Zbigniew Klimont International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis

EC4MACS

European Consortium for Modelling of Air Pollution and Climate Strategies

Update

Contents

• EC4MACS background• EC4MACS workplan• EC4MACS recent achievements and next steps• EC4MACS – NIAM• NEC Directive review update

Background

• The European Commission envisages for 2011/12 a review and revisions of their air quality legislation and the European Climate Change Programme. Model analyses can make useful contributions for these reviews.

• The consistency of EU policies in different fields are of increasing concern.

• EC4MACS provides institutional funding to a consortium of key modelling teams to have modelling tools technically ready and accepted by stakeholders for policy applications.

Objectives

• Providing scientific and economic analyes for the revision of the EU Thematic Strategy on Air and the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP)

• Improvement of existing models by including recent scientific findings.

• Update of input data

• Accceptance of modelling tools and input data by stakeholders

• Make modelling tools available to the public over the Internet.

Partners

• IIASA (AT) – Coordinator, integrated assessment

• MNP/RIVM (NL) - Modelling of environmental impacts

• NTUA Athens (GR) – Energy projections

• Uni Bonn, EuroCare (DE) – Agricultural projections

• LUATh Thessaloniki (GR) – Transport modelling

• Mike Holland, AEAT, Metroeconomica (UK) – Economic benefit analysis

• (MET.NO (NO) – Modelling of atmospheric chemistry and transport)

• JRC-Ispra

• JRC-Sevilla

The EC4MACS model system

GAINSPOLES PRIMES

CAPRI

TM5 EMEP

CCE-CL

TREMOVE

BENEFITS

Global/hemisphericboundary conditions

European policy drivers

Energy

Transport

Atmosphere

Agriculture

Ecosystems

GEM-E3

Cost-effectiveness

Impacts

EU-FASOM, DNDCLand use

General work plan

• 2007: – Methodological improvements

• 2008: – Data collection – Feedbacks on methodological improvements

• 2009– Interim assessment– Methodology workshop

• 2010– Uncertainty assessment – Bilateral consultations on input data – Stakeholder workshop on baseline projections

• 2011– Final assessment

Recent achievements - GAINS

• Interface with PRIMES, numerous scenarios have been exchanged for the Commission’s burden sharing proposal, the CCS study and the NEC revision (including the PRIMES 2007 baseline scenario)

• GAINS provided cost curves for non-CO2 gases for the January 2008 Climate and Energy Package of the Commission, and assessed co-benefits on air pollution

• Optimization analyses for the NEC revision based on the burden sharing energy projection. Commission will use this for NEC proposal in June 2008

CAPRICAPRI

EC4MACS Project meeting, Laxenburg, 03-04..04.08 Peter Witzke, EuroCARE, Arno Becker U Bonn

Achievements for EC4MACS

• Database, policy representation, parameterisation updated

for EU27 + Western Balkan + Turkey

• Improved description of N Cycle inherited from earlier projects

(Ammonia, JRC-Ispra collaboration)

• Prepared for modelling of biofuels demand shocks, but

- No trade in fuels (ethanol, bio-diesel)

- Shares of feed stocks + demand shock exogenous

• Update of international database is under way

- Need to update FAOSTAT1 with FAOSTAT2 + AGLINK

E3M – Lab

DEVELOPMENTS IN 2007 - PRIMES Full update of the model database

Energy balances statistics, energy prices and taxes, economic activity statistics

New plant level data for the power plants

Similar data collection took place for other sectors

Information about current policies and measures

Update of the technological and economic projections about the future evolution of new energy technologies in all domains

Update of resources and renewable potential information disaggregated per source and Member State

Including data on possibilities for CO2 geological storage

Apr 2

1, 2

02

3

E3M – Lab

DEVELOPMENTS IN 2007 - PRIMES New Baseline scenario constructed

Very important as it is considered as a reference projection against which all alternative policy projections are compared to in order to draw impact assessment conclusions

Model calibration to reproduce years 2000 and 2005

The final Baseline was ready by the end of Nov 2007 Detailed report will be available by the end of April 2008

The new Baseline has been extensively used to analyze the effects of the announced Commission targets for 2020

Improved interface of PRIMES and GAINS models

Apr 2

1, 2

02

3

JRC/AL-IIASA 02.04.2008 – EC4MACS/NIAM meeting 12

GHG balance of rapeseed cultivation

kg CO2-eq ha-1

Tasks for 2008

• Produce interim documentation on methodologies

• Start consultation on methodology over the Internet

• Harmonize C/N cycle and agricultural modelling approaches

• Link to global scale (with JRCs)

E3M – Lab

AN OUTLOOK INTO 2008 ACTIVITIES - PRIMES

Evaluation of alternative policy assumptions on the evolution of the energy system

The detailed definition of scenarios will be decided in close interaction with DG-ENV and the EC4MACS steering group

A first set of tentative alternative policy scenarios has been already prepared

Scenarios exploring the range of different burden sharing targets per Member State

Specific scenarios exploring the possibility of CCS technology deployment

Apr 2

1, 2

02

3

JRC/AL-IIASA 02.04.2008 – EC4MACS/NIAM meeting 15

Questions that could help to improve GAINS

→Are direct N2O emissions really linearly dependent on N-

input?

