Presentation of UNFCCC review results of Member States in the waste sector Anke Herold, ETC-ACC

1. Workshop on Inventories and Projections of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste under WG 1 and 2 of the Climate Change Committee Presentation of UNFCCC review results of Member States in the waste sector Anke Herold, ETC-ACC 3 May 2005

2. General • Presentation focus on methodological issues identified in the review, not on lack of transparency, documentation or inconsistencies between NIR and CRF (no exchange of experiences necessary to improve the latter) • Presentation focus on emissions from solid waste disposal because • Review findings in other source categories still inconsistent across review reports • Many minor issues identified, but few major issues • Waste incineration and wastewater handling are non-key sources for most MS

3. Methodological findings related to 6.A Solid waste disposal • New MS generally use IPCC Tier 1 method despite the fact that 6.A is a key category. The review recommended to adopt a higher tier method. • The review questioned country-specific parameters used by some MS • “Country xy uses an oxidation factor of 0.2 (double the recommended IPCC maximum default value of 0.1). The Party made references to recent studies and expert judgement and stated that this figure seemed to be more appropriate to the landfill management practices. The ERT encourages XY to reconsider using the IPCC default value for its next submission” • Short half-life values used in some countries due to high moisture contents. • How can/ should country-specific parameters be justified? • Trends of DOC not sufficiently explained, DOC constant over time • How does the DOC for MSW develop over time taking into account the changes in waste management practices (e.g. collection and recycling of certain fractions)?

4. Methodological findings related to 6.A Solid waste disposal • Inclusion of managed waste disposal sites in unmanaged sites => As MCF is lower, potential underestimation of emissions • “The default value of (0.77) of the IPCC Guidelines was used for fraction DOC dissimilated (DOCf). This value may be an overestimate and can only be used if lignin C is excluded from the calculations. If lignin C is included in DOC then the preferred value for DOCf is within the range 0.5 to 0.6.” • “The key parameters, DOC and R, have been used without proper verification” • Further justification on increased methane recovery between 1990 and 2002 was requested

5. Methodological findings related to 6.A Solid waste disposal • Lack of activity data on quantity, composition and disposal of MSW for past and actual years in some countries • Extrapolation techniques recommended for those years where no data are available (i.e., non-residual wastes before 1998), instead of considering AD as constant • Use of waste survey data instead of linear interpolation recommended • Time series taken into account too short for the k values used, when checked with k=ln2/t1/2. In national inventories it is usually necessary to include data for 3–5 half-lives in order to achieve an acceptably accurate result.

6. Completeness Solid Waste Disposal • Estonia: unclear how complete SWDS inventory is (inclusion of managed and unmanaged landfills) • Greece: CH4 Emissions from sludge not included, amount of methane recovered not estimated • Hungary: CH4 emissions from sludge not estimated • Portugal: CH4 emissions from sludge not included

7. Completeness Other source categories • Belgium: CH4 and N2O emissions from industrial waste-water handling are not estimated because it is not considered to be a significant source. • Denmark: CRF tables report estimates only for CH4 emissions from the source category Solid Waste Disposal on Land, not including estimates for other source categories • Germany: estimation complete except for N2O from industrial waste-water handling. The absence of estimates in this source category is, however, understandable because of the lack of research in this area. • Greece: N2O emissions from industrial waste-water treatment and emissions from waste incineration are not estimated. • Hungary: N2O emissions from human sewage are not estimated. Emissions from industrial incinerators are not completely covered. • Ireland: CH4 and N2O emissions from waste-water handling are not estimated except for N2O from human sewage.

8. Completeness Other source categories • Latvia: N2O from Waste Incineration not estimated. • Lithuania: Emissions from waste incineration not estimated • Netherlands: N2O and CH4 emissions from Waste-water Handling not estimated, with the exception of emissions from sludge management in waste-water treatment plants • Slovakia: Information gaps were identified in category 6.B Waste-water Handling • Slovenia: emissions from industrial wastewater not estimated • Spain: emissions from incineration of industrial waste have not been estimated

9. Issues for further discussion • Workshop could be used to discuss country-specific parameters for EU Member States and compile reasonable ranges for such parameters that are related to site conditions and landfill types. Such overviews in the workshop report could help with justification of use of country-specific parameters • Further assistance to new MS in implementation of tier 2 approach necessary – new IPCC tier 1 method may help • Lack of appropriate detailed and accurate information on CH4 recovery in many countries, further discussion how this situation can be improved – maybe additional information from other EU legislation (landfill directive, renewable energy)? • Further discussion of appropriate techniques in the waste sector to derive missing activity data for past or future years • Share of parameters used for emissions from industrial wastewater and for human sewage may help to complete emission estimates in some MS

10. Thank you for your attention