 My name is Peter. I did, I guess, most of the analysis on the long-term strategies of the Baltic state. So, if someone has an issue with the results, then I guess I'm the one that you should talk to. I guess we didn't know exactly who was going to show up today, so I thought I would give a bit of a kind of overview of long-term strategies, ac mae'n fwy o'r rhai gwybod yw'r unig o'ch bod ymwneud yng Nghymru yn yr EU a'r bwyd yn ddodd yn y Gweithgafol Llywodraeth i'r Chymru ac yn y rhywbeth diolch yn gystafell. Mae'n ddifrif yn y fwy o'r hyn yn y Ymddiad Ymddiad Ymwy, yw ymwneud ym Mhwy, ymwneud ym Mhwy o'r 10, ym Ymddiad Llywodraeth i'r Gweithgafol, yn y cyfraeg, ymwneud ym Mhwy o'r Ymwneud ymwneud yn y Llywodraeth, oedd y LTS i gynllunio'r economi. Mae'r gynhwysawdd y gallwn i'r gynllunio'r eu ffawr oherwydd y LTS yng Nghymru, oherwydd ychydig yn ni'n deall ymddiol, mae'r gweithio'r gweithio'r cyfnodau eu mhwyl yn ymddiol i'r proses yn gyfnod yn agorol. Rwyf wedi gynllunio'r Cyfnodau. Ac rwyf wedi gwneud o'u gynllunio'r gynllunio'r LTS, augment Going what Each country was meant to include based on annex four of the regulation and that was five different kind of main topics. So an overview of how the strategy was developed and then content which includes targets for greenhouse gas reductions and renewable energy and energy efficiency and then also a sectoral breakdown of I think were integrated together agriculture but five different sectors, then details on the financing and the socioeconomic impacts of the plans and also it was specified that any sort of modelling that had taken place to inform the plans should also be included in the documents. I had a look yesterday at how many different countries have submitted their LTSs and it's still only 22 of 27 despite the fact that the deadline was two years, two and a half years I think ago now and they also vary quite a lot as I think we all know in terms of the length and the content so the longest one I think I've seen is the French one which is is close to 200 pages and then the Estonian one is eight pages so you have this really big variety in terms of what has been included and in fact some countries such as the furania have already updated theirs I think Hungary have also updated theirs but kind of the environment the environment on the environment is is not static and we know that over the past two years there have been quite a few different factors that have led to most countries being in a position where they now need to subsequently update their strategies again and that's kind of what the purpose of this analysis is because hopefully we can start a conversation or look at kind of the best practices from lots of different countries so that people can kind of pool the expertise and we can kind of raise the standard of the LTSs or put a bit more emphasis on them. So that was kind of about the LTSs and I will also just include a tiny bit of background on the energy and emissions in the free countries. I'm sure everyone already knows this anyway but as most countries do all three countries in the Baltic States have quite high dependency on fossil fuels. What is different is that in Estonia this is mainly through oil and petroleum products because of the oil shale industry here whereas in Latvia and Lithuania a bit more natural gas is used. They also all have quite a big emphasis on bioenergy and when you look at the electricity sectors in particular you see this really big dependency from Estonia on oil shale. You also see in Latvia there's quite a lot of hydropower and in Lithuania and also in Estonia to an extent there's quite a lot of wind power coming on line and again you see that Latvia and Lithuania are using gas and Estonia is not but the other thing to note here is partly as we all know from the really high prices the amount of production in the free countries is not sufficient so there's quite a lot of electricity that's coming from the Nordic countries also and in terms of emissions we've seen that all three countries have seen quite big decreases at least since 1990. For Estonia and Lithuania this has persisted throughout the entire period two years ago whereas for Latvia the emissions have actually started to rise and the reason I think is because of the Lulusaf sink which has been going down consistently in Latvia and also in Estonia since 1990 whereas in Lithuania I think it's most recently been increasing. All countries also have increasing emissions in I think agriculture and transports which is I think quite commonly seen throughout the EU whereas the power sector is going down and then just to give a general overview before we go into things in more detail the three countries differ quite a lot in terms of when the strategies were adopted and what actually included them. So for Estonia one thing to point out is that when we were doing our analysis we know that the Estonia 2035 document came out and that is the one that includes the ambition for climate neutrality so we also we mainly looked at the Estonian LTS but as this was published such a long time ago and because things have changed so much we also supplemented it with anything we could find in the Estonia 2035 document. For Latvia we used the LTS that was published in 2019 and for Lithuania we used the one that was published last year and we can see that the length of the strategies is really different so if we look at the original Estonian document it's eight pages the Latvian one is 55 and the Lithuania one is 35 and in terms of what they include we also see quite big differences but yeah I'll come on to that I'll come on to that in a little bit and you will also see in the subsequent slides some tables with different scoring in and I wanted to just sort of explain how we came up with that scoring so there's it's a three point scale for each different category that we looked at and these categories are the categories from the governance regulation that we've expanded slightly so a country would get three points if they've included a lot of detail on a specific sector to such an extent that a different country could look at their strategy and use it as the basis for forming their own strategy. Two points are given if they've included most of the elements that we've looked for but not everything so it's not fully comprehensive and one point if the section was only described very briefly in qualitative language or was not included at all so examples more specifically for the different sectors is what maybe we were looking for for a score of three would be that