Analysis of the potential of 10 practices for reducing ammonia emissions from French livestock farms by 2020 and 2030

Transcription

1 Analysis of the potential of 10 practices for reducing ammonia emissions from French livestock farms by 2020 and 2030 Study carried out for ADEME by the Centre Interprofessionnel Technique d Etudes de la Pollution Atmosphérique (CITEPA) Etienne MATHIAS and Edith MARTIN Technical co-ordinator: Thomas EGLIN Production and Sustainable Energy Department Agriculture and Forests Service ADEME Angers December 2013 Summary

2 Consortium experts Claude AUBERT (ITAVI - Poultry Institute) Jacques CAPDEVILLE (Idele - Livestock Institute) Alicia CHARPIOT (Idele - Livestock Institute) Elise LORINQUER (Idele - Livestock Institute) Nadine GUINGAND (IFIP- French Institute for Pig and Pork industry) Sophie GENERMONT (INRA, UMR Environnement et Grandes Cultures - Joint Research Unit for the Environment and Arable Farming) Paul PONCHANT (Idele - Livestock Institute) Members of the steering committee Sophie AGASSE (APCA - Permanent Assembly of Chambers of Agriculture) Mélanie AUDOIS (Ministry for Ecology and Sustainable Development Directorate for Risk Prevention) Gilles AYMOZ (ADEME Air Quality Service) Hubert DE MILLY (Ministry for Agriculture) Thomas EGLIN (ADEME Agriculture and Forest Service) Laurence GALSOMIES (ADEME Air Quality Service) Lionel LAUNOIS (Ministry for Agriculture) Lucile GAUCHET (Ministry for Ecology and Sustainable Development Directorate for Risk Prevention) Jérôme MOUSSET (ADEME Agriculture and Forest Service) Laurent PRIGENT (Ministry for Agriculture) Philippe TOUCHAIS (APCA - Permanent Assembly of Chambers of Agriculture) Aurélie VOLOKHOFF (Ministry for Ecology and Sustainable Development Air Quality Office) Please cite this report as: Martin E., Mathias E Analyse du potentiel de 10 actions de réduction des émissions d ammoniac des élevages français aux horizons 2020 et 2030 Synthèse. Ed ADEME, Angers, France.14p. (Martin E., Mathias E Analysis of the potential of 10 practices for reducing ammonia emissions from French livestock farms by 2020 and 2030 Summary. ADEME, Angers, France.14 pages.)

3 1 BACKGROUND AND AIMS OF THE STUDY In 2010 atmospheric ammonia emissions in France amounted to 649 kt (NH 3 ), making France the country with the highest emissions in the European Union 1. In 2010, 97% of this ammonia (CITEPA / SECTEN 2013 report) was produced by agriculture, making this sector the main target for NH 3 abatement in France. A set of international regulations was introduced at the end of the 1990s to reduce ammonia emissions: the Gothenburg Protocol, the Directive on National Emission Ceilings NEC 2001/81/EC, the Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC and the Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU (IED). In France, these regulations led to the Particulates Plan (Plan Particules) and the National Plan to Reduce Air Pollution (Programme national de Réduction des Emissions de Polluants Atmosphériques). In the agricultural sector, animal husbandry was the main contributor and accounted for 77% of agricultural ammonia emissions in 2010 (CITEPA / SECTEN format, submission 2013). The main source was cattle (67% of livestock emissions in 2010), followed by poultry (15%) and pigs (10%). For several years, farmers have made significant efforts to reduce nitrogen emissions (including ammonia) by dietary manipulation (poultry and pigs), improving waste management and recycling manure and by striving to reduce unpleasant odours. Furthermore, as the prices of mineral nitrogen fertilizers are likely to increase in the medium and long term, continuing to reduce ammonia emissions may be compatible with other agronomic changes and farm efficiency. ADEME set out to select and analyse the ten most cost effective practices that can be applied at national scale to reduce ammonia emissions in France by 2020 and It commissioned a consortium formed of the Centre Interprofessionnel Technique d Etudes de la Pollution Atmosphérique (CITEPA - Interprofessional Technical Centre for Air Pollution Studies), the Institut de l Elevage (Idele - Livestock Institute), the IFIP (French Institute for Pig and Pork industry) and ITAVI (Poultry Institute) to produce an Analysis of the potential of 10 practices for reducing ammonia emissions from French livestock farms by 2020 and CEIP, Trend Tables of data reported up to 31 August Available from: submissions/; as at 10/12/ For further details on the methodology and the results, the full report can be obtained from ADEME: thomas.eglin@ademe.fr

