emep
Co-operative programme for monitoring
and evaluation of the long-range
transmission of air pollutants in Europe
Inventory Review 2012
Review of emission data reported
under the LRTAP Convention
and NEC Directive
Stage 1 and 2 review
Review of POP
emission inventories
Status of gridded
and LPS data
Katarina Mareckova
Robert Wankmueller
Robert Whiting
Marion Pinterits
& CEIP
TECHNICAL REPORT
CEIP 1/2012
Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Inventory Review 2012
Review of emission data reported under
the LRTAP Convention and NEC Directive
Stage 1 and 2 review
Review of POP emission inventories
Status of gridded and LPS data
Umweltbundesamt GmbH, Austria
Katarina Mareckova, Robert Wankmueller (CEIP/ETC-ACM)
Marion Pinterits (ETC-ACM)
AEA Technology plc, United Kingdom
Robert Whiting (ETC-ACM)
ISBN 978-3-99004-201-4
Project management
Katarina Mareckova
Authors
Katarina Mareckova, Robert Wankmueller (CEIP/ETC-ACM)
Marion Pinterits (ETC-ACM)
Robert Whiting (ETC-ACM)
Editor
Brigitte Read
Layout and typesetting
Ute Kutschera
Cover
MSC-W, Maps: Robert Wankmueller
Imprint
Owner and Editor:
Umweltbundesamt GmbH
Spittelauer Lände 5, 1090 Vienna/Austria
Printed by: Umweltbundesamt GmbH
Printed on CO2 neutral 100% recycled paper
©
Umweltbundesamt GmbH, Vienna, 2012
All rights reserved
ISBN 978-3-99004-201-4
Inventory Review 2012−Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank all the Parties to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary
Air Pollution (CLRTAP) and the European Union Member States for their participation in this
annual review of inventory data and their submission of emission data under the NEC Directive
(NECD) and under the CLRTAP. Without them this report would not have been possible.
Martin Adams (EEA) provided valuable comments and greatly helped to finalise the report.
Brigitte Read and Ute Kutschera (all Umweltbundesamt, Austria) assisted the review work
with proof reading and editing of the report.
This work has been supported through joint funding from EMEP and the European Environment
Agency (EEA) through its European Topic Centre for Air Pollution and Climate Change Mitigation (ETC-ACM).
CEIP – Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
3
Inventory Review 2012 − Contents
CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................... 7
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................ 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 9
1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 15
1.1
Reporting obligations ................................................................................................... 15
1.2
Accessibility of emission data ...................................................................................... 17
1.3
Review process .............................................................................................................. 17
2
STAGE I REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 18
2.1
2.1.1
2.1.2
Timeliness ...................................................................................................................... 18
CLRTAP ......................................................................................................................... 18
NECD ............................................................................................................................. 18
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
Completeness ................................................................................................................ 20
CLRTAP ......................................................................................................................... 20
NECD ............................................................................................................................. 21
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
Format ........................................................................................................................... 21
CLRTAP ......................................................................................................................... 21
NECD ............................................................................................................................. 21
2.4
Transparency and Informative Inventory Reports ................................................... 22
3
STAGE 2 REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 23
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
Recalculations ............................................................................................................... 23
CLRTAP ......................................................................................................................... 23
NECD ............................................................................................................................. 24
3.2
Time series consistency ................................................................................................ 24
3.3
Key category analysis (KCA) ...................................................................................... 25
3.4
3.4.1
3.4.2
Inventory comparisons................................................................................................. 30
CLRTAP/NECD comparisons........................................................................................ 31
CLRTAP/UNFCCC comparisons .................................................................................. 31
3.5
Implied emission factor (IEF) tests ............................................................................. 32
3.6
3.6.1
3.6.2
Comparability −Emissions per capita, emissions per GNI ....................................... 34
Emissions per capita ....................................................................................................... 34
Emission per GNI ........................................................................................................... 35
4
REVIEW OF POP EMISSION INVENTORIES ...................................................... 36
4.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
Methodology.................................................................................................................. 36
Review for completeness and consistency of inventories .............................................. 36
Review of emission factor variability............................................................................. 36
CEIP −Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
5
Inventory Review 2012−Contents
4.2
4.2.1
Results and discussion .................................................................................................. 37
Review of emission factors for a selected source (Dioxins and Furans in Iron and
Steel) ............................................................................................................................... 38
4.3
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 40
5
GRIDDED DATA FOR EMEP MODELS ................................................................. 42
5.1
Reporting of gridded emissions in 2012...................................................................... 42
5.2
2010 emission data used in EMEP models ................................................................. 42
5.3
Update of historical gridded emissions (1990 and 2000 to 2009).............................. 43
6
LARGE POINT SOURCES (LPS) ............................................................................. 46
7
CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 47
8
UNITS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................ 50
9
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 52
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 53
Appendix 1: Status of reporting under the LRTAP Convention........................................... 54
Appendix 2: Overview of annual emissions per PPP GNI and emissions per capita .......... 58
ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................. 73
Annex A – Status of reporting under NECD (separate file) .................................................. 73
Annex B – Recalculations of CLRTAP and NECD emission data in 2012
(separate file) .......................................................................................................... 73
Annex C – Overview of gap-filling done in 2012 for the EMEP 2010 inventory
(separate file) .......................................................................................................... 73
Annex D – Inventory Comparisons between CLRTAP, NECD and UNFCCC data
for 1990 and 2010 (separate file) ........................................................................... 73
Annex E – LPS reporting under CLRTAP until 2012 (separate file) ................................... 73
Annex F – Review of POP emission inventories (separate file) ............................................. 73
6
CEIP −Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − List of tables
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1:
Main differences between the reporting obligations under the CLRTAP, NECD
and the UNFCCC............................................................................................................... 16
Table 2:
Total number of categories identified as key categories in the 2010 inventories for
individual pollutants in the countries of the EU-27, EFTA, Croatia and the FYR of
Macedonia and the 15 remaining Parties. ......................................................................... 26
Table 3:
Number of IEF findings provided to the Parties for consideration. ................................. 33
Table 4:
Overview of emissions per capita. .................................................................................... 34
Table 5:
Overview of emissions per GNI/PPP ................................................................................ 35
Table 6:
Number of POP inventories submitted for review............................................................ 37
Table 7:
Completeness for POP sources.......................................................................................... 37
Table 8:
List of major iron and steel producing countries with steel production in 2010.............. 38
Table 9:
Status of reporting under the LRTAP Convention as of 13th June 2012. ......................... 54
Table 10: Completeness of CLRTAP submissions as of 13th June 2012. ........................................ 55
Table 11: Completeness of CLRTAP submissions as of 13th June 2012 (reporting mandatory
every 5 years). .................................................................................................................... 56
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1:
Status of official submissions to the CLRTAP in 2012 (the deadline for EU to
submit its inventory is 30th April) ...................................................................................... 19
Figure 2:
Date of NECD inventory provision to the CDR or the European Commission in
2011/2012........................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 3:
Examples of PCDD/PCDF trends with dips, jumps and gaps.......................................... 24
Figure 4:
Examples of Pb trends with dips, jumps and gaps. ........................................................... 25
Figure 5:
KCA of 2010 emissions Main pollutants and PM – CLRTAP inventories
comparison of EU-27, EFTA, Croatia and FYR of Macedonia (left) and ‘Other’
Parties (right)...................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 6:
KCA of 2010 emissions HMs and POPs – CLRTAP inventories comparison
ofEU-27, EFTA, Croatia and FYR of Macedonia (left) and ‘Other’ Parties (right). ...... 30
Figure 7:
Dioxin and Furan emissions (2010) from iron and steel production (1A2a and
2C1) from CLRTAP inventories as a proportion of total emission. ................................ 39
Figure 8:
Derived emission factors for iron and steel production. ................................................... 40
Figure 9:
Reporting of gridded sectoral data for 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010 to the
CLRTAP in 2012. .............................................................................................................. 42
Figure 10: Differences between PM emissions gridded in 2011 and re-gridded in 2012 for the
year 2005, Units: Mg/grid. ................................................................................................ 45
Figure 11: Maps with reported Large Point Source data for 2010. .................................................... 46
CEIP −Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
7
Inventory Review 2012 − Executive summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Parties1 to the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) have been
invited2 to report their 2010 emission data and necessary time series data or revisions of previous data in accordance with the Guidelines for Reporting Emission Data under the Convention
(ECE/EB.AIR/97). In 2012, Parties were invited in particular to report emission data on and
projections for nitrous oxides (NOx), non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs),
sulphur oxides (SOx), ammonia (NH3), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), heavy
metals (HMs) and persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Parties were also invited to report gridded data and LPS data.
According to the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook (EMEP/EEA, 2009) it
is good practice to submit inventories which are complete, consistent, comparable, transparent
and neither overestimated nor underestimated as far as can be judged. Parties are also encouraged to minimise uncertainties as far as practicable.
The technical review of national air pollutant emission inventories checks and assesses Parties’
data submissions in accordance with the review guidelines Methods and procedures for the
technical review of air pollutant emission inventories reported under the Convention and its
protocols (UNECE, 2007) with a view to improving the quality of emission data and associated
information reported to the LRTAP Convention and the European Union’s (EU) National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD).
The review process of the emission inventories is carried out in three stages (see
www.ceip.at/review-of-inventories). At each stage, national experts have the opportunity to
clarify issues or provide additional information. This present report with its Annexes provides
an overview of the results from the stage 1 and 2 review.
In 2012, ten Parties (Albania, Georgia, the European Union, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, the
Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey) were subjected to a stage 3 centralized
in-depth review. The review results – individual country reports – will be published (i.e. posted
on the CEIP website at www.ceip.at/review-results/review-results-2012) before the next annual EMEP EB meeting.
Timeliness
CLRTAP: 33 Parties (64%) reported emissions by the reporting deadline of 15th February 2012.
Between 16th February and 31st May 2012, an additional twelve Parties submitted data. This
brought the number of submissions to a total of 45 Parties (88%). Compared to last year, the
timeliness of reporting has remained stable. The EU submitted its inventory by 11th May 2012.
However, a few Parties (Albania, Armenia, Iceland, Montenegro and the Russian Federation)
delivered their data after the deadline for re-submissions, which delayed the inclusion of emission data in the EMEP database and thus impeded the assessment work performed under the
Convention. Some Parties (Albania, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia and the Russian Federation) delivered re-submissions at the end of April or May, which was too late for considering them in the
model data. Montenegro and Spain delivered re-submissions in June, which was much too late
for considering them in the model and in the review.
1
Unless otherwise noted, Parties in this report shall mean the Parties to the LRTAP Convention.
2
UNECE letter to the Parties (ehlm/ppt/lrtap/2011/139) from 23rd November 2011
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
9
Inventory Review 2012 − Executive summary
NECD: 24 MS but three (Greece, Malta and Spain) provided inventories by the required deadline of 31th December 2011, which is the same number of submissions as in the previous cycle.
Completeness of reporting
Forty-five Parties (of 51) to the Convention submitted inventories before 31st May 20123, but not
all submissions covered all pollutants4 contained in the reporting templates. Forty-five Parties reported emissions of the main pollutants and 37 Parties reported PM emissions. Cadmium, mercury
and lead emissions were provided by 38 Parties, additional HMs by 34 and priority POPs by 40
Parties. Thirty-six Parties reported activity data (AD).
All 27 MS submitted complete 2009 and 2010 inventories under the NECD.
Format
The submissions were checked against the ‘NFR09’ format agreed by the EMEP Executive Body
(EB) at its 27th session and amended, taking into account changes to the POPs Protocol. The consistency of reporting has improved significantly, but there is still historical data, particularly from
the years 1990–1999, which is only available in 10 SNAP categories.
Transparency/documentation
The quality of submitted IIRs is steadily increasing, but the transparency of reporting under
CLRTAP still leaves room for future improvement. Only 33 Parties (73% of those submitting inventories) submitted an Informative Inventory Report (IIR) in conjunction with their 2012
CLRTAP submissions although this is required by the Reporting Guidelines (UNECE, 2010).
Three Parties (Luxembourg, the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation) have not submitted an IIR to CEIP in any of the reporting rounds since 2008. Greece, Liechtenstein, Malta and
Turkey provided IIRs in 2012 for the first time.
Under the NECD there is no legal obligation for Member States to submit an inventory report.
Nevertheless, like in the previous reporting round, nine Member States submitted an Inventory
Report together with their NECD inventories.
Recalculations
All emission estimates within a time series should be estimated consistently, which means that, as
far as possible, the time series should be calculated using the same method and data sources for all
years (EMEP/EEA, 2009).
37 Parties (of 45 Parties reporting emissions in 2012) provided recalculated data. The number of
national total recalculations for individual pollutants does not differ significantly. NOx is the
pollutant recalculated most often in 2012, followed by NMVOC and CO. 11% of all national total
recalculations resulted in changes in the reported emissions by more than ± 10%. Major recalculations were most frequently observed for CO and NMVOC emissions.
3
Including the late submission by the European Union
4
Formally Parties only need to report emissions according to the Protocols they have ratified.
10
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Executive summary
Time series consistency
The tests performed under the stage 2 review identified a number of inconsistent time series,
which indicates that countries do not always recalculate historical emissions in cases where activity data, methods and/or emission factors have been revised.
Key category5 analysis (KCA)
A key category analysis was carried out both for the CLRTAP and the NECD inventories for all
Parties that submitted relevant information and posted on the CEIP website. In addition, a key category analysis of 2010 CLRTAP inventories was undertaken for the countries grouped to of “the
EU-27+EFTA+Croatia +Macedonia” and the “Other” for the main pollutants, PM, the three
HMs and priority POPs.
NOx - EU27+EFTA+HR+MK
Other Cat
Other Cat
1A1a
NOx - Other
1A1a
7A
1A2fi
1 A 4 c ii
1 A 4 c ii
1 A 2 f ii
1A4bi
1 A 3 d ii
1 A 4 b ii
1A2fi
1A4bi
1A3bi
1 A 3 b iii
1 A 3 b ii
1A3bi
1 A 3 b iii
1 A 3 b ii
Figure S1: Example of KCA results, NOx 2010 emissions – CLRTAP inventories comparison of
EU-27, EFTA, Croatia and FYR of Macedonia (left) and ‘Other’ Parties (right).
Inventory comparison
With a few exceptions, emissions reported under CLRTAP and NECD should be identical. Differences larger than 0.5% for at least one in four pollutants between 2010 emission data submitted
under the CLRTAP and those under the NECD were found for 13 Parties out of the 27 EU Member States. Differences between the CLRTAP and UNFCCC inventories6 occur more frequently
and are more pronounced.
The differences observed between emissions reported under the CLRTAP/NECD and the
UNFCCC vary and are partly due to different reporting requirements. However, for some Parties
the estimated differences indicate that emissions are not systematically recalculated and resubmitted. This is frequently the case with NECD inventories. Errors in inventories which would also
lead to differences between national total emissions cannot be identified by automated tests.
5
A key category (KC) is one that is prioritised within national inventory systems because it has a significant influence on a country’s
total inventory in terms of absolute levels of emissions or trends in emissions, or both. The key categories considered in this report are
those which, when summed up in descending order of magnitude, cumulatively add up to 80% of the total level.
6
40 inventories were compared.
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
11
Inventory Review 2012 − Executive summary
Implied emission factors (IEFs)
A comparison of implied emission factors can indicate inconsistencies in trends as well as inconsistencies between different national inventories. At least one outlier was identified for all
but two Parties. (IEFs were examined for 38 Parties in 2012, since for the remaining 13 Parties neither sectoral emissions (in NFR format) nor activity data were available.) Industrial processes are not included in the IEF analysis because it is not possible to aggregate activity data
to the level at which tests are undertaken. Identified potential inconsistencies were flagged and
made known to the Parties.
Emissions per capita and emissions per GNI/PPP7
Between 1990 and 2010 emissions per capita increased in 16 Parties (from 50). Trends in
emissions per GNI/PPP do not follow exactly the same trends as per capita emissions. Between
1990 and 2010, emissions per GNI/PPP decreased for all pollutants in most Parties which
reported 1990 emissions and for which GNI/PPP was available. Outliers may indicate differences
in national economies, but also inconsistencies between estimation methods or Parties.
Furthermore, this test can also reveal incomplete inventories.
Review of POP emission inventories
POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutants) are a set of pollutants which have caused considerable international concern over potential effects on the environment and human health. They are controlled under the UNEP Stockholm Convention and the UNECE Convention on Long Range
Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP). The review commissioned by the European Environment Agency provides an analysis of the data submitted under CLRTAP with the specific objectives of assessing the POPs inventories developed by reporting nations for completeness, overall
consistency across all reporting nations and a deeper assessment to provide a better understanding of any issues surrounding data gaps or the use of emission factors which would affect overall totals. The results of the review provided some clear overall messages with respect to the data reviewed:
• Varying numbers of inventories are submitted to CLRTAP for POPs, ranging from 25 countries submitting inventories for PCBs to 35 for PAHs, which suggests that a number of inventories are missing, particularly for PCB and HCB.
• The review has found that there is a high level of inclusion of those sources where activity
data and viable emission factors/emission monitoring are readily available. However, for
sources where in particular activity data are scarce, far fewer inventories include estimates.
This potentially represents a key gap in emissions, and even more so since regulations typically aim to reduce emissions from well-characterized industrial sources, making the absence
of estimates for diffuse sources such as domestic waste burning and accidental fires increasingly important.
7
12
GNI per capita based on purchasing power parity (PPP). PPP GNI is gross national income (GNI) converted to international dollars using purchasing power parity rates. An international dollar has the same purchasing power over GNI as a U.S. dollar has in
the United States. GNI is the sum of value added by all resident producers plus any product taxes (less subsidies) not included in
the valuation of output plus net receipts of primary income (compensation of employees and property income) from abroad.
