& CEIP. Inventory Review Review of emission data reported under the LRTAP Convention and NEC Directive. Stage 1 and 2 review

Transcription

1 Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution Co-operative programme for monitoring and evaluation of the long-range transmission of air pollutants in Europe TECHNICAL REPORT CEIP 1/2016 Inventory Review 2016 Review of emission data reported under the LRTAP Convention and NEC Directive Stage 1 and 2 review Status of gridded and LPS data Katarina Mareckova Marion Pinterits Melanie Tista Robert Wankmueller & CEIP

2 Inventory Review 2016 Review of emission data reported under the LRTAP Convention and the NEC Directive Stage 1 and 2 review Status of gridded and LPS data Umweltbundesamt GmbH, Austria Katarina Mareckova, Marion Pinterits, Melanie Tista (ETC-ACM) Robert Wankmueller (CEIP/ETC-ACM) ISBN

3 Project management Katarina Mareckova Authors Katarina Mareckova (CEIP/ETC/ACM) Marion Pinterits (ETC/ACM) Melanie Tista (ETC/ACM) Robert Wankmueller (CEIP/ETC/ACM) Layout and typesetting Manuela Kaitna Cover Fotolia.com/magann; Difference of CO national total emissions for the year 2005 as reported for the period (Marion Pinterits) Imprint Owner and Editor: Umweltbundesamt GmbH Spittelauer Lände 5, 1090 Vienna/Austria Printed by: Umweltbundesamt GmbH The Environment Agency Austria prints its publications on climate-friendly paper Umweltbundesamt GmbH, Vienna, 2016 All rights reserved ISBN

4 Inventory Review 2016 Acknowledgements ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank all the Parties to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) and the European Union Member States for their participation in this annual review of inventory data and their submission of emission data under the LRTAP Convention and under the NEC Directive (NECD). Without them this report would not have been possible. Anke Lükewille (EEA) provided valuable comments and supported the development of the report. Manuela Kaitna (Umweltbundesamt, Austria) assisted with editing of the report. This work has been supported through joint funding from EMEP 1 and the European Environment Agency (EEA) through its European Topic Centre for Air Pollution and Climate Change Mitigation (ETC/ACM). 1 EMEP Co-operative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-range Transmissions of Air Pollutants in Europe CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections 3

5

6 Inventory Review 2016 Contents CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION INITIAL (STAGE 1) REVIEW Timeliness CLRTAP NECD Completeness CLRTAP NECD Format CLRTAP NECD Transparency and Informative Inventory Reports EXTENDED (STAGE 2) REVIEW Recalculations CLRTAP NECD Time series consistency ( ) Consistency between reported PM 10, PM 2.5, and BC emissions Key category analysis (KCA) Inventory comparisons Share of aggregated sectors (GNFR) CLRTAP/NECD comparisons CLRTAP/UNFCCC comparisons Comparability emissions per capita, emissions per GDP Emissions per capita Emissions per GDP INITIAL CHECKS OF GRIDDED EMISSIONS AND LARGE POINT SOURCES Reporting of gridded emissions in Large point sources (LPS) UNITS AND ABBREVIATIONS Units Abbreviations ISO Country codes REFERENCES APPENDIX Status of 2016 reporting under the LRTAP Convention ANNEXES CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections 5

7 Inventory Review 2016 Contents List of tables Table 1: Overview on submission status... 7 Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Largest recalculations of NO X, NMVOC, SO X, NH 3, PM 2.5, PM 10 and CO emissions for the reported years 2005 and Total number of categories identified as key categories in the 2014 inventories for individual pollutants in the countries of the EMEP West and EMEP East area. The figures below the numbers illustrates the trend in the number of key categories over the last five years. Blue: EMEP West, red: EMEP East Minimum and maximum value and middle 50%-range of per capita emissions for each pollutant in Minimum and maximum value and middle 50%-range of emissions per GDP/PPP for each pollutant in Table 6: Status of reporting under the LRTAP Convention as of 30 th May Table 7: Completeness of CLRTAP submissions as of 30 th May Table 8: Completeness of CLRTAP submissions as of 30 th May 2016 (reporting mandatory every 5 years) List of figures Figure 1: Status of official submissions to the CLRTAP in 2016 (the deadline for the EU to submit its inventory is 30 th April) Figure 2: Date of NECD inventory submission to the CDR or the European Commission in 2015/2016 ( 2015 NEC Directive reporting round ) Figure 3: Number of Parties reporting various groups of pollutants, 2010 to 2016 reporting rounds Figure 4: Completeness of submitted pollutants per country for the year Figure 5: Completeness of CLRTAP submissions for two country groups based on information provided in individual cells of the reporting tables. ( NE not estimated, NR not relevant, NA not applicable, NO not occurring, IE included elsewhere, C confidential) Figure 6: Difference of NMVOC national total emissions for the year 2005 as reported for the period (in %; only countries with recalculations of more than ± 30%) Figure 7: Share in per cent of PM 2.5 national total emissions in PM 10 national total emissions for the upper and lower 10% Figure 8: KCA of PM 10 emissions for 2014 CLRTAP inventories. Comparison between EMEP West area (left) and EMEP East area (right) Figure 9: KCA of BC emissions for 2013 and 2014-CLRTAP inventories. Comparison between EMEP West area (left) and EMEP East area (right) Figure 10: Share of GNFR sectors on NO X emissions for individual Parties in Only countries that submitted emission data for this pollutant are presented in the figure Figure 11: Share of GNFR sectors on Hg emissions for individual Parties in Only countries that submitted emission data for this pollutant are presented in the figure Figure 12: Total number of Parties reporting gridded sectoral data for the years 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2011 to 2014, reported to EMEP by Figure 13: Visualisation of the gridded emissions reporting in the EMEP area. Green reported data for 2005 and 2010 is available; Orange reported data for 2010 is available; Beige reported data for 2005 is available; White no reporting of gridded emissions Figure 14: Maps with Large Point Sources reported until CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections

8 Inventory Review 2016 Executive summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The report summarizes the main findings of the annual review of emission data, reported under the LRTAP Convention and the NEC Directive. Table 1 presents an overview on the submission status of 51 Parties to the Convention from which are 28 EU Member States. In general, the submission under the NEC Directive was good. Under the LRTAP Convention reporting of data and IIRs was in the most cases sufficient, but particularly some countries of the EMEP East area did not provide submissions. Projections, gridded data and LPS data are missing from several countries, especially from the EMEP East area, Canada and the US. Table 1: Overview on submission status NECD CRLTAP NECD CLRTAP Country Timeliness Completeness Timeliness Completeness IIR Projections LPS Gridded data Country Timeliness Completeness Timeliness Completeness IIR Projections LPS Gridded data AL IT AM KG AT KZ AZ LI BA LT BE LU BG LV BY MC CA MD CH ME CY MK CZ MT DE NL DK NO EE PL ES PT EU RO FI RS FR RU GB SE GE SI GR SK HR TR CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections 7

9 Inventory Review 2016 Executive summary NECD CRLTAP NECD CLRTAP Country Timeliness Completeness Timeliness Completeness IIR Projections LPS Gridded data Country Timeliness Completeness Timeliness Completeness IIR Projections LPS Gridded data HU UA IE US IS Legend to Table 1: Timeliness: green submission within deadline, yellow submission after deadline, red no submission; empty no obligations towards NECD Completeness (NECD): green reported all 4 pollutants; empty no obligations towards NECD Completeness (CLRTAP): green full mandatory + activity data all years; yellow up to ca. 80% mandatory (i.e. 10 of 13) (or all mandatory but not all years and/or no activity data); Red below 80% mandatory IIR (CLRTAP): green IIR submitted, structure and content correlate to the template; yellow IIR submitted, structure and content not like the template; red no IIR submitted Projections (CLRTAP): green min. 2020, 2025, 2030 reported; yellow min. one year reported; red no projections submitted Gridded and LPS data: green at least 2010 data reported in 2012 in the required format; yellow incomplete reporting and/or reported after the reporting year 2012; red none reported 8 CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections

