1 EINLEITUNG · Web viewDeliverables were submitted electronically in English as MS Word files except for the compilation of Q&As sent to Member States via the EMRT-NECD. The EC can

Horizontal ReportComprehensive review, including ca-pacity-building, of Member States' Emissions Inventories under the Dir-ective on National Emissions Ceil-ings for Certain Atmospheric Pollut-antsService Contract: No 07.0201/2016/741511/SER/ENV.C.3

Authors:

Sabine Schindlbacher (EAA)

Katarina Mareckova (EAA)

Chris Dore (Aether)

Emma Salisbury (Aether)

Sabino del Vento (Ricardo)

09 March 2018

Service Contract: No 07.0201/2016/741511/SER/ENV.C.3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................5

2 OVERVIEW OF TASKS...............................................................62.1 Task 1: Preparation for the review......................................................62.1.1 Subtask 1.1: Kick-off meeting.................................................................62.1.2 Subtask 1.1 a: Planning Webinar...........................................................72.1.3 Subtask 1.3: Composition of review teams............................................72.1.4 Subtask 1.3: Preparation for the review.................................................8

2.2 Task 2: Comprehensive technical review – desk reviews..............112.3 Task 3 Centralized review (including calculation of TCs)...............122.4 Task 4 Country visits and capacity building....................................122.5 Task 5 Inventory review reports.......................................................142.5.1 Task 5.1 Draft Inventory review reports...............................................142.5.2 Task 5.2 Final Review reports..............................................................142.5.3 Task 5.3 Horizontal project report........................................................14

2.6 Task 6 Evaluation report of the full technical review pro-cess.....................................................................................................14

2.6.1 Task 6.1 Gathering the feedback.........................................................142.6.2 Task 6.2 Evaluation of questionnaires.................................................142.6.3 Task 6.3 Closure Workshop.................................................................15

2.7 Review of adjustment applications submitted by MS.....................162.7.1 Austria..................................................................................................172.7.2 Ireland..................................................................................................172.7.3 Spain....................................................................................................172.7.4 Conclusions..........................................................................................17

3 MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NECD REVIEW 2017......................193.1 General Observations on the quality of the air pollutant

inventories submitted under NECD..................................................193.1.1 Improved Implementation of Recalculations........................................193.1.2 Threshold of Significance for RE/TCs..................................................193.1.3 Performance Across MS......................................................................193.1.4 Improving the Review of Emissions Data.............................................203.1.5 Review Recalculations and Guidebook Recalculations........................20

3.2 The Review findings in Numbers......................................................213.2.1 General observations that were repeatedly found................................233.2.2 Use of a tier 1 method for a key category............................................24

3.3 The effect of the Review....................................................................25

4 SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT..........................364.1 Introduction........................................................................................364.2 Summary of the key-points...............................................................364.2.1 TERT QUESTIONNAIRE.....................................................................364.2.2 MS questionnaire.................................................................................374.2.3 Elements that should be kept for future Reviews.................................38

Umweltbundesamt 09 March 2018 3


5 DELIVERABLES........................................................................39

6 CONCLUSION...........................................................................41

7 ANNEX 1 – CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CAPACITY BUILDING WEBINARS..............................................................42

Conclusions for the sector energy................................................................42Conclusions for the sector transport............................................................43Conclusions for the sector IPPPU.................................................................45Conclusions for the sector agriculture.........................................................47Conclusions for the sector waste..................................................................52

4

Umweltbundesamt Vienna 2018


1 INTRODUCTION

This horizontal Report summarizes all tasks of service contract No 07.0201/2016/741511/SER/ENV.C.3, the main findings of the Review, the effect of the Review on the EU total emissions and a summary of the evaluation of the project including the main lessons learnt

The primary objective of the project was to perform a comprehensive technical review of Member State (MS) NECD (National Emission Ceiling Directive) inventories of the years 2005, 2010 and 2015 as reported in February 2017 (in accordance with Directive1 (NECD, 2016/2284)). This was done to ensure that the Commission has accurate, reliable and verified information on annual NECD emissions to determine compliance with the NEC Directive emission ceilings for 2010. A secondary objective of this project was to strengthen MS’ capacity in managing NECD inventories efficiently and in delivering high quality reports to the European Commission. The project also aimed to have a harmonised approached with other reviews under the LRTAP Convention, the Ef-fort Sharing Decision (ESD) and the UNFCCC.

The scope of the review covers all MS and emissions of the following pollutants: NOx, NMVOC, SO2, NH3, and PM2.5, and focused on the following years: 2005, 2010 and 2015. All NFR source sectors included within national totals were included in the review and selected memo items were also reviewed, including in particular the memo-item on fuel used based transport emissions when relevant for compliance assessment.

The main phases of the project were the preparation for the Review where Guidance documents and a Review Report template were drafted, tools for the Review were developed and where the Reviewers were trained, the Review that was divided into a desk Review and a centralized Review and the phase after the Review that was dedicated to writing the Review Reports, in-country vis-its, capacity building webinars and the Evaluation of the project.

The team was structured into a core project team (Project Manager plus assistant and Quality Man-ager plus assistant and Core Team Support ) and a TERT that consisted of 22 Sector experts and 4 Lead Reviewers. The TERT was an international team with outstanding experts from eleven dif -ferent EU MS.

1 DIRECTIVE (EU) 2016/2284 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 14 December 2016 on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, amending Directive 2003/35/EC and repealing Directive 2001/81/EC

5 Umweltbundesamt 09 March 2018


2 OVERVIEW OF TASKS

Based on the project proposal and the discussion with the EC and EEA during the kick-off meeting and thereafter Environment Agency Austria and their subcontractors carried out the following tasks under Service Contract Number No 07.0201/2016/741511/SER/ENV.C.3.

Task 1: Preparation for the review

Subtask 1.1: Kick-off meeting

Subtask 1.1 a: Planning webinar

Subtask 1.2: Composition of review teams

Subtask 1.3: Preparation for the review

Task 2: Comprehensive technical review – desk reviews

Task 3: Centralized review (including calculation of technical corrections)

Task 4: Country visits and capacity building (webinars)

Task 5: Inventory review reports

Task 5.1 Draft Inventory Reports

Task 5.2 Final Review Reports

Task 5.3 Horizontal Project report

Task 6: Evaluation report of the full technical review process

Task 6.1 Gathering the feedback

Task 6.2 Evaluation of questionnaires and feedback log

Task 6.3 Closure workshop (scheduled for April 2018)

Task 7: Review of adjustment applications submitted by MS

2.1 Task 1: Preparation for the review

The objective of this task was to prepare for an efficient and consistent comprehensive review in 2017.

2.1.1 Subtask 1.1: Kick-off meeting

On 26 January 2017 a kick-off meeting in the EEA office in Copenhagen was organized. The pur-pose of the kick-off meeting was to discuss the composition of the review team, procedures fore-seen in the proposal and to come to a common understanding on open questions. The project manager, the project manager assistant, the quality controller, the core team support, representat-ives of the EEA (Anke Lükewille, Federico Antognazza, Martin Adams, Melanie Sporer) and the European Commission (Peter Meulepas, Roel Hoenders) and the EMEP chair (Laurence Rouil) participated in the meeting.



The following topics were discussed during the kick-off meeting:

Scope of the work foreseen (incl. proposed time schedule) Lessons learnt from ESD reviews and LRTAP reviews Composition of the Technical Expert Review Team (TERT) Materials and Tools to be developed (initial checks) Outline of EU air emission inventory review guidelines and Guidance for TERT Guidance on Technical Corrections (TCs) EMRT-NECD Communication tool SharePoint Organisation of the review Country visits Review of Adjustment Applications Organisation of quality assurance, quality control and risk management

After the kick-off meeting detailed minutes were sent to all participants. The minutes are also avail-able at the Sharepoint site of the project.2

2.1.2 Subtask 1.1 a: Planning Webinar

A planning webinar was held on 21 February 2017 - in addition to Members of the core team, the Lead Reviewers also participated. This webinar served as a follow-up to the kick-off meeting. The main topics discussed during the planning webinar were:

time schedule thresholds for TCs and Revised Estimate (REs) confidentiality agreements testing of the EMRT-NECD communications platform use of EMEP/EEA Guidebook 2013 review of Adjustment applications

After the planning webinar minutes were sent to all participants. The minutes are also available at the Sharepoint site of the project.3

2.1.3 Subtask 1.3: Composition of review teams

From the pool of 47 reviewers 20 sector Experts and four Lead Reviewers were chosen and two additional reviewers (Michael Kotzulla (Germany) and Tim Murrells (United Kingdom) were nomin-ated.

The reviewers were split into four technical experts review teams (TERTs). Each team consists of one lead reviewer and eight sector experts (Table 1). Each sector expert reviewed fourteen MS ex-cept sector experts for Energy Stationary Combustion, Energy Road Transport and Agriculture who reviewed 7 MS. The lead reviewers were responsible for seven MS each. The experts in different teams acted as counterparts and checked the results of the other sector expert in order to ensure the “four-eyes principle”. The lead reviewers and quality controller ensured a consistent approach across the four teams. Table 1 shows the Review team of the NECD Review 2017.

2 https://eea1.sharepoint.com/teams/NECDReview/SitePages/Home.aspx?e=1%3Ac5d8200171fd448280b2f-d2c22f5c9aa



https://eea1.sharepoint.com/teams/NECDReview/SitePages/Home.aspx?e=1%3Ac5d8200171fd448280b2fd2c22f5c9aa





Table 1 Composition of TERT

2.1.4Su

btask 1.3: Preparation for the review

The objective of this subtask was to

draft guidance for MS and TERTs, develop systems and tools necessary to carry out the checks of MS submissions perform initial checks of submitted data train the review experts and make them familiar with the principles of the review, guidance

material and tools

2.1.4.1 Subtask 1.3 a and b: EU Air Emission Inventory Review Guidelines 2017 and Guidance on Procedures for TERTs: NECD Emissions Inventory Review, 2017

The purpose of the ‘EU Air Emission Inventory Review Guidelines 2017’ was to document the re-view process and principles and to ensure consistency in the review of the MS submissions. This guidance provides an overview of the methods and procedures for the review of the air pollution emission data submitted by MS under the NECD Directive ((EU) 2016/2284)).

