1. European Commission: DG Environment Overview of projections data use in the European policy-making process TFEIP Workshop on Emission Projections, 30 October 2006 Eduard Dame Energy and Environment, DG Environment C5

2. European Commission: DG Environment Impact Assessment l l All substantial Commission proposals have to be accompanied by an Impact Assessment l l Economic, social and environmental impacts l l Alternative solutions l l Projections are a basic element l l For Unit C5 of DG ENV energy projections are part of their core business.

3. European Commission: DG Environment Projections data Baseline projection (what most probably will happen) l l starts from a base year l l includes foreseen changes in activity rates l l includes future changes in abatement efficiencies according to current legislation Scenario (what could happen if……) l l MTFR l l Numerous scenarios between baseline and MFTR Sensitivity cases l l Important to check robustness of results

4. European Commission: DG Environment Revision of NEC-Directive Three + one basic elements: l l Emission inventory + baseline projection l l Objectives l l Optimization l l Robust legal solution

5. European Commission: DG Environment Conclusions from the CAFE baseline projections 1. 1. Emissions will further decline 2. 2. But: Air quality remains threat to human health 3. 3. Sustainable conditions for vegetation will not be reached 4. 4. Relevance of sources will change 5. 5. Ships will surpass land-based EU sources 6. 6. Energy projections will influence future emissions

6. European Commission: DG Environment Objectives of Thematic Strategy Improvements by 2020 relative to 2000 Life Years lost from particulate matter (million)47% Acute mortality from ozone10% Ecosystem forest area exceeded from acidification74% Ecosystem freshwaters area exceeded from acidification 39% Ecosystem area exceeded from eutrophication43% Forest area exceeded by ozone15%

7. European Commission: DG Environment What has changed since CAFE? l l Second round of bilateral consultations with 22 countries and 5 industrial associations l l New projections of future economic activities: m National energy projections from 21 Member States m National agricultural projections from 17 Member States m 2005 PRIMES energy projections ($50 oil price, etc.) m 2005 CAPRI agricultural projections (mid-term review of CAP) l l Improved information on emission inventories (esp. for PM2.5, VOC) l l Current legislation includes Commission Euro 5 proposal for diesel passenger and light duty vehicles

8. European Commission: DG Environment NEC baseline emission projections EU-25, National projections, relative to 2000

9. European Commission: DG Environment NEC and CAFE baseline emission projections, EU-25, relative to 2000 levels

10. European Commission: DG Environment Main reasons for differences: Different assumptions on energy development

11. European Commission: DG Environment Energy projections for 2020 EU-25

12. European Commission: DG Environment Assumptions on future climate policies EU-25, 2020

13. European Commission: DG Environment Assumptions on agricultural policies

14. European Commission: DG Environment Differences between TS and NECD Thematic Strategy 2003 NEC 2006 Baseline projectionsCAFE-baseline Member States NECD –baseline EU-wide baseline(s) with no, low and high carbon constraint Final ObjectiveBetween A en BAs set in Thematic Strategy, but……….! ScenariosA, B, C and MFTRA certain number, including C, MFTR, ship emissions, CCS, further Community measures and emission reduction outside EU-27. OptimizationRAINSRAINS/GAINS

15. European Commission: DG Environment Conclusions Conference 29/9 Emission Inventories and Projections l l Inventories and projections of RAINS match well with national projections. National and EU wide projections are close to similar, and differences – if any – are often explained. l l There is a strong need for coherent emission projections for greenhouse gases and air pollutants up to 2020 and beyond. Inventories and projections should therefore be checked by relevant ministries and institutions in a Member State before submission. l l Revision and streamlining of reporting and monitoring requirements of all atmospheric pollutants (NEC and greenhouse gases) should result in an integrated decision, preferably in 2008. Amendment of the Monitoring Mechanism Decision (280/2004/EC) seems to be an appropriate way forward. l l The quality of the emission data is important. Several projects aim to improve the quality of the data, especially for PM2.5. End 2007/beginning 2008 a revised EMEP/Corinair Guidebook will be available for use.

16. European Commission: DG Environment Conclusions Conference 29/9 National Emissions Ceilings 2010/2020 Ceilings 2010 l l Member States need to prepare their NEC National Programmes well and have to send their programmes to the Commission before the end of 2006. l l The Commission - as the guardian of the Treaty - needs to ensure that the programmes are submitted and that the content is consistent with requirements of the NEC-Directive l l If a Member State does not meet one of more NEC ceilings in 2010 due to a lack of action, it should not be rewarded when setting new emissions ceilings for 2020. Ceilings 2020 l l 4. The emission ceilings for 2020 have to fulfill the objectives of the Thematic Strategy.

17. European Commission: DG Environment Conclusions Conference 29/9 Interaction GHG and air pollution l l Physical and economic interaction between the control of air pollution emissions and GHG mitigation exist; the GAINS model offers a tool for an integrated analysis. l l Costs of air pollution policies would decrease (significantly) due to climate policies. Cost of greenhouse gas policies would decrease when a specific health target is met. In a joint optimisation a 15% reduction of CO2 would deliver the highest cost savings, which are immediate and ‘real money’. l l The integration between climate change and air quality policies will certainly intensify in the future. Scientists and policymakers should accelerate this process, e.g. by intensifying information exchange and by developing policies that affect both policy area's.

18. European Commission: DG Environment Political dimension Reporting emissions l l Scientific purposes l l Compliance l l Consistency Reporting projections l l Member States could show tendency to overestimate in the policy making phase ; strategic behavior? l l Member States show tendency to be optimistic during implementation phase l l Consistency

19. European Commission: DG Environment General conclusions l l Output of one model is input for others: EC4MAC’s under LIFE+, project aims to tune the most important models, so that the input of one can easily used for another: RAINS/GAINS, CAPRI, PRIMES, Tremove, City-delta, GEM-3 l l There is no such thing as a perfect baseline projections. After finalizing, any baseline projection is subject to a relative fast rate of decay. l l Baseline emissions are critically depending on assumptions on the implementation of other EU policies. l l Setting baseline emissions has definitely a political dimension.