Workshop on Methods for Assessing
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
For Countries with Economies in Transition

Warsaw, Poland
13-16 June 1995

Selected papers from this workshop will be published as a Supplement to Environmental Management.  This edition will include the Workshop Summary and 12-15 individual papers submitted by the participants.  For information on subscribing to Environmental Management, please call Springer-Verlag at 1-800-SPRINGER (in North America) or 49-30-82071 (Outside North America).

Copies of this Workshop Summary may be obtained from Chris Bordeaux of the US Country Studies Program, 600 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 200 East, Washington, D.C. 20585 USA (Phone: 202-426-1628; Fax: 202-426-1540).

The information in this document has been subjected to technical peer review, but does not necessarily reflect the official views of any governmental or intergovernmental body.



 Warsaw, Poland
 13-16 June 1995

 Sponsored by:

 US Country Studies Program
 Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development
 US Environmental Protection Agency

 Hosted by:

 Polish Ministry of Environmental Protection,
 Natural Resources and Forestry

Prepared by:

Maciej Sadowski
Stephen Meyers
Fiona Mullins
Jayant Sathaye
Joe Wisniewski


T'he reason behind the invitation by the Minister of Environment Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry to hold the workshop on Methods to Assess Mitigation Options for Countries with Economies in Transition in Warsaw was awareness that the main goal of the workshop was in line and very close to the fundamental problem our economies must deal with to increase energy efficiency.

The workshop gave a chance to many of our colleagues from the countries with economies in transition to present and discuss their experiences and achievements.  In my opinion, such exchange of views is one of the most valuable results of this meeting, aside from conclusions concerning matters of substance.

The presentations and discussions during the workshop create valuable input into further work on mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in this group of countries.

On behalf of the Minister of Environment Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry, I wish to express my deep appreciation to all sponsors, individuals and organizers of this workshop.  Owing to their assistance and efforts, the workshop was completed successfully.

Krzysztof Szamalek, Ph.D.

Under-secretary of State in the
Ministry of Environment Protection,
Natural Resources and Forestry
Republic of Poland


Assessment of options to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions has become increasingly important as pohcymakers consider strategies to slow the anticipated adverse effects of climate change, as required by the Framework Convention on Climatic Change.  Sound data and methods of analysis are critical in understanding the relative costs and benefits of various mitigation actions available to countries around the world.

A series of regional workshops, organized by the US Country Studies Program, is being held in Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia during 1995.  The main goal of these workshops is to facilitate the assessment and development of country-specific greenhouse gas mitigation options.  The workshops provide an international forum for the exchange of information among representatives of countries preparing mitigation strategies, researchers and experts on greenhouse gas mitigation options, and policymakers.  At the workshops, partici-pants present results of their mitigation assessments and discuss issues related to analysis and implemetation of n-dtigation options.  Separate working groups are held on macroeconomic analysis, energy sector analysis, and forest and agriculture sector assessment.  The workshops also address strategies for implementing mitiga-tion technologies, policies, and programs.

During 13-16 June 1995, a workshop on methods for assessing greenhouse gas mitigation options for countries with economies in transition was held in Warsaw, Poland.  The workshop was hosted by the Polish Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources, and Forestry.  It was organized and funded jointly by the US Country Studies Program, the OECD (under the joint OECD/IEA project on National Communications), and the US EPA.  The primary objective of this workshop was to exchange experience among experts from coun-tries with econon-des in transition (EIT) and OECD countries on analytical methods to assess greenhouse gas mitigation options.  The main emphasis was on the analytical needs of countries with economies in transition.  T'he first three days of the workshop covered country experiences in mitigation assessment, technical presenta-tions on analytical methods, and in-depth discussion in small working groups of the methods used for assess-ment of mitigation options in macro modeling, the energy sector and the non-energy sector.  The final day of the workshop focused on implementation of mitigation options, with particular emphasis on the Climate Tech-nology Initiative and financial mechanisms.

Approximately 100 participants attended the workshop from 12 countries with econon-des in transition and from eight OECD countries.  Over 30 presentations were made and 12-15 peer-reviewed papers will appear in an upcoming Special Edition of Environmental Management.  This Workshop Summary provides a brief over-view of the key conclusions and recommendations that were produced during the workshop.


Overview of Workshop Sessions

The first day of the workshop featured presentations from several countries with economy in transition (EIT) and two OECD countries describing their experience to date with assessment of mitigation options, the meth-ods that were being applied, and the results of their studies.  The primary focus of the work described is the energy sector, although the forestry sector is receiving considerable attention in the Russian Federation, and other countries are doing some studies of forestry and agriculture mitigation options.

The morning of the second day was devoted to presentations on analytical methods for mitigation assessment that have been developed by the Intergoverm-nental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Working groups then discussed macroeconomic modelling, energy sector analytical methods, and forestry and agricultural sector mitigation assessment.  Several papers were presented in each group, and then the participants discussed a number of issues related to assessment of mitigation options.  Summaries of these group sessions follow this summary.

The final day of the workshop was devoted to discussion of implementation of mitigation options.

The Context for Mitigation Assessments in the Region

A common theme that arose throughout the workshop was the difficulty of conducting analysis oriented to-ward the future during a period when the economic and social structure of a country is undergoing a radical transition from a system based on central planning to one based on the free market.  While the countries in the region differ with respect to the nature and pace of their economic transition, in all cases the future shape of the economy and the rate at which changes will occur are subject to considerable uncertainty.  In addition, many of the parameters that are needed for mitigation assessment, such as prices of energy products and costs of various technical options, are undergoing a process of change.

Some countries in the region are beginning to come out of the deep economic recession that followed from the collapse of the old system and the loss of traditional markets for products, while others are yet to see posit ' ive economic growth.  The workshop presentations indicated that few if any of the EIT countries would have levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the year 2000 that reach those of 1990.  However, emissions are expected to increase and eventually exceed past levels as the economies grow and consumer behavior comes to more closely resemble patterns in western Europe.

Analytical Issues

Participants are using a variety of models for developing scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions and conducting assessment of mitigation options.  For energy sector assessment, several countries are using engineering optimi-zation models such as EFOM and MARKAL, while others are using models that simulate the workings of the energy system, such as ENPEP.  The researchers working with these models generally agreed that good data were available for the energy supply system, but that detailed data on the structure of energy demand and on demand-side efficiency options were lacking.  As a result, most of the analysis conducted to date has been on mitigation options for energy supply.

Because of the problems with data and the inherent limitation of quantitative models, some participants said that these should be complemented by non-model analytical approaches, such as inviting experts and decision makers to select and weigh decision criteria against which to assess mitigation options.  The importance of involvement of policy makers in analytical processes, consultation with the public, and communication be-tween researchers and public authorities was stressed.