This document was presented during the Ambient Air Quality Expert Group meeting in Brussels 3 and 4 April 2017. Comments from MS and the review team were considered, and a final version was provided in May. The document was primarily intended for representatives from MS.



The document “Guidance on Procedures for TERTs: NECD Emissions Inventory Review, 2017” was a separate guidance document. This document was primarily intended for members of the TERT. Whilst it is broadly similar in content to the “Guidelines” document, it focuses on a specific part of the review process (the comprehensive review) and has additional detailed information on the relevant processes, tools, and logistics relevant to the work of the TERT. This document aims to promote consistency in the review of the MS data submissions and to establish a process for a thorough and comprehensive technical assessment of national inventories.

Both documents are available at the Sharepoint site of the project.4

2.1.4.2 Subtask 1.3 c: Checking tools/viewers and Checklists

The main purposes of the tools were to reduce the workload of the TERT by providing tools that enabled efficient data comparison across years, across MS, and to ensure consistency of the re-view across MS. The tools were provided to the TERT before the start of the desk review via Sharepoint. All resubmissions from MS received before 9 May 2017 were included in the dataset used for the tools.

The following tools were provided:

Completeness

o Assessment of NE,”0” and other selected notation keys

Accuracy

o Comparison of National Total reported with National Total calculated (sum of sec-tors)

Accuracy / Consistency

o Comparison of National Total reported with National Total for Compliance

o Comparison of PM10 with PM2.5 reporting

Recalculations

o New, discontinued or large changes to categories

Timeseries consistency

o Emission time series and IEFs

Consistency

o NECD/CLRTAP comparison

o Tool for comparison of Activity data reported under NECD and UNFCCC and com-paring FOASTAT and EUROSTAT statistics

Consistency across countries /years

o Emissions per capita

o Emissions per GDP

o Key category comparison across countries and years






Other statistical data provided on Sharepoint (or links to existing data collections provided on Sharepoint):

o LCP data

o Energy Balances

o Heating and Cooling Degree days

o Livestock Statistics

o Fertiliser Statistics

o Municipal Waste Generation Statistics

o References for field burning (provided by EC)

In addition to these data tools also checklists were developed and made available to the members of the TERT. The main purpose of the checklists was to ensure that all Lead Reviewers and sector experts performed all required checks, and ensured that frequently occurring problems were checked in a comprehensive and consistent way. The final version of the checklist was made avail -able via the Sharepoint site of the project.5

2.1.4.3 Subtask 1.3 d Online System for Communication

The EEA adapted the EMRT communication tool, which had originally been constructed to support the Effort Sharing Decision (ESD) reviews. This online communication tool was specifically adapted to the requirements of a technical review of air quality pollutant emissions inventories, and also in-cluded many features associated with ensuring a high level of QA/QC throughout the review. The use of the “EMRT-NECD” ensured for example that all questions and responses were stored, and that extracts from the EMRT-NECD could be used as a base for the inventory reports.

The tool was tested with members of the EEA, the core team and the TERT (Federico Antognazza, Emma Salisbury, Ole-Kenneth Nielsen, Kevin Hausmann) and any bugs were fixed. The tool was presented during the training workshop (2 and 3 May 2017). The EEA also organized additional training webinars to instruct MS experts on the use of the tool.

MS were asked to nominate official contact points and their deputies.

The budget that was foreseen for the preparation of an online communication tool was dedicated to more working time for the reviewers.

For communication within the team a Sharepoint site was set up:


The site was hosted by the EEA. The Sharepoint site was used for commenting of documents like the Sector and Lead Reviewer Checklists, and for making information available to the TERT, such as: guidance documents, review tools, data submissions from MS, IIRs submitted my MS, adjust-ment applications and other reference material..

Subtask 1.3 e ‘Review Report Template’








The ‘Review Report Template’ ensured consistency of the Review Reports between MS and en-sured a very efficient compilation of the Review Reports.

2.1.4.4 Subtask 1.3 f: Training activities for reviewers

The contractor organised a 1.5 day training workshop hosted by the EEA in Copenhagen on 2 and 3 May 2017. All lead reviewers and all sector experts (except three experts that could not attend) participated in the training workshop. The main purpose of the workshop was to ensure that the TERT was well informed about the scope of the review, the principles and the organisation of the review and that the TERT was familiar with all of the available tools, including the EMRT-NECD communication tool, and guidance documents. The three Sector Experts that could not participate were trained via a web conference.

The training workshop covered the following topics.

Principles of the Review o Scope of the Reviewo EU Air Emissions Inventory Guidelineso Guidance for TERTo QA/QC Procedures

Communication within the team and with MS o EMRT-NECD Communication Toolo Sharepoint

Organisation of Desk Review and Centralized Review Tools and Data viewers SE Checklist and LR checklist (in subgroups) Calculation of TCs Review Reports

o Review Report Templateo Workflow: Review Reports

2.1.4.5 Subtask 1.3 g: Work Plan

The “Workplan” ensured that key members of the project team, the EC, and EEA had a common understanding of the process and the deadlines of the project. It included all of the updates con -cerning timelines, processes and budget agreed on during the kick-off meeting and thereafter. A detailed time schedule of the project and revised budget table were also provided in in the “Work-plan”. Selected elements of the workplan (such as timelines, roles and responsibilities) were also made available to the TERT by publishing information on the Sharepoint site.

2.2 Task 2: Comprehensive technical review – desk reviews

The NECD review 2017 was organized as a desk and centralized review. The desk Review was carried out between 15 May and 15 June 2017.

The main checks performed during the desk Review focused on years 2005, 2010 and 2015 and the pollutants SOx, NOx, NMVOC, NH3 and PM2.5. They assessed completeness (potential underes-timations), accuracy (over- or underestimations), recalculations, consistency of time series and consistency across the countries. Furthermore, reviewers checked if MS used methodologies and



emission factors consistent with the EMEP/EEA Emissions Inventory Guidebook 2016. Sector ex-perts reviewed the MS’ inventories using the tools and material provided to them.

During the desk review reviewers formulated initial questions for the MS. Sector expert counter-parts and lead reviewers checked questions from the sector experts before they were sent to MS via the EMRT-NECD. This ensured that questions identified by sector experts were appropriate and consistent across different MS and that national experts in MS were contacted in a structured and coordinated way.

MS provided answers to the initial questions until 23 June.

2.3 Task 3 Centralized review (including calculation of TCs)

The centralized review took place from Monday 26 June to Saturday 1 July 2017, at the EEA premises in Copenhagen. During the centralised review, the sector experts revisited the critical is-sues in the light of the MS responses, discussed these issues in person with counterparts and lead reviewers and drafted TCs, recommendations and provided their assessment of the completeness and accuracy of each national emission inventory. Counterparts and lead reviewers quality checked questions for MS before they were sent to MS via the EMRT-NECD tool.

Where questioning identified an issue which required an amendment to be made to an emissions inventory estimate, MS were invited to submit a RE. If no RE was received (or the MS indicated that they disagreed with the assessment of the TERT), then the sector experts calculated a Tech-nical Correction (TC). This was applicable for both under- and overestimates of inventory data. In calculating a TC, sector experts followed the MS “Guidance on Procedures for TERTs: NECD Emissions Inventory Review, 2017”. TCs were used for emission estimates that were based on pre 2013 versions of the EMEP/EEA Inventory Guidebook, or where country specific methodologies were incorrectly applied. As specified in the “Guidance on Procedures for TERTs” a “threshold of significance” was used to determine whether a TC or RE was required. The threshold of signific -ance is exceeded when a correction at NFR sector level, or a cumulative effect across several NFR sectors, resulted in more than a 2% impact on the MS national total in one of the reported years under review (2005, 2010, 2015). In a second step, the counterpart expert and the lead reviewers checked the calculations. The EEA sent the draft TCs to MS.

MS provided their comments to the draft TCs until 2 August.

During the centralised review, and thereafter, the TERTs also reviewed the adjustment applications made by the MS. Adjustment experts, their counterparts and lead Adjustment reviewers were all in-volved in checking that the adjustment applications met all of the requirements as presented in the text of the NECD, and was quantified in a way that was also consistent with the NECD. Article 5.8 of the NECD text (Directive (EU) 2016/2284) explains that “The Commission, when exercising its powers under paragraphs 6 and 7 (reviewing the use of flexibilities), shall take into account the rel-evant guidance documents developed under the LRTAP Convention.” Consequently, Executive Body Decisions within the LRTAP Convention were relevant in defining the process for the assess-ment of the adjustment applications from MS. The members of the TERT undertook the review of adjustment applications under the NECD in a way that was fully consistent with the process used for reviewing adjustment applications made under the LRTAP Convention.



2.4 Task 4 Country visits and capacity building

Two in-country visits to Bulgaria (25 to 27 September 2017) and Romania (2 and 3 November 2017) were organized. Three experts Kevin Hausmann as lead Reviewer, Stephan Poupa as sec-tor expert for Energy – Stationary Combustion and Michael Anderl as sector expert for Agriculture visited Bulgaria. Justin Goodwin as lead Reviewer and Patrik Fauser as sector expert for IPPU (In-dustrial processes and product use) (2D,2G-L) and Mette Mikkelsen as sector expert for Agriculture visited Romania. Federico Antognazza from EEA participated in both visits to Bulgaria and Ro-mania. The in-country visits were perceived as very productive by MS and the visiting TERT Mem-bers. The outcome of the in-country visits is summarized in an Annex to the Review Report.

Croatia and Slovakia were offered in-country visits but both MS indicated that an in-country visit in a later year would be more beneficial for them. The budget that was reserved for the in-country vis-its was used for a first screening of the Greek inventory that was submitted in October 2017 and could not be reviewed during the regular Review and for additional work required for the Review of the Adjustment Applications.

