European Commission DG Environment National Emission ...ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/air/pollutants/pdf/...Project Summary and Recommendations Final Report May 2005 Entec UK Limited

European Commission DG Environment

National Emission Ceilings Directive Review

Project Summary and Recommendations

Final Report

May 2005

Entec UK Limited

Certificate No. FS 13881

Report for Michel Sponar DG ENV-C.1 European Commission Avenue de Beaulieu 5 6/103B-1160 Brussels Belgium

Main Contributors Alistair Ritchie Alun McIntyre Ben Grebot Katherine Wilson Helen ApSimon (Imperial College) Andriana Stavrakaki

Issued by …………………………………………………………

Katherine Wilson

Approved by ………………………………………………………… Alistair Ritchie

Entec UK Limited Windsor House Gadbrook Business Centre Gadbrook Road Northwich Cheshire CW9 7TN England Tel: +44 (0) 1606 354800 Fax: +44 (0) 1606 354810

13636

h:\projects\em-260\13000 projects\13636 ec necd review\reports sent to ec\05 amended final report (20th may 05)\recs\13636 amended final report - recs_05156.doc

European Commission DG Environment

National Emission Ceilings Directive Review

Project Summary and Recommendations

Final Report

May 2005

Entec UK Limited

Certificate No. EMS 69090

In accordance with an environmentally responsible approach, this document is printed on recycled paper produced from 100% post-consumer waste, or on ECF (elemental chlorine free) paper

Final Report i


May 2005

13636

Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1 This Report 1 1.2 Background – The National Emission Ceilings Directive 1 1.3 Summary of each task 2 1.3.1 Task 1 2 1.3.2 Task 2 3 1.3.3 Task 3 4 1.3.4 Additional Task (Methane) 4

2. Recommendations for the Thematic Strategy 6

2.1 Recommendations under Task 1 6 2.2 Recommendations under Task 2 8 2.3 Recommendations under Task 3 11 2.4 Recommendations under the Additional Task (Methane) 14

Appendix A Supporting Figures

Final Report ii


May 2005

13636

Final Report 1


May 2005

13636

1. Introduction

1.1 This Report Entec UK has undertaken a project for the European Commission (Contract No. 070402/2004/383810/MAR/C1) to support the review of Directive 2001/81/EC, referred to as the National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD). This report provides a summary of the scope and objectives of each of the main tasks of the study as well as the recommendations for the Thematic Strategy.

1.2 Background – The National Emission Ceilings Directive The objectives of the NECD are based on the Commission's communication on a strategy to combat acidification (COM(97)88 final), which sought to set NECs for four pollutants causing acidification and eutrophication and ozone precursors. The NECs pay regard to critical levels and loads, in order to provide fuller protection for the environment and human health against their adverse effects. A key requirement of the Directive, as stated in Article 4, is that by 2010 Member States must limit national annual emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and ammonia (NH3) to the ceilings specified for each Member State, presented in Annex I of the directive.

The purpose of the NECs is to broadly meet Community-wide interim environmental objectives for the reduction of exceedences of critical loads of acid deposition and ground-level ozone critical levels for human health and vegetation.

Implementation of the NECD requires Member States to develop national programmes for the progressive reduction of the relevant pollutants, in addition to the provision of information on the likely impact of policy measures on emissions in 2010. The NECD further requires Member States to provide annually updated emission inventories and emissions projections for 2010, which will subsequently be made available to all other Member States.

Articles 9, 10 and 12 of the NECD set out the requirements for a review of the national emissions ceilings, incorporating further investigation of costs and benefits of achieving the ceilings. The Commission must report in 2004, 2008 and 2012 to the European Parliament and the Council on progress on the implementation of the ceilings and towards attaining the interim environmental objectives and the long-term objectives set by the Directive.

The Commission has decided to link the review of the Directive with the preparation of the Clean Air For Europe (CAFE) Thematic Strategy on air pollution, which is required under the Sixth Environmental Action Programme. Many of the projects commissioned under the CAFE Program will provide input to the NECD review.

Final Report 2


May 2005

13636

1.3 Summary of each task

1.3.1 Task 1 Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the NECD set down the reporting requirements for Member States for their national programmes and emission inventories and projections. Member States are required by the Directive to inform the Commission of their national programmes for the first time by 31st December 2002. Under Article 6(2), the Directive states that national programmes should include:

‘..information on adopted and envisaged policies and measures and quantified estimates of the effect of these policies and measures on emissions of the pollutants in 2010. Anticipated significant changes in the geographical distribution of national emissions shall be indicated.’

The New Member States must prepare and submit national programmes under the NECD by 1 October 2006. Those Member States who submitted a programme in 2002 are required to ‘…update and revise…’ their national programmes, as required, by this date.

Task 1 of this NECD Review has involved an in-depth analysis of the national programmes submitted to the Commission. This includes an inter-comparison of the programmes themselves, an assessment of the consistency of the programmes with other plans and programmes (for example, national programmes for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions), an assessment of the methodology, quality and comparability of the emission projections and an assessment of the administrative and political procedure of adoption of the national programmes in each Member State.

