Baseline emission projections for the revision of the Gothenburg protocol

All calculations refer to Parties in the EMEP modelling domain

Markus AmannCentre for Integrated Assessment Modelling (CIAM)International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

Baseline assumptions:Activity projections

EU-27:• PRIMES energy projection that meets the targets of the

EU Climate and Energy Package (as in NEC Report#6)– EU-wide target for ETS sector– Non-ETS targets will be met in each Member State– Full trading of renewable energy

– CDM/JI for ETS and non-ETS <€ 30/t CO2

• National agricultural projections submitted to CIAM

Other Parties:• Latest available projections available at CIAM• As documented in CIAM report 1/2008, no further

information received since then

Baseline energy projections

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2000 2020 2000 2020

EU-27 Other Parties

Ter

ajo

ule

/yea

r

Coal Biomass, waste Oil Gas Nuclear Other

Baseline CO2 emissions

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

1990 2005 2020 1990 2005 2020

CO

2 em

issi

on

s re

lati

ve t

o 1

990

EU-27 Other parties

Baseline assumptions:Emission control measures

EU-27:• “Current policy” case, as in NEC Report #6:

– Current national legislation– Commission proposals on Euro-VI and IPPC revision– Additional measures to meet 2010 NECs in 2020– But NO measures for meeting legislation that cannot be

reliably quantified (e.g., AQ directive, Nitrate Directive, etc.)

Norway and Switzerland: • Current national legislation

Other Parties:• Baseline case of CIAM Report 1/2008

– Controls only for PM from stationary sources

Baseline emissionsrelative to 2000

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2000 2020 2000 2020 2000 2020 2000 2020 2000 2020

SO2 NOx PM2.5 NH3 VOC

Em

issi

on

s re

lati

ve t

o 2

000

Baseline EU Baseline Other Parties Baseline ECE

MRR EU MRR Other Parties MRR ECE

Environmental impacts

Impact indicators:• Loss in statistical life expectancy attributable to PM2.5• Ecosystems with nitrogen deposition in excess of critical

loads (using ecosystem-specific deposition calculation)• Forest and catchment areas with acid deposition in excess

of critical loads • Cases of premature deaths attributable to ozone

Assumed boundary conditions:• Emission from ships: without recent MARPOL proposal• Hemispheric ozone: +2.4 ppb in 2020• Five-years meteorological conditions

Baseline impact indicatorsrelative to 2000

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2000 2020 2000 2020 2000 2020 2000 2020 2000 2020

Life expectancy loss Eutrophication Acidification Forests Acidification Water Ozone health

Imp

act

ind

icat

ors

rel

ativ

e to

200

0

Baseline EU Baseline Other Parties Baseline ECE

MRR EU MRR Other Parties MRR ECE

Baseline impacts calculated for 2020

Acidification: Forest area > CL Acidification: Freshwater catchment > CL

PM2.5: Loss in stat. life expectancy Eutrophication: Ecosystems area > CL

MRR case“Maximum reductions included in RAINS”

MRR assumes:• Full implementation of all technical end-of-pipe emission

controls that are considered in RAINS• Respecting natural turnover of capital stock, i.e.,

no pre-mature scrapping of existing installations

MRR does not consider potentials from:• Energy efficiency improvements*)

• Fuel substitution*)

• Behavioural changes• Lower demand for energy services• Alternative paths of economic development

*) these are considered in GAINS

Baseline and MRR emissionsrelative to 2000

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2000 2020 2000 2020 2000 2020 2000 2020 2000 2020

SO2 NOx PM2.5 NH3 VOC

Em

issi

on

s re

lati

ve t

o 2

000

Baseline EU Baseline Other Parties Baseline ECE

MRR EU MRR Other Parties MRR ECE

Baseline and MRR impact indicatorsrelative to 2000

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2000 2020 2000 2020 2000 2020 2000 2020 2000 2020

Life expectancy loss Eutrophication Acidification Forests Acidification Water Ozone health

Imp

act

ind

icat

ors

rel

ativ

e to

200

0

Baseline EU Baseline Other Parties Baseline ECE

MRR EU MRR Other Parties MRR ECE

Uncertainties and sensitivities

• Baseline projections are sensitive towards– Underlying activity pathways:

Assumptions about employed activity pathways have received only limited review by Parties

– Assumed implementation of national legislation: Conservative assumptions have been used for EECCA countries.

• Assumptions on boundary conditions– Implementation of additional measures for ships could result in

significant lower environmental impacts

• If baseline projections should serve as starting point for analyses of further measures, above assumptions must be shared by negotiating Parties.

Conclusions

• Baseline emissions and air quality impacts are expected to – decline in the EU countries,

– show no clear trends in the other countries.

• Further improvements are technically feasible.

• Further cost-effectiveness analysis requires guidance from negotiating Parties about shared key assumptions on– Baseline activity pathways

– Baseline emission control legislation

– Impacts of policies in other areas (climate, agriculture, energy security, etc.)

– Development of ship emissions.