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Executive summary
• A significant number of the inventories are dominated by a single source (>50% of total
emissions), which means that the emission factors and the approach used for that source will
have a big impact on overall estimates. This is particularly the case for HCB inventories
where 25% of the reported inventories contain 3 or fewer sources.
• One key gap is PCB emissions from NFR 2F – PCB use in dielectric equipment such as
transformers and capacitors. Only 4 out of 25 nations submitting an inventory include estimates for this source with one further inventory including these estimates under NFR 2G.
PCBs contained in dielectric equipment represent a legacy issue among POPs, while they are
also likely to be one of the most significant sources in the majority of countries. This therefore represents a key omission from the existing inventories.
• There is a lack of consistency in the identification of sources and the magnitude of sources,
for the HCB inventories submitted under the CLRTAP, with 17 different main sources recorded in the 28 inventories submitted. Equally, there is a lack in the EMEP guidebook of viable emission factors for a number of sources which may lead to further omissions or to confusion with national emission estimates.
• Due to the complexity of science and the cost of research, the development of new emission
factors is limited. Factors and other emission data can be repeatedly re-quoted within the scientific literature, with a resulting risk of mis-quoting/mis-interpreting the data. Due care is
required for understanding the factors selected for use.
18
µg I-Teq/t steel 2010 (based on combined NFR 1A2a and 2C1)
µg I-Teq/t steel
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
UK
Switzerland
Spain
Sweden
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Italy
Latvia
Montenegro
Netherlands
Hungary
Finland
France
Germany
Croatia
Czech Rep.
Canada
Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Bulgaria
Albania
0
Figure S2: Derived emission factors for iron and steel production.
Gridded data in EMEP models
Reporting of gridded data is part of the five-year reporting obligations and as such was due in
2012. 27 countries8 submitted data, with ten Parties submitting gridded emissions for 1990,
1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010 (Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Iceland,
Netherlands, Norway and Spain9).
8
Greece, Lithuania and Slovakia submitted only gridded national total data.
9
Spain submitted gridded emissions for the whole timeline.
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
13
Inventory Review 2012 − Executive summary
Historical gridded emissions were updated in 2012 to be consistent with the reported national
total emissions. The differences between the total emissions gridded in 2011 and those regridded in 2012 (with the current resubmissions for the EMEP area) are generally minor although they may be more pronounced at country level for individual years or even for the whole
time series10.
Large point sources
25 Parties (of a total of 49 in the extended EMEP domain) reported LPS information under
CLRTAP in 2012. On the other hand, 27 EU Member States plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland,
Liechtenstein and Serbia now annually submit point-source information to E-PRTR. This information should be consistent with the data required under the Convention and could easily be
used by countries for fulfilling their two reporting obligations.
10
A table listing the differences can be downloaded from
www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/emep/xls/ 2012/Diff_gridded_regridded_2012.xls.
14
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Introduction
1
INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared by the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (EMEP)
Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections (CEIP) in cooperation with the European Environment Agency (EEA). The report reflects the progress achieved in emission reporting under
the Convention in the 2012 reporting round and emission reporting under the NECD during
the latest December 2011 reporting round. It summarises the main conclusions of the annual
stage 1 and stage 2 reviews of emission data, focusing on future challenges for improving the
quality of emission data reported under the Convention and the NECD.
All Parties which submitted data in the standard format before 31st May 2012 (Figure 1) have
been included in the tests and are presented in this report. The late inventory re-submissions by
Montenegro (18th June 2012) and Spain (28th June 2012) could not be considered.
1.1
Reporting obligations
Parties to the CLRTAP are invited to submit air pollutant emission data annually to the CEIP or,
alternatively, to post their data on the European Environment Agency’s (EEA) Central Data Repository (CDR)11 and to notify the UNECE Secretariat thereof in accordance with the Guidelines for Reporting Emission Data under the Convention (ECE/EB.AIR/97). In 2012, Parties
were requested in particular to report emission data on nitrous oxides (NOx), non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs), sulphur oxides (SOx), ammonia (NH3), particulate matter
(PM), carbon monoxide (CO), heavy metals (HMs) and persistent organic pollutants (POPs).
The deadline for the submission of 2010 data was 15th February 2012. A summary of the reporting obligations can be downloaded from the CEIP website12. Parties to the Convention are requested to report emission inventory data using the nomenclature for reporting (NFR) templates
in accordance with the EMEP Emission Reporting Guidelines (UNECE, 2009), as endorsed by
the EMEP Steering Body. Submissions should consist of both quantitative and qualitative information. Qualitative data, including a description of methodologies, should be included in the
voluntary informative inventory reports (IIR). The IIRs13 are to be submitted in one of the working languages of the UNECE (English, French or Russian) and, where relevant, Parties are encouraged to submit also an English translation of their reports.
Submitted inventories should be in accordance with the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook (EMEP, EEA, 2009). It is considered good practice to report inventories
which are complete, consistent, comparable and transparent, and neither overestimated nor underestimated to the best of the Parties’ judgement. Parties are also encouraged to reduce uncertainties of estimates as far as practicable.
11
12
13
cdr.eionet.europa.eu
www.ceip.at/reporting-instructions
See Annex VI to Reporting Guidelines “Recommended structure for Informative Inventory Report”.
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
15
Inventory Review 2012 − Introduction
European Union (EU) Member States also report their emissions of SO2, NOx, NMVOCs and
NH3 under the NEC Directive 2001/81/EC on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric
pollutants (NECD)14, and emissions of NOx, CO, NMVOCs and SO2 under the EU Greenhouse
Gas Monitoring Mechanism (EU-MM)15. This information should also be copied, by the
Member States, into the EEA’s Eionet Reportnet Central Data Repository (CDR).
The three reporting obligations differ in the number and type of air pollutants, the geographical
coverage of Parties (for example, the inclusion (or non-inclusion) of overseas dependencies and
territories of France, Spain, Portugal and the UK) and the inclusion of domestic and international
aviation and navigation in the national total, but for most Parties the differences are minimal.
The CLRTAP and NECD reporting formats are identical, CLRTAP and UNFCCC emission inventories differ slightly with respect to their sector split.
Table 1: Main differences between the reporting obligations under the CLRTAP, NECD and the
UNFCCC.
EU NECD
LRTAP Convention —NFR
(a)
EU-MM/UNFCCC —CRF
Air pollutants
NOx, SOx, NMVOCs, NH3
NOx, SOx, CO, NMVOCs, NH3,
HMs, POPs, PM
NOx, SOx, NMVOCs, CO
Domestic aviation
(landing and take-off)
Included in national
total
Included in national
total
Included in national
total
Domestic aviation (cruise)
Not included in
national total (c)
Not included in
national total (c)
Included in national
total
International aviation
(landing and take-off)
Included in national
total
Included in national
total
Not included in
national total (c)
International aviation
(cruise)
Not included in
national total (c)
Not included in
national total(c)
Not included in
national total (c)
National navigation
(domestic shipping)
Included in national
total
Included in national
total
Included in national
total
International inland
shipping
Included in national
total
Included in national
total
Not included in
national total (c)
International maritime
Not included in
national total (c)
Not included in
national total (c)
Not included in
national total (c)
Road transport
Emissions calculated
based on fuel sold (d)
Emissions calculated based
on fuel sold (d)
Emissions calculated
based on fuel sold
(b)
Note:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
‘NFR’ denotes ‘nomenclature for reporting’, a sectoral classification system developed by UNECE/EMEP for
reporting air emissions.
‘CRF’ is the sectoral classification system developed by the UNFCCC for the reporting of greenhouse gases.
Categories not included in national totals should still be reported by Parties as so-called ‘memo items’.
In addition, Parties may report emission estimates on a fuel consumed basis as a ‘memo’ item.
Parties are requested to check their submissions for correct formatting, internal consistency and
completeness before transmitting them to the CEIP secretariat for reviews. To facilitate this task,
the latest update of the electronic data-checking tool, RepDab, has been made available to Parties at www.ceip.at/check-your-inventory-repdab.
14
Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23th October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain
atmospheric pollutants, Official journal of the European Communities L309, 27.11.2001, p. 22.
15
Council Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11th February 2004 concerning a mechanism
for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol, Official journal of the European Communities L49, 19.02.2004, p. 1.
16
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Introduction
1.2
Accessibility of emission data
The 2012 stage 1 and 2 review assessed emission data (including gridded data) reported under
the CLRTAP to the UNECE Secretariat and emissions reported by EU Member States under the
National Emission Ceilings Directive before 31th May 2012. The information submitted by
Parties during the 2012 reporting round can be accessed via the CEIP webpage at
www.ceip.at/overview-of-submissions-under-clrtap/2012-submissions.
In addition, the officially reported emission data were made available on the CEIP website on
27th June 2012 (www.ceip.at/webdab-emission-database/officially-reported-emission-data).
Gap-filled and gridded emission data for modellers were completed by 20th April 2012 and distributed to all EMEP centres. This data was also made available on the CEIP website on 27th
June 2012 (www.ceip.at/webdab-emission-database/emissions-as-used-in-emep-models).
The data reported under the National Ceilings Directive is made available to the public through
the EEA’s Data Service website16. Annual stage 1 Status reports (22nd March 2012) and
stage 2 Synthesis and assessment reports (8th May 2012) were posted on the CEIP homepage
and national contact points were provided with user names and passwords for online access to
the data and provision of feedback to CEIP.
1.3
Review process
The technical review of national inventories checks and assesses Parties' data submissions with a
view to improving the quality of emission data and associated information reported to the Convention. The technical review is carried out annually by EMEP and the EEA. It is performed in accordance with the methods and procedures for the technical review of air pollutant emission inventories endorsed by the Executive Body of the CLRTAP at its 25th session in December 2007
(UNECE, 2007, in line with the 2012 work plan of the Convention (ECE/EB.AIR/109/Add.2)).
The process is carried out in three stages. At each stage, national experts have the opportunity to
clarify issues or provide additional information. They may also express their views at meetings
of the Task Force on Emission Inventories and Projections. As in the previous three years, the
technical review of inventories has been carried out in three stages:
Stage 1: initial check of submissions for timeliness and completeness;
Stage 2: synthesis and assessment of all national submissions with regard to the consistency
and comparability of data, with recommendations for data quality improvement;
Stage 3: in-depth reviews of selected Parties’ inventories by pollutant and sector, according
to the work plan agreed by the Executive Body.
16
EEA Data Service: dataservice.eea.europa.eu/dataservice
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
17
Inventory Review 2012 − Stage I review
2
STAGE I REVIEW
The stage 1 review performed by CEIP consists of automated tests which assess the timeliness,
completeness and format of the submitted national inventories. Stage 1 tests applied in the 2012
review were:
1a Timeliness of reporting
1b Format of submission
1c Completeness per sector for 2010 emissions
1d Completeness per pollutant for submitted time series (separately for 1980–1989, 1990–
1999 and for 2000–2010). Both sectoral data and national total emissions were tested.
The results of these initial automated tests were presented online in the form of individual country Stage 1 Status reports by 22nd March 2012. Parties were invited to provide comments or resubmissions, if applicable, within two weeks.
2.1
Timeliness
2.1.1 CLRTAP
45 Parties (out of 51) to the Convention submitted inventories before 31st May 2012 (see Figure
1). 33 Parties reported emission data by the due date17 of 15th February 2012, which was a similar number of Parties compared with the 2011 reporting round. Thirty-three Parties resubmitted
data, which was a huge increase compared with the previous reporting rounds since 2008 where
only 15 to 20 Parties resubmitted their inventories. No data were provided by two Parties with
mandatory reporting obligations – the Republic of Moldova and the United States. More details
are provided in Appendix 1, Table 9.
2.1.2 NECD
In the 2011 reporting round18, 24 of the 27 Member States submitted their national inventories
of SO2, NOx, NMVOC and NH3 to the Commission on or before the reporting deadline of
31st December 2011. The three remaining Member States (Slovenia, Greece and Malta) delivered their inventories by 14th February 2012 (see Figure 2). Nine Member States provided additional or revised data between 6th January 2012 and 24th April 2012.
An overview of the status of reporting under the NECD is given in Annex A – Status of reporting under NECD (separate file).
17
The reporting deadline for the EU-27 inventory is 30th April and for the IIR it is 30th May (UNECE, 2009).
18
Pursuant to Article 8 of the NECD Member States are required to report their emission inventories for the previous year but oneby 31st December each year, along with preliminary emission inventories for the previous year.
18
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Stage I review
Figure 1: Status of official submissions to the CLRTAP in 2012 (the deadline for E U to submit its
inventory is 30th April).
Note: Bars indicate submission of NFR tablesand symbols indicate reporting of Informative Inventory Reports
(IIR), Gridded data (GRID) and Large Point Sources (LPS).
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
19
Inventory Review 2012 − Stage I review
Late
submissions
Submissions within deadline
Date of submission
09/02/2012
30/01/2012
20/01/2012
10/01/2012
31 December 2011
31/12/2011
21/12/2011
11/12/2011
Spain
Greece
Malta
Finland
UK
Germany
France
Denmark
Ireland
Sweden
Belgium
Netherlands
Lithuania
Cyprus
Slovenia
Poland
Romania
Czech Rep.
Austria
Bulgaria
Hungary
Slovakia
Latvia
Estonia
Luxembourg
Portugal
Italy
01/12/2011
Figure 2: Date of NECD inventory provision to the CDR or the European Commission in 2011/2012.
2.2
Completeness
2.2.1 CLRTAP
Completeness –pollutants: 45 Parties (44 in 2011) to the Convention submitted inventories but
not all submissions contained all pollutants. 45 Parties (44 in 2011, 43 in 2010, 40 in 2009, 38
in 2008) reported their 2010 emissions of the main pollutants. Cadmium, mercury and lead
emissions were provided by 38 Parties (37 in 2011, 34 in 2010 and 2009), additional HMs by 34
(30 in 2011, 28 in 2010, 29 in 2009), PM by 37 (37 in 2011, 34 in 2010, 33 in 2009) and priority
POPs by 40 Parties (37 in 2011, 35 in 2010, 32 in 2009). Activity data (a reporting obligation
from 2009 onwards) were reported by 36 Parties, whereas in 2011 32 Parties reported their Activity Data (Appendix 1, Table 10).
Completeness of time series: A number of Parties to the Convention that submitted data in the
2012 reporting round did not provide complete time series in the standard format in line with the
current reporting requirements: Complete time series of the main pollutants in NFR format for
1990–2010, which is the period relevant for the review of the Gothenburg Protocol, were reported by 26 Parties. 23 Parties provided complete time series (1990–2010) of the main heavy
metals. 26 Parties reported on the requested time series of particulate matter (2000–2010). 24
Parties provided full time series (at least 1990–2010) of POPs (Appendix 1, Table 10).
Projections: In 2012, 21 Parties (19 Parties in 2011, 17 Parties in 2010 and 20 in 2009) submitted emission projections, out of which 20 Parties (14 in 2011, 11 in 2010 and 12 in 2009) submitted data for 2020 and/or 2030 projections (Appendix 1, Table 11).
An up-to-date overview of the data as submitted by Parties during the 2012 reporting round is
available at www.ceip.at/overview-of-submissions-under-clrtap/2012-submissions. In addition,
it has been possible since 27th June 2012, to access officially reported emission data online at
www.ceip.at/webdab-emission-database/officially-reported-emission-data.
A number of Parties do not submit information regularly in the annual reporting rounds under
the Convention. Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of
Moldova and the United States of America did not submit any data in 2012. Not all of these Parties are Parties to any of the pollutant-specific Protocols and only the Republic of Moldova and
the United States of America have a reporting obligation.
20
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Stage I review
2.2.2 NECD
In the 2012 reporting cycle19, all 27 Member States provided the mandatory information on final
emissions for the year 2009 and preliminary emission data for 201020. Thirteen EU Member
States still submitted projections for 2010, 8 for 2015 and 2020, 5 for 2030 and 2 for 2050.
Twelve Member States did not submit any projection data (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Sweden and the United Kingdom). An
overview of NECD emission inventory data (status as of 1st April 2011) is provided in Annex A,
Tables 1 and 2.
2.3
Format
2.3.1 CLRTAP
Except Armenia, Italy and Liechtenstein, all Parties submitted their inventories using the
NFR09 templates which can be downloaded from the CEIP website at www.ceip.at/reportinginstructions/annexes-to-the-reporting-guidelines. Armenia submitted only emission data from
a few sectors (public electricity and heat production, industrial processes and agriculture) in a
Word document. Italy submitted its inventory data using the previous NFR08 templates, which are
very similar to NFR09, except for differences in the allocation of LTO, cruise and international
inland shipping emissions. Liechtenstein submitted their inventory in the old NFR02 format.
Six Parties (Canada, Georgia, Monaco, Norway, Spain and the European Union) submitted part
of the data in non-standard excel files making manual editing of submissions necessary before the
data could be loaded to the database. A number of Parties still have to submit 1990–1999
CLRTAP data in NFR tables.
2.3.2 NECD
The consistency of the reporting formats submitted under the NECD is similar to the previous
reporting round. All 27 Member States submitted data in standard formats (25 Member States
submitted their inventories in the NFR09 templates and two Member States used the NFR08
templates for reporting).
19
The reporting deadline for the actual NECD reporting cycle was 31 Dec 2011. It has to be noted that under the mandatory reporting of NECD, Member States should have reported inventories for 2009 (final) and 2010 (preliminary).
20
See www.eea.europa.eu/publications/nec-directive-status-report-2011
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
21
Inventory Review 2012 − Stage I review
2.4
Transparency and Informative Inventory Reports
Transparency means that Parties provide clear documentation (IIR) and report emissions and activity data at a level of disaggregation which provides sufficient understanding of how the inventory was compiled, thereby assuring that it meets good practice requirements.
