1. 06-08. 09. 2004 | Folie 1 UNFCCC Workshop on emissions projections: Austrian approach Andrea Edelmann

2. 06-08. 09. 2004 | Folie 2 The challenge (1): institutional arrangements Projections should cover the whole economy Competence/responsibilities are spread over various ministries For energy projections / transport projections / agricultural projections Model purposes differ widely Different institutions are involved Results of various studies can not be directly used for emissions calculation Adaptations are necessary for use as basis for emissions calculation but not always possible

3. 06-08. 09. 2004 | Folie 3 Austrian approach: Umweltbundesamt establishes catalogue of requirements and specifications for projections To ensure that projections can be used for emissions calculation To ensure results are meeting requirements of UNFCCC and EU guidelines To ensure consistent and comprehensive results Drawback: not applicable when studies are already finished or models can not be changed accordingly Try to involve all relevant keyplayers and stakeholders Advantage (1): model results are accepted countrywide Advantage (2): best practice to establish projections Drawback (1): major administrative effort Drawback (2): not all sectors are equally represented by stakeholders

4. 06-08. 09. 2004 | Folie 4 The Challenge (2): methodological issues Projections should be ideally consistent with: Sectoral emissions from the latest available inventories Quantified effect of policies and measures (4NC) Projections should be designed to be able to: Meet principles: Transparency, Comparability, Completeness, Consistency, Accuracy (TCCCA) Give a complete overview of the countries future emissions situation This favours top down, macro economic approach Be detailed enough for the evaluation of the effects of policies and measures This favours bottom up (engineering) approach Do not contradict the results of the inventories Strict inventory regime does not always allow to use the best available new data and insights Projection models have to use e.g. emission factors at other aggregation level

5. 06-08. 09. 2004 | Folie 5 Austrian approach Feedback Top-down model 3 scenarios on future economic situation Mainly bottom up Top-down model Bottom up plausibility check Use for estimating effect of policies and measures Consistency check Inventories (Umweltbundesamt) Consistency: same team for inventories and projections Engineering know how all players participate in discussion

6. 06-08. 09. 2004 | Folie 6 Austrian approach for sensitivity analysis/uncertainty year BIP, Energy etc. Basisjahr opt pess Conventialwisdom Basisjahr wm wam Conventialwisdom Ziel Basisjahr opt pess Conventialwisdom Emissions Basisjahr wm wam Conventialwisdom Ziel Base year optimistic pessimistic year Base year wm wam Climate measures Macroeconomic model (3 scenarios on future economy) Conventional wisdom (main scenario), optimistic and pessimistic (uncertainty) Uncertainty of the future developments which can not be influenced (or only marginal) by climate measures Energy, transport, waste and agriculture projections ideally use same economic parameters (BIP, prices, etc.) for calculation Variation of parameters within the constraints of the economic model, or other essential parameters as appropriate With measures (wm) With additional measures (wam) Conventional wisdom optimistic pessimistic

7. 06-08. 09. 2004 | Folie 7 Thank you for your attention!