Another element to fulfil the capacity building mission of this project were the capacity building we-binars. The main purpose of the sector-specific webinars was to facilitate exchange of experience with the use of the EMEP/EEA Inventory Guidebook 20166 and the reporting Guidelines7 between MS experts and the NECD review team 2017. A more specific purpose of the workshop was to identify/discuss cases where MS had problems with implementing the reporting Guidelines and/or where the EMEP/EEA Inventory Guidebook 2016 is not clear enough or where there are gaps and/or errors in the EMEP/EEA Inventory Guidebook 2016. The outcomes of the webinars in-cluded:

recommendations how to deal with problematic issues a list of issues that are recommended to be further discussed at the Ambient Air Quality

Expert Group meeting or the TFEIP meeting.

The aim of the webinars was to bring together MS sector experts with members of the TERT. As the issues discussed were of a technical nature, the target audience within the MS was inventory compilers, and in particular MS sector experts.

Five webinars were organized following the sectors Energy, Transport, IPPU, Agriculture, and Waste.

Table 2 Overview of the webinars

Sector Session TERT Sector Expert Date and Time

Waste Ole-Kenneth Nielsen (Denmark) 18 October 2017, 09.45-12.15

Transport Giorgos Mellios (Greece) 23 October 2017, 12.45-15.15

IPPU (incl. Solvents) Kristina Saarinen (Finland) 24 October 2017, 09.45-12.15

Energy (incl. 1B) Stephan Poupa (Austria) 24 October 2017, 12.45-15.15

Agriculture Michael Anderl (Austria) 25 October 2017, 09.45-12.15

6 EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook – 2016, EEA Report No 21/20167 Guidelines for Reporting Emissions and Projections Data under the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollu-

tion, ECE/EB.AIR/125



In each of the webinars first a reviewer from the TERT presented problems found and issues which need further discussion. After each issue the MS sector experts were invited to react and share their own experience.

Before the webinars, a test webinar was organized that enables all MS participants to test the used system (Adobe Connect).

The webinars were recorded and a link to the recorded webinars was sent out to the participants. The participants were informed about the recording of the webinars. Further, a short summary of the webinar containing the conclusions and the slides presented during the webinar were sent out to the participants. In total over 100 sector experts registered for the webinars and most of them participated in more than one session so that each of the sessions had around 40 participants.

2.5 Task 5 Inventory review reports

2.5.1 Task 5.1 Draft Inventory review reports

It was recognised that the project timeline meant that finalised review reports would be made avail-able to MS well after they had started compilation activities for the next inventory cycle. So, in July 2017 the project team compiled “Initial Outcomes Reports”. These reports were based on the Re-view Report Template and were populated with information extracted from the EMRT-NECD tool. The purpose of these reports was to provide MS with a compilation of the findings of the Review early enough to incorporate changes into their work compiling the NECD inventory submission for 2018.

By the end of October 2017 the contractor produced draft MS inventory review reports. These re-view reports were based on the agreed review report template (see 2.1.4) and were populated with information extracted from the EMRT-NECD tool. The Lead Reviewers completed the draft Review Reports and after quality checking and updating, the reports were sent to the EC for commenting. After the comments from the EC had been incorporated the Review Reports were sent to MS by the EC.

2.5.2 Task 5.2 Final Review reports

MS provided feedback and comments on the review reports. The lead reviewers considered the comments from the MS, and amended the review reports as the considered appropriate. The re-ports were then quality checked, and final review reports were sent to the EC by 30 November 2017.

2.5.3 Task 5.3 Horizontal project report

In addition to the inventory review report for each MS, the contractor also produced a short hori -zontal project report (this report) providing an overview of the work undertaken throughout the whole project.



2.6 Task 6 Evaluation report of the full technical review process

2.6.1 Task 6.1 Gathering the feedback

2.6.1.1 Feedback log

A feedback log was established but no feedback was given via this route.

2.6.1.2 MS and TERT questionnaires

Two questionnaires, one for the TERT and one for MS, were drafted by the project team. After in -corporating comments from the EC and the EEA, the TERT questionnaire was issued to all of the TERT Members, and the MS questionnaire was issued to MS Representatives (the national contact points and their deputies). “Survey Monkey” was used for the questionnaire software.

2.6.2 Task 6.2 Evaluation of questionnaires

Results were compiled from the completed questionnaires and were evaluated. An evaluation re-port was compiled, which identified key findings and made recommendations for future reviews.

2.6.3 Task 6.3 Closure Workshop

The closure workshop will be integrated into the Ambient Air Quality Meeting on 9 April 2018. At this meeting a short summary of the whole project will be presented. This will include an overview of the main findings (completeness, accuracy, recalculations, inconsistencies, etc.) for priority years (2005, 2010 and 2015), trend assessment, and general recommendations.

The workshop will also include a presentation that outlines parts of the review that are considered to have been particularly successful, and also recommendations to address any lessons learnt for future reviews.

2.7 Review of adjustment applications submitted by MS

As part of the 2017 NECD emissions inventory reviews, adjustment applications made under the NECD in 2017 were reviewed. Adjustment applications submitted under the NECD were not in-cluded in the scope of the review where they had also been submitted to the CLRTAP in years prior to 2017 (and subsequently accepted or rejected). The review of adjustment applications was carried out in parallel to the review of the emissions inventories. The review of the submitted ad-justment applications followed the text of the new NECD, which refers to Executive Body Decisions and Guidance published under the LRTAP Convention (Annex to Decision 2012/12 of the Execut-ive Body of the CLRTAP as amended by Technical Guidance ECE/EB.AIR/130 according to NEC Directive 2016/2284, Article 5.6 and 5.8). The adjustment application review experts (see Table 3) followed guidance provided in the EU Air emission Inventory Review Guidelines developed under this project, and ensured that the process was the same as that used in reviewing adjustment ap-plications made under the LRTAP Convention. The findings of the adjustment review team were documented in the EMRT-NECD tool to the extent possible. Individual MS adjustment reports were then compiled. These reports included an overview of the adjustment review process, the findings of the adjustment review team, and resulting recommendations regarding the acceptance or rejec-tion of each adjustment application.

Adjustment applications submitted by Austria, Ireland and Spain in 2017 were reviewed.



Table 3 Submitted Adjustment applications and the Review Experts allocated to the sectors

Coun-try Sector Pollutant Expert 1 Expert 2 LR

AT Agriculture NH3Mette Mikkelsen

Justin Goodwin

Chris Dore

AT Road transport (1A3bi + biii) NOx Giorgos Mellios Yvonne Pang

Chris Dore

IE Road Transport NOxJean-Marc André Tim Murrels

Ole-Kenneth Nielsen

IE Off road transport- Rail-ways 1A3c + fishing 1A4ciii NOx

Michael Kotzulla Tim Murrels

Ole-Kenneth Nielsen

IE Energy Stationary 1A4 ai + 1A4bi NOx

Laetitia Serveau Rianne Dröge

Ole-Kenneth Nielsen

IE IPPU 2G4, 2H NMVOC Ardi Link Patric FauserOle-Kenneth Nielsen

IE Agriculture (3B, 3D) NMVOC Beatriz Sanchez Jim WebbOle-Kenneth Nielsen

ES Agriculture (3B, 3Da1) NOx, NH3 Michael Anderl Mette Mikkelsen Chris Dore

ES Road Transport (1A3bi + biii) NOx Yvonne Pang Giorgos

Mellios Chris Dore

2.7.1 Austria

Austria provided information to support their application for an adjustment of NOx emissions in Road transport (1A3b). The adjustment review team has undertaken a full and thorough assess-ment of the application. During the review, the review team requested more detailed information from Austria, which they were able to provide. The information provided transparently presented “extraordinary” revisions to methodology for NOx, and also clearly quantified the impact of the revi-sions to the methodology alone. The review team concluded that the application meets all the re-quirements set out in Decision 2012/12 of the Executive Body of the CLRTAP and therefore recom-mended that the application be ACCEPTED.

2.7.2 Ireland

Ireland provided information to support their application for an adjustment of the NOx and NMVOC emissions inventory for: Stationary combustion in commercial, institutional and residential plants (1A4ai and 1A4bi), Road transport (1A3bi-iv), non-road mobile sources (railways (1A3c) and fishing (1A4ciii)), food and drink (2H2), other product use (2G) and for Agriculture 3B and 3D. The adjust-ment review team undertook a full and thorough assessment of the application. The reviewers found it necessary to ask Ireland for further information. The information was provided through the EMRT-NECD communication tool. The adjustment review team recommended that the applications in the stationary combustion, mobile combustion and agricultural sectors and for Food and drink – spirit manufacture (2H2) be ACCEPTED



The review team recommended that the adjustment applications for food and drink – other sources (2H2) and other product use - seed oil extraction (2G4) be REJECTED.

2.7.3 Spain

Spain submitted an application for emissions adjustments to 2010-2015 for NOx in 3B manure man-agement, and NH3 in Agriculture sector, categories 3B, 3D1a + 3Da2a + 3Da3. Supporting informa-tion was provided as part of the Informative Inventory Report and as separate reports. During the review, Spain responded to a question raised by the TERT but were not able to provide a complete answer during the review week. Following the review week, the review team undertook extensive work with the information provided by Spain on the NH3 adjustments in order to quantify the adjust-ment using a correct method. The adjustment review team recommended that the NOx adjustments for Agriculture 3B be ACCEPTED.

The review team recommended that the NH3 adjustments for Agriculture 3B, 3D1a, 3Da2a and 3Da3 be REJECTED .

2.7.4 Conclusions

The review of the submitted applications followed the guidance provided in the Annex to Decision 2012/12 of the Executive Body of the CLRTAP as amended by Technical Guidance ECE/EB.AIR/130 according to NEC Directive 2016/2284, Article 5.6 and 5.8

The adjustment review team has concluded that several of the adjustment applications meet all of the requirements set out in decision 2012/12 of the Executive Body of the CLRTAP, and therefore recommends that the Commission ACCEPT these adjustment applications. However the review team also concluded that several applications do not meet the requirements set up in the NEC Dir-ective and therefore recommends that the Commission REJECT these applications (detailed above).

