Transcript National System and QA/QC: The Netherlands Workshop UNFCCC Bonn, April 2005 Dirk Both (SenterNovem) vrijdag 6 november 2015

National System and QA/QC:
The Netherlands
Workshop UNFCCC
Bonn, April 2005
Dirk Both (SenterNovem)
vrijdag 6 november 2015
1
Overview presentation

National system


QA/QC



elements, experiences
Evaluation and improvement


elements, experiences
Quality assurance


general approach taken
monitoring protocols
Quality control


developments
continuous improvement, remaining start-up
Conclusions
Version April 7, 2005
2
National System - Developments

Historical situation:
– Pollution Emission Register (PER) for all emissions to water, air
and soil
– Over many years, gradually extended
– Task Forces per (group of) ‘sectors’
– Co-operation between various Ministries and institutes (e.g.
RIVM, CBS/Statistics, TNO, WUR, AOO, etc.)
– Responsibilities divided over organizations
Version April 7, 2005
3
National System - Developments

Assessment (around 2001) for GHG emissions:





System not yet sufficient to comply with KP requirements
Expert workshops> changes in methods required, white spots
Since 1997: ISO parts of process. Study compared QA/QC with
requirements under KP > additional actions needed
Documentation not always sufficiently transparent
Changes since 2001 for GHG emissions and sinks


Improvement program (QA/QC + National System) since 2001.
SenterNovem assigned coordination of this program up to 2006
Reorganization of PER in 2004 (RIVM)
Version April 7, 2005
4
National System - Developments
Present main structure
Datasupplier e.g..
CBS, companies
Data supply,
basic input
data incl.
MJV’s
ER
RIVM/MNP
(+others)
Data
processing
Reporting
VROM, UNFCCC
Approval and
review
NIR
CRF
SenterNovem
Overall co-ordination of QA/QC (improvement)
Version April 7, 2005
5
QA/QC - General approach taken
Improvement program QA/QC+National System:

Bring methods in line with KP requirements
– (Quality) improvement projects > better data quality/methods

Define, plan & describe methods, processes, tasks and
responsibilities
– Monitoring Protocols

Improve further QA/QC, where needed:
– Routine control during inventory preparation > Quality control
– Further assuring quality of inventory process > Quality assurance

Enable continuous improvement
– Evaluation and improvement cycle
Coordination by SenterNovem for Ministry of Environment (VROM).
Guidance by advisory committee
Version April 7, 2005
6
QA/QC - General approach taken

QA/QC programme, includes:

Approach and objectives:
– Aim to comply with KP requirements
– Aim at continuous improvement
– Follow TCCCA principles



Includes also ‘start-up’ activities (to timely comply with KP reqs.)
Key element in NL for quality improvement: monitoring protocols
QA/QC activities (plan)
– Quality control
– Quality assurance
– Documentation and archiving
(not further elaborated in this presentation)
– Evaluation and improvement (incl. improvement plan)
Annually to be updated
Version April 7, 2005
7
QA/QC - General approach taken

Monitoring Protocols


More general QA/QC character
Elements a.o.:
–
–
–
–
–
–



Source characteristics in NL
Methodologies, work process
AD sources, EF background
Source specific QA/QC
Uncertainty information
Other relevant references/background documents
Legal basis planned
Elaborated with involved sectors/organisations, co-ordinated by
SenterNovem
Primarily for key sources; also ‘short’ version for non-key sources
Version April 7, 2005
8
QA/QC - General approach taken
Monitoring Protocols (ctd):

Experiences:
Process takes time in initial phase, but it proved:
 Instrumental in assessing situation (relative to KP requirements),
setting priorities and further (QA/QC) improvements
 Instrumental in transparency and consistency (in time)
– assesses actuality and completeness of documentation
– increases transparency (easier communication, facilitates reviews,
increases reproducibility and training options, etc.)
– now also under preparation for non GHG emissions