The structure of the Task 1 main report is as follows:

• Section 2 describes Entec’s assessment procedure and presents a profile of each national programme;

• Section 3 summarises the results of the comparison of the national programmes with other plans and programmes;

• Section 4 presents the inter-comparison of the national programmes;

• Section 5 presents an in depth analysis of the emission projections reported by each Member State;

• Section 6 describes the political and administrative procedure of adoption of the NECD national programmes based on information gathered through an information request that was sent out to each Member State;

• Section 7 summarises Entec’s proposals for additional essential questions for each Member State, based on the assessment of the national programmes; and

• Section 8 describes Entec’s proposals for guidelines for reporting under the NECD.

In addition to the main report, two separate reports have also been prepared outlining Entec’s proposals for additional essential questions for each Member State and guidelines for preparing national programmes under the NECD to ensure harmonisation for future rounds of reporting.

Final Report 3


May 2005

13636

1.3.2 Task 2 Task 2 of the study has involved the ‘analysis of the feasibility of an emission ceiling for particulate matter (PM) and related reporting requirements’. In addressing this task, Entec has employed Helen ApSimon as an associate to undertake a large proportion of the work. Helen is Professor of Air Pollution at Imperial College London, and has worked extensively for Task Forces under the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution of the UN ECE. She is also a member of the Air Quality Expert Group (AQEG) for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in the UK.

The setting of emission ceilings has been considered in the context of the wider objectives of reducing overall concentrations of particulate matter and associated health effects arising from human exposure.

The lay-out of the Task 2 report is structured around answers to the six questions detailed below.

• Section 2: What are the limitations of current EU policy approaches to reducing exposure to particulate matter? How much do secondary and primary components of anthropogenic origin contribute to concentrations, and how is this likely to change with current legislation?

• Section 3: What are the appropriate geographical scales for control, i.e. to what extent is primary anthropogenic particulate matter a transboundary/local problem?

• Section 4: How much do different anthropogenic sources contribute to primary emissions; how significant are they in health terms and how well can they be quantified for reliable emission inventories and estimation of abatement potential? What are the characteristics of these source components in terms of:

- source type (e.g. point, elevated or ground level, diffuse, area, fugitive sources);

- particle size distribution;

- particle composition/ chemical speciation;

- relative health impact; and

- uncertainty.

• Section 5: How can emission ceilings be decided and for what components? Can integrated assessment or gap closure methods be extended to primary particulate matter, or are there other ways of selecting what emission ceilings are appropriate? Are emissions ceilings measurable and efficient in terms of effects?

• Section 6: What are the issues for implementation and compliance assessment and how do these compare with other approaches for (a) reporting emissions and measurements; and (b) modelling?

• Section 7: What are the pros and cons of the various options for introducing emission ceilings for particulate matter?

Final Report 4


May 2005

13636

1.3.3 Task 3 Task 3 of the study has involved the “preparation of the first draft of the NEC review report and recommendations for further legislation, and for the thematic strategy.”

Two reports have been produced under this task:

• The first draft review report for the NECD; and

• A supplementary report on the supporting analysis for the review report.

Entec has produced a first draft of the review report as required by the NECD. As agreed with the Commission, the requirements outlined in Article 10, paragraph 5 (a) and (b)1 of the Directive are not to be included within the scope of the work. Given the range of additional projects commissioned by the EC as well as the UN ECE, in addition to EEA reports and national programmes, this task has been mainly to gather and summarise the relevant information sources that will contribute to the review of the Directive. Work undertaken within Tasks 1 and 2 has also contributed to the review report. This report has been submitted to the Commission separately.

The text of the NECD details the requirements of the review report under Articles 9, 10 and 12. A review of the data sources has not identified any significant data gaps, beyond those outlined in the Technical Annex of the Tender Specification. These are:

• “a review of the limitations of the regional scope of the NEC Directive as defined in article 2 for what concerns Spain, France and Portugal”; and

• “measures to ensure compliance with the ceilings”.

Work undertaken to fill these ‘data gaps’ is described in more detail in the supplementary report.

1.3.4 Additional Task (Methane) Following discussions with the EC after the project kick-off meeting (July 2004), Entec has also included consideration of the ‘feasibility of an emission ceiling for methane’. This is an additional task beyond the original requirements of the Technical Annex for the project. As such, it was been agreed that only limited allocation of resources would be possible in addressing this task.

The work undertaken comprised a desk-based literature review to address the questions set out below.

• How much do different sources contribute to emissions?

• In broad terms, what is the potential ‘added value’ of an emissions ceiling for methane?

1 Relating to modifications of the national ceilings and/or for modifications to interim environmental objectives as well as possible further emission reductions with the aim of meeting, preferably by 2020, the long-term objectives of the Directive.

Final Report 5


May 2005

13636

• What are appropriate geographical scales for control - with particular regard for the environmental and health impacts of methane, including links with the formation of tropospheric ozone?

• What are the issues for emissions reporting, implementation and compliance and how do these compare with other approaches?