4 2 THE STUDY 2.1 ORGANISATION Task 1: State of the art A literature search was carried out to determine the state of the art of studies and actions to reduce ammonia emissions from livestock farms in France (task 1.1) and abroad (task 1.2). This search identified 196 methods of reducing ammonia emissions from livestock farms, grouped into 91 practices to reduce ammonia emissions. In this summary, the term practice is used to mean a group of related abatement methods and techniques. A case study of 6 countries (Austria, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Switzerland) led to a preliminary ranking of practices in terms of cost effectiveness: 1. Animal feed and manure spreading practices (all species) 2. Manure storage practices for cattle and pigs, housing practices for poultry 3. Housing practices for pigs and cattle and manure storage practices for poultry The analysis of the extent to which these 6 countries reduced ammonia emissions during the period confirmed this ranking: the greatest reductions in ammonia emissions were achieved in the Netherlands (-65%) and Denmark (-33%) by setting up active policies in the 1990s to reduce nitrogen losses, in particular for feed and manure spreading (eg: ban on the use of spreading systems with the highest emissions) and for storing waste (eg: obligation to provide at least a natural cover for slurry pits). In France, the reduction observed in the current state of the national air pollutant emission inventory is mainly attributable to the reduction in stocks. However, the inventory did not take account of abatement practices that were already in use. Had they been taken into account in the 2010 air pollutant emission inventory, this would have reduced the estimate of national emissions by around 50 kt NH 3 3, i.e. 10% of emissions in The efforts made by livestock farmers are, therefore, not fully taken into account in the current air pollutant emission inventories because of the lack of detailed statistics available on adoption of abatement practices from 1990 to the present day. 3 This potential reduction, based only on taking account of practices 1 to 10 selected in task 2 in the national air pollutant emission inventory, is mainly due to failure to take account of manure incorporation practices. Currently available statistical data does not make it possible to quantify the increase in incorporation practices (equipment, duration) for the period It is all the more important to have annual data on the increase in abatement practices as there may be considerable variation in terms of equipment used as well as on the time between spreading and incorporation (in particular because of weather conditions during spreading and the organisation of farm work).

5 Task 2: Selecting practices for an in-depth study A table was produced on the basis of the literature search, with the 196 different methods identified. From this, ten practices (covering 36 methods) were selected by the steering committee, mainly on the criteria of cost effectiveness, their potential ability to reduce emissions and the degree of maturity of the characterisation of the practices. Category Practice Cattle Pigs Poultry Feed Reducing nitrogen in excreta by dietary manipulation x Reducing the time excreta are kept in buildings (by flush systems [concrete slatted floors with integral drains, underfloor flushing with tilting Housing tanks or high volume valves], mechanical x systems [underfloor solid separation channels with scrapers] and gravity flow systems [transfer channels with lip]) Air scrubbing x Covering storage pits (slurry) including natural Storage crust x x Covering storage heaps (manure) x x Band spreading and trailing shoe spreading x x x Spreading Injection on cultivated land x x x Injection on meadows x x x Manure incorporation after spreading x x x Grazing Increasing the time spent at pasture x Table 1: Practices selected for in-depth study According to the literature search in task 1, improved spreading and storage practices were the most common. Reducing emissions by dietary manipulation was only selected for cattle. Significant progress has already been made in the other animal husbandry sectors with the introduction of two phase and multi-phase feeding systems (for example, according to the 2008 Pig Farm Buildings Survey, 81% of the sow pens and 83% of fattening pens had two-phase feeding systems). These 10 practices were analysed in detail and fact sheets were produced in task 3. Task 3: In-depth study and production of detailed fact sheets Each fact sheet covered 18 aspects, including a description of the various methods and the emission reduction principles, quantitative cost effectiveness and potential reduction of emissions at national level, compatibility with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, transferring pollution downstream, technological maturity and a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats). The practices studied were then ranked according to their potential abatement, using various theoretical scenarios of adoption rates by farms, and their cost effectiveness up to 2020 and Task 4: Comparative evaluation of the practices The ranking produced in task 3 was used to draw up three adoption rate scenarios to evaluate the practices. AR 100%: each practice was assessed independently assuming a 100% adoption rate within its scope by 2020, AR MAX: each practice was assessed independently assuming an adoption rate set to the maximum considered probable by the experts (taking account of equipment and building replacement, for example) by 2020 and 2030, AR MAX+: the practices were assessed when used together with the maximum adoption rates taking account of the combinations, in particular for spreading. This scenario gave an estimate which was closest to the maximum potential for reducing national emissions. However, it was considered as highly ambitious by the experts, as it assumed high adoption rates for ammonia abatement practices. It cannot be used directly to define the abatement targets achievable within the timescales considered.

