1. Hugo Denier van der Gon Hugo Denier van der Gon, Maarten van het Bolscher & Antoon Visschedijk Uncertainties in POP emission data

2. UNECE TFEIP November 2006Uncertainties in POP emission data2 Background & Introduction TNO study 2003-2006 “Emission reduction resulting from the implementation of the UNECE HM and POP protocols” Emission inventory results presented at TFEIP Workshop Rovaniemi, 2005 Commitment to contribute to 2006 review “Evaluation of inventories of HMs and POPs” (in: Vestreng et al., MSC-W Technical Report, 2006.) This presentation summarizes POP evaluation section in the report and ends with some ideas about future work

3. UNECE TFEIP November 2006Uncertainties in POP emission data3 POP Emissions UNECE Europe for 2000 and projected emissions following two policy scenarios (TNO, 2005). CR = current ratification; FI = full implementation all countries Methodology documented in Denier van der Gon et al., TNO report 2005/194 (Tonnes/yr, PCDD/f in kg Teq/yr) To obtain a complete inventory official and unofficial data are mixed; Some uncertainties & who’s problem are they?: Are all sources covered? Consistency between official data? Consistency in present & past estimates and projections! Nobody wants to be the emission policeman!

4. UNECE TFEIP November 2006Uncertainties in POP emission data4 Case study - Comparison of national total PCDD/F emissions between unofficial/research and official reported data Note: Official reported data for year 2000 or closest year if 2000 emission data not available; CY -2003, EE - 2002 and LT -2003.

5. UNECE TFEIP November 2006Uncertainties in POP emission data5 Comparison of national total PCDD/F emissions “unofficial /research” estimates VS official reported data Research estimates consistently higher than the officially submitted data (except 1 country – but after 2002 lower). All country estimates are within the unofficial estimate uncertainty boundaries (except 2 countries) A review of sources covered will result in identification of omitted sources and/or identification single large discrepancies Uncertainty approach gives confidence in overall importance (e.g., 13 countries 3.3 kg Teq/yr range (1.2 - 7.4) (Total UNECE-Europe 2000 = ~ 12 kg Teq/yr (TNO, 2005)) Most important!: Combination of external estimates and official data may be a quick step forward if the “right” procedure could be invented

6. UNECE TFEIP November 2006Uncertainties in POP emission data6 Official emission data POP emission inventory for year 2000 is based on official emissions and research / default estimates to fill gaps. EMEP Status Report 3/2006: Official data on the emission totals of PAHs, PCDD/Fs, HCB, PCBs and HCH for the period from 1990 to 2004 (for at least one year) were reported by 36 countries. Reason for differences? year 2000 & sector splits needed, indicator compounds needed – not total PAHs Truth is in between -> with concerted action (national experts + topic experts) it could be much better.

7. UNECE TFEIP November 2006Uncertainties in POP emission data7 Future developments Remaining emissions after full implementation of POP Protocol Emissions of substances (possibly) proposed for addition But first….more complete reporting of POPs?! For each POP the emissions are dominated by 1-2 source sectors (contributions > 10% are highlighted). The important sectors differ by POP.

8. UNECE TFEIP November 2006Uncertainties in POP emission data8 2020 UNECE Europe emission of substances (possibly) proposed for addition in 2020 before and after possible revision of the POP Protocol, and costs Source: Denier van der Gon et al., TNO report 2006/187

9. UNECE TFEIP November 2006Uncertainties in POP emission data9 Future work – Current results can be the starting point for targeted and / or concerted actions Further complete official reporting – use default emission factors – improve where better data available. What is blocking progress? How to most effectively use the national expert knowledge? Action by substance? – e.g. PAHs Improvements in POP/ new substance emissions through more detailed country product usage data (e.g., for pesticides) For some substances emission factor determination should be put on the agenda (e.g., emission from in-use products) Transparency & maintenance of emission data!!! E.g., Sector level estimates (incl. reporting zero emissions), removal old estimates A programme (under TFEIP?) were general and national expert/focal points cooperate?

10. UNECE TFEIP November 2006Uncertainties in POP emission data10 Thank you for your attention & Please note: Phase II reports – Emission reduction and cost of a possible revision of the HM & POP Protocols finalised in August 2006, presented in WGSR Report requests: hugo.deniervandergon@tno.nlhugo.deniervandergon@tno.nl Or download from: www.tno.nl/HM_POP