1 / 12

Methodologies for an effect-based approach

Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Methodologies for an effect-based approach. From the Working Group on Strategies and Review EB.AIR/WG.5/80. Definition of the effect-based approach.

mwiese
Download Presentation

Methodologies for an effect-based approach

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. Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Methodologies for an effect-based approach

  2. From the Working Group on Strategies and Review EB.AIR/WG.5/80

  3. Definition of the effect-based approach • “All proposed measures need to be justified by actual environmental improvements at least costs” • Leads to substantial cost-savings compared to traditional (source-based) approaches

  4. The effects-based approach Decision makers: • Determine targets for environmental improvement, choose • Impact indicator (gains in life expectancy, ecosystems area where critical loads are not exceeded, etc.) • Distribution of environmental improvements across Europe (e.g., uniform absolute targets, uniform absolute improvements, uniform relative targets (gap closure), progressive improvements, etc.; This includes the definition of gap. • Identify with RAINS the cost-minimal set of emission controls • Analyze distribution of costs and benefits

  5. Gap closure approach for CAFE CAFE WGTSPA explored suitability of alternative target setting principles (CAFE scenarios A and B). Criteria were equity and efficiency: • No clear evidence for threshold for health impacts from PM and O3 • Uniform absolute targets (e.g., AQ limit values) result in uneven distribution of burdens and inefficient use of resources. • Also the traditional “gap closure” approach (gap defined as difference between environmental situation in base year and the no-effect indicator (e.g., critical loads, 0/7 μg/m3 for PM2.5)) does not trigger general improvements throughout the EU

  6. Option 1 for PM target: Absolute limitAbsolute limit on PM concentrations [Country-average PM2.5, μg/m3] 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 UK Italy Malta Spain Latvia Ireland Poland France Austria Cyprus Greece Finland Estonia Sweden Belgium Hungary Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Lithuania Denmark Germany Czech Rep. Netherlands Luxembourg PM Lowest possible target Residual Baseline > MTFR NEC > Baseline

  7. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% UK Italy Malta Spain Latvia Ireland France Poland Austria Cyprus Greece Finland Estonia Sweden Belgium Portugal Hungary Slovakia Slovenia Denmark Lithuania Germany Czech Rep. Netherlands Luxembourg PM Residual Baseline > MTFR 2000 > Baseline Max. gap closure Option 2: Gap closure between base yearand no-effect Uniform % improvement of PM effects in relation to 2000 [100% = 2000]

  8. CAFE definition of gap closure Effect indicator Gap concept used for NEC Base year exposure (2000/1990) NEC 2010 Baseline 2020 (Current legislation) GAP definition used for CAFE MTFR from EU25 excluding EURO5/6 MTFR from EU25 MTFR from all Europe MTFR all Europe + shipping No-effect level (critical load/level) Zero exposure

  9. Definition of “gap” in CAFE As a policy choice, the CAFE-WGTSPA decided for a gap as the difference in environmental impact indicators between • The situation projected for the baseline 2020, and • The situation resulting from the maximum technically feasible reductions (MTFR). Advantages: • All countries can improve between 0% and 100% on this scale. • Comparable gap closure percentages result in comparable marginal costs. Disadvantage: • Quantification of both endpoints (baseline projection in 2020 and MTFR) are arbitrary and could be modified for strategic reasons.

  10. Environmental improvements of the CAFE scenarioImpact indicator in 2000 = 100%

  11. Optimized emission reductions for EU-25of the D23 scenarios [2000=100%]

  12. Conclusions • An effect-based approach relates proposed emission reductions with actual environmental improvements. • Offers large potential for cost-savings. • The appropriate scale for the quantification of impacts is a genuine policy choice. • For CAFE, scaling the gap between 2000 and no-effect levelswas found not useful as a starting point for negotiations: • No evidence for no-effect thresholds for health impacts • Little scope for relative improvements in (clean) countries at the margin of the EU (Cyprus, Finland) would stop possible measures at highly polluted places. • As a pragmatic approach, CAFE scaled the gap between the impact indicators calculated for Baseline 2020 and MTFR.

More Related