6 This was followed by a comparative evaluation of the practices selected, in particular quantification of the reduction in emissions and the costs associated with implementing the practices within the scenarios defined in Task DEFINITIONS The potential for reducing emissions at national scale by 2020 and 2030 was estimated with respect to the emissions recorded in 2010, which were taken as a reference. The cost effectiveness was defined as the cost divided by the effectiveness: The cost is the sum of the discounted costs and benefits (using a 4% discount rate) associated with implementing the practices over the period studied. The cost associated with implementing a practice is the additional cost with respect to a standard practice in 2010 (eg: the cost associated with band spreading is the additional cost of band spreading over that of broadcast spreading in 2010). This cost is the amortised capital investment for the equipment plus the annual operating costs (purchase of inputs, electricity and labour), The effectiveness of a practice to reduce ammonia emissions is the total reduction in ammonia emissions associated with the adoption of the practice over the whole period over the whole of France. It is important to note that the cost effectiveness was intended essentially to rank the practices at national level. As the cost effectiveness is based on discounted costs over the whole period, it cannot be used to estimate the costs that are affordable for a particular farm or to estimate the financial incentives required to promote the practices. 2.3 SYSTEMS AND DATA SOURCES USED Two systems were used to quantify the potential ability to reduce emissions and the cost effectiveness. PACRETE 4 : to calculate the reduction in ammonia emissions at national scale. The system was modified to take account of all the practices studied that were not yet covered in the national air pollutant emission inventory data sets for animal husbandry. A new Excel system created to calculate the discounted costs over the periods studied. Table 2 on the following page lists the main parameters and the main data sources used for these parameters. 4 The PACRETE system (Programme Access pour le Calcul Régionalisé des Emissions atmosphériques de l Elevage - System for regionalised calculation of air pollutant emissions from animal husbandry) was used to build the national air pollutant emission inventory data sets for animal husbandry. It is based on Access and developed and used by CITEPA. A comprehensive description of the methodology used to build the national air pollutant emission inventory data sets is given in the OMINEA report, which can be obtained from:

7 Parameter Adoption rates in 2010 Future adoption rates Emission factors Abatement factors Costs associated with implementing the practice Main data sources used 2008 pig, cattle and poultry building surveys adjusted according to expert opinion Expert opinion EMEP EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009 (Hutchings, 2009) 5 The literature search identified a variable number of sources for the abatement factors. The values in the Guide on Good Environmental Practices were used when the information required was given in the Guide. Otherwise, the medians of the values found in the literature were used. A sensitivity analysis of the minimum and maximum values was carried out. Cost data came mainly from the Technical Institutes. Table 2: Main parameters used to calculate the cost effectiveness of practices and the main data sources used for these parameters 2.4 MAIN LIMITATIONS ON ESTIMATING COST EFFECTIVENESS The method for calculating the cost effectiveness was based on several assumptions and methodologies: In the absence of reliable national statistics that could be used for reference, certain adoption rates for 2010 were defined on the basis of expert opinion. The cost data used was the national value. However, there were significant regional differences which should be taken into account before the results are applied to local conditions, The method used to estimate the effectiveness of the various practices was that already used to build the national air pollutant emission inventory data sets for animal husbandry. This was the EMEP EEA 2009 method (Hutchings, 2009) which is defined at European scale and is the standard method for building ammonia emission inventory data sets in Europe. The EMEP emission factors used for each source are different from the emission factors proposed in the CORPEN reports, although the emission factors per animal are similar. Moreover, using a European mean for each type of animal, for each source and for each type of management means that the ammonia emission factors may not represent differences between countries due to variations in production systems, soils and climates. Incorporating the emission factors proposed in CORPEN 6 (2003) into the emission calculation method described in EMEP EEA 2009 improves the cost effectiveness ranking for housing practices for pigs. 5 Hutchings, Amon, Dämmgen, Webb, EMEP EEA Emission Inventory Guidebook - 4.B Animal Husbandry and Manure Management. 6 CORPEN, Estimation des rejets d'azote, phosphore, potassium, calcium, cuivre et zinc par les élevages avicoles (Estimating nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, copper and zinc emissions from poultry production). CORPEN, Estimation des rejets d'azote, phosphore, potassium, cuivre, zinc des porcs. Influence de la conduite alimentaire et du mode de logement des animaux sur la nature et la gestion des déjections produites (Estimating nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, copper and zinc emissions from pig production Influence of feeding system and livestock housing on the type of excreta produced and its management).