10 Inventory Review 2016 Introduction 1 INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared by the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (EMEP) Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections (CEIP) in cooperation with the European Environment Agency (EEA). It reflects the progress achieved in emission reporting under the LRTAP Convention during the 2016 reporting round and in emission reporting under the NECD during the December 2015 reporting round. Detailed information on reporting obligations can be found on the CEIP website The report summarises the main findings of the annual centralised review of emission data, focusing on future challenges for improving the quality of emission data reported under the Convention and the NECD. To present the progress of the reporting status the actual year is compared with the status in 2008, when the review process was performed for the first time. The review assesses the transparency, consistency, comparability, completeness and accuracy of reported data 2. Details on the review methods can be found in the Methodology Report Review of emission data reported under the LRTAP Convention and NEC Directive ( All Parties which submitted data in the standard format before 30 th June 2016 (Figure 1) were included in the review. This review report is structured as follows: In chapter 2, the results of the initial review (the stage 1) are presented, covering timeliness, completeness, format and transparency of the submission. Chapter 3 provides a summary of findings of the extended review (stage 2). Within that stage, differences in emissions due to recalculations, differences between NECD, UNFCCC and CLRTAP submissions, the share of sectors and the consistency of the time series were analysed. Further checks were made which included the key categories emissions per capita, and gross national income. In addition completeness of gridded data and of large point sources (LPS) are discussed in chapter 4. A table with detailed per country information on reporting in 2016 is provided in the Appendix. Nine annexes with detailed results can be downloaded from the CEIP homepage at 2 See Reporting guidelines 2014, section III, para 5 (a) to (e) for definitions. CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections 9

11 Inventory Review 2016 Initial (Stage 1) review 2 INITIAL (STAGE 1) REVIEW Key messages Over the last eight years, timeliness and completeness of reporting has improved: In 2008, the first year in which the annual inventory review took place, 30 Parties reported CLRTAP data, this number rose to 45 in No data were provided by two Parties with mandatory reporting obligations Greece and Monaco. In 2008, 70% of the EU Member States provided NECD data by the required reporting deadline. In 2016, the percentage was 89% but finally all EU Member States submitted data. In 2016, major pollutants (CLRTAP) were reported by 45 Parties compared to 40 in % of the Parties submitted an Informative Inventory Report (IIR) with their CLRTAP submission in 2008 and 76% in It should be noted that the provision of an IIR is essential for a complete centralised stage 3 review. Black Carbon (BC) was voluntarily reported for the first time in 2015 by 28 countries, the number of reporting parties raised in 2016 to 34. All but three countries (Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Liechtenstein) provided data in the NFR14 format. Parties are encouraged to provide their submissions in the standard format 3. Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation and the Ukraine are in particular encouraged to make efforts to improve the regularity, completeness and transparency of their reporting. Although in the submitted data quality in terms of completeness, consistency and timeliness by the Parties to the LRTAP Convention has improved through the years, not all Parties provide a complete time series for emission inventory data. Therefore, further improvement of submissions in the above-mentioned aspects of data quality is strongly recommended. 2.1 Timeliness Inventory data reported under LRTAP Convention serve as input for gridded data, which are used by diverse EMEP models for annual environmental analyses. If data are not reported according to the agreed deadline, expert estimates must be used instead. As a result, late reporting has a negative impact on the accuracy of the EMEP (modeling) assessment CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections

12 Inventory Review 2016 Initial (Stage 1) review CLRTAP 45 Parties (out of 51) to the Convention submitted inventories by 30 th June 2016 (see Figure 1). 38 Parties reported emission data by the due date 4 of 15 th February 2016, eight more than during the 2015 reporting round. 24 Parties resubmitted NFR tables and/or an IIR. No data were provided by two Parties with mandatory reporting obligations Greece and Monaco. Twenty-four parties provided resubmissions. More details are provided in the Appendix (Table 6) NECD In the 2015 NEC Directive reporting round 5, 25 of the 28 Member States submitted their national inventories of SO 2, NO X, NMVOC and NH 3 emissions to the Commission by the appropriate reporting deadline (before or on 31 st December 2015). The three remaining Member States (France, Ireland and Greece) delivered their inventories by the end of February 2016 (see Figure 2). Six Member States provided additional or revised data between 13 th December 2015 and 16 th March An overview of the status of reporting under the NECD is given in Annex A Status of reporting under NECD (separate file). 4 5 The reporting deadline for the EU-28 inventory is 30 th April. For the IIR it is 30 th May (UNECE, 2014). Pursuant to Article 8 of the NECD Member States are required to report their emission inventories for the previous year but one by 31 st December each year, along with preliminary emission inventories for the previous year. CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections 11

13 MT PL AZ DE CH SI IS RS EE FR LV SE AT BE BG CA HR CY DK FI HU IE IT KZ LT NL PT MD RO UK MK KG LI NO ES TR UA CZ LU SK AM GE RU US EU GR AL BY BA MC ME Date of submissiondate of submission GRID LPS IIR P 2020 Inventory Review 2016 Initial (Stage 1) review February Figure 1: Status of official submissions to the CLRTAP in 2016 (the deadline for the EU to submit its inventory is 30 th April) Note: Bars indicate the submission of NFR tables. Symbols indicate the submission of Informative Inventory Reports (IIR),gridded data (GRID) in 2012, 2013,2014, 2015 and 2016, Large Point Sources (LPS) and 2020 projections (P2020) in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and For detailed information see Table 7 in the Appendix.

14 UK FI PL DK SE SI M DE EE LV BG HR NL BE IT CY LT LU CZ RO AT EE PT HU SK FR IE GR Date of submission Inventory Review 2016 Initial (Stage 1) review Submissions within deadline Late submissions December Figure 2: Date of NECD inventory submission to the CDR or the European Commission in 2015/2016 ( 2015 NEC Directive reporting round ) 2.2 Completeness CLRTAP Completeness pollutants: 45 Parties to the Convention submitted inventories but not all inventories were complete. All submitting Parties reported their 2014 emissions of the main pollutants. Cadmium, mercury and lead emissions were reported by 41 Parties, additional HMs by 35, PM by all 45 and priority POPs by 40 Parties. Activity data were reported by 37 Parties (see Appendix, Table 7). It is noticeable that reporting remained stable for the main pollutants; a slight improvement can be noticed in 2016 for the reporting of HMs, additional HMs, PMs, POPs and activity data (Figure 3). For the second time Black Carbon (BC) was reported, where 34 Parties submitted data (28 Parties in 2015). Completeness of time series: A number of Parties to the Convention who submitted data during the 2016 reporting round did not provide complete time series in the standard format as specified by the current reporting requirements: complete time series of the main pollutants in NFR format for were reported by 32 Parties. 30 Parties provided complete time series ( ) of the main heavy metals. 32 Parties provided the requested time series of particulate matter ( ). 24 Parties provided full time series (at least ) of POPs, 12 Parties submitted a full time series ( ) of BC (see Appendix, Table 7). CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections 13

15 Number of reporting parties Inventory Review 2016 Initial (Stage 1) review Main HMs other HMs PM POPs Activity data Figure 3: Number of Parties reporting various groups of pollutants, 2010 to 2016 reporting rounds Legend: Main SO X, NO X, NH 3, NMVOC, CO HMs Pb, Hg, Cd Other HMs (As, Cr, Cu, Ni, Se, Zn) PM PM 2.5, PM 10 POPs PAH, DIOX, HCB Projections: In 2016, 9 Parties (17 in 2008) submitted emission projections, and all of them (12 in 2008) submitted data for 2020 and/or 2030 projections (see Appendix, Table 8). Up to now, 28 Parties have provided 2020 projections (submitted either in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 or in 2016; see Figure 1). An up-to-date overview of the data as submitted by Parties during the 2016 reporting round is available at In addition, officially reported emission data can be accessed online at A number of Parties do not submit information regularly during the annual reporting rounds under the LRTAP Convention. Albania, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Greece, Monaco and Montenegro did not submit any data in Figure 4 shows the split of the submitted data into mandatory and non-mandatory pollutants for the 2014 data. 45 parties submitted data (Albania, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Greece, Monaco and Montenegro are missing). 36 Parties submitted data for all mandatory pollutants, and only 27 Parties submitted data for all 22 pollutants listed in reporting table IV (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belch Republic, Denmark, Estonia, European Union, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom). Activity data was reported by 37 Parties. 14 CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections

16 AM AZ BE BG HR CY CZ DK EE EU FR GE DE HU IE IT LV LT MT NL PT RO RS SK ES SE GB MK KZ MD PL SI AT LU CH CA LI FI NO UA IS KG RU US TR AL BY BA GR MC ME No. pollutants reported Inventory Review 2016 Initial (Stage 1) review voluntary pollutants mandatory pollutants reported activity data Figure 4: Completeness of submitted pollutants per country for the year 2014 Note: mandatory pollutants: SO x, NO x, CO, NH 3, NMVOC, Cd, Hg, Pb, PM 2.5, PM 10, PAH, DIOX, HCB voluntary pollutants: BC, TSP, HCH, PCB, Ad, Cr, Cu, Ni, Se, Zn Figure 5 shows a simple compilation indicating completeness of reporting for the CLRTAP inventories (years 2005, 2010 and 2014) for two country groups, based on the NFR templates originally submitted. The number of the notation keys or values used for source categories in the NFR templates and the amount of missing data are compiled across all countries within each country group and expressed as percentage values. In Figure 5, the main pollutants NO x, NMVOCs, SO X, NH 3 and CO are shown. Analyses for other pollutants are given in Annex G. Within the area EMEP West reporting completeness is high, with higher data quality for more recent years. In the country group EMEP East a very high amount of data is missing (28-35%), but the reporting situation has improved within this group of countries over the years. The frequent use of the notation key NA can be explained with the fact that some air pollutants are only relevant for specific emission sources (e.g. NH 3 mainly for agriculture). The notation key NE has been used frequently in the country group EMEP West (6-12%), and in the geographical area EMEP East the use of empty cells are often used (2-10%) on top of the high amount of missing inventories. Similar results have also been found for PMs, TSP, HMs and POPs (see Annex G KCA: Comparison EMEP West with EMEP East area (separate file)). CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections 15

17 NOX NMVOCs SOX NH CO NOX NMVOCs SOX NH CO Inventory Review 2016 Initial (Stage 1) review % EMEP West EMEP East No submissions Empty cells 0 'NE' 'NR' 'NA' 'NO' 'IE' + 'C' Values Figure 5: Completeness of CLRTAP submissions for two country groups 6 based on information provided in individual cells of the reporting tables. ( NE not estimated, NR not relevant, NA not applicable, NO not occurring, IE included elsewhere, C confidential) NECD During the 2015 NECD reporting round 7, completed by three late submissions until March 2016, all 28 Member States provided the mandatory information on final emissions for the year 2013 and preliminary emission data for In addition, seven EU Member states submitted projections for 2020, six for 2025 and 2030, one for 2040 and two for An overview of NECD emission inventory data (status as of 4 th of April 2016) is provided in Annex A Status of reporting under NECD (separate file), Tables 1 and Format The use of the standardised reporting format is inevitable for efficient processing of data for CEIP like reviews, comparisons across countries and the import of data into the CEIP database WebDab For more detailed information see Units and abbreviations The reporting deadline for the actual NECD reporting cycle was 31 Dec It should be noted that in line with mandatory reporting under the NECD, Member States should have reported inventories for 2013 (final) and 2014 (preliminary). See 16 CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections

18 Inventory Review 2016 Initial (Stage 1) review CLRTAP With the exception of Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Liechtenstein, all Parties submitted their inventories using the revised NFR14 templates 9. Armenia submitted emission data in the old NFR08 format, Kyrgyzstan used the previous NFR09 templates and Liechtenstein submitted its inventory in the old NFR04 format NECD The consistency of the reporting formats submitted under the NECD is similar to the previous reporting round. All 28 Member States submitted data in standard formats (NFR14 templates). 2.4 Transparency and Informative Inventory Reports Transparency means that Parties provide clear documentation (IIR) and references, and that they report emissions and activity data at a level of disaggregation which provides sufficient understanding of how the inventory was compiled, thereby ensuring that it meets good practice requirements. In 2016, the number of Informative Inventory Reports (IIRs) submitted by Parties under the CLRTAP increased by two to 39 (86% of those submitting inventories), compared to the previous year. The quality of submitted national IIRs has improved within the last three years. Comprehensive reports were submitted by Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Significant improvements within the last three years show the IIR of in Azerbaijan, FYR of Macedonia, Iceland, Latvia, Poland and Turkey. However some countries do not submit IIRs regularly (i.e. Albania, Armenia, Georgia, Czech republic, Lithuania,, Malta, Montenegro, Ukraine, Serbia, Spain and Turkey) and/or some reports lack in completeness or transparency (e.g. in Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia). Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan did not ratify all protocols. Except Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan none of them submitted an IIR to CEIP. It should be noted that a complete in-depth review (stage 3) is only possible for Parties which submit an IIR. Under the NECD, providing inventory reports or explanatory information that describes the methods and sources of reported data is not mandatory, which means that the transparency of the submitted information is rather limited. Nevertheless, 9 Member States (Austria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland and Romania) voluntarily submitted an inventory report together with their NECD inventories in The number of submitted IIRs in relation to the total number of Parties (51 Parties to the CLRTAP) increased from 29 submissions in 2008 to 39 submissions in This also applies to IIR submissions under NECD (5 submissions in 2008 to 9 submissions in 2015). 9 Reporting templates can be downloaded from the CEIP website at CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections 17

19 Inventory Review 2016 Extended (Stage 2) Review 3 EXTENDED (STAGE 2) REVIEW Key messages: In 2016, the total number of recalculations increased. Recalculations of 2005 and 2010 emissions: 15 Parties reported recalculations for over 30% of the emission data for the years 2005 and Most recalculations were applied to PM 10 for the year 2010, and the most frequent reasons for the recalculations were changes in activity data. Time series consistency: checks showed inconsistencies in reporting of PM 10, PM 2.5 and BC for two Parties (Armenia and Iceland). Key category analysis: A number of emission categories have been identified as key categories for both groups of countries 10. Categories in the energy sector (stationary and transport) are the most important contributors to emissions of NO x, SO x and particulate matter. They are also dominating sources for emissions of heavy metals and POPs. NH 3 occurs mainly in the agricultural sector. A significant difference for some pollutants (e.g. POPs, PMs...) in the number of key categories can be found between EMEP East and EMEP West areas. This seem to indicate that inventories are often not complete and/or Parties allocate emissions to NFR categories not always in line with the EMEP/EEA Inventory guidebook. Differences of 10% and more between reported CLRTAP and NECD emissions for at least one pollutant were observed in Finland, Italy and Slovakia. The comparison between CLRTAP and UNFCCC emissions shows more and higher differences up to 166% (CO emissions reported by Romania) which could not only be caused by different reporting obligations Emissions per capita rose between 1990 and 2014 (2000 and 2014 for PMs) in 22 countries whereas emissions per GDP/PPP rose over the same time period for nine Parties. The review shows for both forms of data display significant differences for all pollutants. 3.1 Recalculations All emission estimates within a time series should be calculated consistently, i.e. the time series should be calculated using the same method and data sources for all years. It is important and necessary to document inventory recalculations and to understand their origin in order to correctly evaluate the officially reported emission data. This is especially the case when emission ceiling targets are expressed in absolute terms (as in the Gothenburg Protocol and the NECD) and not as percentage reduction targets (as in the Kyoto Protocol for greenhouse gases). The magnitude of the recalculations can also provide an indication of the general uncertainty in emissions estimates. 10 for EMEP East and EMEP West areas 18 CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections

