development report 2012 - UMAR

More documents

Recommendations

Info

204 Development Report 2012 Indicators of Slovenia’s development Greenhouse gas emissions Greenhouse-gas emissions declined substantially in 2009, which moved Slovenia somewhat closer towards its Kyoto Protocol targets, while most EU countries had already been on track to reach their targets before the economic crisis. By ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, Slovenia committed to reducing greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions by an average of 8% 1 in 2008–2012 compared with baseline emissions in 1986. In 2008–2009 GHG emissions in Slovenia were 0.5% higher on average than in the base year (excluding carbon sinks 2 ), in contrast to the average GHG emissions in more developed Member States (EU-15), which were 9.5% lower. 3 With the exception of Slovenia, the most pronounced declines relative to the base year were recorded by new Member States, which was related to their extensive economic restructuring in the early 1990s. The increase in GHG emissions in Slovenia after the transition period was due to faster economic growth than in the EU as a whole, coupled with a slower improvement, i.e. decline, in emission intensity 4 in recent years. Slovenia generated 11.1% more emissions per unit of GDP in PPS than the EU average in 2005, and 18.7% more in 2009. In 2010 GHG emissions remained at a similar level as in 2009, but the decline in the emission intensity of the Slovenian economy slowed significantly in the 2008–2010 period. After peaking in 2008, GHG emissions in Slovenia decreased substantially in 2009 as a result of the crisis. With economic activity remaining weak, GHG 5 emissions in 2010 remained similar to those in the previous year (up 0.2%). Emissions in 2010 were down 4.1% on the base year of the Kyoto Protocol, while emissions 1 If Slovenia demonstrates proper forest management, it could also include sinks in the amount of 1.32 Mt CO2 equivalent from the increase in the growing stock (6.5% of total base-year emissions) in meeting the Kyoto commitments. In addition, countries have the option of purchasing part of the required reduction that they cannot achieve at home from other Member States via the so-called flexible mechanisms. 2 Including sinks, total GHG 2008–2009 emissions in Slovenia were on average around 2% higher than the Kyoto target. 3 SThe common EU-15 target is an emission reduction target of 8% compared to the base year of 1990, but the targets for individual countries differ. Most new EU Member States have the same GHG reduction target, about 8% (with the exception of Poland and Hungary: 6%), but the base years differ. For Cyprus and Malta, no targets are defined under the Kyoto Protocol. 4 Emission intensity is the ratio of a country’s GHG emissions to its GDP. For methodological purposes, we used GDP at constant prices in the time comparison and GDP in purchasing power standards (PPS) for a given year in the international comparison. 5 Data from the Slovenian Environment Agency (ARSO), 2012. during 2008–2010 were down 1.0% overall. Over the entire 1986–2010 period, the structure of emissions underwent significant changes, with an increase in emissions from expanding road transport (up 163%) cancelling out the benefits of any reduction in emissions in other sectors. The share of transport emissions stood at 10% in 1986, but climbed to 27% in 2010. In 2010 transport emissions fell for the second consecutive year. 6 The consumption of diesel fuel rose as a result of the recovery in international trade and hence the increased need for freight transport, but the increase was smaller than the fall in petrol consumption. Emissions from most other sources also declined relative to the previous year. Emissions from the energy sector, which is the largest source of emissions (accounting for 32% of the total), increased most in 2010. Energy-related emissions are almost entirely due to thermal power plants. In 2010 output rose by 2% and emissions by 2.1%. At the level of the total economy, GHG emissions remained nearly unchanged amid modest growth in GDP, and consequently, the emission intensity of the economy dropped somewhat compared with 2009 (by 1.1%). In the whole period since 2008 Slovenia has thus made only slow progress towards improving the emission intensity of the economy. Meeting the 2020 targets will be critically dependent on transport