1 EINLEITUNGec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/Horizontal Report NECD REV 2018_FIN… · Web...

Horizontal reportSecond phase of review of national air pollution emission inventory dataReference: 070203/2017/765105/SER/ENV.C.3

Final Version

Authors:

Sabine Schindlbacher (Environment Agency Austria)

Chris Dore (Aether)

Kirsten May (Aether)

05 February 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................4

2 OVERVIEW OF TASKS...............................................................62.1 Task 1: Preparation for the review......................................................62.1.1 Subtask 1.1: Kick-off meeting.................................................................72.1.2 Subtask 1.2: Composition of review teams............................................72.1.3 Subtask 1.3: Preparation of guidelines...................................................92.1.4 Subtask 1.4: Checking tools/viewers and Checklists...........................102.1.5 Subtask 1.5: Online System for Communication..................................102.1.6 Subtask 1.6: Training activities for reviewers.......................................112.1.7 Subtask 1.7: Work Plan........................................................................11

2.2 Task 2: Comprehensive technical review........................................122.2.1 Task 2.1: Initial checks.........................................................................122.2.2 Task 2.2: Desk review..........................................................................132.2.3 Task 2.3 Centralized review.................................................................14

2.3 Task 4 Inventory review reports.......................................................16

3 MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NECD REVIEW 2018......................173.1 General Observations on the quality of the air pollutant

inventories submitted under NECD..................................................173.1.1 Performance Across Member States...................................................173.1.2 Improving the review of Emissions Data..............................................173.1.1 Implementation of recommendations, Revised Estimates and

Technical corrections from the NECD review 2017..............................173.1.2 General Remarks on the quality of HMs and POPs inventories...........18

3.2 The review findings in numbers.......................................................193.2.1 Use of a Tier 1 method for a key category...........................................21

3.3 The effect of the review.....................................................................223.4 The findings of the adjustment review.............................................30

4 SUMMARY OF THE FEEDBACK RECEIVED DURING THE REVIEW.............................................................................32

4.1 Resulting recommendations for the future reviews........................32

5 DELIVERABLES AND MEETINGS...........................................34Deliverables.....................................................................................................34Meetings...........................................................................................................34

6 CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................36

7 ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................37

8 REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS.................38

Umweltbundesamt 05 February 2019 3

1 INTRODUCTION

This horizontal report summarizes all tasks of service contract No: 070203/2017/765105/SER/ENV.C.3, the main findings of the review, the effect of the review on the EU total emissions and a summary of feedback received during the review.

The general objective of this project was to support the European Commission and the European Environment Agency in carrying-out the review of the national emission inventory data and adjustment applications submitted under the NEC Directive 2016/2284 in the year 2018. This review was performed in accordance with article 10(3) and article 5(6) of the new NECD.

The results of the review inform compliance checking of the current applicable 2010 NECD ceil-ings, as well as future compliance checking of the national emission reduction commitments set in the new NECD. Reported emissions for the year 2005 will be the base for these emission re-duction commitments. Further, the results of the review inform compliance checking of Member States’ basic obligations of the POPs protocol and heavy metals protocol under the CLRTAP and, with respect to mercury, also inform the review of mercury emissions that the Commission is required to do under article 13(3) of the new NECD.

.

More specifically the objectives of this project were:

a detailed review to verify that Member States have integrated the revised estimates, technical corrections and other relevant recommendations from the 2017 in-depth EU review in their national emission inventories as reported by 15 February 2018

a full in-depth review of national emission inventories, including the calculation of tech-nical corrections, for those Member States that were not reviewed in-depth in 2017

initiate the review of the national emission inventories of the POPs and heavy metals for which the new NECD sets out mandatory reporting, i.e. polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-bons (PAHs, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene), dioxins/furans, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), hexa-chlorobenzene (HCB), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg) and lead (Pb)

review of adjustment applications submitted in 2018, both newly submitted ones and the ones already submitted and accepted in previous years.

4 Umweltbundesamt

Vienna 2018

The scope of the four areas of the review is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Scope of the NECD review 2018

Follow-up 2017 Full review (GR and FI)

POPs and HMs Adjustments

Member States

All 28 Member States

Greece and Fin-land

All 28 Member States AT, BE, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, IE, LU, HU and GB

Years 2005, 2010, 2015, 2016

2005, 2010, 2016 1990, 2005, 2016 submitted years

Technical Corrections

2005, 2010 and 2016

2005, 2010, 2016 NO Technical Correc-tions

/

Pollutants NOx, SO2, NMVOC, NH3, and PM2.5

NOx, SO2, NMVOC, NH3, and PM2.5

Cd, Hg, Pb, PAHs, di-oxins/furans, PCBs, HCB

submitted pollutants

Sectors All sectors, includ-ing selected memo items1

All sectors, in-cluding selected memo items1

All sectors, including selected memo items1

submitted NFR sec-tors

The main phases of the project were the preparation for the review where guidance docu-ments and a review report template were prepared, tools for the review were developed and where the reviewers were trained, the review that was divided into a desk review and a central-ized review and the phase after the review that was dedicated to writing the review reports.

The team was structured into a core project team (project manager plus technical advisor and quality manager plus assistant and Core Team Support) and a technical expert review team that consisted of 18 sector experts and 4 lead reviewers. The technical expert review team TERT was an international team with outstanding experts from twelve different EU Member States.

1 1A3ai(ii) International aviation cruise (civil)

1A3aii(ii) Domestic aviation cruise (civil)

1A3di(i) International maritime navigation

1A3 Transport (fuel used) – where a MS uses fuel used for


2 OVERVIEW OF TASKS

Based on the project proposal and the discussion with the EC and EEA during the kick-off meet-ing and thereafter Environment Agency Austria and their subcontractors carried out the follow-ing tasks under Service Contract Number No 070203/2017/765105/SER/ENV.C.3.

1: Preparation for the review

1.1: Kick-off meeting

1:2: Composition of review teams

1.3: Preparation of guidelines

1.4: Checking tools/viewers and checklists

1.5: Emission Review Tool-NECD

1.6: Training activities for reviewers

1.7: Work plan

2: Technical review

2.1 Initial checks

2.1.1 Follow up to the 2017 in-depth EU review

2.1.2 First phase of the in-depth review of national emission inventories of POPs and heavy metals

2.2 Desk review



2.2.3 Review of adjustment applications

2.3: Centralized review



2.3.3 Review of adjustment applications

2.4: Inventory review reports

3: Horizontal project report

2.1 Task 1: Preparation for the review

The objective of this task was to prepare for an efficient and consistent review in 2018. During the preparation for the review it was ensured that:

materials and tools that were needed for the review were ready to be used experts were prepared prior to the start of the review and were aware of the principles

and the organization of the comprehensive review and knew how to use the tools and materials

6 Umweltbundesamt

Vienna 2018

appropriately detailed checks and analytical tools were provided to achieve a consistent review across all experts

documentation and communication of observations and issues within the team and with Member States took place in a consistent and efficient way

review reports had a harmonized format for all Member States

2.1.1 Subtask 1.1: Kick-off meeting

On 2 February 2018 a kick-off meeting in the EEA office in Copenhagen was organized. The purpose of the kick-off meeting was to discuss the composition of the review team, discuss the time schedule of the review and to come to a common understanding on open questions. The project manager (Sabine Schindlbacher), the technical advisor (Katarina Mareckova), the quality controller (Chris Dore), the coordinator for the initial checks for HMs and POPs (Jeroen Kuenen) representatives of the EEA (Federico Antognazza) and the European Commission (Viviane An-dre and Zlatko Kregar) participated in the meeting.

