Norwegian Emission projections

Facts and experiences

Outline

• Methologies and models

• Authorities involved

• Main characteristics and challenges

• LUCF projections

• (Reporting issues)

Methodology in use • CO2 projections are based on a macroeconomic

model called MSG• An emission calculation model is included in MSG• Projections for non- CO2 emissions are based on

information from concerned sectors and consistent with macroeconomic projections

• Emission projections are (as a rule) fully updated every 4 years

News• Updated projections (2010/ 2020) will be published

in a White paper in Nov. 2004

Emission calculation model

• Different pollutants (CO2, NOX, SO2 and VOC) are disaggregated by source and sector and specified in the model

• Emission are projected as a function of activity data and emission coeffisients.

• Emission coeffisients are calibrated to a base year, and emissions are projected by taking into account effects of environmental instruments or policies that are already implemented or decided

• Microinformation are used as guidance to adjust or overrule model projections

Emission model..cont.

• Statistics Norway develop and update the Emission calculation model in collaboration with The Norwegian State Pollution Control

• Emission calculation model are updated on the basis of historical emission data and takes into account the effects of adopted environmental policies, technological change etc.

• Update of model is done every fourth or fifth year

Authorities involved • Ministry of Finance are responsible for the production

and publishing of the official emission projections, and activity data fed into the MSG ( including energy data)

• The Norwegian State Pollution control are responsible for the production of emission projections of non- CO2 gases, and also for publishing emisson by source for all GHG- gases

• Ministry of Oil and Energy are responsible for the annual projections of the emissions from the Petroleum sector

• Ministry of Agriculture and The Norwegian State Pollution are responsible for the LUCF projections

LUCF projections • In Norway there are no permanent institutional

arrangement for making projection on GHG emission/removals from LUCF sector

• Ministry of Agriculture and The Norwegian State Pollution are responsible for the LUCF projections

• Norwegian forest has a long rotation period (70-120 years), thus the projection is mainly driven by past forest management practice which will result in continuing gross increment the next 10-20 years

• The projection is based on following assumptions: - continuation of increase in gross increment - continuation of current harvesting rate- no changes in natural dieoff- no change in forest policy- soil carbon and non-CO2 GHGs not included

Main characteristics of the Norwegian model

• Emissions projections consistent with overall macroeconomic projections

• Combination of a top down and a buttom up approach

• Macroapproach to emissions mainly driven by energy use (CO2)

• Micro aproach: • non- CO2 emissions• processing industry• road traffic• petroleum sector

• Micro level and micro information more relevant and available for 2010 than 2020

Challenges

• Intersection between macro and micro level– How to ensure consistensy with macrolevel and

activity data fed into the macro model, and emission projections when relying on a large degree of micro- information and information gathered from the branches themselves ?

• How to deal with ”voluntary agreements” in projections and scenarios when measures and emisson reductions would be achieved anyway?

• How to interprete the different scenarios in the reporting guidelines ?

Challenges :Land-Use Change and Forestry

• Difficult to project harvesting rate, since this is mainly driven by the international prices on timber

• Difficult to predict eventually increased in the natural dieoff (decay) when the rate of old forests increase due to reduces harvesting rate

• Difficult to predict changes in soil carbon stock due to changed harvesting rate

• Difficult to project effect of past measures (improved forest management)

• Difficult to predict carbon changes in marginal forests (forest in mountain areas and in northern parts of Norway)