• What are the key points that should be considered by the EC for future work in this area?

Final Report 6


May 2005

13636

2. Recommendations for the Thematic Strategy

2.1 Recommendations under Task 1

Recommendations Discussion

1. Produce guidelines for the reporting of national programmes under the NECD. These guidelines should:

� meet the requirements of the Directive; and,

� improve consistency between Member States and other submissions.

They should be based on existing guidelines (CLRTAP, UNFCCC & EU GHG Monitoring Mechanism implementing provisions).

The first round of reporting of national programmes by EU15 was highly inconsistent and no single Member State met all of the requirements of the Directive (based on Entec & EEA reviews of NECD national programmes).

2. Define minimum requirements for the methodologies and models for preparing emission projections.

The majority of Member States have used national models to prepare emission projections for 2010 and have not described the way in which these models have been developed or operate. Minimum requirements need to be defined to ensure that emission projections across Europe are prepared in a consistent fashion. These could be incorporated within the abovementioned guidelines.

3. Develop a set of indicators for monitoring:

� progress to meeting NEC’s (for example, distance to target); and,

� implementation of policies and measures in key source sectors (for example, emissions per passenger kilometre).

A study needs to be undertaken to identify the most appropriate indicators.

Indicators could significantly improve the way in which Member States and the EC monitor progress towards meeting the NECs. It could help identify potential problems at an early stage so action can be taken sooner rather than later. This could result in improved compliance and reduced costs.

These indicators could be based on those developed for the implementing provisions of the greenhouse gas Monitoring Mechanism which are reported annually with emission inventories and projections and with information on policies and measures.

4. Set up an official NECD Review Process, similar to that in place for the greenhouse gas Monitoring Mechanism. This should include technical evaluation of:

� national programmes; and,

� emission inventories and projections.

A specific timetable for review should be established.

This would give Member States confidence that their data is being used and could encourage submission of information by the required deadlines. This should also lead to improvements in the accuracy and level of information being submitted, and enable the potential use of data for additional policy development purposes

Final Report 7


May 2005

13636


5. As part of the review process, the Commission could compile a Community report each year showing progress of individual Member States and Europe as a whole towards meeting the NECs. This is already carried out for the greenhouse gas Monitoring Mechanism.

This report could be submitted by the Commission to CLRTAP to reduce the reporting burden on Member States (Member States report their emission inventories and projections under the NECD by 31 December each year and to CLRTAP on 15 February).

Community report would also enable Member States and the Commission to monitor progress towards meeting the NECs and compare progress between Member States.

6. Investigate further the potential to combine reporting under the Monitoring Mechanism and NECD. Member States could submit combined emission inventories and projections and national programmes. Issues over sectoral breakdown would have to be investigated further to determine the most applicable system to use and whether the current formats are compatible (Nomenclature For Reporting (NECD) vs. Common Reporting Format (greenhouse gases)).

This study has highlighted the consistencies between the different submissions. In particular, there is a significant overlap of policies and measures reducing emissions of both greenhouse gases and NECD pollutants. Entec’s proposed guidelines draw heavily on the implementing provisions of the Monitoring Mechanism to bring NECD reporting in line with greenhouse gas reporting. Going further than this and combining the reporting processes themselves could significantly reduce the reporting burden of Member States and improve consistency of reporting.

This recommendation could also potentially incorporate emission inventories under the LCPD and emissions inventories/projections under any other relevant legislation.

7. Investigate further the potential to combine the reporting of policies and measures as one complete submission rather than separately for the NECD, LCPD, Air Quality Framework Directive, Solvent Emissions Directive, the Monitoring Mechanism and any other relevant legislation.

This study has highlighted the significant overlap between policies and measures reported under each of these Directives. Reporting all policies and measures on a regular basis in a standard format will ensure consistency and provide a detailed insight into the level of action of each Member State in each Sector. It will also reduce the burden on Member States as they will only have to produce one submission and won’t have to report the same measures in different submissions.

Final Report 8


May 2005

13636



General recommendations relating to the feasibility of an emission ceiling for PM

8. The Commission should consider additional policy measures to reduce population exposure to PM.

Recommendations 9, 10, 11 and 12 provide more specific details of potential options, whilst some more general recommendations are listed below.

• It is recommended that the Commission keep under review developments in evidence of the relative health effects of PM10, PM2.5 and coarse PM, to inform the identification of the targeted PM size fraction(s) in any future EU policy development on PM. Whilst PM2.5 is the priority size fraction to be concerned about for health effects, PM10 and coarse PM should also be taken into account.

• The absence of an identifiable threshold of effects on health should be a major consideration in future policy development and the setting of long-term objectives.

• Given this ‘no threshold’ situation, the Commission should consider setting relative emissions ceilings, rather than absolute targets. This may also increase the feasibility of an emission ceiling for PM, by avoiding problems when recalculating baselines, for example, following revisions of emission factors.

