Delegations will find in the Annex comments from DK/FR/LT/HU/NL/AT/RO/SIand UK on the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)TSAP reports nº 16A and 16B on "Adjusted historic emission data, projections, and optimized emission reduction targets for 2030", presented at the Working Party on the Environment (WPE) meeting on 27 January 2015.
6273/15 / CM/mb / 1DG E 1A / LIMITE / EN/FR
ANNEX
DENMARK
In general there is a better correlation between GAINS and Danish baselines for 2005 and 2030, and only a few, but major discrepancies remaining:
SO2 emissions
The total of SO2 emissions in the baseline for 2005 has with TSAP#16 improved to be more and less the same as the latest Danish 2005 number reported. The categories that have been modified are primarily shipping and power plants. However the modification has made those numbers less accurate with the Danish reporting. See table 1.
Table 1: Comparison between Danish reporting and the updated GAINS data.
Danish reporting feb14 / GAINS_2013_CLE / GAINS TSAP16_CLEShipping / 2,34 / 2,73 / 3,15
Power plants / 7,70 / 7,79 / 10,52
Total / 24,55 / 20,6 / 24,27
In the TSAP#16 it is argued that because of the higher improved baseline Denmark should be able to gain a greater reduction, from 59% to 62%, at zero cost.
Denmark cannot recognize the picture and do not agree that this is a valid argument or calculation. It is in the TSAP#16B report mentioned that the change of the 2005 baseline for shipping is due to new statistical data. Denmark is not aware of any new statistical data and would like to have specified where this statistical data is found.
As Denmark informed the Commissionin May 2014, the main sources of SO2 are industry and fuels, and all industrial activities either have to use low-sulphur fuels or desulphurization of the smoke-gas. The technological possibilities to further reduce SO2 emissions are therefore very limited.
NH3 emissions
The GAINS and CAPRI models are clearly not suitable for calculation of emissions from the Danish agricultural sector. The level of regulation and use of BAT can simply not be handled by those models.
The majority of technologies used in GAINS for reduction of ammonia in 2030 have already been implemented by law in Denmark, for which reason the potential for further use of technology is non-existing in Denmark. An example is that current legislation entail the use of acidification of manure. This technology is not even included in the GAINS toolbox.
In 2030 the current Danish regulation will have fully implemented all currently known BAT’s in the agricultural sector in Denmark. Further reductions can only be done through the invention of new technology or reduction of the agricultural production. Such a requirement goes far beyond the scope of the revised NEC directive and the requirements posed to any other member state. Furthermore, according to national projections the amount of livestock animals is expected to increase towards 2030. In comparison, the amount of cattle and pigs in 2030 is significantly lower in the GAINS model.
A Danish baseline for 2030 will by any standards go far beyond the efforts of other member states. We are currently reevaluating the 2030 baseline, to include the full implementation of our technology requirements, and hope very soon to be able to communicate our baseline to the presidency and the commission.
NMVOC emissions
Denmark would like to use the opportunity to note the update on the EMEP/EEA emission inventory guidebook. In 2014 the NMVOC emission factors for agriculture was defined and included in the guidebook. This update has led to an increase of the Danish NMVOC emission of approximately 30.000 tonnes. Because of the timing it has not been possible for GAINS to include the new emission factors. But it will formally be a known source under the new NEC directive, and can therefore not be adjusted in the emission inventories.
Before we finalise the NEC negotiations we will have to consider how to include the NMVOC emissions from the agricultural sector in the baseline and in the total reduction effect while taking into account how this will affect the proposed emission ceilings. On the latter the challenge will be that reduction potentials for NMVOC in the agricultural sector are still not documented.
FRANCE
La France remercie la Commission et l’IIASA pour les nouveaux éléments transmis aux Etats membres sur l’origine des réductions détaillée par Etat, et pas seulement au niveau européen. Ces éléments sont essentiels pour permettre aux services techniques nationaux d’étudier la faisabilité des objectifs proposés par la Commission. Il serait souhaitable que cette analyse soit complétée par une partie détaillant les mesures à l’origine des réductions d’émissions pour un polluant et un secteur donné. Par exemple: quelles sont les mesures précises qui permettent une réduction de 200kt des émissions de composés organiques volatils dans le chauffage domestique à l’horizon 2030 pour la France?
