bc reporting under the clrtap dr chris dore – aether emily west – environment canada (robert...

18
BC Reporting under the CLRTAP Dr Chris Dore – Aether Emily West – Environment Canada (Robert Wankmueller – CEIP)

Upload: ralf-hood

Post on 30-Dec-2015

221 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

BC Reporting under the CLRTAP

Dr Chris Dore – Aether

Emily West – Environment Canada

(Robert Wankmueller – CEIP)

Contents

1. Background and Context

2. Reported Emissions

3. Summary of Conclusions/Recommendations– The Reported Data– Next Steps

1. Background and ContextIntroduction of Voluntary Reporting• Recognition that the expertise within the Convention

is suited to the reporting of BC

• Revised Gothenburg Protocol and revisions to Reporting Guidelines:

– Allow for the incorporation of voluntary reporting from 2013 onwards

• Revision of the EMEP/EEA Guidebook

– Allows for BC EFs to be added.

2. Emissions ReportingSummary of Data Submissions 2000-2013• Countries Reporting BC

– Canada*, United States**– Finland, Norway, Sweden– France, Italy, United Kingdom– Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark,

Estonia, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Serbia, and Switzerland.

• USA – 405 ktonnes (2011)• Canada & European countries – 209 ktonnes (2011*)• Residential (Stationary) & Passenger Cars – 40%

2. Emissions ReportingTrends with Time (Large Countries)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

BC E

miss

ions

(kto

nnes

)

CLRTAP BC Emissions (2015)

Canada* France Italy United Kingdom

2. Emissions ReportingSource Apportionment

0

10

20

30

40

50

BC

Emis

sion

s (k

tonn

es)

United Kingdom

Electricity Generation Industrial Combustion Road Transport

Other Transport and Mobile Residential & Commercial Fugitives

Industrial Processes Agriculture Waste & Other

2. Emissions ReportingTrends with Time (Nordic, European)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

BC E

miss

ions

(kto

nnes

)

CLRTAP BC Emissions (2015)

Finland Norway Sweden

2. Emissions ReportingSource Apportionment

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

BC E

mis

sion

s (kt

onne

s)

Norway

Electricity Generation Industrial Combustion Road TransportOther Transport and Mobile Residential & Commercial FugitivesIndustrial Processes Agriculture Waste & Other

2. Emissions ReportingTrends with Time (Increases)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

BC E

miss

ions

(kto

nnes

)

CLRTAP BC Emissions (2015)

Azerbaijan Bulgaria Hungary Lithuania

2. Emissions ReportingSource Apportionment –Country Comparison

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%BC Source Apportionment

Electricity Generation Industrial Combustion Road TransportOther Transport and Mobile Residential & Commercial FugitivesIndustrial Processes Agriculture Waste & Other

2. Emissions Reporting

NFR Longname NFR Code Total PM2.5(kt)

Total Black Carbon(kt)

Residential: Stationary 1A4bi 691.41 64.81Road transport: Passenger cars 1A3bi 33.64 22.49Agriculture/Forestry/Fishing: Off-road and machinery 1A4cii 25.86 16.95Road transport: Heavy duty vehicles and buses 1A3biii 25.40 16.74Road transport: Light duty vehicles 1A3bii 20.87 13.82Mobile Combustion in manufacturing industries and construction 1A2gvii 17.37 11.93

International maritime navigation 1A3di(i) 54.72 8.07Transport (fuel used) 1A3 10.69 4.86Stationary combustion in manufacturing industries and construction: Other 1A2gviii 20.64 4.62

National navigation (shipping) 1A3dii 22.67 4.36

• Top 10 NFR Sector account for 77% of total BC emissions.

2. Emissions Reporting• BC/PM2.5 (as %)

19%

18%

24%

10%

20%

22%16% 9% 17% 18%

17% 18% 26%13% 13% 26%

10% 23% 29%13% 27%

129% 62% 40%0

50

100

150

200

250

Em

issi

on

s (k

iloto

nn

es)

Total PM2.5

Total BC

Total BC/PM2.5

2. Emissions Reporting• 1A4bi – Residential BC/PM2.5 (as %)

7%

8%

10%

10%

10%10% 11% 12% 20% 10% 6% 5% 9% 14% 10% 11% 7%

15% 21% 34% 20% 9% 10%0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

180.00

Cana

da

Italy

Rom

ania

Fran

ce

Serb

ia

Uni

ted

King

dom

Belg

ium

Hun

gary

Finl

and

Latv

ia

Nor

way

Port

ugal

Lith

uani

a

Den

mar

k

Esto

nia

Croa

tia

Irela

nd

Swed

en

Azer

baija

n

Net

herla

nds

Switz

erla

nd

Repu

blic

of

Mol

dova

Cypr

us

Emis

sion

(kilo

tonn

es)

Residential: Stationary(1A4bi)

PM2.5

Black Carbon

BC/PM2.5 %

2. Emissions Reporting• 1A3bi – Passenger Cars BC/PM2.5 (as %)

80%

49%

27%

79% 51% 60%62% 0%

81% 72% 50% 70% 68% 63% 52% 73% 76%0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

Fra

nce

Un

ited

Kin

gdo

m

Ca

nad

a

Bel

giu

m

Por

tug

al

Ne

ther

land

s

Bul

gar

ia

Ser

bia

Irel

and

De

nma

rk

Sw

itzer

land

Hu

nga

ry

No

rwa

y

Sw

ede

n

Fin

land

Latv

ia

Est

oni

a

Em

issi

on

(ki

loto

nn

es)

Road transport: Passenger cars(1A3bi)

PM2.5

Black Carbon

BC/PM2.5 %

Gasoline EF’s range from (2-30% of PM2.5)Diesel EF’s range from (10-87% of PM2.5)

2. Emissions Reporting• 1A4cii – Agricul/Forestry/Fishing NRMM

78%

63%

57%

57%

61% 37% 57% 57% 61% 50% 52% 46%40% 64% 56% 57% 5%

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

Ca

nad

a

Fra

nce

Italy

Un

ited

Kin

gdo

m

De

nma

rk

Sw

itzer

land

Hu

nga

ry

Por

tug

al

Sw

ede

n

Ne

ther

land

s

Fin

land

Bel

giu

m

No

rwa

y

Cro

atia

Irel

and

Est

oni

a

Latv

ia

Em

issi

on

(ki

loto

nn

es)

Agriculture/Forestry/Fishing: Off-road vehicles and other machinery

(1A4cii)

PM2.5

Black Carbon

BC/PM2.5 %

Conclusions/RecommendationsThe Reported Data1. Good coverage for the first year of

voluntary reporting

2. Some specific gaps are evident

3. A number of clear trends have been identified

4. Some questions remain from analysis of source apportionment

Conclusions/RecommendationsThe Next Steps1. Aim to improve all reporting, but some countries are

more important than others!

2. Development of methodologies and EFs is on-going.

3. Continued comparisons of CLRTAP vs “research” inventories are important for verification purposes.

4. TFEIP to strengthen links to other “communities”.

5. The aim should be that national inventories inform GAINS (not the other way around!).

THANK-YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

chrisdore@aether-ukcom

+44(0)1865 261466

www.aether-uk.com