• Substantial effort needs to be allocated to the improvement of emission inventories for particulate matter, concentrating on emissions of PM2.5 and sources correlated with urban areas. Further work is also needed to assess and reduce uncertainties.

• It is further recommended that development of emission inventories for PM2.5 is linked to development of corresponding inventories for chemical components that may be related to toxicity of particles (such as PAHs, metals and elemental/organic carbon) This would enable rapid adaptation in response to new evidence on which components are responsible for adverse health effects.

Air quality limit values are currently set for PM10 and under consideration for PM2.5and can result in focussing on reducing concentrations in ‘hot spots’, when reductions elsewhere may be more cost-effective in terms of benefiting the wider population (particularly given that there is no identified threshold of effects).

The setting of an emission ceiling for primary PM could complement other legislation to control particulate matter. Furthermore, the setting of an emission ceiling specifically for PM2.5 would focus more emphasis on the finer fraction PM2.5, considered to be most important for health effects.

In order to focus action more directly on reducing human exposure and associated health impacts, there can be significant advantages in introducing ancillary requirements to also achieve prescribed reductions in population exposure (e.g. spatially disaggregated emission inventories as described below).

Member States have expressed difficulties in that the current NECD contains absolute ceilings and as such, does not account for adjustments to compensate for changes in methods used to compile emission inventories. As an alternative an emission ceiling could be specified as a percentage reduction in emissions relative to a base year (or period of years), as in commitments under the Climate Change Convention, rather than as absolute tonnage values. This would help “to ensure countries deliver on the level of ambition they originally agreed” and “make agreements more robust to technical developments in inventories”2.

National emission inventories for PM are less well developed than for current NECD pollutants (Figure 1 and Figure 2). If PM inventories were developed alongside inventories for various chemical components, this would enable rapid adaptation in response to new evidence on which components are responsible for adverse health effects.

2 Rea, J. (2004) Improving air quality- the Policy Challenge to 2020. Workshop on Review and Assessment of European Air Pollution Policies, Gothenburg, Sweden Oct 25-27, 2004.

Final Report 9


May 2005

13636


‘Truly national’ emission ceilings structured in the same manner as current NECD pollutants

9. National emission ceilings for primary anthropogenic PM, structured in a similar manner as current NECD pollutants, could be a short-term means of achieving some reductions in primary emissions.

• It is recommended that further investigation is undertaken of the EMEP modelling of transboundary contributions, including border grid-square effects, to increase understanding of the PM2.5 concentrations in areas close to national borders, and apportionment between national and transboundary contributions.

The policy would be simple to introduce with relatively straightforward reporting requirements. Whilst emission reductions might not target the sources that contribute most to population exposure, they could be a means of addressing the transboundary contribution made by primary particulates, as highlighted in the EMEP research. However, it is noted that current modelling methods may overstate such transboundary contributions, and that local benefits of emission reduction in the home country will often be considerably greater.

Dual targets for reducing both emissions and population exposure: a first level approach, using spatially disaggregated emission inventories

10. Whilst a ‘truly national’ emission ceiling for PM could potentially lead to reductions in transboundary contributions, a ‘first level’ approach, using spatially disaggregated emissions inventories with population data, could provide a means of enhancing NECs for PM to target emission reductions in areas where population exposure is thought to be highest. This could be achieved with little additional data requirements. This option is strongly recommended as a first step.

• If this policy was to be implemented, all Member States would need to develop spatially disaggregated emission inventories.

Evidence has been presented indicating that low level sources in urban agglomerations give high contributions to population exposure, and that reduction of exposure to primary PM2.5 is a far more national/local problem and less a transboundary problem than secondary inorganic aerosol3. Careful attention is therefore needed as to where emission reductions are made within a country.

Existing population data (for example that due to be published by Eurostat later this year4) could be combined with spatially disaggregated emission inventories, which would have to be developed by Member States prior to the implementation of the legislation. This information could be used to develop a weighted index that would better reflect the relative contribution per ton to population exposure. The reduction of the overall index weighted sum of emissions would be an approximate indicator of the targeting of reductions to the important emissions for population exposure. It should achieve the percentage reduction relative to the base year prescribed as an ancillary requirement to the emission ceiling for each Member State.

Dual targets for reducing both emissions and population exposure: a second level approach, using integrated assessment modelling

11. A longer term recommendation is to develop a second level approach, using integrated assessment modelling with population data, to give more detailed estimates of population exposure attributable to different sources.

• A model similar to that being developed by IIASA for

A more sophisticated level two approach could rely on more detailed national modelling, combining population data with modelling of concentrations to give more detailed estimates of population exposure attributable to different sources. It would require gridded emissions data and population data. It would then be possible to explore the response of the population exposure index to different abatement options, taking spatial considerations into account, developing curves of exposure index against cost (e.g. Figure 3). Emission ceilings could then be guided by

3 It should be noted that in modelling sulphate concentrations EMEP currently assume that 5% of the sulphur is directly emitted as primary sulphate aerosol, equivalent to 650 kt of primary particulate matter in the PM2.5 size range emitted from EU and New Member States in 2000. This percentage may be an overestimate with implications for the sulphate contribution in the major source areas. It is not included in the primary PM emission inventories as this would be double counting with the SO2 inventories, but would clearly be very significant if it was considered as a contribution to primary PM2.5.

