1 / 12

Review of national submissions 2006 Stage II

Review of national submissions 2006 Stage II. Elisabeth Rigler, Michael Gager, Bernd Gugele, Elisabeth Kampel, Katarina Mareckova ETC-ACC (UBA-V) Thessaloniki, October 2006. Main objectives of review (stage II).

hesper
Download Presentation

Review of national submissions 2006 Stage II

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Review of national submissions 2006 Stage II Elisabeth Rigler, Michael Gager, Bernd Gugele, Elisabeth Kampel, Katarina Mareckova ETC-ACC (UBA-V) Thessaloniki, October 2006

  2. Main objectives of review (stage II) • Main objective of the review process is to encourage and support inventory improvements, the quality of national inventories (NEC and LRTAP submissions) Check inventory quality focusing at: • Transparency • Completeness (sources, pollutants, years) • Consistency ( sectors, countries, years) • Comparability (countries, years) In accordance with recommendation Annex III, of EB.AIR/GE.1/2005/7(UNECE 2005)

  3. What is reviewed in stage II and how • What • LRTAP inventories, IIR: • NEC inventories (2001/81/EC): • (EC GHG monitoring mechanism inventories, 280/2004/EC ) • New or modified stage II testsperformed 2006 • Cross pollutant test (additional sectors included in 2006) • Comparisons of different submissions CLRTAP/NEC with GHG inventories • IEF test using the UNFCCC outlier tool (based on results of Key source analyses)

  4. Cross pollutant test • Selected pollutants and sectors • Latest available inventory year: 2004 • Comparison to average ratios: • Eastern, and Western Europe – not to any model

  5. Cross Pollutant Test Results – EU15 EU 15 (without IT, ES, LU, GR) for emissions reported under CLRTAP 1,7 - 6,3 0,2 - 0,8 13 - 22 0,03 - 0,04 93 – 4.336 9.106 - 147.560 4.524 - 121.139 1,2 – 13,3 1,9 – 9,43 1,1 – 5,9 1,2 – 4,6 0,01 – 0,9 2,5 – 30,0 2,8 – 2.265

  6. Cross Pollutant Test Results– EU10 EU 10 (without CY, MT) for emissions reported under CLRTAP 0,8 – 2,9 0,2 – 0,7 10,5 – 30,0 430 – 128.561 5.588 - 268246 9.434 - 606.489 1,2 – 3,5 1,4 – 3,8 1,1 – 2,2 1,2 – 2,3 0,9

  7. Submissions comparison • CLRTAP/NEC with EC GHG monitoring mechanism • National totals (NOx, SOx, NMVOC, CO) • Years: all submitted years (1990-2004)

  8. Inventory comparison - results

  9. Implied emission factor test • only for Key sources as identified for Eastern and Western Europe • all years 1990-2004 • IEF = Emission / Activity • Analysis with UNFCCC outlier tool Emission data reported under CLRTAP/NEC Most recent activity data reported under UNFCCC

  10. Examples - IEF (time series) IEF sector 1A1a, gas CO IEF sector 1A2a, gas SOx

  11. Lessons learned • Stage II review could highlight number of outliers and omissions which was found useful by all parties involved (helps to improve reporting and inventory quality ) • Remaining problems in reporting; • Timeliness ((deadlines 31 Dec NEC, 15 Feb LRTAP); NEC inventory needs to be sent parallel to EC and EEA as well) • Completeness, consistency, comparability (standard formats, all cells completed, check with RepDab ) • Transparency (NFR) ; e.g.if figures in NEC and LRTAP inventory differ, full NFR tables should be sent for NEC not the same NFR as for LRTAP with some extra tables or explanatory notes, provide IIR

  12. Conclusions /Recommendations • Improve data flow among different bodies • Broader distribution of review results to the countries • Provide countries with additional test outcomes and background information • E.g. Comparison of country values with ‘ranges • Proposals will be welcomed • Splitting the review process into 3 stages proved useful, it provides space for different type of tests • Review process is time and resource demanding for MS and for ETC ACC/EMEP • Review process needs to continue be standard part of inventory cycle

More Related