In 2012, the number of Informative Inventory Reports (IIRs) submitted by Parties under the
CLRTAP increased by five Parties to 33 (73% of those submitting inventories) compared to the
previous year. The quality of submitted national IIRs improved significantly within the last
2 years. Complex reports are submitted e.g. by Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland,
France, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United
Kingdom. EMEP appreciates recent improvements in Lichtenstein, FYR of Macedonia, Malta
and Turkey.
Three Parties to the Protocols, namely Luxembourg, Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation did not submit an IIR to CEIP in any of the last six reporting rounds. It has to be noted that
an efficient stage 3 review is possible only for Parties which submit an IIR.Armenia and Georgia
are encouraged to provide explanatory information along with their inventory submissions.
22
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Stage 2 review
3
STAGE 2 REVIEW
The stage 2 tests assess the recalculations, key category analysis, inventory comparison, trends
and time series of the submitted national inventories. In the 2012 review round the following
stage 2 tests were performed:
2a Recalculations
2b Key category analysis – CLRTAP
2c Key category analysis – NECD
2d Inventory comparison
2e Time series
2f Trends
2g Implied emission factors (IEF)
2h Emissions per capita and emissions per GNI/PPP
Data included in the stage 2 review were the emissions submitted under the CLRTAP, emissions reported under the NECD to the European Commission and the EEA, and emissions reported under the UNFCCC and EEA before 3rd May 2012. The results of the tests were made
available to the Parties in the form of individual reports by 8th May 2012. Parties were requested
to respond within four weeks after receiving the information.
3.1
Recalculations
All emission estimates within a time series should be estimated consistently – the time series
should be calculated using the same method and data sources for all years. It is important and necessary to identify inventory recalculations and to understand their origin in order to correctly
evaluate the officially reported emission data. This is especially the case when emission ceiling
targets are expressed in absolute terms (as in the Gothenburg Protocol and NECD) and not as
percentage reduction targets (as in the Kyoto Protocol for greenhouse gases). The magnitude of
recalculations can also provide an indication of the general uncertainty in emissions.
3.1.1 CLRTAP
In test (2a), differences between national total emissions reported by Parties to the CLRTAP in
2012 and 2011 are determined and variances larger than ± 10% are flagged21 (see Annex B –
Recalculations of CLRTAP and NECD emission data in 2012 (separate file) Table 1).
Of 45 reporting Parties, 37 provided recalculated data for at least some pollutants.
The number of recalculations for individual components does not differ significantly and varies
between 216 and 566, whereas NOx is the pollutant recalculated most often, followed by
NMVOC, CO, and SOx. Compared to last year, the total number of recalculations has increased
(from 4,918 to 5,849).
21
The formula used to calculate the magnitude of recalculations is 100*[(X2012 –X2011)/X2011], where X2012 denotes emissions reported
in 2012 and X2011 represents emission reported in 2011.
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
23
Inventory Review 2012 − Stage 2 review
Focusing on the number of recalculations larger than ± 10% (highlighted cells in Annex B –
Recalculations of CLRTAP and NECD emission data in 2012 (separate file)) it can be seen that
11% (15% in 2011, 23% in 2010 and 16% in 2009) of all recalculations were higher than ± 10%.
Large differences were most frequently observed for CO and NMVOC. Extreme differences
were observed for example in Belgium (HCB – 2009), Luxembourg (NOx – 2003 to 2007), and
the FYR of Macedonia (HM emissions of 1998, 2001 and 2002).
3.1.2 NECD
The magnitude of recalculations exceeds 10% in a few cases only. The highest relative differences for the period 1990–2009 occurred in Portugal, followed by Ireland, for NOx, in Sweden
(followed by Denmark and Finland) for NMVOC, in Spain (followed by Denmark) for SO2 and
in France (followed by Sweden) for NH3. Data for several Member States were missing both in
the 2010 and the 2011 submissions.
3.2
Time series consistency
All emission estimates in a time series should be estimated consistently, which means that, as
far as possible, the time series should be calculated using the same method and data sources for
all years. Using different methods and data within a time series could introduce bias because the
estimated emission trend will reflect not only real changes in emissions but also the pattern of
methodological refinements (EMEP/EEA, 2009).
Reported PCDD/PCDF emissions
180
160
140
Bulgaria
Belarus
Croatia
Hungary
Slovakia
g PCDD/PCDF
120
100
80
60
40
20
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
0
Figure 3: Examples of PCDD/PCDF trends with dips, jumps and gaps.
Test 2e: Covers only data reported in one of the NFR reporting formats and for which at least
three reported years were analysed. Time series with a large sigma (standard deviation > 0.2)
24
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Stage 2 review
were generally flagged22 (test 2e). An individual value within the time series was identified as a
dip/jump if the respective residual value (regression forecast value – reported value) was greater
than 2.5 standard deviations from the mean of all residuals within the time series. Only time series
responsible for a significant fraction (> 3%) of the national total were included. Flagged data were
provided to Parties in tables at www.ceip.at/review-results/review-results-2012 in “Time series”.
Test 2f: The trend figures of national total emissions, which are part of the stage 2 findings, include all submitted data irrespective of the chosen format of reporting (e.g. both SNAP sectors
and NFR sectors). A number of dips and jumps were still observed (see trend graphs at
www.ceip.at/review-results/review-results-2012).
Both tests identified a number of inconsistent time series, what indicates that countries do not
always recalculate historical emissions in case activity data, methods and/or emission factors
have been revised. See examples in Figure 3 and Figure 4.
Reported Pb emissions
500
Bulgaria
Estonia
Montenegro
Mg Pb
400
300
200
100
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
0
Figure 4: Examples of Pb trends with dips, jumps and gaps.
3.3
Key category analysis (KCA)
Key category23 analysis is a tool which provides the results giving interesting information on
reported inventories. However, detailed analyses of the results are beyond the scope of this report. Included in the test were countries of the EU-27, EFTA, Croatia and Macedonia, thus in
total 33 Parties, compared to the 15 other Parties which submitted 2010 emissions in NFR categories (see Figure 5 and Figure 6).
Where the total number of key categories for a particular pollutant was more than 10, emissions
were summed up in ‘Other’ key categories, which contain the remaining (non-key) categories.
Parties may allocate emissions to NFR categories in different ways. Some Parties make use of
22
Reported time series data were log 10-transformed prior to analysis in order to reduce intra-series variability and improve general
time series linearity. A linear regression was subsequently applied to the log-transformed values for each time series.
23
A key category is one that has a significant influence on a country’s total inventory in terms of absolute levels of emissions, or
trends in emissions, or both. Following the revised EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook (EEA/EMEP,
2009), the Key categories are those which, when summed up in descending order of magnitude, cumulatively add up to 80% of
the total level.
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
25
Inventory Review 2012 − Stage 2 review
the emission inventory notation key IE (included elsewhere) or allocate emissions to the ‘Other’
(sub)category, which means that emission estimates for one NFR sector are included in emission estimates of a different sector.
A number of emission categories were identified as key categories for both groups (“the EU-27,
EFTA, Croatia and Macedonia” and the “Other”24) for more than one of the 13 pollutants that
were assessed. 10 pollutants (all except NMVOC and NH3) are emitted mainly from combustion
processes. The results of the KCA show that:
1A4bi Residential – Stationary plants is the most important source for the pollutants assessed
for this report: like last year (for 2009), 1A4bi was a key source of all pollutants except NH3
also for 2010 and mostly ranks among the top three KC. 1A4bi is the most significant key
source of NMVOC, PM2.5, PM10, CO, Cd, PCDD/PCDF and PAH emissions.
1A1a Public Electricity and Heat Production is among the key categories for ten assessed
pollutants (except NMVOC, NH3 and PAH).
1A2fi Stationary Combustion in Manufacturing Industries and Construction – Other is among
the key categories for nine assessed pollutants (except NMVOC, NH3, PAH and HCB).
The list is followed by 2C1 Iron and steel production, which is the largest source of HCB.
2C1 also significantly contributes to CO, Cd, Hg and PCDD/PCDF emissions.
1A3biii Road Transportation – Heavy duty vehicles is a key source of NOx, NMVOC, CO,
PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. It is the most important key source of NOx in the countries of the
EU-27, EFTA, Croatia and Macedonia.
Table 2: Total number of categories identified as key categories in the 2010 inventories for individual
pollutants in the countries of the EU-27, EFTA, Croatia and the FYR of Macedonia and the
15 remaining Parties.
NOx
NMVOC
SOx
NH3
PM2.5
PM10
CO
Pb
Cd
Hg
PCDD/F
PAH
HCB
EU27 +
EFTA +
HR + MK
9
17
6
5
13
18
9
8
7
8
8
5
4
Other
9
15
6
5
11
13
8
4
5
2
3
2
3
The number of key categories is higher in the group of theEU-27, EFTA, Croatia and FYR of
Macedonia for all pollutants, except for NOx, SOx and NH3. The most significant differences
have been observed in the reporting of PM10, Hg and PCDD/PCDF (Table 2). The fact that fewer key categories have been identified in the ‘Other’ countries means that notation keys like IE
or NE are used more frequently instead of numbers. This means in practice that emissions are
either aggregated or not estimated.
24
From Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova there is no contribution to the key category analysis because of missing emission data for 2010.
26
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Stage 2 review
NOx - EU27+EFTA+HR+MK
NOx - Other
Other Cat
1A1a
Other Cat
1A1a
7A
1A2fi
1 A 4 c ii
1 A 4 c ii
1 A 2 f ii
1A4bi
1 A 3 d ii
1 A 4 b ii
1A2fi
1A4bi
1A3bi
1 A 3 b iii
1A3bi
1 A 3 b iii
1 A 3 b ii
NMVOC - EU27+EFTA+HR+MK
1A3bi
Other Cat
1 A 3 b ii
NMVOC - Other
1 A 3 b iv
1A3bi
Other Cat
1A4bi
1 B 2 a iv
Other KC
2D2
3A1
3D3
3D2
3C
1 A 3 b ii
Other KC
1 A 3 b iii
7A
1A3bv
2D2
1A4bi
3A2
1B2c
1B2ai
SOx - EU27+EFTA+HR+MK
1 A 4 b ii
SOx - Other
Other Cat
Other Cat
2A7a
1A4bi
1A1a
1A4bi
1A1a
1 A 3 d ii
1A2fi
1A2b
1A2fi
1A2a
1A2a
1A1b
NH3 - Other
NH3 - EU27+EFTA+HR+MK
Other Cat
4B1a
Other Cat
4B1a
4D1a
4D1a
4B1b
4B1b
4B9a
4B9a
4B8
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
4B8
27
Inventory Review 2012 − Stage 2 review
PM2.5 - EU27+EFTA+HR+MK
Other Cat
Other KC
PM2.5 - Other
1A1a
1A2fi
1A3bi
1 A 3 b ii
1 A 3 b iii
2C1
1 A 3 b vi
2A7a
Other Cat
1A1a
Other KC
7A
1A2b
2A7b
1A2fi
2A7a
1 A 4 c ii
1 A 3 b iii
2A1
1A4bi
1A4bi
1B2c
PM10 - EU27+EFTA+HR+MK
PM10 - Other
1A1a
Other Cat
1A2fi
1A3bi
1 A 3 b iii
1 A 3 b vi
Other KC
Other Cat
1A1a
Other KC
1A2b
7A
4D1a
4D2a
4B8
1A4bi
2A7a
1 A 4 c ii
1 A 3 b iii
2A7b
1A4bi
2A7a
2A1
CO - Other
CO - EU27+EFTA+HR+MK
1A1a
Other Cat
1B2c
1A2a
Other Cat
1A2a
1A2b
1A2fi
2C1
2C1
1A3bi
1A4ci
1 A 3 b iii
1B2c
1 A 4 b ii
1 A 3 b iv
1A4bi
1A3bi
1 A 3 b ii
1 A 3 b iii
Figure 5: KCA of 2010 emissions Main pollutants and PM – CLRTAP inventories comparison of EU-27,
EFTA, Croatia and FYR of Macedonia (left) and ‘Other’ Parties (right).
28
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Stage 2 review
Pb - Other
Pb - EU27+EFTA+HR+MK
Other Cat
1A1a
Other Cat
1A1a
1A2a
1A2b
1A2fi
6Cb
2C5b
1A2fi
2C1
2C1
1 A 3 b vi
1A4bi
Cd - Other
Cd - EU27+EFTA+HR+MK
Other Cat
1A1a
Other Cat
1A1a
1A2b
2C5a
2C1
1A2fi
1A2fi
1A4ci
1A4ai
2C1
1 A 3 d ii
1A4bi
Hg - EU27+EFTA+HR+MK
Hg - Other
Other Cat
Other Cat
1A1a
2C1
1A2fi
2A1
1A1a
1A1b
1A4bi
1A4ai
1 A 3 d ii
1A2fi
PCDD/PCDF - EU27+EFTA+HR+MK
1A1a
Other Cat
6D
PCDD/PCDF - Other
Other Cat
1A2a
1A2fi
1A4bi
6Cb
6Ce
6Cb
1A4bi
2C1
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
2C1
29
Inventory Review 2012 − Stage 2 review
PAH - Other
PAH - EU27+EFTA+HR+MK
Other Cat
1A2b
1B2av
Other Cat
4F
1A4bi
2C3
3C
2C1
HCB - Other
HCB - EU27+EFTA+HR+MK
1A1a
Other Cat
Other Cat
1A4bi
4G
2C2
2G
2C1
2C5e
Figure 6: KCA of 2010 emissions HMs and POPs – CLRTAP inventories comparison ofEU-27, EFTA,
Croatia and FYR of Macedonia (left) and ‘Other’ Parties (right).
EU-27+EFTA+ HR+MK: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, FYR of Macedonia, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom
Other25: Belarus, Georgia, Monaco, Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine
3.4
Inventory comparisons
The reasons for differences between emissions reported under the CLRTAP/NECD and the
UNFCCC are differences in reporting obligations (see details in Table 1). A comparison of the
national totals from different inventory submissions immediately shows potential inconsistencies
between inventories.
A summary of the results of the comparison between officially reported data to the NECD,
CLRTAP and the UNFCCC for 1990 and the most recent reported year (2010) is provided in
Annex D. Differences are expressed as percentages (%).
25
30
From Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Republic of Moldova there is no contribution to the key category analysis because of missing emission data for 2010.
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Stage 2 review
3.4.1 CLRTAP/NECD comparisons
In spite of the fact that reporting obligations under CLRTAP and NECD26 are identical for most
Parties, differences of more than 0.5% in national totals for one or more air pollutants have been
observed in 13 Parties (Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy,
Luxembourg, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Spain).
The largest differences in 2010 for NOx appeared in Austria (23.7%) and Luxembourg (55.3%).
A difference of more than 10% between 2010 CLRTAP and NECD SOx emissions was observed in Luxembourg (24.1%) and Latvia (-132.6%). In 2010 data on NH3 emissions showed
the largest differences in Denmark (7.6%) and Luxembourg (15.8%). Maximum deviations in
2010 for NMVOC were detected in Slovenia (3.9%), Portugal (3.5%) and Spain (3.2%).
In general, all disparities which indicate that CLRTAP emissions are lower than NECD data,
suggest potential errors in one of the data sets.
3.4.2 CLRTAP/UNFCCC comparisons
Major differences between national total emissions reported under CLRTAP and emissions reported under UNFCCC occur more frequently than when comparing CLRTAP and NECD inventories. Not all of them can be explained by different reporting obligations. The Russian Federation data cannot be compared because its inventories reported under CLRTAP and UNFCCC
do not refer to the same area.
Differences of more than 10% in 2010 NOx emission data were observed in Bulgaria, Romania,
the Ukraine, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Turkey and the USA.
The largest differences in 2010 SOx emission were detected in Bulgaria (-220.7%), Belarus
(-86.6%), the Russian Federation (+53.3%), Turkey (+72.1%), USA (+43.3%) and Monaco
(-33.2%).
In 2010, NMVOC data showing a difference of more than 30% were provided by France
(-143,9%), the Russian Federation (-118.2%), Turkey (-114.9%), Switzerland (-109%), the
Ukraine (-73.29%), Luxembourg (+55.5%), Liechtenstein (+47.5%), Belgium (-47.1%), Romania (+44.1%), Bulgaria (+42%), Belarus (+34.7%) and Estonia (+33.9%).
The largest differences in 2010 CO emissions were reported by Belarus (+31.3%), the US
(+34.8%), Portugal (-41.2%), Turkey (+68.4%), Liechtenstein (+98%), the Russian Federation
(-161.8%) and Malta (-194.7%).
Errors in inventories, which would also lead to differences between inventories, cannot be identified by automated tests as these tests are currently still being designed. These errors can only be
detected during the stage 3 review.
26
The NECD covers emissions from all sources of NOx, NMVOCs, SO2 and NH3 which arise as a result of human activities within
the territory of the Member States and their exclusive economic zones except:
a) emissions from international maritime traffic;
b) aircraft emissions beyond the landing and take-off cycle;
c) for Spain, emissions in the Canary Islands;
d) for France, emissions in the overseas departments;
e) for Portugal, emissions in Madeira and the Azores.
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
31
Inventory Review 2012 − Stage 2 review
3.5
Implied emission factor (IEF) tests
The objective of the implied emission factors (IEF) test was to identify significant changes of IEFs
within time series and/or between Parties. Implied emission factors were calculated for the
sectors identified as key categories27 for the year 2010. The pollutants examined are NOx,
NMVOC, SOx, NH3, CO, PM10 and PM2.5, but not all identified key categories are keys for each
pollutant (for more information please refer to section 3.3).
