1. Reporting of 2007 EIONET air emissions priority data flows, summary of country performance Reporting of 2007 EIONET air emissions priority data flows, summary of country performance Elisabeth Kampel, Katarina Mareckova, Michael Gager, ETC-ACC (UBA-V) EIONET meeting, Dublin 25 October 2007

2. 2 Outline Reporting obligations CLRTAP, NECD Emission Reporting  Data flow  Timeliness  Completeness  Consistency  Comparability  Recalculations Conclusions, recommendations

3. 3 Publication of findings Publication of findings

4. 4 Geographical coverage  32 Eionet member countries Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and United Kingdom  Eionet collaborating countries Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, FYR of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia http://www.eionet.europa.eu/countries.html

5. 5 CLRTAP

6. 6 Reporting requirements CLRTAP  Parties are requested to report to the secretariat (and copy to the EEA) their emissions data on : SOx, NOx, NMVOCs, NH 3, CO, HMs, POPs and PM.  The deadline for submission of inventories was by 15 February, (inventory report (IIR) by 15 May 2007– non mandatory element)  Gridded data (for the years 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005 - if not already reported), and  LPS data (reported on a 5-yearly basis) 1 March 2007.  All submissions should be reported using the Nomenclature for Reporting (NFR) formats in accordance with the EMEP 2003 Reporting Guidelines

7. CLRTAP data flow Member States Responsible for planning, preparing and reporting of national informative inventory report 15 February EMEP/ UNECE Data transfer Data used for EC LRTAP Convention inventory Communication Final MS LRTAP Convention inventory Reportnet ETC/ACC Preparation of EC inventory Initial QC checks Maintenance of inventory database and archives European Commission Overall responsibility for EC inventory 30 June Draft EC LRTAP Convention inventory Final EC LRTAP Convention inventory Final draft EC LRTAP Convention inventory EEA Communication with EC Communication with MS Circulation of draft EC inventory to MS for review Hosting official inventory database Web dissemination of data and inventory report Public

8. AE1 CLRTAP data in CDR (April 2007) 13 complete and on time : Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden 8 on time: Bulgaria, Finland, FYR of Macedonia, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Poland, Romania 6 delayed : Belgium, Greece, Malta, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, 10 no delivery: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czech Republic, Croatia, Iceland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Serbia, Montenegro, Turkey

9. 9 AE1 CLRTAP data in CDR (Sept 2007) AE1 CLRTAP data in CDR (Sept 2007) EIONET > CDR > country > united nations (UN) > UNECE/CLRTAP air emission inventories

10. 10 Completeness (Sept 2007) as in EEA’s Reportnet Central Data Repository (CDR) 37 Eionet members No submission 9 Eionet members: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Iceland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Turkey 15 countries submitted full time series (1990-2004): Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden Historical data were not updated by 9 of Eionet members ( Finland, Bulgaria, Czech r., Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania ) Gridded data reported by 18 Eionet members : Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and United Kingdom 13 Eionet members reported LPS data (Table IV 3C): ( Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Cyprus)

11. 11 Emission trends

12. 12 EU12 SO 2, NOx, NMVOC Sectoral trends (Key categories)  Key categories for NH 3 could be not calculated  Key categories for CO in EU -12 could be not calculated

13. 13 NECD

14. 14 Reporting obligations under NECD 2001/81/EC Articles 2,6,7, and 8 EU MS shall prepare and annually update national total emissions and emission projections for 2010 for the pollutants SO 2, NOx, VOCs, and NH 3. MS shall also by 31 December each year, report to the Commission and EEA their national emission inventories and emission projection for 2010; final emissions data should be submitted for the previous year but one and provisional emissions for the previous year.

