1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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