Reporting on Projections and the Total Effect of Policies and Measures

1
Reporting on Projections and the Total Effect of
Policies and Measures

• Introductory presentation by the UNFCCC
  secretariat
• Workshop on the preparation of fourth national
  communications from Annex I Parties
• Dublin, 30 September 1 October 2004

2
Overview

• Introduction
• UNFCCC reporting guidelines, main provisions
  relevant to reporting on projections and the
  total effect of policies and measures
• CS report of NC3s, some general issues and
  problems identified
• IDRs of NC3s, examples of good practice in
  reporting on projections and the overall effect
  of policies and measures
• Some points for discussion

3
Introduction

• Article 4.2(b) Annex I Parties shall report
  pursuant to Article 12 detailed information on
  their PaMs adopted under Article 4.2 (a) as well
  as on their resulting projected GHG emissions

4
UNFCCC 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 fuel
• Timing 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020 sample
  diagram fig.1 of the guidelines

5
UNFCCC Reporting Guidelines (2)
6
UNFCCC Reporting Guidelines (3)

• Assessment of aggregated effect of PaMs, or why a
  without measures scenario is important
• Effects of individual PaMs are reported in the
  PAMs section, total effects are reported in
  projections section (link with PaMs)
• Parties shall report on total effect of PaMs
• What types of effects Ex-post (for 1995 and
  2000) and ex-ante (for 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020)
  effects
• How to report (estimate) total effect
• Total effect as a difference between with
  measures and without measures scenario
• Total effects as an aggregation of individual
  effect of each significant PaMs (link with PaMs)

7
UNFCCC Reporting Guidelines (4)

• Methodology
• Description of the model to allow the reader a
  basic understanding of the approach, and its
  attributes
• Gases and sectors covered
• Type of model, its original purpose and any
  modifications
• Strengths and weaknesses of the model
• Accounting for overlap and synergies between PaMs
• Key assumptions and differences in assumptions
  between the current NC and the previous NC
• Sensitivity of projections to key assumptions
  (summary Table 2 of the guidelines)

8
Findings and Problems Encountered (1)

• Findings
• Improved reporting (new guidelines and enhanced
  modeling capacity and human resources)
• More countries provided more than one scenario,
  but few provided WOM scenario (WM-30, WAM-21,
  WOM-7)
• Good coverage of projections by gas, still not
  all countries reported projections on fluorinated
  gases
• Good coverage of projections by sector, but still
  not all countries provided projections for
  transport and forestry
• Projections on international bunker fuels not
  always provided

9
Findings and Problems Encountered (2)

• Problems encountered
• Several countries provided only one scenario (
  10) and in several cases scenario definition did
  not follow the UNFCCC 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
  emission inventories and between projections and
  PaMs (not the same set of PaMs or total effects
  are different)
• Limited information on the type of models used,
  its 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

10
Examples 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

11
Proposal from the Projections Workshop
12
Starting Points for the Discussion

• 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?