17-18 October 200510th EIONET Workshop Vilnius Reporting by Member States under the Directives,...

17-18 October 200510th EIONET Workshop Vilnius

Reporting by Member States under the Directives,status and results

Dick van den Hout

17-18 October 200510th EIONET Workshop Vilnius 2

Raw data andnetwork infounder EoI

Zones and exceedancesunder FWD and DDs

1 2

3

If LV + Margin of Toleranceexceeded

Measuring and modelling (past year)

Raw data under EoIExceedance data under

FWD and DDs

Modelling (prognostic)

Reductions Plans and Programmes

under FWD and DDs

Abatementplanning

Reporting by Member States to Commission under AQ legislation

EoI: Exchange of Information Decision

FWD and DDs: Framework Directive and Daughter Directives

Questionnaire Decision 2004/224/EC


Margin of Tolerance (MOT): legal threshold for drawing up abatement plans

2000 2005 2010 2015

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n

Limit value

Year when LV has to be met

MOT


Reporting “Plans or programmes” to meet the limit values in time (1)

• Summaries of PPs have to be sent to Commission within 2 years after year when zone was above LV+MOT.

• Reporting template under Decision 2004/224/EC • All EU15 except one have sent PPs to the

Commission on 2001 and/or 2002.

• For new Member States no obligation yet.


Reporting “Plans or programmes” to meet the limit values in time (2)

• In total about 120 PPs received. (One PP can

cover more than one exceedance situations.)

• LV+MOT is decreasing more PPs to be

expected.

• A consultancy study to analyse the PPs in

depth will start soon.


Raw data andnetwork infounder EoI

Zones and exceedancesunder FWD and DDs

1 2

3

If LV + Margin of Toleranceexceeded

Measuring and modelling (past year)

Raw data under EoIExceedance data under

FWD and DDs

Modelling (prognostic)

Reductions Plans and Programmes

under FWD and DDs

Abatementplanning

Reporting by Member States to Commission under AQ legislation

EoI: Exchange of Information Decision

FWD and DDs: Framework Directive and Daughter Directives

Questionnaire Decision 2004/461/EC


Main elements of questionnaire (DD1 and DD2)• Zone designation

• List of zones exceeding LV or LV+MOT• List of zones exceeding UAT or LAT• List of individual exceedances (annual, daily, hourly) +

reason of each exceedance

• For zones with derogation:• SO2 natural sources• PM10 natural events and winter sanding• Lead: ‘specific sources’• Benzene: Article 3(2) extension period

• List of stations and measurement methods

• Statistics 24 hour PM2.5

• Statistics 10 minutes SO2

• Results of Suppl. Assessment: maps and/or spatial statistics

• Exceedances under old AQ directives


Questionnaires AQ Daughter Directives received

MandatoryVoluntary

EU15 New MSs

2001 and 2002 DD1 All -

DD1 All 4

DD2 All 4

DD3 10 4

2003

5

5

5


Quality of submissions

• Unprotected Excel format was chosen for flexibility

(and low development costs); but errors are not

rejected.• Many trivial errors, which we could correct by hand• Substantial number of non-trivial errors; several

important mandatory data (e.g. station identification)

missing for some MSs• Some voluntary data are needed for evaluation, but

have not been filled in by all MSs, e.g.• exceedance of Upper Assessment Threshold,• population in zones.


Example of zone maps: Austria


Example of zone maps: Belgium


Example of zone maps: Lithuania


Example of zone maps: Finland

FI0016Etelä-Suomi

FI0017Pohjois-Suomi

FI0014Pääkaupunkiseutu (YTV-alue)

FI0018Muu Suomi poislukienpääkaupunkiseutu

FI0014Pääkaupunkiseutu (YTV-alue)


Example of zone maps: Slovenia


Example of zone maps:

United Kingdom


Example of zone maps: Greece



Germany SO2



Germany Ecosystem/vegetation


EU-wide zone map is needed• For presentation of air quality information by

Commission and EEA, an EU-wide zone map is needed.

• Half of the EU15 Member States have sent digital zone border coordinates:• as border polygones or• as GIS files.But hard to rework to a consistent EU map!

• Consistency of zone borders between Member States is important; proposal for exchange to be developed soon.


Total number of zones (EU15 and 5 new MSs), dependent on pollutant and protection target

0100200300400500600700800

5 new MSs

EU15


Percentage of agglomeration zones

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

AT

BE

DE

DK

ES FI FR GR IE IT LU NL

PT

SE

UK

EU

15 CZ

EE LT SI

SK

Agglomeration Non-agglomeration


Area of Zones by Member State

Zone area (largest, average, smallest)

0

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

AT BE DE DK ES FI FR GR IE IT LU NL PT SE UK CZ EE LT SI SK


Population of zones by Member State

Zone population (largest, average, smallest)

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

10000000

100000000

AT BE DE DK ES FI FR GR IE IT LU NL PT SE UK CZ EE LT SI SK


Zones exceeding LV (+MOT) for SO2, lead, benzene and CO in 2003

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

SO2 hr

SO2 day

SO2 yr

SO2 wntr

Lead

Benzene

CO


Zones exceeding LV (+MOT) for NO2, NOx and PM10 in 2003

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NO2 hr

NO2 yr

NOx

PM10 day

PM10 yr


Comparision of stringency of limit values (here excl. MOT!)

Percentage of zones in EU15 exceeding limit values in 2003

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Trends in % zones exceeding LV (+MOT if existing) for EU15 excl. Italy

0%

1%

10%

100%

2001 2002 2003

SO2 hour

SO2 day

SO2 year

SO2 winter

NO2 hour

NO2 year

NOx

PM10 day

PM10 year


Trends in % zones exceeding LV (here excl. MOT!) for EU15 excl. Italy

1%

10%

100%

2001 2002 2003

SO2 hour

SO2 day

SO2 year

SO2 winter

NO2 hour

NO2 year

NOx

PM10 day

PM10 year


Station types where exceedances were found

Exceedances and station class: station types

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

SO2

hr

SO2

day

SO2

yr

SO2

wntr

NO2

hr

NO2

yr

NOx y

r

PM10

day

PM10

yr

Traffic

Industrial

Background


Station areas where exceedances were found

Exceedances and station class: station area

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Urban

Suburban

Rural


Ratio of the number of urban background and traffic stations in MSs

Urban background and traffic stations

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ATBE DE DK EL

ES FIFR IE IT LU NL PT

SE UKEU15 CZ

EE LT SISK

Urban background Traffic

Proposed in revised AQ directive: ratio between 1/3 and 2/3


Comparision of station classification under EoI and the Ozone Directive (1)

O3 Dir classification

EoI

Classi

ficatio

n

…


Number of stations % of stationsClassifications are consistent 493 57%Classifications are inconsistent 157 18%Classification insufficiently reported 210 24%

Number of stations % of stationsClassifications are consistent,but traffic station

52 6%

Classifications are consistent,but industrial station

22 3%

Classifications are consistent,no local sources

419 49%

Comparision of station classification under EoI and the Ozone Directive (2)

Suitable for assessment under Ozone Directive?


Percentage of zones for which the compliance status was based on modelling

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%


Maps and spatial statistics

• Voluntary reporting per zone: how much of area / street

length / population / ecosystem is above limit values?

• One MSs (CZ) sent this for all zones and all pollutants,

4 MSs sent this partially, the other not.


Concluding remarks• Report on 2001-2003 to be published soon.• Too many (large and small) inconsistencies in MSs’

reports processing is cumbersome and time

consuming• All FWD stations must also be reported under EoI as

well, including EoI station code for identification!• Voluntary status of certain data makes compliance

checking partially impossible• Today still limited use of modelling for compliance

checking

17-18 October 200510th EIONET Workshop Vilnius Reporting by Member States under the Directives,...

Documents

Transcript of 17-18 October 200510th EIONET Workshop Vilnius Reporting by Member States under the Directives,...