‘Projections in Hindsight’– An assessment of past emission projections reported by Member States under

EU air pollution and greenhouse gas legislation

Martin Adams, Melanie SporerAir and Climate Change Programme

May 2015

‘A projection is a potential future evolution of a quantity or set of quantities, often computed with the aid of a model. Projections are distinguished from ‘predictions’ in order to emphasize that projections involve assumptions concerning, for example, future socio-economic and technological developments that may or may not be realized, and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty.’

IPCC

Introduction

Introduction

The reporting of projections under legislation is designed to fulfil an important role in the policy process:• Provides Member States, the European Commission and other

stakeholders with a reliable early indication on the expected level of future emissions

• Provides information on the likely (or not) achievement of emission commitments – i.e. ‘distance-to-target’ assessment.

• Knowledge building and exchange• Better understanding impacts of policies and measures in the future –

policy effectiveness• Informing policy options and target decisions • Assessing and identifying additional actions needed for meeting

targets + initiate actions• Political purposes

Objectives

Two simple (?!) questions addressed:

• How do the past emission projections for 2010 reported by Member States over the last decade compare with the actual emission inventory data for that year?

• To what extent have national projections, as they were compiled and reported in the past, proven to be ‘fit for purpose’ in the sense of adequately addressing their intended purposes as specified in the MMD and NEC Directive respectively?

Objectives

Data availability: EU-27 NEC Directive submissions

In an idealised situation, projections would typically be expected to converge over time towards the emission inventory value for a specific future year:

• Knowledge of assumptions, e.g. for socio-economic parameters, becomes more certain as the time between the projection year and target year shortens i.e. knowledge of the potential activity and economic data became more reliable and the projections less uncertain as 2010 approached.

• The incorporation of new policies and better knowledge on policy effectiveness into successive WEM scenarios means that projections should better reflect reality by the time the target year arrives.

The concept – ‘With Existing Measures’ scenarios

The concept - With Existing Measures scenarios

The average aggregated under- or overestimation reported by EU-27 Member States

The EU-27 picture

• For both air pollutants and GHG, the reported projections overestimated the eventual 2010 emissions – more so for APs

• Even in years immediately before 2010, there were several instances where reported projections and final emissions inventory data exceeded 100 % in certain Member States.

• The consistently over-estimated national projections may have contributed to incorrect interpretations being made of progress to target i.e. in reality progress toward meeting targets was greater than indicated by projections

• More positive is the observation that the projections generally converged over time to the actual 2010 emissions.

• The ‘reliability’ of the reported projections, in terms of their ability to inform distance-to-target assessments has therefore improved over the period

The EU-27 picture: 5 key points

A third of Member States for at least one year simply reported the value of their 2010 emission ceilings as their national projection: • Bulgaria (2007-2010 NH3), • Estonia (2004-2005), • Finland (2010), • France (2005), • Greece (2004-2008 and for SO2 2007-2008),• Lithuania (2004-2008), • Slovenia (2004), • Spain (2004-2005), • Sweden (2004-2006) and • United Kingdom (2002-2006)

There are also a number of repeated values reported, indicating that the Directive requirement to annually prepare and update projections has not always been followed

The Member State situation

SO2: past projections and 2010 emission inventory

SO2: examples of past reporting of ceilings as ‘projections’

SO2: past projections and 2010 emission inventory

NOx: past projections and 2010 inventory

NOx: past projections and 2010 inventory

NMVOC: past projections and 2010 inventory

NMVOC: past projections and 2010 inventory

NH3: past projections and 2010 inventory

NH3: past projections and 2010 inventory

A major problem noted in the assessment was that it is not possible, on the basis of the information reported, to properly ascertain the reasons for past differences. Such reasons are likely to be varied and may include:• policies being assumed in the projections which in reality fail, or were poorly

implemented; • misinterpreted trend expectations for key parameters or poor quality

statistical inputs (e.g. economic, energy, fuel-price, traffic forecasts);• uncertainties intrinsic to the modelling used to forecast model parameters;• unforeseeable events that cause differences between rates of economic

activities compared to what was originally forecast e.g. the economic crisis in recent years, political decisions affecting fuel use e.g. closure of nuclear plants;

• errors in the reported data.

Problems with transparency of information

Illustration of monitoring short-term ‘distance-to-target’ using a target trajectory (EU ESD)

• A target trajectory can define national limits for each year until the target year. • Use of a target trajectories can reduce the reliance upon using projections alone in

the policy decision framework • But higher costs associated with the reviewing of

emissions for an annual compliance cycle are likely to be incurred

Projections are important for tracking progress towards policy targets. Especially for longer time-scale progress evaluations e.g. 2030 or 2050, projections will remain the main tool

1. Improving the implementation of existing reporting requirements. Not all Member States reported data in each of the reporting years. Even by 2010 various Member States did not report the mandatory background parameters and indicators underpinning the reported projections

2. Increasing the transparency of reported projections. There remains a very wide variety in the consistency and level of detail of information reported. Clearer guidance may be needed. In particular, information on the degree to which policies are incorporated in projections is generally poor, with very little information available on the timing and assumed implementation rates of policies.

Conclusions & recommendations

3. Taking care in interpreting reported projections. Over the past decade, projections reported by Member States have generally been overestimated. Policy makers should remain aware of the high degree of uncertainty inherent in projections, especially in years distant from a target year.

4. Improving reporting to understand better the uncertainties associated with projection estimates. Reporting requirements under the NEC Directive did not require projections to address uncertainty, focussing instead on providing a WEM scenario and a limited set of projection parameters. [For GHG projections, Member States were required to provide sensitivity analyses and encouraged to report a high, central and low (WEM) scenario].

5. Considering complementary methods for assessing progress to targets. Although the reliability of projection estimates improved over time, the reported projections significantly overestimated the 2010 emissions. Complementary systems for monitoring short-term ‘distance-to-target’ include using target trajectories e.g. as used in the EU GHG Effort Sharing Decision.

Conclusions & recommendations

Thank you

martin.adams@eea.europa.eu

http://eea.europa.eu/air