A key challenge is development of a baseline scenario of GHG emissions.  Because of the uncertainty about their countries' future evolution, some participants felt it was important to consider a range of scenarios of future emissions.  They emphasized the difficulty of applying traditional macroeconomic models to economies with rapidly changing structures.  Macro-analysis should aim at producing consistent medium to long-term sce-narios, including all relevant features, which are important to policy-makers, such as balanced sector growth and employment levels.  The use of simple models that provide consistency checks in a scenario framework is to be preferred over detailed analytical approaches that are better suited for short-term forecasting.  Consultation with experts in key sectors is also helpful in developing scenarios.

Many technical options can be assessed from engineering data and standard analytical methods can be used.  The potential impact and cost-effectiveness of measures implemented by governments is harder to analyze because the response of various actors is difficult to assess.  Estimating the impacts of policies and measures using macroeconomic and other models needs to be augmented with other tools, which can help to assess the impacts that are of interest.

Future Activities for Improving Mitigation Assessment

Participants suggested several areas for improving analytical methods and data collection activities.  These include improving the coefficients in emissions inventories, development of appropriate tools for macro-eco-nomic modeling, better resolution of the definition of baseline scenarios, and assessment of costs and benefits of mitigation options related to energy demand and forestry.  They expressed the need for access to software for mitigation assessment, assistance towards the development of national communications, and enhanced com-munication between researchers and policy makers.  The need for additional guidance from the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) secretariat on how to report projections in national communications was identified.

Appropriate activities could be carried out through information sharing between OECD and EIT countries, bilateral cooperation to develop mitigation strategies, and regional workshops on model application and data analysis.  These activities will contribute to identification of the opportunities and constraints for mitigation policy in different sectors.

Implementation of Mitigation Strategies

In most EIT countries, climate change is not a major policy concern, but countries recognize that GHG mitiga-tion offers opportunities for adopting technologies and measures that have both economic and enviroru-nental benefits.  The up-front cost of measures is a key concern and the need for innovative financing approaches was highlighted.  Measures that are linked to modernization of industry and that help to attract joint venture fund-ing are more likely to be adopted.  It was agreed that, despite problems of finance, and a range of policy and institutional barriers, significant GHG reductions could be achieved at a reasonable cost by application of a careful mixture of domestic policies and programs and assistance from OECD countries.

Working Group 1: Macro-Economic Analysis
Chairs: Henryk Gaj and Jayant Sathaye
Rapporteur: Richard Baron

Contextfor Macro-Economic Analysis in Mitigation Assessment

Countries with economies in transition are undergoing rapid structural change, often characterized by signifi-cant decrease in gross domestic product and high levels of unemployment and inflation.  Economies formerly relying on heavy industry as their growth "engine" are now faced with declining demand for their material-intensive products and foreign competition, resulting in a complete restructuring.  In parallel, price reforms have been introduced, including progressive de-subsidization of energy sectors, resulting in drastic increases in energy prices.  The transition away from central planning adds complexity to the analysis of climate change mitigation options, as countries with economies in transition are now struggling with the more pressing issues of inflation, the need for hard currency and restructuring the economy toward growth.

With regards to the local environment, the pollution from heavy industries and utilities is now subject to strin-gent environmental regulations, including taxes, in many countries.  The enviroranental law in Poland allows for policies to abate GHG emissions, but these have so far been excluded from taxation schemes.

Methods for Macro-Analysis

Countries with economies in transition are relying on the standard tool-kit for macro-economic analysis, includ-ing computable general equilibrium models and neo-Keynesian econometric models.  Although some forecast-ing tools have been inherited from the pre-transition period, the models used for mitigation assessment have been developed recently, with correspondingly less statistical basis.  Experience in OECD countries, such as Canada and the Netherlands, shows that models are usually refined over many years; this capacity building is therefore lacking in countries with economies in transition.

A major technical difficulty is the lack of time-series data required for macro-analysis.  Formerly-planned econo-mies relied on accounting systems which differ from standard United Nations or Eurostat national accounts.  Converting existing data for past years to the newly-adopted international system is difficult, and macro-eco-nomic models require consistent statistics.  Absent the requisite data, parameters such as demand elasticities are hard to estimate.  Of necessity, analysts have to rely on values from OECD countries, or on best guesses.

In sum, the scarcity of historical data, combined with a rapidly changing economy, calls for simple models aimed primarily at producing consistent macro-economic scenarios, not forecasts.  Available economic data for the base year can be used to calibrate the model, with dynamic parameters being set exogenously.  In this con-text, experts in economies in transition would prefer to separate the macro-econon-dc analysis from the technol-ogy-oriented bottom-up analysis, which constitutes the more robust, tangible part of the mitigation assessment.

Developing Baseline Scenarios

The baseline or reference scenario for a mitigation assessment is a central piece of the analysis because it sets the laissez-faire emission path and therefore the level of effort required to modify emissions.  Most countries with economies m transition are unlikely to emit more GHGs by the year 2000 than they did in 1990, due to the economic recession, but their emissions are expected to increase as economic growth sets in.  Uncertainty regard-ing the structure of the economy argues in favor of using several baseline scenarios, with different GDP growth rates and/or sectoral structures.  However, few countries can devote resources to produce several baseline sce-narios.  The experts stressed that such constraints make it necessary to provide an optimistic yet realistic sce-nario to reach out to policy-makers.  Optimistic implies a projection with growth recovery over the medium term.  Unemployment is also a key aspect in the formulation of the reference scenario; it is unlikely to be accepted if it does not show lower levels of unemployment.

Although the reference scenario is by no means a forecast, it is important to provide policy-makers with an economic picture of the future that is consistent and defensible.  The reference scenario should include an ongo-ing, predictable policy changes, such as price de-subsidization, as well as all other measures which may affect future GHG emissions, in order to avoid double-counting when applying specific measures to reduce emis-sions.  A clear description of incorporated policies and assumptions should be provided for the reference sce-nario.

Macro-economic Analysis of the Effects of Policies and Measures

Assessing the effects of policies and measures using standard macro-economic tools implies both methodologi-cal and practical challenges.  In their aggregate approach of technology (neoclassical production functions), macro-economic models usually include non-price induced technical progress, including autonomous energy efficiency improvement, estimated econometrically or set as an assumption.  It is then unclear whether the miti-gation effects of policies and measures to reduce emissions can be added on top of observed autonomous energ y efficiency improvements, or whether they incorporate part of the "autonomous" improvements projected into the future.  Policy-induced behavioral changes are also hard to render in a satisfactory fashion.

The potential reduction of emissions achieved through well-identified technologies is also difficult to incorpo-rate into the macro-analysis, especially when non-price policies are considered.  Which coefficients should be altered to reflect lower fossil energy intensity for the targeted sectors: income or price elasticities, or the autono-mous energy efficiency improvement rate?  None of these methods are completely satisfactory.

Macro-analysis is better adapted to test the impacts of tax policies.  In that regard, existing energy subsidies should be correctly reflected in order to make clear that significant emission reductions could be gained by the removal of subsidies, provided they are socially and politically acceptable.  Macro-analysis would describe the sector-level impacts of such reforms, as well as the aggregate impact on GHG emissions.  If a carbon tax is to be tested, the question of optimal recycling of tax revenues also needs to be addressed in the context of mitigation assessment.

