1

Reporting under the NEC DirectiveReporting under the NEC Directive

Joint TFEIP/EIONET 19-20 October 2004

Andreas Barkman (EEA)

2

Outline…Outline…

• Status of reporting due 31 Dec 2003• Why harmonize reporting?

3

Observed issues in NEC reportingObserved issues in NEC reporting• Much better reporting in NFR!But……• Not in time• Not complete • Inconsistent reporting CLRTAP/NEC/FCCC• Unclear reporting status NEC/CLRTAP• Poor projections reporting (7 MS, some

projections=ceilings)• Incomplete National Programme reporting (due

2002)• Poor guidance and coordination of MS

reporting at EU level (1/3). So is this a problem then or

what……?

4

Well…Yes..but for whom/what?Well…Yes..but for whom/what?• The environmental integrity of the whole

exercise• MS risk of non-compliance by being uncertain

of the distance to their ceilings and the likelihood of getting there and additional PAMs needed

• Policy development, including integrated assessments, and assessing policy implementation and effectiveness on EC level

• The EC not being able to comply with its reporting obligation under CLRTAP (least common denominator situation cf. UNFCCC)

So…?

5

Why is it like this then?Why is it like this then?

• Are we still in a learning curve? (2010 is far away…)?

• Don’t we have enough resources to do what we committed ourselves to do?

• Is there too tough competition on resources with other environmental issues – e.g. climate change?

• Is there not enough incentives to improve the situation within EC?

• Do we need more/less technical guidance, streamlining/harmonization efforts NEC/ CLRTAP/FCCC to free resources?

=things to think of for the discussion

6

Why harmonize reporting? Why harmonize reporting? CLRTAP/NEC/UNFCCC…and LCP/ET/LPS/E-PRTR/PRTRCLRTAP/NEC/UNFCCC…and LCP/ET/LPS/E-PRTR/PRTR

• To reduce duplication and burden (for all)!• To improve:

• Efficiency (technical, institutional)• Consistency• Transparency• …and hence usefulness

• Barriers still exists and takes time to offset….• Lack of resources (money, people)• Legislation (different age, purpose, scope)• Institutional inertia, structure and competition

(international, national, departmental)• People (us/them, working culture)

7

Some differences NEC-CLRTAPSome differences NEC-CLRTAP

• NEC includes both national and international LTO

• NEC includes international inland shipping

8

Streamlining efforts - EUStreamlining efforts - EU

• Intensive discussion between CEC/MS/EEA on ways to improve the situation

• Harmonization and streamlining in paralell

• Streamlining short term, facilitate reporting rather than reducing load of reporting

9

Thank you!Thank you!

10

What next…?What next…?

• 2005: Thematic Strategy presented• 2005-2006: Revision of NEC Directive• 2006: Reporting national programmes

according to a common agreed format• 2006: 2nd EPER reporting

11

Emission trends of acidifying pollutants EU15 Emission trends of acidifying pollutants EU15

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Ind

ex

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

kt a

cid

eq

uiv

alen

t

EU15 total

NECD Target Path

2010 NECD Target

12

Emission trends of acidifying pollutants EU10Emission trends of acidifying pollutants EU10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Ind

ex

0

100

200

300

400

kt a

cid

eq

uiv

alen

t

EU10 total

NECD Target Path

2010 NECD Target

13

Contribution to total change in acidifying pollutant emissions for each sector and pollutant 1990 – 2002, (EU15)

-77%

-19%

-4%

-52%

-16%

-3%

-8%

-13%

-3%

-4%

-0.8%

-0.1%

-90% -70% -50% -30% -10% 10% 30%

Sulphur Dioxide

Nitrogen Oxides (as NO2)

Ammonia

Energy Industries

Industry (Energy)

Industry (Processes)

Other (Energy)

Road Transport

Other Transport

Agriculture

Waste

Other

14

-76%

-11%

-13%

-45%

-24%

-4%

-16%

-5%

-11%

-0.9%

5.6%

0.2%

-90% -70% -50% -30% -10% 10% 30%

Sulphur Dioxide

Nitrogen Oxides (as NO2)

Ammonia

Energy Industries

Industry (Energy)

Industry (Processes)

Other (Energy)

Road Transport

Other Transport

Agriculture

Waste

Other

Contribution to total change in acidifying pollutant emissions for each sector and pollutant 1990 – 2002, (EU10)

15

Emissions of ozone precursors Emissions of ozone precursors between 1990 and 2002 (EU15)between 1990 and 2002 (EU15)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Ind

ex

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

kto

nn

es N

MV

OC

eq

NMVOC and NOx as Ozone Precursors

NECD Target Path (NMVOC & NOx only)

2010 NECD Target (NMVOC & NOx only)

NMVOC, CO, CH4 and NOx as Ozone Precursors

16

Emissions of ozone precursors Emissions of ozone precursors between 1990 and 2002 (EU10)between 1990 and 2002 (EU10)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Ind

ex

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

kto

nn

es N

MV

OC

eq

NMVOC and NOx as Ozone Precursors

NECD Target Path (NMVOC & NOx only)