emissions. Within the Climate and Energy Package, the EU set a target of at least a 20% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020, which is also part of the EU 2020 Strategy. For those involved in the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the target is determined for the EU as a whole (a 21% reduction by 2020 compared with 2005). The EU ETS primarily includes larger installations from the energy and manufacturing sectors, which accounted for about 42% of total emissions in Slovenia in 2010, and which, according to our calculations, reduced emissions by 6.9% compared with 2005. For emissions by sectors not included in the ETS (transport, buildings, agriculture and waste), targets are set for each country separately; for Slovenia a 4% increase is allowed. In 2010, these emissions were 1.9% lower than in 2005, but it was precisely these emissions that had been growing fastest before the crisis. The European Commission estimates 7 that, taking into account the adopted measures and previous trends, the emissions from sectors not included the EU ETS will be 30% higher in Slovenia in 2020 than in 2005. Despite certain positive shifts in the last few years, Slovenia will have to focus more on measures in these areas, and their effectiveness will to a large extent depend on a successful reduction of transport emissions. 6 After a 13.3% decline in 2009, by a further 1.2%. 7 Analysis of options beyond 20% GHG emission reductions: Member State results, 2012.
Development Report 2012 Indicators of Slovenia’s development 205 Table: Greenhouse gas emissions (in kt CO 2 equivalent), Slovenia, 1986–2010 1986* 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL 20,354 18,880 20,341 20,580 20,709 21,431 19,477 19,522 Transport 2,008 3,763 4,442 4,652 5,227 6,152 5,337 5,272 Energy 6,729 5,498 6,325 6,379 6,596 6,388 6,091 6,219 Fuels in industry 4,406 2,269 2,486 2,593 2,346 2,305 1,918 1,900 Industrial processes 1,328 1,063 1,373 1,433 1,447 1,327 973 971 Fuels in households 2,366 3,051 2,583 2,358 1,912 2,277 2,187 2,228 Agriculture 2,334 2,137 2,006 2,023 2,078 1,965 1,996 1,963 Waste 566 683 713 729 692 619 583 577 Other 618 417 413 412 409 397 393 392 Source: ARSO. Report on GHG emissions, 2012. Note. * Base-year emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. Figure: Greenhouse gas emissions 1 compared with the Kyoto base year, 2008–2009 average, and targets 2 40 30 20 Change in 2008-2009 compared with base year Kyoto target 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 Latvia Estonia Lithuania Romania Bulgaria Hungary Slovakia Poland Czech R. Germany U. Kingdom Sweden EU–15 Belgium Denmark Luxembourg France Netherlands Finland Italy Slovenia Austria Ireland Greece Portugal Spain In % Source: UNFCCC, 2011. Note: 1 Excluding emissions related to LULUCF, sinks and emissions in aviation and maritime transport. 2 The gap between the average GHG emissions in 2008–2009 and the Kyoto targets is only an approximate estimate of meeting the Kyoto Protocol commitments, as it excludes sinks and flexible mechanisms, and takes into account the actual emissions in EU ETS sectors.
Page 1:
development report 2012
Page 5 and 6:
Development Report 2012 Contents 3
Page 7:
Development Report 2012 Contents 5
Page 10 and 11:
8 Development Report 2012 Main find
Page 12 and 13:
10 Development Report 2012 Summary
Page 15:
Part I Development by the prioritie
Page 18 and 19:
16 Development Report 2012 Developm
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 93:
Part II Indicators of Slovenia’s
Page 96 and 97:
94 Development Report 2012 Indicato
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
100 Development Report 2012 Indicat
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 133 and 134:
THE SECOND PRIORITY Efficient use o
Page 135 and 136:
Development Report 2012 Indicators
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156: Development Report 2012 Indicators
Page 157: Development Report 2012 Indicators
Page 160 and 161: 158 Development Report 2012 Indicat
Page 171 and 172: THE FOURTH PRIORITY: A modern welfa
Page 203: Development Report 2012 Indicators
Page 236 and 237: 234 Development Report 2012 Bibliog
Page 247 and 248: Development Report 2012 Appendix 24
Page 249 and 250: Development Report 2012 Appendix 24
Page 251: development report 2012
show all

development report 2012 - UMAR

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?