No single policy or measure (tax, or subsidy removal) can be envisioned to mitigate GHG emissions without accompanying measures, such as the removal of barriers to energy efficiency, which has been identified as offering a large potential for profitable investments.  A GHG mitigation strategy that fails to address the several components of the system, with measures that would facilitate the shift to a lower-emission path, is unlikely to be agreeable to policy-makers.  It is unlikely that standard macro-analysis can provide an assessment of a policy mix which can include price instruments, voluntary agreements, an array of efficiency standards for different types of users, and other instruments.


In the context of countries with economies in transition, macro-analysis should primarily aim at producing consistent medium to long-term scenarios, including all relevant aspects that are important to policy-makers, such as balanced sector growth and employment levels.  It should also incorporate ongoing, predictable, policy changes that may affect GHG emissions.  Given the lack of time series data and experience with macro-models, transition country analysts would benefit from better access to analyses and analytical tools being used in the OECD countries.

The use of simple models that provide consistency checks in a scenario framework is to be preferred over detailed analytical approaches that are better suited for short-term forecasting.  Estimating the impacts of policies and measures with the help of macro-models needs to be augmented with other more diverse tools, which can analyze the impacts on all economic factors.  Technology-oriented models as well as experts' opinions are necessary to supplement a macro-economic assessment of mitigation policies.

Working Group 2: Energy Sector Mitigation Analysis
Co-Chairs: Laurie Michaelis and Sandor Molnar
Rapporteur: Fridtjof Unander

Context for Mitigation Assessment

Countries differ significantly in their economic structure, income levels, level of technical capability and in their energy resource base.  Nevertheless, in most countries with economies in transition, the history of price control and the present process of radical economic restructuring have various implications for analysis of mitigation options in the energy sector.  An obvious one is the lack of historical market data on which to base econometric analysis.  More importantly, many factors that influence energy use, and that are hard to measure and predict in most countries and under most circumstances, are made far more uncertain by the transition process.  Among these, participants noted that:

The uncertainties make it very hard to establish a baseline against which to assess greenhouse gas mitigation options.  Attempts to detect trends in greenhouse gas emissions from historical data will produce different re-sults according to the period in history from which data is drawn.  Many participants consider it unrealistic to expect to derive robust baselines for analysis-indeed, it was noted that some OECD countries, including France, have taken the position that the use of a single baseline is inappropriate for national communications to the Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Some points are agreed.  Industrial output has fallen in most EIT countries although in some it is now recovering.  Car and truck fleets are growing very rapidly.  Energy prices generally are rising towards levels more typical of OECD countries and are being deregulated.  Much of the industrial sector (in some cases includ-ing the energy supply industry) is being privatized.  Foreign firms are investing in local companies, or setting up in competition.  All of these factors are likely to contribute to a rapid reduction in energy intensity on the one hand, but an increase in the consumption of energy services on the other.  The result in most countries is ex-pected to be a net increase in overall energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in the early decades of the 21st century.

Technology to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The technical options for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions through changes in energy supply are well known in most countries; representatives of Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, and Romania provided information on their activities in this area.  Energy end-use technology has perhaps been examined less, although several countries includ-ing Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic have very active energy-efficiency centers that are analyzing the options and promoting awareness in industry and other sectors.  Kazhakstan has scientific institutions evalu-ating renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.

Policies and Measures to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In a presentation on energy efficiency in EIT countries, one workshop participant pointed out that there is a considerable step between knowing the potential for greenhouse gas mitigation through a technology option, and achieving a part of that potential.  One example discussed by the group was that of compact fluorescent light bulbs, which often, over their lifetime, are cheaper lighting options than incandescent light bulbs.  How-ever, it is not easy to convince consumers to buy light bulbs at prices as much as twenty times that of conven-tional light bulbs, with the promise that the investment will be paid off over an eight-year period.  Similarly, although discounted cash-flow analyses carried out to assess national investment priorities are often carried out with a discount rate in the range of 5% to 15%, some participants commented that their governments will not be prepared to provide direct investments for energy efficiency or greenhouse gas mitigation.  The challenge for the policy-maker is, not just to identify "cost-effective" technologies, but also to find ways of encouraging consum-ers, businesses, financial institutions and others to take the necessary action to put those technologies in place.

Working group participants identified a wide range of policies and measures that are currently in place or under consideration in their countries, and which make some contribution to greenhouse gas mitigation.  These in-clude, for example, taxes on firms related to the environmental impacts of their activities-in some cases, such as that of Kazakhstan, these taxes are used to provide a fund for investment in environmental amelioration at the local, regional, and national scale.  Several participants identified regulations, codes, and standards as im-portant elements in the policy tool kit.  These can include, for example, standards for energy efficiency or for gaseous emissions.  Most countries have building codes of some form which often include insulation require-ments.  The Czech Republic has introduced regulations to exclude the import of older secondhand cars, which tend to be less efficient and more polluting than new cars.  Information and education activities are particularly important.  These can work through energy efficiency centers such as those in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, or through utilities.

Several participants mentioned that their countries have linked environmental improvement policies directly to the process of industrial restructuring and market reform.  It can be hard for a government to require a state--owned firm to invest in new pollution-control technology, partly because the government has to pay the cost.  However, when a firm is being privatized, it is much easier for the government to place obligations on the buyer to reduce pollution levels or improve energy efficiency-this may affect the price paid for the business, yet does not involve a financial outlay by the government.

Policies that influence greenhouse gas emissions are often conceived, supported, and implemented for other reasons.  Improving the international competitiveness of industry is one of the most important motivations for modernizing equipment and production processes.  Measures to improve the energy efficiency of buildings are often introduced primarily to improve the comfort of the occupants: energy saving is an ancillary benefit.  Firms and households often switch from using coal to gas or electricity for reasons of convenience, flexibility and cleanliness, rather than to reduce costs.  Similarly, government policies aimed at reducing local and regional pollution tend to favor the use of gas and electricity over coal.

Assessing Options for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation

Technology options are assessed in many of the participants' countries from the point of view of technical po-tential, based essentially on engineering or scientific expertise, and the view of cost, often using discounted cash-flow.  This is the basis of models such as MARKAL and EFOM which aim to identify the mix of energy technologies that provide a given level of energy services at minimum discounted cost.

Decisions about actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may be taken by a wide variety of people with different types and levels of responsibility.  Discounted cash-flow analysis and other forms of cost analysis are clearly appropriate for assessment and comparison of individual projects.  These approaches are used, for ex-ample, for the evaluation of applications for environmental improvement grants in Hungary.

Participants emphasized that government policies are rarely amenable to analysis with computer models.  Some types of policy, such as taxes and subsidies, can be evaluated in energy market and macroeconomic models, although the results are not robust where responses to price are unpredictable - as they are in any economy undergoing rapid change.  Other policies, including some types of technology standard, government purchases and planning measures, can be evaluated in engineering or macroeconomic models.  The majority of policies involve some type of incentive for individuals and firms to take action, and the effects of these incentives are usually poorly understood.

