EEA priority data flow review of national submissions 2007 preliminary results EEA priority data flow review of national submissions 2007 preliminary results Katarina Mareckova, Elisabeth Kampel, Michael Gager, ETC-ACC (UBA-V) Dessau, May 2007

2 Main objectives of review (stage I + II)  Main objective of the review process is to encourage and support inventory improvements, the quality of national inventories (NECD and LRTAP submissions) Check inventory quality focusing at:  Transparency  Completeness (sources, pollutants, years)  Consistency ( sectors, countries, years)  Comparability (countries, years) In accordance with recommendation Annex III, of EB.AIR/GE.1/2005/7(UNECE 2005) Geographical coverage: LRTAP (east, west, EU)

3 Timeliness, Completeness- NECD inventories  Deadline for reporting for 25 MS: 31 Dec 2006  16 MS reported on time  23 MS reported inventories 2004 and 2005 (minimum reporting)  11 MS inventories in standardized NFR format  updated projections not provided by 3 MS, 1 MS provisional projections

4 NECD inventory sources used in report and review (status of 19 April 2007)

5 EEA Priority data flow – LRTAP inventories EEA Priority data flow – LRTAP inventories

6 What is reviewed in stage II and how  What  LRTAP inventories, (IIR)  NECD inventories (2001/81/EC):  (EC GHG monitoring mechanism inventories, 280/2004/EC )  Stage II tests performed 2007  Xpollutant test (additional sectors included in 2006)  Comparisons of different submissions CLRTAP/NECD with GHG inventories  Comparison of sectoral and national totals (NECD)  IEF test using the UNFCCC outlier tool (based on results of Key source analyses)

7 Cross pollutant test  Selected pollutants and sectors  Latest available inventory year: 2005  Comparison to average ratios:  Eastern, and Western Europe – not to any model

4B + 4D1NEC 2005CLRTAP 2005 NH3 [Gg]N2O [Gg]NH3/N2ONH3 [Gg]N2O [Gg]NH3/N2O Austria Belgium Bulgaria NA Cyprus Czech Republic #NV15.7#NV Denmark #NV20.1#NV Estonia Finland France Germany Greece* Hungaryno sectoral data27.1#WERT! Ireland Italy** Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg*no sectoral data#WERT! 0.0#WERT! Malta1.0no CRF#WERT!1.0no CRF#WERT! Netherlands Poland Portugal RomaniaNA 152.8na Slovakia Slovenia Spain** Sweden UK EU152, , EU EU-273, ,

9 Submissions comparison  CLRTAP/NECD with EC GHG monitoring mechanism  National totals (NOx, SOx, NMVOC, CO)  Years: all submitted years ( where available, resp and 2005 for NECD)

type the subject in footer (View|Header and Footer) CLRTAP-UNFCCC; difference in intervals [%] YearsNOxSOxNMVOCCOComment Austria Belgium , ; 229; 421; 4 Bulgaria ; 4138; 4648; 52-16;-7 Cyprus ,-8-9, +29-9; +2-22; +7.2CRF 2005 missing Czech R ; ; -3-8; ; +0.4 Denmark Estonia ; -9-27; +1828; 54-96; -17 Finland ; ; 4.7-3; ; 0.8 France ; ; -9-44; ; -67 Germany ; >-0.4; , -3.7 Greece nnnnn data for comparisons NA Hungary , ; ; ; -0.1 Ireland ; ; ; 6-0.1; 0.2 Italy ; >-8; > Latvia > 0 Lithuania ;7.90.6; ; ; 11 Luxembourg nnnnn data for comparisons NA Netherlands ; ; ; ; +21 Malta nnnnn data for comparisons NA Poland ; ; ; ; -25 Portugal ; ; ; ; 0.3 Romania nnnnn data for comparisons NA Slovakia only in 2002 Slovenia >03.5> Spain n nnnnnot submitted inventories Sweden >000 UK >0.5>0.1>0

11 Implied emission factor test  Criteria for selection to the country report:  Trend - change of IEF between 2 years is > 50%  IEF out of range at least by order of magnitude  only for Key sources as identified for Eastern and Western Europe  all years  IEF = Emission / Activity  Analysis with UNFCCC outlier tool- limited to EU27 MS Emission data reported under CLRTAP/NEC Most recent activity data reported under UNFCCC

12 Examples - IEF (time series) IEF sector 4D1, gas VOC

13 Example of findings

14 Challenges for review teams  Timeliness – (delayed reporting by almost 50% of countries, resubmissions..)  Completeness (not complete trends, missing sectoral emissions,… missing projections,..)  Comparability & Consistency  Formats – mainly NECD – more than half of MS do not report in standardized NFR format, projections not in NFR tables  Different reporting obligations by countries (EU/non-EU; A1/non- A1;..  outliers, gaps  Transparency – (e.g. what is included – not included in national totals, projections WM or BAU?)

15 Conclusions /Recommendations  Review process needs to continue be a standard part of inventory cycle  Review process is time and resource demanding for countries and for ETC ACC/EMEP  Review procedures need further elaboration (e.g. automated outputs of tests, evaluation of usefulness, provision of scientific background, record keeping of comments,… )  Reporting of countries improved

16 Questions for expert panels and countries Setting up priorities for the next review cycle  Do test help to identify problems in reported inventories? Which tests proved to be useful ?  Do we need all the tests? (increase efficiency, avoid double work,…)  Should we invent another type of testing ? Which elements of inventory are not covered by actual tests ? What other data can be used to make comparisons across countries?  Are east/west/EU averages and/or intervals useful for comparisons ? Another grouping of countries?  Scientific value of tests ? Can we provide explanation?  How much can be IIR used in Stage II  How meaningfully aggregate test results to indicate inventory quality – what can be part of Stage II what Stage III ?