Dr' Harald DiazBone UN Climate Change Secretariat Reporting, Data and Analysis Programme email: HDia

1
TFEIP 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
2
Outline

• 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

3
Projections 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

4
Projections 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 ().

5
Projections 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

6
Some 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

7
Some 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

8
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 fuels
• Timing 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020 sample
  diagram fig.1 of the guidelines

9
UNFCCC Reporting Guidelines (2)
10
UNFCCC 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)

11
Some 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

12
NC4 Reporting on GHG Projections (out of 36
Parties)
13
Some 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

14
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

15
Results of the 2004 Projections Workshop
16
Some 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?