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

2. 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 , in CEIP/EEA Technical report and in country reports
All submitted inventories are reviewed
CEIP

3. Timeliness, completeness, resubmissions, documentation
CEIP

4. 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

5. Status of reporting 2016 cont.
CEIP

6. 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

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

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

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

10. 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

11. Findings of checks are published
CEIP

12. 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

13. 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 , but 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

14. In-depth review (S3) / plan
Long term plan, 2013 – 2018, proposal updated
Armenia - just Pb for limited sectors
Note: Red font – no data within last 3 years

15. 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

16. Roster of experts (as of 30/04/2016)
23 countries / 84 experts (11 left)
CEIP

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

18. 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.

19. 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 The quantities reported by Germany differ by between 0.13 per cent and 0.57 per cent compared with those approved in 2014.

20. 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