EU GHG Monitoring Mechanism Hartmut Behrend European Commission DG ENV.C.2, Brussels

1. EU GHG Monitoring MechanismHartmut Behrend European CommissionDG ENV.C.2, Brussels

2. Questions to be answered: • What is our legal basis? • What are we doing? Who does it? And what happens by when?Institutional arrangements and working procedure • What are the products? • Where do we stand today? Where do we expect to go? • What are the methodologies to prepare inventories from bunkers? • How much are the emissions from international bunkers increasing?

3. Legal basis • UNFCCC (in future KP) • Revised 1996 IPCC Manual on Inventories • Good Practise Guidance on Reporting and Uncertainty assessment • Guidelines on National Communications and annual inventories (FCCC/CP/2002/8, decision 18/CP.8) • EU • Council Decision on GHG Monitoring (Decision 389/93/EEC as amended by decision 296/99/EC) • (internal) guidelines

4. Sharing the EC target of –8%

5. Summary of current EC Council decision • Monitoring the emissions of the six Kyoto greenhouse gases and removals by sinks, • Annual GHG inventory reporting by MS to the European Commission • Implementation and annual reporting of national programmes (including policies and measures) and emission projections to the Commission and • Evaluation of progress and reporting to the European Parliament and Council by the Commission

6. UNFCCC Austria UK Sweden Belgium Finland Germany European Commission (ENV, ESTAT, JRC) and EEA Luxembourg Italy Greece Denmark France Ireland Netherlands Spain Parliament Council Portugal Data flow EC GHG inventory EU

7. EC GHG inventory institutional arrangements • Member states prepare inventory according to UNFCCC Guidelines and participate in EC Monitoring mechanism committee, assisted by two working groups • European Commission (DG ENV) responsible for submission to UNFCCC, assisted by EEA (and European Topic Centre Air and Climate Change, ETC/ACC) and Eurostat and JRC • Working group I promotes improvement of all GHG inventory quality aspects (transparency, consistency, comparability, completeness, accuracy and use of good practices) • Working group II promotes improvement of quality of reporting on GHG emission projections (transparency, consistency, comparability, completeness) • EC “National Inventory Report” follows UNFCCC Guidelines

8. Preparation EC inventory

9. Annual process of submission and review of MS inventories and compilation of the EC inventory

10. EC GHG inventory improvement • Eurostat improvement project for national energy balances and annual estimation of EC CO2 emissions (IPCC Reference Approach) • JRC compares national estimates for carbon sinks (focus on forests) and coordinates a project for improving GHG emissions from agriculture (focus on N2O from soils) • QA/QC of EC inventory depends on QA/QC systems for national GHG inventories • Data gap filling to achieve complete EC inventory is limited to few countries • Minor differences between EC and Member States’ inventories, which are further being reduced through the UNFCCC review process (centralised review of EC inventory, Sep. 2003)

11. Annual procedure for the EU Progress Assessment

12. New Monitoring decision (Proposal COM(2003) 51 final) • CO-decision Procedure – in the moment in COREPER to reach 1st reading aggreement • Basic in decision - further implementing in implementing provision to be adopted • Greenhouse gas inventory system (KP Art. 5.1) • Procedures for the review process and adjustments (KP Art. 5.2 and Art. 8) • Reporting on accounting of assigned amounts and national registries (KP Art. 7.1, 7.2 and 7.4) • Information to be incorporated in the periodic communications to the UNFCCC • Policies and measures and Projections • details yet to be decided (ongoing procedure in Council and Parliament

13. Most important changes of new Monitoring Mechanism Decison • Deadlines of MSs - 15 January: for national inventories - 15 March (biannual): for projected progress • Reporting on flexible mechanisms (JI, CDM, IET) and sinks • Additional Reports - Report on demonstrable progress - 4th National Communication - Report on assigned amounts • Establishment of - national systems (incl. Report) and - registries

14. EU greenhouse gas emissions in relation to the Kyoto target (excl. LUCF)

15. Greenhouse gas emission targets and changes from base year to 2001

16. Good Practice in Reporting on aviation fuels 1 Tier 1: top-down method Emissions = fuel consumption * emission factor 10 % of emissions for LTO-cycle Tier 2: bottom-up method Distinction between LTO emissions (below 3000 ft) and cruise emissions, only jet kerosene Tier 2 a: aggregated LTO-data Tier 2 b: detailed LTO-data Other approaches: possible if peer reviewed and well documented Emission factors Hardly any national differences • CO2+/- 5 %, aggregated or per aircraft type • CH4 factor 2, only depending on fuel consumption • N2O factor 100, only depending on fuel consumption

17. Good Practice in Reporting on aviation fuels 2 Disaggregation International – domestic Domestic: Every flight inside of the boarder of one country, if passengers and / or fright are dropped at the destination International:All other flights in CRF only as memo item Activity Data - Delivery of kerosene to airports - fuel suppliers - refineries (production + import – export) - individual LTO-data from EUROCONTROL Military aviation Inventory in CRF 1 A 5 ‘Others’ Emission factors: the same as civil aviation unless better data are known

18. Changes in GHG emissions from international bunkers, 1990 to latest year

19. Trends in GHG emissions from international bunkers 1990 – 2000

20. Comparison of aviation data from Eurocontrol and national inventories

21. EU-aggregated international bunker emissions

22. For further information you may look at:www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climate/home_en.htmandthemes.eea.eu.int/Environmental_issues/climateTHANK YOU !