1 / 15

WHY ? Do we need better emission estimations and projections?

WHY ? Do we need better emission estimations and projections?. Workshop on GHG Emissions from Agriculture - Copenhagen, February 2003 European Commission Lars Müller DG ENV.E.1. EU Climate Change policy frame work . Climate change high priority 6 th EAP SDS (Gothenburg Coucil)

sian
Download Presentation

WHY ? Do we need better emission estimations and projections?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. WHY ?Do we need better emission estimations and projections? Workshop on GHG Emissions from Agriculture - Copenhagen, February 2003 European Commission Lars Müller DG ENV.E.1

  2. EU Climate Change policy frame work • Climate change high priority • 6th EAP • SDS (Gothenburg Coucil) • EU committed to Kyoto Protocol • Ratification March 2002 • Entry into force ?? in 2003 ?? (more than 100 countries have ratified / 43.9%) • Compliance means comply with: • Reduction committment • REPORTING obligations

  3. The bubble • EU is fulfilling its commitments jointly (Kyoto Protocol Art.4) • EC is Party to KP (as are MS) • Its the Community who has to meet the target -8% (international law) • MS have national burden sharing targets (legally binding by ratification decision (2002/358/EC))

  4. Vital question ARE WE ON TRACK ?

  5. Monitoring Mechanism Obligations ofMember States: • publish and implement a national programme(And to forward it to the commission within 3 months of its adoption or update) • report annually their inventories to the commission(by 31 Dec year N : provisional data for year N-1 and final data year N-2), • report on their most recent projections (for 2008-2012)

  6. Monitoring Mechanism (cont.) • Community is required to submit to UNFCCC : • annually, a “national inventory” • periodically, a “national communication” including material relevant for calculations of global emission trends and specific estimates of the effects of policies and measures • Commission reports to Council and Parliament • Annual assessment of actual progress and projected progress

  7. Ex-post evaluation:

  8. Third Phase in Monitoring Mechanism • 1993 first Council Decision on GHG Monitoring • Council Decision (1999)296/EC is current basis • NEW proposal 2003: COM (2003) 51 final • Implementing Marrakech Accords • Inventory system (KP 5.1) • Reflecting experiences (problem area: Projections) • Including FLEX-Mex • Further details in implementing provisions

  9. Sectoral share

  10. Workshop on energy related projections Feb. 2002 • Some examples of recommendations: • sensitivity analysis to increase robustness of projections • better specification of scenarios • share Good Practice in evaluation of the effects of good practice • report minimum information on assumptions or model • indicate the strengths and weaknesses of the models used . . . . .

  11. Some provocative questions: Estimating of agricultural emissions is well established in all the 15 MS , BUT • estimates are more uncertain than other key-sources: • Can‘t we provide better quantification of the uncertainties as we should under KP rules ?

  12. Different methodological choices by MS • In all cases inevitable? • always deliberately taken on the basis of objective differences ? • Or sometimes just arbitrary ? • Can we develop a common approach to methan conversion rates and/or emission factors? • Can we come closer to enhanced livestock characterisation ? • To what extent do we need to harmonise choices of methodologies in the EU?

  13. Some more questions: • How can we increase the comparability of projections? • CAP has major influence: how is this reflected in national projections ? • Can we help that MS at least comply with all FCCC /KP and IPCC guidelines ? • Is there scope for enhanced networking and exchange of Good Practice amongst ourselves?

  14. Possible Results: • Better understanding what is different and why . • Better understanding where we could perhaps have even more in common. • Less inconsistency ?? • Recommendations for further work on EU levelin the MM (?) and on national level ? • Recommendations for new common standards ? ? ? ? • Recommendations for the futureMM implementing provisions ?

  15. Thank you Have a nice and revealing workshop Further info on the new proposal www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/monitoring_mechanisms.htm

More Related