Review of national submissions 2006 Review of national submissions 2006 Stage II 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 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 howWhat 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 testCross pollutant test

Selected pollutants and sectors Latest available inventory year: 2004 Comparison to average ratios:

Eastern, and Western Europe – not to any model

Sector Ratio Background

National totals TSP : PM2.5, PM10

Fuel combustion TSP : PM2.5, PM10

Fuel combustion PM10 : Pb, Cd, Hg HM are part of PM10Transport NOx : NMVOC, CO, PM2.5 Constant ratio in exhaust gas

Transport NH3 : N2O Constant ratio due to catalyst

Agriculture NOx, NH3, N2O Microbial activity

Landfills NMVOC, NH3, CO Constant ratio in landfill gas

5

Cross Pollutant Test Results – EU15Cross Pollutant Test Results – EU15

EU 15 (without IT, ES, LU, GR) for emissions reported under CLRTAP

1,7 - 6,3

0,2 - 0,8

13 - 22

0,03 - 0,04

93 – 4.336

9.106 - 147.560

4.524 - 121.139

1,2 – 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

Pollutant ratio Sector

EU West AT BE DK FI FR DE IE NL PT SE GB

NOx/NMVOC Transport 2,54 6,26 2,99 - 1,66 1,94 4,34 2,03 2,00 2,18 2,23 4,13

NOx/CO Transport 0,37 0,77 0,41 - 0,23 0,30 0,43 0,26 0,46 0,35 0,28 0,44

NOx/PM2.5 Transport 17,19 18,04 16,64 - 14,30 12,61 22,16 14,39 14,68 13,85 17,35 20,88

NOx/NH3 Agriculture 0,03 - - - - - 0,04 - - - - -

PM10/PbFuel combustion

669,12 3.169,59 1.212,73 821,47 2.032,43 1.559,91 1.800,66 2.040,89 3.965,59 92,65 4.336,04 1.037,44

PM10/CdFuel combustion

27.110,90 26.413,87 35.844,94 9.106,18 42.128,37 40.465,42 13.102,55 26.603,68 67.833,45 11.529,63 147.559,95 23.103,16

PM10/HgFuel combustion

28.426,23 33.882,06 5.642,30 4.523,95 90.577,70 36.479,64 4.692,61 45.778,37 81.638,75 21.107,39 121.138,77 25.295,51

TSP/PM2.5Fuel combustion

1,85 1,64 13,32 1,26 1,84 1,63 1,54 2,08 1,23 2,14 1,89 -

TSP/PM2.5 National totals 3,14 3,52 9,43 1,89 2,08 4,60 2,10 2,11 1,99 3,17 1,92 -

TSP/PM10Fuel combustion

1,46 1,43 5,90 1,15 1,32 1,35 1,31 1,54 1,10 1,99 1,28 -

TSP/PM10 National totals 2,00 2,02 4,59 1,39 1,41 2,80 1,17 1,55 1,18 2,50 1,30 -

NMVOC/CO Landfills 0,85 0,01 - - - - - - - - - -

NMVOC/NH3 Landfills 2,54 30,00 - - - - - - - 2,61 - 1,61

CO/NH3 Landfills 2,75 2.265,05 - - - - - - - - - -

Ratio calculated from reported data

6

Cross Pollutant Test Results– EU10Cross 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 – 128.561

5.588 - 268246

9.434 - 606.489

1,2 – 3,5

1,4 – 3,8

1,1 – 2,2

1,2 – 2,3

0,9

Pollutant ratio SectorEU East CZ EE HU LV LT PL SK SI

NOx/NMVOC Transport 0,83 2,05 2,04 1,88 1,96 2,88 2,04 1,50 2,71

NOx/CO Transport 0,15 0,41 0,26 0,25 0,22 0,51 0,37 0,33 0,66

NOx/PM2.5 Transport 30,01 18,95 19,60 10,50 - 20,58 15,28 12,81 14,16

NOx/NH3 Agriculture 0,00 - - - - - - - -

PM10/PbFuel combustion

931,35 552,96 756,33 1.495,90 128.560,67 2.107,04 492,03 429,89 3.228,55

PM10/CdFuel combustion

10.425,30 14.804,18 48.703,07 17.651,95 268.246,28 29.040,22 5.677,33 5.587,52 6.457,09

