scenario. After the significant loosening of the expenditure-to-GDP ratio in 2007, the programme envisages consolidating the budget during 2008-2009 by increasing the revenue-to-GDP ratio by 0.4 percentage points each year, while keeping broadly constant the expenditure-to-GDP ratio. The revenue-to-GDP ratio is planned to increase due exclusively to higher “other” revenues, which represents an increased inflow of EU funds. Accordingly, the expenditure ratio for the gross fixed capital formation component is increasing, broadly offset after 2007 by a decline in “other” expenditures (which in the programme includes part of consumption expenditure) by ¾ percentage points in 2008 and in social transfers by ½ percentage points in 2009.(5) The structural balance (i.e. the cyclically-adjusted balance net of one-off and other temporary measures) calculated according to the commonly agreed methodology is planned to deteriorate from a deficit of 1% of GDP in 2006 to a deficit of 1¾% of GDP in 2007 and to improve to a surplus of ¼% by 2009. The medium-term objective (MTO) for the budgetary position presented in the programme is a structural deficit of 1% of GDP, which the programme aims to achieve around 2008, as in the previous update. As the MTO is more demanding than the minimum benchmark (estimated at a deficit of around 2% of GDP), achieving it should fulfil the aim of providing a safety margin against the occurrence of an excessive deficit. The MTO lies within the range indicated for euro-area and ERM II Member States in the Stability and Growth Pact and the code of conduct and adequately reflects the debt ratio and average potential output growth in the long term.(6) The risks to the budgetary projections in the programme appear broadly balanced for 2007, but the budgetary outcomes could be worse than projected in the programme from 2008, due to risks to the macroeconomic scenario. The budgetary strategy relies on an increase in the revenue-to-GDP ratio and on declines in the ratios to GDP of social transfers and “other expenditure” (which in the programme includes part of consumption expenditure), which could have been better substantiated, taking into account that according to the update a formal medium-term framework for the planning and control of public finances is planned to be introduced from 2008 onwards.(7) In view of this risk assessment, the budgetary stance in the programme may not be sufficient to ensure that the MTO is achieved by 2008, as envisaged in the programme. However, it seems to provide a sufficient safety margin against breaching the 3% of GDP deficit threshold with normal macroeconomic fluctuations throughout the programme period. Except for 2007, the pace of the adjustment towards the MTO implied by the programme is broadly in line with the Stability and Growth Pact, which specifies that the adjustment should be higher in good economic times and could be lower in bad economic times. Nevertheless, 2007 is clearly a year of moving away from the MTO in economic good times, which is not in line with the Stability and Growth Pact. A stronger structural adjustment path frontloaded during the programme period would be appropriate to support a stable macroeconomic convergence process and the mitigation of risks of imbalanced economic growth.(8) According to the Stability and Growth Pact, “major structural reforms” with a verifiable impact on the long-term sustainability of the public finances should be taken into account when defining the adjustment path to the MTO. The medium-term budgetary strategy outlined in the programme embodies a temporary deviation from the adjustment path towards the MTO in 2007. The programme notes that the ongoing pension reform will gradually reduce social security contributions in the general government balance and that the contribution to the second-pillar pension scheme will increase from 0.4% of GDP in 2006 to 1.7% of GDP by 2009. The deterioration of the structural balance foreseen in the programme, adjusting for the impact of the phased implementation of the pension reform, would be of ½% of GDP in 2007 followed by improvements of 1½% in 2008 and 1¼% in 2009. While the net costs of the pension reform can be taken into account when assessing the adjustment path towards the MTO, the adjustment in 2007, even taking into account such costs, is not in line with the Pact. On the other hand, the healthcare reform and public investment projects mentioned in the programme do not qualify as structural reforms on which a temporary deviation can be based, as these measures are insufficiently detailed and the significant beneficial impact on the long-term sustainability of the public finances is not demonstrated in the programme.(9) Government gross debt is estimated to have reached 10.7% of GDP in 2006, well below the 60% of GDP Treaty reference value. The programme projects the debt ratio to decline by 1.3 percentage points over the programme period to reach 9.4% of GDP by 2009.(10) The long-term budgetary impact of ageing in Latvia is lower than the EU average, with age-related expenditure projected to fall as a share of GDP over the coming decades, influenced by the expenditure-reducing impact of the reform of the pension system. The current level of gross debt is very low in Latvia and improving the structural budgetary position as planned in the convergence programme update would contribute to contain the risks to the long-term sustainability of public finances. Overall, Latvia appears to be at low risk with regard to the sustainability of public finances.(11) The convergence programme contains a qualitative assessment of the overall impact of the October 2006 implementation report of the national reform programme within the medium-term fiscal strategy. In addition, it provides some information on the direct budgetary costs or savings of the main reforms envisaged in the national reform programme and its budgetary projections explicitly take into account the public finance implications of the actions outlined in the national reform programme. The measures in the area of public finances envisaged in the convergence programme seem consistent with those foreseen in the national reform programme. In particular, both programmes envisage significant increase in public investment and the convergence programme further expands on measures to be implemented in order to improve the institutional features of the public finances, including the introduction of the multi-annual budgetary framework.(12) The budgetary strategy in the programme is only partly consistent with the broad economic policy guidelines included in the integrated guidelines for the period 2005-2008. In particular, the projected fiscal stance does not contribute adequately to promoting greater sustainability of the external account.(13) As regards the data requirements specified in the code of conduct for stability and convergence programmes, the programme provides all required and most of the optional data[7]. However, some inconsistencies exist with regards to standard Table 2.The overall conclusion is that the worsening of the budgetary position in 2007 is not in line with a prudent fiscal policy aimed at ensuring sustainable convergence, including by reducing the external imbalance and containing inflation. In the subsequent years, the programme envisages progress towards the MTO in a context of strong growth prospects, but the budgetary targets are not ambitious and there are risks to their achievement from 2008 onwards.In view of the above assessment, Latvia is invited to:(i) reduce the risks of macroeconomic instability by achieving a significantly better budgetary target for 2007 and by adopting as soon as possible measures – as part of a broader reform strategy – leading to further consolidation beyond the MTO in subsequent years;(ii) establish a clearer and more binding medium-term framework for the planning and control of public finances.Comparison of key macroeconomic and budgetary projections2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 |Real GDP (% change) | CP Jan 2007 | 10.2 | 11.5 | 9.0 | 7.5 | 7.5 |COM Nov 2006 | 10.2 | 11.0 | 8.9 | 8.0 | n.a. |CP Nov 2005 | 8.4 | 7.5 | 7.0 | 7.0 | n.a. |HICP inflation (%) | CP Jan 2007 | 6.9 | 6.6 | 6.4 | 5.2 | 4.2 |COM Nov 2006 | 6.9 | 6.7 | 5.8 | 5.4 | n.a. |CP Nov 2005 | 6.9 | 5.6 | 4.3 | 3.5 | n.a. |Output gap (% of potential GDP) | CP Jan 20071 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 1.3 | -0.5 | -2.0 |COM Nov 20065 | -0.2 | 1.1 | 0.4 | -1.0 | n.a. |CP Nov 20051 | 0.8 | 0.4 | -0.5 | -1.1 | n.a. |General government balance6 (% of GDP) | CP Jan 2007 | 0.1 | -0.4 | -1.3 | -0.9 | -0.4 |COM Nov 2006 | 0.1 | -1.0 | -1.2 | -1.2 | n.a. |CP Nov 2005 | -1.5 | -1.5 | -1.4 | -1.3 | n.a. |Primary balance6 (% of GDP) | CP Jan 2007 | 0.7 | 0.2 | -0.8 | -0.4 | 0.1 |COM Nov 2006 | 0.7 | -0.4 | -0.7 | -0.7 | n.a. |CP Nov 2005 | -0.7 | -0.8 | -0.6 | -0.6 | n.a. |Cyclically-adjusted balance6 (% of GDP) | CP Jan 20071 | 0.1 | -0.9 | -1.7 | -0.8 | 0.2 |COM Nov 2006 | 0.2 | -1.3 | -1.3 | -0.9 | n.a. |CP Nov 20051 | -1.7 | -1.6 | -1.3 | -1.0 | n.a. |Structural balance2,6 (% of GDP) | CP Jan 20073 | 0.1 | -0.9 | -1.7 | -0.8 | 0.2 |COM Nov 20064 | 0.2 | -1.3 | -1.3 | -0.9 | n.a. |CP Nov 2005 | -1.7 | -1.6 | -1.3 | -1.0 | n.a. |Government gross debt (% of GDP) | CP Jan 2007 | 12.1 | 10.7 | 10.5 | 10.6 | 9.4 |COM Nov 2006 | 12.1 | 11.1 | 10.6 | 10.3 | n.a. |CP Nov 2005 | 14.9 | 13.6 | 13.7 | 14.7 | n.a. |Notes: 1 Commission services calculations on the basis of the information in the programme. 2 Cyclically-adjusted balance (as in the previous rows) excluding one-off and other temporary measures. 3 There are no one-off and other temporary measures in the programme. 4 There are no one-off and other temporary measures in the Commission services’ autumn 2006 forecast. 5 Based on estimated potential growth of 9.3%, 9.6%, 9.6% and 9.5% respectively in the period 2005-2008. 6 The net costs of the ongoing pension reform (introduction of a second pillar) are included in the deficit. The costs are estimated at 0.3% of GDP in 2005, 0.4% of GDP in 2006, 0.6% of GDP in 2007, 1.3% of GDP in 2008 and 1.5% of GDP in 2009. The year-on year change in the structural balance foreseen in the programme, adjusting for the impact of the phased implementation of the pension reform, would be a worsening of 0.6% of GDP in 2007, an improvement of 1.6% in 2008 and 1.2% in 2009. Source: Convergence programme (CP); Commission services’ autumn 2006 economic forecasts (COM); Commission services’ calculations |[1] OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1055/2005 (OJ L 174, 7.7.2005, p. 1). All the documents referred to in this text can be found at the following website:http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/about/activities/sgp/main_en.htm[2] Communication from the Commission to the Spring European Council, “Implementing the renewed Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs - A year of delivery” - COM(2006) 816, 12.12.2006.[3] Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, “The long-term sustainability of public finances in the EU” - COM(2006) 574, 12.10.2006 - and European Commission, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs (2006), “The long-term sustainability of public finances in the European Union”, European Economy No 4/2006.[4] “Specifications on the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact and guidelines on the format and content of stability and convergence programmes”, endorsed by the ECOFIN Council of 11 October 2005.[5] OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1055/2005 (OJ L 174, 7.7.2005, p. 1). The documents referred to in this text can be found at the following website:http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/about/activities/sgp/main_en.htm[6] Following the formation of a new government in November 2006, after a general election in October, the update was submitted six weeks beyond the 1 December deadline set in the code of conduct.[7] In particular the data on the subcomponents of the stock-flow adjustment and some elements of the long-term sustainability of public finances table are missing.