4 This dataset will be at a 100 m by 100 m scale (EC, 2004)

Final Report 10


May 2005

13636


enhanced concentrations in urban areas should be used to relate emissions and concentrations at a fine resolution (5 x 5 km).

• Member States should be encouraged to develop their own more detailed assessment models, using their knowledge of particular situations in their own countries for reporting compliance. The simple approach developed by IIASA could then serve as a default method.

• Careful consideration is required on the basis for selecting emission ceilings and setting targets. One option is to select emission reductions that achieve the greatest decrease in population exposure (and on the basis of a proportional relationship the greatest health benefit) whilst still being relatively cost effective, irrespective of where the reductions are made and who receives the maximum benefit. The alternative is to set gap closure targets for reducing either concentrations or population weighted concentrations by a set percentage, to spread benefit proportionally across Europe. These alternatives could lead to quite different emission ceilings from optimisation calculations with RAINS or other integrated assessment models.

• The links between gap closure on ambient concentrations and the second level emissions approach should be further investigated, in order that short term policy measures, such as the first-level approach, can be implemented in a manner that allows for the progression to longer-term approaches.

specified reductions in exposure index.

Implementation of the second level approach described above could eventually be combined with the method suggested by Laxen and Moorcroft (2005) to reduce population exposure based on monitoring of the enhancement of concentrations in urban agglomerations. The combination of the two approaches would mean that the percentage reduction of ambient concentrations could be linked to the emission reductions that are required to achieve them. This would allow regulatory authorities to target those emissions thought to be most important for population exposure, whilst at the same time, providing a means of measuring the impact of these emission reductions on ambient concentrations to which the population is exposed.

The concentration method suggested by Laxen and Moorcroft (2005) requires at least three years of baseline monitoring data. As such, if implemented for PM2.5, there would be a time delay before compliance could be monitored.

Final Report 11


May 2005

13636



12. On the basis of the currently available data and in the specific terms of the NECD objectives, there seems to be little justification at present for the inclusion of the remote regions of France, Spain and Portugal within the NECD.

• The remote regions should be required to improve their emissions inventories, to be equivalent to those submitted by Member States under the requirements of the NECD. These emissions could then be reviewed to determine their significance, in relative terms, to the rest of the EU25. The impact of their emissions could then be compared with the cost-effectiveness of abatement.

• The EC should support other international initiatives to minimise imported emissions and impacts upon surrounding countries.

Available information on emissions varies across the remote regions. As such, the capacity for building emission inventories would have to be improved to be equivalent to those submitted by Member States under the requirements of the NECD.

The distance at which the remote regions are located from Europe, coupled with the apparent relatively low emissions of NECD pollutants, indicates that these areas do not have a significant impact on acidification, eutrophication and ground level ozone in Europe.

Furthermore, emissions from the remote regions are already controlled by a number of EU directives. The benefits arising from potential additional emission reductions by including these areas within the NECD are therefore expected to be relatively limited.

It is also possible that, given the special status afforded by the European Union to these regions and their geographical location beside emerging regional and sub-regional blocs, the imposition of additional emission reduction requirements may create local market distortions for the outermost regions depending on which countries they mainly trade with.

Nevertheless, as indicated by the EC5, it will be important to consider the environmental impacts of emissions on the geographical regions in which these areas are located. However, as the objectives of the NECD are to reduce transboundary pollution, these issues may be best dealt with outside of the structure of the NECD, in collaboration with France, Spain and Portugal or through regional agreements within their localities.

Such considerations should be incorporated within a sustainable development strategy, managing emission reductions where necessary, but taking account of the socio-economic circumstances of the regions.

5 European Commission (EC) (2000) COMMISSION REPORT ON THE MEASURES TO IMPLEMENT ARTICLE 299(2) THE OUTERMOST REGIONS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 14.3.2000 COM(2000) 147 final.

Final Report 12


May 2005

13636


13. There are strong arguments for the potential inclusion of international shipping within the scope of the NECD, principally due to the significant and increasing proportion of ship emissions to total EU emissions of NEC pollutants and the significant contribution ship emissions make to exceedances of critical loads in many Member States. However, prior to any further consideration of the potential inclusion of international shipping within the NECD, it would be necessary to:

• Consider updated environmental impact modelling of ship emissions following the impact of planned policies on ship emissions in the future.

• Closely follow any planned international level policy development on ship emissions, particularly through the IMO.

• Closely follow ongoing work to allocate ship emissions to Member States as a basis for setting a sectoral ceiling or for including shipping within the NECD.

Emissions from international maritime traffic are not currently included within the NECD (Article 2). Emissions of SO2 and NOX from shipping are projected to grow substantially in the future (Figure 4). These emissions have been shown to have a significant effect on acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone in Europe (Figure 5 and Figure 6).

