RATIONALE DATA SOURCEShttp://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu

ON EMISSION INVENTORIES…ON EMISSION INVENTORIES…

With the database JRC provides global emission trends of in support of : • Policy makers: to analyse energy, climate and air pollution policies for industrialised and developingcountries based on model runs and interpretations with databases used in-house at the EC.

• Scientific community: to analyse low emission scenarios with an accurate, realistic representationand distribution of air pollutants for various emission source categories

WHAT IS IN THE ONLINE DATABASE

Activity Data:IEA data for fuel production (coal, oil, gas) and combustion (power generation, manufacturing industry, buildings, road transport and aviation/shipping statistics); FAO data for agricultural activities (livestock, crop production); GFED fire data (forests, savannas); UNICS, USGS and others for industrial production and technologies used.Emission Factors:WHAT IS IN THE ONLINE DATABASE

Chemical substances: • Greenhouse gases: CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6

• Air pollutants: CO, NOx, NMVOC, NH3, SO2, Particulates, Black Carbon• Ozone depleting substances: CFCs, halons, HCFCs

Time periods:

Emission source categories:A sector-specific breakdown for Greenhouse Gases (GHG) emissions, for about 50 major categories including land use and land use change and forestry

Emission Factors:2006 IPCC GHG Inventory Guidelines, EEA/EMEP Guidebook for Air Pollutants, IPCC 2006 methods (e.g. landfill model, indirect N2O); scientific literature and other reports for End-Of-Pipe abatement technologies applied

• Historical emission trends of annual emissions from man-made sources from 1970 onwards (for 2005 also monthly emissions), reported for 50 standard source categories

• Emission scenarios for 2006 to2050 based on projections with scaling from economic equilibrium model

Spatial allocation:Gridding of emissions data per country on 0.1° x 0.1° based on global gridmaps for urban and rural population, road network, shipping routes, aircraft routes, grasslands (grazing animals), rice fields, other

major categories, including land-use and land-use change and forestry.

p p , , pp g , , g (g g ), ,arable land, forest fire areas, and point sources such as power plants, industrial plants (steel, cement, ammonia), coal mines, oil and gas fields

METHODOLOGY Database structure:

FURTHER APPLICATIONS • EOLO (EDGAR OnLine Open access): web application opened up for public access

CIRCE: FP6 Integrated project on Climate Change and Impact Research: the

Activity Data (fuel/ animal... use) TECHnology share

& Abatement degree

AD TECH

Emission Factors per technology

EndOfPipe abatementreduction factors

EOP EF

TJ/yr #/yr 100% 100%kton/TJ kton/#

CO2CH4N2OF-gases (23)

CONOxNMVOC (25) • CIRCE: FP6 Integrated project on Climate Change and Impact Research: the

Mediterranean Environment with global and regional climate impact assessment• CARBONES: FP7 project aiming to provide a 30-year long re-analysis of carbon

fluxes and pools over Europe and the globe, with a user-friendly on-line interface.• CoM (Covenant of Mayors): a mainstream European movement involving local and

regional authorities, voluntarily committing to make use of cleaner energy (using higher energy efficiency, renewable resources, reducing CO2 emissions for more

Technology-specificActivity Data

EMISSIONS

Compound Emission Factors / abated tech

kton/yr

TJ/yr #/yr kton/TJ kton/#

( )NH3SO2OCBCTSPPM10PM2.5PM1

Calculation:Using a technology based approach and expression:

g gy y, , gthan 20% .

• E-PRTR: (European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register): a Europe-wide register that provides publicly accessible key environmental data from industrial facilities in the EU-27 and the 4 EFTA member states

• HTAP (UN task force Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution ): inventory, composed of emissions reported or officially accepted by countries with gapfilling using EDGAR d t

EmissionsGRIDs0.1°x0.1°

Grid maps0.1°x0.1°

Scale EMISSIONS on grids

( )[ ]∑ −∗= xyREDxyEFyEOPyTECHyADxyEM )(1*)()(*)(*)()(

RESULTS EM = Emissions; C = country, y: year, x: compound, i: sector, j: technology type; k: end-of-pipe type;AD: Activity Data (e.g. natural gas in power plant sector, number of animals),TECH: Technology (e.g. gas turbine power plant),EF: Emission Factor (e.g. kg emissions per m3 natural gas combusted), by sector & technology (uncontrolled) ,EOP: fraction per technology of emissions abated by End-Of-Pipe abatement technology (e.g. catalytic converter in cars),RED: Reduction % of the uncontrolled EF by the installed EOP technology (e.g. dust removal efficiency of a filter)