title: Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/1318 of 29 July 2016 on guidelines for the promotion of nearly zero-energy buildings and best practices to ensure that, by 2020, all new buildings are nearly zero-energy buildings

text:
               2.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 208/46

         COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION (EU) 2016/1318
   of 29 July 2016
   on guidelines for the promotion of nearly zero-energy buildings and best practices to ensure that, by 2020, all new buildings are nearly zero-energy buildings
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 292 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Buildings are central to the EU's energy efficiency policy, as they account for nearly 40 % (1) of final energy consumption.

               (2)

               The importance of the building sector for energy efficiency improvements was highlighted in the European Commission's Communication on energy efficiency and its contribution to energy security and the 2030 framework for climate and energy policy (2) and in its Communication on a framework strategy for a resilient energy union with a forward-looking climate change policy (3).

               (3)

               Full implementation and enforcement of existing energy legislation is recognised as the first priority in establishing the Energy Union.

               (4)

               The Directive on the energy performance of buildings is the main legal instrument addressing energy efficiency in buildings in the context of the 2020 energy efficiency targets.

               (5)

               Article 9 of the Directive sets a specific target that by the end of 2020 all new buildings must have nearly zero or very low energy needs. The nearly zero or very low amount of energy required should be covered to a very significant extent by energy from renewable sources.

               (6)

               National legislation transposing the requirements of Article 9(1) is required to ensure that by 31 December 2020 all new buildings are nearly zero-energy buildings. The same nearly zero-energy target but with a shorter deadline of 31 December 2018 applies for new buildings occupied and owned by public authorities. This should create a transparent national legal framework for economic operators regarding requirements for the energy performance of new buildings as of the end of 2020.