8 3 MAIN RESULTS 3.1 PRACTICES NOT SELECTED THAT COULD PROVE TO BE USEFUL Some of the practices identified in tasks 1 and 2, using a literature search combined with expert opinion, had low to very low technological maturity but significant potential for reducing ammonia emissions. These were mainly livestock housing and manure storage practices. They included, for example, practices currently in use such as the handling of excreta after removal from the buildings, the installation of heat exchangers and the use of additives in litter for poultry. These practices may possibly be of use for reducing emissions but, as there is little feedback on their effectiveness, studies of these practices should be continued or undertaken. 3.2 PRACTICES SELECTED FOR THEIR EMISSION ABATEMENT POTENTIAL The following chart gives the estimated reduction in emissions that might be achieved for an adoption rate of 100% (AR 100%) for each practice or method studied, for all types of animal, ranked in descending order of emission reduction potential. This estimate is for information only and ranks the practices according to their ammonia emission reduction effectiveness assuming that there are no obstacles to adoption by Figure 1: Potential for reducing emissions assuming a 100% adoption rate for each practice or method with respect to 2010 (kt NH 3). The ammonia emissions from animal husbandry for 2010 were taken to be 401 kt NH 3 for this study (taking account of the use of the practices studied not currently included in the national ammonia emission inventory). Practices with the highest potential for reducing emissions in this estimate were immediate incorporation of manure after spreading followed by improved spreading practices (injection and trailing shoe / band spreaders) and then practices relating to storage, housing and reducing the

9 nitrogen in excreta from cattle by dietary manipulation. Apart from differences in the effectiveness of the practices in terms of reducing NH 3 emissions (differences between the reduction rate for each practice) and differences in the baseline conditions (difference in adoption rate in 2010), the differences between the potentials for reducing emissions between the practices can be explained by: A difference in applicability: post-spreading, spreading and storage practices apply to all three types of animal. Post-spreading practices apply to slurry as well as manure, whereas spreading and storage methods apply only to husbandry practices producing slurry or manure but not both. Housing practices only apply to handling pig slurry and the reduction in the nitrogen in excreta by dietary manipulation applies to cattle but the in-depth study of the practice showed that this was not an highly effective method, A difference in position in the emission chain: the practices most upstream such as in livestock housing have less effect on reducing emissions from the whole chain. Nitrogen not emitted at an upstream stage is transferred to the downstream stage, providing a higher quantity of available nitrogen for emission from that and following stages: part of the nitrogen emission reduction from the buildings results in increased emissions from the following stages. The ranking of the results depends on the type of livestock production considered. 3.3 CLASSIFICATION OF PRACTICES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF COST EFFECTIVENESS The most useful practices in terms of cost effectiveness (for adoption rates of 100%) are, in order of cost effectiveness: 1. negative cost practices (implementing these practices leads to savings in feed and forage) involve increasing the time spent at pasture and minimising the nitrogen excreted by cattle. The emission reduction potential by increasing the time spent at pasture was estimated as low, because of climatic constraints and because the time spent outdoors is tending to be reduced as a result of the economic situation of the farms. However, as the emissions are around 10 times 7 lower at pasture than from the housing-storage-spreading chain, it is important to continue current grazing practices, 2. zero cost practices involve removing the slurry from pig housing more frequently by gravity (using transfer channels with a lip to retain the liquid) and allowing a natural crust to form over slurry pits, 3. Spreading practices (band spreading, injection), 4. Post spreading practices (incorporation of manure after spreading), 5. Storage practices (covering pits and covering manure heaps), 6. Housing practices (scrapers, air scrubbers, flushing). Figures 2 and 3 show this ranking. 7 This figure was calculated using the method described in EMEP/EEA 2009, by separating slurry and manure systems used in the national air pollutant emission inventory in 2010 for cattle.

