1. EEA priority data flow review of national submissions 2007 preliminary results EEA priority data flow review of national submissions 2007 preliminary results Katarina Mareckova, Elisabeth Kampel, Michael Gager, ETC-ACC (UBA-V) Dessau, May 2007

2. 2 Main objectives of review (stage I + II)  Main objective of the review process is to encourage and support inventory improvements, the quality of national inventories (NECD 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) Geographical coverage: LRTAP (east, west, EU)

3. 3 Timeliness, Completeness- NECD inventories  Deadline for reporting for 25 MS: 31 Dec 2006  16 MS reported on time  23 MS reported inventories 2004 and 2005 (minimum reporting)  11 MS inventories in standardized NFR format  updated projections not provided by 3 MS, 1 MS provisional projections

4. 4 NECD inventory sources used in report and review (status of 19 April 2007)

5. 5 EEA Priority data flow – LRTAP inventories EEA Priority data flow – LRTAP inventories

6. 6 What is reviewed in stage II and how  What  LRTAP inventories, (IIR)  NECD inventories (2001/81/EC):  (EC GHG monitoring mechanism inventories, 280/2004/EC )  Stage II tests performed 2007  Xpollutant test (additional sectors included in 2006)  Comparisons of different submissions CLRTAP/NECD with GHG inventories  Comparison of sectoral and national totals (NECD)  IEF test using the UNFCCC outlier tool (based on results of Key source analyses)

7. 7 Cross pollutant test  Selected pollutants and sectors  Latest available inventory year: 2005  Comparison to average ratios:  Eastern, and Western Europe – not to any model

8. 4B + 4D1NEC 2005CLRTAP 2005 NH3 [Gg]N2O [Gg]NH3/N2ONH3 [Gg]N2O [Gg]NH3/N2O Austria60.311.95.160.311.95.1 Belgium68.515.54.468.515.54.4 Bulgaria NA 36.40.0 Cyprus5.31.24.55.31.24.5 Czech Republic67.015.74.3#NV15.7#NV Denmark8.120.10.4#NV20.1#NV Estonia8.73.92.38.73.92.2 Finland32.012.02.731.812.02.6 France707.9176.24.0707.9176.24.0 Germany590.2131.94.5590.2131.94.5 Greece*0.025.70.0 25.70.0 Hungaryno sectoral data27.1#WERT!78.027.12.9 Ireland110.123.24.8110.123.24.8 Italy**391.072.05.4400.272.05.6 Latvia13.54.13.313.54.13.3 Lithuania38.98.54.638.98.54.6 Luxembourg*no sectoral data#WERT! 0.0#WERT! Malta1.0no CRF#WERT!1.0no CRF#WERT! Netherlands109.830.23.6109.830.23.6 Poland314.672.24.4314.672.24.4 Portugal59.712.44.859.712.44.8 RomaniaNA 152.8na Slovakia25.88.82.925.88.82.9 Slovenia17.32.96.017.32.96.0 Spain**366.971.25.2385.371.25.4 Sweden46.217.02.746.217.02.7 UK283.685.13.3283.685.13.3 EU152,570.9704.53.62,853.6704.54.1 EU 12491.1117.24.2424.1117.23.6 EU-273,062.0821.73.73,277.7821.74.0

9. 9 Submissions comparison  CLRTAP/NECD with EC GHG monitoring mechanism  National totals (NOx, SOx, NMVOC, CO)  Years: all submitted years (1990-2005 where available, resp. 2004 and 2005 for NECD)

10. type the subject in footer (View|Header and Footer) CLRTAP-UNFCCC; difference in intervals [%] YearsNOxSOxNMVOCCOComment Austria 1990-20050000 Belgium 1990-95, 2000-05 2; 229; 421; 4 Bulgaria 2001-0431; 4138; 4648; 52-16;-7 Cyprus 1990-2004-51,-8-9, +29-9; +2-22; +7.2CRF 2005 missing Czech R. 2001-05-19; -0.1-17; -3-8; +0.1-4; +0.4 Denmark 1990-20050000 Estonia 1990-2005-44; -9-27; +1828; 54-96; -17 Finland 2001-05-0.4; + 0.990.7; 4.7-3; -5-9.9; 0.8 France 1990-2005-0.5; +0.9-5; -9-44; -83-18; -67 Germany 1990-20052.4; 2.60.2>-0.4; +0.2-15, -3.7 Greece nnnnn data for comparisons NA Hungary 2002-05-17.3,+ 0.01-0.1; +7.5-9; +0.9-15; -0.1 Ireland 90-20051.5; 2.51.1; 2.33.4; 6-0.1; 0.2 Italy 1990-2005-1.6; -0.10.1>-8; -120.4> Latvia 1990-20040.1> 0 Lithuania 2000-053.3 ;7.90.6; 2.7-2.6; +163.3; 11 Luxembourg nnnnn data for comparisons NA Netherlands 1990-2005-0.2; +16-0.4; +9-0.4; +4-4.4; +21 Malta nnnnn data for comparisons NA Poland 2001-05-1.6; +500.3; +70-0.8; +37-0.1; -25 Portugal 1990-05-3.8; 4.9-31; -0.8-1074; +36-0.1; 0.3 Romania nnnnn data for comparisons NA Slovakia 2000-200500-4.490only in 2002 Slovenia 2000-2005-1.80.1>03.5> Spain n nnnnnot submitted inventories Sweden 1990-2005-0.1>000 UK 90-20050.2>0.5>0.1>0

11. 11 Implied emission factor test  Criteria for selection to the country report:  Trend - change of IEF between 2 years is > 50%  IEF out of range at least by order of magnitude  only for Key sources as identified for Eastern and Western Europe  all years 1990-2005  IEF = Emission / Activity  Analysis with UNFCCC outlier tool- limited to EU27 MS Emission data reported under CLRTAP/NEC Most recent activity data reported under UNFCCC

12. 12 Examples - IEF (time series) IEF sector 4D1, gas VOC

13. 13 Example of findings

14. 14 Challenges for review teams  Timeliness – (delayed reporting by almost 50% of countries, resubmissions..)  Completeness (not complete trends, missing sectoral emissions,… missing projections,..)  Comparability & Consistency  Formats – mainly NECD – more than half of MS do not report in standardized NFR format, projections not in NFR tables  Different reporting obligations by countries (EU/non-EU; A1/non- A1;..  outliers, gaps  Transparency – (e.g. what is included – not included in national totals, projections WM or BAU?)

15. 15 Conclusions /Recommendations  Review process needs to continue be a standard part of inventory cycle  Review process is time and resource demanding for countries and for ETC ACC/EMEP  Review procedures need further elaboration (e.g. automated outputs of tests, evaluation of usefulness, provision of scientific background, record keeping of comments,… )  Reporting of countries improved

16. 16 Questions for expert panels and countries Setting up priorities for the next review cycle  Do test help to identify problems in reported inventories? Which tests proved to be useful ?  Do we need all the tests? (increase efficiency, avoid double work,…)  Should we invent another type of testing ? Which elements of inventory are not covered by actual tests ? What other data can be used to make comparisons across countries?  Are east/west/EU averages and/or intervals useful for comparisons ? Another grouping of countries?  Scientific value of tests ? Can we provide explanation?  How much can be IIR used in Stage II  How meaningfully aggregate test results to indicate inventory quality – what can be part of Stage II what Stage III ?