AIM Training Workshop
16-20 October 2006
NIES, Tsukuba, Japan

Introduction to scenario studies(SRES, post-SRES, etc)

Mikiko Kainuma
National Institute for Environmental Studies
http://www-iam.nies.go.jp/aim/
1Scenariosz Provide a framework for decision making

which illuminates the impact associatedwith alternative courses of actionz Facilitate the interpretation of possible

future statesz Include elements that cannot be formallymodeledz Aimed at challenging prevailing mind sets
Source: Nakicenovic, 2005

Previous developed and usedscenarios by IPCC
1990 1992

1995

1996

2000 2001 2004????

TARStart writing AR5
Based on ???????

Six IS92 scenarios
Evaluation Scenarios

Four SA90 scenarios

Panel decision
new scenarios

Start writing AR4
Based on SRES
Start reviewing post-SRES
scenarios and updating database

Special ReportEmissions Scenarios (SRES)INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)

Purposes of Emissions
Scenariosz Purpose 1: Evaluate the environmental and climaticconsequences of “non-intervention” futuresz Purpose 2: Evaluate the environmental and climaticconsequences of “intervention” futuresz Purpose 3: Examine the feasibility and costs ofmitigating GHGs from different regions and sectors
z Purpose 4: Negotiate possible emissions reductions

for different countries and regions
Source: IPCC, 1995

Purposes of Emissions Scenarios(Together with Climate Projections)Purpose 1“non-intervention”
Purpose 2“intervention”
Purpose 3"different regions
and sectors"
Purpose 4"Negotiation"

SA90

IS92

SRES

TAR

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes (?)

No (?)

No (?)

No (?)

No (?)

Source: Nakicenovic, 2005

Alternative Scenario FormulationsuQit taaneit v

ModelsScenariosStoriesQlaue
it v
ita

Source: IPCC SRES, 2000

SRES: Socioeconomic development scenarios
for climate change prediction
A1T
A1B

A1economy

A2

A1FI

globalism

regionalism

B2

B1
environment
population
Economic growthtechnology

Agriculture(land use)energyDriving Forces

7

Source: IPCC SRESGlobal Population Projections
World Population (SRES, n=40) (pre SRES, n=62)
20
pre SRES range

pre SRES

10
SRESbillion

15

50
1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

Source: Nakicenovic et al., 2006

Global Population Projections
World Population (post SRES, n=168) (pre SRES, n=62)
20
pre SRES range

501940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

pre SRES

10
post SRESbillion

152100Source: Nakicenovic et al., 2006

Global Population Projections
World Population (post SRES, non intervention, n=64)
20
pre SRES range
post SRES, non intervention range
Median

50
1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

pre SRES

10
post SRESbillion

15

2100

Source: Nakicenovic et al., 2006

Gross World ProductRange Across Emissions Scenarios
World GDP (SRES, n=40) (pre SRES, n=151)
800
pre SRES range
700

500

400

300
SRES200

pre SREStrillion 1990$

600

10001940

1960

1980

20002020

2040

2060

2080

2100

Source: Nakicenovic et al., 2006

Gross World ProductRange Across Emissions Scenarios
World GDP (post SRES, n=194) (pre SRES, n=151)
800
pre SRES range
700

500

400

200

1000
1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

pre SRES

300

post SRES

trillion 1990$

600

2100

Source: Nakicenovic et al., 2006

Gross World ProductRange Across Emissions Scenarios
World GDP (pre SRES, non intervention, n=113)
800

700

pre SRES range
post SRES range

400

300

200

1000
1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

post SRES non intervention

500
pre SRES non intervention

trillion 1990$

600

2100

Source: Nakicenovic et al., 2006

Carbon Emissions
Range Across Emissions Scenarios
World CO2 emissions (pre SRES, non intervention, n=199)80706040pre SRES non intervention

Gt C5030201001940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

Source: Nakicenovic et al., 2006

Carbon Emissions
TAR Intervention Scenarios
World CO2 emissions (tar, intervention, n=80) (SRES, n=40)80
SRES range
7060

Gt C

50

40

30

20

100
1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

Source: Nakicenovic et al., 2006

Difficulty of CO2 reduction depends ondevelopment path for future world
A1B

CO2 emission (GtC)

AIFI
4030201002000

2050

40
Baseline
3020750 10650
550
04502100
2000

1002000

2050

403020Baseline

2050

650 10550
450 02100
2000

B1A2403020A1T4030
Baseline
20750 10550
02100
2000

Baseline

2050

650
550
4502100

B2
403020Baseline

10Baseline

2050

550
450
2100

02000

2050

650
550
450
2100
16A1FI and A2 require much larger reduction than A1T and B1

Major findings of Post-SRES• Different development paths require different
technology/ policy measures and show different costs ofmitigation to stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations• A portfolio of measures required for timely development,adoption and diffusion of mitigation options; Policy
integration across an array of technologies, sectors andregions is the key to successful climate policies• However, associated socio-economic and institutionalchanges are required to realize the potential for the above
stabilization in practice17