20 Inventory Review 2016 Extended (Stage 2) Review CLRTAP A first test to check the recalculations is to calculate differences between the national total emissions for the full time series as reported by Parties to the CLRTAP in 2016 and Then the variances larger than ± 10% are flagged 11 (see Annex B, Table 1). Of 45 reporting Parties, 37 provided recalculated data for at least some pollutants. The total number of recalculations for individual components does not differ significantly and varies between 395 and 804, with CO being the pollutant most often recalculated, followed by NOx, NH 3 and NMVOC. Compared to last year, the total number of recalculations has increased by 16% (from to ). This increase also includes the recalculations of Black Carbon (395 recalculations), which was reported the second time and therefore it is the first time that recalculations can occur. In the second test, where the focus is on the number of recalculations larger than ± 10% (highlighted cells in Annex B Recalculations of CLRTAP and NECD emission data in 2016 (separate file) it was found that 27% 12 of all recalculations were larger than ± 10%. Large differences were most frequently observed for HCB and PAHs. Extreme differences were observed for Sweden, for example (HCB in all years), and Georgia (PAHs 2013). Next, the recalculations of 2005 and 2010 emissions as reported in subsequent years were analysed. Figure 6 shows the recalculations for the emissions of NMVOC reported for the year 2005 in selected countries. For recalculations with a deviation above 30% the IIRs were consulted and if no explanation was found, the member states were contacted. 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40% NMVOC 2005 AT BY BG HR GR IE LV LI LU MT PL PT SK ES -60% Figure 6: Difference of NMVOC national total emissions for the year 2005 as reported for the period (in %; only countries with recalculations of more than ± 30%) 11 The formula used to calculate the magnitude of the recalculations is 100*[(X 2016 X 2015)/X 2015], where X 2016 denotes emissions reported in 2016 and X 2013 represents emission reported in Share of recalculations larger than ± ten percent: 31% in 2015, 22% in 2014, 14% in 2013, 11% in 2012, 15% in 2011, 23% in 2010 and 16% in CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections 19

21 Inventory Review 2016 Extended (Stage 2) Review Frequent reasons for significant recalculations were updates of activity data, e.g. due to new emission estimates (Spain, Bulgaria, Italy, Luxembourg) or an increase in human resources and the support from a twinning project for the estimation of emission data (FYR of Macedonia). Further, changes to emission factors are often the reason for more significant recalculations. In some cases (e.g. Estonia), updates of emission factors were necessary due to a the revision of the EMEP/EEA guidebook. Other countries reported revisions and corrections of emission factors (e.g. Bulgaria, Iceland). Other frequent reasons for recalculations are changes in inventory calculation methodologies. These changes can be caused by, updates of methodology like a new version of COPERT or NEMO (e.g. Italy, Luxembourg) or the implementation of a higher tier method (e.g. Bulgaria). Further reasons for recalculations are corrections of errors. An example is the correction of the reporting of emissions in the wrong category (e.g. FYR of Macedonia). Table 2 shows an overview of the largest recalculations (>30%) for the inventories of NO X, NMVOCs, SO X, NH 3, PM 2.5, PM 10 and CO and for the years 2005 and 2010 reported for the 2015 to the 2016 reporting round. The table summarizes the main reasons for the recalculation, the sectors concerned and the year when the recalculations were submitted. Large recalculations where no reasons were specified by the country are not included in the table. Detailed information on these recalculations is provided in Annex I. For detailed information about the largest recalculations in previous years please consult last year s report; the download link is available in the References -section. Detailed information on these recalculations is given in Annex I. Table 2: Largest recalculations of NO X, NMVOC, SO X, NH 3, PM 2.5, PM 10 and CO emissions for the reported years 2005 and Party Pollutant Emissions in High recalculation done in Main reason Iceland CO C 2 Iceland CO C 2 Italy CO M 1A3 Sector The FYR of Macedonia CO AD Energy Slovakia NH C 3 The FYR of Macedonia NH M, EF 3B1a, 3B3, 3B4gi, 3B4gii, 3B4giii Slovakia NH C 3 Latvia NMVOC M 1, 2 Slovakia NMVOC C, error 3De, 3Da3 The FYR of Macedonia NMVOC AD, EF, error 2A5c, 2C1, 2C2, 2C6, 2I, 2D3d, 2D3c, 2H2 Estonia NMVOC C, EF 1A2giii, 1A2f, 1A4bi, 2 Iceland NMVOC error Latvia NMVOC M 1, 2 Slovakia NMVOC C, error 3De, 3Da3 The FYR of Macedonia NMVOC AD, EF, error 2A5c, 2C1, 2C2, 2C6, 2I, 2D3d, 2D3c, 2H2 The FYR of Macedonia NO X AD, EF 1B1a1, Bav, 1Bc, 1A2gvii, 1Baiv, 1A3ai(i). 1A3ai(ii) 1A3aii(ii), 1.A.3.biv, 1.A.3.bv., 1A3bvi, 1A3dii Iceland PM C Liechtenstein PM Spain PM AD 2A5a, 2A5b 20 CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections

22 Inventory Review 2016 Extended (Stage 2) Review Party Pollutant Emissions in High recalculation done in Main reason Sector Bulgaria PM AD, EF 1A3b, 5C1biii Italy PM AD 3 Luxembourg PM AD, M 1, 1A3 Spain PM AD 2A5a, 2A5b Canada PM AD 3 Estonia PM C, EF 1A2giii, 1A2f, 1A4bi, 1B1b Estonia PM C, EF 1A2giii, 1A2f, 1A4bi, 1B1b Italy PM AD 3 Croatia BC EF 2.A.3, 1.A.3.d., 2.A.5.b, 2.D.3.b, 2.D.3.c Croatia BC EF 2.A.3, 1.A.3.d., 2.A.5.b, 2.D.3.b, 2.D.3.c Iceland BC EF 2C2 Azerbaijan SO X A4ai, 1A4bi, 1A4ci, 1A4aii, 1A4bii, 1A4cii and mainly 1B2aiv Latvia SO X M Energy Azerbaijan SO X A4ai, 1A4bi, 1A4ci, 1A4aii, 1A4bii, 1A4cii and mainly 1B2aiv Georgia SO X AD, M 1A1, 1A2a, 1A2d, 1A2e, 1A2f, 1A3c, 1A3dii, 1A4ai, 1A4bi, 1A4ci, 1A4cii. Latvia SO X M Energy Notes: M change in methodology AD updated activity data error error EF change to emission factor C correction NECD The magnitude of the recalculations exceeds 10% in a few cases only. The largest relative differences for the period were found in Latvia for SO X, followed by Slovakia (NMVOC) and Malta (NO X ). 3.2 Time series consistency ( ) Consistency between reported PM 10, PM 2.5, and BC emissions The consistency between reported emissions of PM 10 and PM 2.5 was assessed for relevant categories in the energy sector. As PM 2.5 emissions are assumed to be a subset of PM 10 emissions, it was checked whether the former are lower than the latter in all years for all countries. No Party reported higher PM 2.5 than PM 10 emissions. Only Armenia reported the same amount of PM 10 as for PM 2.5. Another basic comparison was performed to check whether reported BC emissions are lower than reported PM 2.5 emissions. The results show that one of the submitting Parties Iceland reported higher BC emissions than PM 2.5 emissions. In both cases the Parties were contacted and asked for clarification. CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections 21

23 Inventory Review 2016 Extended (Stage 2) Review A comparison of the share of PM 2.5 in PM 10 was made to identify differences between the submitting Parties (Figure 7). The analysis shows dips and jumps in some of the countries which might indicate time series inconsistencies in either PM 2.5 or PM 10 submissions. Further, countries like Macedonia, Canada, the US or Ukraine have a relatively low PM 2.5 share between 4% and 30%. On the upper end, countries as Lithuania, Slovenia and Italy show a share above 80%. The majority of the submitting Parties have a share between 40% and 80%; a more in depth check of this outcome is planned for future reviews. 120% Share of PM 2.5 in PM 10 (in %) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% AM AZ BY CA GE IT LV LT MC NO MD SK SI UA US Median Mean Figure 7: Share in per cent of PM 2.5 national total emissions in PM 10 national total emissions for the upper and lower 10% 3.3 Key category analysis (KCA) KCA helps to identify significant air pollution sources in the EMEP area and in individual countries. Key categories are those categories that cumulatively contribute 80% of the total emissions of a specific pollutant. Annex G shows the share of the key categories in the total emissions for the two groups of Parties: on the one hand for the group of EMEP West area and on the other hand for the EMEP East area. Results of KCA for individual Parties can be downloaded from Please note that for the EMEP East area Armenia, Belarus and Kyrgyzstan are not included as no data was reported. Where the total number of NFR14 13 key categories for a particular pollutant was more than 10, emissions were summed up in Other key categories. It should be noted that it is possible that Parties allocate emissions to NFR categories in different ways. The results of the KCA show that: 13 For the list of NFR14 categories see Annex 1 of the reporting guidelines 22 CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections

24 Inventory Review 2016 Extended (Stage 2) Review 1A4bi Residential Stationary plants is the most important source of the pollutants assessed for this report: like in previous years, 1A4bi is a key source of all pollutants except NH 3 and ranks among the top three key categories. 1A1a Public Electricity and Heat Production is among the key categories for ten assessed pollutants (except NMVOC, NH 3 and PAH). It is the most important key source of SO x and Hg in the countries of the EMEP West area and for SO X, NO X, Hg and HCB in the EMEP East area. 1A2a Stationary Combustion in Manufacturing Industries and Construction Iron and steel is key category for ten out of the fourteen assessed pollutants (all except NMVOC, NH 3, PAH and HCB). 1A3bi Road Transportation Passenger cars is a key source of NO X, NMVOC, CO, PM 10, PM 2.5, BC, Cd, Pb, PAH and DIOX emissions. Sectors 3B1a (Manure management Dairy cattle), 3B1b (Manure management Non-dairy cattle) and 3Da1 (Inorganic N-fertilizers) are dominating NH 3 emission sources in both areas. The energy sector (mainly 1A4bi Residential stationary) is the dominating source of PM 10 emissions in the EMEP West area, whereas the industry sector (particularly 2B10a Chemical industries other) is the main source of PM 10 emissions in the EMEP East area. In the EMEP West area 51% of the PM 2.5 emissions come from 1A4bi Residential stationary, while the most important key category for this pollutant in the EMEP East area is 1A1a Public Electricity and Heat Production with a share of 23%. In the following table (Table 3), the total number of key categories is shown for each of the pollutants as well as the trend in the number of key categories over the last five years. Table 3: Total number of categories identified as key categories in the 2014 inventories for individual pollutants in the countries of the EMEP West and EMEP East area. The figures below the numbers illustrates the trend in the number of key categories over the last five years. Blue: EMEP West, red: EMEP East. NO X NMVOC SO X NH 3 PM 2.5 PM 10 BC West East West East West East West East West East West East West East CO Pb Cd Hg DIOX PAH HCB West East West East West East West East West East West East West East CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections 23

25 Inventory Review 2016 Extended (Stage 2) Review The example in Figure 8 shows a comparison between the KCA for PM 10 for the EMEP West and EMEP East area. While the countries of the EMEP West area have identified 21 key categories, the group of the EMEP East area has identified only eleven categories for PM 10. In countries of the EMEP East area, the sector 2B10a (Chemical Industry Other) is the dominating sector in the KCA because of high PM 10 emissions reported by Turkey whereas in the EMEP West area sector 1A4bi (Residential Stationary plants) dominates PM 10 emissions. PM 10 - EMEP West PM 10 - EMEP East OtherCat 1A1a 1A3bi 1A3bvi 1A3bvii OtherCat OtherKC 1A1a 1A2a OtherKC 3Da1 1A4bi 3Dc 3Da1 3B4gii 2L 2A5a 1A4bi 3B4giv 2B10a 1A5a 1B2c 2A5a 2A6 Figure 8: KCA of PM 10 emissions for 2014 CLRTAP inventories. Comparison between EMEP West area (left) and EMEP East area (right) was the first year when Black Carbon was reported by Parties and significant differences in the number of key categories for this pollutant were observed between the EMEP East (4 KCs) and EMEP West (8 KCs) area (Figure 9) In the 2016 reporting round the number of key categories between the two areas are almost the same (8 KCs in EMEP West and 7KCs in EMEP East area). In both areas the dominating key category for Black Carbon is 1A4bi (Residential Stationary plants) whereas this was no key category in the EMEP East area in Most of the reporting EMEP West Parties submitted emission data for BC, except Austria, Germany and Poland. From the EMEP East area only Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan submitted emission data for this pollutant. 24 CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections

26 Inventory Review 2016 Extended (Stage 2) Review BC - EMEP West 2013 BC - EMEP East 2013 OtherCat 1A2gvii 1A2gviii OtherCat 1A4ci 5C2 1A3bi OtherKC 1A4cii 1A3bii 5C1bi 2D3b 1A3biii 1A4bi 3Da4 BC - EMEP West 2014 BC - EMEP East 2014 OtherCat 1A2gvii 1A2gviii OtherCat 1A2a 1A2b 1A3bi 1A4ai 5C2 1A4cii 1A3bii 5C1bi 1A4bi 1A3biii 1B2c 1A4bi 1A5a Figure 9: KCA of BC emissions for 2013 and 2014-CLRTAP inventories. Comparison between EMEP West area (left) and EMEP East area (right). Similar illustrations and comparisons for the remaining pollutants are provided in Annex H of this report. 3.4 Inventory comparisons In the following, the share of sectors and inventories reported under different reporting obligation is compared. A summary of the results of the comparison between data reported officially under the NECD and CLRTAP for 1990 and the most recent reported year (2014) is provided in Annex D. Differences are expressed as percentages (%). A comparison with data reported under UNFCCC cannot be performed in this years review as country data have not been yet released by UNFCCC. CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections 25

27 AM AT AZ BE BG CA HR CY CZ DK EU-28 EE FI FR GE DE HU IS IE IT KZ KG LV LI LT LU MT NL NO PL PT MD RO RU RS SK SI ES SE CH MK TR UA GB Inventory Review 2016 Extended (Stage 2) Review Share of aggregated sectors (GNFR) The share of aggregated NFR14 sectors for each pollutant and each party was assessed to check consistency of reporting between the countries and also potentially identify outliers in reporting. Figure 10 displays the share of GNFR sector for NO X emissions for each Party. This pollutant is reported under CLRTAP and NECD; reported NOx emissions are increasing; The dominating sector for this pollutant is Road Transport for almost all Parties. Kyrgyztan is reporting its NO X emissions mainly in Industry, Cyprus, Kazachstan, Ukraine and Serbia are reporting this pollutant primarily in sector Public Power. Offroad is the dominating sector for NO X emissions in Iceland. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% NO X Other Agricultural Other Agricultural Livestock Waste Offroad Aviation Int Shipping Road Transport Solvents Fugitive Other Stationary Combustion Industry Public Power 0% Figure 10: Share of GNFR sectors on NO X emissions for individual Parties in Only countries that submitted emission data for this pollutant are presented in the figure. Figure 11 shows the share of sectors for Hg emissions in each country. It can be seen that most countries report Hg emissions mainly in the sectors Industry and Public Power. Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Georgia are reporting almost all their Hg emissions in sector Industry while Estonia, Malta, Serbia and Ukraine are reporting the majority of their Hg emissions in sector Public Power. In Liechtenstein the dominating sector is Other Stationary Combustion. 26 CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections

28 AM AT AZ BE BG CA HR CY CZ DK EU-28 EE FI FR GE DE HU IE IT KZ KG LV LI LT LU MT NL NO PL PT MD RO RS SK SI ES SE CH MK UA GB Inventory Review 2016 Extended (Stage 2) Review 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Hg Other Agricultural Other Agricultural Livestock Waste Offroad Aviation Shipping Road Transport Solvents Fugitive Other Stationary Combustion Industry Public Power 0% Figure 11: Share of GNFR sectors on Hg emissions for individual Parties in Only countries that submitted emission data for this pollutant are presented in the figure. Figures with comparisons for the remaining pollutants are provided in Annex I CLRTAP/NECD comparisons 14 Reporting obligations under CLRTAP and NECD are identical for most of the countries. Differences of more than 5% in national totals for one or more air pollutants have been observed in seven countries (Finland, Greece, Slovakia, Spain, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Italy, Latvia). Differences of 10% and more for at least one pollutant have been observed in Finland, Italy and Slovakia. In 2014 the largest differences for NO X were found for Slovakia (9.3%). The largest differences in reported NH 3 emission data in 2014 were found for Spain ( 7.9%). Maximum deviations for NMVOC in 2014 were found for Finland ( 19.5%) and Slovakia (16.4%). In general, all disparities which indicate that CLRTAP emissions are lower than NECD levels suggest potential errors in one of the data sets. 14 Reported NECD data is taken as 100%. A reported difference below 0% means that reported CLRTAP data is below reported NECD data. CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections 27