2010 NECD Target (NMVOC & NOx only)

NMVOC, CO, CH4 and NOx as Ozone Precursors

17

Contribution to change in ozone Contribution to change in ozone precursors emissions for each sector precursors emissions for each sector and pollutant 1990 – 2002and pollutant 1990 – 2002 (EU15) (EU15)

-10%

-4%

-5%

-2%

-3%

-8%

-65%

-2%

0%

-18%

-44%

-37%

-1%

-0.1%

-70% -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30%

Carbon Monoxide

NMVOC

Nitrogen Oxides

Methane

Energy Industries

Fugitive Emissions

Industry (Energy)

Industry (Processes)

Other (Energy)

Other (Non Energy)

Transport

Agriculture

Waste

Unallocated

18

Contribution to change in ozone Contribution to change in ozone precursors emissions for each sector precursors emissions for each sector and pollutant 1990 – 2002and pollutant 1990 – 2002 (EU10) (EU10)

-25%

1%

-21%

-14%

-23%

-5%

-26%

-1%

-24%

-30%

-45%

-0.1%

12.4%

-0.9%

-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30%

Carbon Monoxide

NMVOC

Nitrogen Oxides

Methane

Energy Industries

Fugitive Emissions

Industry (Energy)

Industry (Processes)

Other (Energy)

Other (Non Energy)

Transport

Agriculture

Waste

Unallocated

19

Emissions of primary and secondary Emissions of primary and secondary fine particulates (ktonnes) 1990-2002 fine particulates (ktonnes) 1990-2002

0

20

40

60

80

100

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

Ind

ex

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

kt e

mis

sio

n

Particulate Emissions (Primary and Secondary)

20

Contribution of the change in Contribution of the change in emissions of primary and secondary emissions of primary and secondary fine particulates (PM10), per sector and fine particulates (PM10), per sector and per pollutant, relative to the total per pollutant, relative to the total change in emissions between 1990 and change in emissions between 1990 and 2002 (%) 2002 (%)

-4%

-35%

-59%

-2%

-46%

-1%

-16%

-3%

-7%

-22%

-3%

-2%

-0.1%

0.2%

0.0%

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

PM10

NOx

SO2

NH3

Energy Industries

Fugitive Emissions

Industry (Energy)

Industry (Processes)

Other (Energy)

Other (Non Energy)

Road Transport

Other Transport

Agriculture

Waste

Unallocated

21

Projections submitted under NEC Projections submitted under NEC 31/12 200331/12 2003

Member State SOx (as SO2) NOx (as NO2) NH3 NMVOC

Denmark56 146.4 82.8 83

Finland97.5 151 31 130

France 387 988 857 954

Greece<300 344 73 261

Netherlands70 289 127 220

Sweden67 148 57 241

United Kingdom585 1 167 297 1 200

22

Polluta

nts c

overe

d

Proje

ctio

ns pre

sente

d

Changes in

Geo. D

ist.

Socio-e

con. a

ssum

ptions

Policy

name

Polluta

nts a

ffected

Impl.

statu

s

Quant. Ass

essm

.

of e

ffects

Austria +++ + o o +++ +++ +++ oBelgium Denmark +++ ++ + + +++ +++ ++ oFinland +++ ++ +++ + +++ +++ +++ +France +++ ++ o o + ++ ++ oGermany +++ + o + ++ +++ + +Greece Ireland Italy +++ + o o ++ + + oLuxembourg Netherlands +++ ++ o o +++ ++ + +++Portugal +++ + o ++ ++ +++ + ++Spain +++ + o o ++ ++ + oSweden +++ + o o + +++ + +United Kingdom +++ ++ o o +++ ++ ++ +

Projections Policies and Meas.

Explicitrequirements:

23

Split o

f pro

j. by

sect

or

Pres.

of r

esults

Disc. o

n unce

rtain

ty

Aim o

f polic

y

Imple

ment.

body

Inte

ract

ion w

.

other p

olicie

s

Projections Policies and Meas.

Austria + + o + + +Belgium Denmark +++ +++ + ++ + oFinland ++ + ++ +++ ++ ++France +++ ++ +++ ++ + +Germany ++ ++ o + o oGreece Ireland Italy +++ ++ o ++ + +Luxembourg Netherlands ++ +++ ++ +++ ++ +Portugal +++ + + + o oSpain + + o + o oSweden +++ + o ++ + ++United Kingdomo + ++ +++ ++ +

Good PracticeReporting:

24

Projected shortfall in emission abatement to meet emission ceilings in 2010 (% of ceiling)

 

SO2 (% of ceiling)

-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Sweden

Austria

Finland

Germany

Italy

United Kingdom

Denmark

Portugal - low

Portugal - high

France

Netherlands

With Additional Measures

With Measures

NOx (% of ceiling)

-20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Finland

Portugal - low

United Kingdom

Sweden

Portugal - high

Italy

Germany

Netherlands

Denmark

France

Austria

With Additional Measures

With Measures

VOCs (% of ceiling)

