Title: Dr' Harald DiazBone UN Climate Change Secretariat Reporting, Data and Analysis Programme email: HDia
1TFEIP Workshop on Emission Projections Thessalonik
i, 3031 October 2006
Experiences and lessonsfrom GHG emission
projections under the Climate Change Convention
Dr. Harald Diaz-BoneUN Climate Change
SecretariatReporting, Data and Analysis
Programmee-mail HDiaz_at_unfccc.int
2Outline
- Projections and the UNFCCC
- Some milestones on UNFCCC projections
- UNFCCC reporting guidelines
- Some experiences made and lessons learnt
- Good practice in reporting on projections
- Results of UNFCCC projections workshop
- Some fuel for thought
3Projections and the Climate Change Convention
- Article 2 The ultimate objective of this
Convention (...) is to achieve (...)
stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in
the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the
climate system. Such a level should be achieved
within a time-frame sufficient to allow
ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change
(...). - EU Strategy for Sustainable Development limit
global warming to less than 2 C above
pre-industrial levels - IPCC emission scenarios as a basis for policy
making - Projections to bridge the gap between todays
action and its future impact
4Projections and the Climate Change Convention
- Article 4.2 The developed country Parties ()
commit themselves specifically as provided for in
the following - (a) Each of these Parties shall adopt national
policies and take corresponding measures on the
mitigation of climate change, by limiting its
anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and
protecting and enhancing its greenhouse gas sinks
and reservoirs. () - (b) In order to promote progress to this end,
each of these Parties shall communicate ()
detailed information on its policies and measures
(), as well as on its resulting projected
anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals
by sinks of greenhouse gases ().
5Projections and the Kyoto Protocol
- Article 3.1 The Parties included in Annex I
shall, individually or jointly, ensure that their
aggregate () emissions () do not exceed their
assigned amounts (), with a view to reducing
their overall emissions of such gases by at least
5 per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment
period 2008 to 2012. - EC For the developed countries as a whole, this
5 target represents an actual cut of around 20
when compared with the emissions levels that are
projected for 2010 if no measures are adopted.
(http//ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/kyoto.htm)
- Article 3.2 Each Party included in Annex I
shall, by 2005, have made demonstrable progress
in achieving its commitments under this Protocol. - Projections as a tool to show demand and progress
in mitigation
6Some Milestones on Projections
- 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change
- 1997 Kyoto Protocol
- 1999 UNFCCC reporting guidelines
- 2001/2 3rd national communications of Annex I
Parties - 2003 Compilation and synthesis report of NC3s
- 2004 UNFCCC workshop on projections (Bonn)
- 2004 UNFCCC workshop on NC4s (Dublin)
- 2006/7 NC4s and progress reports of Annex I
Parties - 2006 Synthesis report on demonstrated progress
- 2007 Compilation and synthesis report of NC4s
7Some UNFCCC Weblinks on Projections
- UNFCCC reporting guidelines, NC3s, compilation
and synthesis report of NC3s, UNFCCC workshop on
NC4s (Dublin), NC4s and progress reports
http//unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_natcom_
/items/1095.php - 2004 UNFCCC workshop on projections (Bonn)
http//unfccc.int/meetings/workshops/other_meeting
s/items/3129.php - 2006 synthesis report on reports demonstrating
progress http//unfccc.int/resource/docs/2006/sbi
/eng/inf02.pdf
8UNFCCC Reporting Guidelines (1)
- Purpose to give an indication of future trends
in GHG emissions and removals, based on the
implemented and adopted PaMs, and to give an
indication of the path of emissions and removals
without such PaMs - Scenarios Parties shall report with measures
(WM) scenarios and may report with additional
measures (WAM) and without measures (WOM)
scenarios - Consistency between projections and inventory
data (WM and WAM starting point last year of
inventory data, 2004 WOM 1990 or 1990) - Coverage
- Reporting by sector, consistent with sectors in
the PaMs section (energy, transport, industry,
agriculture, forestry and waste management) - All six gases, also precursors and SO2 by sector
and totals using GWP - Separate reporting on projections on
international bunker fuels - Timing 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020 sample
diagram fig.1 of the guidelines
9UNFCCC Reporting Guidelines (2)
10UNFCCC Reporting Guidelines (3)
- Assessment of aggregated effect of PaMs (or why a
WOM scenario is needed) - Effects of individual PaMs are reported in the
PAMs section, total effects are reported in
projections section (link with PaMs) - Parties shall report the total effect of PaMs
- What types of effects ex-post (for 1995 and
2000) and ex-ante (for 2005, 2010, 2015 and
2020) - How to report (estimate) total effect
- Total effect as difference between with measures
and without measures scenario - Total effects as aggregation of individual
effects of each significant PaMs (link with PaMs)
11Some Experiences and Lessons Learnt (1)
- NC3 Improved reporting (new guidelines and
enhanced modeling capacity and human resources) - More Parties provided more than one scenario, but
few provided WOM scenario (WM-30, WAM-21, WOM-7) - Good coverage of projections by gas, except for
fluorinated gases (HFCs, PFCs, SF6) - Good coverage of projections by sector, except
for transport (highest growth!) and forestry
(highest uncertainty!) - Projections on int. bunker fuels not always
provided
12NC4 Reporting on GHG Projections (out of 36
Parties)
13Some Experiences and Lessons Learnt (2)
- Several Parties provided only one scenario ( 10)
and in several cases the scenario definitions did
not follow the guidelines ( 6) - Reporting of information by sector and by gas was
not always transparent and consistent within
individual NCs (and not easily comparable across
different NCs) - Some inconsistencies between projections and
inventories or PaMs (not the same set of PaMs or
total effects are different) - Limited reporting on models, their attributes and
sensitivity analysis - Description of key assumptions not always
transparent, not always clear what triggered
changes in key assumptions compared to previous
NCs - Limited analysis of results and impacts of key
drivers
14Examples of Good Practice
- Reporting on all 3 scenarios (BUL, CAN, FRA, ITA,
JPN, SVK) - Consistency between reporting by gas and sector
and in line with IPCC categories Denmark - Concise, but clear description of the model and
key assumptions Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, the
Netherlands - Interpretation of the results and impacts from
key assumptions/drivers Finland (changes in GDP,
energy efficiency improvement, impacts from new
technologies), Australia (attribution of the
overall effect from PaMs to different sectors) - Clearly explained changes between projections
reported in the NC2 and NC3 the U.K. - Sensitivity analysis Australia, Canada, New
Zealand, Sweden, United States - Uncertainty analysis using the Monte Carlo
method the Netherlands
15Results of the 2004 Projections Workshop
16Some Fuel for Thought
- What is the role of different scenarios (WM, WOM
and WAM) and why it is important to report on
more than one scenario following the guidelines
definitions on these scenarios? - How to ensure transparency and consistency in
reporting of information by sector and by gas
(table from the projections workshop)? - How to ensure consistency in reporting on
projections with inventories and policies and
measures sections of the national communication
(IPCC categories, table from projections
workshop, total and individual effect from PaMs)? - How to provide clear, but concise description of
models and key assumptions (explanation on the
changes in key assumptions)? - How to improve the reporting on the analysis of
results from projections, e.g. the impact from
key assumptions and drivers, and policies and
measures? - Sensitivity analysis is it just a reporting
requirement or a useful tool to facilitate
transparency in assessment and reporting in the
NCs, if such analysis is used, how to report on
it?