Summary of Member States’ responses to the Finnish ‘Questionnaire on bunker fuel emission calculations in the EU’ Rebecca Evernden DG Environment, European Commission Copenhagen Bunkers Workshop, May 2004 4/9/2019

Response 17 Member States responded Austria - Latvia Belgium - Luxembourg Czech Republic - Netherlands Denmark - Poland France - Portugal Finland - Spain Germany - Sweden Ireland - UK Italy 4/9/2019

Question 1 Legal arrangements to ensure data collection and calculation of bunkers emissions No MS has full legal arrangements to cover data collection and calculation for aviation and navigation. Around half MS have voluntary agreements Some MS including Denmark, Netherlands and Finland are currently developing written agreements and others are considering what is necessary 4/9/2019

Question 2 Features of the calculation system Aviation: Just over half MS use Tier 2. Other MS use Tier 1 Navigation: All MS use Tier 1 All MS except 3 use the methodology and Tier of domestic transport emissions to calculate bunker fuels emissions All MS use bunker fuel sales to calculate emissions from navigation. Around half MS use a combination of bunker fuel sales and flight data from aviation authorities to calculate emissions from aviation. The other half use only bunker fuel sales. Almost all MSs collect bunker fuel data from oil companies delivering fuel to bunkers. 4/9/2019

Question 2 continued Features of the calculation system Problems in data collection include Lack of data on inland waterways transport & fishing No split or rough split between domestic/international aviation emissions Lack of clarity over split of leisure and military emissions from commercial emissions Most MS consider that EU-level data sources are not essential although may be useful once an allocation option has been agreed. MS agree that EU-level data could be used for verification purposes. They might also be useful in helping with projections and higher tier calculations. 4/9/2019

Question 3 Separation between domestic and international emissions Almost all MS use IPCC definitions to disaggregate domestic and international emissions. (Germany, Poland, Portugal,Spain mentioned other definitions – what are the links with IPCC?) Commonly used methods to separate these emissions Different fuel codes for domestic and international purposes For aviation, movement data is often combined with fuel sales Navigation – by flag carrier Some MS calculate international fuel consumption by deducting domestic and military consumption All MS disaggregate domestic and international emissions before the emissions calculation or within the emissions calculation 4/9/2019

Question 3 continued Separation between domestic and international emissions Nearly half MS use the same separation for domestic and international bunker emissions as for energy balances and international energy questionnaires (IEA/Eurostat) Common problems in separating emissions from domestic and international bunker fuel use include Military emissions are not split out from commercial transport and fishing emissions Dividing up fuel use for ships which call at both domestic and international ports on the same journey Splitting fuel used for domestic and international flights There are also country specific problems 4/9/2019

Question 4 Emissions factors used Several MS use country specific emission factors for CO2, often those used for domestic transport Several MS use the EMEP/CORINAIR or IPCC emissions factors for CH4 or N2O Other emissions factors included IPCC default emissions factors ICAO emissions factors e.g. LTO, Cruise etc Lloyds emissions factors for shipping MEET (Austria), UBA (Germany) MS studies of use to other MS: (more details in MS papers) French study ‘New estimation of air traffic emissions in France…’ (Chang, Levy, Fontelle) and a Dutch study by TNO Spanish study by national inventory unit 4/9/2019

Question 5 Country specific problems There is variation between the MS on which parts of the country are included in bunkers emissions. For example for different MS it means economic territory includes overseas territories (France, Portugal) ‘whole country’ or ‘national territory’ The majority of MS cannot separate intra-EU emissions for aviation or navigation. However, France, Austria, Sweden can for aviation and the UK is working towards this. There are country specific problems e.g. Åland for Finland and Sweden, also regional responsibility for inventories in Belgium 4/9/2019

Question 6 QA/QC About three quarters of MS do not have an established QA/QC system for bunker emission calculations. Does this mean there are no QA/QC checks for any emissions? There should not be a separate system for bunkers. Many MS are developing QA/QC systems The UK and France use QA/QC checks within their national inventory review systems In particular, the French aviation authority set up a group to improve emissions calculations. They defined a QA/QC programme For aviation the following QA/QC procedures are carried out: Comparison between full theoretical fuel consumption versus total actual fuel sales in France (more details in the French paper) 4/9/2019

Question 7 Future plans Planned changes to calculation system – common issues Review of emissions factors, particularly for shipping Recalculating time series Voluntarily moving to a higher Tier (UK & Austria move to Tier 3) Most MS would like to move to a higher Tier for most allocation options, although this is not always necessary. Ideally a model could be developed which could meet the needs of all allocation options Issues to be discussed at EU level Allocation – strong support for further discussions Availability of EU-level data from Eurocontrol Emissions data needed for control measures e.g. emissions trading Separating intra-EU flights from other international flights 4/9/2019

Summary In general there is a high degree of variation between MS methodologies for emissions calculation. There is more variation for aviation than navigation, but aviation calculations are generally more advanced. Many problems are shared by several MS IPCC definitions form the basis for disaggregation of domestic and international bunkers There are several different types of emissions factors used although there are clear preferences There is a low level of QA/QC checking at this stage, but this seems to be developing quickly MS recognise the need for improvement, in particular in reviewing emissions factors, time series and moving to higher tiers. 4/9/2019

How can we use this information? As an indication of MS current position on emissions calculations To feed into discussions at the workshop To enable MS to contact other MS with similar problems and to work together towards solutions To help us decide where we want to aim for and to make progress towards this goal It would be helpful if MS could fill in any gaps or comment on this in their presentations 4/9/2019