               (7)

               In parallel to requirements for new buildings, the Directive requires Member States to put in place support policies to stimulate the refurbishment of existing building stocks towards nearly zero-energy levels.

               (8)

               The Commission has issued a Report to the European Parliament and the Council on progress by Member States towards nearly zero-energy buildings (4). Further information has been gathered from Member States as part of their reporting obligations on the subject matter.

               (9)

               Progress by Member States has slowly improved but should be accelerated. Although measures to support the growth in nearly zero-energy buildings at national level have increased, Member States should step up their efforts to ensure that all new buildings are nearly zero-energy by the target dates in the Directive.

               (10)

               The Directive on the energy performance of buildings is currently under review. Principles for nearly zero-energy buildings are one of the pillars of the current Directive and are set to become the norm for new buildings as of 2020. The review will assess whether additional measures will be needed for 2030. The development of new policies and approaches should be based on solid foundations. It is crucial that the nearly zero-energy buildings requirements for 2020 are fully implemented.

               (11)

               This is further supported by Article 9(4) of the Directive, which provides that the Commission may issue a recommendation on nearly zero-energy buildings to Member States.

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

               1.

               Member States should follow the guidelines provided in the Annex to this Recommendation. Following these guidelines will help to ensure that, by 31 December 2020, all new buildings are nearly zero-energy buildings, and will help Member States to develop national plans for increasing the number of nearly zero-energy buildings.

               2.

               The Recommendation shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 29 July 2016.

            For the Commission

         Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  See ‘Energy, transport and environment indicators, 2012 edition’, European Commission. For the purpose of this estimate, the final energy consumption for the household and services sectors has been combined. This includes, for example, electricity consumption for appliances but excludes energy consumption in industrial buildings.

      (2)  SWD(2014) 255 final.

      (3)  Energy union package COM(2015) 80 final.

      (4)  COM(2013) 483 final/2.

      ANNEX
      1.   INTRODUCTION
      Following the introduction of efficiency requirements in national building codes, new buildings today consume only half as much energy as typical buildings from the 1980s.
      The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (the ‘EPBD’ or ‘the Directive’) requires Member States to establish minimum requirements for the energy performance of newly constructed buildings and existing buildings undergoing major renovations. Further to these minimum requirements, the EPBD sets a clear requirement for all new buildings, by the end of the decade, to have nearly zero or very low energy needs and qualify as nearly zero-energy buildings (NZEB). However, the existing building stock is old and inefficient and is being renovated at a slow pace. In line with the EPBD, the stock of existing buildings should also be gradually transformed to similar standards.
      Full implementation and enforcement of existing energy legislation is recognised as the first priority in establishing the Energy Union (1). Ensuring that all new buildings are nearly zero-energy buildings by 31 December 2020 (two years earlier for public buildings), and supporting the transformation of existing building stocks towards NZEB standards, are two crucial requirements under the current legal framework.
      2.   CONTEXT: THE PROVISIONS OF THE EPBD ON NZEB
      2.1.   The concept of NZEB

      According to Article 2(2) of the EPBD an NZEB ‘…means a building that has a very high energy performance, as determined in accordance with Annex I. The nearly zero or very low amount of energy required should be covered to a very significant extent by energy from renewable sources, including energy from renewable sources produced on-site or nearby’.
      The first part of the definition establishes energy performance as the defining element that makes a building an ‘NZEB’. This energy performance has to be very high and determined in accordance with Annex I of the EPBD. The second part of the definition provides guiding principles to achieve this very high performance by covering the resulting low amount of energy to a very significant extent by energy from renewable sources.
      The concept of NZEB reflects the fact that renewable energy and efficiency measures work together. When placed on-building, renewable energy will reduce net delivered energy. In many cases, on-site renewable energy will not be sufficient to bring energy needs close to zero, without further energy efficiency measures or a significant decrease of primary energy factors for off-site renewable energy sources. Therefore, higher and more demanding requirements for highly efficient NZEB will also drive an increased use of on-building renewables and should result in adaptation of primary energy factors for off-site energy carriers, taking their renewable energy content into account.
      While the EPBD sets the framework definition of NZEBs, its detailed application in practice (e.g. what is a ‘very high energy performance’ and what would be the recommended significant contribution of ‘energy from renewable sources’) is the responsibility of the Member States when they transpose Article 9 of the Directive into their national legal systems.
      2.1.1.   What is the energy performance of a ‘nearly zero-energy’ building?

      Energy performance is defined (2) as ‘…the amount of energy needed to meet the energy demand associated with a typical use of the building which includes, inter alia, energy used for heating, cooling, ventilation, hot water and lighting’. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 (3) and its accompanying guidelines (4) provide useful guidance on how to calculate the energy performance of a building (5).
      Under Annex I(3) to the Regulation, the calculation of energy performance starts with the calculation of final energy needs
          (6) for heating and cooling, and ends with the calculation of the net primary energy. The ‘direction’ of the calculation goes from the building's needs to the source (i.e. to the primary energy).
      Under the EPBD, Member States can use their own national primary energy factors to transform the final delivered energy into primary energy and calculate building energy performance.
      The primary energy use must be calculated using primary energy factors specific to each energy carrier (e.g. electricity, heating oil, biomass, district heating and cooling). The accompanying guidelines to the Delegated Regulation recommend using the same 2,5 primary energy factor for delivered and for exported electricity.
      Energy produced on-site (used on-site or exported) reduces the primary energy needs associated with delivered energy.
      The end objective of the energy performance calculation is to determine the annual overall energy use in net primary energy, which corresponds to energy use for heating, cooling, ventilation, hot water and lighting. This annual balancing is consistent with the current EPBD framework. However, studies suggest that there could be benefits in calculating energy balances at smaller time steps (e.g. to observe daily and seasonal effects) (7).
      In accordance with Article 4(1), minimum requirements must take account of general indoor climate conditions in order to avoid possible negative effects such as inadequate ventilation. To avoid deterioration of indoor air quality, comfort and health conditions in the European building stock (8), the stepwise tightening of minimum energy performance requirements resulting from the implementation of NZEB across Europe should be done together with appropriate strategies dealing with indoor environment.
      Similarly, studies (9) indicate that often new and renovated buildings do not reach the planned energy performance. Mechanisms should be put in place to calibrate the calculation of the energy performance with actual energy use.
      2.1.2.   Relationship between cost-optimal and NZEB levels