Policy assessment is often based on intuition and recognition of the interplay of very complex political, eco-nomic, and psychological factors.  Evaluation of policies with multiple objectives is particularly difficult in a computer model.  Government objectives might include price reform, cost-reduction, raising incomes, reducing pollution, privatizing industry and improving social equity.  Although it may be possible to quantify these fac-tors, it is not so easy to weight them in order to come up with a scalar measure of the effectiveness of a policy.

Approaches to policy evaluation in most countries reflect the nature of the problem policy-makers face.  Hungary and the Czech Republic both have committees for the evaluation of environment policies.  These commit-tees are made up of representatives of various government ministries as well as industry and research institu-tions.  They do not make policy decisions but they do make recommendations to policy makers.  In coming up with their recommendations, they consider a range of evidence covering the interests of the organizations in-volved, and also the results of research, including economic modeling.  In the case of the Czech Republic, this committee is able to implement measures and has a budget that it can disburse, for example, in response to project proposals from municipalities.  In this case the municipalities have to carry out the economic and envi-ronmental analysis to support their proposals.

Thus, models and analytical techniques, including those provided through the U.S. Country Studies Program, have been extremely useful in the development of environmental policy.  For example, participants thought that the process of developing GHG inventories had been important in collecting and analyzing data on energy use and hence identifying areas where there might be mitigation opportunities.  Developing national databases for energy sector models has similarly been important for identifying areas where energy intensity is significantly different from that in other countries.  The results of modeling studies can be useful for raising the awareness of policy makers, regarding the links between GHG mitigation and other policies.

The sharing of information on analytical techniques and on technology is extremely useful.  Participants find a workshop format particularly effective, along with the provision of well-organized written information such as that produced in support of the IPCC Second Assessment Report.  However, it is clear that computer models are only one component in the process of policy evaluation.  Needs for further work include: model development to allow policies to be evaluated directly; model comparison studies to evaluate the performance of different mod-els when used to address the same question; more evaluation and discussion of the advantages and disadvan-tages of the different methods.


Although predictions about energy markets are notoriously inaccurate, it is particularly difficult to evaluate the likelihood of possible future trends in countries with economies in transition.  Econometric models have limited applicability without consistent and reliable data on energy use and prices.  When markets and cultures are evolving rapidly, it is not possible to predict how they will look when they become more stable.  Nevertheless, most EIT countries anticipate an increase in energy use and GHG emissions in the beginning of the next century.

The countries represented by the participants have a range of policies in place that are thought to contribute to GHG mitigation.  These policies include: restructuring industry, helping industry become more efficient and competitive, improving housing quality, and reducing emissions of sulfur oxides and particulates.  Policy in-struments range from envirorunental taxes and standards to information programs mediated by energy effi-ciency centers.

Technology options for greenhouse gas mitigation are generally well understood, but the effects of policy op-fions to bring about technical change are not so well understood.  Computer models are often useful in evaluat-ing the technical potential for mitigation, and in identifying cost-effective technology.  However, no model has yet been developed that can reliably estimate the effect on energy use of a tax, regulation or information pro-gram.  It is particularly hard to reduce decision-making to a computer program where a large number of policy objectives have to be reconciled.

Institutional structures are particularly important for decision-making about greenhouse gas mitigation policy.  Many countries have developed some form of committee structure to consider and evaluate policies with the aim of reaching a balance between a range of objectives.  The committees usually include representation from several government ministries, research institutes, industry, and others.  Modeling and assessment exercises provide useful information for decision-makers, when considered with other types of information in the context of policy priorities.

Working Group 3: Energy Sector Mitigation Analysis
Co-Chairs: Katya Simeonova and William Chandler
Rapporteur: Abyd Karmali


The countries with economies in transition (EIT countries) face many similar problems as they address CHG mitigation.  Economic output has fallen greatly, the economy is in the process of radical restructuring, and en-ergy prices that were heavily subsidized are in a process of transition to levels that could cover production costs and provide some profit.  Another common problem is the lack of reliable data, particularly on energy end-use.

Baseline Scenario Development

Experts from the EIT countries are using several approaches as they attempt to construct plausible scenarios of their countries' economic development.  In at least one country, projected rates of GDP growth have been based on historical periods of crisis or deep recessionary situations.  The country came out of each such period in similar ways.  One difference between the current crisis and previous situations, however, is the degree of privatization that is occurring now.  For the longer-term, the structure of the economy is assumed to be similar to that of OECD countries today: the contribution from the industrial sector will decrease considerably relative to the service sector.

Regarding projections about the industrial sector, it is a reasonable assumption that in the future industries will no longer receive any subsidies.  Some governments have now set industrial priorities based on their assess-ments about global markets.  In many cases, the first priority is to complete restructuring of agriculture and food processing industries.  Some countries have found that industrial energy intensity has actually increased de-spite the ongoing restructuring.

A key question is how much energy efficiency to include in the baseline.  One option is to have several baseline scenarios that assume different levels of energy efficiency.  For example, one scenario could assume no change in energy efficiency, another could incorporate pessimistic predictions about energy efficiency, while another could be a "most probable" scenario.  The "frozen energy efficiency" scenario may not be realistic, but because it is not subject to difficult and in many cases analyst-specific projections of considerable uncertainty, it could be a good political negotiating point for EIT countries.  It was pointed out that in many countries energy intensity has increased since 1990.  At least one participant warned against overestimating the future energy intensity decrease.

Modelling Issues

Participants agreed that there is no one right model or method to use in mitigation assessment.  In some cases, comprehensive models are being used to project GDP growth, while in others expert judgement has been used.  In at least one country, a mixture of expert judgement and macroeconomic models was used.  In preparing a forecast for final energy demand, expert judgement was obtained on a sectoral basis, and then these inputs were used to inform the macro-economic projections.

It is important to have corroboration of model outputs by experts to check reliability of data and assumptions.  In addition, it may be useful to translate projections into physical parameters that can be measured such as number of vehicles, and tons of steel.  Feedbacks from the energy sector affect the overall economic model, but incorporating such feedbacks is difficult.  Participants agreed that one should first analyze technological options and then to try to look at the feedback.  Another problem raised was how to derive elasticities of prices in responses to changes in income and energy demand and how to incorporate such feedbacks in models.  It is very difficult to establish any connection between price and demand.  In its use of the ENPEP model, one country did not use price elasticities, but simply added an additional variable to account for the influence of price and other factors.

The Policy Context for Mitigation Assessment

Key factors that affect mitigation assessment that were mentioned by participants were: Political acceptability, particularly in the case of nuclear power; social tension related to price increases and mine closings; and issues concerning energy security.  In general, climate change issues are a low priority at present, and there is a lack of incentives for technologies and policies for GHG mitigation.  Thus, it will be important to try to integrate GHG mitigation into the other policy priorities.  Priorities mentioned include job creation and protection against un-employment, local environmental problems, and international competitiveness.  Effort must be placed on edu-cating officials on how to include climate change mitigation goals in their other policies.

