Who carries the obligation, the producer or the importer?

The legal and financial obligation sits with the authorised declarant established in the EU, typically the importer or its indirect customs representative. The producer outside the EU carries no direct obligation to the authorities, but carries the entire evidentiary burden: without installation-level data from the operator, the declarant has nothing to declare but default values, and will price that difference back into the commercial relationship.

What happens if we rely on default values?

Nothing prohibits it, and for a first cycle it is sometimes the only available position. The consequence is commercial rather than legal: the default is set at the country average for that good and origin, then marked up by ten per cent in 2026, twenty in 2027 and thirty from 2028, so the certificate count rises against an installation that may well be performing better than the figure suggests. Two things follow. The premium grows on the mark-up schedule even if nothing changes at the plant, and it is then multiplied by a payable share that climbs from 2.5 per cent to 100 per cent over the same period — which is why a position that looks immaterial in the first year rarely stays that way.

Can our existing ISO 14064 inventory be reused?

Partly, and the overlap is worth claiming. An existing greenhouse gas inventory usually establishes measurement infrastructure, calibration discipline and a control environment that the monitoring plan can build on. What it rarely establishes is the boundary the mechanism requires — aggregated goods categories, precursor attribution and product-level allocation are drawn differently from a corporate inventory, so the plan is scoped as an extension rather than a translation.

How long does it take to reach a verified figure?

For a single installation with reasonable existing instrumentation, roughly twelve months from scope determination to a transferred verified statement, with the constraint sitting on the data cycle rather than on the documentation. A complete reporting period has to be held end to end before a verifier has anything to sample. Installations that need instrumentation before that cycle can start should expect the schedule to run longer.

Does a carbon price paid in the country of origin reduce the obligation?

Yes, where it is a carbon price effectively paid on the emissions in question and is evidenced to the required standard. The adjustment is claimed in the declaration and reduces the certificate count accordingly. As national schemes come into force in origin markets, this claim moves from a marginal item to a substantive part of the commercial case, and the evidence requirement is what usually determines whether it can be made.

We import below the annual mass threshold. Does anything apply to us?

Below fifty tonnes of covered goods in a calendar year (net mass, excluding packaging, aggregated across every covered line under one EORI), the authorisation, declaration and surrender obligations all fall away. Three qualifications matter. Electricity and hydrogen sit outside the exemption entirely, so any volume of either carries full obligations. The threshold is tested on the year as a whole, so an importer who crosses it in November is in scope for January onward rather than from the crossing point, and importing without authorisation once in scope is penalised at a materially higher rate than ordinary under-surrender. And the classification question survives the exemption: someone still has to determine which lines are covered and watch the running total. For a business trading anywhere near fifty tonnes, that monitoring is itself the programme.

CBAM Programme Management

The Mechanic

What the obligation actually turns on

The declaration itself is a short document. What sits underneath it — a monitoring plan that describes a physical installation, meter data with defensible uncertainty, a precursor chain reaching back through counterparties who owe you nothing beyond a purchase order — is a body of work that takes cycles rather than weeks, and it is assembled once and then operated annually.

The commercial consequence is narrow and easy to state. Where verified, installation-specific figures are not available, the declaration falls back on a default value built from the country average for that good and then marked up — ten per cent in 2026, twenty in 2027, thirty from 2028 — so the party surrendering certificates pays a premium for the absence of evidence rather than for the presence of emissions. On the published Turkish figures for blast-furnace steel the gap between the default and a verified installation runs at roughly 0.6 tonnes of CO₂e per tonne of product, and it widens each year on the mark-up alone, before the payable share has climbed off its opening level.

The second consequence is timing. Accredited verification capacity is finite, it books out ahead of the deadline, and the verifier sits on the other side of an independence wall — they cannot help you prepare, and they cannot compress an audit to fit a date you have already missed. An installation that begins the work late does not get a worse figure; it gets no figure at all, and defaults to the conservative one.

Managed properly this is familiar work: a requirements library with clause-level traceability, an evidence file held in the shape the audit will ask for, an approval workflow that crosses operations, finance and trade compliance, and a schedule with a critical path running to a date nobody can move. It is the machinery BEIREK already runs on financed capital projects, applied to a regulatory obligation.

Three Positions

The same regime, read from three sides

Producer, declarant and lender are exposed to different halves of this mechanism, and each needs a different artefact out of the same programme. Confusing the three is how compliance work ends up serving nobody.

01

Producer / exporter

You run the installation. Your obligation is evidentiary: produce a monitoring plan the verifier accepts, and hand your EU customer a figure they can declare.

