Review of national submissions 2006 Stage II Elisabeth Rigler, Michael Gager, Bernd Gugele, Elisabeth Kampel, Katarina Mareckova ETC-ACC (UBA-V) Thessaloniki, October 2006

2 Main objectives of review (stage II)  Main objective of the review process is to encourage and support inventory improvements, the quality of national inventories (NEC 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)

3 What is reviewed in stage II and how  What  LRTAP inventories, IIR:  NEC inventories (2001/81/EC):  (EC GHG monitoring mechanism inventories, 280/2004/EC )  New or modified stage II tests performed 2006  Cross pollutant test (additional sectors included in 2006)  Comparisons of different submissions CLRTAP/NEC with GHG inventories  IEF test using the UNFCCC outlier tool (based on results of Key source analyses)

4 Cross pollutant test  Selected pollutants and sectors  Latest available inventory year: 2004  Comparison to average ratios:  Eastern, and Western Europe – not to any model

5 Cross Pollutant Test Results – EU15 EU 15 (without IT, ES, LU, GR) for emissions reported under CLRTAP 1,7 - 6,3 0,2 - 0, ,03 - 0,04 93 – ,2 – 13,3 1,9 – 9,43 1,1 – 5,9 1,2 – 4,6 0,01 – 0,9 2,5 – 30,0 2,8 – 2.265

6 Cross Pollutant Test Results– EU10 EU 10 (without CY, MT) for emissions reported under CLRTAP 0,8 – 2,9 0,2 – 0,7 10,5 – 30,0 430 – ,2 – 3,5 1,4 – 3,8 1,1 – 2,2 1,2 – 2,3 0,9

7 Submissions comparison  CLRTAP/NEC with EC GHG monitoring mechanism  National totals (NOx, SOx, NMVOC, CO)  Years: all submitted years ( )

8 Inventory comparison - results

9 Implied emission factor test  only for Key sources as identified for Eastern and Western Europe  all years  IEF = Emission / Activity  Analysis with UNFCCC outlier tool Emission data reported under CLRTAP/NEC Most recent activity data reported under UNFCCC

10 Examples - IEF (time series) IEF sector 1A1a, gas CO IEF sector 1A2a, gas SOx

11 Lessons learned  Stage II review could highlight number of outliers and omissions which was found useful by all parties involved (helps to improve reporting and inventory quality )  Remaining problems in reporting;  Timeliness ( (deadlines 31 Dec NEC, 15 Feb LRTAP); NEC inventory needs to be sent parallel to EC and EEA as well)  Completeness, consistency, comparability (standard formats, all cells completed, check with RepDab )  Transparency (NFR) ; e.g. if figures in NEC and LRTAP inventory differ, full NFR tables should be sent for NEC not the same NFR as for LRTAP with some extra tables or explanatory notes, provide IIR

12 Conclusions /Recommendations  Improve data flow among different bodies  Broader distribution of review results to the countries  Provide countries with additional test outcomes and background information  E.g. Comparison of country values with ‘ranges  Proposals will be welcomed  Splitting the review process into 3 stages proved useful, it provides space for different type of tests  Review process is time and resource demanding for MS and for ETC ACC/EMEP  Review process needs to continue be standard part of inventory cycle