Adequacy of the IPCC Methods for the Region

In general, the IPCC materials were thought to be very useful as an introduction to the methods and structuring for a mitigation assessment.  Participants believed that the IPCC materials should be available in both written and electronic form (if possible, on Internet).  They could be stored on CD with hypertext software to enable analysts to get answers to questions or more infon--nation about specific methods.

Some participants felt that the IPCC document should be more prescriptive and serve as a standard (like the emissions inventory guidelines).  They would prefer text which is more concise and had more specific examples to highlight how methods have been used. hi this way, the IPCC materials could complement the US Country Studies guidance document, which provides all the essential information required but has few examples.  Both documents are comprehensive enough to enable countries to make a good start in undertaking mitigation as-sessment, but it would be helpful if the IPCC document included more consideration of the special circum-stances of the EIT countries.


It is critical to ensure credibility of results with policy-makers.  One way is to use international standard models and use default data from OECD countries as needed.  Study teams need to involve policy-makers in the techni-cal and scientific discussions and keep them informed of the on-going analysis so that they are and remain supportive.

Working Group 4: Forestry and Agricultural Mitigation Options
Chairs: Ted S. Vinson, Tadeusz Loboda
Rapporteurs: Judith Ikle, Chris Bordeaux
Working Group Scientific Consultant: Tatyana P. Kolchugina


Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from the agricultural and forestry sectors of countries with economies in transition (EIT) are important contributors to total GHG emissions.  The state of forests of the EIT countries is changing rapidly as forests may be depleted for fuel and other uses, and as forest management becomes less important compared to other problems faced by the countries.  The agricultural sector may also undergo signifi-cant changes as a result of evolving socioeconomic and political structures in EIT countries.  The forestry and agricultural sectors of the EIT countries have a strong potential for mitigation of GHG emissions.  This working group summary discusses mitigation options, which exist in the forestry and agricultural sectors of the EIT countries.

The context in which mitigation assessments are occurring is important.  The economic structure, political and economic constraints, and policy priorities are rapidly changing in EIT countries.  For example, the Romanian policy of allowing unlimited export of raw timber before 1989 has been changed.  In Lithuania, 25% of the forests will be privatized.  Poland wants to increase their deciduous stock and overall forested area.  In particular, the policy instruments for addressing mitigation differ across countries depending on ownership structure.

Forestry Sector

Managed forest ecosystems can be both source and sinks of C02.  At present, boreal and temperate forests of the

EIT countries represent a substantial sink for atmospheric carbon.  Management options for mitigation of GHG emissions are associated with:

The group concluded that mitigation assessment at the national level might be more difficult than for project- specific cases.  Further, macro models that are presently being used to identify adaptation of terrestrial ecosys-tems to climate change are too general for country-specific mitigation assessments.

With regard to the IPCC materials on mitigation assessment, the group felt that they rightly encourage an inte-grated approach.  There was an impression that the models presented may not apply to EIT countries, but in fact the models are mostly accounting tools and are thus adaptable to these countries.

Mitigation options that increase carbon sink

Afforestation (forest plantations) and reforestation of unforested area requires available land that may be planted and funds for planting/replanting.  Sequestering carbon in forests under this option is limited by envi-ronmental conditions, species selected and latitudinal zone.  Usually, the maximum rate of carbon sequestra-tion is reached in 40 - 100 years (a longer term is required in the northern forests) after which the ecosystem will approach a relatively steady state with respect to atmospheric carbon exchange.  Russia, for example, has a high potential for implementation of this management option.  At the present time, there is a substantial area of non-forest land which is suitable for immediate reforestation or reconstruction, including low stocked forest, burned and dead stands, non-regenerated clearcuts, bare land, drained wetlands, and sands.  Enhancement of forest productivity could also be achieved by partial replacement of deciduous stands with long-living coniferous.  This option may be applied in high-latitude clearcut areas which have regenerated with low-productive and light-tolerant deciduous species, such as birch and aspen.

Incorporation of non-destructive methods of wood harvesting in the forest industry would allow rapid regen-eration of forest stands and, therefore, substantial sequestration of carbon in secondary forests.  Application of heavy machinery during large-scale industrial logging operations and cuttings of fragile forest ecosystems (e.g., mountainous forests, forests on permafrost) damage the natural resource base necessary for successful regen-eration of forest ecosystems.  Non-destructive methods of wood harvesting may include gradual and selective logging and application of moderate-size machinery.  Cable logging may be applied in mountainous land-scapes.  These measures would protect understory and soils which are crucial factors for the natural r-egenera-tion of forest ecosystems.

Management practices which increase the stand age of the final harvest may be applied in regions with long-living coniferous species, e.g., the northern EIT countries.  Currently, because of a high demand for wood, many coniferous forests are logged prior to their having reached the age of maximum timber accumulation.  Increas-ing the harvest age by only 20 years would result in substantial sequestration of carbon.  However, high wood demand worldwide and a desire for the extraction of immediate profit might prevent the implementation of this option.

The mitigation option of establishment of land-protective forest stands (shelter belts) has been demonstrated over a half-century history in Russia.  The implementation of this option has occurred on the marginal agricul-tural lands, gullies and polluted lands.  Planting forests on the agricultural lands provides sequestration of car-bon in trees and soils and conservation of carbon in soils as a result of reduction of soil erosion.  Shelter belts are especially important in the steppe and desert-semidesert climatic zones and in the areas with soils of high carbon content and catastrophic wind erosion, such as southern Russia, the rate of carbon sequestration/conser-vation may reach tens of metric tons per hectare per year.  Carbon sequestration would continue only until soil reaches a new equilibrium over a 50-100 year period.  Many EIT countries, however, may not have the opportu-nity to allocate agricultural lands for planting shelter belts.

Mitigation options which reduce carbon emissions

An increase in efficiency of wood utilization from 50 to 70 percent would allow a substantial conservation of carbon considering the vast areas of clearcuts in some of the EIT countries.  Better use of wood fibers and application of new technologies would decrease the demand for raw timber and, therefore, would allow the preservation of many forested areas.  Production of secondary wood products, such as lumber and veneer, with added value would provide a steady income for people in the forest industry and would also decrease the demand for raw timber, thus promoting sustainable development.  The system of accounting for carbon offset benefits should consider the fact that once a new technology is introduced, the carbon-offset benefit would be realized every year this technology is applied.

Increased fire control may be considered a promising option with respect to carbon conservation.  In some re-gions of Russia (i.e., Far-East) forest fires represent a real threat to sustainable forestry.  In the Far-East, substan-tial areas of mature forests are destroyed annually.  Also, forest fires have historically inhibited the regeneration of tens of thousands of hectares of harvested land.  Suppression of forest fires may conserve substantial amounts of carbon.  However, exercise of this option may be questioned as being beneficial with respect to conservation of carbon.  For example, fire suppression in established forest stands may lead to catastrophic outbreaks of fires and result in a greater carbon flux to the atmosphere than the amount of carbon conserved and/or sequestered through the implementation of this option.