The review of adjustment applications is a resource demanding process and requires experienced reviewers, timely feedback from MS, and a close cooperation with the EC.

Given that MS are submitting adjustment applications that are being rejected, the EC may consider it appropriate to provide additional guidance to MS on the criteria for valid adjustment applications, and the quantification of the adjustment. This would provide more clarity to MS, and would also re -duce the workload of the review team.

Table 4 Recommendations of TERTs to the Commission

Country Sector NFRsPollut-

antYears

ERT Recom-mendation

Austria Road Transport 1A3b NOx 2010 – 2013 Accept

Ireland Stationary com-bustion

1A4ai and 1A4bi NOx 2010- 2015 Accept

Ireland Mobile combus-tion

1A3b, 1A3c, 1A3dii and 1A4ciii

NOx 2010- 2015 Accept

Ireland Food and drink2H2 Spirit Manufacture

2H2 Other SourcesNMVOC 2010-2015

Accept

Reject

Ireland Other product 2G4 – seed oil extrac- NMVOC 2010-2015 Reject



Country Sector NFRsPollut-

antYears

ERT Recom-mendation

use tion

Ireland Agriculture 3B, 3D NMVOC 2010- 2015 Accept

Spain Agriculture 3B NOx 2010- 2015 Accept

Spain Agriculture 3B, 3Da2a, 3Da3 NH3 2010- 2015 Reject

Spain Agriculture 3D1a NH3 2010- 2015 Reject



3 MAIN FINDINGS OF THE NECD REVIEW 2017

3.1 General Observations on the quality of the air pollutant inventories submitted under NECD

3.1.1 Improved Implementation of Recalculations

This project has undertaken a detailed technical review of MS NECD emissions inventories based on the desk and centralised review approach. This has been used for many years as the frame-work for assessing emission inventories under the LRTAP Convention, and greenhouse gas emis-sions inventories. But it is the first time that this approach has been used for reviewing inventories submitted under the NECD.

Two features of these new NECD inventory reviews are particularly important:

The ability of the TERT to be able to apply TCs is new, both to the NECD and the LRTAP Convention. This means that the NECD reviews now have a considerably stronger remit to drive change (improvements) than historic reviews under the LRTAP Convention.

Similarly, checking that recommendations have been addressed by MS, only one year after being made (as opposed to five years under the LRTAP Convention), is again a strong mechanism for driving improvements.

At the planning stage, it was therefore important to ensure that MS representatives were fully en-gaged with the project, and understood the more direct approach to implementing inventory im-provement.

3.1.2 Threshold of Significance for RE/TCs

Careful consideration was given to setting the threshold for TCs/REs, and 2% was used for all pol -lutants. This threshold resulted in the right number of RE/TCs for the TERT to process in the time available. However, 2% may be considered by some experts to be a high value for the threshold. In the review of GHG emissions inventories, a figure of 0.05% is used. The GHG reviews are also more detailed (see comment below regarding activity data).

It is pleasing to note that the vast majority of RE/TC issues raised by the TERT were addressed by MS submitting REs (see Figure 2b). Hence the number of TCs is a relatively small fraction of the total number of recalculations that were applied to MS inventories. It may therefore be concluded that in general the sector experts in the MS have understood the requirements of the review well, and engaged with the RE/TC process.

3.1.3 Performance Across MS

Overall, the review highlights the differences in the quality of reporting across the MS. There are 6-8 MS which could be considered to be of significantly poorer quality than the remaining countries. The issues raised are primarily to do with accuracy, although completeness issues were also im-portant.

Similar observations can be made about the quality of the submitted IIRs. There is a wide range in quality. In general, the most significant shortcoming of IIRs is the lack of detailed activity data and country specific EFs being clearly presented. However, as with the data submissions, the extent to which improvements will have been made will become apparent during the 2018 NECD reviews.



3.1.4 Improving the Review of Emissions Data

An important issue that hampers the detail to which the review can be undertaken is the lack of re-ported activity data at the source sector level. GHG emissions inventory submission require the provision of activity data, and this allows implied emission factors to be calculated and compared with both default values, and values across other countries. This approach can quickly identify out-liers (both high and low). However, until the NECD or LRTAP Convention are amended to require the submission of activity data at this detail level (or emissions split by e.g. fuel type) this way of checking national submissions will not be possible.

3.1.5 Review Recalculations and Guidebook Recalculations

Clearly this years’ NECD (and LRTAP Convention) review represents a significant improvement in the way that the review process is able to drive improvement in the form of recalculations.

However, even an inventory that is not subject to RE/TCs under the review can undergo significant recalculations. This is because the review process assesses the quality of the inventory against the latest version of the EMEP/EEA Inventory Guidebook. However, the Guidebook itself is subject to change, and this then impacts on the vast majority of air quality pollutant emissions inventories.

Progress is still needed in establishing a framework that allows the EMEP/EEA Inventory Guide-book to be regularly updated, so that it includes methodologies which can represent real-world emissions to the accuracy and detail level that is demanded by the users of emissions inventories.



3.2 The Review findings in Numbers

In total 1731 observations were drafted during the NECD Review 2017. Observations can result in a Recommendation, a RE or a TC or the issue can just be clarified by a response of the Member State. In total the TERT suggested 967 Recommendations and Member States sent 135 REs and the TERT calculated 19 TCs. The number of Recommendations varied between Member States with Poland having 72 Recommendations and Sweden having 14 Recommendations. Romania has sent 18 REs while Germany and Sweden only sent 1 RE each and Denmark none. The number of TCs ranged between 4 (Malta) and 0, with 17 Member States having no TC (see ).

Figure 1 Number of Observations, Recommendations, REs and TCs per Member State

*

The Greek inventory was submitted late and only a first screening of the inventory was done in autumn 2017. This screen -

ing did not include the calculation of TCs or REs

** For Finland not all sectors could be reviewed due to missing recalculations of several sectors



Figure 2 Number of Observations, Recommendations, REs and TCs per Sector



The number of observations, Recommendations, REs and TCs was similar in all sectors except the sector waste (Figure 2). It has to be noted that the sector waste was the only of the six sectors shown in the graph above that was only reviewed by two sector experts as less observations were expected for this relatively small sector.

Efforts were made to assign the findings to the following classes “completeness”, “recalculations”, “time series inconsistency” and “accuracy” to identify the most important areas for improvement (Figure 3). The data has to be interpreted with caution as the classification was sometimes ambiguous and as some findings qualified for more than one of the classes. However, the graph clearly shows that for all sec-tors most of the observations were related to accuracy, followed by completeness. This result was expected before the start of the review. Comparatively few observations were related to time series consistency. It seems that MS´ have a good understanding about the need to undertake and justify recalculations, as only a few observations were related to “recalculations”.

Figure 3 Number of observations per area of improvement and per sector

3.2.1

General observations that were repeatedly found

Summarizing observations that were repeatedly found shows that there is still a need to improve the quality of the IIRs. Main issues for the improvement of the IIRs were:

Ensure inclusion of all relevant Activity data and of relevant references Ensure inclusion of all country specific emission factors and of relevant references Ensure that all assumption are accompanied by a clear justification A description of trends and interpretation of the trends Include a justification for the use of each notation key

These improvements would largely facilitate the work of the Reviewers and reduce the communica-tion needed between MS and TERT.



The most important findings of the Review per sector were discussed during the capacity building webinars. A summary of the conclusions per sector is given in Annex 1 – Conclusions from the Ca-pacity Building Webinars.

3.2.2 Use of a tier 1 method for a key category

A general finding of the Review was that the use of higher tier methods for key categories still has to be increased. The recommendations in the EMRT-NECD tool were screened for cases where a tier 1 method was used for a key source. In total 38 cases occurring in 17 different MS were found (see Table 5). It has to be noted that there might be a few additional cases as the analysis was done after the review only and as in some cases there is room for interpretation (e.g. if a method was basically a tier 1 method but contained a few minor elements of country specific data). For the NECD Review 2018 it is planned that issues related to the use of a tier 1 method used for a key source are flagged by the sector experts.

Table 5 Number of cases where a tier 1 method was used for a key category by Member State

CountryNumber of find-ings

Belgium 1Bulgaria 3Croatia 1Cyprus 5Estonia 2Greece 5Hungary 1Ireland 3Italy 1Latvia 1Lithuania 4Nether-lands 1Poland 1Portugal 2Romania 5Slovenia 1Spain 1Sum 38

The use of a tier 1 method for a key category was found for 17 different NFR categories with the category “2D3a Domestic solvent use including fungicides” having the most cases (10 cases) fol -lowed by the category “3B Manure management” (7 cases) and the category “1B2av Distribution of oil products” (4 cases) (see Table 6). The problem clearly concerned the pollutant NMVOC the most (see Table 6).

