Ort, Datum Autor UNFCCC General and cross-cutting issues - summary of the discussions - Workshop on emissions projection Bonn, Germany 6-8 September 2004 Hans-Joachim Ziesing

Presentations The following countries made presentations at this session: - Australia - Austria - Belgium - Bulgaria - Denmark - European Commission - Germany - Japan - New Zealand - Norway - Slovenia The exchange of experience through these presentations and subsequent discussions was very useful and important.

Consistent definition of projection scenarios A 'with measures' scenario should be provided and be in accordance with the definitions in the UNFCCC reporting guidelines. Beside this it seems to be necessary to have a common understanding of what "with measures" are.

Preparation of scenarios The 'with measures' scenario should include all policies and measures currently in place, irrespective of whether their primary objective was the mitigation of GHG emissions or not. Those Annex I Parties that wish to provide GHG projections data for a 'without measures' and/or a 'with additional measures' scenario, should make every effort to ensure that the GHG mitigation policies and measures included in these scenarios are clearly identified and the information on how these measures are modeled is transparent and sufficient.

Transparent presentation of information on projections The need of more transparancy of information on projections provided in the presentations was discussed. GHG projections data both on a sectoral and on a gas-by-gas basis should be provided. The secretariat will present a template for a table to provide this information.

Consistency with the latest available GHG inventory Due to time-scale problems it will probably not be possible to assure the consistency with the latest available GHG inventories. Beside this no significant inconsistencies are expected. So this seems not to be a very important issue. It is important to use a finalised version of the inventory.

Availability of information on modelling approaches and key assumptions The need of presenting the projection models and modelling approaches in a transparent way and to make a defined set of key assumptions obligatory for the National Communications were discussed. Such information, presented within reasonable space limitations, would provide an insight to the reader on the methods/models used and would contribute to the transparency of the national communications. Summary information on the methodologies, models and key assumptions used for projections therefore should be provided.

Incorporation of technological progress In most technological orientated models the technological progress is directly incorporated in the different techniques used in this models. The most common method of integrating technological progress into GHG projections was by using exogenous assumptions on changes in model parameters due to technological progress. Methods that represent technological progress endogenously seem to require further development.

Integration of cross-country factors, impacts on other countries, and international market developments into national GHG projections Developing GHG projections is primarily a national exercise that relies on available national socio- economic data. From the information that is currently available no assessment can be made on whether and to what extent such factors are taken into consideration when GHG projections are prepared. Annex I Parties may wish to identify those areas of their economy that could be mostly affected by such factors and explore what effects these factors would have on their GHG projections.

Methods for assessing the uncertainty in projected GHG emissions The most preferred method for estimating the uncer- tainty in projected GHG emissions has been sensitivity analysis. The workshop emphasized the value of uncertainty analysis and recommends such analyses as an element in GHG projection. The workshop discussed the advantage for using a common set of defined parameters for sensitivity analyses.

Applicability and comparative advantages of various types of models National presentations revealed a wide diversity of the models and methods used for GHG projections. It is not possible to indicate whether any modelling type could be particularly useful for a given aspect of GHG projection modelling. Use of a single model or a single approach for many countries was found to be not feasible and useful for many reasons. It was agreed that there is a need to improve the transparency of the information provided in the national communications.

Possible means to facilitate comparability of national GHG projections It was discussed that the availability of information on a key set of assumptions (GDP growth, population growth, fuel prices, electricity exports/imports etc.) could improve the comparability of GHG projections across Annex I Parties. The idea of using the same data for some parameters, such as oil prices on the international market or global macroeconomic trends, was discussed, although the implementation of such idea may be difficult.

Projection of macroeconomic costs and impacts of climate-related measures The UNFCCC guidelines do not require information on such projections. Obtaining such information is a complex task, the results of which require significant analysis and interpretation. Current collaborative research efforts to compare such information from different models have shown that results are model-dependent to a large degree. Those Annex I Parties that wish to provide such information should also provide information on how these costs and impacts were estimated.

Other general and cross-cutting issues Proposal was made to discuss: Methodologies on implementing Win/Win policies and Measures Methodology on assessing terms of trade and socio-economic impacts on individual developing countries Methodology on assessing the impacts on developing countries of policies already implemented by Annex I Parties Methodologies to improve the guidelines for the preparation of national communications by Annex I Parties to include all activities related to the impact of response measures as been adopted under decision 5/CP.7 Methodologies on assessing the spillover effects of Annex I response measures on non-Annex I countries. It was requested that the secretariat should ensure that the report reflects the discussions on these issues

To help the dissemination of methodologies please indicate... the information on the website, where your projections/models/methods are presented give this informations to the UNFCCC secretariat, which will pass this informations to all the participants