european commission: dg environment overview of projections data use in the european policy-making...

European Commission: DG Environment

Overview of projections data use in the

European policy-making process

TFEIP Workshop on Emission Projections,

30 October 2006

Eduard Dame

Energy and Environment, DG Environment C5


Impact Assessment

All substantial Commission proposals have to be accompanied by an Impact Assessment

Economic, social and environmental impacts

Alternative solutions

Projections are a basic element

For Unit C5 of DG ENV energy projections are part of their core

business.


Projections data

Baseline projection (what most probably will happen) starts from a base year includes foreseen changes in activity rates includes future changes in abatement efficiencies according to current

legislation

Scenario (what could happen if……) MTFR Numerous scenarios between baseline and MFTR

Sensitivity cases Important to check robustness of results


Revision of NEC-Directive

Three + one basic elements:

Emission inventory + baseline projection Objectives Optimization

Robust legal solution


Conclusions from the CAFE baseline projections

1. Emissions will further decline

2. But: Air quality remains threat to human health

3. Sustainable conditions for vegetation will not be reached

4. Relevance of sources will change

5. Ships will surpass land-based EU sources

6. Energy projections will influence future emissions


Objectives of Thematic Strategy

Improvements by 2020 relative to 2000

Life Years lost from particulate matter (million) 47%

Acute mortality from ozone 10%

Ecosystem forest area exceeded from acidification 74%

Ecosystem freshwaters area exceeded from acidification

39%

Ecosystem area exceeded from eutrophication 43%

Forest area exceeded by ozone 15%


What has changed since CAFE?

Second round of bilateral consultations with 22 countries and 5 industrial associations

New projections of future economic activities: National energy projections from 21 Member States National agricultural projections from 17 Member States 2005 PRIMES energy projections ($50 oil price, etc.) 2005 CAPRI agricultural projections (mid-term review of CAP)

Improved information on emission inventories (esp. for PM2.5, VOC)

Current legislation includes Commission Euro 5 proposal for diesel passenger and light duty vehicles


NEC baseline emission projections EU-25, National projections, relative to 2000

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

2000

2010

2020

2000

2010

2020

2000

2010

2020

2000

2010

2020

2000

2010

2020

SO2 NOx VOC NH3 PM2.5

Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland

France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia

Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Slovakia

Slovenia Spain Sweden UK Bulgaria Croatia

Romania Turkey Norway Switzerland EU-25


NEC and CAFE baseline emission projections , EU-25, relative to 2000 levels

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

20

00

20

10

20

20

20

00

20

10

20

20

20

00

20

10

20

20

20

00

20

10

20

20

20

00

20

10

20

20

SO2 NOx VOC NH3 PM2.5

CAFE baseline National energy projections


Main reasons for differences:Different assumptions on energy development

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Coal Biomass,waste

Heavy fueloil

Diesel, lightfuel oil

Gasoline Natural gas Nuclear Otherrenewables

1000

PJ

2000 National energy projections 2020 CAFE baseline 2020


Energy projections for 2020EU-25

0

20

40

60

80

1990 2000 Nationalprojections

PRIMES20060€

PRIMES200620€

PRIMES200690€

CAFE BLPRIMES 2004

2020 2020 2020 2020 2020

EJ

COAL OIL GAS BIOMASS OTHER


CAFE BL

National NEC projections

0 €

20 €

90 €

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 105%

CO2 emissions relative to the UNFCCC baseyear emissions

Air

po

lluta

nt

emis

sio

ns

rela

tiv

e to

a 0

€ c

ase

SO2 NOx PM25

Assumptions on future climate policies EU-25, 2020

90 €

20 €

0 €


CAFE BL

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 105%


Air

po

lluta

nt

emis

sio

ns

rela

tiv

e to

a 0

€ c

ase

SO2 NOx PM25

CAFE BL


0 €

20 €

90 €

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 105%


Air

po

lluta

nt

emis

sio

ns

rela

tiv

e to

a 0

€ c

ase

SO2 NOx PM25

90 €

20 €

0 €


CAFE BL

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 105%


Air

po

lluta

nt

emis

sio

ns

rela

tiv

e to

a 0

€ c

ase

SO2 NOx PM25


80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

NH

3 e

mis

sio

ns

rela

tiv

e to

200

0

NH3 from CAFE Baseline animal numbers and strict interpretation of IPPCNH3 from national animal numbers and strict interpretation of IPPCNH3 from CAPRI model animal numbers and strict interpretation of IPPCNH3 from national animal numbers and national interpretation of IPPC