Table 6 NFR category and pollutants for which a tier 1 method was used for a key category

Country NFR category PollutantsBelgium 2D3a Domestic solvent use including fungicides NMVOCBulgaria 2D3a Domestic solvent use including fungicides NMVOCBulgaria 2D3b Road paving with asphalt PM2.5

Bulgaria 3B Manure management NH3

Croatia 2D3e Degreasing NMVOC



Cyprus 2D3a Domestic solvent use including fungicides NMVOCCyprus 2D3h Printing NMVOCCyprus 3B Manure management NH3

Cyprus 3B Manure management NMVOCCyprus 3B Manure management NH3

Estonia 2D3a Domestic solvent use including fungicides NMVOCEstonia 2D3d Coating applications NMVOCGreece 2D3a Domestic solvent use including fungicides NMVOCGreece 2D3g Chemical products NMVOCGreece 2H2 Food and beverages industry NMVOCGreece 3B1b Manure management - Non-dairy cattle NOx, NH3

Greece 3B3 Manure management - Swine NOx, NH3

Hungary 2D3a Domestic solvent use including fungicides NMVOCIreland 1A3dii National navigation (shipping) NOx

Ireland 1B2av Distribution of oil products NMVOCIreland 2A2 Lime production PM2.5

Italy 1A4bi Residential: Stationary NOx, NMVOC, PM2.5

Latvia 2D3i Other solvent use (please specify in the IIR) NMVOC

Lithuania1A2f Stationary combustion in manufacturing indus-tries and construction: Non-metallic minerals NOx

Lithuania 1B2av Distribution of oil products NMVOCLithuania 3B Manure management NH3

Lithuania 3B Manure management NH3

Nether-lands 2D3g Chemical products NMVOCPoland 2D3a Domestic solvent use including fungicides NMVOC

Portugal 1A4bi Residential: StationarySO2, NOx, NMVOC, PM2.5

Portugal 2D3a Domestic solvent use including fungicides NMVOC

Romania 1A4bi Residential: StationaryNOx, NH3, NMVOC, PM2.5

Romania1B1a Fugitive emission from solid fuels: Coal mining and handling NMVOC

Romania 1B2av Distribution of oil products NMVOCRomania 2D3a Domestic solvent use including fungicides NMVOCRomania 3B Manure management PM2.5

Slovenia 1B2av Distribution of oil products NMVOCSpain 2D3a Domestic solvent use including fungicides NMVOC

3.3 The effect of the Review

The changes in the EU Total introduced by REs and TCs varied between the reviewed pollutants. In absolute numbers the change was smallest for SOx emission and highest for NMVOC emissions. For SOx the introduced change ranged from minus 13 to minus 18 kt for the analysed years (2005, 2010 and 2015) and for NMVOC the introduced change ranged from 139 kt to 210 kt for the ana-lysed years (Figure 4). Here it has to be kept in mind that findings related to not using the EMEP/EEA Guidebook version 2016 did not result in TCs and REs and that thus their potential numerical impact is not included in the change of the EU total in response to the Review.



Figure 4 Changes in EU emission total in response to the NECD Review 2017



In relative numbers the change introduced by the NECD Review 2017 was smallest for SOx (up to -0.5% for the analysed years) emission and highest for PM2.5 emissions (up to 4.0% for the analysed years) (Figure 5). For all pollutants the relative change was smallest for the year 2005 and highest for the year 2015.

Figure 5 Relative change in the EU total in response to the NECD Review 2017



For some individual MS the numeric effect of the NECD Review 2017 was much bigger than on EU level as on EU level the changes in opposite directions balance out. For example for SOx emissions the Revised Estimate for “2D3e Degreasing” provided by Portugal that reduces the emission estim-ate is partially balanced out by Revised Estimates in the IPPU sector provided by Poland and France. In some cases a single Revised Estimate changed the national total substantially (e.g. 1A4bi Residential: Stationary NMVOC emissions of the Czech Republic were revised by 59 kt for the year 2015, accounting for most of the total change of 68.6 kt) and in some cases a number of revised estimates sums up to a substantial change in the national total (e.g. eight different revised estimates changed the national total of Poland by 85 kt for the year 2015).

Figure 6 Absolute change in emissions due to REs and TCs8

8 REs and TCs that affect the National Total for Compliance or memo items and adjustments are excluded


-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

SK

SI

SE

RO

PT

PL

NL

MT

LV

LU

LT

IT

IE

HU

HR

GB

FR

FI

ES

EE

DK

DE

CZ

CY

BG

BE

AT

Absolute change in total SOₓ (kt)

200520102015

-20 0 20 40 60 80

SK

SI

SE

RO

PT

PL

NL

MT

LV

LU

LT

IT

IE

HU

HR

GB

FR

FI

ES

EE

DK

DE

CZ

CY

BG

BE

AT

Absolute change in total NOₓ (kt)

200520102015






The relative change due to Revised Estimates and Technical Corrections varied substantially between MS (Table 7). The NECD Review 2017 did not suggest any change for the inventory of Denmark and suggested to change the national total for several pollutants and years for Malta, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Portugal, Bul-garia and Poland. The suggested changes ranged from 0.1% to 107.5% (Malta 2015 NMVOC). Also substan-tial reductions of the national total were suggested by NECD Review 2017 (e.g.-63.6% for Malta for PM2.5 for the year 2005). However, generally more Revised Estimates and Technical Corrections that increased the na-tional total were issued. The number of cases where the national total was reduced was similar for all three analysed (2005, 2010, 2015) years. So the review did not find a tendency that the base year is overestimated.

Table 7 Relative change to the National Total due to REs and TCs

Relative Change to National Total due to REs and TCs

Member State PollutantYear

2005 2010 2015Austria NH3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

NMVOC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%NOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%PM2.5 -3.2% -3.1% -3.5%SOx 0.8% 1.3% 1.2%

Belgium NH3 7.3% 7.9% 9.0%NMVOC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%NOx 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%PM2.5 1.4% 3.6% 3.4%SOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Bulgaria NH3 0.2% 4.4% 37.5%NMVOC 11.0% 10.7% 7.6%NOx 0.4% 0.2% 0.4%PM2.5 5.5% 4.6% 4.6%SOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Croatia NH3 2.5% 3.3% 3.1%NMVOC 11.7% 12.3% 14.9%NOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%PM2.5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%SOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Cyprus NH3 42.9% 63.1% 48.9%NMVOC 5.3% 7.4% 11.0%NOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%PM2.5 -17.4% 4.3% 5.9%SOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Denmark NH3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%NMVOC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%NOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%PM2.5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%SOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Estonia NH3 4.2% 2.7% 3.2%NMVOC 3.1% 3.7% 0.7%NOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%





2005 2010 2015PM2.5 0.0% 0.0% 1.3%SOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

Finland NH3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%NMVOC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%NOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%PM2.5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%SOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

France NH3 3.0% 3.4% 3.1%NMVOC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%NOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%PM2.5 3.8% 4.4% 4.7%SOx 0.7% 0.8% 1.9%

Germany NH3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%NMVOC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%NOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%PM2.5 4.3% 4.8% 5.6%SOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Hungary NH3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%NMVOC 0.4% 0.5% 0.5%NOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%PM2.5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%SOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Ireland NH3 0.4% 0.3% 0.4%NMVOC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%NOx -0.6% -0.8% -1.0%PM2.5 7.0% 8.0% 5.7%SOx -2.8% -6.4% -11.7%

Italy NH3 1.8% 0.5% -0.4%NMVOC -0.9% -0.5% -1.4%NOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%PM2.5 1.9% 1.5% 2.1%SOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Latvia NH3 0.0% 0.0% -1.4%NMVOC 1.3% 2.3% -3.6%NOx 0.0% 0.0% -0.9%PM2.5 2.3% 2.8% -9.2%SOx 0.0% 0.0% -3.6%

Lithuania NH3 -3.1% -1.9% -1.4%NMVOC -12.3% -13.2% -14.6%NOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%





2005 2010 2015PM2.5 0.8% 1.4% 2.0%SOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Luxembourg NH3 0.2% 0.2% 0.3%NMVOC 1.2% 1.7% 1.7%NOx -0.5% -0.9% -1.3%PM2.5 -9.2% -10.1% -10.2%SOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Malta NH3 -14.4% -19.7% -27.4%NMVOC 32.0% 54.2% 107.5%NOx 1.1% 7.6% 69.1%PM2.5 -63.6% 0.8% 13.8%SOx -0.1% 0.0% -2.6%

Poland NH3 0.7% 0.9% 1.1%NMVOC 13.8% 13.8% 16.0%NOx 1.7% 1.0% 0.5%PM2.5 3.6% 7.2% 10.1%SOx 0.4% 0.5% 0.6%

Portugal NH3 -2.6% -3.1% -3.8%NMVOC 6.9% -0.6% 39.8%NOx -0.2% -4.1% -3.2%PM2.5 -1.0% -1.4% -1.6%SOx -8.9% -23.7% -25.3%

Romania NH3 0.8% 4.1% 5.6%NMVOC -3.8% -7.1% -7.5%NOx 3.4% 4.7% 6.1%PM2.5 -0.4% -0.2% 0.6%SOx 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Slovakia NH3 -4.4% -4.5% -4.5%NMVOC 9.3% 9.4% 9.1%NOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%PM2.5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%SOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Slovenia NH3 -0.4% -0.3% -0.2%NMVOC -2.0% -1.7% -1.2%NOx 0.4% -4.3% -4.1%PM2.5 -0.5% -0.3% -0.1%SOx 0.0% 0.1% -4.7%

Spain NH3 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%NMVOC 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%NOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%





2005 2010 2015PM2.5 3.5% 3.4% 3.5%SOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Sweden NH3 -3.3% -3.4% -3.4%NMVOC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%NOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%PM2.5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%SOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Czech Republic NH3 8.8% 10.9% 11.9%NMVOC 17.7% 36.6% 49.2%NOx 12.7% 22.6% 36.0%PM2.5 11.8% 41.1% 66.4%SOx -3.4% -2.9% -4.3%

Netherlands NH3 0.0% 0.0% 1.3%NMVOC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%NOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%PM2.5 0.7% 1.1% 1.3%SOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

United Kingdom NH3 0.5% 0.2% 0.1%NMVOC 1.4% 0.3% 0.2%NOx 2.4% 1.8% 1.8%PM2.5 0.0% -0.4% -0.6%SOx 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Colour code: light yellow: change between +3 to +5%; dark yellow: change between +5 to +10%; orange: change between +10 to +20%; red: change above +20%; light blue: change between-3 to -5%; blue: change between -5 to-10%; violet: change between -10 to -20%; pink: change below -20%;

The Review for Finland was not comprehensive and Greece is not included in this analysis as no revised estimates or tech-nical corrections were calculated due to the late submission of Greece.



4 SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT

4.1 Introduction

An important element of this project involves the evaluation of the full technical review process to identify possible improvements for future reviews.