De manière générale, les résultats issus de la nouvelle modélisation indiquent une forte sensibilité du scénario et les objectifs fixés pourraient rapidement devenir inatteignables si les hypothèses de la modélisation sur le taux de croissance du PIB, le prix des énergies, l’évolution des facteurs d’activité ou encore l’impact de mesures supplémentaires n’étaient pas vérifiées dans la réalité.
Dans ces conditions, la France ne peut que rappeler son attachement à l’ajout d’une annexe au projet de directive, synthétisant les hypothèses structurantes de la modélisation ayant permis d’aboutir aux objectifs fixés par le texte. En effet, ces dernières ont un impact direct sur le caractère réalisable des objectifs fixés à l’horizon 2030 et il convient donc d’assurer une bonne traçabilité des hypothèses sous-jacentes à la fixation des objectifs pour pouvoir s’y référer en 2030. Une telle traçabilité est fondamentale pour assurer la transparence des choix politiques liés aux objectifs, conserver la mémoire des hypothèses structurantes sur une période de 15 ans, et enfin être en capacité d’évaluer les conséquences à tirer si ces hypothèses ne se vérifiaient pas a posteriori.
De la même façon, la France souhaite que les marges d’incertitude et les marges d’erreurs associées soient précisées.
Plus précisément, l’objectif issu de la modélisation pour le dioxyde de soufre reste trop proche du potentiel technique maximal identifié (scénario dit «MTFR»). L’objectif modélisé pour la France par l’IIASA est de -77% alors que le potentiel maximal identifié est de -80%, soit une différence de 14kt entre un scénario «objectif» présenté comme optimal et un scénario MTFR présenté comme très couteux pour les Etats membres.
De même, pour les oxydes d’azote, l’objectif modélisé pour la France de -69% semble trop proche du potentiel technique maximal, estimé à -74%.
Enfin, pour l’ammoniac la consultation bilatérale de 2014 a montré que les mesures modélisées par l’IIASA pour ce polluant étaient souvent trop ambitieuses et allaient au-delà de toutes les études réalisées en France parce que les coûts étaient sous estimés, ou parce que les mesures étaient mécaniquement appliquées à une proportion importante du cheptel sans distinguer la diversité des systèmes d’exploitation pour lesquels les solutions de réduction des émissions sont différentes. L’IIASA suppose par exemple que 60% des engrais basés sur l’urée seront remplacés par du nitrate d’ammonium à l’horizon 2030 en France. Pourtant l’arrivée sur le marché de nouveaux producteurs d’urée en Egypte, Algérie et au Moyen-Orient laisse supposer un renforcement de la part de l’urée sur le marché. De plus, les coûts associés au remplacement de l’urée par du nitrate d’ammonium semblent sous-estimés par l’IIASA dans la mesure où ils ne prennent pas en compte les coûts additionnels des producteurs de nitrate d’ammonium liés aux exigences de la Directive Seveso. Par ailleurs, la France regrette que, malgré sa demande exprimée au WPE du 24 septembre 2014, IIASA ait appliqué un facteur uniforme d’émissions pour prendre en compte les émissions relatives aux vaches laitières et autres bovins et n’a pas tenu compte des spécificités des États membres.
Courtesy translation into English
France thanks the Commission and IIASA for sending new data to the Member States on reduction potentials by country, and not only at the European level. These data are essential in order for our national technical services to assess the feasibility of the targets proposed by the Commission. It would be highly appreciated if IIASA analysis were to be completed with details on measures behind emission reduction for a specific pollutant and sector. For example: what are the precise measures leading to a 200 kt emission reduction for VOC in 2030 for domestic combustion?
More generally, results coming from the new IIASA exercise indicate high scenario sensitivity. This means that suggested targets could rapidly become unreachable if the model assumptions made on GNP growth rate, energy prices, activity factors or impact of additional measures were to be different in reality than expected.
Therefore, France has no other choice than to remind the Presidency of its will to add a new specific annex to the directive draft, summing up structuring assumptions that led to the emission reduction targets. Indeed, these assumptions have a direct impact on the targets feasibility and Member States should be able to have all the information needed regarding those. Such information is fundamental to assure policy choices transparency, to keep memory on the main assumptions until 2030, and to draw adequate conclusions if the assumptions are not realised as expected.
France also asks that uncertainties and associated error margins are further detailed in the text.