→Will the Nitrate Directive have an effect on N2O emissions?

→Which impacts can be expected from changing production

technologies/agronomic optimizations?

→Do we need extra-emission factors for organic farming?

→What is the cost-efficiency of precision farming?

Three questions to NIAM

• How can EC4MACS improve the communication with national modelling teams?

• Which information from EC4MACS would be useful for national modelling teams?

• Which information could be provided by national modelling teams to be included in the Europe-wide analysis?

Interaction with national modelling teams

• Information that could be offered:– GAINS is accessible available on the Internet, all data can be

freely downloaded – National versions of GAINS possible

• Most useful information from national teams:– Implementation of current emission control legislation – Energy projections coherent with national climate policy

• Under EC4MACS, bilateral consultations foreseen for 2010.

JRC/AL-IIASA 02.04.2008 – EC4MACS/NIAM meeting 18

Possible interactions with national teams

→Farm practice/management (NitroEurope-IP: crop rotations;

timing of operations; ...)

→Detailed land use maps (e.g. commune-level for validation

of our agri-maps)

National teams DNDC-EUROPE

National teams DNDC-EUROPE

→“Regionalized” emission factors for Nr/GHG fluxes from

agricultural soils

Different approaches for national GAINS implementations

The “Italian” way:• Provinces as separate emission source regions• Province-to-grid transfer matrices• Software hosted locally, only limited update

The “Dutch” way:• Entire country as one source region (as in GAINS-Europe)• Sector-to-grid transfer matrices• Software hosted at IIASA server (but with restricted access),

regularly updated• Fully integrated into GAINS-Europe

State of play of the revision of the EU NEC Directive

Markus Amann (IIASA)based on input from Ger Klaassen and Andre Zuber (EC)

State of play

• DG-ENV has started Inter-Service consultations

• Commission’s agreement planned for July 2008

• No further stakeholder involvement before publication of final Commission’s proposal

• Once agreed, NEC6 report and scenario details on GAINS internet will be released

Assumptions on economic drivers for NEC optimization

• Economic development and energy policy as in PRIMES Nov 2007 baseline

• Energy projection (developed with PRIMES) is compliant with Climate and Energy package.

– Flexible instruments to cut-off domestic measures at €30/t CO2

– Assuming trading of renewable energy permits among Member States

– Results in -12% CO2 in 2020 in the EU-27

• National projections of agricultural activities as used before

Primary energy consumption in EU-272000 and projections for 2020

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2000 National projections 2006 PRIMES 2007 baseline C&E Package

TJ

Coal Oil Gas Biomass Other renewables Other

Environmental improvements and emission reductions, central case, EU-27, 2020

-100%-90%-80%-70%-60%-50%-40%-30%-20%-10%0%

VOC

NH3

PM2.5

NOx

SO2

Emission reductions relative to 2000

Emissions reduced by Current policy Additional reductions

-100%-90%-80%-70%-60%-50%-40%-30%-20%-10%0%

Cases of premature deathsfrom ozone

Forest area not protectedagainst acidification

Ecosystems area notprotected against

eutrophication

Years of life lost fromPM2.5

Impact reductions relative to 2000

Reduced by Current policy Additional reductions

Environmental improvements Emission reductions

Air pollution control costs 2020on top of current policy

Costs as % of GDP per Member State

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Aus

tria

Bel

giu

m

Bul

gar

ia

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep.

De

nma

rk

Est

oni

a

Fin

land

Fra

nce

Ger

ma

ny

Gre

ece

Hu

nga

ry

Irel

an

d

Ital

y

Lat

via

Lith

uan

ia

Lux

em

bou

rg

Mal

ta

Ne

ther

land

s

Pol

and

Por

tug

al

Ro

man

ia

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

veni

a

Spa

in

Sw

ede

n

UK

% o

f G

DP

Trade-off between efficiency and equityIncrease in total costs if GDP-related costs in each MS limited

Costs as % of GDP per Member State Costs for EU-27

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Aus

tria

Bel

giu

m

Bul

gar

ia

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep.