To evaluate the review process, it was agreed to gather both internal (TERT) and external (MS) feedback, through two separate questionnaires, to identify and document key challenges/issues/limitations, lessons learnt as well as ways in which they could be overcome. The evaluation report summarises the findings from both questionnaires in order to identify lessons learned and potential improvements for future EU review process and is available at the Sharepoint site of the project.9 This chapter includes the conclusions of the Evaluation Report and Summary of the key points.

The first survey was sent to the Technical Expert Review Team (TERT) in July 2017. The TERT questionnaire was designed to investigate the reviewers’ experience and feedback on how the re-view has been conducted to date, covering the efficiency of the review process, transparency of guidance documents, usefulness of tools, checklists and materials, and the experience with using the European Environmental Agency (EEA) review tool.

The second survey was sent the Member States (MS) coordinators and sector experts in Novem-ber 2017. The MS questionnaire was designed to investigate the MS´ experience and feedback on the review process, covering the preparation and the timing of the review, the clarity of questions received from the review team, the clarity and usefulness of review findings, the review reports and the adjustment review, capacity-building activities, and the experience with the communication pro-cedures and the online communication tool.

4.2 Summary of the key-points

4.2.1 TERT QUESTIONNAIRE

Based on the reviewers’ responses it can be concluded that the review process was efficiently or-ganised and its objectives were clear from the start.

With regards to the guidance and training workshop provided in May the majority of respondents found it useful. The Guidance on Procedures for TERTs clearly covered all aspects of the review process and reviewers’ responsibilities and the workshop was considered useful. At the same time, some aspects requiring improvement were suggested.

All reviewers found the support from the central project team either to be ‘extremely useful’ or ‘very useful’. Comments related to the project team support were very positive, highlighting that the assistance was very useful, efficient, and the project team were overall very supportive throughout the process. Likewise, the support from the Lead Reviewer was found to be ‘extremely useful’ or ‘very useful’, helping to steer the team and to prioritise actions, making the whole process more ef-ficient.






The feedback on usefulness and usability of the EMRT was in general positive. Although the training, the diagrams and the guidance material provided were useful it was suggested that the training session was too short and could have been extended. The majority felt the EMRT was very effective in term of aiding the communication process between the project team (reviewers, coun-terparts and lead reviewers) and MS.

The feedback on the desk review was positive overall. The majority of the reviewers felt they were provided with all the materials required to undertake their work, which were easy to find on the pro -ject SharePoint, and were able to request access to any further data required for the review from the core team in a straightforward and timely manner. The initial checks provided by the project team and the tools and excel files developed to support the analysis of the inventories received very positive feedback and were considered helpful in undertaking the review.

The feedback on the centralised review was also positive. The format of the centralised review week and the communication between the TERT and Member States via the communication tool worked well. The general consensus was that the timescale of the review week in Copenhagen was fine, but very intensive. The majority of respondents agreed that the number of people in their review teams was suitable to fulfil the review as a whole and for individual sectors.

4.2.2 MS questionnaire

Most Member State coordinators and national experts felt that the information disseminated and communicated in preparation of the review was sufficiently clear.

In terms of the timing of the review nearly all MS felt that the time assigned for the entire review process was sufficient including the time available to respond to questions and to provide com-ments to TCs. One of the main conclusions was the fact that most of the respondents would prefer the review period to be shifted to take place earlier in June or perhaps even earlier. It was also noted that if the time of the review did change, as suggested by the majority of respondents, the impact this would have on other reviews and reporting deadlines should be considered.

Most feedback from MS suggested that the questions posed were clear and concise, and that in the majority of cases, the national experts were able to respond to all of the TERT’s questions. However, a small number of respondents felt these questions were overly detailed and too numer-ous.

In-country visits were received positively, indicating that the visits were useful and added value to in terms of further developing their inventory, whilst the number of experts sent was reasonable.

A significant amount of time was invested into the communication procedures at the side of MS, ranging from a couple of days to more than a week. Many respondents felt that this was a fair amount of time, however, considering the benefits the review would bring. Some, though did feel it was excessive.

The online communication tool was received very well by the survey respondents. It was felt that the webinars and guidance material were useful and well structured, whilst the EEA emission re-view tool (and it’s features such as the ‘Overview’ list and ‘My view’) were met with positivity and used as they were designed.

The capacity building webinars were also received well by the survey respondents and almost half of the respondents agreed that they prefer capacity building webinars over conventional work-shops. It was felt that topics were well chosen and interested most Member States. They were pitched at an appropriate level, with most respondents indicating that they had contributed to capa-city building within their respective national inventory agencies.



The Review Reports were felt to be appropriate and were, in general, met with positivity from the survey respondents. They were felt to provide a good overview of the main findings, were well structured and designed, and were clear and understandable

It was felt that the adjustment report length, structure, and content was appropriate and that the adjustment Review team were receptive to the information provided by the Member States.

4.2.3 Elements that should be kept for future Reviews

This list of elements that should be kept for future reviews combines the results from both question-naires, the feedback given to the core team during the Review and the own experience of the core team.

Guidance Documents: They were really helpful for structuring the process, revealed potential problems in advance and helped to ensure consistent treatment of all Member States and reduced communication within the team.

Review Report Template: They ensured a common structure of all Review Reports, enhanced equal treatment of Member States and facilitated a very efficient compilation of the Review Re-ports.

Excel tools: They reduced the time needed to check the inventories and freed time for more thor -ough Review of the Inventories and IIRs.

EMRT Statistic Tools: The newly introduced statistical tool for the EMRT had a positive impact on the whole review process. Especially during the centralized review, the tool helped to show the pro-gress of the review work and to spot where action was needed.

International Team: The team involved experts from 11 different EU Member States. The adminis-trative effort to coordinate the team paid off during the Review as the outstanding knowledge of the Review team ensured a very sound and efficient Review.

Checklists: The checklists identified key issues and ensured equal treatment of Member States.

Online communication tool: The online communication tool ensured efficient communication within the TERT and between MS and TERT and ensured that the whole communication process is stored centrally.

Compilation of Review Reports: The efficient process using extracts from the EMRT-NECD tool should be kept. The applied QA/QC procedure ensured a high quality of the reports.

Capacity Building Webinars: The capacity building webinars reached many inventory experts and contributed to capacity building with a comparatively low budget.

Avoid travelling as much as possible: The core team tried to avoid costs for travelling as far as possible and tried to use alternatives (e.g. web conferences) where possible.



5 DELIVERABLES

Deliverables were submitted electronically in English as MS Word files except for the compilation of Q&As sent to Member States via the EMRT-NECD. The EC can get ac-cess to the EMRT-NECD and upon request the full communication between TERT and MS will be extracted from the EMRT-NECD.

Table 8 Overview of deliverables

Deliverable as listed in work plan Status of Delivery

'EU air emission inventory review guidelines' (three versions: draft, updated and final)

Delivered

'Guidance on Procedures for TERTs: NECD Emissions Inventory Review, 2017' (three versions: draft, updated and final)

Delivered

'Review report template' (three versions: draft, updated and final)

Delivered

Workplan (Draft , Final) Delivered

SE and LR checklists Delivered

Compilation of Q&As sent to Member States via the EMRT-NECD during desk and cent-ralised review (upon request)

Not requested

Briefings for/summaries of in-country visits (scope and outcomes)

Delivered (as part of the Review Reports)

Draft and finalized 'review reports' of Mem-ber States' emission inventories including Annexes on TCs and on adjustment review where applicable following comments of the Commission, the EEA and Member States (2 rounds of comments on draft version)

Delivered

Short horizontal project report Sent for commenting

Evaluation questionnaire to the countries Delivered

Evaluation questionnaire to the TERT Delivered

Evaluation report as described in task 6 of chapter 3

Delivered

Summaries and minutes following all meet-ings with the Commission, the EEA and/or Member States

Delivered



6 CONCLUSION

All tasks planned for Service Contract Number No 07.0201/2016/741511/SER/ENV.C.3. could be implemented as planned and discussed with the EC and the EEA. Where pos-sible additional tasks – such as the screening of the Greek inventory - were organised. The Evaluation showed that generally both sides - MS and the TERT - were content with the organisation of the Review.

The Review showed that the quality of inventories varied between Member States and that areas for improvement exist across all sectors and pollutants. A change of up to 4.0% in the EU Total (PM2.5 emissions in the year 2015) and of up to 107.5% (Malta 2015 NMVOC) on individual MS national totals shows that the Review will have an effect on the numbers reported in future inventory submissions (which will be checked in the NECD Review 2018).

39 09 March 2018 Umweltbundesamt


7 ANNEX 1 – CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CAPACITY BUILDING WEBINARS

Conclusions for the sector energy

Category Issue Conclusion

1A1, 1A2, 1A4 Use of Tier 1 methods for key sources

Some MS are using Tier1 methods for 1A1, 1A2 and 1A4 key sources.

Higher Tier methods need much higher re-sources and are difficult to apply because of missing information about technologies and lack of (expensive) measurements.

1A1, 1A2, 1A4 Inappropriate allocation of sources

Allocation of emission sources does not al-ways follow the reporting guidelines, e.g.: 1A2f includes 1A2g

1A5 includes emissions which should be alloc-ated elsewhere.

Allocation over time series not always consist-ent (industrial plants vs. power plants)

1A1a - biomass NH3 from biomass not es-timated

Guidebook includes methodology but MS did not estimate.

Not a key source.

1A – Natural gas SO2 emissions from natural gas not estimated

MS consider SO2 emissions from natural gas as ‘negligible’. Sulphur content is mostly un-known but Guidebook contains emission factors.

Not a key source.

Guidebook versions Use of older guidebook ver-sions

Lack on information about used version and emission factors

MS use emission factors from older guidebook versions without justification in the IIR.

Probably wider use of old GB but lack on in-formation in the IIR (Missing references to emission factors)

Notation keys Inappropriate use

Inconsistent use

Inappropriate use of notation keys:

‘NO’ instead of ‘IE’. ‘NA’ instead of ‘NE’Information in IIR not consistent with reported values in NFR.