Considering the implementation of all of the management options presented above in the largest EIT country, Russia, the total carbon offset credit potential within the forest and agroforestry sectors is approximately one-half of the industrial carbon emissions of the U.S.

In addition to the opportunities presented above, there are immediate offset options available related to preser-vation of old growth forests (e.g., threatened forests of European, Siberian, and the Far-East regions of Russia) and peatlands which contain large quantities of carbon.  For example, the South Korean Hyundai Corporation has made a proposal to clear-cut the upper part to the Bikin River Basin in the Russian Far-East.  The upper part of the Basin is a roadless wilderness in which a local indigenous people live.  At the present time, the Russian Supreme Court has upheld the Regional legislature's right to veto logging.  However, it may not be possible to maintain this position forever in view of the pressure to improve local economics.

Peat is undecomposed plant material, which is formed under submerged conditions.  Stores of peatland in EIT countries may be significant.  Changes in aeration (e.g., during drainage and peat mining) cause intensive de-composition of peat, which results in carbon emissions to the atmosphere.  Formerly, peat mining in EIT coun-tries may have resulted in annual emissions amounting to 100 Tg C/yr of emissions.  Preservation of peatlands may conserve substantial amounts of carbon, which may be an order of magnitude greater (per unit area) than is possible with forestry projects.

Agricultural Sector

Mitigation assessment of the agricultural sector involves both terrestrial ecosystems and livestock.  The transi-tion to a market economy offers many opportunities for improving agricultural productivity, which has important consequences for both GHG emissions and carbon sinks.

Mitigation options for carbon emissions can be associated with either the reduction of emissions from present sources or the creation and strengthening of carbon sinks.  The reduction option most applicable to EIT coun-tries is reduced fuel consumption in the agricultural sector.  Options to increase the carbon sink include carbon storage in managed soils and sequestration of carbon after reversion of farmlands to natural grasslands or forest ecosystems.  An indirect contribution of agriculture to carbon mitigation is through biofuel production.  In the EIT countries, the agricultural land base may be declining in the future with an increase in productivity of the agricultural land.  Thus, an option aimed at a decrease in deforestation rates is not applicable.

The carbon storage in soils is a function of the balance of carbon inputs in the form of plant residues or organic fertilizers and carbon releases from mineralization of soil organic matter and plant residues released as C02 (and as CH4 in anaerobic soils).  All management options, which increase inputs of organic matter to soils and decrease the mineralization of organic matter will promote accumulation of carbon in soils.

Biological production of CH4 occurs in anaerobic conditions associated with enteric fermentation in ruminants, flooded rice fields, and anaerobic animal waste processing.  The basic approach to reducing CH4 emissions from ruminants is to improve feed utilization, thereby improving animal productivity for milk and growth.  A study of the Ukranian cattle herd estimated that doubling productivity per animal would result in an increase of the ratio of milk produced to methane emitted from 35 to 51 kg of milk per kg of methane.


There are many management options available for mitigation of GHG emission in the forest and agricultural sectors of the EIT countries.  Implementation of some management practices would require modernized tech-nologies and equipment and application of other options may be achieved with relatively low investments.  Management options differ with respect to carbon sequestered/conserved, the duration of the mitigation ef-fects, and the availability of conditions for implementations within specific countries.  The development of mitigation policies incorporates a broad spectrum of activities.  The assessment of the concrete mitigation policy would involve evaluation of the carbon fluxes of forest and agro-ecosystems for specific EIT countries based on an accurate inventory of the sector components which determine carbon sources and sinks.  The development of a realistic mitigation policy must be based on a simultaneous consideration of both carbon sources and sinks.  Mitigation of GHG emissions in the forest and agricultural sectors may promote sustainable development of the EIT countries.

Session on Implementation of Mitigation Options

On the final day of the workshop (organized by the US Country Studies Program), the presentations and discus-sions focused on implementation of mitigation options.

The first presentation described particular examples of energy efficiency projects in eastern Europe.  Six case studies illustrating the lessons from successful energy efficiency projects and policy initiatives were highlighted.  Despite problems of finance, and a range of policy and institutional barriers, the case studies indicate that sig-nificant energy savings and GHG reductions could be achieved at a reasonable cost.

Another presentation described projects for fossil-fuel conversion and improved energy efficiency that are being implemented in the Baltic States with Swedish assistants.  The experience highlights the importance of taking local skills and conditions into account and making projects affordable for the users.

Another presentation focused on the crucial role of finance in supporting mitigation projects.  It described the wide range of local, regional and international sources of finance for sustainable energy projects, including the criteria for accessing each source.  A number of key issues were stressed, including loan guarantees and security, the role of energy service companies, ownership, energy prices, and bundling smaller energy efficiency projects in order to cut transaction costs.  Despite the difficulties of accessing long-term finance in most countries, the situation is improving, with new legislation allowing housing mortgage and municipal bond markets to emerge.

Particular emphasis was given to the appropriate role of assistance from OECD countries.  A presentation was made on the proposed Climate Technology Initiatives (CTI), and there was discussion by the participants of key issues regarding assistance for GHG mitigation projects.  The main conclusions were:


Participants ranked five of the seven proposed elements of the CTI as priorities for countries with econo-mies in transition.  These areas are:

1) Reform of international financing
2) Support for country technology studies
3) Market conditioning and aggregation programs
4) Development of voluntary programs
5) Enhanced international centers and networks

Reform of International Financing

International capital in modest amounts can help generate large amounts of domestic capital.  More financ-ing is needed for small projects, and it should be channeled through local financial institutions to help build local capacity to assess projects and manage loans.  Primary emphasis should be on financing for the adap-tation of existing domestic technologies or domestic production of new technologies.  Countries need better access to international capital on preferred terms.  Financing should be accompanied by appropriate techni-cal assistance and training to ensure that projects are successful.

Support for Technology Studies

Technology studies should be led by local institutions and must include the economic assessment of mar-kets.  They should consider issues of importance to decision-makers.  Ideally they should contribute to the creation of joint ventures to produce technologies with mitigation potential.  Reference material for technol-ogy assessments should build from the existing IPCC materials such as the Technology Characterization Inventory.

Market Aggregation and Conditioning Programs

Market aggregation and market conditioning programs should address the needs of many countries at one time to result in the largest possible mitigation of GHG emissions.  Improved energy technologies for residential and commercial buildings are an important area for such programs.

Voluntary Programs

Better information on voluntary programs is needed.  Voluntary programs should focus on technologies and on promoting changes in resource management practices and institutional philosophies (for example, cor-porations' commitment to energy efficiency), and should include efforts to enhance public education, espe-cially geared to youth.