Implied emission factor (IEF) tests were conducted for selected key categories (1A1a, 1A1b,
1A2a, 1A2f, 1A3b, 1A4b, 1A4c, 3A, 3C, 4B1a, 4B1b, 4B8, 4B9 and 4D1a) for 38 Parties28
(out of 51) for which inventories in NFR categories and activity data were available. However,
some of these Parties did not submit complete time series in comparable formats, therefore the
possibility to deliver useful IEF test results was limited. The remaining 13 Parties either did
not report emissions in NFR sectors or activity data were not available.
IEF values were calculated from emission data reported by Parties to the CLRTAP until 2012 and
sectoral activity data reported to the European Commission under the EU-Monitoring Mechanism
Decision29 or under the UNFCCC. The NECD inventories were not included in the IEF test while,
according to the new Reporting Guidelines (UNECE, 2009), the inventories reported under the
LRTAP Convention and NEC Directive should be largely identical for most EU Member States.
The IEFs were analysed with the UNFCCC outlier tool30. Due to the multitude of the potential
outliers resulting from the automated tests, the test results were evaluated manually. It should be
noted that not every outlier highlighted by the automated IEF tool is included in the statistics
below. Examples of IEFs that have been flagged were illustrated in previous review reports (Inventory review 2009 and Inventory review 2010).
The authors would like to state that flagged IEF values do not necessarily indicate any underlying inconsistency in an inventory: dips and jumps within the time series might simply be due to
industries having closed or to changes in the fuel splits in a single year, etc. Differences across
Parties might similarly be due to different types of activity data used for calculation, use of
different abatement equipment, different fuel splits, etc.
The number of findings in 2012 is lower than the ones identified in 2011, but higher than the
years before. The reason for that is that last year a high number of unresolved, partly resolved or
not answered findings from previous years were included and this year these questions were not
asked again. A large number of responses were submitted concerning the findings of the year
2008 (93%, Table 3), but for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 a lot of answers are still missing.
Nine Parties (Belarus, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Iceland, Russian Federation, Slovenia,
Turkey, Ukraine) have not provided responses to any findings.
27
The key categories change minimally between the years. Using the same key sources in the tests enables comparisons across different reporting years.
28
27 EU Member states plus Belarus, Canada, Croatia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Norway, Switzerland, Russian Federation,
Turkey and Ukraine.
29
Council Decision No 280/2004/EC concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol.
30
It has to be noted that despite activity data being reporting under the CLRTAP we have not been able to perform the implied emission
factor test using reported CLRTAP activity data due to missing data and a number of inconsistencies.
32
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Stage 2 review
Table 3: Number of IEF findings provided to the Parties for consideration.
2008
Findings
2008
Responses
2009
Findings
2009
Responses
2010
Findings
2010
Responses
2011
Findings
2011
Responses
2012
Findings
Austria
4
4
0
0
0
Belarus
0
0
1
0
3
0
8
8
1
0
20
0
Belgium
17
17
2
0
4
7
7
21
21
10
Bulgaria
4
4
3
Canada
0
0
7
0
4
0
36
0
17
0
5
0
0
0
5
Croatia
0
0
Cyprus
8
8
1
1
6
6
21
16
5
1
0
3
0
29
0
18
Czech
Republic
0
0
0
0
3
0
28
0
13
Denmark
5
5
6
6
1
1
11
11
11
Estonia
16
15
0
0
14
14
20
0
5
Finland
15
15
5
5
11
11
23
21
11
France
0
0
0
0
2
0
7
0
5
Germany
10
10
4
4
2
2
13
10
6
Greece
0
0
1
1
7
7
8
1
4
Hungary
22
22
1
0
4
0
30
0
11
Iceland
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
3
Ireland
6
6
3
0
3
0
12
0
1
Italy
4
4
1
1
0
0
7
7
2
Latvia
5
5
6
6
1
1
7
0
2
Liechtenstein
0
0
0
0
7
7
17
0
0
Lithuania
3
2
1
1
4
4
23
12
2
Luxembourg
0
0
0
0
2
0
7
0
1
Malta
10
10
5
5
4
4
4
0
8
Monaco
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
1
Netherlands
14
14
2
0
3
0
16
0
5
Norway
7
7
0
0
0
0
15
0
4
Poland
2
0
0
0
1
0
24
0
4
Portugal
18
18
2
2
5
5
13
0
5
Romania
2
2
0
0
2
0
5
5
6
Russian
Federation
0
0
3
0
0
0
18
0
2
Slovakia
6
6
6
6
10
10
18
18
5
Slovenia
2
0
4
0
4
0
14
0
2
Spain
7
3
0
0
2
0
12
12
3
Sweden
9
9
1
1
6
6
9
9
2
Switzerland
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
4
Turkey
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
Ukraine
0
0
3
0
6
0
29
0
8
United
Kingdom
11
11
2
2
1
1
7
7
0
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
33
Inventory Review 2012 − Stage 2 review
3.6
Comparability −Emissions per capita, emissions per GNI
Two indicators, namely emissions per capita and emissions per GNI/PPP31 were calculated for all
Parties which submitted national total emissions of the main pollutants – PM, HMs, PCDD/PCDF,
PAHs and HCB – to CEIP and for which population statistics and GNI/PPP data were available.
Information on population and GNI/PPP comes from the “World Bank Database”
and
data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.
(data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL
GNP.PCAP.PP.CD).
The 1990 (for PM 2000) and 2010 values for each Party are presented in Appendix 2. The tables
with complete time series of these indicators were posted in a separate file on the CEIP webpage
(www.ceip.at/review-results/review-results-2012).
Table 4 and Table 5 show that for all assessed pollutants the highest and lowest per capita emissions per GNI/PPP emissions differ significantly from the average values (sometimes by a few
orders of magnitude). A more detailed analysis of these indicators is outside the scope of this
report, but the information is provided to the reviewers when checking national inventories in
the stage 3 review. Outliers might indicate differences in national economies but also errors in
calculations. Low per capita and per GNI/PPP emissions in some Parties seem also indicate incomplete national inventories, particularly for PM and POPs data.
3.6.1 Emissions per capita
Table 4: Overview of emissions per capita.
Emissions per/cap in 2010
min
middle 50% of the countries
Pollutant
Party
NOx
Georgia
NMVOC
Malta
SOx
Monaco
NH3
PM2.5
PM10
Liechtenstein
1.2
CO
Cyprus
17.1
36 - 71
Pb
Lithuania
0.8
Cd
Denmark
Hg
Malta
PCDD/PCDF
PAH
HCB
Montenegro
31
34
value
8
(25%-75% quartiles)
max
Party
value
unit
91
kg/cap
16 - 23
Luxembourg
6.0
11 - 19
Canada
60.95
kg/cap
0.9
4.0 - 20
Iceland
228
kg/cap
Monaco
0.1
5.7 - 8.0
Ireland
23.7
kg/cap
Ukraine
0.9
1.8 - 4.7
Canada
32.6
kg/cap
3 - 6.5
Canada
171.7
kg/cap
Canada
255.2
kg/cap
2.1 - 6.7
Estonia
28.93
g/cap
0.03
0.08 - 0.26
Poland
1.2
g/cap
0.03
0.1 - 0.19
Monaco
1.36
g/cap
Liechtenstein
0.4
2.6 - 6.0
Monaco
62
µg/cap
Liechtenstein
0.02
1.0 - 5.2
Serbia
113.5
g/cap
0.0000013
0.0001 - 0.001
0.01958
g/cap
Ukraine
GNI per capita based on purchasing power parity (PPP). PPP GNI is gross national income (GNI) converted to international dollars using purchasing power parity rates. An international dollar has the same purchasing power over GNI as a U.S. dollar has in
the United States. GNI is the sum of value added by all resident producers plus any product taxes (less subsidies) not included in
the valuation of output plus net receipts of primary income (compensation of employees and property income) from abroad. Data
are given in current international dollars.
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Stage 2 review
Between 1990 and 2010 per capita emissions increased in 16 Parties (Georgia – NMVOC; Iceland – SOx; Turkey – SOx; Bulgaria – PM2.5, PM10; Denmark – PM2.5, PM10; Estonia –PM2.5,
PAH; Hungary – PM2.5; Finland – PM2.5, PM10; Latvia – PM2.5, PM10, PCDD/PCDF; Serbia –
PM2.5; Slovakia – PM2.5; Slovenia – PM2.5; Sweden – PM2.5, PM10; Belarus – Cd; FYR of Macedonia – Hg; Lithuania – PAH). It has to be stressed that not all Parties submitted 1990 and 2010
data for all analyzed pollutants so this statistic does not fully reflect the development in the
whole EMEP domain.
3.6.2 Emission per GNI
Trends in emissions per GNI/PPP do not follow exactly the same trends as per capita emissions. Between 1990 and 2010 emissions per GNI/PPP of all pollutants decreased in most Parties
which reported 1990 emissions and for which GNI/PPP was available. This might indicate a successful implementation of measures since 1990. Emissions per GNI/PPP increased in two Parties
(Georgia – NMVOC; Iceland – SOx).
Again, not all Parties reported emissions both for 1990 and 2010. Emissions per GNI/PPP differ
significantly among the Parties.
Table 5: Overview of emissions per GNI/PPP
Emissions per/GNI PPP in 2010
min
middle 50% of the countries
Pollutant
Party
value
NOx
Switzerland
0.2
NMVOC
Netherlands
SOx
Switzerland
NH3
PM2.5
(25%-75% quartiles)
max
Party
value
0.56 - 1.2
Serbia
2.48
g/GDP PPP
0.22
0.39 - 1
Georgia
4.9
g/GDP PPP
0.03
0.14 - 0.9
Iceland
8.2
g/GDP PPP
Norway
0.08
0.18 - 0.44
Georgia
1.2
g/GDP PPP
Netherlands
0.02
0.07 - 0.21
Estonia
0.9
g/GDP PPP
PM10
Netherlands
0.04
0.11 - 0.38
Canada
4.5
g/GDP PPP
CO
Cyprus
0.57
1.2 - 3.6
Georgia
13.1
g/GDP PPP
Pb
Norway
0.02
0.06 - 0.34
Serbia
1.84
mg/GDP PPP
Cd
Denmark
0.0009
0.003 - 0.01
Poland
0.061
mg/GDP PPP
Hg
Netherlands
0.001
0.003 - 0.009
Estonia
0.024
mg/GDP PPP
PCDD/PCDF
Cyprus
0.02
0.08 - 0.41
Croatia
1.12
ng/GDP PPP
PAH
Switzerland
2
29 - 300
Serbia
10,301
µg/GDP PPP
HCB
Malta
0.05087
6 - 22
Ukraine
2,957
ng/GDP PPP
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
unit
35
Inventory Review 2012 − Review of POP emission inventories
4
REVIEW OF POP EMISSION INVENTORIES
By Robert Whiting (ETC-ACM/AEA Technology plc)
POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutants) are a set of pollutants which have caused considerable international concern over potential effects on the environment and human health. This is due to
their persistent nature in the environment, capability to bioaccumulate up food-chains and perceived health effects, with a number of them being recognised as carcinogens. Their persistent
nature also makes the likelihood of long range transport a possibility.
The current review commissioned by the European Environment Agency provides an analysis
of the data submitted under CLRTAP. The specific objectives of the review were to assess the
POPs inventories developed by reporting nations for completeness, overall consistency across
all reporting nations and a deeper assessment to provide a better understanding of any issues
surrounding data gaps or the use of emission factors which would affect overall totals.
4.1
Methodology
The Review focused on two key elements, firstly the completeness and consistency of all inventories in terms of the selected sources and likely key gaps for emissions. Secondly, it looked at
emission factor variation within a key source to help gauge the likely impact that factor variation can have on the overall emissions.
4.1.1 Review for completeness and consistency of inventories
The review for completeness and consistency began by using the existing core reference materials
to build up source profiles for each POP (PAHs as sum of 4 congeners). The source profiles
were used to evaluate the inventories submitted to CLRTAP, assessing the likelihood of gaps in
those inventories, and therefore providing an initial review of completeness for each individual
inventory. Further manual checks were made based on expert judgement to look for source gaps
and overall integrity of all inventories compared alongside one another. Using the source profiles as a guide, inventories at the national level were checked for the number of sources per
POP and in particular where any one source accounted for more than 50% of the total emission
for that POP from a given inventory.
4.1.2 Review of emission factor variability
The second stage of the review looked to assess the impact of variability in emission factors for
key sources. Based on the results of the first stage and expert knowledge, two key sources of the
most significant source categories (dioxins and furans from iron and steel, and PAHs from domestic combustion of fuels) were selected. The sources selected were found in the majority of
national inventories. Statistical activity data was then used to take the reported emissions and
derive emission factors. The resulting factors were then reviewed for variation and comparison
to guidebook factors.
36
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Review of POP emission inventories
4.2
Results and discussion
The results of the review for completeness and consistency provide some very clear messages.
This section is intended to provide a summary of the key detail. The review of the emission estimates submitted to CLRTAP revealed different numbers of inventories submitted for different
POPs. The total numbers are shown in Table 6 but highlight that 25 inventories for PCB were
submitted compared to 35 for PAHs. Please note that one additional national inventory (including dioxins and furans, HCB and PAH) was submitted after the review timeframe and has not
been included in the findings.
Table 6: Number of POP inventories submitted for review.
Persistent Organic Pollutant
Number of national inventories submitted to CLRTAP
2010 (emission year)
Dioxins and Furans
34
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
25
Hexachlorobenzene
28
Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons
35
Table 7: Completeness for POP sources.
Persistent Organic
Pollutant
Number of countries
with >50% emission
from one source
Number of countries
with three or less
sources
Total number of
inventories submitted
to CLRTAP
Dioxins and Furans
16
2
34
PCBs
16
4
25
HCB
23
7
28
PAHs
29
2
35
The results of the review for emission sources highlight a high level of response for sources
where the required ‘activity’ and ‘emission/emission factor’ data are likely to be readily available.
For example, PAH emissions associated with NFR 1A1a – combustion of fuels in public power
generation show that 91% of the reported inventories have a source in this classification. A
similar result is found for other POPs, with another example being NFR 1A2fi – combustion of
fuels for power in industry, where 94% of the reported inventories contain a source for dioxins
and furans.
For the NFR sources where the required ‘activity’ data is scarce or difficult to calculate the reverse
is true, for example under NFR 6Ce – domestic combustion of wastes, only 32% of inventories
have a source for dioxins and furans. This represents potentially a significant gap within the
POPs emission inventories. Regulations for industrial sources of POPs, particularly incineration,
have resulted in a significant decline in emissions from these sources; however, this will in turn
increase the importance of emissions from diffuse sources such as domestic waste burning and
accidental fires.
Total dioxins and furans emissions for NFR 6Ce, as reported for all inventories in 2010, were
116 g I-TEQ – compared to NFR 1A1a (97 g I-TEQ) and NFR 1A2fi (129 g I-TEQ). This
shows broadly comparable emission levels across all three sources; however, it should be noted
that only 32% of the reported inventories calculated estimates for NFR 6Ce compared to >90%
for NFR 1A1a and 1A2fi.
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
37
Inventory Review 2012 − Review of POP emission inventories
One source in particular was identified as an area of concern. The use of PCBs as heat transfer
fluids in dielectric equipment was widespread and would likely appear in most countries. During the review of the submitted inventories, NFR 2F for PCB was found in only 4 out of the 25
inventories submitted for this entry. One other nation included PCB dielectric emissions under
NFR 2G. While the marketing of new PCB-based equipment was banned in the EU in 1985, the
typical life-span of such equipment is expected to be 20 years, with a potential life-span of up to
40 years. This shows that these items form part of electrical networks that can face logistical issues for replacement and upgrade. PCBs contained in di-electrical equipment are a key legacy
issue and would be expected to be seen in most inventories submitted under LRTAP.
4.2.1 Review of emission factors for a selected source (Dioxins and Furans
in Iron and Steel)
Iron and steel production is a key industrial source for the emissions of dioxins and furans, with
27 nations (of 34) reporting emissions for NFR 1A2a+2C1 (combined) in the year 2010.
To derive emission factors based on the reported emissions for iron and steel production, statistics were taken from the world steel organisation (www.worldsteel.org/statistics/statisticsarchive/annual-steel-archive.html). One further issue which requires clarification relates to the
reported emissions themselves. For the purpose of deriving emission factors under this review
the reported emissions from NFR 1A2a – fuel use in the iron and steel industries and NFR 2C1
– process emissions from iron and steel production were combined. The reporting templates for
emission inventories allow compilers to disaggregate fuel use from process emissions; however,
in practice emissions reported under either category could include both combustion and process
emissions. For example, emissions from fuels used in furnaces and any process emissions from
those same furnaces might well be reported together. A review of emissions (emission year
2010) reported under 1A2a and 2C1 for dioxins and furans shows that for 12 nations NFR 2C1 is
the key source, whereas for 4 nations it is 1A2a and for 8 nations emissions are broadly balanced.
Figure 8 provides details of the key Iron and Steel manufacturing nations, and Figure 7 shows
dioxin and furan emissions from this source as a proportion of total emissions.
Table 8: List of major iron and steel producing countries with steel production in 2010
Country
Production in 2010
Germany
43.8 Mt
United Kingdom
9.7 Mt
Italy
25.7 Mt
Poland
8.0 Mt
Spain
16.3 Mt
Belgium
8.0 Mt
France
15.4 Mt
Austria
7.2 Mt
Canada
13.0 Mt
38
Country
Production in 2010
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Review of POP emission inventories
UK Austria
1%
Switzerland 10%
0.1%
Sweden
1%
Spain
12%
Slovenia
0.3%
Slovakia
6%
Serbia
0.3%
Romania
4%
Portugal
0.001%
Poland
5%
Norway
0.05%
Netherlands
0.4%
Belarus
3% Belgium
2% Bulgaria
1%
Canada
1%
Croatia
0.02%
Czech Republic
21%
Finland
1%
France
7%
Latvia
0.01%
Italy
18%
Germany
6%
Hungary
3%
Ireland
0.0001%
Figure 7: Dioxin and Furan emissions (2010) from iron and steel production (1A2a and 2C1) from
CLRTAP inventories as a proportion of total emission.