Minutes of the meeting were provided to all participants.

2.1.2 Subtask 1.2: Composition of review teams

From the pool of 46 experts 22 sector experts and four lead reviewers were chosen. The re-viewers were split into four technical experts review teams. Each team consisted of one lead re-viewer and five sector experts (Table 2). Each sector expert reviewed seven Member States ex-cept waste experts who reviewed 14 Member States (as fewer findings were expected com-pared to other sectors). The lead reviewers were responsible for seven Member States each. The experts in different teams acted as counterparts and checked the results of the other sector expert in order to ensure the four-eyes-principle. The lead reviewers ensured a consistent ap-proach across the four teams. Table 2 shows the technical experts review team for the NECD review 2018. The reviewers also reviewed the adjustment applications of the Member States as-signed to them.

.


Table 2 Technical expert review team for the NECD review 2018

Technical expert review team 1 Technical expert review team 2 Technical expert review team3 Technical expert review team4

Member State GB RO IE IT DK HR MT BE SE FR LT CZ LV LU DE FI NL SK HU EE CY ES AT BG GR PT SI PL

Lead reviewer Kristina Saarinen, FI Kevin Hausmann, DE Justin Goodwin, GB Ole-Kenneth Nielsen, DK

Energy; Stationary and Fugitives

Rianne Dröge, NL Stephan Poupa, ATKatrina Young, GB

Glen Thistlethwaite, GB

Energy: Transport road +off road

Giorgos Mellios, GR Giannis Papadimitriou, GR Tim Murrels, GB Jean Marc André, FR

IPPU Ardi Link, EE Jeroen Kuenen, NL Ils Moorkens, BE Coralie Jeannot, FR

Agriculture Michael Anderl, AT Beatriz Sánchez, ES Bernard Hyde, IE Mette Mikkelsen, DK

Waste GJ Venhuis, NL GJ Venhuis, NL Celine Gueguen, FR Celine Gueguen, FR

8 Umweltbundesamt Vienna 2018

The review experts came from twelve different Member States and 10 different institutions. Three persons participated as individual persons (see list below).

Aether (United Kingdom) CITEPA (France) DCE (Denmark) Emisia (Greece) Environment Agency Austria (Austria) RIVM (The Netherlands) Ricardo Energy & Environment (United Kingdom) SYKE (Finland) TNO (The Netherlands) VITO (Belgium) Individual Contract: Ardi Link (Estonia) Individual Contract: Bernard Hyde (Ireland) Individual Contract: Kevin Hausmann (Germany)

2.1.3 Subtask 1.3: Preparation of guidelines

The key element to ensure a consistent and comprehensive review of the NECD national emission inventories submissions of the 28 Member States are the ‘review guidance documents‘. On 2 and 5 March, the core team provided a draft ‘review report template’, a document providing an overview of the project’s programme of work for MS (draft ‘EU air emission inventory review guidelines - ver-sion 2018’) (EU, 2018)and ‘Draft guidance on procedures for TERTs – version 2018’ to the EC and the EEA for commenting2. Comments from the EEA and the EC were included by 15 March 2018. The final version of these documents including all comments received were completed on 4 May 2018.

2.1.3.1‘EU air emission inventory review guidelines - version 2018’The ‘EU air emission inventory review guidelines – version 2018’ are guidelines specifically de-veloped for the NECD Review. They specify the scope, work flow, and timings proposed for the re-view process and are mainly addressed to Member States.

2.1.3.2 ‘Guidance on procedures for TERTs – version 2018’

The document “guidance on procedures for TERTs – version 2018” is a separate guidance docu-ment. It is primarily intended for members of the technical expert review team. Whilst it is broadly similar in content, it focuses on a specific part of the review process (the review work performed by the reviewers) and has additional detailed information on the relevant processes, tools, and logist -ics. This document aims to promote consistency in the review of the Member State data submis-sions.

2.1.3.3 ‘Review report template’

The review report template is based on the review report template developed for the NECD review 2017 and facilitates an efficient preparation of the review reports ensuring consistency between Member States.

2 For the Member States (i.e. Greece and partially Finland) that were not reviewed during the 2017-in-depth review the re-view report template used during the NECD Review 2017 was used.

9 Umweltbundesamt 31 January 2019

2.1.4 Subtask 1.4: Checking tools/viewers and Checklists

The following tools were made available to the review team before the start of the desk review. These tools were simple Microsoft ® Excel tools, that contain overview graphs and tables and high-light outliers. In most of these tools the pollutant and Member States and “NFR category” can be chosen from a drop down menu and the data is then displayed. The tools made it possible to easily analyse the following areas:

o Completenesso Assessment of NE,”0” and other selected notation keys (for main pollutants)

o Accuracy/Consistency o Comparison of National Total reported with National Total for Compliance o Comparison of PM10 with PM2.5 reporting

o Recalculationso New, discontinued or large changes to categories

Only for main pollutantso Timeseries consistency

o Emission time series and IEFs (where calculation of IEFs is possible)o Consistency across countries /years

o Emissions per capitao Emissions per GDPo Key category comparison across countries and years

o Other statistical data o LCP datao Energy Balanceso Heating and Cooling Degree dayso Livestock Statisticso Fertiliser Statisticso Municipal Waste Generation Statistics

The tools were the starting point for the review (initial checks) and were also used during the desk review and the centralized review.

Checklists for each sector, lead reviewer checklists and quality controller checklists were provided to technical expert review teams in order to ensure consistent approaches across Member States and to document the results of the checks. Feedback from the technical expert review teams TERT in 2017 was used to help steer improvements and updates.

2.1.5 Subtask 1.5: Online System for Communication

For the communication of findings within the technical expert review teams, and between technical expert review team and Member States, the Emission Review Tool-NECD was used. This ensured that all communication was stored. It also reduced the workload to compile the draft review reports and ensured that all important findings were considered for the review report.

The tool needed adaptations in order to fulfil all requirements of this review (e.g. the option to se-lect heavy metals and POPs needed to be added). A “bulk import” functionality was added, which allowed efficient import of the findings of the initial checks team, reducing the workload for the initial checks team and the technical expert review team. Further this functionality ensured that the revi-

Umweltbundesamt 31 January 2019 10

sions made to the conclusion text in the review reports were imported into the Emission Review Tool-NECD 2018. This ensured consistency between the review reports and the Emission Review Tool-NECD tool 2018. The main work of adapting the Emission Review Tool-NECD was under-taken by the EEA. However, our project team supported the EEA, suggesting necessary adapta-tions and also supported the EEA during testing the adapted Emission Review Tool-NECD.