Centers and Networks

Electronic networks should be further developed to facilitate communication between experts and provide access to technology databases.  Such networks should include decision-makers, as well as analysts.


The success of this workshop is due to the high standard of the papers presented by the speakers and the active participation of the experts and governmental officials who attended the workshop.  We would like to thank all participants for their contributions.

We gratefully acknowledge the support of the hosting organization, the Polish Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry, and also of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and De-velopment (OECD), the US Country Studies Program and the US Environmental Protection Agency, who funded and organized the workshop.  We thank Jan Corfee-Morlot and Laurie Michaelis of OECD for their guidance and leadership; Ron Benioff and Chris Bordeaux for their efforts in creating and coordinating this workshop; and Mike Adler and Dennis Tirpak of EPA for their technical and policy input.

We also acknowledge the administrative efforts of Mirka delta Cava of Lawrence Berkeley National Labora-tory, Carolyn Sturgeon of OECD, and Anna Romanczak, Anna Krowicka, Piotr Orlanski, and Reneta Witkiewicz of the Polish Institute for Environmental Protection.

Stephen Meyers
Fiona Mullins
Maciej Sadowski
Jayant Sathaye
Joe Wisniewski

List of Participants

Bakhit Nametovich Adimoldaev
Department of the Ministry
The Republic Square 2

Michael Adler
Climate Change Division
401 M Street SW (2122)
Washington, DC 20460 USA

Serena Adler
Ministry of Waters, Forests &
Envirom-nental Protection
12, Libertatii Blvd
70005 Bucharest, Romania

Tocan Radu Alexandru
National Institute of Wood
Sos.  Fabrica de Glucoza 7 sector 2
Bucharest, Romania

Eva Anzorge
Ministry of Environmental
Protection, Natural Resources &
Department of International
ul. Wawelska 52/54
PL-00-922 Warszawa, Poland

Ingrida Apene
Ministry of the Envirorunent &
Regional Development
25 Peldu Str.
LV-1494 Riga, Latvia

Lidya Assenova
Ministry of the Envirorunent
W. Gladstone Str. 67
1000 Sofia, Bulgaria

Wanda Barc
Department of Air and Land
Wawelska 52/54
00-999 Warszawa, Poland

Richard Baron
I.E.A. / A.I.E.
Energy and Envirorunent Division
2 rue Andr6 Pascale
75775 Paris Cedex 16

Ron Benioff
US Country Studies Program
1000 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20585 USA

Vladimir Kh.  Berdin
Russian Federal Service for
Hydrometeorology &
Environmental Monitoring
12, Novovagankovsky Str.
123 242 Moscow, Russia

Gregory Bogdanov
State Agricultural University
Kiev, Ukraine

Wodzimierz Bojarski
Head of Department of Energy
Swictokrzyska 21
Warszawa, Poland

Christopher B. Bordeaux
US Country Studies Program PO-63
1000 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20585 USA

Marina Yuryevna Boulynko
Ministry for Environmental
Protection & Natural Resources
Bolshaya Gruzinskaya 4/6
Moscow 123912 Russia

Stewart I Boyle
IIEC - Europe
1-2 Purley Place
London N2 1QA, U.K.

Florica Breazu
Institute for Power Studies & Design
Bd. Laeul Tei 1
72301 Bucharest, Romania

William Chandler
901 D Street SW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20024-2115

Christo Christov
51 James Boucher Boulevard 1407 Sofia, Bulgaria


Jan Corfee Morlot
O.E.C.D. / O.C.D.E.
Environment Directorate
2 rue Andr6 Pascale
75775 Paris Cedex 16

Mirka della Cava
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
1250 Maryland Avenue SW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20024 USA

Joanna Drozyner
Technical University in Bialystok
ul. Wiejska 45
15-351 Bialystok, Poland

Wytze vandergaast
Joint Implementation Quarterly
Zemike Park 2
9747 AN Groningen
The Netherlands

Henryk Gaj
ul. G6rskiego 7
00-033 Warszawa, Poland

Mario Placido Miranda Garcia
Head, Energy/Environment
Av. 5 de Outubro No 87
1050 Lisboa, Portugal

Sushma Gera
Environment Division (AGE)
Foreign Affairs & international
125 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario KlA 062 Canada

Arjen M. Gielen
International Modelling Division
Department of Economic Analysis
PO Box 80510
2508 GM The Hague
The Netherlands

hina Gritsevitch
Centre for Energy Efficiency
54, Korpus 4
Nolocheremushkinskaya Str. 54
117 418 Moscow, Russia

Dominique Gusbin
Coherence S.P.R.L.
Cour du Cramignon 2a
1348 Louvain-la-Neuve

Ewaryst Hille
Polish Foundation for
Energy Efficiency
G6rskiego St.
00-033 Warszawa, Poland

Wim lestra
Ministry of Housing,Spatial
Planning & the Environment
PO Box 30945
2500 GX The Hague
The Netherlands

Judith lkl6
Climate Change Division, EPA
401 M. Street SW
P.O. Box 2199
SW Washington, DC 20460 USA

Cristina Ion Zoica
Ministry of Industries
Calea Victoriei 152 sector 1
71101 Bucharest, Romania

Peter Ivanov
Head of Meteorology Department
Tzarigradsko Str. 66
1784 Sofia, Bulgaria

Roman janiczek
Development Programming Dept.
Polish Power Grid Company
Mysia 2
00 496 Warszawa 53 Poland

Boleslaw Jankowski
Laboratory of Energy Management
Department of Energy Problems
Swietokrzyska 21
Warszawa, Poland

Wojciech jaworski
Dept. of Air and Land Protection
Wawelska 52/54
00-922 Warszawa, Poland

Jaan Jogi
Applied Climatology
Institute of Meteorology
Teaduse 2
EE3400 Saku, Estonia

Zbigniew Karaczun
Polish Ecological Club
Krzywickiego 9/7008
02 078 Warszawa, Poland

Abyd Karmali
ICF Kaiser International
1850 K Street NW (1000)
Washington DC, 20006 USA

Thomas M. Kerr
US EPA, Methane Branch
401 M Street SW (6202j)
Washington, DC 20460 USA

Alexey 0. Kokorin
Inst. of Global Climate & Ecology 20b Glebovskaya St.
107 258 Moscow, Russia

Andres Kratovits
Ministry of Envirorunent
Toompuiestee 24
Tallinn EE 0100 Estonia

Anna Krowicka
Inst. of Environmental Protection Kr-ucza 5/11
00-548 Warszawa, Poland

Eugenija Kupcinskiene
Lithuanian Agricultural Academy
Noreikiskes Kaunas - Akademija
4324 Lithuania

Tadeusz Lis
Department of Energy Problems
Swietokrzyska 21
Warszawa, Poland

Maria Angela Pais da Graqa Lobo
Head, Energy Planning Division
Ministry of Industry and Energy
Av. 5 de Outubro No 87
1050 Lisboa, Portugal

Tadeusz Loboda
Warsaw Agricultural University
Rakowiecka 26/30
02-528 Warszawa, Poland