Figure 8 displays the derived emission factors based on the data received, with a comparison to
the guidebook factor given in the box in the top right hand corner of the graph. The results show
a large range of derived emission factors from 0.0019 µg/t of steel to 17.7 µg/t of steel.
Further discussions of emission factors prove to be difficult as the NFR 2C1 covers a variety of
process types for the manufacture of iron and steel. Dioxin and furan emissions will be associated
with all process technologies such as basic oxygen furnace, electric arc furnace, as well as sintering and pelletizing. The NFR 2C1 will also include emissions from grey iron foundries and
re-melting processes for iron and steel.
Broadly speaking, the derived emission factors for the major iron and steel producing countries
range from 0.75 µg/t to 4.25 µg/t of steel. The results provide some confidence that the variance
for what are likely to be large integrated steel works is small and that the factors in use will have
a good level of uncertainty. The EMEP guidebook factor is 2 µg/t of steel – again within the
range of factors for the major iron and steel producing countries. For the biggest derived emission factor (17.7 µg/t) linked to the Czech Republic it is worth noting that the share of emissions
share from 1A2a and 2C1 is broadly balanced.
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
39
Inventory Review 2012 − Review of POP emission inventories
18
µg I-Teq/t steel 2010 (based on combined NFR 1A2a and 2C1)
16
µg I-Teq/t steel
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
UK
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Montenegro
Netherlands
Norway
Hungary
Italy
Latvia
Finland
France
Germany
Croatia
Czech Rep.
Canada
Belgium
Bulgaria
Belarus
Albania
Austria
0
Figure 8: Derived emission factors for iron and steel production.
4.3
Summary
The current review has assessed the POPs emission inventories submitted under CLRTAP with
the specific objectives to review the overall completeness and consistency of emission estimates
across all nations, and to provide a detailed assessment of inventory approaches and variations
in emission factors where possible, in order to assess their impact on overall emission estimates.
The review has found that:
i)
There are varying numbers of inventories submitted to CLRTAP for the POPs included in
Annex III of the POPs Protocol, ranging from 25 countries submitting inventories for PCBs
to 35 for PAHs. This suggests that a number of inventories are missing, particularly for
PCB and HCB.
ii) A comparison of the inventories against the sources that all nations should have shown reveals that there is a high level of inclusion for sources where activity data and viable emission factors/emission monitoring are readily available. However, for sources where activity
data (in particular) are scarce, far fewer inventories include estimates. This represents potentially a key gap in the emission inventories, particularly since regulation is typically aim
to reduce emissions from well-characterized industrial sources, making the absence of estimates for diffuse sources such as domestic waste burning and accidental fires increasingly
important.
iii) One key gap is PCB emissions from NFR 2F – PCB use in dielectric equipment such as
transformers and capacitors. Only 4 out of 25 nations submitting an inventory include estimates for this source with one further inventory including these estimates under NFR 2G.
PCBs contained in dielectric equipment represent a legacy issue among POPs while they
are also likely to be one of the most significant sources in the majority of countries. This
therefore represents a key omission from the existing inventories.
40
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Review of POP emission inventories
iv) A significant number of the inventories are dominated by a single source (>50% of total
emissions), which will mean that the emission factors and approaches used for that source
will have a big impact on overall estimates. A single dominant source within a POPs inventory is not impossible, but in some cases where a single source dominates, it is also true
that the inventory covers only a small number of sources, suggesting that the dominance of
one source is at least partially due to the incompleteness of the emissions data. This is particularly the case for HCB inventories where 25% of the reported inventories contain 3 or
fewer sources.
v) There is a lack of consistency in the identification of sources and the magnitude of sources
for HCB inventories submitted under CLRTAP with 17 different main sources recorded in
the 28 inventories submitted. Equally, there is a lack in the EMEP guidebook of viable
emission factors for a number of sources which may lead to further omissions or confusion
with national emission estimates.
vi) More in-depth analysis of emissions data for key sources has suggested that a broad range of
emission factors are used. Although there are reasons why different countries could need to
apply different emission factors to reflect country-specific issues, it is also possible that methodological differences are important. A greater level of transparency and clarity would be
helpful for emission inventories when assessing the consistency and reliability of data sets.
vii) Due to the complexity of science and the cost of research, the development of new emission factors is limited. Factors and other emission data can be repeatedly re-quoted within
the scientific literature with a resulting risk of mis-quoting/mis-interpreting the data. Due
care is required for understanding the factors selected for use. This includes the values
quoted in the EMEP guidebook.
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
41
Inventory Review 2012 − Gridded data for EMEP models
5
GRIDDED DATA FOR EMEP MODELS
5.1
Reporting of gridded emissions in 2012
Gridded data, as part of the five-year reporting obligation, was due in 2012. Including the European Union, 23 Parties reported gridded sectoral emissions for 2010, whereas Iceland reported
gridded data only for POPs. Three Parties (Greece, Lithuania and Slovakia) reported only gridded
national totals32. It has to be noted that emissions which are used in the EMEP models are gridded
only on sectoral level and therefore only submitted gridded sectoral emissions can be used in the
gridding process.
25
22
22
20
2010 gridded emissions
(reported in 2012)
20
Number of Parties
20
2005 gridded emissions
(reported in 2012)
15
13
13
11
10 10
10
13
12
11
10
7
11
9 9
10 10
2000 gridded emissions
(reported in 2012)
1995 gridded emissions
(reported in 2012)
6
5
1990 gridded emissions
(reported in 2012)
0
Main
(SOx, NOx, NH3,
NMVOC, CO)
PM
(PM2.5, PM10)
HMs
(Pb, Hg, Cd)
POPs
(PAH, DIOX, HCB)
Figure 9: Reporting of gridded sectoral data for 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010 to the CLRTAP in
2012.
Independent of the reporting year, only 24 Parties reported sectoral gridded emissions for the
year 2005 – 23 Parties for the main pollutants and PM, 22 Parties for heavy metals and 20 Parties
for POPs. 22 Parties reported sectoral gridded emissions for the year 2000 – 21 Parties for the
main pollutants, 20 Parties for PM and heavy metals and 19 Parties for POPs. 19 Parties reported
sectoral gridded emissions for the year 1995 – 17 Parties for the main pollutants, 10 Parties for
PM, 16 Parties for heavy metals and 13 Parties for POPs. 18 Parties reported sectoral gridded
emissions for the year 1990 – 15 Parties for the main pollutants, 10 Parties for PM, 16 Parties for
heavy metals and 13 Parties for POPs. For detailed information please visit the CEIP website at
www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/emep/xls/2012/Reported_gridded_sectoral_data_2012.xls.
5.2
2010 emission data used in EMEP models
Like in 2009, 2010 and 2011, CEIP also considered the extended EMEP domain in the gapfilling and gridding process (www.emep.int/grid) for the present review. Since emissions from a
number of Parties in this area (e.g. Kazakhstan, Asian part of the Russian Federation, Kyrgyzstan,
32
42
Reporting of gridded national total emissions is no longer provided in the new reporting templates. However, if Parties intend to
also submit gridded national total emissions this should be done by using the old template (Table 3a, version 2002-2).
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Gridded data for EMEP models
Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and North Africa) were missing, expert estimates were used and
gridded with current population data for those Parties. The population data used by CEIP were
the same as in 2010 and 2011 and were provided by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).
In order to create emission data for the modellers, reported sectoral (NFR09) emissions are aggregated to 10 SNAP sectors33. Before sectoral emission data can be used by modellers, missing
information has to be filled in. To gap-fill missing data, CEIP applies three basic methods:
(a) Linear extrapolation of the last five years’ emissions (three as a minimum)
(b) Copy of previous years’ emissions in case of missing trends
(c) Other data sources (expert estimates, model results, ENTEC, IIASA, UNFCCC, etc.) if no
reported data is available for a particular country.
For 2010 shipping data, NOx, SOx and PM emissions calculated by IIASA in 2011 (for the year
2010) was used. For CO and NMVOC emissions, ENTEC/IIASA estimates from the 2007 shipping study “Analysis of Policy Measures to Reduce Ship Emissions in the Context of the Revision of the National Emissions Ceilings Directive” for 2010 was used. Activity levels for the
new NOx, SOx and PM estimates are the same as in this study, but the baseline from 2007,
which is still used for CO and NMVOC, is now outdated because it does not include SECAs for
the Baltic Sea and the North Sea. Gap-filled sectoral emissions (SNAP 10) were distributed to
the extended EMEP grid via the “base grid”34.
In 2012, gridded emissions were reported in GNFR sectors but the modellers still requested data
in SNAP sectors, and therefore CEIP converted the reported GNFR sectors to SNAP sectors using the reported NFR sector distribution for weighting. This converted grid was then used to
distribute the SNAP sector emissions which had been converted from NFR09.
Overview information on gap-filled sectors is listed in Annex C (separate file). The gap-filled
data is published on the CEIP homepage as “Emissions used in EMEP models”:
(www.ceip.at/webdab-emission-database/emissions-as-used-in-emep-models).
5.3
Update of historical gridded emissions (1990 and 2000 to 2009)
To provide modellers with historic data that is consistent with the latest (recalculated) data reported by the Parties, CEIP re-gridded the historical years for SOx, NOx, CO, NMVOC, NH3,
PMcoarse and PM2.5. The years 2008 and 2009 were re-gridded using the same distribution as for
2010. For the years 1990, 2000 and 2005 new base grids for the emission distribution were calculated, based on new reported gridded data for these years. The years 2003 to 2007 were regridded using the new base grid for 2005 and the years 2000 to 2002 were re-gridded using the
new base grid for 2000 for the emission distribution. Also, the year 1990 was re-gridded in 2012
using the new calculated base grid for 1990.
33
A table showing the conversion between NFR09 and SNAP is available on the CEIP website at
www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/emep/pdf/nfr09_to_snap.pdf.
34
The base grid defines the distribution of emissions in the extended EMEP area and was calculated by using gridded emissions (if
reported by Parties) and/or proxy data such as LPS, population data and different models if no or incomplete data were reported
by Parties. For more details about the base grid calculation please have a look at:
microsites1.umweltbundesamt.at/fileadmin/inhalte/emep/pdf/gridding_process.pdf.
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
43
Inventory Review 2012 − Gridded data for EMEP models
A table listing the differences between the gridded emissions from 2000 to 2009 used in the
models in 2011 and re-gridded in 2012 (per country/pollutant/year and expressed both as a percentage and in Gg) can be downloaded from http://www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/emep/
xls/2012/Diff_gridded_regridded_2012.xls.
The main differences are as follows:
SOx and NOx emission trends in 2012 seem to be relatively stable and recalculations do not
exceed 10% for the majority of countries. Nevertheless, there are a few countries where the
differences to emissions reported in 2011 are more significant. These countries are Albania
(-43% for SOx emissions in 2009), Bulgaria (between -39% and -25% in NOx emissions for
the whole time series from 2000 to 2009 as well as -33% to -22% in SOx emissions for the
years 2002, 2008 and 2009), Greece (between +26% and +31% in NOx emissions from 2004
to 2006), Luxembourg (between +131% and +347% in NOx emissions and between -28%
and +83% in SOx emissions from 2005 to 2009), Malta (around -20% in NOx emissions and
-51% to -32% in SOx emissions from 2004 to 2009) and Serbia (between +40% and +84%
in NOx emissions as well as -42% and -37% in SOx emissions from 2005 to 2009.
Differences in national totals of NMVOC emissions of more than 10% for one or several
years were observed for Bulgaria (-43% to -29% for the whole time series from 2000 to
2009), Belarus (+65% to +85% from 2005 to 2009), Germany (-28% to -16% for the whole
time series from 2000 to 2009), Greece (-26% to -11% from 2000 to 2006), Luxembourg
(+14% to +26% from 2005 to 2007 and 2009), Montenegro (-20% in 2005 and -18% in
2006), Poland (-33% in 2005), Romania (+28% in 2005 and +23% in 2006) and Turkey
(-24% in 2008).
The differences in updated NH3 emissions were under 10% for the majority of countries
compared to the datasets used in 2011. A significant decrease (-31% in 2006 and -29% in
2005) was only observed for Luxembourg and a significant decrease (-35% to -57% from
2005 to 2009) in Serbia. Also, for the Russian Federation an increase of about 41% was observed for 2009. The reason for this is that last year’s submission could not be considered
for the gridded emissions because it was submitted too late. It was thus included this year,
with the effect of a significant increase in last year’s estimated emissions for 2009.
Differences in national totals of CO emissions of more than 10% for one or several years
were observed for Albania (-37% in 2009), Bulgaria (-55% to -26% for the whole time series
from 2000 to 2009), Belarus (+82% to +205% from 2005 to 2009), Greece (-33% to 30%
from 2000 to 2006), Liechtenstein (+14% to +43% from 2000 to 2004), Lithuania (-20% in
2008 and -18% in 2009), Luxembourg (-22% in 2009, +17% in 2006 and +40% in 2005),
Malta (-97% to -90% from 2000 to 2006), Serbia (around +25% from 2005 to 2008), Sweden
(+14% to +25% from 2000 to 2009), Slovenia (+21% in 2009) and Turkey (-43% in 2008).
Revised PM2.5 and PMcoarse emissions also showed some changes in both directions. In a
few countries (Bulgaria, Belarus, Montenegro, Portugal, Serbia, the Russian Federation and
Slovenia), updated PM2.5 emissions differed by more than 20%. Bulgaria, Belarus, France,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Russian Federation and Slovakia
also showed significant differences of more than 20% in PMcoarse emissions.
In Figure 10 you can see maps with differences between last year’s gridded and this year’s regridded emissions of NOx, NMVOC, SOx, NH3, CO, PM2.5 and PMcoarse for the year 2005.
44
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Gridded data for EMEP models
Main pollutants
NOx
NMVOC
SOx
NH3
CO
Particulate matter
PM2.5
PMcoarse
Figure 10: Differences between PM emissions gridded in 2011 and re-gridded in 2012 for the year
2005, Units: Mg/grid.
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
45
Inventory Review 2012 − Large point sources (LPS)
6
LARGE POINT SOURCES (LPS)
Large point sources (LPS) are defined as facilities whose combined emissions, within the limited
identifiable area of the site premises, exceed the pollutant emission thresholds set up in Table 1 of
Annex 1 of the Reporting Guidelines (UNECE, 2009). Emissions of large point sources are part
of the five-year reporting obligation and were due in 2012. Twenty-five Parties provided updated
information on LPS in 2012 (see Table 9 in Appendix 1) and altogether, CEIP received information on 2,931 LPS, reported in 2012. Reporting of LPS is improving, however. Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco,
Montenegro, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland did not report
LPS data in 2012. The United Kingdom submitted LPS information for 2005 and 2009, but not
for 2010. Annex E – LPS reporting under CLRTAP until 2012 (separate file) shows in detail
which Party submitted LPS data for certain years.
The overview of LPS reported in 2012 is split up into four maps according to the following
groups: main pollutants (NOx, NMVOC, SOx, NH3 and CO), particulate matter (PM2.5 and
PM10), priority heavy metals (Pb, Cd and Hg), and persistent organic pollutants (PCDD/PCDF,
PAH and HCB) (see Figure 11).
The importance of LPS data is increasing. Completeness, consistency, comparability, transparency and accuracy of LPS information will be critical for the preparation of the next EMEP base
grid distribution matrix.
Main pollutants
Particulate matter
Priority heavy metals
Persistent organic pollutants (POPs)
Figure 11: Maps with reported Large Point Source data for 201035.
35
46
LPS for United Kingdom shown in the Figures are reported for 2009.
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Conclusions
7
CONCLUSIONS
The underlying objective of the technical review process is to improve the quality of emission
inventory data. The technical review has been performed since 2004 in accordance with the
methods and procedures for reviewing (UNECE, 2007). In addition, efforts have been made to
follow the recommendations from the Parties. However, as in previous years, the 2012 review
(stage 1 and stage 2) has highlighted a number of potential inconsistencies which should be considered by the Parties.
(a) Timeliness: The level of timeliness for reporting under CLRTAP is almost the same as in
2011: 64% of Parties submitted emissions by the reporting deadline. 89% of the EU Member States submitted NECD emissions by 31th December 2011. However, there are still
some rather late submissions by a few Parties, which hamper the inclusion of reviewed
emission data in the corresponding EMEP and EEA databases and hence also the assessment work performed under the Convention and by the EEA.
(b) Completeness: Completeness of reporting has, again, improved slightly, but it still cannot
be considered satisfactory. 45 Parties reported their inventories in 201236, but only 44 Parties reported emission data for 2010. Forty-five Parties reported emissions of the main pollutants and 37 parties reported PM emissions. Cadmium, mercury and lead emissions were
provided by 38 Parties, additional HMs by 34 and priority POPs by 40 Parties. Thirty-six
Parties reported activity data (AD). All 27 MS submitted complete 2009 and 2010 inventories under the NECD.
(c) Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and the Republic
of Moldova are encouraged to make efforts to improve the regularity and completeness of
their reporting.
(d) Consistency: There is evidence to suggest that not all Parties recalculate their emissions
across the whole time series annually, even though this is essential for obtaining consistent
emission trends and is considered good inventory practice (applying, to the extent possible,
the same methods and data sources for all years).
