1 / 33

Reporting under the NEC Directive

Reporting under the NEC Directive. Joint TFEIP/EIONET 19-20 October 2004 Andreas Barkman (EEA). Outline… . Status of reporting due 31 Dec 2003 Why harmonize reporting?. Observed issues in NEC reporting. Much better reporting in NFR! But…… Not in time Not complete

kelda
Download Presentation

Reporting under the NEC Directive

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. Reporting under the NEC Directive Joint TFEIP/EIONET 19-20 October 2004 Andreas Barkman (EEA)

  2. Outline… • Status of reporting due 31 Dec 2003 • Why harmonize reporting?

  3. Observed 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? • 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? • 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? CLRTAP/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-CLRTAP • NEC includes both national and international LTO • NEC includes international inland shipping

  8. Streamlining 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!

  10. 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

  12. Emission trends of acidifying pollutants EU10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  21. Member State SOx (as SO2) NOx (as NO2) NH3 NMVOC Denmark 56 146.4 82.8 83 Finland 97.5 151 31 130 France 387 988 857 954 Greece <300 344 73 261 Netherlands 70 289 127 220 Sweden 67 148 57 241 United Kingdom 585 1 167 297 1 200 Projections submitted under NEC 31/12 2003

  22. Explicit requirements: Socio-econ. assumptions Changes in Geo. Dist. Projections presented Pollutants affected Quant. Assessm. of effects Pollutants covered Policy name Impl. status Projections Policies and Meas.

  23. Good Practice Reporting: Split of proj. by sector Interaction w. other policies Disc. on uncertainty Implement. body Pres. of results Aim of policy Projections Policies and Meas.

  24. Projected shortfall in emission abatement to meet emission ceilings in 2010 (% of ceiling) J L J L SO2 NOx J L J L VOC NH3

  25. Conclusions • 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

  26. CLRTAP/NEC Review 2004 Use: CAFÉ Indicators Policy Target setting …… • 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 Inventory Reporting Inventory Improvement Programme (IIP) TFEIP Improvement Review EEA/EMEP Recommendations

  27. Comparability:- How do emission Factors compare? 2002 NMVOC 1A4b Residential Combustion SE DE BE NL

  28. Recalculation:- % Change between 2001 and 2002 inventories EU15 NOx New MS

  29. Completeness:- % of data values or notations 100% 50% 25% 0%

  30. Conclusions: 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 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!

More Related