      The EPBD establishes a benchmarking system (principle of ‘cost-optimality’) to guide Member States in setting energy performance requirements contained in national or regional building codes, and keeping them under regular review. Under the EPBD, cost-optimality (10) sets the minimum level of ambition for both building renovation and new buildings.
      In line with the cost-optimal requirements under Article 5 of the Directive, national minimum energy performance requirements are to be reviewed every five years and strengthened if they are significantly less ambitious than the national cost-optimal levels.
      The cost-optimal methodology allows Member States to define the range of NZEB requirements in 2020. This requires assessing and comparing different energy efficiency and renewable energy measures, both individually and in combination, as part of packages of measures to be applied to reference buildings.
      Accordingly, to define and meet the NZEB level, Member States can use different combinations of measures concerning insulation or other energy efficiency measures, inclusion of highly-efficient technical building systems and use of on-site renewable energy sources (11). As part of the cost-optimal calculations, Member States need to explore the contribution of each of these three types of measures.
      Member States have to define primary energy factors per energy carrier. These primary energy factors can be based on national or regional average values, or on specific values. These factors should take into account the renewable energy content of the energy supplied to the building, including from nearby sources, in order to place on-site and off-site renewable energy sources on equal footing.
      It is important to keep in mind that, for the bulk of new buildings, the nearly zero-energy buildings concept will apply as from January 2021 onwards (for new public buildings from January 2019 onwards). By then, technology costs are likely to be lower in reaction to more mature markets and larger volumes. It is therefore likely that the NZEB levels will correspond to the cost-optimum for 2020.
      The evidence suggests that existing technologies related to energy savings, energy efficiency and renewable energies are sufficient to reach, in combination, a suitable target for nearly zero-energy buildings (12). A technology gap that would need to be bridged by 2021 has not been identified. Analysis of the cost-optimal reports required under Article 5 of the EPBD indicates that a smooth transition between cost optimality and NZEB is achievable (13).
      Each five-year cost-optimality cycle presents an opportunity to lock energy efficiency gains into national building codes as new technologies are proven, and a chance to amend the building performance rules to close the gap to cost-optimal levels. After 2020, the principle of cost-optimality will allow continuous improvement of the level of ambition of NZEB requirements for new buildings, as part of the regular review of national building codes for new and for existing buildings.
      2.1.3.   How do renewable energy sources contribute?

      A particular important objective has been the integration of renewable energy sources in national NZEB implementation. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (14) (hereafter the RES Directive) requires Member States to introduce in their building regulations and codes appropriate measures in order to increase the share of all kinds of energy from renewable sources in the building sector (15).
      Such measures are complementary to the NZEB requirements in the EPBD. The provisions of the EPBD naturally drive the use of renewable energy sources, notably on-site as the energy produced on-building reduces the primary energy associated with the delivered energy. In this way, on-site renewables are always part of the calculation of the energy performance of the building.
      While several Member States require a renewable energy share of the primary energy used or a minimum renewable energy contribution in kWh/(m2.y), others use indirect requirement such as a low non-renewable primary energy use that can only be met if renewable energy is part of the building concept (16). This flexibility allows adaptation to national circumstances and local conditions (building type, climate, costs for comparable renewable technologies and accessibility, optimal combination with demand side measures, building density, etc.). The most frequently applied renewable energy systems in NZEB are on-building solar thermal and PV systems. Other renewable energy sources used in these buildings are geothermal (from ground source heat pumps) and biomass.
      For example, renewable energy technologies such as solar thermal and PV systems are more cost-effective in Mediterranean climates (characterised by higher solar radiation) than in other climates. Therefore, these technologies can have a higher relative contribution to tighter energy performance requirements.
      As regards off-site renewable energy sources, including those nearby such as district heating and cooling (17), the share of renewable energy in the energy carrier mix (for instance in the electricity network mix when electricity is the energy carrier) will affect the energy performance of the building through primary energy factors. Member States make use of this flexibility as significantly different primary energy factors for different energy carriers are observed in general, and for most renewable energy sources and technologies in particular (18).
      2.2.   What do national applied definitions of NZEB need to cover?

      The majority of Member States (19) already use a primary energy use indicator in kWh/(m2.y) in line with Annex I. In addition, Member States often include other parameters such as U-values of building envelope components, net and final energy for heating and cooling and CO2 emissions.
      Approximately 60 % of Member States have fixed their detailed application of the NZEB definition in a legal document (e.g. building regulations and energy decrees).
      Member States' detailed application in practice of the definition of nearly zero-energy buildings needs to include a numerical indicator of primary energy use expressed in kWh/(m2.y) (20). This detailed application is to be included in the national transposition measures or in the national plan for increasing the number of NZEB.
      2.3.   New buildings: timeline for NZEB targets

      Article 9(1) of the EPBD requires Member States to
      ‘…ensure that:

                  (a)

                  by 31 December 2020, all new buildings are nearly zero-energy buildings; and

                  (b)

                  after 31 December 2018, new buildings occupied and owned by public authorities are nearly zero-energy buildings.’

            National legislation transposing the requirements of Article 9(1) needs to contain provisions, measures or policies to ensure that by 31 December 2020 all new buildings are nearly-zero energy buildings. The same applies for new public occupied and owned buildings to be nearly-zero energy buildings by 31 December 2018.
      With a view to preparing the implementation of Article 9(1), national plans for increasing the number of nearly zero-energy buildings had to include, inter alia, intermediate targets for improving the energy performance of new buildings by 2015. These targets could relate to the minimum percentage of new buildings to be nearly zero-energy buildings, by that date.
      Member States must ensure that the requirements of Article 9(1)(a) are met by 31 December 2020 and 31 December 2018 for Article 9(1)(b). Although these dates are in the future, the deadline for transposition of Article 9 was 9 January 2013 (21). By this date, all the NZEB provisions of Article 9 needed to be reflected in national transposition measures. Indeed, such a lengthy run-up is necessary given how long it takes to plan, have permission for and construct a building.
      Having these targets set in national legislation creates transparency about the political goals and gives visibility to economic operators and other stakeholders concerning the future requirements for the energy performance of new buildings.
      Furthermore, Article 9(1) requires Member States to ensure that by the relevant dates, ‘all new buildings are NZEBs’. As a result, citizens buying newly constructed buildings or apartments in 2021 would expect the market to have evolved in line with these targets, and buildings to be NZEBs.
      Experience from the construction sector shows that the timing of the end of construction or completion of a building might be uncertain and may suffer delays. Member States would need to factor in the period of validity of building permits, the length of construction and completion of building works and the targets in Article 9(1) of the EPBD to avoid falling short of the obligation to ensure that ‘by January 2021 all new buildings are NZEBs’.
      2.4.   Policies and measures for the promotion of NZEB

