National System and QA/QC: The Netherlands

1
National System and QA/QC The Netherlands

• Workshop UNFCCC
• Bonn, April 2005
• Dirk Both (SenterNovem)

2
Overview presentation

• National system
• developments
• QA/QC
• general approach taken
• monitoring protocols
• Quality control
• elements, experiences
• Quality assurance
• elements, experiences
• Evaluation and improvement
• continuous improvement, remaining start-up
• Conclusions

3
National System - Developments

• Historical situation
• Pollution Emission Register (PER) for all
  emissions to water, air and soil
• Over many years, gradually extended
• Task Forces per (group of) sectors
• Co-operation between various Ministries and
  institutes (e.g. RIVM, CBS/Statistics, TNO, WUR,
  AOO, etc.)
• Responsibilities divided over organizations

4
National System - Developments

• Assessment (around 2001) for GHG emissions
• System not yet sufficient to comply with KP
  requirements
• Expert workshopsgt changes in methods required,
  white spots
• Since 1997 ISO parts of process. Study compared
  QA/QC with requirements under KP gt additional
  actions needed
• Documentation not always sufficiently transparent
• Changes since 2001 for GHG emissions and sinks
• Improvement program (QA/QC National System)
  since 2001. SenterNovem assigned coordination of
  this program up to 2006
• Reorganization of PER in 2004 (RIVM)

5
National System - Developments Present main
structure
6
QA/QC - General approach taken

• Improvement program QA/QCNational System
• Bring methods in line with KP requirements
• (Quality) improvement projects gt better data
  quality/methods
• Define, plan describe methods, processes, tasks
  and responsibilities
• Monitoring Protocols
• Improve further QA/QC, where needed
• Routine control during inventory preparation gt
  Quality control
• Further assuring quality of inventory process gt
  Quality assurance
• Enable continuous improvement
• Evaluation and improvement cycle
• Coordination by SenterNovem for Ministry of
  Environment (VROM).
• Guidance by advisory committee

7
QA/QC - General approach taken

• QA/QC programme, includes
• Approach and objectives
• Aim to comply with KP requirements
• Aim at continuous improvement
• Follow TCCCA principles
• Includes also start-up activities (to timely
  comply with KP reqs.)
• Key element in NL for quality improvement
  monitoring protocols
• QA/QC activities (plan)
• Quality control
• Quality assurance
• Documentation and archiving
• (not further elaborated in this presentation)
• Evaluation and improvement (incl. improvement
  plan)
• Annually to be updated

8
QA/QC - General approach taken

• Monitoring Protocols
• More general QA/QC character
• Elements a.o.
• Source characteristics in NL
• Methodologies, work process
• AD sources, EF background
• Source specific QA/QC
• Uncertainty information
• Other relevant references/background documents
• Legal basis planned
• Elaborated with involved sectors/organisations,
  co-ordinated by SenterNovem
• Primarily for key sources also short version
  for non-key sources

9
QA/QC - General approach taken

• Monitoring Protocols (ctd)
• Experiences
• Process takes time in initial phase, but it
  proved
• Instrumental in assessing situation (relative to
  KP requirements), setting priorities and further
  (QA/QC) improvements
• Instrumental in transparency and consistency (in
  time)
• assesses actuality and completeness of
  documentation
• increases transparency (easier communication,
  facilitates reviews, increases reproducibility
  and training options, etc.)
• now also under preparation for non GHG emissions
• Instrumental in defining tasks, responsibilities,
  risk management
• Will be placed on www.greenhousegases.nl

10
Quality Control

• Main elements
• Monitoring Protocols (see earlier sheets)
• Update of QA/QC of outside agencies (on-going)
• General QC Procedures (Tier 1)
• Source-specific QC procedures (Tier 2)
• General QC procedures (Tier 1)
• Existing procedures adapted to meet GPG
  requirements
• Implementation as part of
• Release process of Protocols e.g. checks on
  applicability of country specific EF, on
  completeness of documentation, etc.
• Annual checks of data and calculations e.g. in
  trend workshops
• Using supporting check forms (preferably embedded
  in normal process, thus specific )
• Sampling process to be defined in annual overall
  work plans.

11
Quality Control

• Some examples of data checks
• Related to completeness, emission level and
  errors
• By staff from Task Forces covers also the CRF
  data set
• Some automated checks (on completeness and
  consistency)
• Levels per sector per year compared with previous
  year
• Trend analysis workshops of Task Forces together
• If significant differences gt checks on more
  detailed level (sub-sector, process related
  emissions, EF, AD)
• Checks on country specific emission factors
• Annually for industry --gt comparing with
  defaults.
• For energy/traffic --gt measurements
• Expert judgements where needed, additional
  research
• Source specific QA/QC (Tier 2)
• Elaborated and described in monitoring protocols

12
Quality Assurance

• Elements
• Basic peer review
• Public review
• Other reviews (EU process, etc.)
• Verification
• Audits
• Basic peer review of inventory
• In part done in Trend Analysis workshops
• Also annual Peer Review for NIR 2005 in February
  2005 planning of Peer Review interacts with EU
  MM process
• Public review of draft NIR
• Public review yearly since 2003

13
Quality Assurance

• Other reviews
• Extensive reviews
• As part of protocol process and improvement
  programme, many sectors have been assessed in
  past few years
• Further updating schedule in QAQC programme
• Review within EU process
• Mutual review with Belgium under preparation
• Reconnaissance of further collaborative review in
  future
• Verification
• Depending on data availability. Further assessed.
• Audits
• Under study
• Planned further adapting PER ISO system to new
  organisation ER

14
Evaluation and improvement

• Includes
• improvement projects (from start-up phase)
• Aimed to timely comply with KP requirements
• annual evaluation and improvement cycle
• Aimed at continuous improvement
• Inputs mentioned reviews, experiences, UNFCCC
  reviews
• Improvement Projects (start-up) e.g.
• Improved method CO2 emissions from combustion
  (transparency, consistency)
• Re-evaluated CO2 emission factors fuels
  (transparency, accuracy)
• Improved distinction nationalltgtinternational
  shipping (comparability)
• Tier 2 method CO2 from feedstock (accuracy)
• Tier 2 method CH4 from enteric fermentation
  cattle (accuracy)
• Updating CH4 emissions from landfills and waste
  water treatment plants (accuracy)
• Identification of significant non-CO2 sources
  (completeness)
• Assessment and solving white spots for
  sinks/LULUCF monitoring (completeness)

15
Evaluation and improvement

• Improvement actions (ongoing)
• Improvement projects
• Updating uncertainty analyses
• Protocols
• Further checks and upgrades, where needed, before
  next round
• QA/QC Programme
• Update before next round
• To be placed on website
• Strengthening institutional and legal basis
• Covenants with data suppliers (partially
  realised)
• Legal basis for Protocols (planned for September
  2005)

16
Finally.

• Most QAQC resources needed at start-up phases of
  QAQC improvement.
• Many actions after first phases to be fully
  integrated in annual work plans of involved
  organisations
• Focus was needed on strengthening various QAQC
  elements

Source DHV