02

EU importer / declarant

The legal obligation and the cash obligation both sit with you. Your exposure is set by data you do not generate, held by counterparties you do not control.

03

Investor / lender

You hold the exposure at portfolio level, across assets whose readiness varies. What you need is a comparable figure per asset and a view of which ones will miss the gate.

Instruments

Four working instruments

Scope, exposure, readiness and timing are the four questions that have to be answered before a programme can be scoped. These tools run on published parameters and on planning bands; they size a problem, they do not produce a declaration.

CN / GTİP scope lookup

Scope is drawn at CN level, and the exclusions sitting inside a covered heading are where a first-pass assessment usually goes wrong. Enter a four to twelve digit code; Turkish GTİP codes resolve on their first eight digits.

Try

Indicative only. Outputs rest on the parameters set out in the programme documentation and on planning assumptions where installation data is absent; they are not a compliance determination and carry no assurance value. Parameters as of: 2026-08-29

Service Architecture

Nine modules, delivered out of existing practices

The programme is not a separate carbon practice bolted onto the firm. Each module is delivered out of the discipline that already does this kind of work, which is why the evidence standard is the one lenders and auditors already recognise.

01

Scope and Obligation Determination

Scope is settled at CN level, not at product-family level, and the exclusions inside a covered heading are where most first-pass assessments go wrong. The determination fixes who carries the obligation before any measurement work is commissioned.

CN and GTİP classification review against Annex I, exclusions tested individually
Obligated-party analysis across declarant, indirect customs representative and operator
Obligation library with clause-level traceability to the operative instrument
Penalty and enforcement exposure assessment, including under-surrender pricing

Delivered out ofDevelopment Finance & Compliance

02

Installation and System Boundary Engineering

A monitoring plan describes a physical place. The boundary is drawn by walking the production route, tracing source streams and reading what the meters actually measure — not by circulating a questionnaire.

Site survey and production route mapping, aggregated goods category by category
System boundary and source stream diagram, with heat and electricity flows closed
Meter inventory, measurement uncertainty tiers and calibration evidence
Precursor chain mapping across own production and purchased inputs

Delivered out ofEngineering & Delivery

03

Monitoring Plan and Data Architecture

The monitoring plan is the document the verifier audits against, and its weakest clause sets the ceiling on the whole assurance outcome. It is built to be operated for years, not drafted once for a submission.

Monitoring plan drafted to the prescribed structure, with method tiers justified
Data collection procedures, control hierarchy and segregation of duties
ERP, MES and SCADA integration so figures are drawn rather than re-keyed
Version control, change management and approval trail across reporting cycles

Delivered out ofDigital Platforms

04

Calculation and Declaration Production

Embedded emissions are produced as an auditable calculation chain, and the declaration is assembled from that chain rather than from a spreadsheet reconstructed at the deadline.

Direct and, where the good requires it, indirect embedded emissions calculation
Quantified gap between default values and installation-specific figures
Registry declaration assembly, submission and correction handling
Carbon price paid in the country of origin, evidenced and claimed as adjustment

Delivered out ofDevelopment Finance & Compliance

05

Verification Management

The verifier sits on the other side of an independence wall and cannot help you prepare. The programme therefore runs its own pre-audit, closes findings before the engagement opens, and holds the evidence file in the shape the audit will ask for.

Accredited verifier selection, scoping and engagement terms
Internal pre-audit against the verification standard, with findings closed out
Site verification coordination, sampling support and evidence file custody
Transfer of the verified statement to EU customers, cycle after cycle

Delivered out ofDevelopment Finance & Compliance

06

Cost, Price and Exposure Management

The certificate price tracks a traded commodity while the payable share rises on a published schedule, so exposure moves on two axes at once. Modelled early, it is a budget line; discovered late, it is a margin event.

Year-by-year certificate exposure model across price and volume scenarios
Phase-out schedule bridge showing where the step changes actually fall
Carbon cost pass-through drafting in offtake and supply contracts
Purchase, holding and surrender calendar aligned to working capital

Delivered out ofProject Development & Finance

07

Supply Chain and Counterparty Management

Precursor data sits with counterparties who owe you nothing beyond the purchase order. It arrives on time only where the contract says it must, in the format the calculation needs.

