1 / 16

EEA priority data flow review of national submissions 2007 preliminary results

EEA priority data flow review of national submissions 2007 preliminary results. Katarina Mareckova, Elisabeth Kampel, Michael Gager, ETC-ACC (UBA-V) Dessau, May 2007. Main objectives of review (stage I + II).

sutterh
Download Presentation

EEA priority data flow review of national submissions 2007 preliminary results

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. EEA priority data flow review of national submissions 2007preliminary results Katarina Mareckova, Elisabeth Kampel, Michael Gager, ETC-ACC (UBA-V) Dessau, May 2007

  2. Main objectives of review (stage I + II) • Main objective of the review process is to encourage and support inventory improvements, the quality of national inventories (NECD and LRTAP submissions) Check inventory quality focusing at: • Transparency • Completeness (sources, pollutants, years) • Consistency ( sectors, countries, years) • Comparability (countries, years) In accordance with recommendation Annex III, of EB.AIR/GE.1/2005/7(UNECE 2005) Geographical coverage: LRTAP (east , west, EU)

  3. Timeliness, Completeness- NECD inventories • Deadline for reporting for 25 MS: 31 Dec 2006 • 16 MS reported on time • 23 MS reported inventories 2004 and 2005 (minimum reporting) • 11 MS inventories in standardized NFR format • updated projections not provided by 3 MS, 1 MS provisional projections

  4. NECD inventory sources used in report and review(status of 19 April 2007)

  5. EEA Priority data flow – LRTAP inventories

  6. What is reviewed in stage II and how • What • LRTAP inventories, (IIR) • NECD inventories (2001/81/EC): • (EC GHG monitoring mechanism inventories, 280/2004/EC ) • Stage II testsperformed 2007 • Xpollutant test (additional sectors included in 2006) • Comparisons of different submissions CLRTAP/NECD with GHG inventories • Comparison of sectoral and national totals (NECD) • IEF test using the UNFCCC outlier tool (based on results of Key source analyses)

  7. Cross pollutant test • Selected pollutants and sectors • Latest available inventory year: 2005 • Comparison to average ratios: • Eastern, and Western Europe – not to any model

  8. Submissions comparison • CLRTAP/NECD with EC GHG monitoring mechanism • National totals (NOx, SOx, NMVOC, CO) • Years: all submitted years (1990-2005 where available, resp . 2004 and 2005 for NECD)

  9. type the subject in footer (View|Header and Footer)

  10. Implied emission factor test • Criteria for selection to the country report: • Trend - change of IEF between 2 years is > 50% • IEF out of range at least by order of magnitude • only for Key sources as identified for Eastern and Western Europe • all years 1990-2005 • IEF = Emission / Activity • Analysis with UNFCCC outlier tool- limited to EU27 MS Emission data reported under CLRTAP/NEC Most recent activity data reported under UNFCCC

  11. Examples - IEF (time series) IEF sector 4D1, gas VOC

  12. Example of findings

  13. Challenges for review teams • Timeliness – (delayed reporting by almost 50% of countries, resubmissions..) • Completeness (not complete trends, missing sectoral emissions,… missing projections,..) • Comparability & Consistency • Formats – mainly NECD – more than half of MS do not report in standardized NFR format , projections not in NFR tables • Different reporting obligations by countries (EU/non-EU; A1/non- A1;.. • outliers, gaps • Transparency – (e.g. what is included – not included in national totals, projections WM or BAU?)

  14. Conclusions /Recommendations • Review process needs to continue be a standard part of inventory cycle • Review process is time and resource demanding for countries and for ETC ACC/EMEP • Review procedures need further elaboration (e.g. automated outputs of tests, evaluation of usefulness, provision of scientific background, record keeping of comments,… ) • Reporting of countries improved

  15. Questions for expert panels and countries Setting up priorities for the next review cycle • Do test help to identify problems in reported inventories? Which tests proved to be useful ? • Do we need all the tests? (increase efficiency, avoid double work,…) • Should we invent another type of testing ? Which elements of inventory are not covered by actual tests ? What other data can be used to make comparisons across countries? • Are east/west/EU averages and/or intervals useful for comparisons ? Another grouping of countries? • Scientific value of tests ? Can we provide explanation? • How much can be IIR used in Stage II • How meaningfully aggregate test results to indicate inventory quality – what can be part of Stage II what Stage III ?

More Related