      Under Article 9(1), Member States must draw up national plans for increasing the number of NZEBs. The minimum elements to be included in the national plans are established in Article 9(3), as follows:
      ‘The national plans shall include, inter alia, the following elements:

                  (a)

                  the Member State's detailed application in practice of the definition of nearly zero-energy buildings, reflecting their national, regional or local conditions, and including a numerical indicator of primary energy use expressed in kWh/m2 per year….;

                  (b)

                  intermediate targets for improving the energy performance of new buildings, by 2015…;

                  (c)

                  information on the policies and financial or other measures (…..) including details of energy from renewable sources in new buildings and existing buildings undergoing major renovation in the context of Article 13(4) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Articles 6 and 7 of this Directive.’

            2.5.   Supporting the transformation of existing buildings towards NZEB

      The EPBD also includes NZEB obligations relating to existing buildings without target dates or an obligation to set minimum energy performance requirements. Article 9(2) of the EPBD requires Member States to, ‘following the leading example of the public sector, develop policies and take measures such as the setting of targets in order to stimulate the transformation of buildings that are refurbished into NZEBs, and inform the Commission thereof in their national plans…’.
      Supporting the transformation of existing building stocks towards NZEBs under Article 9(2) of the EPBD should include as an element the increase of energy from renewable sources (Article 9(3)(c)). In addition Article 13(6) of the RES Directive requires that Member States promote the use of renewable energy heating and cooling in their building codes and regulations.
      Article 9(2) aims therefore at increasing renovation depth by setting national support policies to refurbish existing buildings to deeper, NZEB levels. The obligation in Article 9(2) of the EPBD is complemented by national long term building strategies under Article 4 of Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (22) (EED), which should result in increased renovation rates through mobilising finance and investments in building renovation. These long term renovation strategies bring together the above elements of the EED (renovation rate) and of the EPBD (renovation depth).
      The framework definition of NZEB in the EPBD does not differentiate between new and existing buildings. Having such differentiation may be misleading towards consumers, as would be the case if there were separate Energy Performance Certification ratings for new and for existing buildings.
      ‘Refurbishment into NZEB’ therefore means a refurbishment of a magnitude that allows the energy performance requirements of a NZEB level to be met. This does not prevent having different timelines and financial support for existing buildings, in recognition of the longer period required for NZEB levels to be cost-optimal in the case of existing buildings.
      3.   PROGRESS BY MEMBER STATES TOWARDS NZEB
      3.1.   Applied national definitions of NZEB

      Numerical indicators are not comparable across Member States because different energy performance calculation methodologies are used (23). Some Member States have extended the scope of the numerical indicator by including non-mandatory energy uses, e.g. energy use in appliances. Evidence shows how inclusion of lighting and appliances can result in more optimal solutions, especially for electricity use (24).
      With this caveat, the available evidence (25) shows that where a numerical indicator has been set, the requirements range rather widely from 0 kWh/(m2.y) to 270 kWh/(m2.y) (which includes energy use in appliances) and are mainly given as primary energy use in kWh/m2/y. The higher values are mainly for hospitals or other specialised non-residential buildings.
      For residential buildings, most Member States aim to have a primary energy use not higher than 50 kWh/(m2.y). The maximal primary energy use ranges between 20 kWh/(m2.y) in Denmark or 33 kWh/(m2.y) in Croatia (Littoral) and 95 kWh/(m2.y) in Latvia. Several countries (Belgium (Brussels), Estonia, France, Ireland, Slovakia, United Kingdom, Bulgaria, Denmark, Croatia (Continental), Malta, Slovenia) aim at 45 or 50 kWh/(m2.y) (26).
      As regards the share of renewable energy, the reporting is quite diverse, with only a few countries defining a specific minimum percentage and the majority making qualitative statements.
      No Member State has yet reported any legislative regime for not applying the NZEB requirements in specific and justifiable cases where the cost benefit analysis over the economic life cycle of the building in question is negative, as permitted under Article 9(6) of the EPBD.
      3.2.   Policies and measures for the promotion of NZEB

      An assessment of the state of play as of October 2014 (27) showed that Member States reported a wide range of policies and measures in support of the NZEB objectives in their national plans and National Energy Efficiency Action Plans, although it is often not clear to what extent these measures specifically target NZEB. Compared to the situation reported in the 2013 Commission progress report (28), the number of policies and measures reported from the Member States has increased.
      More than two thirds of the Member States have in place polices and measures in the categories of awareness raising and education, strengthening building regulation and energy performance certificates. Financial instruments and support measures, including e.g. incentive policies, loans with reduced interest rate, tax exemptions, energy bonuses for private individuals, grant schemes for installation of renewable energy, guidance and financing for at-risk populations and subsidised mortgage interest rates for energy efficient homes, are another focus to promote NZEB.
      Most of the policies and measures reported by the Member States also apply to public buildings. The scope of measures for public buildings varies substantially between Member States ranging from central government buildings only to all publicly-owned buildings or all buildings used for public purposes. Some Member States also have specific measures for public buildings. These are mainly monitoring campaigns (e.g. ‘NRClick’ is an energy accounting system for the comparison of different municipalities in Belgium) and demonstration projects (e.g. in Germany the Zero-energy building for the Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt)).
      An EU wide overview of the status of national plans for NZEB was prepared in 2015 (29). This recent analysis confirms sustained progress, both in the quantity and in the quality of national measures for the promotion of NZEB, including the detailed application of the definition, intermediate targets by 2015 and financial and other policies. This report identifies several exemplary or front-runner policy frameworks.
      Some Member States have estimated the benefits of NZEB implementation. New full time jobs will be created: between 649 and 1 180 in Bulgaria, between 4 100 and 6 200 in Poland, between 1 390 and 2 203 in Romania. Bulgaria expects additional investments between EUR 38 and 69 million, Poland between EUR 240 and 365 million, and Romania between EUR 82 and 130 million. Minimum primary energy requirements are foreseen between 70 kWh/m2/y (Bulgaria and Poland) and 100 kWh/m2/y (Romania) in 2015, but they will become between 30 kWh/m2/y and 50 kWh/m2/y in 2020. The percentage of renewable energy will pass from 20 % in 2015 to 40 % in 2020. CO2 emissions will pass from 8-10 kgCO2/m2/y to 3-7 kgCO2/m2/y in 2020.
      Recent studies suggest that energy reductions of 80 % and more are economically feasible in new NZEB constructions in Europe, although the mix of selected measures varies strongly with climate. Results show how a broad approach to efficiency combined with renewable measures is feasible across the EU, at different costs (30).
      4.   RECOMMENDATIONS
      4.1.   Application of the NZEB definition in practice: when is the ambition of a NZEB level of energy performance too low?