Den

mar

k

Est

oni

a

Fin

land

Fra

nce

Ger

ma

ny

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irel

an

d

Ital

y

Lat

via

Lith

uan

ia

Lux

em

bour

g

Mal

ta

Net

her

land

s

Pol

and

Por

tug

al

Rom

ania

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

veni

a

Spa

in

Sw

ede

n

UK

% o

f G

DP

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Em

issi

on

co

ntr

ol

cost

s (m

illi

on

€/y

r)

Trade-off between efficiency and equityIncrease in total costs if GDP-related costs in each MS limited

Costs as % of GDP per Member State Costs for EU-27

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Aus

tria

Bel

giu

m

Bul

gar

ia

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep.

Den

mar

k

Est

oni

a

Fin

land

Fra

nce

Ger

ma

ny

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irel

an

d

Ital

y

Lat

via

Lith

uan

ia

Lux

em

bour

g

Mal

ta

Net

her

land

s

Pol

and

Por

tug

al

Rom

ania

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

veni

a

Spa

in

Sw

ede

n

UK

% o

f G

DP

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Em

issi

on

co

ntr

ol

cost

s (m

illi

on

€/y

r)

Trade-off between efficiency and equityIncrease in total costs if GDP-related costs in each MS limited

Costs as % of GDP per Member State Costs for EU-27

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Em

issi

on

co

ntr

ol

cost

s (m

illi

on

€/y

r)0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Aus

tria

Bel

giu

m

Bul

gar

ia

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep.

Den

ma

rk

Est

oni

a

Fin

land

Fra

nce

Ger

ma

ny

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irel

an

d

Ital

y

Lat

via

Lith

uan

ia

Lux

em

bou

rg

Mal

ta

Net

her

land

s

Pol

and

Por

tug

al

Rom

ania

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

veni

a

Spa

in

Sw

ede

n

UK

% o

f G

DP

Sensitivity cases

1. Without Climate and Energy Package (i.e., for PRIMES 2007 baseline)

2. Without trading of renewable energy

3. With full implementation of Nitrates Directive

4. For alternative health impact hypothesis (primary PM only)

5. For higher environmental ambition level (as suggested by European Parliament)

EU-27 emissions of the sensitivity casesrelative to 2000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SO2 NOx PM2.5 NH3 VOC

Em

issi

on

s re

lati

ve t

o 2

000

TSAP central case No C&E package No renewables trade

With Nitrates Directive Health impacts only primary PM European Parliament

SO2 reductionsfor the central and the sensitivity cases

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

Aus

tria

Bel

gium

Bul

garia

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep.

Den

mar

k

Est

onia

Fin

land

Fra

nce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irel

and

Italy

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

herla

nds

Pol

and

Por

tuga

l

Rom

ania

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

veni

a

Spa

in

Sw

eden UK

EU

-27

Em

iss

ion

s r

ela

tiv

e t

o 2

00

0

Range for emission reductions (CP-MRR) TSAP central case Without C&E Without RES trade With ND PPM only

NOx reductionsfor the central and the sensitivity cases

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Aus

tria

Bel

gium

Bul

garia

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep.

Den

mar

k

Est

onia

Fin

land

Fra

nce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irel

and

Italy

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

herla

nds

Pol

and

Por

tuga

l

Rom

ania

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

veni

a

Spa

in

Sw

eden UK

EU

-27

Em

iss

ion

s r

ela

tiv

e t

o 2

00

0

Range for emission reductions (CP-MRR) TSAP central case Without C&E Without RES trade With ND PPM only

PM2.5 reductionsfor the central and the sensitivity cases

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Aus

tria

Bel

gium

Bul

garia

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep.

Den

mar

k

Est

onia

Fin

land

Fra

nce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irel

and

Italy

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

herla

nds

Pol

and

Por

tuga

l

Rom

ania

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

veni

a

Spa

in

Sw

eden UK

EU

-27

Em

iss

ion

s r

ela

tiv

e t

o 2

000

Range for emission reductions (CP-MRR) TSAP central case Without C&E Without RES trade With ND PPM only

NH3 reductionsfor the central and the sensitivity cases

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

Aus

tria

Bel

gium

Bul

garia

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep.

Den

mar

k

Est

onia

Fin

land

Fra

nce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irel

and

Italy

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

herla

nds

Pol

and

Por

tuga

l

Rom

ania

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

veni

a

Spa

in

Sw

eden UK

EU

-27

Em

iss

ion

s r

ela

tiv

e t

o 2

00

0

Range for emission reductions (CP-MRR) TSAP central case Without C&E Without RES trade With ND PPM only

Conclusions

• While final decision on NECs not yet taken within the Commission, NEC proposal will be coherent with Climate and Energy package

• Proposed emission reductions are in safe distance to MRR

• Sensitivity cases suggest robustness against (reasonable) changes in major exogenous policy assumptions

• Full documentation will be released after publication of the final Commission proposal