(e) Transparency of reporting: Only 33 Parties submitted IIRs in 2012 (which nevertheless is
an improvement in comparison with 2011, where only 28 IIR were submitted). Three Parties (Luxembourg, the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation) have not submitted
an IIR to CEIP in any of the reporting rounds since 2008. Greece, Liechtenstein, Malta and
Turkey provided IIRs in 2012 for the first time. It has to be noted that the provision of an
IIR is essential for an efficient centralised stage 3 review. There is no legal obligation under the NECD for Member States to submit a report explaining the submitted inventories.
Nevertheless, nine Member States provided some explanatory information in 2011.
(f) The IIR should be provided in one of the working languages of the UNECE and include
key information on inventories, such as the reasons for recalculations, new (or closed) large
emission sources, explanation of trends, geographical coverage and explanation of countryspecific methods/data. To enable the review teams to work efficiently, Parties are encouraged to provide key information in English.
36
Out of these 45 Parties Armenia submitted data in non-standard formats, and therefore could not be used in any tests. Albania
submitted inventories only for the years 1990 to 2009.
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
47
Inventory Review 2012 − Conclusions
(g) Recalculations: The frequency and magnitude of recalculations higher than 10% for different pollutants has varied over the years of reporting, but the number of recalculations exceeding 10% decreased from 23% in 2010 to 11% in 2012. The recalculation of whole time
series usually indicates a revision of inventory methods and/or improvement of activity data. Less frequent recalculations of historical data might indicate inconsistent time series.
(h) Key category analysis: A number of emission categories were identified as key categories
(for both groups of “the EU-27, EFTA, Croatia and Macedonia” and the “other” Parties)
for more than one of the 13 pollutants that were assessed. 10 pollutants (all except NMVOC
and NH3) are emitted mainly in combustion processes.
(i) POP inventories: The current review has highlighted some issues related to the completeness and consistency of POPs emission inventories submitted under CLRTAP. It is strongly recommended that emission estimates are provided for all relevant sources where ever
possible. Inventory compilers should check the completeness of their data sets and try to
identify sources that may be missing. For sources where activity data (in particular) are
scarce, it may be necessary for a higher tier authority such as the TFEIP to work with inventory compilers to help provide guidance and assistance on a standardized approach to
tackle gaps for particular sources such as backyard burning.
The current review has highlighted a potential for variation in emission factors and has discussed the potential for emission factors from the literature to become cyclic. The recommendations for improving consistency in this case are three-fold: Firstly, there is a need to
be transparent and provide as much information as possible regarding the referencing of
emission factors when compiling IIRs, and a need for as much evaluation of the appropriateness of each emission factor for national conditions as possible. Secondly, there is a
need for open discussion, reporting, and documentation of emission factors by the POPs
inventory community. Measures are needed to improve awareness of new research projects, and the dissemination of results, especially given the relatively infrequent nature of
new research, and, therefore, the value of new data. Inventory compilers are encouraged to
assist each other by providing details of on-going research and to publicize results as widely as possible.
(j) Gridded data: as part of the five-year reporting obligation, gridded data was due in 2012.
Including the European Union, 23 Parties reported gridded sectoral emissions for 2010. Independent of the reporting year, 24 Parties reported sectoral gridded emissions for the year
2005, 22 Parties reported sectoral gridded emissions for the year 2000, 19 Parties reported
sectoral gridded emissions for the year 1995 and 18 Parties reported sectoral gridded emissions for the year 1990.
Before sectoral emission data can be used by modellers, missing information has to be
filled in. Expert estimates are potential sources of errors and as such increase the uncertainty of the environmental analysis conducted under EMEP/CLRTAP. Parties are strongly encouraged to submit gridded emission data in line with the Reporting Guidelines.
(k) LPS data: Emissions of large point sources are part of the five-year reporting obligation
and were due in 2012. Only 25 Parties provided updated information on LPS in 2012, despite the fact that such information is in many cases available at country level, for example
data reported under E-PRTR. The importance of LPS data is increasing. Completeness,
consistency, comparability, transparency and accuracy of LPS information will be critical
for the preparation of the next EMEP base grid distribution matrix.
48
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Conclusions
Despite the progress clearly being made in recent years in terms of the completeness, consistency
and timeliness of reporting, as noted earlier in this report, a complete set of emission inventory
data in consistent formats is still not available from all Parties to the LRTAP Convention. This
prevents the possibility of further data assessment and the compilation of a complete dataset for
the extended EMEP area, which may be used for environmental analysis and as an input for air
quality modelling. It is therefore still considered essential that the basic emission inventory
quality aspects of timeliness, consistency of reporting, comparability and completeness of the
Parties’ submissions should be further improved.
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
49
Inventory Review 2012 − Units and abbreviations
8
UNITS AND ABBREVIATIONS
kg ................................... 1 kilogram = 103 g (gram)
t ...................................... 1 tonne (metric) = 1 megagram (Mg) = 106 g
Mg ................................. 1 megagram = 106 g = 1 tonne (t)
Gg .................................. 1 gigagram = 109 g = 1 kilotonne (kt)
Tg .................................. 1 teragram = 1012 g = 1 megatonne(Mt)
TJ ................................... 1 terajoule
As .................................. Arsenic
Cd .................................. Cadmium
CDR............................... Central data repository of EEA’s Eionet Reportnet
CEIP .............................. EMEP Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
CH4 ................................ Methane
CLRTAP........................ LRTAP Convention
CO ................................. Carbon monoxide
CO2 ................................ Carbon dioxide
Cr ................................... Chromium
CRF ............................... Common reporting format (UNFCCC for greenhouse gases)
Cu .................................. Copper
EEA ............................... European Environment Agency
Eionet ............................ European environmental information and observation network
EMEP ............................ Co-operative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-range
Transmissions of Air Pollutants in Europe
ETC/ACM ..................... European Topic Centre for Air pollution and Climate change Mitigation
EU ................................. European Union
GDP, PPP ...................... Gross domestic product converted to international dollars using purchasing
power parity rates
HCB............................... Hexachlorobenzene
HFCs ............................. Hydro-fluorocarbons
Hg .................................. Mercury
HMs ............................... Heavy metals
IIASA ............................ International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
IIR ................................. Informative inventory report
IEF ................................. Implied emission factor
KCA .............................. Key category analysis
LRTAP Convention ....... UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
LPS ................................ Large point source
Main pollutants .............. NOx, NMVOC, SOx, NH3 and CO
Main HMs ..................... Cd, Hg and Pb
N2O ................................ Nitrous oxide
NECD ............................ National Emission Ceilings Directive (2001/81/EC)
NFR ............................... UNECE nomenclature for reporting of air pollutants
NH3 ................................ Ammonia
Ni ................................... Nickel
NMVOCs ...................... Non-methane volatile organic compounds
NO2 ................................ Nitrogen dioxide
50
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Units and abbreviations
NOx ................................ Nitrogen oxides
PAHs ............................. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Pb................................... Lead
PCDD/PCDF ................. Dioxins and furans
PFCs .............................. Perfluorocarbons
PM ................................. Particulate matter
PM10 .............................. Particulate matter, with a 50 per cent efficiency cut-off at 10 µm aerodynamic
diameter or less
PM2.5 .............................. Particulate matter, with a 50 per cent efficiency cut-off at 2.5 µm aerodynamic
diameter or less
POPs .............................. Persistent organic pollutants
QA/QC .......................... Quality assurance/quality control
Se ................................... Selenium
SF6 ................................. Sulphur hexafluoride
SNAP............................. Selected nomenclature for air pollution
SO2 ................................ Sulphur dioxide
SOx ................................ Sulphur oxides
SECA............................. Sulphur Emission Control Area
TFEIP ............................ UNECE Task Force on Emission Inventories and Projections
TFIAM .......................... UNECE Task Force on Integrated Assessment Modelling
TSP ................................ Total suspended particles
UNECE.......................... United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
UNFCCC ....................... United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
VOCs ............................. Volatile organic compounds
Zn .................................. Zinc
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
51
Inventory Review 2012 − References
9
REFERENCES
EEA, 2011. Kampel E., S., Gager M., Tista M., NEC Directive status report 2011.EEA technical report
No. 6/2012. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. Available at:
www.eea.europa.eu/publications/nec-directive-status-report-2011.
EEA, 2010. Goettlicher S., Gager M., Tista M., NEC Directive status report 2010.EEA technical report
No. 3/2011. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. Available at:
www.eea.europa.eu/publications/nec-directive-status-report-2010.
EMEP/EEA, 2009. EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook – 2009. EEA technical report
No. 09/2009. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. Available at:
www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009.
EMEP MSC-W & CCC & CEIP: Transboundary Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground Level Ozone
in Europe in 2010. EMEP Status Report 1/2012. The Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo,
Norway, 2012.
ETC/ACC, 2008. Gugele B., Mareckova K., Proposal for gap filling procedures for the European
Community CLRTAP inventory, final draft technical note. European Topic Centre on Air and
Climate Change, January 2008.
IPCC, 2000.Good practice guidance and uncertainty management in national greenhouse gas
inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at:
www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/english.
Mareckova K., Wankmueller R., Murrels T., Walker H., Tista M., 2011. Review of emission data
reported under the LRTAP Convention and NEC Directive, Stage 1 and 2 review, Review of
emission inventories from shipping, Status of Gridded and LPS data, EEA and CEIP technical
report, 1/2011, ISBN 978-3-99004-143-7. Available at:
www.ceip.at/review-of-inventories/review-2011.
UNECE, 2009. Guidelines for Reporting Emission Data under the Convention on Long-range
Transboundary Air Pollution (ECE/EB.AIR/97).Available at:
www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/emep/reporting_2009/Rep_Guidelines_ECE_EB_AIR_97_e.pdf.
UNECE, 2007. Methods and procedures for the technical review of air pollutant emission inventories
reported under the Convention and its protocols (EB.AIR/GE.1/2007/16). Available at:
www.unece.org/env/emep/emep31_docs.htm.
UNECE, 2012: 2012 Workplan for the implementation of the Convention (ECE/EB.AIR/109/Add.2)
Report of the Executive Body on its twenty ninth session. Available at:
www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2011/eb/eb/ECE_EB.AIR_109_ADD2_E.pdf.
52
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Appendices
APPENDICES
Appendix 1:
Status of reporting under the LRTAP Convention ...................................... 54
Appendix 2:
Overview of annual emissions per PPP GNI and emissions per
capita................................................................................................................. 58
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
53
Inventory Review 2012 − Appendices
Appendix 1: Status of reporting under the LRTAP Convention
Table 9: Status of reporting under the LRTAP Convention as of 13thJune 2012.
PARTY
Submission
Date EMEP
Resubmission
Date
NFR template
(version)
Other
format
Gridded
Data
LPS
Data
2020
Proj.
IIR
2012
Albania
12.04.2012
31.05.2012
2009-1
Armenia
26.04.2012
Austria
15.02.2012
15.03.2012
2009-1
x
Belarus
15.02.2012
15.03.2012
2009-1
x
Belgium
15.02.2012
01.03.2012
2009-1
Bulgaria
15.02.2012
01.03.2012
2009-1
Canada
14.02.2012
Croatia
14.02.2012
Cyprus
13.02.2012
Czech Republic
15.02.2012
Denmark
Estonia
European Union
11.05.2012
Finland
11.02.2012
France
15.02.2012
FYR of Macedonia
13.02.2012
14.03.2012
2009-1
Georgia
22.02.2012
06.03.2012
2009-1
Germany
13.02.2012
27.02.2012
2009-1
x
x
x
Greece
07.03.2012
19.03.2012
2009-1
x
x
x
Hungary
22.02.2012
Iceland
21.03.2012
2009-1
x
Ireland
14.02.2012
16.03.2012
2009-1
x
Italy
05.03.2012
03.05.2012
2008-1
Latvia
15.02.2012
19.04.2012
2009-1
x
Liechtenstein
20.02.2012
19.04.2012
2004-1
x
Lithuania
13.02.2012
Luxembourg
16.02.2012
30.03.2012
2009-1
Malta
14.02.2012
23.03.2012
2009-1
Monaco
25.01.2012
2009-1
Montenegro
10.04.2012
2009-1
Netherlands
15.02.2012
15.03.2012
2009-1
Norway
15.02.2012
15.03.2012
2009-1
Poland
15.02.2012
06.03.2012
Portugal
15.02.2012
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
10.02.2012
Slovakia
13.02.2012
24.02.2012
Slovenia
15.02.2012
14.05.2012
Spain
15.02.2012
Sweden
22.12.2011
27.02.2012
2009-1
Switzerland
15.02.2012
20.03.2012
2009-1
Turkey
15.02.2012
16.04.2012
2009-1
Ukraine
15.02.2012
United Kingdom
15.02.2012
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2009-1
x
x
2009-1
x
x
14.05.2012
2009-1
x
x
x
14.02.2012
29.02.2012
2009-1
x
x
x
15.02.2012
23.04.2012
2009-1
x
x
2009-1
x
x
x
x
2009-1
x
x
x
x
Azerbaijan
x
x
Bosnia & Herzegovina
2009-1
19.04.2012
2009-1
30.03.2012
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2009-1
x
x
x
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
2009-1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2009-1
x
x
x
22.05.2012
2002-2
2009-1
x
x
x
15.02.2012
15.03.2012
2009-1
30.03.2012
27.04.2012
2009-1
x
x
2009-1
x
x
x
x
2009-1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Republic of Moldova
x
2009-1
2009-1
06.03.2012
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2009-1
x
x
2009-1
x
x
x
x
x
x
United States of America
54
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Appendices
Table 10: Completeness of CLRTAP submissions as of 13th June 2012.
PARTY
SO2, NOx,
CO, NH3,
NMVOC
Cd, Hg, Pb
additional HM
PM2.5,
PM10
1990 - 2009
Albania
1990 - 2009
1990 - 2009
1990 - 2009
Armenia*
2005, 2006,
2008 - 2010
2005, 2006,
2008 - 2010
2005, 2006,
2008 - 2010
Austria
1980 - 2010
1985 - 2010
TSP
POPs (PAH
PCDD/PCDF
HCB)
2008, 2009
1990 - 2009
Activity Data
2005, 2006,
2008 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1985 - 2010
1980 - 2010
Azerbaijan
Belarus
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
Belgium
1990, 2000,
2005 - 2010
1990, 2000,
2005 - 2010
1990, 2000,
2005 - 2010
2000, 2005 2010
2000, 2005 2010
1990, 2000,
2005 - 2010
1990, 2000,
2005 - 2010
Bulgaria
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
Canada
1980 - 2010
1980 - 2010
1980 - 2010
1980 - 2010
1980 - 2010
Croatia
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
Cyprus
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
2000 - 2010
2000 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
Denmark
1980 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
2000 - 2010
2000 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1980 - 2010
Estonia
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
2000 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
European Union
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
Finland
1980 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
2008 - 2010
France
1980 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1980 - 2010
2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Czech Republic
FYR of Macedonia
Georgia
2005 - 2010
Germany
1990 - 2010
Greece
1990 - 2010
2010
2010
2005 - 1010
2005 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1995 - 2010
1990 - 2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
1990 - 2010
Hungary
2010
Iceland
1990 - 2010
2010
2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
Ireland
1987,
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
Italy
1980 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
Latvia
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
Liechtenstein
1985 - 2010
2000 - 2010
2000 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1985 - 2010
1985 - 2010
1985 - 2010
Lithuania
2008 - 2010
Luxembourg
1990 - 2010
2008 - 2010
2008 - 2010
Malta
2000 - 2010
2000 - 2010
2000 - 2010
2010
2010
2010
1990 - 2009
1990 - 2009
1990 - 2009
Netherlands
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
Norway
1980, 1987,
1989 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1980, 1987,
1989 - 2010
1980, 1987,
1989 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
Poland
2005, 2009,
2010
2009, 2010
2009, 2010
2005, 2009,
2010
2009, 2010
2009, 2010
2009, 2010
Portugal
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
2005 - 2010
2005 - 2010
2005 - 2010
2005 - 2010
2005 - 2010
2005 - 2010
2005 - 2010
2010
2010
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Monaco
Montenegro
2008 - 2010
2008 - 2010
2000 - 2010
2008 - 2010
2008 - 2010
1990, 1993,
1998, 2003,
2008 - 2010
1990 - 2010
2000 - 2010
2010
2000 - 2010
2010
2010
2010
1990 - 2009
1990 - 2009
Republic of Moldova
Romania
Russian Federation
2010
Serbia
2000 - 2010
2000 - 2010
2000 - 2010
2000 - 2010
2000 - 2010
2000 - 2010
2000 - 2010
Slovakia
2000 - 2010
2000 - 2010
2000 - 2010
2000 - 2010
2000 - 2010
2000 - 2010
2000 - 2010
Slovenia
1980 - 2010
1990 - 2010
2000 - 2010
2000 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
Spain
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
2000 - 2010
2000 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
Sweden
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
Switzerland
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
1980 - 2010
1980 - 2010
1980 - 2010
1980 - 2010
1980 - 2010
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
United States of
America
*
CEIP received the submission from Armenia in a non-standard format (Word file) and transferred it to SNAP
sectors. No national total values were reported and not all of the submitted data could be used.
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
55
Inventory Review 2012 − Appendices
Table 11: Completeness of CLRTAP submissions as of 13thJune 2012 (reporting mandatory every 5 years).
PARTY
Template version 2009-1
Projections
WM
Projections
WaM
Activity data
WM
Activity data
WaM
Gridded data LPS Emissions
Albania
Armenia
Austria
MRHJ(2008),
2010, 2015,
2020, 2030
RJ, MRHJ(2008),
2010, 2015,
2020, 2030
2015, 2020
2015, 2020
1990, 1995,
2000, 2005,
2010
1990, 1995,
2000, 2005,
2010
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
1990, 1995,
2000, 2005,
2010
2010
1990, 1995,
2000, 2005,
2010
1990, 1995,
2000, 2005,
2010
2010
2010
2005, 2010
2005, 2010
1990, 1995,
2000, 2005,
2010
2010
1990 - 2010
2010
2010
2010
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
MRHR, 2010,
2015, 2020
MRHR, 2010,
2015, 2020
RJ, MRHJ, 2010,
2015, 2020
RJ, MRHJ,
2010, 2015,
2020
Cyprus
Czech Republic
2010, 2015,
2020, 2030,
2050
RJ, 2010, 2015,
2020, 2030
Denmark
MRHJ(2010),
2010, 2015,
2020, 2030
Estonia
MRHJ, 2010,
2015
RJ, 2010, 2015
Finland
2020, 2030,
2050
RJ, 2020, 2050
France
2010, 2015,
2020
European Union
FYR of Macedonia
2010
Georgia
Germany
Greece
MRHJ(2009),
2010, 2015,
2020
RJ, MRHJ(2009),
2010, 2015,
2020, 2030, 2050
1990, 1995,
2000, 2005,
2010
2020
RJ,MRHJ(2005),
2010, 2015,
2020, 2030, 2050
2010*
Hungary
Iceland
1990, 1995,
2000, 2005,
2010
Ireland
1990, 1995,
2000, 2005,
2010
1990, 1995,
2000, 2005,
2010
Italy
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
2010
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
MRHJ(2009),
2015, 2020
RJ, MRHJ(2009),
2010, 2015,
2020, 2030, 2050
MRHJ(2010),
2010
RJ, MRHJ, 2010
2010*
2010
Luxembourg
Malta
Monaco
RJ, MRHJ,
2010
Montenegro
56
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Appendices
PARTY
Template version 2009-1
Projections
WM
Netherlands
MRHJ(2009),
2010, 2015,
2020, 2030
Norway
MRHJ(2010),
2015, 2020,
2030
Poland
MRHJ, 2010
Projections
WaM
Activity data
WM
Activity data
WaM
RJ, MRHJ(2008),
2010, 2015,
2020, 2030, 2050
RJ, MRHJ, 2010
Portugal
Gridded data LPS Emissions
1990, 1995,
2000, 2005,
2010
1990, 1995,
2000, 2005,
2010
1990, 1995,
2000, 2005,
2010
2005, 2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2000, 2005,
2010*
2010
Republic of Moldova
Romania
MRHJ(2008),
2010, 2015,
2020
RJ, MRHJ(2008),
2010, 2015, 2020
Russian Federation
Serbia
Slovakia
MRHJ(2010),
2010, 2015,
2020, 2030,
2050
MRHJ(2010),
2010, 2015,
2020, 2030,
2050
RJ, MRHJ(2010),
2010, 2015,
2020, 2030, 2050
Slovenia
MRHJ(2009),
2010, 2015,
2020, 2030
MRHJ(2009),
2010, 2015,
2020, 2030
RJ, MRHJ(2009),
2010, 2015,
2020, 2030
2010, 2015,
2020, 2030
2000, 2005,
2010
2000, 2005,
2010
Spain
MRHJ(2010),
2015, 2020
MRHJ(2010),
2015, 2020
RJ, MRHJ, 2015,
2020
RJ, MRHJ,
2015, 2020
1990 - 2010
1990 - 2010
Sweden
Switzerland
2010
MRHJ(2010),
2015, 2020,
2030
RJ, MRHJ, 2015,
2020, 2030
Turkey
2010
Ukraine
United Kingdom
MRHJ(2009),
2010, 2015,
2020
RJ, MRHJ(2009),
2010, 2015, 2020
2010
2010
2005, 2009
2005, 2009
United States of
America
*
Gridded data is not usable because of missing sector information.
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
57
Inventory Review 2012 − Appendices
Appendix 2: Overview of annual emissions per PPP GNI and emissions
per capita
Emissions per capita and emissions per GNI,PPP are calculated for all years where national totals
were available for the pollutants NOx, NMVOC, SOx, NH3, PM2.5, PM10, CO, Pb, Cd, Hg,
PCDD/PCDF, HCB and PCB.
Population data was downloaded from the “World Bank Data Base”
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL.
Total population is based on the de facto definition of population, which counts all residents regardless of their legal status or citizenship, except for refugees not permanently settled in the
country of asylum who are generally considered part of the population of their country of origin.
The values shown are mid-year estimates.
Source
(1) United Nations Population Division, World Population Prospects,
(2) United Nations Statistical Division, Population and Vital Statistics Report (various years),
(3) Census reports and other statistical publications from national statistical offices,
(4) Eurostat: Demographic Statistics,
(5) Secretariat of the Pacific Community: Statistics and Demography Programme, and
(6) U.S. Census Bureau: International Database.
PPP GNI was also downloaded from the “World Bank Data Base”
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.MKTP.PP.CD
PPP GNI (formerly PPP GNP) is gross national income converted to international dollars using
purchasing power parity rates. An international dollar has the same purchasing power over GNI
as a U.S. dollar has in the United States. Gross national income (GNI) is the sum of value added
by all resident producers plus any product taxes (less subsidies) not included in the valuation of
output plus net receipts of primary income (compensation of employees and property income)
from abroad. Data are given in current international dollars.
Emission data are emissions submitted by Parties to CEIP.
58
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Appendices
NOx (kg/capita)
NMVOC (kg/capita)
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan
2010
Bosnia & Herzegovina
1990
USA
2010
1990
Bosnia & Herzegovina
USA
Republic of Moldova
Republic of Moldova
Kyrgyzstan
Armenia
Kazakhstan
Montenegro
Armenia
Albania
Montenegro
Kyrgyzstan
Kazakhstan
Albania
91.3
Luxembourg
68.0
Iceland
Canada
37.7
31.1
Finland
32.4
Belarus
58.5
Norway
60.9
Canada
Latvia
29.0
Norway
28.7
28.5
Estonia
24.5
21.7
28.4
27.5
Georgia
27.4
23.2
Sweden
21.0
Romania
20.8
Czech Republic
22.7
Lithuania
20.8
Poland
22.7
Serbia
18.9
Austria
22.5
Italy
Slovenia
Luxembourg
17.9
17.4
Spain
21.8
21.1
Poland
17.3
Belgium
20.3
Croatia
17.3
Malta
19.6
18.2
Slovenia
17.0
16.5
Greece
Estonia
Serbia
Denmark
EU27
Finland
Portugal
Greece
16.3
United Kingdom
17.9
17.8
Austria
15.8
Liechtenstein
17.6
Russia
Portugal
Lithuania
17.5
17.4
15.8
15.8
Denmark
15.5
Sweden
17.2
Spain
Russia
Ireland
17.1
16.9
15.1
14.8
Czech Republic
14.3
France
16.7
France
13.1
Netherlands
16.6
Germany
12.9
Slovakia
16.3
United Kingdom
12.7
Cyprus
16.3
FYR of Macedonia
Hungary
16.2
16.2
Bulgaria
12.2
12.1
Belarus
Germany
Iceland
EU27
Slovakia
11.5
15.9
15.9
Switzerland
11.4
Liechtenstein
11.0
Bulgaria
15.2
Hungary
10.8
Latvia
15.0
Cyprus
10.3
Croatia
Italy
Turkey
14.9
Ireland
10.0
FYR of Macedonia
14.1
Turkey
Ukraine
13.1
12.7
9.9
9.6
Netherlands
9.1
10.1
Ukraine
7.8
Monaco
8.7
Monaco
7.5
Georgia
8.0
Malta
6.2
Romania
Switzerland
0
Belgium
50
100
150
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
0
50
100
150
59
Inventory Review 2012 − Appendices
SOx (kg/capita)
NH3 (kg/capita)
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan
2010
1990
Bosnia & Herzegovina
USA
Iceland
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Republic of Moldova
Republic of Moldova
Albania
USA
Montenegro
Montenegro
Kyrgyzstan
Albania
Armenia
Armenia
228.2
Iceland
Bulgaria
Ireland
51.3
Belarus
40.4
40.0
FYR of Macedonia
Canada
Ukraine
Greece
23.3
Turkey
22.8
20.0
15.9
13.7
13.5
Canada
11.2
9.9
9.5
Serbia
France
25.5
Poland
23.7
Denmark
37.9
26.5
Serbia
Kazakhstan
62.1
Estonia
2010
1990
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Luxembourg
Lithuania
9.0
Slovenia
8.5
Croatia
8.5
Spain
Switzerland
8.0
8.0
16.2
Latvia
7.7
Slovakia
12.8
Estonia
7.7
Finland
12.5
Romania
7.5
Lithuania
11.5
Liechtenstein
7.5
Spain
10.5
Austria
7.4
Cyprus
Romania
19.6
17.3
Czech Republic
Malta
Croatia
9.4
Russia
9.3
7.3
Netherlands
7.2
EU27
Poland
7.1
United Kingdom
6.5
Turkey
7.1
Portugal
6.3
Finland
Belgium
6.2
Bulgaria
6.9
6.7
Belarus
Germany
Ireland
6.2
5.8
Germany
5.5
Czech Republic
Belgium
EU27
9.1
Hungary
6.5
6.3
Slovenia
5.1
Luxembourg
4.4
Italy
6.3
Georgia
4.3
Georgia
6.0
France
4.0
Russia
5.9
Norway
4.0
Greece
5.7
Sweden
3.7
3.5
Sweden
5.5
Italy
Cyprus
4.8
Hungary
3.2
FYR of Macedonia
4.7
Denmark
2.5
Norway
4.6
Austria
2.2
United Kingdom
4.6
Netherlands
2.0
Portugal
Switzerland
1.6
1.4
Slovakia
4.5
4.5
Liechtenstein
0.86
Ukraine
3.7
0.55
Monaco
0.85
Monaco
0.10
Latvia
0
60
6.7
6.5
Malta
100
200
300
0
10
20
30
40
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Appendices
PM10 (kg/capita)
PM2.5 (kg/capita)
Armenia
Armenia
2010
2000
Azerbaijan
Bosnia & Herzegovina
2010
2000
Azerbaijan
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Georgia
Georgia
Greece
Greece
Iceland
Iceland
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan
Luxembourg
Luxembourg
FYR of Macedonia
FYR of Macedonia
Monaco
Monaco
Turkey
Turkey
USA
USA
Montenegro
Montenegro
Albania
Albania
Republic of Moldova
Republic of Moldova
32.6
Canada
17.8
Estonia
Norway
Slovenia
8.2
Finland
7.6
24.2
Estonia
12.2
9.8
Latvia
171.7
Canada
Latvia
14.5
Norway
11.0
10.2
Finland
9.7
Slovenia
Romania
5.5
Poland
7.3
Slovakia
4.9
Portugal
6.7
Belarus
4.7
Romania
6.7
Denmark
4.6
Serbia
6.4
Portugal
4.6
Belarus
6.1
Serbia
4.2
Denmark
5.7
France
3.9
France
5.7
Bulgaria
3.6
Slovakia
5.6
Poland
3.6
Bulgaria
5.5
Sweden
3.4
Sweden
4.7
Hungary
3.2
Hungary
4.6
Lithuania
3.0
Russia
4.4
Russia
2.9
Austria
4.2
Italy
2.9
EU27
3.9
EU27
2.7
Lithuania
3.8
Austria
2.4
Czech Republic
3.5
Croatia
2.3
2.0
Cyprus
Italy
3.3
Malta
3.1
3.1
Czech Republic
1.9
Cyprus
Ireland
1.8
Croatia
3.1
Malta
1.8
Ukraine
2.9
Spain
1.7
Ireland
2.8
Belgium
1.5
Switzerland
2.6
Germany
1.4
Spain
2.4
Switzerland
1.2
Germany
2.4
1.1
United Kingdom
1.01
Liechtenstein
Belgium
2.2
United Kingdom
1.8
Netherlands
0.92
Netherlands
1.8
Ukraine
0.89
Liechtenstein
1.2
0
10
20
30
40
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
0
50
100
150
200
61
Inventory Review 2012 − Appendices
CO (kg/capita)
Pb (g/capita)
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan
Bosnia & Herzegovina
2010
USA
1990
Georgia
Kyrgyzstan
Greece
Republic of Moldova
Iceland
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Montenegro
Kyrgyzstan
Armenia
Liechtenstein
Turkey
Luxembourg
Albania
2010
1990
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Turkey
255.2
Canada
Montenegro
Estonia
131.8
Republic of Moldova
Latvia
Albania
Finland
114.9
91.7
90.4
Poland
80.5
Armenia
Slovenia
78.2
77.1
Estonia
28.9
Luxembourg
Serbia
20.3
Austria
76.2
Portugal
19.3
Denmark
72.0
Bulgaria
14.1
Russia
Poland
13.7
Sweden
71.4
68.2
Slovakia
10.3
Norway
68.0
Malta
Serbia
66.9
Belarus
Georgia
Slovenia
7.0
Croatia
6.4
Ukraine
65.5
65.4
64.3
Belarus
Romania
Russia
USA
8.3
7.4
Canada
5.5
Lithuania
63.5
Spain
5.4
France
61.4
EU27
5.1
Croatia
60.0
58.4
Italy
4.5
Iceland
Finland
4.3
EU27
49.6
Belgium
4.0
Hungary
47.9
Latvia
Greece
46.5
FYR of Macedonia
3.7
3.6
Italy
44.8
42.4
Ukraine
Ireland
3.5
3.1
40.8
40.7
Switzerland
3.0
Romania
2.9
Netherlands
2.6
Czech Republic
38.4
38.2
Czech Republic
2.5
Bulgaria
36.5
Cyprus
2.3
Portugal
36.4
Germany
2.3
Netherlands
34.7
34.2
Denmark
1.9
Austria
Hungary
Switzerland
33.8
31.9
1.8
1.7
1.4
Ireland
31.0
France
1.3
Malta
Monaco
Monaco
26.4
24.3
0.99
United Kingdom
0.95
Liechtenstein
18.2
Norway
0.95
Cyprus
17.1
Lithuania
0.79
Belgium
Germany
Slovakia
Spain
United Kingdom
FYR of Macedonia
0
62
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Sweden
0
200
400
600
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Appendices
Hg (g/capita)
Cd (g/capita)
Azerbaijan
Armenia
2010
1990
Azerbaijan
Bosnia & Herzegovina
2010
1990
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Georgia
Georgia
Greece
Greece
Iceland
Iceland
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan
Liechtenstein
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Luxembourg
Turkey
Turkey
Republic of Moldova
USA
USA
Republic of Moldova
Montenegro
Russia
Russia
Montenegro
Albania
Armenia
Albania
1.16
Poland
Estonia
0.47
0.39
Estonia
0.47
Canada
1.36
Monaco
0.50
Poland
Czech Republic
0.33
Belarus
0.34
Slovenia
0.32
Spain
0.34
Romania
0.25
Slovenia
0.28
Serbia
Serbia
0.22
0.22
Portugal
0.19
Bulgaria
0.27
0.26
0.25
FYR of Macedonia
Belgium
0.24
Belgium
0.19
0.19
Slovakia
EU27
0.17
EU27
0.22
0.21
Spain
0.17
Switzerland
0.16
Croatia
0.17
Portugal
0.35
Finland
Slovakia
Netherlands
0.15
Finland
0.17
Austria
0.14
Italy
0.16
0.15
Italy
0.14
Canada
Croatia
0.13
Ukraine
Lithuania
0.13
0.13
Switzerland
0.15
0.13
Norway
0.12
0.12
Monaco
Norway
0.12
Austria
Romania
0.10
Bulgaria
0.12
Latvia
0.10
Lithuania
0.12
Malta
0.10
Cyprus
0.11
Ireland
0.09
Germany
FYR of Macedonia
United Kingdom
Czech Republic
0.09
0.08
0.11
0.10
Ireland
0.095
Hungary
0.07
Belarus
Germany
0.06
Denmark
0.090
0.079
Cyprus
0.06
Hungary
0.078
0.064
Sweden
0.06
France
Ukraine
Sweden
0.059
France
0.06
0.04
Netherlands
0.041
United Kingdom
0.04
Latvia
0.034
Denmark
0.03
Malta
0.027
0
1
2
3
4
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
0
1
2
3
4
63
Inventory Review 2012 − Appendices
PCDD/PCDF (µg/capita)
PAH (g/capita)
Armenia
Albania
2010
1990
Azerbaijan
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Azerbaijan
Georgia
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Greece
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Greece
Kyrgyzstan
Kazakhstan
FYR of Macedonia
Kyrgyzstan
Turkey
FYR of Macedonia
Ukraine
Turkey
Albania
USA
Russia
Montenegro
Montenegro
Republic of Moldova
Republic of Moldova
Monaco
Russia
USA
62.0
Monaco
Malta
Latvia
20.8
Latvia
13.2
Estonia
12.6
Portugal
12.0
6.5
11.0
10.5
Poland
15.3
Belgium
13.4
12.3
Czech Republic
113.5
Serbia
21.2
Croatia
Romania
Lithuania
6.2
Slovakia
9.7
Slovenia
5.6
Romania
7.3
Ukraine
Bulgaria
5.6
Spain
5.2
5.2
Serbia
5.5
5.4
Belarus
4.4
Hungary
4.4
Iceland
Belgium
5.3
5.2
Slovenia
Norway
Poland
3.9
Bulgaria
3.7
4.7
4.6
Slovakia
3.4
Finland
3.3
Denmark
2.9
Hungary
4.6
4.4
EU27
2.9
Italy
4.3
Italy
2.5
Estonia
4.2
Canada
2.3
Lithuania
4.0
Germany
2.3
Belarus
Croatia
2.1
EU27
3.8
3.8
Norway
1.8
Ireland
3.5
Sweden
1.7
Luxembourg
1.7
1.6
Denmark
Austria
