Review of CLRTAP and NECD inventories 2016 Katarina Mareckova, Robert Wankmueller, Marion Pinteris, Sabine Schindlbacher, Melanie Tista CEIP, ETC/ACM 17 May 2016, Zagreb

Technical review of AE inventories Initial checks – formal criteria (timeliness, completeness,..)- all countries Extended checks – consistency, comparability, recalculations, KCA, trends, .. (national totals, (GNFR), pollutants)- all countries In-depth review – consistency, comparability, recalculations, KCA, accuracy (NFR sectoral level) -selected countries (up to10 annually) Findings provided via http://www.ceip.at/review_results/ , in CEIP/EEA Technical report and in country reports All submitted inventories are reviewed CEIP 10.11.2018

Timeliness, completeness, resubmissions, documentation http://www.ceip.at//status_reporting/2015_submissions/ CEIP 10.11.2018

Status of reporting 2016 as of 30.4.2016 Over the last 7 years, timeliness and completeness of reporting has improved: In 2008, the first year in which the annual inventory review took place, 30 Parties reported CLRTAP data, this number rose to 43 in 2015. In 2008, 70% of the EU Member States provided NECD data by the required reporting deadline. In 2015, the percentage was 89%. In 2015, major pollutants (CLRTAP) were reported by 44 Parties compared to 40 in 2008. 66% of the Parties submitted an Informative Inventory Report (IIR) with their CLRTAP submission in 2008 and 73% in 2015. 26 Parties have provided emission projections for the year 2020(submitted either in 2015, 2014, 2013 or in 2012). Black Carbon (BC) was voluntarily reported for the first time in 2015 by 28 countries, of which 11 reported time series from 2000. 86% CEIP 10.11.2018

Status of reporting 2016 cont. CEIP 10.11.2018

Persisting challenges In 2008, the first year in which the annual inventory review took place, 30 Parties reported CLRTAP data, this number rose to 44 in 2016 (from 51). Not complete inventories : “NE” sectors, pollutants, years Inconsistent time series Significant recalculations Differences between CLRTAP and NECD inventories Potential inconsistencies in reporting across countries Missing/ not complete documentation No / limited feedback from countries CEIP 10.11.2018

Completeness of CLRTAP submissions EMEP West area (EU + EFTA + WB) CEIP 10.11.2018

Recalculations (example of 2005 data) Persisting problem HU BE BG DK LT CEIP 10.11.2018

Comparison of PM10 with PM2,5 emissions 45% - 80% CEIP 10.11.2018

Comparison of CLRTAP and NECD inventories (>= +-5%) Geographic coverage : Spain, France, Portugal Austria, Lux (CLRTAP fuel sold, NECD fuel used. On the other side UK, NL apparently report fuels used also under CLRTAP CLRTAP: For emissions from transport, all Parties should calculate emissions consistent with national energy balances reported to Eurostat or the International Energy Agency. Emissions from road vehicle transport should therefore be calculated on the basis of the fuel sold in the Party concerned. In addition, Parties may voluntarily calculate emissions from road vehicles based on fuel used or kilometres driven in the geographic area of the Party. The method for the estimate(s) should be clearly specified in the IIR. Difference between CLRTAP and NECD: 100*[(CLRTAP-NECD)/CLRTAP] - Minus value indicates that NECD is higher CEIP 10.11.2018

Findings of checks are published http://www.ceip.at/review_results/review_results_2016/ CEIP 10.11.2018

In depth review of national inventories In depth review 2015 (S3): 9 countries 2 ERTs / 22 reviewers (including adjustment review) All 9 country reports completed by ERT and sent to countries for comments 7 countries good communication with ERT CEIP 10.11.2018

In-depth review 2015 - key findings Azerbaijan, Belarus*, Czech rep., Ireland, Moldova, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine* C1 – inventory of good quality, improvements comparing to previous review , good documentation, CLRTAP transport emissions based on fuel used C2 – inventory of good quality, improvements comparing to previous review , good documentation, comprehensive recalculations, uncertainty analyses, 0 values in NFR, not always appropriate use of “NK” C3 – inventory of good quality, transparent, improvements comparing to previous version, recalculations consistent across years , frequently used Tier 1 for KC C4- inventory generally in line with the Guidebook, improvements comparing to previous review , in IIR missing some sections C5 – there are improvements for 2000-2013, but 1990 -1999 just national totals, inventory not complete, limited transparency, IIR not consistent with template, transparency not sufficient NL, IR, CZ, SK, AZ, MD, UA, BU - the ERTs noted that “underestimations of emissions are likely, for several different reasons” NL Emissions under the reporting thresholds of Dutch PRTR system are not included in the inventory NL, IR, CZ, SK, AZ, MD, UA, BU - the ERTs noted that underestimations of emissions are likely, for several different reasons NL, CZ, IR, SK, SL AZ, MD - good cooperation with review team CEIP 10.11.2018

In-depth review (S3) / plan Long term plan, 2013 – 2018, proposal updated 05-10-2015 http://www.ceip.at/review_process/stage3_review_ae/ Armenia - just Pb for limited sectors Note: Red font – no data within last 3 years 10.11.2018

In depth review of national inventories In depth review 2016(S3): 10 countries 2 ERTs / 22 reviewers (including adjustment review) No. of experts per country participating in S3 review 146 experts in 10 years 24 countries up to 2016 CEIP 10.11.2018

Roster of experts (as of 30/04/2016) 23 countries / 84 experts (11 left) http://www.ceip.at/review_process/ CEIP 10.11.2018

Adjustment review 2016 New applications Luxembourg / agriculture Germany / agriculture Germany / transport (significant recalculations) Approved adjustments : 7 countries (BE, DK, DE, FI, FR, LU, ES)

Review of 2015 applications - ERT recommendations to the EMEP SB Country Sector NFR Pollutant Years ERT recommendation Belgium   Road transport 1A3bi-iv NOx 2010–2013 Accept Manure management 3B Agricultural soils 3Da1, 3Da2a NMVOC Cultivated crops 3De Denmark Finland Stationary combustion 1A2gviii,1A4ai, 1A4bi, 1A4ci NH3 Manure management, Reject France Germany Luxembourg Spain 1A3bi, 1A3biii 2010–2012 Note: Adjustment application of France for sector Mobile machinery (NFR categories 1A2gvii, 1A4aii) has been withdrawn by country.

Review of applications approved 2014 The adjusted emissions reported by Denmark for 2010–2012 are identical to the values approved in 2014. The quantities reported by Germany differ by between 0.13 per cent and 0.57 per cent compared with those approved in 2014. The ERT assessed the reported data and concluded that the adjustments met all of the requirements laid out in Executive Body decision 2012/12 and in the Technical Guidance, and therefore recommended that the EMEP Steering Body accept the reported adjustments for both Denmark and Germany Emission adjustments approved in 2014, as reported by countries in 2015 (kt) The adjusted emissions reported by Denmark for 2010–2012 are identical to the values approved in 2014. The quantities reported by Germany differ by between 0.13 per cent and 0.57 per cent compared with those approved in 2014.

Summary Some countries mixed reporting of approved adjustments and new adjustment applications Timeliness of reporting - crucial, status report for EMEP SB is due by the end of June, country review reports have to be finalised before EMEP SB meeting in Sept Notification form - Parties shell provide information on planned adj. application per sector and pollutant by 15 February Completeness and relevancy of adjustment applications submitted in 2015 improved compared with 2014, but still in each of the 7 applications the CEIP and /or ERT determined that additional information was needed from the Party to enable a sufficiently detailed review The updated and more comprehensive guidance (including case studies) assisted the Parties and the ERT with the review process