For emissions of SO2, BAU reductions are expected under the proposal for a directive amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels. In addition, Annex VI of the Marine Pollution Convention, MARPOL 73/78 of the International Maritime Organisation enters into force in May 2005. This contains provisions on special SOX Emission Control Areas (the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the English Channel) and NOX emissions standards for ships engines. Overall, these measures are expected to result in significant SO2 emission reductions in some areas, although only moderate NOX emission reductions.

An alternative approach would be a sector specific emission ceiling, which could incorporate market based approaches as identified by NERA6, but could also take account of ship-specific ‘optimal areas of control’.

14. The EC should closely follow the developments in the ICAO, intended to reduce emissions of CO2 and NOX from international aviation. If necessary, after the effects of these measures have been taken into account, the Commission should consider further policy measures to reduce the contribution of emissions from aviation beyond the landing and take off cycle to acidification, eutrophication and the formation of ground-level ozone

• Discussions at the International Civil Aviation Organisation regarding emissions trading and NOX limit values should be followed closely in order that harmonised measures for the reduction of NOX and CO2 can be supported. If necessary, after the effects of these measures have been taken into account, further policy measures to reduce emissions from aviation should be considered. These policy measures could comprise the inclusion of aviation emissions beyond the landing and take-off cycle within the NECD. However, more detailed research and reflection on current developments would be required before this recommendation could be made.

Emissions from aviation beyond the landing and take-off cycle are not currently included within the NECD (Article 2). Non-LTO emissions of NOX affect regional air quality at the surface significantly more than LTO emissions7. Global non-LTO emissions of NOX affect surface air quality in Europe by 2-3% for nitrogen deposition, and 1% for air concentrations of NO2 and ozone 8. The results of model outputs are depicted in Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Table 1.

Overall, emissions from aviation have a small but not insignificant impact on acidification, eutrophication and ground level ozone in Europe. International policy development through CAEP / ICAO has recently recommended a reduction in NOX emission standards and further reductions in NOX emissions are being sought through this committee.. However, these standards are focussed on LTO emissions of particular engine types and trends for increased overall pressure ratio (OPR) and increased air traffic indicate that emissions from the sector as a whole are likely to increase. Establishing a methodology for allocating emissions to individual Member States would be a complex issue, and any methodology would need to be robust, transparent, practicable and effective.

6 NERA Economic Consulting (2004) Evaluation of the Feasibility of Alternative Market-Based Mechanisms To Promote Low-Emission Shipping In European Union Sea Areas Available online at: http://europa.eu.int. Accessed January 2005. 7 Norwegian Meteorological Institute (NMI) and Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO) (2004a) Service Contract for the Study on air quality impacts of non-LTO emissions from aviation ISSN 1503-8025 Available online at: http://europa.eu.int. Accessed January 2005 8 NMI et al. (2004) op cit.

Final Report 13


May 2005

13636


Developments in the ICAO to reduce emissions of CO2 and NOX from international aviation should be followed closely. If necessary, after the effects of these measures have been taken into account, further policy measures to reduce emissions from aviation should be considered. These policy measures could comprise the inclusion of aviation emissions beyond the landing and take-off cycle within the NECD. However, more detailed research and reflection on current developments would be required before this recommendation could be made.

15. The Commission should develop a database of policies and measures for use by Member States in reducing emissions of NECD pollutants

The wide range of policies and measures reported in each of the NECD national programmes could provide a useful tool for the next round of reporting for not only the New Member States submitting their first programmes under the NECD but also those that will be on their second round of reporting. Most countries will be aware of the more traditional policies and measures such as ELVs for LCPs, for example, but several, more innovative measures have been described for specific sectors such as the transport sector, for example. A comprehensive list and/or searchable database of all policies and measures reported for each key sector could provide a useful ‘toolkit’ for the next round of reporting so that each country is aware of all of the possibilities for emission reductions before preparing their programme.

16. The Commission should consider hosting annual workshops on policies and measures to facilitate knowledge exchange between Member States

Workshops on policies and measures could be organised on an annual basis by the Commission for Member States to share their experiences. This type of knowledge exchange could be a valuable means of disseminating information on the most effective policy and administrative measures for emission reduction, covering both market-based instruments and more traditional command and control policy measures.

Final Report 14


May 2005

13636

2.4 Recommendations under the Additional Task (Methane)


17. An emission ceiling could provide ‘added value’, if implemented with the primary objective of reducing hemispheric background concentrations of tropospheric ozone. However, European methane emissions are projected to reduce under business-as-usual policy commitments. As such, the Commission should assess the ‘size of the remaining’ problem in considering the potential for additional policy measures related to methane.

• The Commission should closely follow progress in climate change policy, relating to methane, in order that impacts on tropospheric ozone formation may be considered during policy development.

• The inclusion of methane within the NEC Directive would focus Member State attention on methane and could therefore be a means by which Europe can move towards the maximum technically feasible reduction (MTFR) scenario. However, a decision for the inclusion of methane within the NECD should be made on the basis of further research, to understand the absolute and relative significance of European methane emissions to ozone formation, and also to allow for the development of mechanisms by which ceilings can be calculated through the RAINS modelling framework.