1A1a PM2.5/PM10 ratios are un-like other countries

Guidebook 2016 PM2.5/PM10 ratio is higher than in version 2013 e.g. because it reflects e.g. electrostatic filters in coal power plants.

Ratios have larger variation over time series.




1A Transparency IIR has lack on information about

emission factors activity data methodologies allocation of sources

1A1, 1A2 Uncertainty of stack meas-urements

‘Validated average values’ of the IED are used for emission calculation of large combustion plants, which leads to 20% lower SOX and NOX and 30% lower PM emissions.

MS should clarify how LCP emissions are cal-culated.

1B Transparency IIRs include only limited information about sec-tor 1B, e.g. description of sources and alloca-tion of sources within 1B categories.

1B Double counting Some MS report fugitive emissions from coke oven ovens and refinery both under combus-tion (1A) and fugitive emissions (1B).

1B2av Use of low Tier methodo-logy

NMVOC emissions from distribution of oil (gasoline refuelling) is key source in most MS but some MS are using a Tier1 method only which does not consider Stage I or Stage II abatement technologies.

1B Guidebook not complete Guidebook does not include method for coal gasification.

1B2av Guidebook not clear NMVOC emissions from distribution of oil. Guidebook needs clarification and harmonisa-tion of text. E.g.: activity data should include gasoline only.

1B1a NMVOC from coal mining Guidebook emissions factors are probably too high for this source and needs to be checked.

1B2ai

1B2b

Tier 1 method not always applicable

Current Tier1 emissions factors are not applic-able if production does not occur.

Guidebook should consider additional Tier1 for transmission/distribution only.

Conclusions for the sector transport




1A3 Transport A question was raised on how to deal with jumps and dips in the timeseries, when different methods are used for the calculation of the emissions for specific time-periods.

It is a good practice to re-run the calculation for the entire timeseries, using the same methodology. This will ensure the timeseries consistency.

1A3b Road Transport Some MS (Belgium and Slovenia) stated that they were not able to import data from COPERT 4.11.4 to COPERT 4.11.5.

MS were asked to check again this issue, and if the issue persists to communi-cate it to the technical COPERT team.

In addition, COPERT 5 is now more stable and it is recommended that all MS shift from COPERT 4 to COPERT 5. MS should be aware that technical sup-port for COPERT 4 will soon stop, thus COPERT 4 will become obsolete and all calculations should be performed with the latest COPERT 5 version.

Some MS stated that issues exist after a Windows update with the export func-tion of COPERT 4.

The COPERT development team is aware of this issue which is caused by a recent MS Windows update. The team is trying to work around this issue and as soon as a solution be-comes available, all COPERT users will be in-formed. For now, the only available solution is to unin-stall the Windows update.

It was requested that Tier 2 EFs could be included in COPERT, in order to provide to the MS the opportunity to create inventories more quickly.

This will be discussed with the EEA before any de-cision is taken. The reason for which Tier 2 EFs are not included in COPERT, is that MS are encouraged to use the Tier 3 methodo-logy.

There was a question raised on how to treat Heavy Duty Vehicles, which by-pass their SCR system.

In order to calculate emis-sions, these vehicles should be considered as vehicles without SCR.

Emission factors for some categories, such as CNG light commercial vehicles, are not included in the Guidebook 2016.

There is a plan to provide EFs for new technologies and fuels, such as LNG EFs for Heavy Duty Vehicles.

In some cases, MS face difficulties in al-locating data to specific categories due to limited data availability.

MS are encouraged to use disaggregated data to the extent possible. Addition-ally, not all input variables




1A3 Transport A question was raised on how to deal with jumps and dips in the timeseries, when different methods are used for the calculation of the emissions for specific time-periods.

It is a good practice to re-run the calculation for the entire timeseries, using the same methodology. This will ensure the timeseries consistency.are of the same importance, thus MS should prioritize their efforts in collecting the most important input data.

1A3bvii Automobile Road Abrasion

It was noted that COPERT 5 software does not calculate emissions from this category.

It is suggested that MS use the Guidebook 2016, where all the detailed EFs are documented, consider-ing all the factors (such as road surface, climatic con-ditions etc.) affecting the values of the EFs. The possibility of including these EFs in COPERT 5 will be discussed with the EEA before a decision is taken.

Conclusions for the sector IPPPU


General IIR transparency Documentation of

details of activities included under the emission value reported in the NFR table

source of the data (i.e. methods used to calculate emissions: activity data, emis-sion factors/formulas) or if data reported by the operators is used and how it has been verified

justifications for national methods used justifications for not occurring emissions justification of fluctuations in emission

trends/activity data justification for the use of each notation

key allocation of the data in cases the emis-

sions are not reported under the default NFR category

General Use of data reported by operators

It would be helpful to compile some basic prin-ciples for the use of data reported by the operat-ors in the inventory.

For example




1) Data reported by the operators usually in-creases the accuracy of the inventory; how-ever the data needs to be verified.

2) When it is not possible to split the data repor-ted by the operators into the energy and pro-cess NFR categories, it needs to be docu-mented clearly where the data are allocated and what activities the data includes

3) MS should always check that the data they use represent total emissions under the re-porting year and is not corrected e.g. for compliance checking purposes (e.g. the cor-rection in the IED to subtract the 20%/30% confidence interval of CEM results to check compliance against the emission limit values)

Guidebook – Mineral industry

Glass Production Develop the EF to include pre- and post-treat-ments

Guidebook – Mineral industry

Lime production Currently unclear in the Guidebook how lime pro-duction and use at sugar factories is allocated (NFRs 2A2, 2H2). The issue will be forwarded to the TFEIP chairs.

Guidebook – Quarry-ing and Mining

Construction and De-molition

Methods The Guidebook chapters for Quarrying and Min-ing and Construction and Demolition need to be completed to provide methods to estimate emis-sions and information on how to get or estimate national activity data. The issue will be forwarded to the TFEIP chairs.

Guidebook Metal in-dustry

Rolling mills No PM2.5 EF for rolling mills. The issue will be for-warded to the TFEIP chairs.

Guidebook Metal in-dustry

2C5 and 2C6 In Guidebook version 2013 EFs for both primary and secondary production were provided. In 2016 Guidebook only T1 EFs for 2C5 and 2C6. The is-sue will be forwarded to the TFEIP chairs.

Solvent and other product use

Accuracy Use of higher tier methods for MS key categories is often difficult because (1) the amount of solvent/product used is not known, (2) solvent content (or other chemical content) in the products is not known, (3) the emission rate of certain species of NMVOCs is not known, (4) the technical details needed for a higher tier method are not known.

Guidebook - Solvent and other product use

Split between report-ing categories

MS do not collect data on the split of coating ap-plications used in industrial/domestic/construction & building activities and are therefore not able to report the emissions in these categories. It would be helpful to provide some basis for expert estim-ations to do this split. The issue will be forwarded




to the TFEIP chairs.

Guidebook – Solvent and other product use

NFRs 2G and 2D3i – allocation

The allocation of different activities under NFRs 2G and 2D3i is not always clear. The issue will be forwarded to the TFEIP chairs.

Guidebook – Solvent and other product use

Tobacco and Fire-works

(1) Many countries do not currently estimate emissions from Tobacco and Firework use. It would be helpful if the Guidebook would provide advice how to get or estimate na-tional activity data for these activities.

(2) The methodology in the GB refers to PM1.8. It should be checked and explained how these data are used to give PM2.5 and PM10 EFs. The issue will be forwarded to the TFEIP chairs.

Guidebook- Solvent and other product use

General information to move to higher tier methods

(1) Tools to estimate AD and EFs from the material provided by ESIG. What can be made available to help MS obtain do-mestic & industrial solvent AD?

(2) References to detailed national studies on solvent use, or annexing these studies to the Guidebook. The issue will be for-warded to the TFEIP chairs.

Guidebook – emis-sions from the use of shoes

Unclear method The text in the Guidebook is not clear whether the method presented is for the use or production of shoes. The issue will be forwarded to the TFEIP chairs.

Guidebook - general Reporting of sulphur compounds

The definition of SOX includes all sulphur com-pounds calculated into SOX and summed up into total SOX emissions. The reporting of sulphur compounds is currently unclear due to the word-ing in the revised Gothenburg Protocol and the revised NECD. Therefore some explanatory in-formation is needed in the Guidebook. The in-formation should cover introduction of the differ-ent sulphur compounds, sources of sulphur com-pounds, and calculation of the different com-pounds into SOX. The issue will be forwarded to the TFEIP chairs.

Guidebook – Wood processing

Manufactured wood board/products:

(1) Glues are used in the manufacture of differ-ent types of wooden board. The Guidebook needs a methodology for this, and a clear ex-planation about what is reported under 2I Wood products and 2D3i Other solvent use.

(2) A method for chipboard production needs to be developed. The issue will be forwarded to the TFEIP chairs.



Conclusions for the sector agricultureCategory Issue Conclusion

Cross sectoral

Consistency Inconsistent time series Inconsistent information/data in IIR and

NFR Inconsistent livestock numbers, fertilizer

amounts etc. to MMR reporting

Recalculations for the en-tire time series, QA/QC (check outliers)

QA/QC (e.g. cross-checks IIR <-> NFR)

Check consistency of ba-sic assumptions and AD (especially when different teams are working on ghg and NEC inventories)

Completeness Emissions not reported for all years Reporting did not include estimates for

all pollutants

Complete time series. The EMEP/EEA GB 2016, chapter 4, describes good practice in ensuring time series consistency

If methods are available in the guidebook, estimates should be provided

When reporting NO please explain in IIR why this specific source category is not occurring in the coun-try.

Transparency Methodologies were not transparently described/documented in IIR.

Provide the IIR following Annex II „Recommended Structure of the IIR“ of the revised 2014 reporting guidelines.

Include AD + description of trends & all country specific EFs + references

Assumptions to be accom-panied by a clear justifica-tion.

Accuracy Key sources not always estimated by appropriate Tier methodologies (Tier 2, Tier 3)

Tier 2 estimates calculated on the basis of default values

Use higher Tier methods for key categories.