29 Inventory Review 2016 Extended (Stage 2) Review CLRTAP/UNFCCC comparisons 15 Larger differences between national total emissions reported under CLRTAP and emissions reported under UNFCCC occur more frequently than when comparing CLRTAP and NECD inventories. Not all of these differences can be explained by different reporting obligations. Differences of more than 10% in the NO X emission data for 2014 were found in Czech Republic ( 23.7%), Estonia ( 14.6%), France ( 11.4%), Malta ( 62.4%) and the Netherlands ( 11.4%). The largest differences in the SO X emissions for 2014 were found in Bulgaria ( 109%) and Luxembourg ( 99.8%). In 2014, NMVOC data with a difference of 30% or more were provided by Bulgaria (57.1%) and France ( 52.3%). Bulgaria and Romania showed the largest differences in CO emissions in 2014 (54.0% and 165.9% respectively) Errors in inventories, which also result in differences between inventories, cannot be identified by automated tests. These errors can only be detected during the stage 3 review. However, such big differences often indicate a lack of communication between institutions responsible for compiling emission inventories at national level, i.e. a use of inconsistent data sets for the two inventories. 3.5 Comparability emissions per capita, emissions per GDP Population and GDP/PPP (gross domestic product/purchasing power parity) have been selected as indicators for the comparison with national total emissions which are available in standardised format for all Parties. The aim is to further elaborate the check with additional parameters that are relevant for selected key categories/pollutants. National total emissions reported for 1990 or 2000 (for PM) and 2014 were divided by the number of inhabitants and by the total value of the GDP/PPP. Values for each Party are presented in Annex E. Tables with complete time series for these indicators were posted in a separate file on the CEIP webpage ( Table 4 and Table 5 show that for all assessed pollutants the highest and lowest per capita emissions per GDP/PPP emissions differ significantly from the average values (sometimes by a few orders of magnitude). A more detailed analysis of these indicators is outside the scope of this report, but the information is provided to the reviewers during the checking of national inventories under the stage 3 review. Outliers might indicate differences in national economies but also errors in calculations. Low per capita and per GDP/PPP emissions in some Parties also seem to indicate incomplete national inventories, particularly for PM and POPs data. 15 Reported UNFCCC data is taken as 100%. A reported difference below 0% means that reported CLRTAP data is less than reported UNFCCC data. 28 CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections

30 Inventory Review 2016 Extended (Stage 2) Review Emissions per capita Table 4: Minimum and maximum value and middle 50%-range of per capita emissions for each pollutant in Emissions per/cap in 2014 min middle 50% of the countries max Pollutant Party value (25%-75% quartiles) Party value unit NO X Kyrgyzstan 1, Iceland 61 kg/cap NMVOC Kyrgyzstan 0, Republic of Moldova 517 kg/cap SO X Liechtenstein 0, Iceland 198 kg/cap NH 3 Kyrgyzstan 0, Ireland 23 kg/cap BC Cyprus 0, Republic of Moldova 2 kg/cap PM 2.5 Monaco 0, Canada 51 kg/cap PM 10 Armenia 0, Canada 231 kg/cap CO Kyrgyzstan 1, Iceland 350 kg/cap Pb Russia 0, Estonia 28 g/cap Cd Armenia 0, Estonia 0,7 g/cap Hg Kyrgyzstan 0, Monaco 1 g/cap PCDD/PCDF Cyprus 0,3 3-7 Monaco 64 µg/cap PAH Kazakhstan 0, Malta 76 g/cap HCB Malta 0, Albania 1 g/cap Between 1990 (or 2000 for PM) and 2014 per capita emissions rose in 22 Parties. Significant differences between Parties can be seen for each reported pollutant in per capita emissions; e.g. Kyrgyzstan reports with 0.4 kg of NMVOC emissions per capita the lowest value while the Republic of Moldova reports 517 kg NMVOC emissions per capita, which is 1293 times higher than Kyrgyzstan s emissions and 34 times higher than the average reported emissions per capita. It should be noted that not all Parties submitted 1990 and 2014 data for all analyzed pollutants, and that therefore these statistics cannot fully reflect the developments in the whole EMEP domain Emissions per GDP Again, not all Parties reported emissions for both 1990 (or 2000 for PM) and Emissions per GDP/PPP differ significantly among the Parties. The biggest difference can be seen in HCB submissions: Malta is reporting 0.04ng HCB/GDP PPP while Albania is reporting ng HCB/GDP PPP. Please note that the most recent emission data available from Albania is from 2009, which was used for this calculation. CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections 29

31 Inventory Review 2016 Extended (Stage 2) Review Table 5: Minimum and maximum value and middle 50%-range of emissions per GDP/PPP for each pollutant in 2014 Emissions per/gdp PPP in 2014 min middle 50% of the countries max Pollutant Party value (25%-75% quartiles) Party value unit NO X Switzerland 0, NMVOC Kyrgyzstan 0, Republic of Moldova Republic of Moldova 2 g/gdp PPP 114 g/gdp PPP SO X Switzerland 0, Iceland 5 g/gdp PPP NH 3 Kyrgyzstan 0, BC Malta 0, PM 2.5 Armenia 0, Republic of Moldova Republic of Moldova Republic of Moldova 2 g/gdp PPP 0,4 g/gdp PPP 2 g/gdp PPP PM 10 Armenia 0, Canada 5 g/gdp PPP CO Switzerland 0, Iceland 8 g/gdp PPP Pb Kyrgyzstan 0, Bulgaria 2 Cd Kyrgyzstan 0, Estonia 0,03 Hg Kyrgyzstan 0, Kazakhstan 0,02 PCDD/PCDF Cyprus 0, Azerbaijan 1 PAH Kazakhstan 0, Montenegro 1614 HCB Malta 0, Albania mg/ GDP PPP mg/ GDP PPP mg/ GDP PPP ng/ GDP PPP µg/ GDP PPP ng/ GDP PPP Trends in emissions per GDP/PPP do not follow exactly the same trends as per capita emissions. Between 1990 and 2014 emissions per GDP/PPP rose in 9 Parties. 30 CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections

32 Number of Parties Inventory Review 2016 Initial Checks of Gridded emissions and Large Point Sources 4 INITIAL CHECKS OF GRIDDED EMISSIONS AND LARGE POINT SOURCES Key messages: Compared with gridded data reported for 1990, the completeness of the data reported for 2010 improved by almost 50% for Parties reporting to the LRTAP Convention. Nevertheless, for about 27% (main pollutants and PM) to 69% (HMs and POPs), of the European area representing from Parties, missing data on spatially distributed emissions still have to be estimated by CEIP. In 2016, three Parties voluntarily reported data in the new EMEP grid resolution of 0.1 x 0.1 (long-lat). Large Point Source (LPS) reporting is gradually improving, but still only 30 out of 49 Parties submit LPS data (independent from the reporting year). 4.1 Reporting of gridded emissions in 2016 Completeness: Gridded data is part of the four-year reporting obligation and was not due in Nevertheless, gridded sectoral emissions for 2014 were submitted by Finland, Poland and Switzerland. All three Parties submitted gridded data in the new EMEP grid resolution 17 (0.1 x 0.1 long-lat). Switzerland did so for the whole time series from 1980 to Iceland reported gridded data for the years 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010 only for PCDD/PCDF and PAH in the old 50x50 km² resolution. All gridded sectoral data was submitted in new GNFR14 sectors Gridded emissions reported for 2011, 2012 or gridded emissions 2005 gridded emissions 2000 gridded emissions gridded emissions 0 Main (SOx, (SONOx, X, NO NH3, X, CO) NH 3, NMVOC, CO) PM (PM 2.5, PM 10) HMs (Pb, Hg, Cd) POPs (PAH, DIOX, HCB) PM (PM2.5, PM10) HMs (Pb, Hg, Cd) POPs (PAH, DIOX, HCB) 1990 gridded emissions Without Canada and the United States of America. By 5 th July 2016 only five Parties (Finland, Poland, Switzerland, Spain and the United Kingdom) had submitted gridded data on a voluntary basis in the new EMEP grid. For the success of the new EMEP grid resolution it is extremely important that Parties start reporting gridded data in the new system according to the revised Reporting Guidelines. CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections 31