Instrumental in defining tasks, responsibilities, risk management
Will be placed on www.greenhousegases.nl
Version April 7, 2005
9
Quality Control

Main elements:





Monitoring Protocols (see earlier sheets)
Update of QA/QC of outside agencies (on-going)
General QC Procedures (Tier 1)
Source-specific QC procedures (Tier 2)
General QC procedures (Tier 1)


Existing procedures adapted to meet GPG requirements
Implementation as part of
– Release process of Protocols e.g. checks on applicability of country
specific EF, on completeness of documentation, etc.
– Annual checks of data and calculations e.g. in trend workshops
– Using supporting check forms (preferably embedded in normal
process, thus ‘specific’ )
– Sampling process to be defined in annual overall work plans.
Version April 7, 2005
10
Quality Control

Some examples of data checks:

Related to completeness, emission level and errors
– By staff from Task Forces; covers also the CRF data set
– Some automated checks (on completeness and consistency)

Levels per sector per year compared with previous year
– Trend analysis workshops of Task Forces together
– If significant differences > checks on more detailed level (sub-sector,
process related emissions, EF, AD)

Checks on country specific emission factors
– Annually for industry --> comparing with defaults.
– For energy/traffic --> measurements
– Expert judgements + where needed, additional research

Source specific QA/QC (Tier 2)
– Elaborated and described in monitoring protocols
Version April 7, 2005
11
Quality Assurance

Elements:






Basic peer review of inventory:



Basic peer review
Public review
Other reviews (EU process, etc.)
Verification
Audits
In part done in Trend Analysis workshops
Also annual Peer Review: for NIR 2005 in February 2005; planning
of Peer Review interacts with EU MM process
Public review of draft NIR:

Public review: yearly since 2003
Version April 7, 2005
12
Quality Assurance

Other reviews

Extensive reviews
– As part of protocol process and improvement programme, many
sectors have been assessed in past few years
– Further updating schedule in QAQC programme

Review within EU process
– Mutual review with Belgium under preparation
– Reconnaissance of further collaborative review in future

Verification:
– Depending on data availability. Further assessed.

Audits:
– Under study
– Planned: further adapting PER ISO system to new organisation ER
Version April 7, 2005
13
Evaluation and improvement

Includes:

improvement projects (from ‘start-up’ phase)
– Aimed to timely comply with KP requirements

annual evaluation and improvement cycle
– Aimed at continuous improvement
– Inputs: mentioned reviews, experiences, UNFCCC reviews

Improvement Projects (start-up) e.g.








Improved method CO2 emissions from combustion (transparency,
consistency)
Re-evaluated CO2 emission factors fuels (transparency, accuracy)
Improved distinction national<>international shipping (comparability)
Tier 2 method CO2 from feedstock (accuracy)
Tier 2 method CH4 from enteric fermentation cattle (accuracy)
Updating CH4 emissions from landfills and waste water treatment plants
(accuracy)
Identification of significant non-CO2 sources (completeness)
Assessment and ‘solving’ white spots for sinks/LULUCF monitoring
(completeness)
Version April 7, 2005
14
Evaluation and improvement
Improvement actions (‘ongoing’):

Improvement projects:


Protocols:


Further checks and upgrades, where needed, before next ‘round’
QA/QC Programme



Updating uncertainty analyses
Update before next round
To be placed on website
Strengthening institutional and legal basis


Covenants with data suppliers (partially realised)
Legal basis for Protocols (planned for September 2005)
Version April 7, 2005
15
Finally….



Most QAQC resources needed at start-up phases of QAQC improvement.
Many actions after first phases to be fully integrated in annual work plans
of involved organisations
Focus was needed on strengthening various QAQC elements
Research but also
Information
management
•creativity
•consistency
•orginality
•comparability
•reproducibility of the results
•reputation
Version April 7, 2005
•transparency of the process
Source: DHV
•confidence
16