2.1.6 Subtask 1.6: Training activities for reviewers

The project team organised a training workshop for the technical expert review team on 8 May 2018. The training workshop was held as a 2.5 hours web conference. For (the few) experts that were not available on that date additional training was offered. For the six new experts additional training sessions were arranged. In the project proposal it was planned as a one day workshop in Copenhagen. Money saved from travelling (14,865 €) and expert time was moved to the initial checks, desk review and the centralized review.

The training workshop covered the following topics.

Introduction to the NECD review 2018

Organization of the NECD review 2018

Main work packages of the review

Basic principles of the review

“EU air emission inventory review guidelines – version 2018” including prioritization guid-ance

“Guidance on procedures for TERTs – version 2018”’

Technical corrections for follow-up of the NECD in depth review 2017

Review material and tools

QA/QC procedures

Guidance on communications within the team

Introduction to the Communication tools (Emission Review Tool-NECD, Sharepoint)

Review report template

Sector specific materials, tools and checklists

Compilation of review reports

2.1.7 Subtask 1.7: Work Plan

The work plan described the planned work, presented the technical expert review team and in-cluded updated budget tables and an updated time schedule. This was sent to the EC on 19 April 2018.

2.2 Task 2: Comprehensive technical review

2.2.1 Task 2.1: Initial checks

Initial checks were undertaken for both the follow-up to the 2017 in-depth EU review and the first phase of the in-depth review of national emission inventories of POPs and heavy metals to be re-viewed but not for the review of adjustment applications.


2.2.1.1 Task 2.1.1: Follow-up to the 2017 in-depth EU review

The recommendations from the NECD review 2017 were screened by a small team from Aether. The output was a short assessment for each 2017 recommendation which was made available to sector experts through the Emission Review Tool-NECD. All revised estimates and technical cor-rections were directly assessed by sector experts.

QA/QC procedures were in place for the initial checks. The project quality controller checked all of the findings and provided general support to the assessment team as required.

2.2.1.1 Task 2.1.2: First phase of the in-depth review of national emission inventories of POPs and heavy metals

The pollutants covered under this part of the review were the POPs and heavy metals for which the new NECD sets out mandatory reporting, i.e. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene), dioxins/fur-ans, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), hexachlorobenzene (HCB), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg) and lead (Pb). The main focus was on POPs and heavy metals emissions reported for the year 1990 (most common reference year used for compliance with basic reduction obligations under the POPs and heavy metals protocols), for 2005 and the latest year for which data was available (2016). However, the consistency of the time series data was also checked for all reported years.

The main goal of this first review was to identify key areas for improvement in the Member States inventories. A small team at TNO undertook the initial checks and flagged the issues that should be followed-up by sector experts.

For the test on completeness a check was made to see whether all the pollutants required were re-ported for 1990, 2005 and 2016. The first check was against the emission factor data base of the Guidebook 2016 (EMEP/EEA, 2016 ) version. NFR categories were assessed for the use of Tier 1 (or Tier 2) emission factors.

The “missing” emissions were ranked according to importance in

the EU28 (key category analysis) an independent inventory (TNO HM/POP inventory in support of UNECE – base year

2000)o This could only be done at the level of 8 aggregated sectors

For checking time series consistency, any major issues with trends from one year to the next (for entire period 1990-2016) at NFR level were identified.

The output of the initial checks for HMs and POPs was an Excel file that contained all issues that should be followed-up by the sector experts. This Excel file was uploaded into the Emission Review Tool-NECD.

2.2.2 Task 2.2: Desk review

The NECD review 2018 was organized as a desk and centralized review as described in the tender specifications. The desk review was carried out between 14 May and 8 June 2018

The details of the procedures and the principles of the review, including the communication within the team and with Member States were described in the “EU air emission inventory review guide-lines - version 2018” (EU, 2018), and in the “Guidance for TERTs version 2018”. Sector experts fol-lowed the sector specific checklists to ensure a consistent approach across the countries. The


2016 version of the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook (EMEP/EEA, 2016) (henceforth termed the “EMEP/EEA Guidebook”) was used as a basis for the review.

Desk reviews were undertaken at experts’ home offices and monitored carefully by the project manager, lead reviewers, and quality controller.

The Emission Review Tool-NECD was used for communication within the technical expert review team and with Member States during the desk review. Sector experts drafted initial questions to the Member States and counterparts and lead reviewers checked them. Once the question was ap-proved by the lead reviewer, the lead reviewer sent it to the Member State any time during the pe -riod of the desk review. Checking of the questions by the counterpart ensured that the four eyes principle was applied. The project quality controller also checked the work of each of the sector re -viewers and lead reviewers to ensure a high level of quality, and consistency of work across the Member States.

Member States were asked to provide answers possibly within one week but by the 22 June at the latest.

2.2.2.1 Task 2.2.1: Follow-up to the 2017 in-depth EU review

The assessment from the initial check team for the follow-up to the 2017 in-depth EU review was made available to the sector experts via the Emission Review Tool-NECD. Sector experts de-cided for all recommendations initially identified as “not implemented” and “unsure” whether an observation should be raised in the Emission Review Tool-NECD. This means that if a sector ex-pert decided that a recommendation from the NECD Review 2017 was not implemented the Mem-ber States was contacted via the Emission Review Tool-NECD. The Member States then had the opportunity to explain why the recommendation had not been actioned, and to provide further infor -mation. All recommendations that were not implemented were then listed in the review report in a separate table to clearly mark that these recommendations were issued twice already. All recom-mendations related to technical corrections and revised estimates from the 2017 NECD review were reviewed by sector experts during the desk review due to the importance of these recom-mendations. During the desk review sector experts checked for all recommendations related to the use of the EMPEP/ EEA Guidebook (EMEP/EEA, 2016) that concerned key categories if they were potential technical corrections.

The in-depth review of national emission inventories of SO2, NOx, PM2.5, NMVOC and NH3 from Member States not reviewed during the 2017 in-depth EU review followed the same rules and prin-ciples as the review in 2017.

2.2.2.2 Task 2.2.2: First phase of the in-depth review of national emission inventories of POPs and heavy metals

The sector experts looked in more detail at the initial checks findings that were forwarded to them via the Emission Review Tool-NECD. The designated sector expert reviewed the reported emis-sions and the calculation methodology as described in the Informative Inventory Report (first during the desk review and then also during the centralized review). In case a different methodology than that from the 2016 version of the EMEP/EEA Guidebook was used that was not transparently docu-


mented or did not seem to be appropriate, this was flagged and the Member State was contacted via the Emission Review Tool-NECD in order to clarify the issue.

2.2.2.3 Task 2.2.3: Review of adjustment applications

During the desk review adjustment applications submitted in 2018, both newly submitted ones and the ones already submitted and accepted in previous years, were reviewed. This review was based on the supporting documentation as requested in part 4 of Annex IV of the new NECD and as -sessed whether the adjustment application was consistent with the circumstances described therein. In addition, adjustments accepted in 2017 under the new NECD and that were resubmitted, were reviewed. Focus was placed on reviewing the consistency in the reporting of these adjust-ment applications; including consistency checks with the requirements of the NECD (i.e. with ful-filling the relevant conditions set out in article 5(1) and part 4 of Annex IV) and with corresponding approved adjustments under CLRTAP (requirement of consistency with reporting to CLRTAP).

