Home / Governance / The NRTEE’s Response to its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act / 2011 Response of the NRTEE to its Obligations under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act / 2011 KPIA Response – 2.0 Methodology

2011 KPIA Response – 2.0 Methodology

Response of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy to its Obligations under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act - July 2011

In its 2007 Response to its obligations under the KPIA, the NRTEE developed an analytical framework to evaluate the likelihood that the proposed measures or regulations would achieve the projected emission reductions in the Plan, and the likelihood that the proposed measures would allow Canada to meet its requirements under the Kyoto Protocol. The NRTEE used the same methodological approach in its 2008, 2009, and 2010 Responses, and continues to use this approach for the 2011 Response.

To produce the KPIA Response, the NRTEE assesses the assumptions and methodologies underlying estimates of emission reductions set out in the Plan. It compares the 2011 Plan to previous Plans to assess changes or improvements and the extent to which previous NRTEE recommendations have been met. The NRTEE’s analysis is therefore qualitative, not quantitative. An alternative set of numbers for comparison are not produced given the limited time and resources available within the confines of the Act. While the NRTEE can conclude with confidence that stated emission reductions will likely or not likely be achieved, we cannot say definitively by how much or what the exact number might be, as this would require extensive alternative modelling and analysis. It is important to recognize that emission forecasting is not an exact science. Its utility lies particularly in the directions it conveys and policy choices it helps illuminate for decision makers.

An initial assessment of the necessary (and available) analytical tools and methodologies led the NRTEE to conclude that the best approach to assessing likelihood was to determine whether the estimates provided were accurate descriptions of the outcomes that could reasonably be expected from the policies and program initiatives described in the government’s Plan. Given the nature of the mandate and the timelines involved, the presentation of a qualitative sense of predictive accuracy as opposed to a complete modelling of policy outcomes has been chosen as most appropriate. As a result, the NRTEE has derived, where possible, a qualitative conclusion for each policy or measure based on the information presented in the Plan or provided by government officials in interviews. The evidence and underlying assumptions will suggest one of the following:

• An overestimate of eventual emissions reductions
• A reliable estimate of eventual emissions reductions
• An underestimate of eventual emissions reductions.

To be clear, the NRTEE is not in a position to provide a definitive statement on the actual emissions reduction level attributable to each policy and measure individually, or in total. Rather, we provide an assessment — on the basis of what is known about the underlying assumptions — of whether the measures and policies described in the Plan are likely to result in the suggested emissions reduction levels. All forecasting is uncertain and cannot be expected to be 100 per cent accurate. A qualitative assessment for significant programs or measures using this framework is provided in Appendix A.