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 • 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

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))

Vital question ARE WE ON TRACK ?

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)

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

Ex-post evaluation:

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

Sectoral share

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 . . . . .

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 ?

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?

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?

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 ?

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

WHY ? Do we need better emission estimations and projections?