More specifically, the target on sulphur dioxide (-77% for France) is too close from the maximum technical feasible reduction (MTFR) scenario (-80%): there is a difference of only 14 kt between the cost efficient scenario and the MTFR scenario, introduced as much more costly.
The problem is the same for nitrogen oxide, the optimal target resulting from the exercise is estimated around -69% for France, whereas the maximum technical feasible reduction (MTFR) is estimated around -74%.
Regarding ammonia, the bilateral consultation led in 2014 showed that measures assumed by IIASA for that pollutant were often too ambitious and going further than any study realised in France because costs were underestimated, or because new measures were mechanically applied to an important part of the livestock without taking into account the diversity of implementation system for which emission reduction measures can be different. IIASA believes for example that 60% of urea fertilisers will be replaced by ammonium nitrate in 2030 in France. However, the appearance of new producers from Egypt, Algeria and Middle-East on the market leads to believe otherwise. Moreover, costs associated with the use of ammonium nitrate seem to be underestimated by IIASA, as they do not take into account additional costs for producers linked with SEVESO directive requirements. Finally, France regrets that its request expressed during the WPE on September 24, 2014 was not reflected by IIASA: they applied a uniform European emission factor regarding dairy cows and other cattle without taking into account national specific situations.
LITHUANIA
More time is needed for making an in-depth evaluation of TSAP16 and re-optimized emission reduction requirements for 2030 by re-optimized scenario "2030_WPE_OPT".Nevertheless, Lithuania already has some doubts regarding obligations for 2030:
1)The proposed obligations largely depend on the MS’s energy consumption projections.In our case there are still a lot of uncertainties regarding the scenario for energy consumption by different activities for 2030. Final decisions for the construction of the regional nuclear plant in Lithuania are not taken yet and are subject to the results of ongoing discussions with the project partners and potential investors. We would therefore propose a more conservative approach with regard setting the emission reduction targets for Lithuania. For these reasons it is important that an assumption regarding the absence of a regional nuclear power plant is applied. It is noted that the assumption of zero electricity production from nuclear power plant in the period between 2020-2030 was provided and submitted after consultations in 2014 (22.07.2014 e-mail from Mr. Nerijus Jasinskas, Division of Heating and Energy Efficiency, Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Lithuania to Dr. Janusz Cofala, Senior Research Scholar, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Mitigation of Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gases (MAG) Schlossplatz 1).
Nevertheless, nuclear energy is included in the energy consumption projections (activity type “Energy Data Aggregated by Activity”)into the GAINS re-optimised scenarios „WPE_2014_OPT“from the group of scenarios “TSAP Report#16” and it is assumed that in 2030 nuclear power plant will produce energy 108.74 Pj. Therefore, it is necessary to updateprojections in the scenario without the new nuclear power plant, respectively converting the proposed emission reductions for Lithuania.
2)We note that data of forecasting of livestock sector for 2030 used in the scenario „WPE_2014_OPT“ by IIASA are different from LT national forecasts provided (18-07-2014)by the Ministry of Agriculture to IIASA as follows:
2030/ thousandCattle / 821
Dairy cows / 394
Pigs / 948
According to LT, tables No. 7.2, 7.3, 7.5 of TSAP16A Annex, are incorrect.
Greater transparency of the modelling results would make it easier for Member States to begin to form opinions on the package. In particular, we would be grateful for an explanation of the calculation of PMeq.
HUNGARY
Europe is still far from achieving levels of air quality that do not pose unacceptable risks to humans and the environment. Hungary supports the intention of the European Commission that all necessary measures should be taken to reduce air pollution throughout Europe.
To provide a realistic chance for local and national authorities to take effective measures for achieving compliance, the proposal for the Directive on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants must be equally feasible for all Member States taking into account their possibilities and their national features.
IIASA report proposes to determine significantly higher reduction targets for ammonia for Hungary compared to European average. It is based on the idea that it is more cost effective on EU level to decrease emission in Member States uses less developed technologies in agriculture than in Member States with modernized technology. This principle results in disproportionately higher burden on Hungary, we promote to take the polluter pays environmental principle (in the meaning of the bigger polluter reduces more) into consideration. Hungary can only accept such emission reduction commitments which are based on fair share of burden among Member States, implementable by cost-effective measures, and the measures required for the fulfillment of these obligations would not obstruct or hinder considerably the effective implementation of national medium and long term agricultural strategic aims, and do not worsen the competitiveness of the sector.