33 Inventory Review 2016 Initial Checks of Gridded emissions and Large Point Sources Figure 12: Total number of Parties reporting gridded sectoral data for the years 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2011 to 2014, reported to EMEP by Completeness pollutants: Independent of the reporting year and the grid resolution, 31 Parties (out of 49) reported sectoral gridded emissions for the year Parties for the main pollutants, 28 Parties for particulate matter and priority heavy metals and 27 Parties for persistent organic pollutants. Main pollutants (NO X, NMVOC, SO X, NH 3, CO) Particulate matter (PM 2.5, PM 10 ) Priority heavy metals (Pb, Cd, Hg) POPs (PCDD/PCDF, PAH and HCB) Figure 13: Visualisation of the gridded emissions reporting in the EMEP area. Green reported data for 2005 and 2010 is available; Orange reported data for 2010 is available; Beige reported data for 2005 is available; White no reporting of gridded emissions 32 CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections

34 Inventory Review 2016 Initial Checks of Gridded emissions and Large Point Sources Compared with gridded data reported for 1990, the completeness of the data reported for 2010 improved by almost 50%, but it is still not sufficient. For about 27% (main pollutants and PM) to 69% (heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants) of the area from 49 reporting Parties to the LRTAP Convention 18 missing data on spatially distributed emissions have to be estimated by air pollutant emission experts (areas with no reporting at all, like the sea areas, North Africa and areas in the extended EMEP domain are not considered here).. Except for Finland, Poland, Switzerland, Spain and the United Kingdom, all reported gridded data is available only in the old 50x50 km² resolution, which can t be used for the new EMEP grid in 0.1 x 0.1 resolution. Detailed information on the gap-filling and gridding for emission data used in EMEP models can be found in the EMEP Status Report 1/ Without Canada and the United States of America. CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections 33

35 Inventory Review 2016 Initial Checks of Gridded emissions and Large Point Sources 4.2 Large point sources (LPS) Large point sources (LPS) are defined as facilities whose combined emissions, within the limited identifiable area of the site premises, exceed certain pollutant emission thresholds 20. LPS reporting is encouraged to include information on stack heights according to the stack height class categories as defined in the emission reporting guidelines 21. Submitted LPS information should be consistent with the information reported for E-PRTR facilities. The reporting of LPS data is gradually improving, but still data is only submitted by 32 out of 49 parties (see Figure 1). Six Parties provided updated information on LPS in (see Table 6, Appendix 1) Armenia (2015) 23, Croatia (2014), Poland (2014), Georgia (2014), the FYR of Macedonia (2014), Switzerland ( ). Annex D LPS reporting under CLRTAP until 2016 (separate file) shows in detail which Party submitted LPS data for which years. Main pollutants (NO X, NMVOC, SO X, NH 3, CO) Particulate matter (PM 2.5, PM 10 ) Priority heavy metals (Pb, Cd, Hg) POPs (PCDD/PCDF, PAH and HCB) Figure 14: Maps with Large Point Sources reported until These thresholds have been extracted from the full list of pollutants in Regulation (EC) No. 166/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006 concerning the establishment of a European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register and amending Council Directives 91/689/EEC and 96/61/EC (E-PRTR Regulation) and its annex II 6. See Table 1 in Guidelines for Reporting Emissions and Projections Data under the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution ECE/EB.AIR/125 ( See Table 2 in Guidelines for Reporting Emissions and Projections Data under the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution ECE/EB.AIR/125 ( Emissions of large point sources are part of the four-year reporting obligation and were not due in Armenia submitted data from 3 LPS, which is not usable for gridding because of merged GNFR sectors. 34 CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections

36 Inventory Review 2016 Units and abbreviations 5 UNITS AND ABBREVIATIONS 5.1 Units kg... 1 kilogram = 10 3 g (gram) t... 1 tonne (metric) = 1 megagram (Mg) = 10 6 g Mg... 1 megagram = 10 6 g = 1 tonne (t) Gg... 1 gigagram = 10 9 g = 1 kilotonne (kt) Tg... 1 teragram = g = 1 megatonne(mt) TJ... 1 terajoule 5.2 Abbreviations As... Arsenic BC... Black carbon carbonaceous particulate matter that absorbs light Cd... Cadmium CDR... Central data repository of EEA s Eionet Reportnet CEIP... EMEP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections CH 4... Methane CLRTAP... LRTAP Convention CO... Carbon monoxide CO 2... Carbon dioxide Cr... Chromium CRF... Common reporting format (UNFCCC for greenhouse gases) Cu... Copper EEA... European Environment Agency Eionet... European environmental information and observation network EMEP... Co-operative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-range Transmissions of Air Pollutants in Europe E-PRTR... European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register ETC/ACM... European Topic Centre for Air pollution and Climate change Mitigation EU... European Union GDP, PPP... Gross domestic product converted to international dollars using purchasing power parity rates HCB... Hexachlorobenzene Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry Number Hg... Mercury HMs... Heavy metals IIASA... International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis IIR... Informative inventory report IEF... Implied emission factor KCA... Key category analysis LRTAP Convention... UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections 35

37 Inventory Review 2016 Units and abbreviations LPS... Large point source Main pollutants... NO x, NMVOC, SO x, NH 3 and CO Main HMs... Cd, Hg and Pb N 2 O... Nitrous oxide NECD... National Emission Ceilings Directive (2001/81/EC) NFR... UNECE Nomenclature For Reporting of air pollutants NH 3... Ammonia Ni... Nickel NMVOCs... Non-methane volatile organic compounds all organic compounds of an anthropogenic nature, other than methane, that are capable of producing photochemical oxidants by reaction with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight NO 2... Nitrogen dioxide NO X... Nitrogen oxides means nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide, expressed as nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ); PAHs... Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons for the purposes of emission inventories, the following four indicator compounds shall be used: benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, and indeno(1,2,3_cd)pyrene; Pb... Lead PCBs... Polychlorinated biphenyls aromatic compounds formed in such a manner that the hydrogen atoms on the biphenyl molecule (two benzene rings bonded together by a single carbon-carbon bond) may be replaced by up to 10 chlorine atoms; PCDD/PCDF... Dioxins and furans polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF), tricyclic, aromatic compounds formed by two benzene rings, connected by two oxygen atoms in PCDD and by one oxygen atom in PCDF, and the hydrogen atoms of which may be replaced by up to eight chlorine atoms; PFCs... Perfluorocarbons PM... Particulate matter air pollutant consisting of a mixture of particles suspended in the air. These particles differ in their physical properties (such as size and shape) and chemical composition. PM Particulate matter, or particles with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10 (μm); PM Particulate matter, or particles with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 micrometres (μm); POPs... Persistent organic pollutants QA/QC... Quality assurance/quality control Se... Selenium SF 6... Sulphur hexafluoride SNAP... Selected nomenclature for air pollution SO 2... Sulphur dioxide SO X... Sulphur oxides means all sulphur compounds expressed as sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ) (including sulphur trioxide (SO 3 ), sulphuric acid (H 2 SO 4 ), and reduced sulphur compounds, such as hydrogen sulphide (H 2 S), mercaptans and dimethyl sulphides, etc.); SECA... Sulphur Emission Control Area TFEIP... UNECE Task Force on Emission Inventories and Projections TFIAM... UNECE Task Force on Integrated Assessment Modelling TSP... Total suspended particles 36 CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections

38 Inventory Review 2016 Units and abbreviations UNECE... United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNFCCC... United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change VOCs... Volatile organic compounds Zn... Zinc 5.3 ISO Country codes AL... Albania AM... Armenia AT... Austria AZ... Azerbaijan BA... Bosnia and Herzegovina BE... Belgium BG... Bulgaria BY... Belarus CA... Canada CH... Switzerland CY... Cyprus CZ... Czech Republic DE... Germany DK... Denmark EE... Estonia ES... Spain EU... European Union FI... Finland FR... France GB... United Kingdom GE... Georgia GR... Greece HR... Croatia HU... Hungary IE... Ireland IS... Iceland IT... Italy KG... Kyrgyzstan KZ... Kazakhstan LI... Liechtenstein LT... Lithuania LU... Luxembourg LV... Latvia MC... Monaco MD... Republic of Moldova ME... Montenegro MK... FYR of Macedonia MT... Malta NL... Netherlands NO... Norway PL... Poland PT... Portugal RO... Romania RS... Serbia RU... Russian Federation SE... Sweden SI... Slovenia SK... Slovakia TR... Turkey UA... Ukraine US... United States of America EMEP West comprises Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, European Union, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, FYR of Macedonia, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. EMEP East comprises Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, FYR of Moldova, Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine. CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections 37

39 Inventory Review 2016 References 6 REFERENCES EEA, Tista M., Gager M., Ullrich B., NEC Directive status report European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. Available at: EMEP, Transboundary particulate matter, photo-oxidants, acidifying and eutrophying components Joint MSC-W & CCC & CEIP Report, EMEP Status Report 1/2016 emep.int/publ/common_publications.html EMEP/EEA, EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook EEA technical report No. 1209/2013. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. Available at: Environment Canada, Canada s First Black Carbon Inventory ETC/ACC, Gugele B., Mareckova K., Proposal for gap filling procedures for the European Community CLRTAP inventory, final draft technical note. European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change, January IPCC, 2000.Good practice guidance and uncertainty management in national greenhouse gas inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at: Mareckova K., Wankmueller R., Pinterits M., Ullrich B Review of emission data reported under the LRTAP Convention and NEC Directive, Stage 1 and 2 review, Status of Gridded and LPS data, EEA and CEIP technical report, 1/2015, ISBN Available at: Mareckova K., Wankmueller R., Moosmann L., Pinterits M., Tista M., Ullrich B., Methodologies applied to the technical review of emission data. Available at: UNECE, Methods and procedures for the technical review of air pollutant emission inventories reported under the Convention and its protocols (EB.AIR/GE.1/2007/16). Available at: UNECE, Guidelines for Reporting Emission Data under the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (ECE/EB.AIR/97).Available at: 38 CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections

40 Inventory Review 2016 Appendix APPENDIX Status of 2016 reporting under the LRTAP Convention Table 6: Status of reporting under the LRTAP Convention as of 30 th May PARTY Albania Submission Date EMEP Resubmission Date NFR template (version) Other format Gridded Data Armenia x LPS Data 2020 Proj. Austria x Azerbaijan x Belarus Belgium x Bosnia & Herzegovina Bulgaria x x Canada x Croatia x x x Cyprus x Czech Republic x Denmark x Estonia x x European Union x Finland x x France x FYR of Macedonia x x Georgia x x Germany x Greece Hungary x Iceland x x Ireland x Italy x Kazakhstan x Kyrgyzstan Latvia x x Liechtenstein Lithuania x Luxembourg x Malta Monaco Montenegro Netherlands x x Norway x Poland x x x Portugal x Republic of Moldova x IIR 2016 CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections 39

41 Inventory Review 2016 Appendix PARTY Submission Date EMEP Resubmission Date NFR template (version) Other format Gridded Data LPS Data 2020 Proj. Romania x Russian Federation x Serbia x Slovakia x Slovenia x Spain x Sweden x Switzerland x x x x Turkey x Ukraine United Kingdom x x USA x IIR 2016 PARTY Albania Table 7: Completeness of CLRTAP submissions as of 30 th May SO 2 NO x CO NH 3 NMVOCs Cd,Hg, Pb additional HMs PM 2.5, PM 10 TSPs BC POPs (PAH PCDD/ PCDF HCB) Activity Data Armenia Austria , 1995, , 1995, Azerbaijan Belarus Belgium Bosnia & Herzegovina Bulgaria Canada Croatia 1987, 1988, , 1988, , 1988, , 1988, , 1988, , 1988, , 1988, , Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia European Union Finland France FYR of Macedonia 1980, 1987, 1988, , 1987, 1988, Georgia Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland 1987, CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections

42 Inventory Review 2016 Appendix PARTY SO 2 NO x CO NH 3 NMVOCs Cd,Hg, Pb additional HMs PM 2.5, PM 10 TSPs BC POPs (PAH PCDD/ PCDF HCB) Activity Data Italy Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Monaco Montenegro 2005, 2008, Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Republic of Moldova Romania Russian Federation Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland , 2020, 2030 Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom USA * CEIP received the data in a non-standard format (Word file) and transferred it to SNAP sectors. Not all data submitted by the Party could be used. CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections 41

43 Inventory Review 2016 Appendix Table 8: Completeness of CLRTAP submissions as of 30 th May 2016 (since 2015 reporting mandatory every 4 years). PARTY Albania Projections WM Template version or Projections WaM Activity data WM Activity data WaM Gridded data LPS Emissions Armenia* 2014 Austria Azerbaijan Belarus Belgium Bosnia & Herzegovina Bulgaria Canada Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia European Union 2020, 2025, , 2025, , 2025, , 2025, , 2025, , 2025, 2030 Finland 2014 France FYR of Macedonia 2014 Georgia 2014 Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Monaco Montenegro Netherlands 2020, 2025, , 2025, 2030, 2040, , 2025, , 2025, , 2025, , 2025, , 2025, 2030, 2040, , , 2025, , 1995, 2000, 2005, CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections

44 Inventory Review 2016 Appendix PARTY Norway Projections WM Template version or Projections WaM Activity data WM Activity data WaM Gridded data LPS Emissions Poland Portugal Republic of Moldova Romania Russian Federation Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom USA 2020, 2025, 2030, 2040, , 2025, , 2025, 2030, 2040, , 2025, 2030, 2040, , 2025, , 2025, 2030, 2040, CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections 43

45 Inventory Review 2016 Annexes ANNEXES Annex A Status of reporting under NECD (separate file) Download from CEIP homepage at Annex B Recalculations of CLRTAP and NECD emission data in 2016 (separate file) Download from CEIP homepage at Annex C Inventory Comparisons between CLRTAP, UNFCCC and NECD data for 1990 and 2014 (separate file) Download from CEIP homepage at Annex D LPS reporting under CLRTAP until 2016 (separate file) Download from CEIP homepage at Annex E Emissions per capita and per GDP comparison of 1990 and 2014 (2000 and 2014 for PM 2.5 and PM 10 ) (separate file) Download from CEIP homepage at Annex F Completeness (separate file) Download from CEIP homepage at Annex G KCA: Comparison EMEP West with EMEP East area (separate file) Download from CEIP homepage at Annex H Analysis of recalculations (separate file) Download from CEIP homepage at Annex I Share of sectors (separate file) Download from CEIP homepage at 44 CEIP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections

46 emep CEIP Umweltbundesamt Spittelauer Lände 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria ccc NILU Norwegian Institute for Air Research P.O. Box 100, NO-2027 Kjeller Norway Phone: Fax: Internet: ciam International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Schlossplatz 1 A-2361 Laxenburg Austria Phone: Fax: amann@iiasa.ac.at Internet: ceip Umweltbundesamt GmbH Spittelauer Lände 5 A-1090 Vienna Austria Phone: +43-(0) Fax: +43-(0) / emep.emissions@umweltbundesamt.at Internet: msc-e Meteorological Synthesizing Centre-East 2 nd Roshchinsky proezd, 8/ Moscow Russia Phone Fax: msce@msceast.org Internet: msc-w Norwegian Meteorological Institute (MET Norway) P.O. Box 43 Blindern NO-0313 OSLO Norway Phone: Fax: emep.mscw@met.no Internet: