2005 EMISSION REVIEW Preliminary Results

1
2005 EMISSION REVIEWPreliminary Results

• Vigdis Vestreng, Met.no/MSC-W
• TFEIP 6-7 June 2005, Copenhagen

2
Overview

• Review program
• Developments 2004-2005
• Compliance tests
• Timelinessformats
• Completeness
• Consistency
• Key source analysis
• Comparability tests
• Cross Pollutant. New!
• Re-calculation
• Inventory comparison (LRTAP-NEC)
• Timeseries, Martin Adams, AEA-T
• IEFs, Martin Adams, AEA-T
• Transparency Accuracy
• Conclusions

3
Annual review - Review Procedures

• Submission deadline 15 Feb. 2005 (Parties)
• Initial checking at UNECE Secretatiat (Brinda)
• Acknowledgement/Reminder to Parties (Brinda)
• Emission data to EMEP Centres 10th March 2005
• SyntAss Part I Web 26th May 2005 (Vigdis)
• Replies to SyntAss Part I 1 July 2005 (Parties)
• SyntAss Part II EEA/EMEP Report 15 July
• (VigdisMartin)

4
Developments 2004-2005

• New version of reporting template (V-2004-1)
• MSC-W has developed programs for key source
  analysis and for testing of Completeness,
  Consistency, Cross Pollutant ratios,
  Recalculations and Inventory comparisons
• AEA-T/ETC-ACC has performed Timeseries checks and
  IEF calculations
• SyntAss Part I ONE shareable document,
• 1 month response time (extended from last yr)

5
Timeliness format 2005 Reporting33 reported,
17 in 2004 format, 1 in own format, 24 within
deadline (left)
67 included in review, up 2
49 within deadline, down 6
6
COMPLETENESS 2003 reporting (Sorted by total)
84 within 80 completeness ! BUT..
7
Completeness Emissions values(All pollutants
included)
Average over all countries 12
8
Completeness Values reported per pollutant
9
Pollutant without reported emissions

• 38 pollutants zero values for all reporting
  Parties All Annex I POPs (Aldrin, Chlordan,
  Chlordecone, Dieldrin, Endrin, Heptachlor,
  Hexabromo-biphenyl, Mirex, Toxaphene, Annex II
  POPs (DDT ), Additional reporting (SCCP)
• Emissions occur from a maxium of 27 pollutants.

10
Completeness Percent values per sector of
reported data. Average for all countries
Most values Totals, 1A1a, 1A2, 1A3b, 1A4a (PP,
Manufacturing, Traffic, Other Com./Inst. Plants)
No values 4B2, 4B5, X (Buffalos, Camels/Lamas,
Volcanoes)
11
Completeness of 2003 National totals
Range 6-63 of total
12
Internal CONSISTENCY
41 consistent!!
75 within 80 consistency
13
Least aggregated sectors contributing to 95 of
reported national totalsEU-18
14
Comparability tests Cross Pollutant
15
Re-calculation

• Differences between NATIONAL TOTAL emissions from
  two reporting years (2005-2004) larger than 10
• Flagged ALL PARTIES (EXCEPT US) WHERE IT WAS
  POSSIBLE TO TEST 13 PARTIES
• AT, BE, CA, DE, DK, ES, FR, GB, LV, NL, NO, SE,
  SK

16
Re-calculation Few pollutant example
17
Inventory comparison (LRTAP-NEC)

• 12 possible comparisons, 6 with differences
  larger than 3

Many more and larger differences from last yr (10
occurancec less than 3 ).
18
Timeseries IEFs

• Martin Adams

19
TRANSPARENCEY ACCURACY

• 11 IIRs received AT, SE, SI, BG, CZ, DK, MD,
  FI, CY, BE, BY
• 18 Parties reported the Extensions and Footnotes
  sheets. Of those, less than half provided any
  information on NE, IE, Other, FS (2), FU (2),
  FSFU (3)
• Prefilled NAs removed for 11 of 17 Parties.
  Replaced by other notation keys (mostly NO or
  blanks ). SI report C. No consequences for
  template? More prefilled NAs?
• Lack of independant estimates to compare with
  (Pacyna / Berdowski/ TNO/IIASA not really
  independent?)

20
Extentions Footnotes
21
Other messages to the Parties

• Report all sectors (also the aggregated sectors).
• BE, DK, FI, HU, MC do not report aggregated.
• Do not report blanks
• Do not report zeros instead of notation keys
• PCB littles reporting, WHY?
• DK uses NR (only country)
• NL diff .between SNAP and 2002 GL Only country.
• NEC larger, includes international inland
  shipping Civil Aviation (Domestic, LOT)
• Difference in notaionkeys reported to NEC and
  LRTAP (NL)
• PM10 smaller than PM2.5 (DE 1A3b, IE 1A4b)
• TR no totals reported
• Report to NEC and not to LRTAP and visa versa (PT)

22
Conclusions - I

• Review testing and SyntAss has been improved
• No need to make editorial changes to template in
  2005
• Timeliness can still be improved!
• Completeness and consistency is generally good
  but no reason why they should not be 100
• Emission values reporting is low
• Average 12 values reported.
• Max 66 values (FR PMs).
• Maximun of 57 values reported in one sector
  (TOTAL).
• Only three sectors does not have any reported
  values
• Still large differences in the use of notation
  keys despite Parties apparently use the same
  definitions
• Reporting of NATIONAL TOTAL 2003 ranging from
  6-63 of total number of Parties.

23
Conclusions - II

• Key source analysis for EU-18 (and each
  individual Party) can help Parties prioritize
  where to start estimating or reducing emissions
• Comparability tests
• Cross Pollutant strong test 2-3 ratios
  flagged
• Many and large Re-calculation are detected (no
  explanation)
• 6 (50) countries included in Inventory
  Comparison had differences larger than 3

24
Conclusions - III

• Underreporting of IIRs and Footnotes
• Almost no reporting of unceratinty
• Difficult to find independant expert estimates
  and to judge the accuracy of the reported
  emissions.

25
Extras
26
NL. Aviation why higher in nec?

• From last years review it became clear that the
  differences seen in the submission from the
  Netherlands (-18 difference for SOx) to the
  LRTAP and the NEC is due to the different
  definitions of the 1997 and the 2002 Guidelines
  (2002 GL). The emissions reported to the NEC for
  the sectors 1 A 3 a ii (i) Civil Aviation
  (Domestic, LTO) and 1 A 3 d ii National
  Navigation, are higher than those reported to the
  LRTAP in particularly for SOx and NOx, as shown
  in the table above. The difference between the
  Guidelines with respect to the domestic
  transport, is only reflected in the submission
  from the Netherlands?? And maybe Estonia?? The
  other Parties report the same totals according to
  the 2002 GL as to the 1997 GL.

27
Delete? 2003 reporting - Notation key usage.
Sorted by value
28
Key source analysis EU-18
29
Extentions Footnotes

• 18 Parties Reported the 2 extra sheets
• Less than half of those Parties provided any
  information on Extentions, NE, IEOther
• The definitions of notation key were said to be
  used in accordance with the Guidelines
  definition
• FS (2), FU (2), FSFU (3)