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 workshops> changes in methods required, white spots • Since 1997: ISO parts of process. Study compared QA/QC with requirements under KP > 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 - DevelopmentsPresent main structure

6. QA/QC - General approach taken Improvement program QA/QC+National System: • Bring methods in line with KP requirements • (Quality) improvement projects > 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 > Quality control • Further assuring quality of inventory process > 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 > checks on more detailed level (sub-sector, process related emissions, EF, AD) • Checks on country specific emission factors • Annually for industry --> comparing with defaults. • For energy/traffic --> 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 national<>international 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. Research but also Information management • creativity • orginality • reproducibility of the results • reputation • consistency • comparability • transparency of the process • confidence 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