Experts followed the adjustment guidance provided in “EU Air Emission Inventory review guidelines 2018” (EU, 2018) and took into account the relevant guidance documents developed under the CLRTAP. They conducted the review with due consideration of the findings and conclusions of cor-responding adjustment reviews conducted under the NECD/CLRTAP in previous years. When as-sessing the quantification of an adjustment that had also been reviewed in a previous year, the ex-perts considered information available from the technical assessments of the quantification of the impact of the adjustments as performed by the expert review teams under NECD/CLRTAP previ-ously.

2.2.3 Task 2.3 Centralized review

General principles that were common to all three work packages

The centralized review followed the principles and procedures described in the ‘EU air emission in-ventory review guidelines - version 2018’ (EU, 2018) and in the “TERT review guidance – version 2018”. During the initials checks phase and the four weeks of the desk review the sector experts identified most critical issues. Member States provided answers to most of the questions of the technical expert review team posed during the desk review. During the centralized review the sec-tor experts revisited the critical issues in the light of the Member State responses, discussed these issues in person with counterparts and lead reviewers and drafted recommendations. Counterparts and lead reviewers quality checked questions to Member States before they were sent to Member States using the Emission Review Tool-NECD . The project quality controller also undertook quality checks across the work of all team members.

Sector experts and lead reviewers reviewed the remaining issues for four working days (26 June to 29 June) in the premises of the EEA in Copenhagen.

During the centralized review, the technical expert review team used the Emission Review Tool-NECD to communicate with the Member State and to document all findings.

During the centralized review the quality controller and his assistant and the project manager used the “Data Visualisation Tool for Progress of the Review” to follow the progress of the review. This tool showed the status of the observations (e.g. with Member State coordinator, answered, final -


ised…). This information was visualised per Member State, per sector expert and per Technical Ex-pert Review Team).

2.2.3.1 Task 2.3.1:Follow-up to the 2017 in-depth EU review

The sector experts revisited the critical issues in the light of the Member State responses and asked follow-up questions if this was necessary and wrote conclusions where this was possible. Further, sector experts calculated potential technical corrections for both under- and overestimates of inventory data of Member States. The same threshold as last year was used to decide if an is-sue was a technical correction (i.e. if the suggested recalculation changes the national total by 2%). These technical corrections were calculated (1) in cases where the sector experts disagreed with the way the revised estimate or technical correction from the 2017 NECD review was implemented by the Member State in the 2018 NECD inventory and where no agreement with the Member State could be reached during the centralized review, (2) for recommendations to use the 2016 version of the EMEP/EEA Guidebook (EMEP/EEA, 2016) that concerned key categories and (3) for the two Member States that were reviewed in-depth.

The counterpart expert and the lead reviewers checked the calculations of the sector expert. The quality controller also checked all technical corrections. The methods for calculating the technical corrections were based on the methods referred in the UN/ECE review guidelines (ECE, 2014) and used the 2016 version of the EMEP/EEA Guidebook (EMEP/EEA, 2016) as a reference for meth -ods and emission factors.

The EEA sent the draft technical corrections to Member States on 4 July. The Member States had four weeks to comment on the draft technical corrections and provide feedback. After this com-menting phase only four out of seven technical corrections remained. For the other three technical corrections the Member States provided revised estimates that were accepted by the technical ex-pert review team.

2.2.3.2 Task 2.3.2: First phase of the in-depth review of national emission inventories of POPs and heavy metals to be reviewed

The sector experts revisited the critical issues in the light of the Member State responses and asked follow-up questions, if this was necessary, and then wrote conclusions. If an agreement between technical expert review team and Member State concerning a specific issue could not be reached within the week of the centralized review this was reflected in the conclusion.

This was the first time that HMs and POPs were reviewed under the NECD, and therefore no tech-nical corrections were proposed. The output of the centralized review were recommendations (con-tained in the conclusion text) to improve national emission inventories and the correspondence with Member States during the desk and centralized review.

2.2.3.3 Task 2.3.3: Review of adjustment applications

The sector experts revisited the critical issues in the light of the Member State responses and asked follow-up questions, and then drafted recommendations on the acceptance or rejection of the adjustment applications.


2.3 Task 4 Inventory review reports

After the centralized review the project team extracted information from the Emission Review Tool-NECD that was used as input for the initial outcomes reports and the draft review reports. Initial outcomes reports and adjustment Annexes were sent to Member States by 31 July. This ensured that the findings of the review were communicated to Member States in time to allow for a timely implementation of the recommendations in the 2019 submission. All recommendations that were not implemented were listed in the review report in a separate table to clearly mark that these rec-ommendations were issued twice already. All issues that had been implemented were not shown in the review reports for the NECD review 2018.

On 5 October draft Member State inventory review reports were sent to the EC. The comments from the EC were included and the revised draft review reports were made available to Member States on 19 October.

Member States had three weeks of time to comment on the draft review reports. The Member State comments were included in the final version of the review reports that were sent to the EC on 23 November 2019. The finalized review reports were sent to Member States on 30 November.

In addition to the inventory review report for each Member State, the contractor also compiled a short horizontal project report (the current document).

Capturing Improvements for the EMEP/EEA Guidebook

Members of the project team logged suggestions for improvements needed in the 2016 version of the EMEP/EEA Guidebook (EMEP/EEA, 2016) in a “Guidebook improvements log”. This informa-tion was collated and made available to the EC on 1 October 2018.

Collecting Feedback from the technical expert review team

Feedback from the technical expert review team was collected at the end of the centralized review. A short summary of this feedback is given in chapter 4.


3 MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NECD REVIEW 2018

3.1 General Observations on the quality of the air pollutant inventories submitted under NECD

3.1.1 Performance Across Member States

Overall, the review highlights the differences in the quality of reporting across the Member States. The inventories of 8 Member States could be considered to be of significantly poorer quality than the inventories of the remaining Member States. The issues raised have primarily to do with accur-acy, although completeness issues were also important. These Member States often use a Tier 1 methodology for estimating emissions from a key source. Tier 1 methodologies tend to overestim-ate emissions, and generally do not allow the impacts of existing policies and measures to be taken into account. For example, some countries are using Tier 1 emission factors from the 2016 version of the EMEP/EEA Guidebook (EMEP/EEA, 2016) for industrial processes that give rise to SO 2

emissions. These emission factors correspond to uncontrolled emissions, but in reality the plant in the Member State is likely to be equipped with abatement equipment that can remove more than 90% of the SO2 emission.

Similar observations can be made about the quality of the submitted IIRs. There is a wide range in quality. In general, the most significant shortcoming of IIRs is the lack of detailed activity data and country specific EFs being included in the report.

The technical expert review team are sympathetic to the fact that some Member States are very re -source constrained. However, it is disappointing to note that a significant amount of previous re-view recommendations are not being addressed. This is particularly the case in Member States which report the poorest quality emissions inventories.

The extent to which improvements will have been made to both emissions estimates and the IIRs will become apparent during the 2019 NECD reviews.