there was a clear kind of series of targets for how decarbonisation would take place for a specific sector as well as background and trends for what would take place if different policies were not put into effect. For financing and enabling policies and measures there'd be a score of three for investment if this was clearly described in the document for the whole of the different sectors if it was only partially described for one sector then maybe there'd be a score of two and if there was no kind of detail on investment and what the costs of the decarbonisation would be then there'd be a score of one. Similarly for the other categories so we start with a kind of a look at the general information and targets for the different countries so in terms of how closely the different countries kept to the governance regulation we gave each a score of two and that was because most of the things that should have been included were included but not everything so for instance Latvia and Estonia didn't include details on the renewable energy share in 2050 for example but this kind of also masks differences that we will see later that on this kind of overall thing the strategies scored quite similar but that's partly because of how we were assessing them there are very big differences in terms of what is actually included and a final thing that I want to emphasise here is all three countries particularly Lithuania and to a smaller extent Latvia included quite a lot of detail on adaptation which is something that is important to include but wasn't actually in the in the governance regulation. Moving on I just copied out all of the targets that we could find and you can see that Lithuania has kind of targets for everything that was required whereas Latvia and Estonia have this headline target of climate neutrality by 2050 but are missing in terms of the renewable energy share and the energy efficiency share by 2050. They all kind of have targets that are needed for 2030 although for Estonia we had to take this from the Estonia 2035 document so it's for 2035 rather than 2030 and a lot of these targets are kind of just taken from the NECP although this is not the case for Lithuania I think some of the targets for 2030 were actually upgraded in the LTS compared to what they were in the NECP because the LTS was the newer document in that case and then when it comes to kind of the bulk of the strategies looking at the different pathways and measures for the different sectors we scored most countries mainly two. I actually I'm sorry to say for Estonia recently downgraded the scores from two to one because Estonia does talk about basically all of these sectors but I wanted to emphasise that there was quite a big difference between Estonia which in the original LTS just had some qualitative detail compared to Latvia and Lithuania which had much more detail in terms of the sector breakdown but even Latvia and Lithuania could have included more detail so for instance it was difficult in the Lithuania strategy to see a lot of modelling details all sort of quantitative details about what the situation was in the past and so there were loads of targets but I found it difficult to understand how ambitious the targets were because I didn't know what the starting point was and for Latvia there was a slightly different problem in that there was a good kind of description of what the sector was like but in terms of the breakdown of what the sector is going to look like in the future there was a bit less detail this kind of existed at a higher level and a little bit in terms of the future scenario but it was not entirely clear how those numbers were arrived at and there was also beneath kind of the targets and what was going to change there was not that much detail in terms of how countries were going to attempt to get there and so that made the strategies to me read more as kind of aspirations of where they would like to go and not kind of sort of strategic guidelines of what needs to take place in order to get there which is what you may be found in some of the other strategies in other parts of the EU. When it came to financing and enabling policies and measures this was the case where Latvia scored free because they clearly included that in the LTS although for the Latvian case it was also a bit difficult because it felt like modelling had been done on the how climate neutrality would be achieved but it wasn't really included in the LTS so they just said that this is what it will cost to reach climate neutrality but there wasn't the kind of this detail so it was kind of difficult to know how they'd got to that figure or what it actually represented. Liffioraenu and Estonia didn't really include the investment needs at all. All three countries also could have included a lot more detail in terms of where this financing is going to come from and I think this is one thing that we will see when we look at the Visigrad countries they included a bit more detail here and the final thing is all three countries talked I would say more than the average across the union in terms of the importance of research and development and in terms of upgrading the level of research and upgrading the level of specialists in the country and Liffioraenu included the most detail and they got a score of three in this category. In terms of the economic assessment this was something else that the countries could have really strengthened and hopefully will in the future it's important to perhaps point out that all three countries have GDPs per capita they're a little bit below the EU average and so there are a lot of there's a lot of argument that could be made this is a really important category for these for these three countries because we need to know how different areas of society are going to be impacted by the transition and we found that there was not so much detail on this and this is something that could really be strengthened and particularly when it came to kind of the distribute of aspects so who is going to be impacted and in what way are they going to be impacted this is something that could really be strengthened and I actually took this table from the Visigrad assessment where most of these things were included by quite a lot of the countries and you can see that in the Baltic states beyond any energy security a lot of things are missing Latvia includes the most detail because it includes kind of this assessment of what they think is going to happen to GDP but this is really a section that could also be strengthened along with kind of the sectoral pathways and then to look at preparation and implementation the key point here I think is the analytical tools because I think this really feeds back into what was missing in terms of the economic assessment and also the pathways for the different sectors it was not always clear what kind of modelling the different countries had done and it felt like in a lot of cases modelling hadn't been done and if modelling had been done it was just for a business as your usual scenario in some cases there were figures that were included but it was really difficult to understand what those figures represented there might be for instance I think in the the Latvian and the Estonian cases there were extrapolations to 2050 but it wasn't really clear if they represented rigorous modelling or they were just kind of to guide the eye to what the situation should be like in 2050 I think for the Latvian case it felt like I said before that this kind of climate neutrality modelling had taken place but it wasn't included in the LTS it didn't really say where it came from and that made it difficult to give it a higher score whereas for Lithuania and Estonia it felt like there was less modelling that was included yeah and like I said what was included was not always really well described and yeah for someone for someone from my background that's really important that if you include a figure and you have that in your LTS then it should really state what that represents and how it was derived and a final point is in the Lithuanian strategy and this is something perhaps we can talk about today it's stated at one point that modelling capabilities needed to be strengthened and I think if the reason that there was not as much modelling as in some other countries in the European Union was because that capability was was not easy to find in in the region then this is something that really has to be dealt with quickly because the best LTSs at least in my opinion had quite significant modelling aspects and this was something that was there was not included so much here and then to move on to governance and governance and consultation this was included in all of the countries to some extent especially in Lithuania and Estonia public consultation was also included well at least in two of them but it wasn't always clear what influence this had had on the strategies so for instance in the Estonian original LTS it wasn't included but in the Estonia 2035 document it was included and said what kind of consultations had taken place but to get a score of three it maybe would have had to have said that this was taken on board and based on this consultation with stakeholders this changed but overall this was quite a reasonable section I would say and one thing I wanted to highlight which I think is a little bit unique in the in the countries is that Estonia developed this this tree of truth in English where anyone can go and see how they are performing in terms of a huge variety of different indicators and that includes indicators that are relevant for for decarbonisation such as the greenhouse gas emissions or the renewable energy share and I think this was this was really a really good thing to include and it makes it kind of easy to have this accountability of the strategies even if this was not necessarily devised for the LTSs in general so yeah to come to the general conclusions there was a high amount of heterogeneity the the difference was between the strategies was really big as I think we found for the whole of the EU all of the countries do adopt the the really crucial target of climate neutrality by 2050 but beyond this kind of headline target there were quite big differences in terms of the the sectoral detail so no country is provided what we would like to see in order to get the highest score in our assessment and this is something that could also be strengthened and this partly I think probably comes from the the modelling weaknesses that each country didn't really include enough detail in terms of the modelling and this kind of probably made the sectoral detail and the socio-economic aspects weaker than they perhaps could have been and also there was limited specificity in terms of details especially after 2030 in terms of what direction the countries want to go in in terms of reaching their goals which for the best strategies was included like for instance for Greece for Portugal it's really clear how they want to go about reaching climate neutrality how they want to go about decarbonising their energy systems whereas for the free Baltic states this was a little bit opaque research and development was also highlighted as I said in all three countries really strongly but could be made a bit stronger if different funding sources and research programmes were included. Collaboration I guess is one of the reasons why we're here today regional collaboration was not really discussed about in the different strategies although I think it was to some extent in the NECPs so this is something that again is not required in the governance regulation but could could be strengthened in principle and governance and consultation is generally included but it could be made a bit stronger if the impacts of the consultation were also shown in the strategies and from these kind of conclusions we also developed a series of recommendations which I've kind of already talked about and I guess the clearest one that would really help for every country is if the EU decided to place a bit more emphasis on the long-term strategies I mean these are the kind of documents that are telling each country how they're going to reach climate neutrality and a lot of the things that countries are going to have to do have really long lead times so it's really important that at least some of the decisions or the general directions that they want to head in are made now and the EU could I think place a bit more emphasis on this and then yes coverage in terms of sectors and comprehensive modelling these are things that I've talked about that could really be included in the strategies in a bit more detail and also socioeconomics especially what the costs are going to be and how those costs are going to be shared between society and how that's going to impact households would be really important I think to include in the next round of updates yeah and then the other things are things that I've already talked about so yeah I think that's it for our assessment of the strategies and I think we have time to take questions if anyone has questions on our analysis