Malle Mandre
Institute of Ecology
Kevade Street 2
Tallinn EE 0001 Estonia

Jaroslav Marousek
Slezska 7
120 56 Praha 2 Czech Republic

Andres Martinez
Winrock International
Route #3
Morrilton, AR 72110 USA

Ants Martins
Institute of Energy Research
Paldiski Road 1
Tallinn EE 0001 Estonia

Stephen Meyers
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Building 90-4000
Berkeley, CA 94720 USA

Laurie Michaelis
O.E.C.D. / O.C.D.E.
2 rue Andr6 Pascale
75775 Paris Cedex 16

J. David Mobley
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards-US EPA
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Sindor Molnir
System Expert Consulting Lt
Mikoviny S.u. 2-4
H-1037 Budapest, Hungary

Comel Motiu
Pollution & Environmental
Protection Lab.
Icemenerg Blvd. Energeticienilor 8
79619 Bucharest 3 Romania

Fiona Mullins
O.E.C.D. / O.C.D.E.
2 rue Andr6,Pascale
75775 Paris Cedex 16

Ivana Nemesova
Institute of Atmospheric Physics
Bocni 11 1601
14131 Praha 6 Czech Republic

Karol Niedziela
The Polish Foundation for Energy Efficiency ul. Powstanc6w 41a 40-024 Katowice, Poland

Jim Ohi
National Renewable Energy
1617 Cole Blvd.
Golden, CO 80401 USA

Anna Olecka
Climate Protection Centre Kolektorska 4
01-692 Warszawa, Poland

Piotr Orlanski
Institute of Environmental
Krucza 5/11
00-548 Warszawa, Poland

TamAs Palvolgyi
Ministry for Environment &
Regional Policy
Fb u. 44-50
H-1011 Budapest, Hungary

Natalya Parasiouk
US Country Studies Mgmt.  Team
PO Box 63
1000 Independence Avenue SW Washington DC 20585 USA

Slawomir Pasierb
Polish Foundation for Energy
ul. Powstanc6w 41a
40-024 Katowice, Poland

Ondrej Patarak
Ministry of the Envirorunent
Department of Air Protection
Hlboki 2
812 35 Bratislava
Slovak Republic

Jim M. Perunan
Department of the Environment
Global Atmosphere Division
Romney House, Room B248
43 Marsham Street
London SWLP 3PY U.K.

Alexander Vasilievich Pescherov
Ministry of Energy
Kabanbay batyr 142
Alrnaty, Kazakhstan

Stefan Pietkiewicz
Warsaw Agricultural University
Rakowiecka 26/30
02-528 Warszawa, Poland

Olga Viktorovna Pilifosova
Seifullin pr., 597
Almaty, Kazakhstan

Stephan Pilz
University of Stuttgart
Hessbruehlstr 49a
70565 Stuttgart, Germany

Bazyli Poskrobko
Technical University in Bialystok
ul. Wiejska 45
15-351 Bialystok, Poland

Jan Pretel
Czech Hydrometeorlogical
Na Sabatce 17
143 06 Praha 4
Czech Republic

Edward Radwanski
FEWE - Head of Research Teams
ul. G6rskiego 7
00-033 Warszawa, Poland

Nikolai V Raptsoun
Agency for Rational Energy Use & Ecology
PO Box 53
Kiev 252150 Ukraine

Dave Renne
National Renewable Energy
1617 Cole Blvd.
Golden, CO 80401 USA

Magdalena Rogulska
Rakowiecka 32
02-532 Warszawa, Poland

Anna Romanczak
Climate Protection Centre
Kolektorska 4
01-692 Warszawa, Poland

Ves Rutanen UNDP/GEF
304 East 45th Street
New York NY 10017 USA

Rolf Sartorius
Federal Environmental Agency
PO Box 330022
14191 Berlin, Germany

Jayant Sathaye
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Building 90-4000
Berkeley, CA 94720 USA

Lee J. Schipper
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Berkeley CA 94720 USA

Zigrida Shperlina
Latvian Hydrometeorlogical
165 Moscow Str.
Riga, LV 1019 Latvia

Katya Simeonova
ENERGOPROEKT Research Institute
51 James Boucher Boulevard 1407 Sofia, Bulgaria

Martin Smejkal
Department of Environmental Research
Austrian Federal Ministry of Science & Research
Abt IV 18, Rosengasse 4 A-1014 Wien, Austria

Atanas Stefanov
Ministry of the Environment
W Gladstone Str. 67
1000 Sofia, Bulgaria

Carolyn Sturgeon
O.E.C.D. / O.C.D.E.
2 rue Andr6 Pascale
75775 Paris Cedex 16 FR

Wojciech Suchorzewski
Warsaw University of Technology
ul. Armii Ludowej 16
00-637 Warszawa, Poland

Jacob Swager
UN/FCCC Secretariat
Oregon State University
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland

StanisLaw Szukalski
FEWE - Senior Specialist
ul. G6rskiego 7
00-033 Warszawa, Poland

Tleusen Kazbekovich Temertekov

Seifullin pr., 59
Almaty, Kazakhstan

Milos Tichy
Slezska 7
120 56 Praha 2 Czech Republic

Dennis Tirpak
Climate Change Division EPA
401 M. Street, SW
Washington DC 20460 USA

Fridtjof Unander
Institute for Energy Technology
PO Box 10
N-2007 Kjeller, Norway

Adam Umer
Department of Energy Problems Swietokrzyska 21
Warszawa, Poland

Marco Vananzi
Researcher, Government Official
Via Anguillarese, 301 (s.p.077)
I-00060 - S. Maria di Galeria
Roma, Italy

Vasyl Vasylchenko
Ministry of Environmental Protection
5, Kreshatyk Str.
252 001 Kiev, Ukraine

Evaldas Vebra
International Cooperation
Division, EPM
Environmental Protection
Ministry of the Republic of
Juozapaviciaus 9
2600 Vilnius, Lithuania

Ted Vinson
Oregon State University
Department of Civil/
Environmental Engineering
202 Apperson Hall
Corvallis, OR  97331  USA

Vladimir Voloshchuk
Ukrainian Hydrometeorological
Research Institute
Nauky Avenue, 37
Kiev, Ukraine

Marek Wieckowski
Warsaw University of
Transport Eng. Division
Ul. Armii Ludowej 16
00-637 Warszawa, Poland

Ted Williams
US Department of Energy
Office of Policy
Room 7C-034 (PO-6)
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC  20586  USA

Grzegorz Wisniewski
Rakowiecka 32
02-532 Warszawa, Poland

Joe Wisniewski
Wisniewski & Associates, Inc.
6862 McLean Province Circle
Falls Church, VA  22043  USA

Jerzy Wojtulewicz
Polish Foundation for Energy
Ul, Powstancow 41a
40-024 Katowice, Poland

Remko Ybema
P.O. Box 1
1755 ZG Petten
The Netherlands