Supplier emissions data protocol, with format and cut-off dates fixed
Data delivery, audit access and remedy clauses written into supply agreements
Substitution analysis where a lower-intensity precursor changes the landed cost
Alignment with the EU customer’s own declarant requirements and audit calendar

Delivered out ofDeal & Contract Advisory

08

Decarbonisation Investment Pipeline

Once exposure is priced, abatement stops being a sustainability argument and becomes an investment case with a calculable payback. The ranking that follows is rarely the one the engineering team expected.

Marginal abatement cost curve built on the installation’s own measured baseline
Investment case, sizing and financing structure for the shortlisted measures
Alignment with green and sustainability-linked financing conditions
Post-implementation intensity verification, closing the loop to the declaration

Delivered out ofProject Development & Finance

09

Programme Governance

The obligation recurs annually and outlasts the people who set it up. Governance is what keeps the second cycle from being rebuilt from scratch by whoever is still in the building.

Authority matrix and approval workflow across operations, finance and trade compliance
Programme schedule, milestones and critical path to the surrender date
Board and lender-grade reporting pack on exposure and assurance status
Institutional memory: procedures, handover file and successor briefing

Electricity

Direct emissions only

Electricity is declared on the imported quantity at the interconnector, so the exposure attaches to a trading position rather than to an installation with a factory floor to walk. Where a third-country carbon price applies to generation, the adjustment claim is the entire commercial argument.

Where effort concentratesInterconnector flow attribution, default versus actual basis and price adjustment claims.

Country default drawn from a five-year average grid emission factor; actual values are admissible only on narrow cumulative criteria, so the default usually governs. Confirm the Annex value for the origin market.

Default value, 2026

0.45 tCO₂e/MWh

Verified band

0.40 tCO₂e/MWh

Türkiye

Türkiye as a sourcing position

Türkiye accounts for roughly 12 per cent of the mass of CBAM goods entering the EU, second only to Ukraine. For a declarant that is less a country risk than a concentration: a large share of the steel and aluminium sitting in a European bill of materials traces back to a supplier base that is only now building the evidence the declaration will require.

Covered today

Sector	Annual exports to the EU	Certificate burden at full phase-in
Iron and steel The largest absolute burden, on volume rather than on intensity. Türkiye shipped roughly 15 million tonnes of steel in 2025, and the EU is the anchor market for the flat-product mills.	€3.5 bn – €4.5 bn	€200 m – €400 m
Aluminium Around 58% of the relevant Turkish aluminium exports go to Europe, so this is a concentrated rather than a diversified exposure. Only direct emissions count, which flatters smelters on a carbon-heavy grid.	€1.5 bn – €2.5 bn	€50 m – €150 m
Cement and clinker A smaller line, but the one where the burden is hardest to engineer away: calcination emissions are chemistry, not combustion, and indirect emissions count for this good.	€300 m – €600 m	€30 m – €70 m
Fertilisers The smallest export line and the heaviest per unit, because nitrous oxide from nitric acid carries a global warming potential that makes abatement catalyst performance a balance-sheet variable.	€200 m – €400 m	€30 m – €80 m
Total	€5.5 bn – €8 bn	€310 m – €700 m

Modelled at €65–75 per tonne on sector-average intensities. The burden lands on the declarant, and reaches the producer through price.

Proposed for 2028

The Commission’s December 2025 package proposes extending the mechanism to some 180 steel- and aluminium-intensive downstream product lines from 1 January 2028, subject to Parliament and Council. The mechanic of that extension differs from the one above, and the difference is what matters: the reportable quantity is the embedded emissions of the metal in the finished good, not the emissions of the plant that assembled it. The obligation therefore moves from a few hundred producers to thousands of manufacturers for whom this is a supply chain data problem rather than a measurement one. In practice the first thing that arrives is not an invoice but a data request from the European customer, usually folded into a supplier scorecard that already exists.

Automotive and components

Motor vehicles and parts are among the heaviest lines in Türkiye’s trade with the EU, and their exposure is entirely inherited: what would be reported is the embedded emissions of the steel and aluminium in the part, not the emissions of the plant that made it.

Machinery and heavy components

Machinery is a roughly $26 billion export line. Cast machinery, cylinders and industrial radiators sit squarely in the proposed categories, and a machine bill of materials rarely traces metal origin at the level the calculation needs.

White goods and household appliances

A sector built on sheet steel and aluminium, selling into the EU under retailer and OEM contracts that already carry supplier scorecards. The obligation would arrive through those scorecards before it arrives through customs.

Fasteners and metal products

Screws, bolts and wire already sit partly inside the mechanism. The extension would close the remaining gap, and it travels with anti-circumvention provisions aimed at the reclassification and slight-modification routes a partial scope inevitably opens.