3.1.2 Improving the review of Emissions Data

An important issue that hampers the detail to which the review can be undertaken is the lack of re-ported emissions split by fuel type with accompanying activity data. GHG emissions inventory sub-missions require the provision of activity data and emissions at a more detailed level, and this al -lows implied emission factors to be calculated and compared with both default values, and values across other countries. This approach can quickly identify outliers (both high and low). As the NECD and the CLRTAP do not require the submission of emissions split by fuel type and activity data at this detail level this way of checking national submissions will not be possible.

3.1.3 Implementation of recommendations, Revised Estimates and Technical cor-rections from the NECD review 2017

During the 2017 NECD review, 967 recommendations were issued. More than half (53%) of these recommendations have been fully addressed (Figure 1). The remaining recommendations have been either partly addressed or not been addressed at all. The percentage of full implementation is fairly similar for revised estimates and potential technical corrections (51 and 56%) (Figure 1). But only nine revised estimates and potential technical corrections stayed as revised estimate or tech-nical correction in the 2018 review. All other issues of these categories that were not fully imple-


mented were progressed by adding conclusions and recommendations. The most frequent reasons for adding a recommendation to a revised estimate or technical correction were:

transparency: the revised estimate or technical correction was implemented but it was not documented in detail

recommendation to use a tier 2 method: the revised estimate or technical correction was implemented but as it concerned a key category a tier 2 method should be used

further recalculation required: the revised estimate or technical correction was partially im-plemented and further recalculations were required

up-date of part of the time-series: only part of the time series was up-dated but the years that were not up-dated concern years before 2005. The TERT still recommends to up-date the whole time series but it the issue is not classified as technical corrections

The NECD review in 2019 will show if Member States address a significant share of the recom-mendations that have been re-iterated during the NECD Review 2018.

Figure 1 Percentage of issues that were fully implemented

3.1.4 General Remarks on the quality of HMs and POPs inventories

Generally, the quality of the heavy metals and POPs inventories was much lower than of the main pollutants. For the IPPU and energy sectors, many issues were identified and many of these issues were related to completeness. Time series consistency was also an issue for many emission sources.

As it is the first time that heavy metals and POPs have been reviewed under the NECD, and as there are no binding national targets for the heavy metal and POP emissions, this part of the emis -sion reporting receives less attention by the Member States. Also the EMEP/EEA Guidebook (EMEP/EEA, 2016) needs improvement for some of the methodologies presented for heavy metals and POPs.


3.2 The review findings in numbers

In total 1409 observations were drafted during the NECD review 2018. Observations can result in a recommendation, a revised estimate or a technical correction or the issue can just be clarified by a response of the Member State. In total the technical expert review team suggested 907 recom-mendations and Member States sent 24 revised estimates and the technical expert review team calculated 4 technical corrections (Figure 2).

The number of recommendations varied between Member States with the Czech Republic having 63 recommendations and Denmark and Austria having 13 recommendations. Poland sent 5 re-vised estimates while sixteen Member States have not sent any revised estimate (however, one of these Member States had a technical correction). Four Member States had one technical correc-tion each (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Number of observations, recommendations, revised estimates and technical corrections per Member State

During the 2017 NECD review the number of revised estimates and technical corrections was much higher than in 2018. The reason for this is twofold – first, Member States addressed the most important findings from the 2017 NECD review and improved their inventories so that revised es-timates and technical corrections were not necessary and secondly, the 2018 NECD review did not


search for further revised estimates and technical corrections for main pollutants (with the excep-tion of issues related to the use of the GB 2016 that concerned key categories). The scope of the review was set on the follow-up of findings from the NECD Review 2017. It is planned for future years to set the focus on main pollutants again and then a detailed analysis if technical corrections are necessary will be performed. For heavy metals and POPs, it was agreed before the review that no revised estimates or technical corrections would be raised, with all issues being reported as re-commendations. However, technical corrections will be calculated for HMs and POPs during the NECD Review 2019.

For the main pollutants, the number of recommendations was generally similar in all sectors except the waste sector (Figure 3). For heavy metals and POPs, the IPPU and energy sectors had consid-erably more recommendations than the others sectors with agriculture having the least observa-tions (Figure 3). This broadly reflects the importance of heavy metal and POP emissions of the re-spective sectors.


Figure 3 Number of Observations, recommendations, revised estimates and technical corrections per sector

Efforts were made to assign the findings to the following classes “completeness”, “recalculations”, “time series inconsistency” and “accuracy” to identify the most important areas for improvement (Figure 4 and ). Here issues classified as recalculation refer to issues related to unclear or incorrect recalculations done by the Member States in the current inventory submission, whereas issues classified as “accuracy” refer to issues where the sector expert does not agree with the numeric emission estimate provided by a Member State and recommends “recalculations” or a justification in the Informative Inventory Report for the next inventory submission. The data has to be inter-preted with caution as the classification was sometimes ambiguous and as some findings qualified for more than one of the classes. However, the graph clearly shows that, for all sectors, most of the observations were related to accuracy for main pollutants (Figure 4). This result was expected based on the findings from the previous year. Unsurprisingly, for heavy metals and POPs, most of the findings were related to completeness - an area for improvement for many Member States (and the focus of the heavy metals and POPs review this year). There are many issues in the IPPU sec-tor related to completeness which still need to be resolved ().


Figure 4 Number of observations per area of improvement and per sector for Main Pollutants

Figure 5 Number of observations per area of improvement and per sector for Heavy Metals and POPs


3.2.1 Use of a Tier 1 method for a key category

The NECD Review 2017 found 36 cases occurring in 17 different Member States where a Tier 1 method was used for a key category for main pollutants. During the 2018 NECD Review, 12 cases were found in eight different Member States for main pollutants (Table 3). Of these twelve cases seven cases were follow-up recommendations from the NECD Review 2017. The other cases were additional recommendations. The IPPU and agriculture sectors were where most of the Tier 1 methods were used for a key-category. NMVOC was the pollutant most frequently concerned (see Table 3).

Table 3 NFR category and pollutants for which a Tier 1 method was used for a key category for main pollut-ants

MS NFR Category PollutantBulgaria 2D3b Road Paving with Asphalt PM2.5

Bulgaria 3B Manure Management NH3

Croatia 2D3e Degreasing, NMVOC NMVOCCzech Re-public

2D3a Domestic Solvent Use Including Fungicides NMVOC

Greece 2A1 Cement Production PM2.5

Greece 3B Manure Management NH3

Lithuania 2D3a Domestic Solvent Use Including Fungicides NMVOCLithuania 3D Crop Production and Agricultural Soils NH3

Lithuania 2D3g Chemical Products, NMVOC NMVOCLuxembourg 3Da1 Inorganic N-fertilizers NH3

Romania 1B2av Distribution of Oil Products NMVOCSpain 3B Manure Management NMVOC

The 2018 NECD Review found 14 cases occurring in eight different Member States where a Tier 1 method was used for a key category for heavy metals and POPs (Table 4). All but one of these cases concerned the sector Energy. All pollutants were concerned but PAHs and PCDD/F were more frequently concerned (Table 4). It is likely that the in-depth 2019 NECD Review will identify additional issues.