EDGAR data• UNEP Black Carbon study assessing near-term opportunities reducing BC & CH4

Global anthropogenic GHG emissions in CO2 eq. (GWP100) in 2008 on 0.1°x0.1° grid (including international shipping aviation excluding short cycle carbon and forest fires)

( )[ ]∑ −∗=kji

kjiCjiCkjiCjiCiCC xyREDxyEFyEOPyTECHyADxyEM,,

,,,,,,,,,,, ),(1),()()()(),(

(including international shipping, aviation, excluding short cycle carbon and forest fires)

mm

uniti

es, 2

007

Contact:Edgar-info@jrc.ec.europa.eu

EDGAR project team: G.Janssens-Maenhout, A.Meijide, M.Muntean, V.Pagliari,

°° 1.01.02

xeqCOton

© E

urop

ean

Com EC • Joint Research Centre

Institute for Environment & SustainabilityClimate Change & Air Quality Unit

R.Petrescu, J.Wilson, B. Murphy, G. Oreggioni, D.Guizzardi, J.Olivier (PBL), J.Peters (PBL)Acknowledged: J.van Aardenne, U.Doering, S.Monni, M. Canova

RATIONALE Comparison of EDGAR and officially reported emission inventories

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu

EDGAREDGAR GREENHOUSEGREENHOUSE GASGAS TRENDSTRENDS

With the fast changing climate we can no longer afford only to clean the air from air pollutantsand aerosols (in clouds, left side of graph below) without taking the greenhouse effect (see rightside of graph) into account.

Satisfying results, also for non-CO2 gases, such as methane (CH4) as shown below.

INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORKINTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) of 1992 was ready forsignature barely two years after the first qualitative assessment report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC) and entered into force already within another two years, onMarch 21, 1994. The treaty adopts legally binding protocols for limiting the GHG emissions, suchas the Kyoto Protocol of 1999 which entered into force in 2005 when Russia also ratified it GHG emission trends for Annex I and Non-Annex I, without and with LULUCF

Comparison of sectoral methane emissions for selected countries in 2005 between EDGAR 4.1 and official UNFCCC data for Annex I countries, REAS data for India and GAINS data for China) .

as the Kyoto Protocol of 1999, which entered into force in 2005 when Russia also ratified it.

Under the UNFCCC governments gather and share information on greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions, national policies and best practices. Industrialised and developing countries (so-called‘Annex I’ and ‘Non-Annex I’) provide inventories of their annual GHG emissions using verydifferent methods and update frequencies (see map below). Recognising the global nature ofclimate change, emission estimates covering the entire globe, compiled independently and using

,

consistent methodologies across all the countries become crucial.

EDGARThe global EDGAR v4.2 emissions inventory covers for the time period 1970 to 2008 all

Latest year for which data are available from the country submissions to the UNFCCC at the UNFCCC GHG data interface.Only Annex I countries (OECD ‘’90 and former centrally planned countries in Europe) report annually (shown in dark blue).

Historical GHG emissions trend for Annex I countries, Non-Annex I countries (both excluding and including theLand-use, Land-use Change and Forestry sector (LULUCF) and international shipping and aviation.An indication of the uncertainty is given by the error bar for the year 2000.

Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry in focusThe LULUCF sector yields significant net CO2 contributions, in particular fordeveloping countries. Even though anthropogenic change in carbon (C) stock affectssignificantly the long-term total CO2 budget, these estimates are very uncertain andg y p

greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrousoxide (N2O) and the fluorinated gases HFCs , PFCs and SF6 .

g y g 2 g , ymethod-dependent.

C l l ti th t b t k h d l t d CO2 i i / l b l h ll h

mm

uniti

es, 2

007

Contact:edgar-info@jrc.ec.europa.eu

EDGAR Project team: G. Janssens-Maenhout, R. Petrescu, A. Meijide, M. Muntean, V.

