UNECE Meeting on Climate Change Statistics Geneva, 19 – 20 November 2012 Riitta Pipatti

1. Statistics Finland as the national authority for Finland’s national greenhouse gas inventory – experiences and future challenges UNECE Meeting on Climate Change Statistics Geneva, 19 – 20 November 2012 Riitta Pipatti

2. Contents • Greenhouse gas inventory • Reguirements, methodologies and use • Statistics Finland as national entity • Pros and cons for developing the inventory at the statistical offiec • advantages of close collaboration with the energy and others statistics • QA/QC and verification issues • Confidentiality issues • Future challenges

3. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory • Reporting consistent with requirements under • United Nations Framework Convention (UNFCCC) (revised guidelines from 2015 submission onwards) • Kyoto Protocol – supplementary reporting • EU GHG monitoring mechanism decision (under revision => regulation) • Methodologies from the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) • Annual comprehensive UNFCCC and KP reviews, 2012 and from 2016 and 2022 also EU comprehensive reviews • GHG inventory data – basis for assessing compliance with emission reductions commitments (KP, EU) and pledges (UNFCCC)

4. Finland’s national GHG inventory system

5. Statistics Finland – national authority • GHG inventory abides to the principles, rules and modalities of • UNFCCC/KP, TCCCA – transparency, consistency, comparability, completeness and accuracy) and • Official statistics and Statistics Finland – UN principles, EU Code of Practice (impartiality, transparency, confidentiality, coherence, relevance, accuracy, reliability, timeliness, …) • Mostly the ”main principles” the same under both regimes, exceptions • Confidentiality – need agreements with companies or have to aggregate GHG reporting of specific categories at higher level than required by UNFCCC, cannot publish unit-specific informations published elsewhere • Efficiency, relevance and accuracy – requirements by UNFCCC/KP require us to address also ”insignificant issues”

6. Waste 3% Energy industries 50% Agriculture 8% Energy Manufacturing industries 81% Solvent and and construction other 16% product use Transport 0.1% 22% Industrial Households, services etc. processes 8% 8% Fugitive 0.3% Other 2% The energy sector in the Finland’s GHG inventory – inventory year 2010

7. Pros and cons for inventory being at the statistical office • GHG inventory and energy statistics • Energy sector calculations done in close collaboration with energy statistics • Common database, but partly parallel processes due to differences in data sources (historical reasons, coherence in reporting emissions of different gases – only CO2 emissions can be calculated based on basic energy data) • No additional data collection for the GHG inventory – access to data collected for energy statistics and energy statistics have access to data processed by the GHG inventory - better coverage of point sources, QA and verification (mutual benefit)

8. Pros and cons for inventory being at a statistical office • GHG inventory and energy statistics – QA/QC • Comparision of sectoral (bottom-up, SA) and reference (top-down, RA) approaches a key QA measure for GHG inventory • Early access to tables on fuels use and relevant detailed background data – time to explore differences, identify errors and gaps • Energy balance – timetable and contents take the needs of the GHG inventory into account • Times series of the difference between the SA and RA show a declining trend (2010: 0.3%) • Comparison with international energy data (IEA, Eurostat) • Energy statistics timeseries not updated as frequently and for the same years as in the inventory – comparability issues

9. Pros and cons for inventory being at the statistical office • GHG inventory, energy statistics and EU ETS • Different rules, coverage and classifications increase work but have their justifications in many cases • Collaborate with Energy Market Authority (responsible for the national registry, monotoring of EU ETS data, etc.) on regular basis • Sharing knowledge and expertise (”coffee break discussions”) helps to understand differences in ”numbers” and enhances coherence/consistency of the published information • Helps us to reduce difference were not necessary • We are able to explain the differences to policy makers, media and others

10. Pros and cons for inventory being at the statistical office • GHG inventory and other statistics • Comparisons with waste statistics (waste amounts, composition and treatment) • PRODCOM – data on industrial production, sometimes the only source, sometimes only used for verification • Provide data for environmental accounts • NAMEA – enables combining emissions data with economic data, and e.g. analyses on how different economic activites are affected by emission reduction measures, etc.

11. Future • EU Effort Sharing Decision (binding targets for the non-ETS sector from 2013 to 2020) • Non-ETS emissions calculated as the difference between the national total emissions from the GHG inventory and the ETS data from the emissions trading registry • Harmonisation of inventory data and EU ETS important – full harmonisation not possible due to different rules and modalities • New EU regulations for reporting GHG emissions to the Commission – more comparisons with other EU reporting, including EU ETS, energy statistics, CLRTAP, …

12. Future challenges • 2nd commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol – to start 2013? • New comprehensive international climate agreement – to start 2020? • New UNFCCC reporting guidelines for GHG inventories • Energy balances to be attached to reporting • Statistics Finland – aiming towards an integrated system for producing energy statistics and GHG energy inventory • enhance coherence, enhance efficiency

13. Thank you!