1. Energy Data Harmonisation Project N. Roubanis Eurostat

2. Project history  In the joint Energy and Environment statistics Committee of 2000 the need to validate the energy data used for the inventories with the official energy statistics of Member States was discussed  Member States expressed their willingness to evaluate the coherence of data supplied to Eurostat via the Joint Questionnaire with those submitted to the Commission under the Greenhouse- Gas-Emissions Monitoring Mechanism  Eurostat initiated a series of grants to assist Member States fulfilling this task

3. Project Objectives  To explain the differences between the two submissions looking at basic energy data used, conversion factors and the resulting CO 2 emissions as well as methodologies used in data reporting  To establish a procedure at national level in agreement with Eurostat that will eliminate discrepancies in the two reporting mechanisms in future  To provide the updated energy data in the form of joint annual questionnaires for the period 1990-2000 ensuring comparable data for the two reporting mechanisms.

4. Improvements in the Joint questionnaires  Introduction of time series  Reporting of non-energy use  Introduction of renewables and waste questionnaire  Introduction of autoproducers tables  Revision of the methodological note  A new energy statistics manual is under preparation

5.  Member States which have submitted the project results:  Denmark, Sweden, United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Austria, Portugal and Germany  Member States expected to submit results in the coming months:  France, Italy, Ireland  Member States that applied for a grant this year:  Greece and Spain Progress so far

6.  Revisions of basic data  Calorific values and emission factors  Classification/aggregation of fuels  Different interpretation of basic data  Communication and timing  Other methodological differences Problems observed

7.  Increased awareness on the use of energy statistics  Overall improvement of basic data reporting  Improved communication at national and international level  Methodological differences are pointed out  Further action is required to harmonise reporting Conclusions