Table 4 NFR category and pollutants for which a Tier 1 method was used for a key category for HM and POP

Member State

NFR category Pollutant(s)

Cyprus 1A3b Road Transport Pb

Cyprus 1A4bi Residential: Stationary PCDD/F

Estonia 1A1a Public Electricity and Heat Production PAHs, PCBs, HCB, PCDD/F

Estonia 1A2gviii Stationary Combustion in Manufacturing Industries and Construction: Other

PCBs, PCDD/F

France 3F Field Burning of Agricultural Residues Cd

Croatia 1A2f Stationary Combustion in Manufacturing In- PAHs, HCB, Cd, Hg, PCDD/F


dustries and Construction: Non-Metallic Minerals

Ireland 1A2f Stationary Combustion in Manufacturing In-dustries and Construction: Non-metallic minerals

Cd, Hg

Ireland 1A4bi Residential: Stationary PAHs, PCBs, Cd, Hg, Pb, PCDD/F

Italy 1A1a Public Electricity and Heat Production PCBs, Hg

Italy 1A2 Stationary Combustion in Manufacturing In-dustries and Construction

PCBs, HCB, Cd, Hg, Pb, PCDD/F

Lithuania 1A4bi Residential: Stationary PAHs, PCBs, HCB, Cd, Hg, Pb, PCDD/F

Slovakia 1A1a Public Electricity and Heat Production Hg

Slovakia 1A4ai Commercial/Institutional: Stationary Cd

Slovakia 1A4bi Residential: Stationary Cd, Hg

3.3 The effect of the review

The changes in the EU Total introduced by revised estimates and technical corrections varied between the reviewed pollutants (Figure 6). In absolute numbers the change across all four ana-lysed years was smallest for PM2.5 emission and highest for NH3 emissions (Figure 6). For PM2.5 the introduced change ranged from 0 to minus 2 kt for the analysed years (2005, 2010, 2015 and 2016) and for NH3 the introduced change ranged from 17 kt to 21 kt for the analysed years (Figure6). Generally, the change introduced by revised estimates and technical corrections was smaller in the 2018 NECD review compared to the 2017 NECD review, where for NMVOC emissions the in-troduced change ranged from 139 kt to 210 kt for the analysed years, which is mainly due to the improved quality of Member State inventories but also to the scope of the NECD review 2018. The scope of the review was set on the follow-up of findings from the NECD Review 2017. Major recal-culations were assessed in detail, but the main pollutant inventories were not assessed in detail and it was not tested if there are any further issues that could be a potential technical correction (with the exception of issues related to the use of the 2016 EMEP/EEA Guidebook (EMEP/EEA, 2016) that concerned key categories). So potentially there could be issues that are above the threshold of significance this year, but were below in the last year. These cases will be detected when the focus of the NECD Review is set onto the main pollutants again.

Revised estimates and technical corrections for heavy metals and POPs were not part of the 2018 NECD review and thus changes to the emission estimates for these pollutants are not presented in this report.

Figure 6 Changes in EU emission total in response to the NECD review 2018



4,078 kt

9,385 kt

12,167 kt

1,706 kt

7,677 kt

4,095 kt

9,382 kt

12,179 kt

1,705 kt

7,678 kt

17 kt

-3 kt

12 kt

-1 kt

1 kt

-2,000 - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000

NH3

NMVOC

NOx

PM2.5

SOx

Tota

l EU

Emiss

ions

(20

05)

Change EU Total including change EU Total

3,852 kt

7,840 kt

9,527 kt

1,591 kt

4,201 kt

3,871 kt

7,835 kt

9,531 kt

1,591 kt

4,200 kt

19 kt

-5 kt

4 kt

0 kt

-1 kt

-2,000 - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000

NH3

NMVOC

NOx

PM2.5

SOx

Tota

l EU

Emiss

ions

(20

10)


3,896 kt

6,823 kt

7,936 kt

1,363 kt

2,802 kt

3,916 kt

6,808 kt

7,941 kt

1,365 kt

2,807 kt

19 kt

-15 kt

5 kt

2 kt

5 kt

-1,000 - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000

NH3

NMVOC

NOx

PM2.5

SOxTo

atl E

U Em

issio

ns (

2015

)


3,913 kt

6,707 kt

7,644 kt

1,343 kt

2,378 kt

3,933 kt

6,691 kt

7,649 kt

1,344 kt

2,383 kt

21 kt

-16 kt

5 kt

1 kt

5 kt

-1,000 - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000

NH3

NMVOC

NOx

PM2.5

SOx

Toat

l EU

Emiss

ions

(20

16)



In relative numbers the change introduced by the NECD review 2018 ranged from -0.2% to +0.5%. The highest relative changes were observed for NH3 (Figure 7).

Figure 7 Relative change in the EU total in response to the NECD review 2018

For some individual Member States the numeric effect of the 2018 NECD review was bigger than at the EU level (Figure 8). This is because revisions to Member States emissions estimates in op-posite directions cancel out at the EU level. As many Member States did not have any revised es-timates or technical corrections there is no change in the numbers for their emission estimates.

The largest individual Member States changes are: The change of more than 10 kt for NOx emissions for the year 2005 for Portugal was due to

a revised estimate for “1A1a Public electricity and heat production”. The change of more than 5 kt for SOx emissions for the year 2016 for Estonia was also due

to a revised estimate for “1A1a Public electricity and heat production”. The change of around than 25 kt for NMVOC emissions for the years 2005, 2010, 2015

and 2016 for Romania was due to a revised estimate for “2D3a Domestic solvent use in-cluding fungicides”.

Poland showed major changes in response to the review for three pollutants: for NMVOC for “5A Biological treatment of waste - Solid waste disposal on land” and for NH3 for “3Da1 Inorganic N-fertilizers” and “1A2d Stationary combustion in manufacturing industries and construction: Pulp, Paper and Print” and for PM2.5 in the sector waste.


Figure 8 Absolute change in emissions due to revised and technical corrections3

3 Adjustments are excluded as these figures should show the effect of the NECD review. Changes due to adjustments are not the result of the NECD Review but of the initiative of a Member State.


The relative change due to revised estimates and technical corrections varied substantially between Member States (Table 5). The 2018 NECD review did not suggest any change for four-teenMember States (these Member States are not shown in Table 5). The 2018 NECD Review suggested changes to national totals for up to +40% (for NMVOC emissions for Cyprus for the year 2016). Generally, more revised estimates and technical corrections that increased the national total were issued. The number of cases where the national total was reduced was similar for all four analysed (2005, 2010, 2015, 2016) years. So the review did not find a tendency that the base year is particularly overestimated in Member States.