      This section provides the general principles and factors that Member States are advised to take into account in developing the NZEB definition to be applied at national level, in line with the EPBD.
      There cannot be a single level of ambition for NZEB across the EU. Flexibility is needed to account for the impact of climatic conditions on heating and cooling needs and on the cost-effectiveness of packages of energy efficiency and renewable energy sources measures.
      Nevertheless, the terms ‘nearly zero’ or ‘very low amount’ of energy introduced by the EPBD provide indications as to the extent and limits of Member States' discretion. NZEB definitions should aim at a nearly equalised energy balance.
      The NZEB level for new buildings cannot be below (less stringent) than the 2021 cost-optimal level that will be calculated in accordance with Article 5 of the Directive. The cost-optimal level is the minimum level of ambition for NZEB performance. The NZEB level of energy performance for new buildings will be determined by the best technology that is available and well introduced on the market at that time, financial aspects and legal and political considerations at national level.
      The establishment of numeric benchmarks for NZEB primary energy use indicators, at EU level, is most useful when the values to be compared with these benchmarks result from transparent calculation methodologies. Standards (31) are currently under finalisation to allow for transparent comparison of national and regional calculation methodologies.
      With these considerations in mind, benchmarks are usually provided in terms of energy needs. Underlying reasons are the fact that energy needs are the starting point for the calculation of primary energy and therefore a very low level of energy need for heating and cooling is a vital pre-condition for nearly zero primary energy buildings. Very low energy needs are also a precondition to achieve a significant share of energy from renewable energy sources and nearly zero primary energy.
      Projecting the 2020 prices and technologies, benchmarks for the energy performance of NZEB are in the following ranges for the different EU climatic zones (32):

                  Mediterranean:

                              —

                              Offices: 20-30 kWh/(m2.y) of net primary energy with, typically, 80 — 90 kWh/(m2.y) of primary energy use covered by 60 kWh/(m2.y) of on-site renewable sources;

                              —

                              New single family house: 0-15 kWh/m2.y) of net primary energy with, typically, 50-65 kWh/(m2.y) of primary energy use covered by 50 kWh/(m2.y) of on-site renewable sources;

                  Oceanic:

                              —

                              Offices: 40-55 kWh/(m2.y) of net primary energy with, typically, 85-100 kWh/(m2.y) of primary energy use covered by 45 kWh/(m2.y) of on-site renewable sources;

                              —

                              New single family house: 15-30 kWh/(m2.y) of net primary energy with, typically, 50-65 kWh/(m2.y) of primary energy use covered by 35 kWh/(m2.y) of on-site renewable sources; and

                  Continental:

                              —

                              Offices: 40-55 kWh/(m2.y) of net primary energy with, typically, 85-100 kWh/(m2.y) of primary energy use covered by 45 kWh/(m2.y) of on-site renewable sources;

                              —

                              New single family house: 20-40 kWh/(m2.y) of net primary energy with, typically, 50-70 kWh/(m2.y) of primary energy use covered by 30 kWh/(m2.y) of on-site renewable sources;

                  Nordic:

                              —

                              Offices: 55-70 kWh/(m2.y) of net primary energy with, typically, 85-100 kWh/(m2.y) of primary energy use covered by 30 kWh/(m2.y) of on-site renewable sources;

                              —

                              New single family house: 40-65 kWh/(m2.y) of net primary energy with, typically, 65-90 kWh/(m2.y) of primary energy use covered by 25 kWh/(m2.y) of on-site renewable sources.

            Member States are advised to use renewable energy sources in an integrated design concept to cover the low energy requirements of buildings (33).
      Some Member States have chosen to link the NZEB level to one of the best energy performance classes (e.g. building class A++), as specified in an energy performance certificate. This approach, when accompanied by a clear energy performance indicator, is recommended to give clear information to investors and drive the market towards NZEB.
      4.2.   Meeting the obligation to ensure that new buildings are NZEB as of end of 2020

      Preparing new buildings to deliver on the NZEB targets may require adaptation of existing practices. Minimum energy performance requirements and nearly-zero requirements would have to be assessed considering the deadlines in Article 9(1).
      Furthermore, Member States need to ensure that if new constructions do not comply with the energy performance requirements, adequate sanction mechanisms are in place. This may require differentiated sanctions for new buildings after the NZEB deadlines have passed.
      Member States are advised to assess these elements as soon as possible to make sure that the NZEB targets are achieved. It is equally recommended that Member States define the mechanism that will be used to monitor the fulfilment of the NZEB targets. This mechanism should also monitor the achievement of the intermediate 2015 targets in line with Article 9(1), as well as of possible additional milestones at national level up to 2020. This will strengthen the current NZEB roadmaps and contribute to monitoring mechanisms in the coming years.
      4.3.   Policies and measures for the promotion of NZEB

      In most Member States a wide range of policies has been selected to increase the number of NZEBs (e.g., awareness raising and information, education and training, strengthening building regulations and energy performance certificates, chosen by: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Slovenia, United Kingdom). However, policies sometimes seem rather general and addressed to ‘all buildings’. Their specific support to NZEB is not always sufficiently clear, nor is to what extent they contribute in practice to achieving the NZEB target in a country. Therefore, a stronger connection between policies, measures and NZEB is recommended.
      To facilitate the provision of this information, the Commission has made available to the Member States a non-obligatory template, whose use is recommended to facilitate the comparability and analysis of the NZEB plans (34).
      4.4.   Supporting the transformation of existing buildings towards NZEB

