1 / 15

Reporting National Programmes under the National Emissions Ceiling Directive

This workshop reviewed Member States' compliance with the National Emissions Ceiling Directive, focusing on reporting requirements, emission projections, and policy effectiveness. Key findings, conclusions, and recommendations were presented.

fredwest
Download Presentation

Reporting National Programmes under the National Emissions Ceiling 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 National Programmes under the National Emissions Ceiling Directive Workshop on Plans and Programmes of Air Quality and National Emission Ceilings Directives Brussels, 1 & 2 September 2004 Andreas Barkman (EEA) Peter Taylor (ETC/ACC)

  2. Overview • Objectives of work • Requirements of the Directive • Overview of reporting • Key results on projections • Conclusions and Recommendations

  3. Objectives of work • Review quality & compile information in MS National Programmes (Art 6) & information on annual emission inventories & projections (Art 7 & 8) provided under the NEC Directive & carry out initial analysis of the information. • Provide input to 2004 reporting by the Commission to Council & Parliament on progress of implementing the national emission ceilings & other items covered by Art 9.

  4. Key reporting requirements by Member States under the NECD • National programmes incl. information on policies & measures & quantified estimates of their effect (Art. 6) • Emission projections for 2010 for SO2, NOx, VOC, NH3 (Art. 7) • Key socio-economic assumptions underlying projections (Art. 8)

  5. Structure of assessment • Addressing only EU15 • Based on experience under the GHGMonitoring Mechanism & consists of two parts: • quality and transparency of reporting • evaluation of projections and policies and measures

  6. Completeness of mandatory reporting Changes in Geographical Distribution Implementation status Socio-econ. assumptions Quant. Assessm. of effects Pollutants affected Projections presented Pollutants covered Policy name Good Fair Poor None Projections Policies and Meas.

  7. Completeness: ’Good Practice Reporting’: Split of proj. by sector Interaction w. other policies Disc. on uncertainty Implement. body Pres. of results Aim of policy Good Fair Poor None Projections Policies and Meas.

  8. 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

  9. Comparing projections in National Programs (NP) with preliminary CAFÉ BL results (CF) NP CF SO2 NP CF NOx NP CF VOC NP CF NH3 Emissions exceed ceilings in 2010 Emissions below ceilings in 2010 No National Programme by Dec.2003 No projection in National Programme

  10. Conclusions • Timeliness, completeness: First reporting was not timely and incomplete on all levels (MS, sector, pollutant) Projections • Only two MS (Fi and UK) will reach the ceilings for all pollutants based on adopted measures • Ceilings for SO2 will be met by most MS whereas ceilings for VOC, NH3 and particularly NOx will be difficult • Few MS report projection with additional policies measures. Often the ones who do reach the ceilings • Key socio-economic assumptions and uncertainties are seldom addressed and discussed • Policies and Measures: Quantification and interaction with other policies (e.g. CC policies) are not addressed • Comparison: The preliminary CAFE Baseline results are more optimistic than MS in reaching the SO2 ceilings, but more pessimistic regarding the other pollutants

  11. Recommendations • Guidance: Helpful to have additional guidance on reporting requirements and formats for National Programmes, projections and for policies and measures. • Such guidance should be consistent with the implementing provisions and reporting under the EU GHG Monitoring Mechanism. Why? Because – essentially they cover the same source sectors, it avoids duplication, enhances consistency and improves assessments. • Process: The GHG Monitoring Mechanism shows that regular fora for discussions on guidelines and reporting of projections, policies and measures, key socio economic assumption are very succesful to drive improvements and share experiences. • Set up a structured approach providing ongoing support (organisational, technical, capacity building). The approach should build on the experiences gained under the GHG monitoring mechanism and help foster links between national authorities addressing climate change and air pollution issues.

  12. 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 AU BE DK ES FI FR DE GR IR IT LU NL PT SE UK Ceiling NEC NP CAFE BL Comparison between SO2 projections reported in National Programs and preliminary CAFE BL results SO2 (kt/y)

  13. 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 AU BE DK ES FI FR DE GR IR IT LU NL PT SE UK Ceiling NEC NP CAFE BL Comparison between NOx projections reported in National Programs and preliminary CAFE BL results NOx (kt/y)

  14. 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 AU BE DK ES FI FR DE GR IR IT LU NL PT SE UK Ceiling NEC NP CAFE BL Comparison between VOC projections reported in National Programs and preliminary CAFE BL results VOC (kt/y)

  15. 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 AU BE DK ES FI FR DE GR IR IT LU NL PT SE UK Ceiling NEC NP CAFE BL Comparison between NH3 projections reported in National Programs and preliminary CAFE BL results NH3 (kt/y)

More Related