10 Figure 2: Cost effectiveness of each practice or method studied, for all types of animal, up to 2020 and 2030, AR 100% (in blue - feed-related practices, in orange - livestock housing practices, in red - storage practices, in grey - spreading practices and in green - post-spreading practices). The ranking of the practices and methods is the same whether savings in mineral nitrogen by improving the re-use of organic nitrogen are included or not. Differences in the price of nitrogen fertilizers in 2030 (two assumptions, one low at 0.9/unit of nitrogen and the other high at 1.3/unit of nitrogen were tested) also have very little effect on the ranking. However, the ranking depends slightly on the type of animal studied. These calculations show that the most effective practices in terms of cost effectiveness and total reduction of emissions are post spreading and spreading practices. These results for France give a ranking and orders of magnitude of cost effectiveness comparable to those obtained in a study carried out at European scale (Klimont et al , Figure 3). 8 Zbigniew Klimont, Integrated ammonia abatement - Modelling of emission control potentials and costs in GAINS.

11 Figure 3: Cost effectiveness and total reduction for each practice or method studied, for all types of animal, up to 2020 for scenario AR 100%. Circles ( ) spreading practices, squares ( ) storage practices, triangles ( ) livestock housing practices and (+) practices related to feed and grazing. The practices are identified in the following table. For information, the cost effectiveness for spreading and storage practices at European scale taken from Klimont et al. (2011) are indicated by crosses (X) on the axis. ID Ammonia abatement practice/method Symbol 1 Dietary manipulation Underfloor solid separation channels with scrapers 2.2 Concrete slatted floor 2.3 Underfloor flushing with tilting tanks 2.4 Underfloor flushing with high volume valves 2.5 Gravity evacuation using transfer channels with lip 3.1 Air scrubber (water) 3.2 Air scrubber (acid) 4.1 Natural slurry pit crust 4.2 Slurry pit cover 5 Manure heap cover 6.1 Band spreader 6.2 Trailing shoe spreader 7 Injection on cultivated land 8.1 Injection on meadows (disc) 8.2 Injection on meadows (knife) 9.1 Immediate ploughing in 9.18 Incorporation by disc harrow within a week 10.1 Increasing the time spend in the pasture - scenario Increasing the time spend in the pasture - scenario +20 days + KEpaFum_bas x Lowest and highest values for cost effectiveness taken from Klimont KEpaFum_haut x KEpaLis_bas et al. (2011), for manure spreading practices (KEpaFum); slurry x KEpaLis_haut (KEpaLis) and covering storage heaps (KSto). These values were x KSto_bas drawn up for European scale and are given for information only. x KSto_haut x

12 3.4 EFFECTS OF COMBINING THE PRACTICES SELECTED This study did not set out to draw up emission reduction scenarios for France that are acceptable and attainable by 2020 and 2030 but to rank ten abatement practices on the basis of their cost effectiveness in reducing ammonia emissions. However, scenarios for the most promising combination of practices (AR MAX +) were produced to give an expert opinion on the maximum emission abatement potential for these particular practices. These scenarios give a reduction in emissions of around 10%. Emissions 2010 Estimated emissions in 2030 Change (2010 -> 2030) [Fraction of total] Cattle % [-49%] Pigs % [-26%] Poultry % [-26%] Total % Table 3: Emissions (kt NH 3) Scenario AR MAX+ (stocks are considered to be constant between 2010 and 2030) For comparison, taking an adoption rate of 100% (without taking account of technical and socioeconomic constraints on the adoption of these practices within the timescale proposed) the practices identified as the most cost effective give a reduction of -47%: Emissions 2010 Emissions with 100% adoption rate Change (2010 -> 2030) Cattle % [-73%] Pigs % [-17%] Poultry % [-10%] Total % Table 4: Emissions (kt NH 3) Scenario with 100% adoption rate for the practices identified as being the most cost effective: dietary manipulation, air scrubbers in pig buildings, slurry pit covers and manure heap covers, rapid incorporation of manure after spreading. NB: stocks are considered to be constant between 2010 and These calculated reductions in emissions only take account of emissions related to animal husbandry. Assuming that all the nitrogen losses avoided are re-used for agricultural purposes, it can be estimated from the mass balance that the reduction in the volatilisation of nitrogen from manure and slurry can lead to a maximum saving in mineral nitrogen of around 330 kt N (AR MAX+) cumulative over 20 years according to scenario AR MAX +. However, it is important to remember that the management of organic nitrogen and mineral nitrogen differs (in particular in terms of application techniques, calculating doses, application periods and regulations). This estimate is, therefore, theoretical.