      Best practices to target the transformation of the existing building stock range from technology awareness (35), incentive schemes to financial instruments, taxation mechanisms, economic instruments such as energy saving obligation schemes, market instruments like public private partnerships to stimulate building renovation or one stop solution centres giving advice on energy renovation (36).
      The approach followed in some Member States that links financial support for building renovation to the achievement of high energy classes equivalent to NZEB level can be considered a good practice to stimulate the transformation of national building stocks towards NZEB levels.
      In the last decade most Member States introduced measures addressed to the existing building stock and new forward-looking perspectives have been recently defined within the national renovation strategies developed in accordance with Energy Efficiency Directive Article 4. Member States should design consistent mixtures of policy instruments (policy packages), depending only partially on public budgets.
      Reliable data to monitor policy impacts, including actual energy performance and indoor environment, are required above all for building stock refurbishment. In some countries with limited solar renewable energy potential (e.g. northern Europe), policies that support alternative measures are needed (e.g. biomass). The adoption of roadmaps and indicators is also a good tool to address specific needs and monitor implementation. Member States are advised to further strengthen and evaluate the adopted measures in order to successfully stimulate cost-effective deep and NZEB renovations.
      5.   SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

                  (1)

                  Principles for NZEB are one of the pillars of the current Directive and are set to become the norm for new buildings as of 2020. Member States are advised to step up their efforts to fully implement and enforce the provisions of the EPBD to ensure that all new buildings become NZEB by the target dates in the Directive.

                  (2)

                  Member States are advised to set national definitions of NZEB at a sufficiently high level of ambition –not below the projected cost-optimal level of minimum requirements- and to use renewable energy sources in an integrated design concept to cover the low energy requirements of nearly-zero energy buildings. Recommended benchmarks are provided in Section 4.1. Proper indoor environment should be ensured to avoid deterioration of indoor air quality, comfort and health conditions in the European building stock.

                  (3)

                  In ensuring that new buildings will be NZEB as of the end of 2020, Member States should assess as soon as possible whether adaptation of existing practices is needed. It is equally recommended that Member States define the mechanism that will be used to monitor the fulfilment of the NZEB targets and to consider the possibility to set up differentiated sanctions for new buildings after the NZEB deadlines have passed.

                  (4)

                  Policies and measures for the promotion of NZEB should be more specific in clarifying to what extent they contribute to achieving NZEB targets. A stronger connection between policies, measures and NZEBs is recommended. To facilitate the provision of this information, the Commission has made available to Member States a non-obligatory template, whose use is recommended to facilitate the comparability and analysis of the plans.

                  (5)

                  The Commission recommends that Member States accelerate progress in the development of support policies addressing specifically the refurbishment of existing building stocks towards NZEB levels. Member States should design consistent mixtures of policy instruments (policy packages) to provide the required long-term stability to investors in efficient buildings, including deep and NZEB renovations. Reliable data collection to monitor policy impacts is recommended to address specific needs and to monitor the implementation of building stock refurbishment.

         (1)  COM(2015) 80 final.

         (2)  Article 2(4).

         (3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 of 16 January 2012 supplementing Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the energy performance of buildings by establishing a comparative methodology framework for calculating cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements for buildings and building elements (OJ L 81, 21.3.2012, p. 18).

         (4)  Guidelines establishing a methodology framework for calculating cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements (OJ C 115, 19.4.2012, p. 1).

         (5)  See table in page 10 of the guidelines.

         (6)  ‘Energy need’, ‘delivered energy’ and ‘net primary energy’ should be read according to the definitions laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 and its accompanying Guidelines.

         (7)  See for instance ‘Analysis of load match and grid interaction indicators in net zero energy buildings with simulated and monitored data’, Applied Energy, 31 December 2014, pp. 119-131.

         (8)  JRC report on ‘Promoting healthy and energy efficient buildings in the European Union’, 2016.

         (9)  See e.g. ‘Predicted vs. actual energy performance of non-domestic buildings: Using post-occupancy evaluation data to reduce the performance gap’, Anna Carolina Menezes, Andrew Cripps, Dino Bouchlaghem & Richard Buswell (2012), Applied Energy, Volume 97, pp. 355-364, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261911007811/

         (10)  Meaning the level of energy performance which leads to the lowest cost during the estimated lifecycle of the building.

         (11)  ‘Energy from renewable sources’ covers energy from renewable non-fossil sources namely wind, solar, aerothermal, geothermal, hydrothermal and ocean energy, hydropower, biomass, landfill gas, sewagetreatment plant gas and biogases.

         (12)  ‘Towards nearly zero-energy buildings- Definition on common principles under the EPBD’ (http://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/nzeb_full_report.pdf), carried out by Ecofys forthe European Commission, DG ENERGY.

         (13)  Report of the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on progress by Member States in reaching cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements.

         (14)  Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ L 140, 5.6.2009, p. 16).

         (15)  See Article 13(4) of the RES Directive.

         (16)  EPBD Concerted Action III book, 2016.

         (17)  DHC systems in the EU have a level of market deployment of about 10-13 % of EU energy heating/cooling supply.

         (18)  See footnote 12.

         (19)  23 Member States and one of the Belgian regions.

         (20)  In accordance with Article 9(3)(a).

         (21)  Article 28(1) second subparagraph.

         (22)  Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC (OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 1).

         (23)  On-going standardisation work and projects such as the GE2O project (http://www.geoclusters.eu/) try to overcome this limitation while acknowledging natural differences such as climate.

         (24)  Modelling of optimal paths to reach NZEB for new constructions in Europe, presented by Delia D'Agostino at the WSED conference in February 2016 (http://www.wsed.at/en/programme/young-researchers-conference-energy-efficiency-biomass/).

         (25)  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0483R(01)&from=EN. This report includes information from all Member States except for Greece and Spain, which had notsent a national plan or consolidated template as of 18 September 2014. A more recent overview table ofnational definitions of NZEB is available here: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/buildings/nearly-zero-energy-buildings.

         (26)  See information included in the JRC synthesis report on national plans for NZEB, 2016, a BPIE factsheet of January 2015 (http://bpie.eu/uploads/lib/document/attachment/128/BPIE_factsheet_nZEB_definitions_across_Europe.pdf) and updated information published by the Commission in October 2014 (https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Updated%20progress%20report%20NZEB.pdf)

         (27)  https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Updated%20progress%20report%20NZEB.pdf

         (28)  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0483R(01)&from=EN

         (29)  JRC synthesis report on national plans for NZEB, 2016, available in the following website: http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/publications/all

         (30)  See footnote 24.

         (31)  Commission's mandate M/480 to CEN on the elaboration of EPBD standards.