The original COM proposal on the reduction of national emission of certain atmospheric pollutants set the ammonia reduction target for 34%. In the course of the negotiations, Hungary indicated that this target was unacceptable. After the bilateral consultation with IIASA updated livestock numbers and national projections (e.g. swine strategy) were provided in order to set new, feasible emission target. In our national scenario a substantial increase in livestock numbers has been projected and a recovery is assumed in the coming years to the pre-2000 levels.
However the newly proposed NH3 emission reduction target, much to our surprise, was increased by 9% reaching an even higher target of 43%. This updated reduction requirement would not be attainable at all with the available technical emission control measures therefore it is still a substantive issue for Hungary.
We would welcome and accept an approach to elaborate the new NEC directive without the 2030 reduction commitments only keeping 2020 targets deriving from Gothenburg Protocol. The 2030 targets could be determined at a later stage, outside this package, based on a separate new proposal from the Commission, or included in the follow up of the 2030 Climate and Energy package as announced in the 2015 COM work program approved also by the General Affairs Council (10/02/2015). This may give an opportunity to assess the different ecological capabilities, tradition, culture, development intentions of Member States, as well as elaboration of more reliable estimations.
THE NETHERLANDS
Assessment of the updated GAINS 2005-emissons and 2030-projections for the Netherlands according to TSAP Report #16B Version 1.1.
A comparison with Dutch projections
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency-PBL
Author: Winand Smeets, Pieter Hammingh
A comparison with Dutch projections
1.Introduction and scope
In the framework of the revision of the TSAP and NEC-directive (EU, 2001), the European Commission organized a bilateral consultation over the emission baseline in the GAINS model. This baseline underlies the Commission proposal for new national emission reduction commitments between 2005 and 2030 (EC, 2013). The aim of the Consultation was to discuss and possibly harmonize differences in air pollutant emissions for 2005 and the baseline 2030. The bilateral consultation took place between April and October 2014. The Netherlands contributed to the bilateral consultation by a detailed comparison between GAINS and Dutch data on air pollutant emissions for 2005, 2010 and 2030 emission projections. The comparisons were reported in 5 papers that were shared with the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, the European Commission and IIASA (Hammingh et al., 2014).
This document assesses briefly the outcome of the bilateral consultation, i.e. the adjustments made by IIASA to their 2005 emissions and 2030 projections as reported in IIASA´s NEC report#16 (Amann et al., 2015). In addition, we examine the implications of the adjustments for the proposed emission reduction commitments for the Netherlands and the reduction tasks in 2030.
No special effort on PM2.5
The review of the activity and emission data for The Netherlands in the GAINS-model in 2014 focused on the baselines for the pollutants NOx, VOC, NH3 and SO2. Due to complexity and time constraints we could not analyse in detail the GAINS baseline for PM2.5. However, we reviewed the effects and costs of PM2.5-measures (reductions and costs) incorporated in the GAINS-database and compared it to Dutch data. We reported that review in a paper that was shared with the Commission and IIASA.
2.Updated emissions 2005
We compared the updated 2005-GAINS-estimates to the Dutch emission inventories (Table1).
For NOx it should be noted that the official Dutch 2014-submission includes NOx-emission estimates for animal housing systems and storage of manure (reported under NFR-categories ‘O_AgriLivestock’). However, the GAINS-database does not include such emissions. To make a fair comparison with GAINS-data for this note we have subtracted these NOx-‘O_AgriLivestock’-emissions from the official Dutch NOx-total. This means that both national totals given in Table 1(GAINS and Dutch emission inventory) are exclusive NOx-emissions from animal housing systems and storage of manure.
Table 1 Comparison of GAINS-estimates for 2005 and Dutch emission inventories (kt)
2005 / 2005 / 2005 / Difference with Dutch inventoryGAINS / GAINS / Dutch
COM2013 / WPE2014 / Emission Inventory / WPE2014 / WPE2014
SO2 / 70 / 65 / 65 / 0 / 0%
NOx / 380 / 362 / 358 / 3 / 1%
NH3 / 146 / 144 / 143 / 1 / 1%
NMVOC / 205 / 172 / 174 / -2 / -1%
PM2,5 / 24.2 / 24.0 / 20.6 / 3.4 / 17%
We notice the following: