Katarina Mareckova, Robert Wankmueller, Elisabeth Kampel, Michael Gager and Stephan Poupa

TFEIP, ETC ACM

14 May 2012, Bern

Review of Emission Data and IIRs Submitted under CLRTAP and NECD Gridded Emissions and LPS

CONTENTReview process and review results under the CLRTAP/ NECD

• Completeness • Stage 1 & 2• Gridded data, LPS• Stage 3 centralised in-depth review • Roster of experts

IIR - Awards 2012

REVIEW PROCESS – T TCCCA

Methods and procedures for the technical review of air pollutant emission inventories reported under the Convention and its protocols (Review Guidelines EB.AIR/GE.1/2007/16)

• Stage 1 - automated tests, Country reports posted on the web during March

• Stage 2 - S&A country reports posted in Mayhttp://www.ceip.at/review-results/review-results-2012/

• Stage 3 – Centralised in depth review of selected inventories

Summary of S1 and S2 findings: In CEIP/EEA technical report Inventory review 2011 http://webdab1.umweltbundesamt.at/download/Reports/2011/InventoryReport2011_forWeb.pdf

SHORT HISTORY OF EMISSION REPORTING TO UNECE • 80s - National emissions of sulphur, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, NMVOC,

carbon oxides and methane (1980 or 1986? onwards and each following year)

• EMEP WebDab – earliest information identified “reported in 1995” http://www.ceip.at/webdab-emission-database/

• HMs, POPs – first occur in 1996 data (reported in 1998)

• SNAP sectors

• Harmonisation with UNFCCC reporting system, 2002 onwards – emissions reported in NFR sectors (NFR01, NFR02, NFR09), GHGs excluded

http://www.emep.int/mscw/index_mscw.html e.g. Emission data reported to UNECE/EMEP: Evaluation of the spatial distribution of emissions. MSC-W Status Report 2001,EMEP MSC-W Mote 1/01 July 2001

REPORTING OF INVENTORIES UNDER THE CLRTAP IN 2012

http://www.ceip.at/overview-of-submissions-under-clrtap/2012-submissions/

• 44 (86%) submissions from 51 Parties (41 in 2010, 43 in 2010), 34 Parties within deadline - 31 resubmissions

• 30 IIRs (26 in 2011, 30 in 2010, ) • 35 Parties reported AD – significant improvement comparing to 2009

No data from: Rep. of Moldova, USA, EUAzerbaijan, Bi&H, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan

REPORTING 1995 - 2012

Reporting

• Austria

• Belgium

• Denmark

• Finland

• Slovakia

• United Kingdom

Completeness in WebDab

• France

• Germany

• Ireland

• Norway

• Sweden

• United Kingdom

REPORTING UNDER UNECETOP10 Reporting since 1995

• Austria

• Belgium

• Bulgaria

• Czech republic

• Denmark

• Finland

• France

• Slovakia

• Sweden

• United Kingdom

TOP10 Completeness in WebDab (nat. totals)

• Bulgaria

• Croatia

• Estonia

• France

• Germany

• Hungary

• Ireland

• Norway

• Sweden

• United Kingdom

HISTORY OF EMISSION REPORTING UNDER CLRTAP SINCE 2002 (NFR)

Inventories

COMPLETENESS 2012 REPORTING UNDER CLRTAP

Pollutants

• Main pollutants: 44 (41)• PM: 36 (34)• POPs (Diox, PAHs, HCB, PCBs): 36• Cd, Hg, Pb: 37 (39)• Additional HMs: 33 (33)

Projections: 21 (4 WaM) , Activity 18 (4 WaM)

Gridded data (sectoral + national totals): 26

LPS: 24

GRIDDED EMISSIONS AND LPS

GRIDDED DATA (20,22,21) (19,22,21) (19,21,19) (18,19,18)

LPS DATA REPORTED IN 2012

MAIN PM

HMPOPs

NECD INVENTORIES

NECD TIMELINESS OF REPORTING

1.12.2011

31.12.2011

30.1.2012

Fin

land

Germ

any

United

Kin

gd

om

Fra

nce

Denm

ark

Irela

nd

Sw

ed

en

Belg

ium

Neth

erland

s

Cyp

rus

Lithuania

Slo

venia

Po

land

Ro

mania

Austr

ia

Bulg

aria

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic

Esto

nia

Hung

ary

Latv

ia

Luxem

bo

urg

Po

rtug

al

Slo

vaki

a

Italy

Sp

ain

Gre

ece

Malta

Date of submission NECD reporting 2011

• Complete EU inventory reporting for 2009 and 2010!!

• 9 MS submitted IIRs

• 25 MS used NFR templates 2009

• 10 MS provided projections for post 2010

NECD DISTANCE TO CEILINGS

• Final 2010 data will be available end of this year

• grey indicates that road transport emissions are based on fuel used

• red indicates emissions above respective NEC ceiling

Member States NOx SO2 NMVOC NH3

Austria 40% -52% -17% -6%Belgium 25% -32% -25% -7%Bulgaria -51% -54% -47% -53%Cyprus -22% -43% -19% -41%Czech Republic -16% -36% -30% -14%Denmark 1% -75% -1% 0%Estonia -39% -17% -22% -65%Finland 1% -38% -10% 20%France 33% -30% -19% -17%Germany 26% -14% 6% 0%Greece -8% -49% -30% -11%Hungary -18% -94% -21% -27%Ireland 12% -38% -20% -9%Italy -2% -56% -5% -10%Latvia -42% -93% -52% -61%Lithuania -47% -74% -25% -64%Luxembourg 87% -58% -2% -42%Malta 1% -10% -79% -48%Netherlands 6% -32% -19% -5%Poland -1% -30% -17% -42%Portugal -28% -58% -6% -47%Romania -38% -59% -16% -23%Slovakia -32% -37% -55% -37%Slovenia -1% -62% -16% -13%Spain 6% -41% 2% 4%Sweden 9% -49% -18% -9%United Kingdom -5% -31% -34% -4%EU-27 0% -45% -16% -17%

16

• NE carries risk of potential underestimation

• EU NEC Directive status report estimates potential contribution of these sources

• for only 2 countries it would effect the reaching of ceilings

NECD - REPORTING OF NE (NOT ESTIMATED)

SHARE OF E-PRTR 2010 ON CLRTAP / UNFCCC TOTALS 2010 (MAIN, GHGS)

Country (NH

3)

(CO

)

(NO

x/N

O2)

(SO

x/SO

2)

(NM

VO

C)

PM10

)

(CO

2)

(CH

4)

(N2O

)

(HFC

s)

(PFC

s)

(SF6

)

Austria 0% 2% 4% 6% 1% - 18% 3% 1% - - -Belgium 5% 54% 26% 60% 26% 9% 41% 2% 32% 33% 96% 3%Bulgaria 13% 11% 51% 91% 0% 16% 67% 24% 4% - - -Cyprus 36% 11% 44% 93% - 52% 62% 1% 2% - - -Czech Rep. 8% 32% 47% 77% 4% 13% 63% 0% 4% 0% - -Denmark 2% 1% 12% 33% 4% 5% 41% 6% 1% 0% - -Estonia 5% 12% 39% 88% 7% 37% 77% 1% 1% - - -Finland 5% 3% 40% 70% 8% 3% 96% 17% 56% - - -France 2% 2% 17% 75% 8% 1% 40% 5% 11% 2% 47% 32%Germany 3% 27% 25% 56% 4% 6% 55% 9% 6% 6% 49% 2%Greece 0% 6% 36% 67% 2% - 61% 4% 7% - 40% -Hungary 17% 5% 14% 38% 4% 1% 40% 2% 0% - - -Iceland EPRTR 183% - 18% - EPRTR 155% 38% 12% - 102% -Ireland 2% 1% 26% 54% 0% 3% 39% 8% 1% 1% 99% 64%Italy 9% 10% 18% 64% 4% 2% 44% 6% 7% 0% 97% 23%Latvia 4% 0% 12% 22% 0% 4% 10% 0% 1% - - -Luxembourg 0% 16% 10% 33% - - 21% 9% - - - -Malta - - 60% 96% - 23% 71% 69% - - - -Netherlands 2% 19% 20% 103% 11% 14% 52% 4% 13% 10% 57% -Norway 2% 1% 35% 57% 31% 7% 22% 17% 12% - 100% -Poland 3% 9% 36% 50% 1% 9% 64% 30% 7% 1% - -Portugal 18% 6% 31% 45% 5% 7% 54% 11% 15% 0% - -Romania 10% 5% 27% 84% 2% 11% 51% 8% 11% - 128% -Serbia - - 27% 136% - 44% - - - - - -Slovakia 3% 54% 34% 91% 5% - 54% 3% - 1% - -Slovenia 3% 6% 28% 64% 4% 1% 44% 15% 2% 1% 100% -Spain 11% 14% 27% 37% 7% 8% 40% 12% 4% 3% 31% -Sweden 6% 6% 18% 43% 13% 14% 100% 8% 9% 1% 73% 26%Switzerland 0% 3% 6% 16% 2% - 18% 0% 3% 0% - 23%UK 4% 17% 34% 78% 13% 12% 48% 21% 8% 1% 108% 45%

SHARE OF E-PRTR 2010 ON CLRTAP 2010 TOTALS (HMS , POPS)

Country (HCB

)

PCD

D +

PCD

F

(as

Teq)

(PCB

s)

(PA

Hs)

(as

As)

(as

Cd)

(as

Cr)

(as

Cu)

(as

Pb)

(as

Hg)

(as

Ni)

(as

Zn)

Austria - - - - - - EPRTR - - 9% - EPRTRBelgium - 36% EPRTR 5% 39% 29% 57% 6% 62% 48% 33% 58%Bulgaria - - - - 11% 14% - 4% 8% - 1% 5%Cyprus - - - - 81% 61% - 3% - 90% 80% 62%Czech Rep. - 45% 1% 14% 59% 60% 32% 32% 75% 85% 59% 12%Denmark - 34326% - - - - - - - 39% 32% -Estonia - - - - 98% 89% 95% 48% 93% 94% 90% 88%Finland - 25% 4% 1% 19% 20% 46% 2% 18% 53% 29% 11%France - 134% 0% 41% 39% 48% 36% 5% 40% 56% 74% 42%Germany - 39% 4% 1% 41% 21% 22% 1% 39% 81% 13% 4%Greece - - - - - - - - - - - -Hungary - 31% 1% 0% 7% 7% - 1% 2% 24% - 20%Iceland - 7% - 133% - - - - - - - -Ireland - 1% - - 1% - 6% - - 3% 2% -Italy - 76% 16% 0% 2% 5% 8% 3% 7% 12% 16% 13%Latvia - - - 1% - - - - - 16% - -Luxembourg - 26% 29% - - - - - - - - -Malta - - - - 82% 79% - - - - 87% 18%Netherlands - 21% - 217% 55% 90% 48% 3% 78% 72% 66% 47%Norway - 10% EPRTR 346% 38% 11% - 6% 5% 11% EPRTR EPRTRPoland - 153% - 14% 6% 2% 15% 9% 7% 20% 7% 6%Portugal - 80% - 1% 38% 37% 23% 7% 2% 16% 45% 58%Romania - 0% - - - 10% - - 4% 22% 11% 9%Serbia - - - - - - - - - - - -Slovakia - - - - 4% 18% 31% 13% 29% 20% 4% 18%Slovenia 3735% 4% - - EPRTR - EPRTR EPRTR - 7% EPRTR EPRTRSpain - 354% EPRTR 14% 31% 10% 33% 8% 17% 27% 31% 26%Sweden - 37% - 4% 37% 7% 62% 1% 19% 24% 14% 14%Switzerland - 8% EPRTR 33% EPRTR 1% EPRTR - 14% 37% EPRTR EPRTRUK - 30% 1% 122% 7% 27% 18% 13% 59% 57% 16% 11%

STAGE 3 REVIEW

STAGE 3 IN-DEPTH CENTRALIZED REVIEWMain objectives

a) complement the reporting guidelines in supporting Parties to compile and submit high quality inventories

b) support Parties in meeting their reporting obligations under the Protocols

c) increase confidence of policymakers in the data used for air pollution modelling

The aim is to check in detail each Party inventory at least once every five years => to review approximately 10 Parties annually

STAGE 3 IN-DEPTH CENTRALIZED REVIEW• Centralized review is review of quantitative and qualitative information

of selected inventories by pollutant, country or sector

• Joint activity of EMEP/CEIP and EEA

• The work plan is (annually) approved by the EMEP Executive BodyCEIP

• Coordination of the whole process• Technical support of ERT• Communication with Parties • Publication of final reports

CEIP/TFEIP/EEA• Guidance for reviewers, transcripts and templates for review reports

http://www.ceip.at/review-of-inventories/centralised-review-stage-3/

STAGE 3 - EXPERIENCE 2008-2011Review benefits• 34 Parties reviewed since 2008 - in all inventories identified

areas for improvement • Motivates experts to improve their own inventories and IIRs• For reviewers provides a level of training on priorities for

enhancing TCCCA of inventories • Builds an enthusiastic network of motivated and informed

experts

Interaction with Parties • Most Parties responded on time and comprehensive • A few Parties – NIR not provided, late responses, limited

explanatory information after the review week • It’s challenge if Parties are reviewed and parallel providing

reviewers to the ERT

ROSTER OF EMISSION EXPERTS - HISTORY

20 Parties to the Convention (out of 51) have nominated experts to the roster:

Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, the European Community, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Macedonia, Norway, the Netherlands, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom

• the nominated experts are suitably qualified to review all emission sectors as well as general inventory issues, such as good practice, uncertainties, and quality assessment and quality control (QA/QC)

• the roster currently contains a total of 65 inventory experts (24 more comparing to 2008) from which 43 experts participated at least in one S3 review

REVIEW TEAMS 20122 teams

LR – Chris Dore (UK) and Ann Wagner (EU)

27 experts invited

16 accepted invitation (AUT, DE, EU, EE, FIN, FRA,GR, IRL, LAT, NL, SWE)

still needed : generalist, sectors: industry, agriculture, waste

Review experts (10-15d):Preparatory work and follow up activities Review the inventory and complete transcripts and relevant chaptersLR – coordination of the team, compilation of the reports, assistance to less experienced reviewers

CHALLENGES

The limited number of review experts constitutes serious constraint to the successful conducting of the reviews

Active participation of experts from EECCA and South-East European countries in the review process should be increased

Not complete inventories resp. not provided NIRs limits the review

Interaction with Parties

Lead reviewers

THANK YOU