15. 15 NECD data

16. 16 AE1b NECD data (April 2007) 9 countries on time and in NFR: Austria, Estonia, Finland, France, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia 5 countries on time: Cyprus, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden 9 countries after deadline: Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal,Spain, United Kingdom, 2 countries did not deliver data: Luxembourg, Greece

17. 17 AE1b NECD data (Sept 2007) EIONET > CDR > country > European union, obligations > National Emission Ceiling

18. 18 Completeness – NECD (Sept 2007)  12 MS provided additional or revised data between 15 Jan and 10 Sept 2007  23 MS provided the mandatory 2004 final emissions (except Luxembourg and Greece) and 24 MS (except Luxembourg) submitted 2005 preliminary emission data. Greece did not report 2004 and 2005 NH 3 emissions, Hungary did not report VOC and NH 3 2005 emissions.  23 out of 25 Member States provided updated projections within their 2006 submission. Updated 2010 projection were not provided by Greece. Luxemburg did not submit projections under NECD.

19. 19 Completeness: NECD data availability

20. 20 Recalculations (year 2003)- NECD  Major NOx recalculations occurred in France, Germany and United Kingdom. The total effect in 2003 was 175 Gg, which amounts to about 2% of total EU-25 emissions.  Major VOC recalculations occurred in France, Germany and Sweden. The total effect in 2003 was 235 Gg, which almost amounts to 3% of total EU-25 emissions.  Major SO 2 recalculations occurred in Germany and Spain. The total effect in 2003 was minus 32 Gg, which amounts to around 0.5% of total EU-25 emissions.  Major NH 3 recalculations occurred in Denmark and Germany. The total effect in 2003 was minus 39 Gg, which amounts to less than 1% of total EU-25 emissions.

21. 21 Consistency, comparability - NECD NEC Directive does not require provision of emissions in NFR tables, but MS are encouraged to use standardised format as set-up in Guidelines for estimating and reporting emissions (ECE/Eb.Air/GE.1/2007/15)  Formats  12 MS; provided emissions in a comparable and consistent format using standard excel template (NFR Table 1a),.  Emission inventories from the remaining 12 MS were submitted in modified NFR tables or even a Word file (Hungary). Germany submitted CRF-like trend tables. The reporting of information in non-standard formats greatly increases the difficulties associated with data processing and analysis, automated consistency and completeness tests could be performed only after ETC-ACC transferred these submissions into NFR standard table  Outliers  Inconsistent trends, non-comparability between countries (details in Review report),  Other  Austria submitted one NFR template file for both the NECD and LRTAP Convention reporting obligations and mentioned in accompanying documentation that the NECD inventory should not include emissions arising from fuel tourism. Ireland provided 2 versions with and without fuel tourism.  Ireland provided 2 sets of inventories with and without fuel tourism

22. 22 Summary

23. Summary - Comparison of reporting 2006 and 2007 On time: 32% in 2006 54% in 2007 Complete and on time: 23% in 2006 32% in 2007 Deteriorated 6% Improved 21%,

24. 24 Remaining challenges  Data flow ( CLRTAP and NECD inventories are not posted /copied in CDR)  Formats – mainly NECD – more than half of MS do not report in standardized NFR format, CLRTAP historical data  Timeliness (delayed reporting by almost 50% of countries)  Completeness ( 9 countries no CLRTAP submission, missing years or sectoral emissions, cells without numbers or notification keys)  Comparability, consistency (number of countries do not provide full updated time series, outliers in EF, different national totals submitted to NECD, CLRTAP, UNFCCC,…)  Transparency, what is included or not included in national totals, missing or non-transparent IIR  Resubmissions, 15 countries resubmitted CLRTAP inventories

25. 25 Conclusions  The timeliness and completeness of member states reporting improved for both CLRTAP and NECD inventories comparing to the previous reporting cycle but still needs improving to meet the requirements  Provision of full recalculated emission trends for countries is crucial for consistent presentation of country and Eionet/EMEP/EU trends  To enable comparison and review of inventories timely submissions and standardised formats are needed  Review of inventories is to be continued  We need formalised procedures for gap filling of reported emissions (assessment, indicators, EC inventories,...)

26. 26 Where to find more information http://www.emep.int/emis2007/reportingi nstructions.html http://www.eionet.europa.eu/themes/air http://www.eionet.europa.eu/dataflows