Global GHG emissions in 1000 million tonnes CO2-equiv. Global F-gas emissions in 1000 million tonnes CO2-equiv.including LULUCF (using the IPCC definition for CO2)

Calculating the net carbon stock change and related CO2 emissions/removals becomes a real challenge whenaccurate information at country level is required. With several specific parameters such as emission factors , C-stock change from national forestry communications and the IPCC GPG-LULUCF methodology (2003), a Tier 1bottom up approach was developed in order to provide a global picture of C stock from living biomass onForest Land.

© E

urop

ean

Com

European Commission • Joint Research CentreInstitute for Environment & SustainabilityClimate Change & Air Quality Unit

Pagliari, J. Wilson, B. Murphy, G. Oreggioni, D. Guizzardi, J. Olivier (PBL), J. Peters (PBL)

Acknowledged: J. van Aardenne, U. Doering, S. Monni

RATIONALE INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.euEDGAREDGAR AIRAIR POLLUTANTPOLLUTANT EMISSIONSEMISSIONS

Ever growing economy takes high toll on the environment. Can technological air pollution abatement measures cope with the necessary reduction of air pollutant emissions or will a change of our lifestyle also be needed to avoid detrimental degradation?

Today, air quality is regulated by the UN Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) for all UN-ECE countries, covering Europe and North America, and is elaborated in a number of Protocols with national emission targets.

Under the cooperative European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (EMEP) of the LRTAP Convention, annual emission inventories for several air pollutants are submitted to the

A Kuznets analysis testing whether the

EMEP centre of emission inventories and projections.

UN Convention UN Convention on Longon Long--Range Range TransboundaryTransboundaryAir PollutionAir Pollution

Gothenburg Gothenburg Protocol for multiProtocol for multi--pollutants to abate pollutants to abate

acidificationacidification Air QualityAir Qualitydirectivedirective

Revision of the Gothenburg Protocol

wishful scenario that environmental degradation starts to reduce with increasing wealth can be observed in the

f SO2

EDGAR AIR POLLUTION RESULTS

1979

UN Framework UN Framework Convention on Convention on

1996 2001

20081999

Air Quality Air Quality FrameWorkFrameWorkdirectivedirective

National Emission National Emission Ceilings directiveCeilings directive

Revision National EmissionCeilings directive

Energy Climate

2012

2009 air pollution

case of SO2 emissions, but not for all countries.

The EDGARv4.1 inventory of man-made emissions covers for the time period from 1970 to 2005, inaddition to the Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gases, the air pollutants: CO, NOx, NMVOC, SO2 and NH3.

The top 5 world emitters for each of these substances are in 2005 (in million tonnes):

1994

Climate ChangeClimate Change

UN Convention on UN Convention on

1997Kyoto Protocol to stabilize Kyoto Protocol to stabilize

GHG concentrations GHG concentrations

2007

Energy Climate Package

2008Reducing Emissions from Deforestation &Forest Degradation (REDD) discussions

2020

climate change

CO NMVOC NO2 NH3 SO2

China 103 China 17 China 22 China 11 China 36

1993

Biological DiversityBiological Diversity

biodiversity

Brazil 96 USA 12 USA 15 India 4 USA 11

USA 62 Brazil 10 Int. shipping 13 USA 4 Int. shipping 8

India 53 Russia 8 India 8 Brazil 3 India 7

Indonesia 50 Indonesia 8 Russia 4 Indonesia 2 Russia 7

1999Cartagena Protocol for Cartagena Protocol for biosafetybiosafety clearing houseclearing house

Global emission trends including large-scale biomass burning (LULUCF):

CO emissions Non-Methane Volatile Organic Compounds (NMVOC) NOx emissions NH3 emissions SO2 emissionsg p ( ) x 3 2

CASE STUDY: IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGICAL EU STANDARDS ON WORLD-WIDE ROAD TRANSPORT EMISSIONSWhat would have been road transport emissions in 2005 if the technological development of EU standards stagnated at Euro level 1 or at level 3 in Europe and elsewhere?

