ESD 2012 technical review: Feedback from Greece. Ioannis Sempos Greek GHG Inventory Team

Transcription

1 National Technical University (NTUA) School of Chemical Engineering Department of Process Analysis and Plant Design ESD 2012 technical review: Feedback from Greece EIONET Workshop on 22 nd of October 2012 Ioannis Sempos Greek GHG Inventory Team

2 Contents Overview of the 2012 technical review of the Greek GHG inventory. Our perspective about the review. Suggestions for improvement for future reviews. 2

3 Overview of 2012 Technical Review (1/3) Received Answered Findings / Questions Stages 1 & 2 Jan - March Feb - April 31 Initial questions 22/5 1/6 41 Additional questions I 5/6 6/6 4 Additional questions II 7/6 8/6 1 Pending En & IP 11/6 15/6 4 Pending A & W 13/6 14/6 1 Date Communication Details 21/6 notification No preliminary technical corrections 13/7 Draft report Greek comments were sent to TERT on 20/7 13/8 Final draft Accepted by Greece on 14 th of August 23/8 Final report Revised estimates for 1A3c Railways, CH4, liquid fuels and 19 non-binding recommendations 3

4 Overview of 2012 Technical Review (2/3) Table 1. Main conclusions from the TERT Findings 1. The TERT considers that the GHG emission inventory estimates of Greece for the years 2005, 2008, 2009 and 2010 submitted in 2012 under the MMD included emission overestimates. 2. The TERT did not identify inconsistency issues between the reported GHG emission inventory estimates and verified emission data under the EU ETS. 3. During the course of the technical review, the TERT received revised GHG emission inventory estimates from Greece in response to its initial findings. (See Table 2). 4. The TERT considers that the aggregated revised GHG emission inventory estimates from Greece for the years 2005, 2008, 2009 and 2010 do not include emission overestimates. 5. The TERT considers that it is not necessary to implement any technical correction to the GHG emission inventory estimates and to amend the reported GHG total (see Table 2). 6. As stated beneath Table 1, Greece accepts the aggregated GHG emission inventory estimates presented in Table 2 including any revised estimate received from Greece and accepted by the TERT. 7. The TERT identified non-binding recommendations for improvements of Greece GHG inventory (see Table 3 in Annex 1). 8. The TERT considers that it received a response from Greece that was sufficient in order to undertake the review appropriately. 4

5 Overview of 2012 Technical Review (3/3) Table 2. Summary of national totals, including any revised estimates or technical corrections identified during the review Data / Category Reference Status of GHG emission revision or correction 2005 Gg CO 2 eq Gg CO 2 eq Gg CO 2 eq Gg CO 2 eq. Total GHG emissions as reported in the 2012 submission under the MMD 14 April 2012, GRC-2012-v Revised estimates provided by Greece 1A3c Railways, CH 4, liquid fuels railways_ch4.xls, 13/6/2012 Accepted by the TERT Total GHG emissions including any accepted revised estimate received from Greece and/or technical correction as proposed by the TERT CO 2 emissions from 1.A.3.a Civil aviation 14 April 2012, GRC-2012-v Note: National totals exclude emissions from LULUCF and emissions reported under memo items (e.g. international aviation and maritime transport). 5

6 Our perspective about the review (1/3) We were sufficiently informed about the review process under the Effort Sharing Decision by the information provided in WG1 and WG2. We did not participate to the preparatory workshop for Member States on 8 February 2012 at the EEA, but we find rather useful the presentations disseminated through . We were satisfied with the length of time provided to answer questions / comment on the draft review findings. The questions that we received during the review were clearly formulated and understandable. We did not need many days to answer the questions (1-5 days was sufficient time). We consider that the questions we received during the review were relevant and cover all categories. The template used for communicating questions, follow-up questions and answers was OK. 6

7 Our perspective about the review (2/3) The structure and design of the review report was concise, comprehensive, easy to read (a suggestion follows). We consider that the use of category specific checklists by the reviewers (as we were notified through the presentations of the 8 th of February 2012 workshop) contributes to the direction of ensuring that review is carried out consistently across MS and we welcome this practice. The findings (recommendations, technical corrections, main conclusions in Table 1) in the review report were clear and understandable. However, the findings concerning the inconsistency issues between the reported GHG emission inventory estimates and verified emission data under the EU ETS need some improvement (a suggestion follows). 7

8 The review was very useful: Our perspective about the review (3/3) Apart from the fact that it ensures that the European Commission has accurate, reliable and verified information on annual GHG emissions for the years 2005, 2008, 2009 and 2010 to determine the annual emission allocations under Decision 280/2004/EC; The technical review was extensive (31 findings during Stages 1 and 2 and 51 questions during Stage 3) and covered the needs of the Greek GHG inventory as concerns QA/verification from an external auditor body for The non-binding recommendations were very useful and will feed our improvement plan for the next GHG inventory submissions. The cooperation and communication with the EEA Review Secretariat during the review was very efficient. 8

9 Suggestions for future reviews (1/3) Observation Suggestion We welcome the use of category specific checklists by the reviewers because they ensure that review is carried out consistently across MS. We suggest these checklists to be included, filled, as an appendix in each MS review report. By this way both the transparency of the report and the consistency among MS will be improved. 9

10 Suggestions for future reviews (2/3) Observations An important part of the review was the assessment by the TERT whether inconsistency issues between the reported GHG emission inventory estimates and verified emission data under the EU ETS exist. However, no EU guidelines exist for how to use EU ETS data in national GHG inventories of MS (?). Therefore, most probably, there are no checklist available to reviewers for this case. On the other hand, EU ETS data (AD and emissions) should be a definite / unambiguous subset of the national GHG inventory. Suggestions The development of guidelines for MS inventory compilers of how to use and include EU ETS data in national GHG inventories, in the form of IPCC GPG diagrams, which will take into account MS national circumstances (e.g. confidentiality issues). Based on these guidelines, guidance and checklists to be prepared for the TERTs of future technical reviews (consistency among MS). Guidance and checklists to be developed for both MS and TERTs, concerning the use of other new sources of emissions data for national GHG inventories, like EU ETS aviation data, Eurocontrol data, etc. 10

11 Suggestions for future reviews (3/3) Observations The ESD technical review precedes the UNFCCC review. There is no mechanism that hinder the possibility that an expert that has reviewed a MS under ESD technical review will not review again, within the same year, the same MS and inventory sector, under the UNFCCC review. When a specific sector of a MS is reviewed twice (ESD and UNFCCC) by the same reviewer in the same year, the effectiveness of the review processes is limited two different pairs of eyes are always better than one Suggestion Guidance to be given to TERT s experts to avoid reviewing an inventory sector of a MS that they have reviewed under the ESD technical review during the UNFCCC review, during the same year. 11

12 Thank you for your attention 12