• Improvements to emission inventories for methane should be encouraged, in order to reduce uncertainty within the inventories.

Methane is a greenhouse gas and a precursor for the formation of tropospheric ozone. The major emissions sources for methane in the EU are enteric fermentation, manure management and solid waste disposal on land (Figure 10). Emissions from the energy sector have decreased substantially from 1990 to 2001, whereas emissions from most other sectors have remained unchanged. The uncertainty associated with methane emissions estimates made by Member States appears to be ‘considerable’.

Projections to 2010 indicate that reductions will be made in: fossil fuel extraction, as a result of decreasing coal production; agriculture, through reducing animal numbers as a result of changes in productivity and changes in agricultural policy; and waste, through changes brought about under the Landfill Directive.

Under current legislation, by 2020, emissions from the EU25 will decrease by approximately 20% from 1990 levels (Figure 11). The maximum ‘feasible’ reduction for the EU25 is indicated by Klaassen et al.9 to be 40%. At the same time, global emissions are projected to increase up to (and beyond) 202010, with corresponding increases in global atmospheric concentrations (Figure 12 and Figure 13). By 2020, current legislation is expected to reduce EU25 emissions of methane to around 5% global methane emissions. If IIASA’s maximum feasible reduction could be achieved, this percentage would drop to 3-4%. However, under a global MFR scenario for methane, emissions in 2030 could stabilise at 2000 levels.

Methane is relatively long-lived in the atmosphere and therefore leads to ozone formation on the regional/ hemispheric/global scale, contributing to the ‘background’ level of ozone formation upon which episodes formed by more reactive VOCs are superimposed. This background ozone concentration is projected to increase in importance in the future, as current legislation targets NOX and VOCs (Figure 14). This preliminary assessment indicates that the influence of methane on both climate change and the formation of tropospheric ozone are at a hemispheric or global scale. This indicates that the geographical location of emissions reductions within any given Member State would not have an impact on the potential environmental benefits.

9 Klaassen, G., Amann, M., Berglund, C., Cofala, J., Höglund-Isaksson, L., Heyes, C., Mechler, R., Tohka, A., Schöpp, W. and Winiwarter, W. (2004) The extension of the RAINS model to greenhouse gases. IIASA Interim Report IR-04-015. April 2004. Published online at: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/rains/reports/ir-04-015.pdf. Accessed November 2004.

10 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2001) Climate change 2001: The scientific basis. Available online at: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/142.htm. Accessed January 2005.

Final Report 15


May 2005

13636


Modelling predicts that the MFR-methane scenario would result in a uniform ozone reduction of around 1-2 ppbv throughout most of the northern and southern hemispheres. This would account for around one third of the total ozone reductions associated with the MFR scenario for all pollutants. Furthermore, under the MFR scenario in 2030, radiative forcing would reduce by 0.235-0.311 Wm-2 compared to the current legislation case as a result of reduced methane concentrations and the associated lower ozone burden.

Given the dual benefits of reduced ozone formation and reduced radiative forcing, the cost-effectiveness of hemispheric or global methane controls should be further analysed. Additionally, the frameworks for modelling of methane should be further investigated with EMEP and IIASA, in order to understand the potential for the practical development of emission ceilings for methane.

If emission ceilings were to be implemented, no further reporting requirements would be necessary, given the substantial reporting requirements already in place for methane under the UNFCCC and the EC’s GHG monitoring mechanism. However, further investigations will be required by EMEP and IIASA to understand the implications of modelling methane within the integrated assessment modelling framework, in order to establish cost-effective emission ceilings. Furthermore, the relatively small contribution made by Member States to the total global emissions of methane, coupled with the projected reductions under climate change policies, suggests that a global response is required.

Final Report 16


May 2005

13636

Final Report


May 2005

13636

Appendix A Supporting Figures 11 Pages

Final Report


May 2005

13636

Final Report


May 2005

13636

Recommendations under Task 2

Figure 1 Comparison of national emission inventories for PM2.5 with the RAINS estimates (for the year 2000)11

11 Amann, M., Bertok, I., Cofala, J., Gyarfas, F., Heyes, C., Klimont, Z., Schöpp, W. and Winiwarter, W. (2004a) Baseline Scenarios for the Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) Programme. Final Report. October 2004. Available online at: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/rains/CAFE_files/Cafe-Lot1_FINAL(Oct).pdf. Accessed January 2005.

Final Report


May 2005

13636

SO2 NOX

VOCs NH3

Figure 2 Comparison of national emission inventories for existing NECD pollutants with the RAINS estimates (for the year 2000)12

12 Amann et al. (2004a) op cit.

Final Report


May 2005

13636

Figure 3 Example of curve indicating reduction in population exposure as a function of cumulative cost (based on national scale integrated assessment model, UKIAM13).