Diesel passenger cars

TJ/yr

Example of control measures in road transport

World-wide impact of implementing EU control measures beyond EU1 & EU3:

Reference scenarioAll : All EU conrol

measures implemented

ton PM10/cellAll Reference case

p

Scenario1: EU1 stagnation

Scenario 2:EU3 stagnation

Difference:EU3 – All

Difference:EU1 – All

Conclusion: By 2000 much of the world was effectively meeting “Euro3”

mm

uniti

es, 2

007

Contact:edgar-info@jrc.ec.europa.eu

EDGAR Project team: G. Janssens-Maenhout, A. Meijide, M. Muntean, V. Pagliari,

© E

urop

ean

Com EC • Joint Research Centre

Institute for Environment & SustainabilityClimate Change & Air Quality Unit

j gR. Petrescu, B. Murphy, G. Oreggioni, J. Wilson, D. Guizzardi, J. Olivier (PBL), J. Peters (PBL) Acknowledged: J. van Aardenne, U. Doering, S. Monni

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu

EMISSIONS

EmissionsGRIDs

0 1° 0 1°

Grid maps0.1°x0.1° Scale EMISSIONS on grids

EMISSIONS DISTRIBUTION ON GRIDMAPSSpatial allocation: EDGAR displays all its greenhouse gas and air pollutant country totals on global gridmaps of 0.1x 0.1 degree (about 10x10 km) using a number of global distribution maps

METHODOLOGY AND PROXY DATA0.1°x0.1°

g

74 different proxy datasets http://edgar.jrc.it/eolo/php/grd_list.php

240 country emissions1.500.000 grid cell proxy 3.700.000 grid cell emissions

Proxy data: Source-specific distributions for so-called ‘diffusive’ emission sources are based on national spatial data on a global map such as urban and rural population, road network, animaldensity, landuse (grassland, arable land), inland waterways, and aviation and international shipping trajectories. For point sources we use maps with individual plant and industrial activitylocations, such as power plants, iron and steel plants, cement plants, but also locations of coal mines and oil and gas production sites.

REVISING GRIDDING METHODOLOGY - RESULTS

I. Case study on sensitivity of emissions distribution to proxy data - EUROPA

locations, such as power plants, iron and steel plants, cement plants, but also locations of coal mines and oil and gas production sites.

NOx emissions distribution from road transport using different proxy data

ktonkton CH4/yrCH4/yr

Improved proxy: population x road length increases the

I.2. EDGAR proxy : population x road lengthConclusion: EDGAR proxy represents well traffic volume

I.3. Advanced E-PRTR proxy : traffic volume (vehicle-km by type per gridcell) (from Trans-Tools)

length increases the gradient between city and intercity transport

I.1. Proxy: roads (km length per gridcell)

II. Case study on emissions distribution improvement for large countries - CHINA

II.1. Left: national EDGAR CO2 emissions from all fuels allocated using national proxies. Below: With GAINS fractions used to allocate first national CO2 emissions to the provinces.

II.3. Left: CO2 emissions distribution from coal combustion only using national proxies.Below: With GAINS fractions used to ll t fi t l CO i i t th

Chongqing31,070,000inhabitants

allocate first coal CO2 emissions to the provinces.

II.2. Conclusion: On aggregated level (all fuels together) the split at province level has only a minor effect

II.4. Conclusion: At disaggregated level, by fuel type, subdivision of country totals first to province totals and than on grid becomes very significant.

IMPROVEMENTS

1. For regions where advanced proxy gridmaps exist . Checking the quality and appropriateness of EDGAR proxy data by comparing with advanced proxies. For road transport, the EDGAR proxy “population x road length” appears to be appropriate compared to the advanced “traffic volume” proxy

level has only a minor effect. g y gAllocating coal use to the correct province substantially changes the emissions distribution within the country.

mm

uniti

es, 2

007

Contact:Ed i f @j

EDGAR Project team:G

proxy population x road length appears to be appropriate compared to the advanced traffic volume proxy.

2. For large regions (e.g. China, USA, Russia, India). Splitting the country emission totals first to province emission totals by subdividing the sector-specific country totals to the provinces/ states with their shares may result in significantly different emission patterns within these large countries, in particular at specific source levels.

© E

urop

ean

Com Edgar-info@jrc.ec.europa.eu

European Commission • Joint Research CentreInstitute for Environment & SustainabilityClimate Change & Air Quality Unit

M. Muntean, G. Janssens-Maenhout, A. Meijide, R. Petrescu, V. Pagliari, J.Wilson, D.Guizzardi, J.Olivier(PBL), J.Peters(PBL)Acknowledged are J. van Aardenne, U. Doering, S. Monni , L. Orlandini, F. San Martin