Use or develop country specific data that reflect the situation in the coun-try, generate a time series

Use updated EFs provided in the 2016 Guidebook

3.B Manure Manage-ment (NH3)

Tier 2 NH3 calculation (3.B) Use country specific MMS distribution and N excre-tion rates in consistency to the MMR reporting

3.B Manure Manage-ment (NOx)

NOx calculations (3.B) In contrast to NH3 calcula-tions, the 3.B chapter of the Guidebook does not include NOx EF for ma-nure application. The rel-




evant NOx EF is included in Chapter 3.D, Table 3.1.

The reporting of NA, IE for NOx emissions from an-imal manure applied to soils (3.D.a.2.a) is not cor-rect and causes underes-timation of emissions be-cause 3.B NOx EFs do not include NOx emissions from manure application.

Units (NO, NO2) In general no conversion to mass is needed when using Tier 1 EFs.

However, during the webinar it was found out, that (following the original study) the correct unit in 3.B Table 3.1. should be 0.04 kg NO2/kg N and not 0.04 kg NO/kg N.

Units (and their conversion to mass) are not always clear in the Guidebook.

NO losses calculated within N-flow models have to be converted to the mass of NO2.

Units should be clarified in the next update of the Guidebook (-> see issues for improvement of the EMEP/EEA Guidebook at the end of this paper)

Conversion factor not completely clear (-> see issues for improvement of the EMEP/EEA Guide-book at the end of this pa-per)

3.B Manure Manage-ment (NMVOC)

NMVOC EFs with / without silage feed-ing for cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, horses, mules and asses

Tier 1: Ask national agri-culture experts. The share of grazing days (feeding without silage) per animal category could be used as a first proxy

Tier 2: EF = kg NMVOC/kg VS excreted: Link with the Tier 2 emission model developed to estimate methane emissions

3.B Manure Manage-ment (PM2.5)

Approach following the EMEP/EEA 2016 GB, chapter 3.B., p.18-19

Poultry: the total animal number should be used for emission calculation. For all other livestock types: the Tier 1 EFs should be applied to housed livestock only (ex-clude „grazing“)

3.D.a.1 Inorganic N-fertilizers

NOx emissions not reported by all MS NMVOC and PM emissions reported

under 3.D.a.1 Inorganic N-fertilizers

Use EFs provided in the Guidebook chapter 3.D

NMVOC emissions should be reported under source category 3.D.e Cultivated crops

PM emissions should be reported under source cat-egory 3.D.c Farm-level ag-ricultural operations in-cluding storage, handling and transport of agricul-tural products




3.D.a.2.b Sewage sludge spreading

MS report NE because the EMEP/EEA Guidebook 2016, Table 3.1, provides only EFs defined as emissions/capita.

However, N amounts of sewage sludge spread on fields are available in the country

EMEP/EEA Guidebook 2016 Annex 1, p.30, provides an EF of 0.13kg NH3/kg N_applied

Annex 2, p.32, provides an EF of 0.04kg NO2/kg N_applied

Field burning of agri-cultural residues

Not all pollutants were calculated (SO2, NOx, NMVOC, NH3, HM, POPs, PM emissions) (-> NE, NA)

Not all MS included sufficient docu-mentation to their estimates (AD, EFs, methods) in the IIR

If prohibited by law, a clear reference in the IIR is needed including in-formation from which year the ban came into force

if illegal burning is occur-ring, gather AD and provide an estimate (or re-port NE).

EMEP/EEA GB 2016 – issues for improve-ment

EMEP/EEA GB 2016, 3.B, section 3.4 Tier 2 technology-specific approach:Algorithm for non-methane volatile or-ganic compounds (NMVOC) page 27

Xhouse” and” Xbuilding”. seems to be exactly the same

could be replaced by “Xhousing” in both the equations and the text (“Xhousing” is used for other pollutants – e.g. NH3

and PM)EMEP/EEA GB 2016 – issues for improve-ment

EMEP/EEA GB 2016, 3.D, section 3.1 default tier 1 approach, Table 3.1Not all relevant NFR categories men-tioned in the heading

It is suggested to include the following missing two NFR categories in the Table 3.1 heading:Other organic fertilizers applied to soils (3Da2c),Cultivated crops (3Dc)


EMEP/EEA GB 2016, 3.D, section 3.1 default tier 1 approach, Table 3.1

Default value for NH3 emission from ap-plied sewage sludge. Annex 1 (A1.1.2) page 30 describes the NH3 EF calcula-tion.

Table 3.1: NH3 default value is 0.0066 kg NH3 per capita.

In Annex 1 (A1.1.2), page 30, in the text a value of 0.0067 kg NH3/capita and the following estimation method is men-tioned:

0.05 kg N applied/capita * 0.13 kg NH3/kg N applied. The result in 0.0065.

Differences are small, but cause unnecessary confu-sion. Should be clarified

Additionally, Table 3.1. should also provide the value of 0.13 kg NH3/kg N applied (not only kg NH3/capita)





PM emission from field operations - EMEP/EEA Guidebook 2016 (update needed)

3.D Table 3.1 and 3.5, text in chapter 3.D Particle matter and Annex 4

To be clarified:

Reference used in the main chapter and Annex does not match.

the first reference is not available in the internet and the second reference is not included in the refer-ence list

The EF PM10 for harvest-ing is 10 times lower in the chapter (Table 3.5) than shown in the Annex (Table A4-2), but the reason is not justified in the text

The PM10 EF for harvest-ing in the EMEP / EEA Guidebook is NOT the same as stated in the ref-erence van der Hoek (2007).

Default value of 1.56 kg PM10 per ha is low com-pared to the Tier 2 EFs (assumption not clear)

No information regarding the relationship between PM10 and PM2.5


definition of NH3 EFs provided in EMEP/EEA GB, 3.D, Table 3.2 and the calculation method, step 6 (p. 17)

Multiplication with the factor (17/14) is not needed, as the EFs provided in Table 3.2 are defined as g NH3/kg N ap-plied (= mass of NH3) and not defined as NH3-N/kg applied


3.D, p.14, Table 3.1 - NO2

following the original study it should be NO2 from N applied in fertiliser, manure and excreta

Unit kg NO/kg N should be corrected to NO2/kg N (0.04 kg NO2/kg N)


It is not fully clear if when using the de-fault NO EFs the resulting emissions have to be converted to NO2.

Specific information if NO EFs have to be converted or not should be included. Clarify for each EF if it is an NO or NO2 EF (check EFs, descriptions and cla-rify use)

EMEP/EEA GB 2016 3.B: In step 15 on page 26 the factor Clarify unit of Table 3.10




– issues for improve-ment

used to convert to amount of NO2 is 46/14. This implies that the unit in table 3.10 is amount of nitrogen lost as NO (i.e. in NO-N). However, from just look-ing at the table it seems like the unit in-stead is NO. Then the conversion factor of 46/30 should be used instead in step 15 to convert from NO to NO2.

(NO or NO-N) and de-pending on the correct unit check the correct conver-sion factor in step 15 on p. 26


3.B, Table 3.12: The definition for the different swine categories is unclear (piglets included in sows EF?). It is not clear what the Tier 1 NMVOC EFs are assuming.

In Table 3.9 the text defines that sows include piglets until 8 kg and fat-tening pigs include pigs from 8-110 kg. These definitions should be used consistently for each Table.


Does the EMEP/EEA Guidebook 2016 provide an Excel spreadsheet?

Some MS use this Excel spreadsheet and it could therefore be available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/pub-lications/emep-eea-guide-book-2016. Now its only available at 2013 Guide-book. Is there a need for an updated version of Ex-cel spreadsheet?

Conclusions for the sector waste


5A Solid waste dis-posal on land

Default EFs in the Guidebook principally refer to different processes, i.e. the NMVOC emission depends on the amount of biodegradable waste while the PM emission depends on other vari-ables such as cover material. Further, the proposed AD in the Guidebook should be reconsidered, as the gas pro-duction is a function of the waste dis-posal of the last years, not only of the current year.

The Guidebook should be improved to address this issue. This should be dis-cussed at the next TFEIP meeting. The issue will be forwarded to the TFEIP chairs.

In some cases, transparency is lacking from the reporting regarding allocation.

MS were asked to include information on emissions associated with landfill gas recovery, i.e. flaring or en-ergy production.

Lack of completeness as many MS did not report NMVOC and/or PM emis-sions.

MS were asked to ensure the completeness of the in-ventory even if the impact




is small compared to the national total

5B Biological treat-ment of waste

The chapter on anaerobic digestion was introduced in the 2016 Guidebook and there is still little experience in imple-menting it.

This issue should be dis-cussed in more detail when more MS have ex-periences with implement-ing the guidance. This could be discussed at the next TFEIP meeting.

5C Waste incineration Based on the review, it was clear that large point sources in some cases had subtracted the uncertainty when report-ing annual emission, which can lead to significant underestimations.

This issue should be fur-ther discussed at the Am-bient Air Quality Expert Group meeting as it has potential big implications especially in the energy sector. The issue will be forwarded to the EC.

In some cases, transparency is lacking from the reporting regarding allocation.

MS were asked to ensure transparency by describing the allocation of waste in-cineration with and without energy recovery

Lack of completeness as some MS did not estimate emissions from cremations (human and animal)

MS were asked to ensure the completeness of the in-ventory even if the impact is small compared to the national total

5D Wastewater hand-ling

Lack of completeness as many MS did not report NMVOC emissions.

MS were asked to ensure the completeness of the in-ventory even if the impact is small compared to the national total

Emissions from latrines Some MS had applied the EF for latrines to the popu-lation not covered by the sewer system. It was con-cluded that only the popu-lation using latrines should be considered.

5E Other waste Emissions from accidental fires were not estimated for the majority of MS

This issue should be dis-cussed further at the next TFEIP meeting. A number of points were raised dur-ing the webinar, e.g. how to get appropriate activity data considering that the magnitude of fires are varying and whether the EFs provided by the Guidebook are represent-ative for all EU MS.