Sweden
3.0
3.0
Spain
United Kingdom
Czech Republic
0.95
Austria
0.95
Canada
2.7
2.2
1.8
Ireland
0.61
Netherlands
1.8
Iceland
0.51
Switzerland
1.8
France
0.32
France
1.5
Finland
Luxembourg
Cyprus
Netherlands
0.23
0.83
Malta
0.15
Portugal
0.77
United Kingdom
0.14
Cyprus
0.47
Switzerland
0.09
Liechtenstein
0.38
Liechtenstein
0.02
Germany
0
64
2010
1990
Armenia
50
100
150
0
50
100
150
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Appendices
HCB (g/capita)
Armenia
2010
1990
Azerbaijan
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Georgia
Greece
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
FYR of Macedonia
Monaco
Norway
Switzerland
Turkey
Montenegro
USA
Republic of Moldova
Albania
Russia
Croatia
Ukraine
Serbia
Spain
Austria
0.02
0.01
0.01
< 0.01
Finland
< 0.01
Bulgaria
< 0.01
Luxembourg
< 0.01
Belgium
< 0.01
EU27
< 0.01
< 0.01
United Kingdom
Italy
< 0.01
Canada
< 0.01
Poland
Slovenia
< 0.01
< 0.01
Ireland
< 0.01
Czech Republic
France
< 0.01
< 0.01
Slovakia
< 0.01
Estonia
< 0.01
Iceland
< 0.01
Latvia
< 0.01
Hungary
< 0.01
Denmark
< 0.01
Belarus
< 0.01
Netherlands
< 0.01
Romania
< 0.01
Germany
< 0.01
Portugal
< 0.01
Cyprus
< 0.01
Sweden
< 0.01
Malta
< 0.01
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
65
Inventory Review 2012 − Appendices
NOx (g/GNI,PPP)
NMVOC (g/GNI,PPP)
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan
2010
1990
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Kazakhstan
2010
1990
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Kazakhstan
Liechtenstein
Liechtenstein
Monaco
Monaco
Montenegro
Montenegro
Kyrgyzstan
Armenia
Republic of Moldova
Republic of Moldova
Armenia
Albania
USA
USA
Albania
Kyrgyzstan
2.48
2.46
Serbia
Iceland
4.91
Georgia
2.39
Belarus
Ukraine
1.99
Latvia
1.77
Georgia
1.61
Serbia
Canada
Canada
Luxembourg
1.53
1.48
1.71
1.59
Estonia
1.39
Belarus
1.32
1.48
1.44
Romania
Estonia
Ukraine
1.18
FYR of Macedonia
1.29
Lithuania
1.16
Poland
1.19
1.14
1.05
FYR of Macedonia
1.12
0.91
0.91
Bulgaria
Greece
Turkey
0.98
Lithuania
0.97
Czech Republic
Romania
0.96
0.92
0.90
Russia
0.89
Hungary
Croatia
0.85
0.85
Latvia
0.91
0.82
Poland
Russia
Portugal
0.67
Turkey
0.66
Slovenia
0.64
Czech Republic
0.61
0.60
Greece
Finland
0.58
Finland
0.83
Italy
0.57
Slovenia
0.82
Hungary
0.57
Malta
Iceland
0.57
Portugal
0.79
0.71
Sweden
0.53
Slovakia
0.71
Spain
0.67
Norway
0.66
EU27
0.58
Denmark
0.58
Cyprus
0.57
0.54
Belgium
0.53
Italy
0.51
Ireland
0.51
United Kingdom
0.49
France
0.48
Sweden
Germany
0.43
0.43
Netherlands
0.40
Switzerland
0.20
Austria
0
66
Croatia
Bulgaria
Norway
0.50
Slovakia
0.50
Spain
0.48
EU27
0.47
Austria
0.40
Denmark
0.39
France
0.38
United Kingdom
0.35
Germany
0.34
Cyprus
0.34
Ireland
0.30
Luxembourg
0.28
Belgium
0.25
Malta
0.25
0.23
0.22
Switzerland
Netherlands
5
10
15
20
0
5
10
15
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Appendices
SOx (g/GNI,PPP)
NH3 (g/GNI,PPP)
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan
2010
1990
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Kazakhstan
2010
1990
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Iceland
Kazakhstan
Liechtenstein
Monaco
Kyrgyzstan
Montenegro
Liechtenstein
Republic of Moldova
Monaco
Kyrgyzstan
Montenegro
Armenia
Republic of Moldova
Albania
Armenia
Albania
USA
8.24
Iceland
USA
Ukraine
4.00
Georgia
Bulgaria
3.86
Belarus
FYR of Macedonia
3.70
Serbia
Serbia
3.44
3.14
Ireland
Estonia
1.20
1.17
1.02
0.71
0.54
Romania
0.51
Turkey
1.50
Lithuania
Poland
Bulgaria
0.51
Romania
1.34
1.23
Latvia
0.47
Canada
1.05
Turkey
Georgia
0.87
Croatia
0.47
0.45
Greece
0.86
FYR of Macedonia
Malta
0.79
Estonia
Czech Republic
0.69
0.66
0.64
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
0.55
Denmark
0.33
Croatia
0.50
Slovenia
Russia
0.48
Russia
0.32
0.31
Belarus
France
0.29
Finland
0.45
0.33
Czech Republic
Spain
0.33
Spain
EU27
0.29
EU27
0.28
0.25
0.23
Portugal
0.25
Greece
0.21
Slovenia
Italy
Slovakia
0.20
0.19
Ireland
0.19
0.18
0.17
Austria
0.19
Hungary
0.17
Finland
Belgium
0.16
Portugal
0.19
0.18
Germany
0.14
Germany
France
0.12
0.11
Netherlands
Cyprus
Lithuania
United Kingdom
Italy
0.43
0.39
0.37
0.36
0.34
Canada
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.16
Belgium
Latvia
0.093
0.086
Switzerland
0.16
Luxembourg
0.071
Luxembourg
0.15
Norway
0.070
0.063
Malta
0.15
Sweden
0.14
Sweden
Denmark
Cyprus
Austria
0.056
United Kingdom
Netherlands
0.049
Ukraine
0.13
0.083
Switzerland
0.033
Norway
0.082
0
10
20
30
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
67
Inventory Review 2012 − Appendices
PM2.5 (g/GNI,PPP)
PM10 (g/GNI,PPP)
Armenia
Armenia
2010
2000
Azerbaijan
Bosnia & Herzegovina
2010
2000
Azerbaijan
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Georgia
Georgia
Greece
Greece
Iceland
Iceland
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan
Liechtenstein
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Luxembourg
FYR of Macedonia
FYR of Macedonia
Monaco
Monaco
Turkey
Turkey
Montenegro
USA
Albania
Montenegro
USA
Albania
Republic of Moldova
Republic of Moldova
0.90
Estonia
Canada
Latvia
Romania
0.39
4.48
Canada
0.85
0.75
1.22
0.89
Estonia
Latvia
Serbia
0.58
Serbia
0.38
Romania
0.47
Belarus
0.35
Belarus
0.45
Ukraine
0.44
0.31
0.27
0.21
Slovenia
Bulgaria
Slovakia
Portugal
0.20
0.19
0.19
Finland
Poland
Bulgaria
0.41
Poland
0.38
Slovenia
0.36
Finland
0.27
Portugal
0.27
Norway
0.17
Hungary
Lithuania
0.17
Slovakia
0.24
0.24
Hungary
0.17
Russia
0.23
Russia
0.15
Lithuania
0.21
Ukraine
0.13
Norway
0.19
Croatia
0.12
Croatia
0.17
Denmark
France
0.16
France
0.12
0.11
Czech Republic
0.15
Italy
0.09
Denmark
0.14
Malta
0.13
EU27
0.085
0.084
EU27
0.12
Czech Republic
0.079
Sweden
0.12
Malta
0.074
0.066
Sweden
Cyprus
Italy
0.11
Austria
0.11
Austria
0.059
Cyprus
0.10
Ireland
0.055
Ireland
0.084
Spain
0.054
Spain
0.077
Belgium
0.040
Germany
0.062
Germany
0.036
Belgium
0.057
United Kingdom
0.029
Switzerland
0.052
Switzerland
0.025
United Kingdom
0.050
Netherlands
0.022
Netherlands
0.042
0.0
68
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0
2
4
6
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Appendices
CO (g/GNI,PPP)
Pb (mg/GNI,PPP)
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan
2010
1990
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Kazakhstan
2010
1990
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Georgia
Liechtenstein
Greece
Monaco
Iceland
Montenegro
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan
Armenia
Liechtenstein
Republic of Moldova
Luxembourg
USA
Monaco
Albania
Montenegro
Turkey
Turkey
13.12
Georgia
Republic of Moldova
9.71
Ukraine
Latvia
7.03
Belarus
6.75
Estonia
6.67
Canada
6.66
Serbia
6.07
4.65
Romania
Albania
Russia
Armenia
USA
Estonia
4.23
3.72
Poland
Russia
1.84
1.46
Serbia
Bulgaria
1.06
Portugal
0.78
Poland
0.72
0.54
Croatia
3.55
3.18
Ukraine
FYR of Macedonia
3.09
Slovakia
0.52
0.44
Slovenia
2.93
2.74
Croatia
0.34
FYR of Macedonia
0.33
Lithuania
Bulgaria
Belarus
2.52
2.42
Malta
0.33
Slovenia
Austria
2.11
1.91
0.26
0.22
Romania
Denmark
1.79
Spain
France
1.78
EU27
0.16
Slovakia
1.76
Canada
0.14
Greece
1.72
Italy
0.14
Sweden
1.72
Finland
0.12
Czech Republic
Czech Republic
Belgium
0.11
0.10
Portugal
1.62
1.57
1.47
Ireland
0.092
Italy
1.44
Hungary
0.088
Luxembourg
1.25
Cyprus
0.077
Spain
1.21
1.20
Netherlands
0.063
Germany
Belgium
1.11
Switzerland
0.062
0.059
Germany
1.07
Denmark
Malta
Austria
United Kingdom
1.06
0.94
Lithuania
0.048
0.045
0.044
Ireland
0.93
France
0.037
Netherlands
0.83
Sweden
0.035
Switzerland
0.64
0.57
United Kingdom
0.026
Norway
0.017
Hungary
Finland
Iceland
EU27
Norway
Cyprus
0
Latvia
20
40
60
80
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
0.20
0.17
0
5
10
15
20
25
69
Inventory Review 2012 − Appendices
Cd (mg/GNI,PPP)
Hg (mg/GNI,PPP)
Azerbaijan
Armenia
2010
1990
Azerbaijan
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Georgia
Georgia
Greece
Greece
Iceland
Iceland
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan
Liechtenstein
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Luxembourg
Monaco
Monaco
Montenegro
Montenegro
Turkey
Turkey
Republic of Moldova
Republic of Moldova
USA
Russia
Albania
Albania
Russia
USA
Armenia
Estonia
0.061
0.025
Belarus
0.025
Serbia
0.024
0.019
Poland
Bulgaria
0.014
0.012
Portugal
2010
1990
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Estonia
0.024
Ukraine
0.022
Poland
0.020
Serbia
0.020
Romania
0.018
FYR of Macedonia
0.018
Czech Republic
0.014
Slovenia
Slovakia
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.012
0.009
0.009
Ukraine
0.009
Bulgaria
FYR of Macedonia
0.008
Portugal
0.009
0.008
Romania
Belarus
0.007
Lithuania
0.007
0.007
Lithuania
Finland
0.007
EU27
0.007
0.005
Croatia
0.007
Spain
0.005
EU27
0.007
Italy
Belgium
0.006
Belgium
0.005
0.005
Latvia
0.006
Finland
Italy
0.004
Hungary
Malta
Canada
0.004
Hungary
0.004
0.004
Cyprus
0.004
Canada
Slovenia
Spain
Slovakia
Croatia
0.004
0.004
Netherlands
0.004
Germany
0.003
Czech Republic
0.004
Austria
0.003
Austria
0.003
Ireland
Switzerland
0.003
United Kingdom
0.003
0.003
Ireland
0.003
Switzerland
0.003
Cyprus
0.002
Norway
0.002
Norway
0.002
Latvia
Germany
0.002
Denmark
0.002
0.002
Sweden
France
0.002
France
0.002
0.001
Sweden
0.001
United Kingdom
0.001
Malta
0.001
Netherlands
0.001
< 0.001
Denmark
0.0
70
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Appendices
PCDD/PCDF (ng/GNI,PPP)
PAH (µg/GNI,PPP)
Albania
Armenia
2010
1990
Azerbaijan
Bosnia & Herzegovina
2010
1990
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Georgia
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Greece
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Greece
Kyrgyzstan
Kazakhstan
Liechtenstein
Kyrgyzstan
FYR of Macedonia
Liechtenstein
Monaco
FYR of Macedonia
Montenegro
Monaco
Turkey
Montenegro
Ukraine
Turkey
Albania
USA
Republic of Moldova
Republic of Moldova
Russia
Russia
USA
Serbia
10,301
Croatia
1.12
Latvia
Malta
0.84
Ukraine
791
Latvia
0.82
Estonia
Poland
Portugal
Romania
0.58
0.52
Romania
637
486
464
Czech Republic
0.52
Belgium
400
Serbia
0.50
Lithuania
347
Bulgaria
0.42
0.42
Belarus
323
Bulgaria
278
Slovakia
807
Iceland
0.38
Belarus
Hungary
0.28
0.23
Poland
205
Lithuania
0.23
Spain
163
Estonia
0.21
Slovakia
145
Slovenia
0.20
0.14
Croatia
111
EU27
91
Finland
89
EU27
0.14
0.12
Italy
81
Denmark
0.12
Denmark
73
Belgium
Italy
Hungary
230
Slovenia
212
Austria
0.12
Czech Republic
69
Sweden
0.12
Germany
62
Ireland
0.10
Canada
61
Spain
0.10
Sweden
44
31
Norway
0.09
Cyprus
United Kingdom
0.08
Norway
31
Finland
0.07
Luxembourg
27
Canada
0.05
Austria
24
France
0.04
0.04
Iceland
18
Ireland
18
France
9
Luxembourg
0.04
0.04
Malta
Portugal
0.03
Netherlands
6
5
Germany
0.02
United Kingdom
4
Cyprus
0.02
Switzerland
2
Netherlands
Switzerland
0
10
20
30
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
0
4,000
8,000
12,000
71
Inventory Review 2012 − Appendices
HCB (ng/GNI,PPP)
Armenia
2010
1990
Azerbaijan
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Georgia
Greece
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
FYR of Macedonia
Monaco
Norway
Switzerland
Turkey
Montenegro
USA
Republic of Moldova
Albania
Russia
Croatia
2,957.2
Ukraine
864.9
215.4
Serbia
Spain
190.8
123.9
Bulgaria
Austria
Finland
81.2
EU27
31.6
Belgium
26.9
16.7
Luxembourg
15.7
14.3
Poland
United Kingdom
Italy
12.2
Czech Republic
10.8
10.0
Slovenia
Latvia
8.5
Canada
8.3
Estonia
8.2
Slovakia
Ireland
7.8
7.8
France
7.2
Belarus
6.8
Hungary
6.4
Romania
5.8
Iceland
5.7
Denmark
2.8
Netherlands
2.0
Germany
1.1
Portugal
0.77
Cyprus
0.36
Sweden
0.08
Malta
0.05
0
72
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
Inventory Review 2012 − Annexes
ANNEXES
Annex A – Status of reporting under NECD (separate file)
Download via CEIP homepage at www.ceip.at/review-of-inventories/review-2012.
Annex B – Recalculations of CLRTAP and NECD emission data in 2012
(separate file)
Download via CEIP homepage at www.ceip.at/review-of-inventories/review-2012.
Annex C – Overview of gap-filling done in 2012 for the EMEP 2010
inventory (separate file)
Download via CEIP homepage at www.ceip.at/review-of-inventories/review-2012.
Annex D – Inventory Comparisons between CLRTAP, NECD and
UNFCCC data for 1990 and 2010 (separate file)
Download via CEIP homepage at www.ceip.at/review-of-inventories/review-2012.
Annex E – LPS reporting under CLRTAP until 2012 (separate file)
Download via CEIP homepage atwww.ceip.at/review-of-inventories/review-2012.
Annex F – Review of POP emission inventories (separate file)
Download via CEIP homepage at www.ceip.at/review-of-inventories/review-2012.
CEIP − Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections
73
emep
CEIP
Umweltbundesamt
Spittelauer Lände 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria
Main pollutants
ccc
Norwegian Institute
for Air Research (NILU)
P.O. Box 100, NO-2027 Kjeller
Norway
Phone: +47 63 89 80 00
Fax: +47 63 89 80 50
E-mail: kjetil.torseth@nilu.no
Internet: www.nilu.no
ciam
International Institute for
Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Schlossplatz 1
A-2361 Laxenburg
Austria
Phone: +43 2236 80 70
Fax: +43 2236 71 31
E-mail: amann@iiasa.ac.at
Internet: www.iiasa.ac.at
ceip
Umweltbundesamt GmbH
Spittelauer Lände 5
A-1090 Vienna
Austria
Phone: +43-(0)1-313 04
Fax: +43-(0)1-313 04/5400
E-mail:
emep.emissions@umweltbundesamt.at
Internet: www.umweltbundesamt.at
msc-e
Meteorological Synthesizing
Centre-East
Krasina pereulok, 16/1
123056 Moscow
Russia
Phone: +7 495 981 15 66
Fax: +7 495 981 15 67
E-mail: msce@msceast.org
Internet: www.msceast.org
msc-w
Norwegian Meteorological
Institute (met.no)
P.O. Box 43 Blindern
NO-0313 OSLO
Norway
Phone: +47 22 96 30 00
Fax: +47 22 96 30 50
E-mail: emep.mscw@met.no
Internet: www.emep.int