2013 TFEIP – Istanbul, Turkey

Projections Expert Panel Meeting

Chairs: Nadine Allemand, Melanie Hobson

14:00 / PEP introductions and aims of the session / Chairs
14:15 / Regional GAINS projections for atmospheric and climate modeling: Problems and solutions / ZigKlimont, IIASA
14:45 / GHG Projection Guidelines and links to air quality projection guidelines / Melanie Sporer, EEA
15:00 / Suggested updates to the EMEP/EEA Projections Chapter – presentation and discussion / Melanie Hobson / All
15:30 / Coffee break
16:00 / Conclusions on the updates to the AQ projections chapter and actions / Chairs
16:30 / AOB including discussion on upcoming meetings and 2013/2014 workplan / All
17:00 / Meeting ends

PEP introductions and aims of the session

The Chairs opened the 2013 meeting for the Projections Expert Panel.

Regional GAINS projections for atmospheric and climate modelling: Problems and solutions

ZigKlimont from IIASA gave a presentation on the regional GAINS projections for atmospheric and climate modelling and how these are being used in the EC EAP Thematic Strategy as well as in global projections.

He demonstrated that the UNECE had met all of its targets for 2010 when assessed overall. He also showed us how the 2020 targets – that have been hailed as a success – are not ambitious especially when compared to the 2010 targets. In fact, the 2020 targets are less ambitious than the GAINS baseline scenario.

The 2010 targets were strengthened by legislation such as the Gothenburg Protocol and the SolventEmissionsDirectiveand the baseline scenario underestimated the feedback mechanism resulting from these. In comparison, there is not much progressive legislation coming through in the near future. He noted that it is very hard to estimate the pace of legislation.

When considering the pollutants individually, he noted the following drivers that affected emission trends:

  • NOx – EURO standards and LCP Directive;
  • NMVOC – Solvent Emissions Directive;
  • SO2 – when countries became members of the EU, inefficient industries (many with high SO2 emissions) could not compete and were put out of business.

There have been changes to the baseline scenario because the EC now use the new CAPRI model.

Zig noted that the domestic sector is now much more important when projecting forwards. In reaction to this, the GAINS Projections Model takes into account the changes in technology/installation categories as well as technology control. The latter has huge global variations and a large range of emission factors. Input data of old/new stoves/fireplaces have been taken from countries, where possible, which has inevitably led to far more accurate projections – estimated at a possible 30% difference dependent on input data.

He noted that new EURO standards do remove BC from diesel cars.

He then considered different scenarios for domestic heating technology. The baseline does take into account technology renewal, but when you consider a scenario that also takes into account eco-design, the model shows a third of emissions.

He demonstrated that there is a significant correlation between CO2 emissions and economic growth. However, he also showed that this correlation is much more complex for air pollutants.

Question and Answer Session

GAINS provides public datasets and also provides a user interface through which users can manually alter input data and assumptions to assess their effects.

GAINS processes scenarios up to 2050 due to the GHG IPCC scenarios.

GAINS have already run two major consultation periods with countries, and future consultations depend on funding. However, they are open to receive data from parties at any point.

References: “From Acid Rain to Climate Change” (Reis et al., 2010)

GHG Projection Guidelines and links to air quality projection guidelines

Melanie Sporer provided information on the new recently published GHG Projection Guidelines[1] that are soon to become available, and potential information that could be of use to the PEP community.

The new GHG Projections Guidelines are very detailed and guides the compilers through the methodology. It should be seen as best practice to use the same activity drivers for GHG emission estimates as for AQ pollutant emission estimates.

Rather than copy text from the GHG Projections Guidelines, Melanie recommended that this information be referenced in the EMEP/EEA Guidebook Projections chapter.

Melanie suggested that we continue to use “Tiers” to describe the methodology rather than including the term: “Grades” as per the new GHG Projections Guidelines, to reduce confusion.

There were discussions regarding whether there is such thing as “uncertainty” in projections or whether “sensitivity analysis” is more appropriate. This debate was continued in the session on updates to the EMEP/EEA Projections Chapter.

Suggested updates to the EMEP/EEA Projections Chapter – presentation and discussion

All revisions to the EMEP/EEA Guidebook Projections Chapter were assessed and revised, where necessary. All comments received by the Chairs were addressed. Following on from discussions earlier, the section on “Uncertainties” was removed from the chapter.

Conclusions on the updates to the AQ projections chapter and actions

A draft final version of the chapter will be prepared by the Chairs ready for circulation in the first week of June. Comments should be sent to the Chairs during the following week. The final chapter will be sent to Martin Adams (TFEIP co-Chair) by 15 June.

The revisions to the Projections Reporting Templates were discussed and the panel agreed that they needed further clarification from CEIP to explain why projected activity data were required and whether they only require data that are used in the projections compilation or whether they require all data requested in the templates.

It was recommended that CEIP modify the NFR table to include only one choice for units. The Panel members were given until the 27th May to provide any further comments on the Reporting Templates.

AOB including discussion on upcoming meetings and 2013/2014 work plan

There was no other business raised in this session.

The panel discussed some provisional additions to the 2013/2014 work plan:

  • Aim to include presentations on proxy data in the next PEP;
  • Add good practice examples and EFs/data for new technologies to the chapter.

The Chairs closed the 2013 meeting for the Projections Expert Panel.

[1]