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

NH

3 e

mis

sio

ns

rela

tiv

e to

200

0


80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

NH

3 e

mis

sio

ns

rela

tiv

e to

200

0


Assumptions on agricultural policies

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

NH

3 e

mis

sio

ns

rela

tiv

e to

200

0



Differences between TS and NECD

Thematic Strategy2003

NEC2006

Baseline projections CAFE-baseline • Member States NECD –baseline• EU-wide baseline(s) with no, low and high carbon constraint

Final Objective Between A en B As set in Thematic Strategy,but……….!

Scenarios A, B, C and MFTR A certain number, including C, MFTR, ship emissions, CCS, further Community measures and emission reduction outside EU-27.

Optimization RAINS RAINS/GAINS


Conclusions Conference 29/9 Emission Inventories and Projections

Inventories and projections of RAINS match well with national projections. National and EU wide projections are close to similar, and differences – if any – are often explained.

There is a strong need for coherent emission projections for greenhouse gases and air pollutants up to 2020 and beyond. Inventories and projections should therefore be checked by relevant ministries and institutions in a Member State before submission.

Revision and streamlining of reporting and monitoring requirements of all atmospheric pollutants (NEC and greenhouse gases) should result in an integrated decision, preferably in 2008. Amendment of the Monitoring Mechanism Decision (280/2004/EC) seems to be an appropriate way forward.

The quality of the emission data is important. Several projects aim to improve the quality of the data, especially for PM2.5. End 2007/beginning 2008 a revised EMEP/Corinair Guidebook will be available for use.


Conclusions Conference 29/9 National Emissions Ceilings 2010/2020

Ceilings 2010 Member States need to prepare their NEC National Programmes well and have to

send their programmes to the Commission before the end of 2006. The Commission - as the guardian of the Treaty - needs to ensure that the

programmes are submitted and that the content is consistent with requirements of the NEC-Directive

If a Member State does not meet one of more NEC ceilings in 2010 due to a lack of action, it should not be rewarded when setting new emissions ceilings for 2020.

Ceilings 2020 4. The emission ceilings for 2020 have to fulfill the objectives of the Thematic Strategy.


Conclusions Conference 29/9 Interaction GHG and air pollution

Physical and economic interaction between the control of air pollution emissions and GHG mitigation exist; the GAINS model offers a tool for an integrated analysis.

Costs of air pollution policies would decrease (significantly) due to climate policies. Cost of greenhouse gas policies would decrease when a specific health target is met. In a joint optimisation a 15% reduction of CO2 would deliver the highest cost savings, which are immediate and ‘real money’.

The integration between climate change and air quality policies will certainly intensify in the future. Scientists and policymakers should accelerate this process, e.g. by intensifying information exchange and by developing policies that affect both policy area's.


Political dimension

Reporting emissions

Scientific purposes Compliance Consistency

Reporting projections

Member States could show tendency to overestimate in the policy making phase ; strategic behavior?

Member States show tendency to be optimistic during implementation phase Consistency


General conclusions

Output of one model is input for others: EC4MAC’s under LIFE+, project aims to tune the most important models, so that the input of one can easily used for another: RAINS/GAINS, CAPRI, PRIMES, Tremove, City-delta, GEM-3

There is no such thing as a perfect baseline projections. After finalizing, any baseline projection is subject to a relative fast rate of decay.

Baseline emissions are critically depending on assumptions on the implementation of other EU policies.

Setting baseline emissions has definitely a political dimension.

european commission: dg environment overview of projections data use in the european policy-making...

Documents