Table 5 Relative change to the National Total due to revised estimates and technical corrections

Relative Change to National Total due to revised estimates and technical cor-rections

Member State PollutantYear

2005 2010 2015 2016Belgium NH3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

NMVOC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

NOX 0.0% 0.0% -0.1% -0.1%

PM2.5 -0.5% -0.5% -0.6% -0.6%

SOX 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Bulgaria NH3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

NMVOC -0.6% -3.0% -4.3% -4.4%

NOX 0.8% 0.9% 1.1% 1.2%

PM2.5 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

SOX 0.1% -0.3% 0.7% 0.3%Croatia NH3 4.1% 4.2% 3.9% 4.4%

NMVOC -2.0% -2.3% -4.2% -4.2%

NOX 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

PM2.5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

SOX 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Cyprus NH3 -0.4% -0.4% -0.5% -0.5%

NMVOC 22.8% 36.5% 38.9% 40.3%

NOX 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

PM2.5 -21.9% -2.4% 4.7% 4.3%

SOX 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Estonia NH3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

NMVOC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

NOX 0.0% 0.0% 4.4% 4.8%

PM2.5 0.0% 0.0% 6.1% 4.4%

SOX 0.0% 0.0% 13.6% 17.2%Ireland NH3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

NMVOC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%




2005 2010 2015 2016

NOX 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

PM2.5 -13.0% -10.6% -10.6% -11.1%

SOX 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Latvia NH3 0.4% 0.6% 0.1% 0.1%

NMVOC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

NOX 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

PM2.5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

SOX 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Luxembourg NH3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

NMVOC 2.6% 3.8% 3.7% 3.6%

NOX 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

PM2.5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

SOX 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Malta NH3 -5.4% 0.9% 6.0% 7.3%

NMVOC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

NOX 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

PM2.5 3.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3%

SOX 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Poland NH3 5.1% 6.3% 6.7% 7.1%

NMVOC 3.1% 2.4% 1.3% 1.1%

NOX 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

PM2.5 1.8% 1.9% 2.5% 2.3%

SOX 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Portugal NH3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

NMVOC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

NOX 4.1% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%

PM2.5 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

SOX 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Romania NH3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

NMVOC -8.2% -8.8% -9.6% -9.6%

NOX 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

PM2.5 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

SOX 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Slovenia NH3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%




2005 2010 2015 2016NMVOC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

NOX 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

PM2.5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

SOX 0.7% -0.8% -4.0% -3.5%Czech Republic NH3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

NMVOC 1.6% 1.8% 2.2% 2.2%

NOX 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

PM2.5 -1.5% -1.3% -1.4% -1.4%

SOX 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Colour code: light yellow: change between +1 to +10% and -1% and 10%; orange: change between +10 to +20% and -10 to -20%; red: change above +20%, below -20%;

3.4 The findings of the adjustment review

The following two tables summarise the recommendations from the technical expert review team after reviewing adjustment applications submitted in 2018, both newly submitted adjustment applic-ations and those already submitted and accepted in previous years.

Table 6 Findings of the Review of Adjustment Applications Newly Submitted in 2018

Country Source Sector Years Pollut-ant

Recommend-ation

Austria 3B Manure management3D Crop production and agricultural soils

2010-2016 NOx Accept

Ireland 3B Manure management3D Crop production and agricultural soils


Hungary 3B Manure management3D Crop production and agricultural soils

2010-2016 NMVOC Accept

United Kingdom

1A3b Road transport 2010 NOx Accept

Table 7 Findings of the Review of Adjustment Applications Originally Submitted in Previous Years

Country Source Sector Years Pollutant Recom-menda-tion

Austria 1A3b Road transport 2010-2016 NOx AcceptAustria 3D Crop production and agricultural soils 2010-2016 NH3 AcceptBelgium 1A3b Road transport 2010-2016 NOx AcceptBelgium 3B Manure management

3D Crop production and agricultural soils2010-2016 NOx Accept


Country Source Sector Years Pollutant Recom-menda-tion

Belgium 3B Manure management3D Crop production and agricultural soils

2010 NMVOC Accept

Denmark 3B Manure management 2010-2016 NMVOC AcceptDenmark 3D Crop production and agricultural soils 2010-2016 NH3 AcceptFinland 1A3b Road transport 2010-2016 NH3 AcceptFinland 1A4ai Commercial/institutional: Stationary

1A4bi Residential: Stationary1A4ci Agriculture/Forestry/Fishing: Stationary

2010-2016 NH3 Accept

France 1A3b Road transport 2010-2016 NOx AcceptGermany 1A3b Road transport 2010-2016 NOx AcceptGermany 3B Manure management

3D Crop production and agricultural soils3I Agriculture other


Germany 3B Manure management3D Crop production and agricultural soils


Germany 3D Crop production and agricultural soils3I Agriculture other

2010-2016 NH3 Accept

Ireland 1A3b Road transport1A3c Railways1A3dii National navigation (shipping)1A4ciii Agriculture/Forestry/Fishing: National fishing


Ireland 1A4ai Commercial/institutional: Stationary1A4bi Residential: Stationary


Ireland 2H2 Food and beverages industry 2010-2016 NMVOC AcceptIreland 3B Manure management

3D Crop production and agricultural soils2010-2016 NMVOC Accept

Luxem-bourg

1A3b Road transport 2010-2016 NOx Accept

Luxem-bourg

3B Manure management3D Crop production and agricultural soils


Luxem-bourg

3B Manure management3D Crop production and agricultural soils


Spain 1A3b Road transport 2010-2015 NOx AcceptSpain 3B Manure management 2010-2015 NOx Accept

The majority of the MS notified the European Commission through the EIONET Central Data Re-pository (CDR) partnership network of the EEA of its intention to apply for adjustments on or before the deadline of the 15th February 2018. MS primarily provided supporting information requested by Directive 2016/2284, Article 5.1, Article 8.4 and Annex IV, Part 4 as part of the Informative Invent-ory Report by the legal deadline of the 15 March 2018. For several Member States (including all of those making new adjustment applications), additional documentation was provided during the re-view in response to requests from the Technical Expert Review Team.

The technical expert review team has undertaken a full and thorough assessment of the new ad-justment applications, and a review of the latest information submitted on previously accepted ad-justments.

The technical expert review team recommended that the European Commission accept all of the adjustment applications, as listed in Table 6 and Table 7 above.


4 SUMMARY OF THE FEEDBACK RECEIVED DURING THE REVIEW

This year no full questionnaire was sent to the technical expert review team or the Member States. The technical expert review team was asked to give their feedback after the centralized review and also during other occasions feedback was received that was documented by the project manager. Much of the feedback concerned minor technical details that will not be mentioned here. The more general feedback and ideas for improvement are summarized below:

The feedback received most frequently from the technical expert review team during the review was that the number of days assigned to the review tasks was not sufficient for the expected work. The project management team noted that this message was received from all different roles within the project, suggesting that the issue was not associated with spe-cific day allocations to particular tasks, but was a more general issue relating to the total budget available for the project. The project management team reflected on the fact that, for many tasks, it is only possible to scale down work to a certain extent to meet the avail -able time. Nevertheless, the project was delivered to specification and the available budget.

The initial checks were valued by the sector experts. The general feedback was that further tasks could be moved to the initial checks team e.g. sending easy issues (e.g. inconsistent use of notation keys) to Member States at the beginning of the desk review. This would im-prove the overall efficiency of the review. However, sector experts also underlined that to undertake a thorough review it is important for them to have enough time to scrutinize the inventories with their expert view. The comparison with alternative inventories was per-ceived as time consuming task with little benefit for the review results.