         (32)  In the study ‘Towards nearly zero-energy buildings- Definition on common principles under the EPBD’ (http://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/nzeb_full_report.pdf), carried out by Ecofys for the European Commission, DG ENERGY:

                  —

                  Mediterranean is referred to as Zone 1: Catania (others: Athens, Larnaca, Luga, Seville, Palermo)

                  —

                  Oceanic as Zone 4: Paris (others: Amsterdam, Berlin, Brussels, Copenhagen, Dublin, London, Macon, Nancy, Prague, Warszawa)

                  —

                  Continental as Zone 3: Budapest (others: Bratislava, Ljubljana, Milan, Vienna)

                  —

                  Nordic as Zone 5: Stockholm (Helsinki, Riga, Stockholm, Gdansk, Tovarene).

         (33)  The integrated energy performance of a building corresponds to the amount of net primary energy needed to meet the different needs associated with its typical use and must reflect the heating energy needs and cooling energy needs, domestic hot water needs and built-in lighting. As a result, in addition to the quality of insulation of the building, an integrated performance considers heating installations, cooling installations, energy for ventilation, lighting installations, position and orientation of the building, heat recovery, active solar gains and other renewable energy sources.

         (34)  The templates as filled in by the Member States are available from this website http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/buildings/nearly-zero-energy-buildings

         (35)  The EU supports technology development under the H2020 programme — in particular through the Public Private Partnership on Energy efficient Buildings — https://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/energy-efficient-buildings_en.html

         (36)  See footnote 22.


/* 66/22/Euratom: Second Commission Recommendation to the Member States on the harmonization of legislation applying the Paris Convention of 29 July 1960 */


Avis juridique important

|

31996H0290

96/290/EC: Commission Recommendation of 17 April 1996 concerning a coordinated programme for the official control of foodstuffs for 1996

Official Journal L 109 , 03/05/1996 P. 0024 - 0030

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 17 April 1996 concerning a coordinated programme for the official control of foodstuffs for 1996 (96/290/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the second indent of Article 155 thereof,Having regard to Council Directive 89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 14 (3) thereof,After consultation with the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs,Whereas it is necessary, with a view to the sound operation of the internal market, to arrange for coordinated food inspection programmes at Community level;Whereas such programmes place emphasis on compliance with Community legislation, the protection of public health, consumer interests and fair trade practices;Whereas simultaneous implementation of national programmes and coordinated programmes can provide information and experience on which to base future control activities,HEREBY RECOMMENDS THAT DURING 1996 MEMBER STATES TAKE SAMPLES AND/OR CARRY OUT INSPECTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING, UNDERTAKING LABORATORY ANALYSIS WHERE INDICATED:1. Microbiological assessment of dried and fermented ready-to-eat meat and meat products.2. Migration of plasticizers into foods.3. Temperature of chilled foods on display for sale.4. Benzo(a)pyrene in smoked pork products.Article 14 (3) of Directive 89/397/EEC on the official control of foodstuffs provides for the Commission to transmit to the Member States a recommendation concerning a coordinated programme of inspections. The coordinated programme has been in operation since 1993. The 1996 programme has been developed following discussions with Member States, and takes into account the experience gained from previous years' programmes particularly on the precision needed to enhance the comparability of results from the participating national control authorities.Suggestions are made for the methods of sampling and analysis. Although, sampling rates have not been set Member States are recommended to ensure that the number of samples taken is sufficient to provide an overview of the subject under consideration in each Member State.Member States are recommended to provide the information as requested following the format of the record sheets provided in the Annexes to help enhance the comparability of results.1. Microbiological assessment of dried and fermented ready-to-eat meats and meat products Dried and fermented ready-to-eat meats and meat products sampled at the retail point of sale to the consumer are the subject of this element of the programme. The samples are to be subjected to microbiological examination for the presence of Salmonellae, E. coli 0157:H7 and enumeration of Staphylococcus aurens. The products pH water activity (Aw) are to be noted. The results are to be recorded in three categories: dry and semi-dry sausage, undried sausage and raw (country-style) hams.2. Migration of plasticizers Plasticizers (e.g. phospharic esters, phtalic esters, stearic and adipic esters) are used to enhance the suppleness of plastic materials including those in contact with foods. These substances are known to contribute at a high level to the overall migration of substances from the plasticized plastics into foods/food simulants. The objective of this element of the programme is to assess the compliance of plasticized materials used in contact with food with the limits established in Directive 90/128/EEC (2).3. Temperature control of chilled foods at the point of sale to the final consumer Council Directive 93/43/EEC (3) on the hygiene of foodstuffs requires foods which are likely to support the growth of pathogenic micro-organisms or the formation of toxins to be kept at temperatures which would not result in a risk to health.This element of the programme is aimed at determining the temperature of the following four categories of foods at the point of sale to the consumer using accurate temperature monitoring equipment:I. chilled cooked foods to be eaten without further reheating,II. chilled cooked foods requiring reheating only (not a full cooking process) prior to consumption,III. raw prepared foods to be eaten after a full heat process,IV. raw prepared foods to be eaten raw.Temperatures are to be measured where possible by non-destructive methods.4. Benzo(a)pyrene in smoked pork products Council Directive 88/388/EEC (4) on flavourings for use in foodstuffs limits the levels of the smoked aroma substance 3,4 benzo-pyrene to 0,03 ìg/kg in foodstuffs. This element of the control programme is to assess the levels of benzo(a)pyrene in smoked pork products.Done at Brussels, 17 April 1996.For the CommissionMartin BANGEMANNMember of the Commission(1) OJ No L 186, 30. 6. 1989, p. 23.(2) OJ No L 75, 21. 3. 1990, p. 19.(3) OJ No L 175, 19. 7. 1993, p. 1.(4) OJ No L 184, 15. 7. 1988, p. 61.ANNEX1. MICROBIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF DRIED AND FERMENTED READY-TO-EAT MEATS AND MEAT PRODUCTS >START OF GRAPHIC>>END OF GRAPHIC>2. MIGRATION OF PLASTICIZERS>START OF GRAPHIC>>END OF GRAPHIC>3. TEMPERATURE CONTROL OF CHILLED FOODS AT THE POINT OF SALE TO THE FINAL CONSUMER>START OF GRAPHIC>>END OF GRAPHIC>4. BENZO(A)PYRENE IN SMOKED PORK PRODUCTS>START OF GRAPHIC>>END OF GRAPHIC>