Issues after Post-SRES• Greater need for the linkage of emission and impact
analysis– Appropriate criteria of stabilization targets (ex. GHG
concentration, radiative forcing, temperature change, rateof temperature change, sea level rise, rate of sea level rise)– Timing of mitigation (early vs. late)• Uncertainty in future technological advances (risks ofmitigation in later stage)• Specific mitigation implementation strategies forachieving targets of 550 ppmv, 450 ppmv, etc.
18

Recent Stabilization Scenarios• Global level studies– e.g. MA, UNEP/GEO, EMF21, IEA/Energy to 2050,• Country level studies– Each country focusing on its own mitigation targets andways to achieve them

• Sector focused analysis– e.g. OECD/Environmentally Sustainable Transport19

Framework of MA(Millennium ecosystem assessment)
Human Well-being & PovertyReduction• Health and disease• Environmental Security• Cultural Security• Economic Security• Equity• Demographic Change• Economic Change• Social and Political Change• Technological change• Lifestyle and Behavioral
changeofct espa onsIm sp
reEcosystems &their Services

Primary Drivers• Supporting (Biodiversity andecosystem processes)• Provisioning (Food, water,fiber,fuel, other biological products)• Enriching (Cultural, aesthetic)

Life on earth= Strategies and Interventions

Proximate Drivers• Climate Change• Land Use & Cover Change• Factor inputs• Pollution• Nutrient Release• Species Introductions• Harvest20

Ecosystem Services
Provisioning Services

Regulating Services

Cultural Services

Products obtained fromEcosystems

Benefits obtained from
regulation of ecosystem
Processes

Nonmaterial benefits
obtained fromEcosystem•Climate regulation•Disease regulation•Water regulation•Water purification•Pollination•Spiritual religious•Recreation andecotourism•Aesthetic•Inspirational•Educational•Sense of place•Cultural heritage•Food•Fresh water•Fuelwood•Fiber•Biochemicals•Genetic resources

Supporting Services
Services necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services•Soil formation•Nutrient cycling•Primary production

21

Frame of MA Scenarios
Technogarden
Focus:
Environmental
technology

Institutions

Globally Connected
GlobalOrchestration
Focus:
Social policy

Proactive Approach to environmental management Reactive
Adapting Mosaic
Focus:
Active learning

Order from Strength
Focus:
Self interest

Regional Focus

22

2000

2100

Global Orchestration (GO)-In general, the order of stress is OS > AM >GO > TG
Withdrawal: driven by socio-economicfactors
Water resource: driven by climate factors
General trend of stress index change canbe explained by demand side.
-Middle East and North Africa
High drought risk ← water demand
increase derived from population
increase and economic development.
Mitigated in TG ← high efficiency ofwater use.
-East Europe
High draught risk inGO ←high rateincrease of industrial water withdrawal
which cannot be compensated with thewater use efficiency improvement.

Order from Strength (OS)TechnoGarden(TG)1 5 10～
Water Stress Index0 20 40 60 80 100(%)(ratio between total withdrawal
and renewable water resource)

23

Adaptive Mosaic (AM)The Background of UNEP/GEO•The UNEP GEO project was initiated in response to•Environmental reporting requirements of Agenda 21•UNEP governing council decision of May 1995
•The coordinated global network of collaborating centers (CCs) isat the core of the GEO process•Reports are produced using regional and participatory approach

UNEP/GEO4 Meeting 2005

Key Questions and Elements
The Outlook•The extent and direction of opportunities (actions) would
determine different out looks for the future.
•GEO 4 will explore possible futures•Markets first, Policy first, Security first, Sustainabilityfirst•Regional differentiation and regional and global implications
to be explored•Implications of decisions made today

UNEP/GEO4 Meeting 2005

Proposed Plan for the Outlook
Component of GEO-4
Proposed Purpose and Key Questions•Where does each scenario stand in relation to specific goals?
•What are intermediate and long-term implications of current(and already taken) actions?
•What are the contrasting ‘costs’ (in a broad sense) for
achieving particular sustainability goals under the scenarios?
•How, and how well, can different actors/regions respond to afuture shock/disturbance/new insight/concern under thedifferent scenarios?

