Transcript Document

Summary of Member States’ responses to questionnaire
Krzysztof Olendrzyński
• preliminary conclusions based on MS responses
• workshop agenda – division into sessions; overlaps unavoidable!
• practical conclusions for all Member States
Workshop on data consistency between National GHG inventories and reporting
under the EU ETS at EEA 9-10 February 2006
Institutional arrangements – an important factor!
- in some Member States (MS) the same institutions/organizations or
bodies (but usually different teams) are responsible for the national
GHG emission inventories and implementation of EU ETS (NAP,
national registry), while in others, there are different ones
- to a large extent, the institutional arrangements determine whether
and how the data are exchanged (confidentiality) between ETS and
GHG groups (in some cases also LCP/EPER)
- involvement of public statistics bodies in GHG/ETS? (verification)
- a national bottom-up (plant level) data collection system?
- National Inventory System (Kyoto Protocol/UN FCCC)
in use?
- NAP data collection made by survey(s)/questionnaires?
- links to other emission reporting systems (LCP/ EPER/ PRTR/
NEC/ UN ECE/EMEP)?
Methodological issues: AD, energy balances, confidentiality, EFs,
coverage, quality of ETS data, interplay between ETS-GHG,
recalculations of time series in GHG inventories, impact on base
year estimates?
• some MS have already used plant-level (activity) data collected
during NAP elaboration (surveys) for GHG inventory development
and verification purposes
• others not yet due to – inter alia - confidentiality issues, but they
plan to do so in 2006 (based on 2005 reporting) or for the 2nd
trading period of EU ETS
• use of ETS data generally leads to improvements in GHG
inventories, especially in the Industrial Process sector, where often
gaps in GHG inventories were found and filled and sectoral EFs
updated (most commonly in iron&steel, dolomite and limestone use
sectors)
• differences between ETS and GHG sectoral totals exist although
they are generally minor
• the differences come from gaps identified in GHG, based on plant
level data coming from ETS; also EFs and OFs (oxidation factors)
differ in cases when GHG is strictly top-down
• in cases when bottom-up ETS data are used directly in GHG
(especially in Industrial Processes), there are no differences
• some MS have already carried out recalculations of GHG time
series including the base year based on data collected for NAP
elaboration while others are planning to do so
• the need for recalculations comes from the identified differences in
EFs and sometimes AD and subsequent changes made in GHG
inventories
• quality of ETS data is considered to be good or very good and
should even get better after verification by accredited verifiers; the
quality was improved when sectoral consultations were held or site
visits were made by the respective authorities
• in some MS, there exist independent bottom-up systems other than
the national statistical system; in such cases, plant level data are
generally available but not necessarily for GHG use; if a bottomup system is part of the statistical office operation, then the key
issue is whether the statistical authorities are directly involved in
either national ETS or GHG inventory systems
• some MS are not sure and indicate that it will require further
analysis
• the sectors in which differences were identified include:
cement/clinker production, lime production, iron&steel and
ceramics – basically in the IPCC Industrial Processes sector for
which GHG inventories use nationally averaged EFs while ETS
data are plant specific
• the sources of identified differences include: AD, EFs and
oxidation factors - OFs; default OFs are different in IPCC than in
ETS
• a few MS already made recalculations going back to base year
while several other plan to do so in 2006; sectors recalculated
include: refineries and several subsectors in Ind. Proc. sector: e.g.
lime, coke plants and blast furnaces
• in case GHG includes sectoral average EFs for fuels, the
recalculations may also affect the IPCC Energy sector (especially
1A1 and 1A2).
• recalculated base year emissions are sometimes lower and
sometimes higher than earlier estimates
• generally ETS/NAP data are going to be available for GHG
inventory purposes but sometimes confidentiality may become a
problem for other than emissions inputs
• confidentiality is considered to be a problem only in selected
MS and concerns mainly production statistics in Industrial
Processes sector of GHG; the extent of confidentiality issue may
depend on requests of operators
• few MS report any formal links between ETS/GHG and
national energy statistics on a plant level; in some countries data
collected for NAP/ETS are used by statistical authorities for
verification purposes
• MS report mostly complete coverage of GHG sectors by the
respective by ETS sectors: refineries, cement, lime, iron and steel,
coke ovens; other sectors are subject to threshold induced
differences
• problems with identification and quantification of differences
(ETS/GHG) include: definitions, process emissions (mass
balance), confidentiality; some countries have not yet made
systematic analysis
• surprisingly few MS use data collected in ETS for other reporting
obligations: LCP/EPER (or vice versa) but do not perceive this as
a problem with ensuring consistency for various reporting
obligations
• differences in definitions and coverage between LCP/EPER/ETS
should not prevent comparison of comparable data (mainly AD
but also EFs and OFs where appropriate)
• several MS maintain that analysis/comparison of AD data
(especially for 1A1 and 1A2) between GHG and ETS should be
combined with analysis of respective elements of national energy
balances
• Workshop agenda?
• the energy balance to be be discussed during a separate session,
possibly with handling of confidentiality (especially fuel use and
production levels), while other sessions could be devoted to
practical experiences of MS with issues like:
- interplay of bottom-up vs. top-down systems; differences in
coverage (ETS v GHG); identified gaps in GHG based on
reported ETS data, - methodological issues: EFs, OFs, process
emissions; mass balance approach
- experiences with recalculations of time series in GHG (including
base year)
- how to assure data consistency for various reporting systems?
- activities planned in 2006?
Session 1: Interplay of bottom-up vs. top-down systems
Managing differences in coverage (EU ETS vs. GHG
inventory) - institutional and methodological issues etc.
Session 2: Comparison of activity data in EU ETS and GHG
inventories.
Energy balances and national statistics, bearing on
recalculations etc.
Summary of Day 1
Session 3: Methodological issues regarding differences in emission
factors oxidation factors used under the EU ETS and GHG
inventories etc..
Conclusions and practical recommendations
Closing remarks
Questions/issues to be discussed:
Session 1: Interplay of bottom-up vs. top-down systems
Managing differences in coverage (EU ETS vs. GHG
inventory) - institutional and methodological issues etc.
Is there a bottom-up (plant level) data collection system (AD, EFs,
OFs, emissions, APCs) run by environmental authorities?
How statistics authorities are involved in ETS/GHG inventories?
Access to confidential data (AD)?
• Session 2: Comparison of activity data in EU ETS and GHG
inventories.
Energy balances and national statistics, bearing on
recalculations etc.
Data flow and links between ETS/GHG and national energy
statistics?
Are sectoral totals (e.g. fuel use, electricity and heat production)
consistent between ETS/GHG and official energy statistics?
• Session 3: Methodological issues regarding differences in
emission factors oxidation factors used under the EU ETS and
GHG inventories etc..