PM10/HgFuel combustion

19.655,44 9.434,43 52.796,30 19.958,12 606.489,44 33.929,16 11.053,87 15.210,24 13.671,48

TSP/PM2.5Fuel combustion

3,48 2,82 2,01 2,95 1,19 1,68 2,78 1,87 2,09

TSP/PM2.5National totals

3,83 2,16 2,16 3,31 1,42 1,75 3,37 - 3,05

TSP/PM10Fuel combustion

2,01 2,23 1,54 1,72 1,10 1,37 1,41 1,44 1,82

TSP/PM10National totals

2,05 1,60 1,61 1,91 1,15 1,43 1,62 - 2,27

NMVOC/CO Landfills 0,93 - - - - - - - -

NMVOC/NH3 Landfills - - - - - - - - -

CO/NH3 Landfills - - - - - - - - -

Ratio calculated from reported data

7

Submissions comparisonSubmissions comparison

CLRTAP/NEC with EC GHG monitoring mechanism

National totals (NOx, SOx, NMVOC, CO)

Years: all submitted years (1990-2004)

8

Inventory comparison - resultsInventory comparison - resultsYears NOx SOx NMVOC CO Reason

Austria 1990-2004 0% 0% 0% 0%

Belgium1990; 1995; 2000-2004 5-8 % 1-6 % 9-25 % 3-19 %

Differences in sector 2 (Industrial processes)

Cyprus 2001-2003 1-23 % 0-11 % 0-9 % 5-8 %Czech Republic 2001-2004 0-1 % 0-1 % 0-0.1 % 3-6 %Denmark 1990-2004 0% 0% 0% 5 % (2004)Estonia 1990-2004 0.5-38 % 0.8-49 % 0.4-51 % 17-44 % Differences in various sectorsFinland 2001-2004 0-5 % 0-7 % 0-2 % 1-3 %

France 1990-2004 0-3 % 3-14 % 53-94 % 6-11 %Overseas terretories included in CRF5E reported as memo item in NFR

Germany 1990-2004 0-0.7 % < 0.1 % 1-3 %11 %

(2004)Greece 2004 0% 4% < 0.1 % 81% Differences mainly in sector 1A4Hungary 2002-2004 0-17 % 0-2 % 0.3-9 % 0-7 %Ireland 2001-2004 2-14 % 0-0.6 % 6-19 % 0-1 %Italy 1990-2003 0% < 0.1 % 0.1-0.5 % 0%

Latvia 1990-2004 0.5-1 % 0-3 % 0-6 % 0-0.4 %

Latvia: no significant differences in

resubmission (May 15th)Lithuania 2002-2004 1-16 % 0.1-16 % 1-48 % 0.5-2 %

Netherlands1990; 1995; 1998-2004 1-5 % 0.4-14 % 5-17 % 1-5 % Differences in various sectors

Poland 2001-2004 0% 0-0.3 % 0% 0-26 %

Portugal 1990-2004 0-2 % 0% 2-8 % 4-37 %Differences in road transportation5E reported as memo item in NFR

Slovakia 2000-2004 0-4 % 0% 0-4 % 0-7 %

Slovenia 2000-2004 32-99 % 81-92 % 9-50 % 19-80 %No emissions from 1A reported in CRF (2004)

Spain 1990-2003 1% < 0.1 % 0% 0%Sweden 1990-2004 0% 0% 0% 0%UK 1990-2004 0.5 % 0% 0.1-0.2 % 0.1-0.4 %

9

Implied emission factor testImplied emission factor test

only for Key sources as identified for Eastern and Western Europe

all years 1990-2004IEF = 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)Examples - IEF (time series)

GB

0

0,01

0,02

0,03

0,04

0,05

0,06

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004C

O Im

plie

d e

mis

sio

n f

acto

r, t

/TJ

IEF sector 1A1a, gas CO

Minimum and Maximum (by Parties)

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

AT BE

DK FI

FR

DE

GR IE IT LU NL

PT

ES

SE

GB

SO

x Im

plie

d e

mis

sio

n f

acto

r, t

/TJ

Min

Max

IEF sector 1A2a, gas SOx

11

Lessons learnedLessons 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 /RecommendationsConclusions /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