UNFCCC Workshop on emissions projections: Austrian approach

1. UNFCCC Workshop on emissions projections: Austrian approach Andrea Edelmann

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

6. Austrian approach for sensitivity analysis/uncertainty Convential Convential wisdom wisdom Climate measures optimistic pessimistic wm wm wm opt opt BIP, Energy etc. Emissions Ziel Ziel Conventional wisdom Convential Convential wisdom wisdom With measures (wm) With additional measures (wam) pessimistic wam wam wam pess pess Base year Basisjahr Basisjahr Base year Basisjahr Basisjahr optimistic year year • 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

7. Thank you for your attention!