Electrical equipment

Not named in the proposal as it stands, but conductors, enclosures and transformer cores are aluminium- and steel-intensive enough to sit in the sensitivity band. The metal content is usually fixed by a customer standard rather than chosen by the manufacturer, which limits how far substitution could move the figure if the scope widens again.

The national scheme, and what it does not do

Climate Law No. 7552 came into force on 9 July 2025 and the Türkiye Emissions Trading System Regulation was published in the Official Gazette on 27 August 2026. The pilot covers 2026 and 2027 and applies to cement, iron and steel, aluminium and fertiliser installations above 50,000 tonnes of CO₂e a year. Through the pilot, allowances are issued free in full on a benchmark basis and no financial obligation arises.

The inference usually drawn from this is the wrong one. A carbon price paid in the country of origin is deductible against the certificate obligation, but the deduction turns on a price effectively paid — and where allowances are issued free in full and no financial obligation arises, nothing has been paid. For the pilot years the Turkish scheme therefore reduces a declarant’s certificate count by nothing at all.

What the pilot does deliver sits elsewhere. The monitoring, reporting and verification infrastructure the national scheme requires rests on substantially the same ground as the evidence chain CBAM asks for: the installation boundary, the meter inventory and the data procedures built for one are the records a verifier samples on the other. A supplier running the two as separate programmes is doing the same work twice, and a buyer assessing supplier readiness can reasonably ask to see the national scheme documentation as a proxy.

Adjacent Regimes

What else lands on the same evidence base

An installation that can produce verified, product-level emissions data has built an asset that several other regimes are about to ask for. Sequencing these together is materially cheaper than answering each one separately.

UK CBAM

A parallel mechanism with its own thresholds and its own registry. The underlying installation data is largely shared; the declaration is not.

Digital Product Passport (ESPR)

Product-level environmental data, carried digitally through the chain. The same product carbon footprint work, published to a different interface.

EUDR

Deforestation-free due diligence on a separate commodity list, but the same problem of collecting evidence from upstream counterparties.

PPWR

Packaging obligations that attach to goods already inside a CBAM supply chain, with recycled content evidence following the same audit logic.

CSRD / TSRS

Corporate-level disclosure that draws on the same inventory. Where product data is verified, the corporate figure stops being an estimate.

EU ETS2 and national schemes

A widening carbon price in origin markets, including Türkiye’s own scheme. This cuts both ways, since a price paid at home is deductible against the certificate obligation.

Deliverables

What the programme leaves behind

Compliance work is judged on what survives the engagement. These are the artefacts the programme produces, held in the form the next audit cycle will ask for.

01

Monitoring plan

Drawn on site, method tiers justified, structured to be operated rather than filed.

02

Evidence file

Source records, calibration certificates and control steps, indexed to the calculation they support.

03

Declaration package

The calculation chain, the registry submission and the correction trail behind both.

04

Verifier correspondence log

Findings, responses and closures: the document that makes the second cycle shorter than the first.

05

Exposure model

Year-by-year certificate cost across price and volume scenarios, maintained as a live budget input.

06

Handover file

Procedures, authority limits and successor briefing, so the obligation outlasts the people who set it up.

Questions

Common questions

The questions that decide whether a programme is scoped correctly, answered in the terms the regime actually uses.

Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism

What the obligation actually turns on

The same regime, read from three sides

Producer / exporter

EU importer / declarant

Investor / lender

Four working instruments

CN / GTİP scope lookup

Nine modules, delivered out of existing practices

Scope and Obligation Determination

Installation and System Boundary Engineering

Monitoring Plan and Data Architecture

Calculation and Declaration Production

Verification Management

Cost, Price and Exposure Management

Supply Chain and Counterparty Management

Decarbonisation Investment Pipeline

Programme Governance

Where the friction sits, sector by sector

Iron and steel

Aluminium

Cement

Fertilisers

Hydrogen

Electricity

Türkiye as a sourcing position

Covered today

Proposed for 2028

Automotive and components

Machinery and heavy components

White goods and household appliances

Fasteners and metal products

Electrical equipment

The national scheme, and what it does not do

What else lands on the same evidence base

UK CBAM

Digital Product Passport (ESPR)

EUDR

PPWR

CSRD / TSRS

EU ETS2 and national schemes

What the programme leaves behind

Monitoring plan

Evidence file

Declaration package

Verifier correspondence log

Exposure model

Handover file

Common questions

Discuss a project with us.

Contact

New York office

Telephone

Email

Write to us