13 Oxley, T., ApSimon, H.M. et al (2004) The UK integrated assessment model, UKIAM: a national scale approach to the analysis of strategies for abatement of atmospheric pollutants under the CLRTAP Integrated Assessment.

cum cost

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

cum cost

Cost

Reduction in population exposure- person g.m3

Maximum reduction in population exposure to primary PM as a function of cumulative cost

Final Report


May 2005

13636

Recommendations under Task 3

SO2 NOX

Figure 4 Range of SO2 emission projections [kt]14

14 Amann, M., Bertok, I., Cofala, J., Gyarfas, F., Heyes, C., Klimont, Z., Schöpp, W. and Winiwarter, W. (2004a) The CAFE Baseline Scenarios: Emission projections. Presentation at the CAFE baseline dissemination workshop September 27, 2004, Brussels. Available online at: www.iiasa.ac.at/rains/cafe.html. Accessed October 2004.

Final Report


May 2005

13636

Acidity Nitrogen

Figure 5 Accumulated exceedance of the critical loads of acidity and nutrient nitrogen from international ship traffic based on emissions in 1990 (difference between the model run with all emissions and model runs excluding emissions from ships - mgm-2) 15

Acidity Nitrogen

Figure 6 Accumulated exceedance of the critical loads of acidity and nutrient nitrogen from international ship traffic based on emissions in 1990 (difference between the model run with all emissions and model runs excluding emissions from ships - mgm-2)16

15 EMEP MSC-W (2000) Effects of international shipping on European pollution levels ISSN: 0332-9879 Norwegian Meteorological Institute research report No. 41 (NMI)

16 EMEP (2000) op cit.

Final Report


May 2005

13636

Global non-LTO aircraft emissions European non-LTO aircraft emissions

Figure 7 The percentage increase (%) of wet NOX deposition values for year 2000 due to the effect of non-LTO aircraft emissions17.


Figure 8 The increase in AOT40f for forests (ppbv hours) in Europe caused by non-LTO aircraft emissions18.

17 Norwegian Meteorological Institute (NMI) and Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO) (2004a) Service Contract for the Study on air quality impacts of non-LTO emissions from aviation ISSN 1503-8025 Available online at: http://europa.eu.int. Accessed January 2005

18 NMI et al (2004a) op cit.

Final Report


May 2005

13636


Figure 9 The increase in AOT60 (indicating health exposure - ppbv hours) in Europe caused by European LTO aircraft emissions19.

Table 1 Overview of the impact of emissions from aviation at regional scale – increase on average air quality indicators over Europe20

Air quality indicator Non-LTO global NOX emissions (2000)

Non-LTO NOX emissions over the European area (2000)

LTO NOX emissions over the European area (2000)

Deposition of oxidised nitrogen

2-3% 0.5-1% Negligible (<0.05%)

AOT40 forests 400-1000 ppbv hours (5-10% increase)

<400 ppbv hours Neglibible (<50 ppbv hours)

AOT60 Typically 100 ppb hours in south/central Europe

<100 ppb hours Neglibible



Final Report


May 2005

13636

Recommendations under Additional Task (Methane)

Figure 10 Sectoral breakdown of EU15 methane emissions for 200121

21 after European Environment Agency (EEA) (2003a) Annual European Community greenhouse gas inventory 1990-2001 and inventory report 2003. Submission to the UNFCCC secretariat. Published online at: http://reports.eea.eu.int/technical_report_2003_95/en/tab_content_RLR. Accessed November 2004.

Final Report


May 2005

13636

Figure 11 RAINS estimated emissions and projections22

22 after Klaassen et al. (2004) op cit.

Final Report


May 2005

13636

Figure 12 Anthropogenic CH4 emissions (Tg(CH4)/yr) estimated for six SRES Marker-Illustrative scenarios23

Figure 13 Atmospheric composition using six SRES Marker-Illustrative scenarios for anthropogenic emissions. Abundances prior to year 2000 are taken from observations, and the IS92a scenario computed with current methodology is shown for reference. All SRES A1-type scenarios have the same emissions for HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 (appearing a A1B), but the HFC-134a abundances vary because the tropospheric OH values differ affecting its lifetime. The IS92a scenario did not include emissions of PFCs and SF6

24

23 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2001) Climate change 2001: The scientific basis. Available online at: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/142.htm. Accessed January 2005.

24 IPCC (2001) op cit.

Final Report


May 2005

13636

Figure 14 Increase in background ozone ‘Current legislation’ scenario, 2000-2030 (ppbv)25

25 Amann, M., Bertok, I., Cofala, J., Gyarfas, F., Heyes, C., Klimont, Z., Kupianinen, K., Winiwarter, W. and Schöpp, W. (2004b) Baseline projections of European air quality up to 2020. Presented at the Workshop on Review and Assessment of European Air Pollution Policies. Gothenburg, 25-27 October 2004. Available online at: http://asta.ivl.se/WORKSHOP_OKTOBER_2004.htm. Accessed November 2004.

Final Report


May 2005

13636

Documents

European Commission DG Environment National Emission ...ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/air/pollutants/pdf/...Project Summary and Recommendations Final Report May 2005 Entec UK Limited