UNFCCC Workshop on emissions
projections: Austrian approach
Andrea Edelmann
06-08. 09. 2004 | Folie 1
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

06-08. 09. 2004 | Folie 2
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

06-08. 09. 2004 | Folie 3
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



Be detailed enough for the evaluation of the effects of
policies and measures


This favours top down, macro economic approach
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
06-08. 09. 2004 | Folie 4
Austrian approach
Feedback
Top-down model
Energy scenarios (WIFO)
Macroecomic scenarios
(WIFO)
Transport scenarios
(TU Graz)
Top-down model
3 scenarios on future economic situation
Scenarios for agriculture,
waste, etc.
Mainly bottom up
Emissions projections
Emissionszenarien
(Umweltbundesamt)
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
06-08. 09. 2004 | Folie 5
optimistic
opt
Conventional wisdom
Convential wisdom
Base
Basisjahr
year
pessimistic
pess
Convential wisdom
Climate measures
pessimistic
Emissions
BIP, Energy etc.
Austrian approach for sensitivity
analysis/uncertainty
With measures (wm)
With additional measures (wam)
Ziel
Base
Basisjahr
year
optimistic
Macroeconomic model (3 scenarios on future economy)



wam
wam
year
year

wm
wm
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
06-08. 09. 2004 | Folie 6
Thank you for your attention!
06-08. 09. 2004 | Folie 7