Streamlining Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Reporting- project findings

1. Streamlining Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Reporting- project findings Justin Goodwin

2. Project • Task 1 – Review Instruments (EUMM, NECD, EUETS, E-PRTR, RECASE, F-Gases, CO2 Cars) • Task 2 – Investigated the progress MS had made with streamlining their reporting of emissions • Task 3 - Developed options for the revision of the MM and its implementing provisions • Task 4 - proposed an action plan/roadmap to harmonise reporting more widely • The Task 5 workshops were held in May 2008 and January 2009

3. The Instruments

4. Options and Instruments

5. Roadmap

6. Benefits • Ensure Data quality and resolution supports policies to reduce emissions of GHGs and APs; • Including TCCCA • Minimise the burden (Commission, the MS, and industry); • providing transparent, harmonised simplified, procedures for reporting, • Addressing known problems Assisting MS adopt inventory good practice; • Tools, • Guidance, • develop national systems • Safeguarding MS existing systems; • Encourage greater transparency in the reporting of industrial emissions; • protection for the confidential data needed for national inventories and verification.

7. Utopia Projections & PAMs Activity Data Trends in Emissions National Report Diffuse & Regulated National National Reporting Facility/Installation Emissions Regulated Facility Reporting Diffuse INSPIREd Diffuse Reporting

8. Findings: National Instruments • MM: • Good Reporting Framework and Templates for Historic Emissions of GHGs & Activity data • Benefits from UNFCCC Review activities. • Projections and PAMs reporting is less structured. • NECD: • Reporting linked to UNECE reports. • Less well defined reporting framework... • Timeseries • Activity Data • Projections and PAMs • Limited requirements/instructions on compilation or reporting. • Less mature review systems and more limited datasets with which to review. Limited mandate for MS to use reported Facility level data.

9. Findings: Operator/Installation/Facility Instruments • EUETS • Elaborate & Detailed installation reports (AERs) • Independent verification • Lack of transparency with other operator reporting (LCPD & E-PRTR) and installation regulation (IPPC) • AERs not universally used by all MS ad source material for national inventories. • E-PRTR • Large scope of releases (Air (GHG, APs, HMs, POPs) & Water • Aggregated emissions reporting (Lack of transparency about important processes) • Very limited QA/QC/Review.. Lacking supplementary data (Activity data) • Lack of transparency with other operator reporting (LCPD & EUETS) and installation regulation (IPPC) • RECAST • Large net (regulates 50,000 processes). • No unified reporting requirements (Left to CAs) • Lack of transparency with operator reporting (LCPD, E-PRTR & EUETS).

10. Findings: MS Activities (1 of 2) • “In principle countries in favour of streamlining” • “technically feasible to move to more fully integrated EU reporting systems over next10 years”. • “Most MS have already made efforts to integrate their data flows and data structures for compilation and reporting.“ • Some devil in the detail.. Methods can not be too standardised... Box 1 – MS Practice Most, if not all, MS already use national statistical data to ensure emissions reported under the MM are consistent with emissions reported under the NECD; ~50% store all GHG and AP emissions data within one system; ~60 % use non-emissions reporting instruments to generate (or improve the quality) of their data and ~65% use some industrial facility data in reporting under NECD and/or CLRTAP. More than 80% report principally the same emissions data under NECD and CLRTAP. Over 90% use emission data collected under the LCPD in reporting under other instruments and/or to verify other data in the NECD/CLRTAP inventories, approximately 40% use data collected under E-PRTR reporting in their national GHG (MM) and/or AP (NECD/CLRTAP) inventories; <40% are able to assign other facility level data to Common Reporting Format (CRF) and/or Nomenclature for Reporting (NFR) source categories.

11. Findings: MS Activities (2 of 2)

12. Recommendations: National Inventories • MM: • Explicitly refer to the EMEP/EEA Guidebook for methods and good practice for indirect GHG; • NECD: • Strengthen TCCCA reporting for NECD pollutants including timeseries • Strengthen Review of NECD pollutants. • MM & NECD: • guidelines for compilation and reporting of projections and PAMs • Strengthen use of industrial facility/installation data(e.g. from EU ETS/E-PRTR/LCPD/RECAST) for national inventories; • Strengthen use of national statistics and statistical techniques in inventory compilation; • Use the same underlying activity data is used for MM and NECD reporting; • Harmonize the templates/tools and reporting/publishing systems to be used between the NECD & EUMM • Investigate once only reporting of indirect GHGs (SO2, NOx and NMVOC) – either under the CLRTAP or NECD.

13. Recommendations: Facility/Installations • Single National Systems for Operator Reporting • What would that contain..? • Facility definitions: (Tiered-connected) E-PRTR-IPPC-EUETS. Owner.. • Geo Referencing (INSPIRE Linked) • Emission/Installation classifications: IPPC-IPCC-NACE • Activity data Reporting • Interoperable national systems for EU data collection (SEIS)

14. Recommendations: Operator Reporting Possible Guidance to Support MS in defining their systems • EUETS: • Improve the centralisation of non-confidential data from EU ETS Annual Emissions Reports • AER reports to include IPCC categorisation • E-PRTR: • Reporting of activity data for non EU ETS installations and links between E-PRTR and EUETS installations. • additional emissions activity in E-PRTR reporting to Cas.. E.g. process and fuel combustion emissions according to IPCC. • handling of confidential data by the Statistical Agencies • enable improved checking, verification and integration of E-PRTR data into national inventories. • RECAST: • Use permitting to collect annual emissions data for important installations and pollutants not included under E-PRTR or EU ETS. • Improve flow installation monitoring data for country specific emissions factors and projections (e.g. details of BAT and planned improvements to plant). • EUETS/E-PRTR/RECAST: • Harmonise operator reporting formats and tools between EU ETS, E-PRTR and RECAST • unique identification of installations so that they can be linked to other reporting and regulatory systems (EUETS/IPPC/RECAST & E-PRTR)

15. Possible Place for a New Instrument? • Air and Climate Emissions. • Methodologies: Minimum requirements for emission estimation Installation – National level. • Reporting: Minimum requirements for Reporting for installation – National level. Meeting the needs of the EU and MS for policy development and reporting to the UN. • Would not replace all of MM, NECD, EU ETS, E-PRTR or IPPC. • Could cover data flows, data quality, temporal and spatial information, and allowing for maximum re-use of data. (Implementing SEIS for Emissions Data)

16. Thank you “Keep Streamlining alive”!!!