UNEP/GEO4 Meeting 2005

Asia Pacific Integrated Modeling Team
Some GEO 3 Outlook Results
300%
250%200%150%100%50%

MF
POSCSUMF
POSC
SU

MF
POSC
SUMF
POSC
SUMF
POSC
SU

0%

South Asia

South
East Asia

East Asia

Central Asia

ANZ and South
Pacific-50%-100%

Afghanistan
BhutanIran
Nepal
Sri Lanka
Cambodia
Lao
MyanmarSingapore
Vietnam
Korea,DemKorea,Rep
TaiwanKyrgyz Republic
Turkmenistan
Australia
FijiNauru
Papua New Guinea
Tonga
Samoa

MF: market first, PO: policy first, SC: security first, SU: sustainability first

Change in energy-related SO2 emissions by 2032 relative to 2002 (%)

Focus on regional environmental changes

BangladeshIndia
Maldives
Pakistan
BruneiIndonesia
Malaysia
Philippines
ThailandChinaJapan
Mongolia
Kazakhstan
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
New Zealand
Kiribati
Palau
French Polynesia
VanuatuSolomon Islands

Asia Pacific Integrated Modeling Team
Example: Access to safe water/sanitation by AIM/Waterz Request for Storyline
9 Millennium Development Goals 7, Target 10: Halve by 2015 theproportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking waterand basic sanitation►►► Timing of MDG achievement►►► Quality of safe water/sanitation technologies or investment costz Quantification
9 Consistency check between access to safe water/sanitation bytechnology, investment costs and MDG achievement
9 Potential mortality of diarrhea

Focus on Short-term (2015) and Medium-term (2050)

Asia Pacific Integrated Modeling Team
Access to safe water in 2015 and 2050
100
Access to safe water (%)

80
60
40
20
2000
Markets
PolicySecurity
Sustainability
2000
Markets
PolicySecurity
Sustainability
2000
Markets
PolicySecurity
Sustainability
2000
Markets
PolicySecuritySustainability
2000
Markets
PolicySecurity
Sustainability
2000
Markets
PolicySecurity
Sustainability

02015

Australia
and New
ZealandCentralAsia

North West South Asia South East
Pacific andAsia
East Asia

80
60
40200
2000
Markets
PolicySecurity
Sustainability
2000
Markets
PolicySecurity
Sustainability
2000
Markets
PolicySecurity
Sustainability
2000
Markets
PolicySecurity
Sustainability
2000
Markets
PolicySecurity
Sustainability
2000
Markets
PolicySecurity
Sustainability

Access to safe water (%)

100

South
Pacific

2050

Australia
and New
ZealandCentralAsia

North West South Asia South East
Asia
Pacific andEast Asia

SouthPacificz 2015

9 PF scenario in every sub-region except South Pacific achieves MDG due to fully investment cost andSuF scenario achieves MDG in some sub-regions.
9 MF only achieves MDG in Northwest Pacific and East Asia and SeF scenario fail to achieve MDG.
9Austria and New Zealand already have 100% access to safe water.

z 2050

9In Northwest Pacific and East Asia, four scenario almost achieve 100% access to safe water basedon rapid economic growth
9 In other sub-regions, growth of access to safe water coverage stagnates because of rapid population
growth, investment cost limitation and rise of investment cost for household connection

Millennium Development Goal (MDG), Goal 7, Target 10: Halve by 2015 theproportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic
sanitation

Forecasting from now and Backcasting fromfuture prescribed/normative world

RequiredSufficient calibrationin order to reflect
historical trends

Mitigation
Technology
development

Trend breaking
Intervention andInvestment

Service demandchangeby changing social
behavior, lifestyles
and institutions

Backcasting
Checkingyear
2020

Long-term target year

Calculation of required
intervention by dynamicmodels

2000

Reference
futureworld(BaU)

Forecasting

Release of
the study
resultEnvironmental pressure

Technology development,socio-economic change
projected by wellcalibrated dynamicmodels

Normativetarget world

2050

30

How much speed of technologicalchange should be required to achieve
Low Carbon Society?
- Comparison of scenarios CO2 emission disaggregation by Kaya identity

CO2 = (CO2/E) x (E/GDP) x GDP
E : Primary energy use, E/GDP: Energy intensity
CO2/E : Carbon intensity
31How fast GHG emissions should be reduced?
40
3% 0% 20%rer
du edu redctct uc
ioio tionnn

Japan(90–00)

50

reduct%

io

60－00

60－00

Switchover

dun

rect

70

io

ren%(90–00)
FranceduB2ct

Scenarios of UK,–1 Germany andFrance toward
ion

80

Revival%(90–00)60－00

Saving energy

re

UKdu

B

Combine option

Rage of Energy
Intensity Changes inlast 40 years

ction

Germany–2(90–00)

90intensity
Change of EnergyEnergy
Intensityof GDP (%/y)(%/year)%600%

Japanese 70% reduction scenario
reductAion–3–3–2

Range ofCarbon
Intensity inlast 40 years–1

Change of Carbon
Intensityof Energy
Carbonintensity(%/y) (%/year)0

GHG reduction in next
50 years with theassumption of 1% GDP
growth32

Summary• To achieve ambitious target of a 50-90% CO2
emission reduction, the pace of aggregated energy
intensity improvement and carbon intensity decrease
must be 2-3 times greater than the 40-year historicalchange, while the change rates should be maintainedfor 50 years.
• We need ‘trend-braking’ intervention. What andHow?
• Scenarios can help to foresee the future world andprovide lessons from the future.
33

Thank you foryour attention!
34