-20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

France

Sweden

Italy

Denmark

Finland

United Kingdom

Austria

Netherlands

Germany

Portugal - high

Portugal - low

With Additional measures

With Measures

NH3 (% of ceiling)

-25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Austria

Portugal - low

Finland

United Kingdom

Portugal - high

Netherlands

Italy

Germany

France

Denmark

With Additional Measures

With Measures

NOxNOxSO2SO2

NH3NH3VOCVOC

25

• First reporting not timely, scattered and with varying level of detail

• With measures projections indicate that only two MS reach NEC ceilings for all pollutants

• The ceilings for NOx and NH3 are most problematic

• Few MS report envisaged additional measures

• Key socio-economic assumptions and uncertainties are seldom addressed and discussed

• Effects of reported PAMs are generally not quantified and interaction with other policies (e.g. CC policies) are often not addressed

Conclusions

26

Inventory Improvement Programme (IIP)TFEIP

CLRTAP/NEC Review 2004CLRTAP/NEC Review 2004

• Review to….• Establish Confidence• Focus Improvement• Improve Usefulness

• Review process….• Part of TFEIP IIP• Managed by EEA/EMEP• Annual Review• Quality & Compliance• Country Involvement• Report to EMEP & TFEIP

Use:

CAFÉIndicatorsPolicyTarget setting……

Recommendations

Impro

vem

en

t

Inventory Reporting

ReviewEEA/EMEP

27

Comparability:- Comparability:- How do emission Factors compare?How do emission Factors compare?

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000

Activity Data

Em

issi

on D

ata

NLBE

DESE

2002 NMVOC 1A4b Residential Combustion

28

Recalculation:- Recalculation:- % Change between 2001 and 2002 inventories% Change between 2001 and 2002 inventories

NOxNOx EU15

New MS

29

Completeness:- Completeness:- % of data values or notations% of data values or notations

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000S

we

de

n

Au

stri

aG

erm

an

y

Fra

nce

Un

ited

Kin

gd

om

De

nm

ark

La

tvia

Po

rtu

ga

l

Ca

na

da

No

rwa

yN

eth

erl

an

ds

Sp

ain

Slo

vaki

a

Re

pu

blic

of

Ire

lan

d

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Lith

ua

nia

Slo

ven

iaB

ulg

ari

a

Hu

ng

ary

Est

on

ia

Fin

lan

dB

elg

ium

Mo

na

co

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic

Be

laru

sC

ypru

s

Ru

ssia

n

Unique value Reported as 'NO' Reported as 'NE' Reported as 'NA'

Reported as 'IE' Reported as 'C' Reported as '0'

100%

50%

25%

0%

30

Conclusions: Benefits of ReviewConclusions: Benefits of Review• Understand the limitations

Where are the gaps… Are they important?

• Improve quality of the data we use Identify problems & focus improvement

• Administrative e.g. Reporting

• Scientific e.g. Consistency, Comparability

– Research– Data Gathering– Guidelines

• Improve the quality of, and confidence in emission inventory based decisions

31

Draft recommendationsDraft recommendations

National Programmes• There is a need to clarify the level of detail on

reporting requirements and formats for projections as well PAMs.

• Any type of guidance for projections and PAMs should be consistent with the implementing provisions of EU GHG Monitoring Mechanism

Review process• There is a need to develop a formal framework

for strengthening review of emission inventories and projections under CAFE

32

Thank you for your attention!Thank you for your attention!

33

2.1

-7.8

-7.4

-4.8

-0.1

1.9

3.0

3.5

3.9

5.7

5.9

17.4

24.4

25.0

36.2

45.7

-20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

EU15

Germany

United Kingdom

Italy

Finland

Netherlands

Luxembourg

Denmark

Greece

Sweden

France

Belgium

Spain

Austria

Ireland

P ortugal

-21.9-47.7

-38.3

-38.2

-35.5

-32.0

-25.7

-23.4

-22.8

-14.6

-14.5

-13.3

-5.0

1.8

10.3

29.1

-50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0

EU15

Denmark

Luxembourg

Germany

Finland

Italy

Austria

United Kingdom

Sweden

Netherlands

France

Belgium

Greece

Spain

Ireland

P ortugal

-0.1

-11.7

-11.7

-7.8

-4.0

-3.9

-3.6

-2.6

-2.5

-0.1

3.3

3.6

4.3

7.1

7.4

21.6

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

EU15

Netherlands

Austria

United Kingdom

Sweden

Belgium

Germany

Finland

Greece

France

Denmark

Luxembourg

Italy

P ortugal

Ireland

Spain

-2.5

-17.1

-12.1

-11.1

-10.7

-10.6

-7.3

-4.4

-3.0

-0.7

2.5

3.8

5.8

9.3

25.1

55.8

-20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

EU15

United Kingdom

Germany

Luxembourg

Sweden

Netherlands

Finland

Italy

Austria

France

Denmark

Greece

Ireland

Belgium

Spain

P ortugal