The Emission Review Tool-NECD received very positive feedback and was perceived as well designed for the purpose.

The training provided by the project management team also received positive feedback, al-though some sector experts mentioned that it was not possible for them to read all of the information provided to them (such as the guidance documents) within the time allocation given to them.

Four days for the centralized review was perceived as appropriate by some sector experts, but as insufficient by others. All agreed that six days is unnecessarily long.

The review report template also received positive feedback. It was suggested that in some cases more positive language should be used and that perhaps Member States also should be commended for improvements (mixed feedback in this point) and that the format of the table with the recommendations should be revised. The importance of keeping the review reports short and concise was also reiterated by both the technical expert review team and Member States.

4.1 Resulting recommendations for the future reviews

Move more tasks to the initial checks team e.g. sending easy issues (e.g. inconsistent use of notation keys) to Member States at the beginning of the desk review. This helps to im-prove time and cost efficiency.


Keep the review guidelines as short and concise as possible, include a summary at the be-ginning that contains the most important information and also a summary of changes for reviewers who have participated in previous NECD Reviews. This is to ensure that the re-port is structured to meet the needs of the different stakeholders as far as possible.

Reserve five days for the centralized review. Past experience tells us that this time is re-quired to address all of the work during the centralised review stage of the project.

Evaluate if a comparison with alternative inventories is beneficial for the review. This will need to be considered on a case by case basis, because finding differences to a second datasets does not necessarily indicate shortcomings with the reporting under the NECD.

Keep the review report concise and revise the format of the table with the recommenda-tions. This is to ensure that the format is tailored to the stakeholders and is as transparent as possible.


5 DELIVERABLES AND MEETINGS

DeliverablesDeliverables were submitted electronically in English as Word documents.

As specified in the tender specifications the deliverables include:

Table 8 Deliverables of the NECD Review 2018

Deliverable Date of Delivery

'EU air emission inventory review guidelines - version 2018' draft

Delivered 5 March 2018

'EU air emission inventory review guidelines - version 2018' updated


'EU air emission inventory review guidelines - version 2018' final

Delivered 4 May 2018

'Guidance on procedures for TERTs - version 2018' draft


'Guidance on procedures for TERTs - version 2018' updated


'Guidance on procedures for TERTs - version 2018' final

Delivered 4 May 2018

Review report template draft Delivered 2 March 2018

Review report template updated Delivered 15 March 2018

Review report template final Delivered 4 May 2018

Final workplan Delivered 19 April 2018

Compilation of Q&As sent to Member States from desk and centralised review stages, (preferable made be available through the Emission Review Tool-NECD)

Not requested, as available in the Emis-sion Review Tool-NECD tool

Draft review reports Sent to Member States on 19 October

Final review reports Delivered 30 November 2019

Horizontal project report Draft version delivered 14 December 2018

Summaries and minutes following all meetings with the Commission, the EEA and/or Member States

Delivered after the meetings


Meetings

project kick-off meeting in the EEA office in Copenhagen Meetings with Member States (NEC expert group) on 9 of April and 23 of October Training workshop for lead reviewers and sector experts (organized as webinar) on 8

May 2018 Centralized review 26 to 29 June 2018


6 CONCLUSIONS

A number of conclusions have been reached from the work undertaken during the 2018 NECD review. The following is a summary of the most important points:

All tasks planned for Service Contract Number No 070203/2017/765105/SER/ENV.C.3. were implemented as planned and discussed with the EC and the EEA.

The 2018 NECD review showed that the quality of inventories continues to vary significantly between Member States, and that significant areas for improvement exist across all sectors and pollutants

Approximately half of the recommendations given during the NECD Review 2017 were fully implemented, which shows that there is further need for improvements from the Member States.

The lack of completeness is a pressing issue for heavy metals and POPs. The re-view of heavy metals and POPs inventories showed that in the energy and IPPU sectors, considerable improvements are needed in many Member States.

For the main pollutants, the number of cases where a Tier 1 method was used for a key category was reduced considerably in response to the 2017 NECD Review. However, these occurrences continue to result in likely overestimates of emis-sions.

Though much smaller changes in the EU total emissions in response to the NECD Review were observed this year as compared to last year, the EU total for each of the main pollutants was changed in response to review (up to 0.5%). At the individual Member State level, changes of the national totals of up to 40% were observed. The 2018 NECD review also highlighted the need for improve-ments to be made to the EMEP/EEA Guidebook (EMEP/EEA, 2016).

Both the NECD Review 2017 and 2018 led to inventory improvements and to a numeric change in the EU emission totals.

39 31 January 2019 Umweltbundesamt

7 ABBREVIATIONS

NECD National Emission Ceilings Directive (Directive 2016/2284)

NFR Nomenclature for Reporting

CLRTAP Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air pollution

POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants


8 REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Annex I emission reporting template. Available at http://www.ceip.at/ms/ceip_home1/ceip_home/reporting_instructions/

ECE, 2012, Decision 2012/3 (ECE/EB.AIR/111/Add.1): Adjustments under the Gothenburg Protocol to emission reduction commitments or to inventories for the purposes of comparing total national emissions with them

ECE 2012, Decision 2012/12 (ECE/EB.AIR/113/Add.1): Guidance for adjustments under the 1999 Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone to emission reduction commitments or to inventories for the purposes of comparing total national emissions with them

ECE 2014, Decision 2014/1 (ECE/EB.Air/127/Add.1) Improving the guidance for adjustments under the 1999 Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone to emission reduction commitments or to inventories for the purposes of comparing total national emissions with them

ECE, 2014, (ECE/EB.AIR/125 ) Reporting Guidelines for Estimating and Reporting Emission Data under CLRTAP http://www.ceip.at/ms/ceip_home1/ceip_home/reporting_instructions/

ECE, 2015, ECE/EB.AIR/130: Technical Guidance for Parties Making Adjustment Applications and for the Expert Review of Adjustment Applications, 14 April 2015 http://www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/emep/Adjustments/ECE_EB_AIR_130_AV_for_the_web.pdf

EU 2018, EU Air Emission inventory review Guidelines. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/reduction/implementation.htm

Guidance for TERTs. Available upon request.

EMEP/EEA, 2016 EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook – 2016 EEA technical report No. 21/2016 European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. Available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu//publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2016

EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook 2013http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2013

NEC Directive 2001, DIRECTIVE 2001/81/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutantshttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016L2284&from=EN

NEC Directive 2016, DIRECTIVE (EU) 2016/2284 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 14 December 2016 on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, amending Directive 2003/35/EC and repealing Directive 2001/81/EC. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2016.344.01.0001.01.ENG

41 31 January 2019 Umweltbundesamt

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2016.344.01.0001.01.ENG

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2016.344.01.0001.01.ENG

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016L2284&from=EN

1 EINLEITUNGec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/Horizontal Report NECD REV 2018_FIN… · Web...

Documents

Transcript of 1 EINLEITUNGec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/Horizontal Report NECD REV 2018_FIN… · Web...