13 4 CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK The study confirmed a significant potential for reducing ammonia emissions from animal husbandry in France, in particular on improving spreading and post spreading practices. However, it should be remembered that this potential for reducing emissions applies to the whole of France over a period of one year. The sources of emission in buildings and from storage certainly appear to be less effective for reducing these emissions but could be significant at local level. Reducing emissions from buildings and storage must not, therefore, be ignored. The cost effectiveness of the practices selected gives the following ranking (most cost effective first): dietary manipulation > improving spreading techniques > improving storage techniques > reducing emissions from buildings. This was confirmed by a search of literature relating to Europe. Furthermore, the study shows that few practices have negative costs (apart from dietary manipulation) or zero costs (apart from rapid removal of slurry by gravity in pig buildings and encouraging a natural crust to form over slurry pits). Taking account of potential savings in mineral nitrogen, the costs of certain practices, in particular spreading, can become negative if better use can be made of organic nitrogen for crops. A study of 6 countries (Austria, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Switzerland) showed that strong international pressure for voluntary and regulatory abatement significantly reduced ammonia emissions from agriculture. The analysis also showed that the regulations focused on spreading and dietary manipulation practices which were shown by this study to be the most cost effective. However, transposing this approach to France must be considered with care because of the national characteristics of agricultural production systems (different soils, climates, economic systems, governance and social organisations). The in-depth analysis of the practices selected identified a certain number of economic, organisational, social and/or technical factors that may limit the large scale adoption of these practices. For example, spreading practices must be compatible with the constraints of the water quality regulations (Water Framework Directive and Nitrates Directive). Assuming that ambitious aims to reduce emissions are defined when the Directive on National Emission Ceilings NEC 2001/81/EC is revised, it will probably be necessary to adopt an active policy for the whole of the livestock production industry as well as for crop fertilisation. It is important to remember that this study considered only practices for reducing emissions from animal husbandry, which is the major source of ammonia emissions, and that there are also emission reduction practices that apply to arable farming, which accounted for 23% of agricultural ammonia emissions in 2010 (Source: CITEPA / SECTEN 2012 report). Actions to promote these practices can and will need to be linked to other actions targeting the management of nitrogen in agriculture such as the action plans based on the Nitrates Directive and the energy, anaerobic digestion and nitrogen autonomy plan of the Ministry of Agriculture (EMAA). Synergies can also be found with actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (eg: conserving meadows used for grazing, better re-use of nitrogen from farmyard effluent for crops). The improvement of spreading practices fits perfectly into both frameworks. Significant effort must be made to improve national emission inventories to take better account of changing practices, progress in the agricultural world and the effectiveness of government policies. More effort is required for emissions from buildings and storage as some practices for reducing emissions during spreading are already included in the inventory (spreading by injection or band spreaders). This is possible by improving (1) the monitoring of the adoption of practices by including them in the surveys carried out by the Ministry for Agriculture and the farming profession 9, and (2) by increasing the awareness of emission factors for these practices by developing in situ emission measurement systems and setting up more representative baselines specifically for French livestock production systems. 9 A history of the period used as a basis for the inventory must also be recorded. National greenhouse gas emission inventories must go back as far as 1990, and, under the Gothenburg Protocol, it must be possible to go back at least to The reference year for the new NEC Directive is under discussion.

14 ADEME The Agence de l'environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'energie (ADEME) is involved in the implementation of government policies for the environment, energy and sustainable development. It provides environmental consultancy services to help businesses, local authorities, government authorities and the general public. It also provides funding for projects, from research to implementation, for waste management, soil conservation, energy efficiency and renewable energy, air quality and noise reduction. ADEME is a government agency under the Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, and Energy and of the Ministry of Higher Education and Research. Study carried out by: