european commission directorate general environment...

$: European Commission Directorate General Environment ...ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/task1_asign_report.pdf · Final Report iii c:\documents and settings\woodt\desktop\task 1 final$
European Commission Directorate General Environment

Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-based Instruments

Contract No: 070501/2004/383959/MAR/C1

Task 1 - Preliminary Assignment of Ship Emissions to European Countries

Final Report

August 2005

Entec UK Limited

Certificate No. FS 13881

Report for European Commission Directorate General Environment B-1049 Brussels BELGIUM

Main Contributors Andriana Stavrakaki Emily De Jonge Christoph Hugi Chris Whall Will Minchin Alistair Ritchie Alun McIntyre

Issued by ………………………………………………………… Christoph Hugi

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

Entec UK Limited 17 Angel Gate City Road London EC1V 2SH England Tel: +44 (0) 207 843 1400 Fax: +44 (0) 207 843 1410

13554-01

c:\documents and settings\woodt\desktop\task 1 final report 05241_v1.doc

European Commission Directorate General Environment

Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-based Instruments

Task 1 - Preliminary Assignment of Ship Emissions to European Countries

August 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

c:\documents and settings\woodt\desktop\task 1 final report 05241_v1.doc August 2005 13554-01

Executive Summary

Introduction This report presents the deliverables under Task 1 of the European Commission contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-Based Instruments.

The overall objective of this task is to make preliminary assignments of ship emissions to European countries.

Emissions to be assigned are sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), particulate matter (PM) and carbon dioxide (CO2), for the years 2000, 2010, 2015, and 2020. Seven different methods were applied to assign emissions to each EU25 Member State plus Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and Croatia. Each of the methods was appraised against several criteria, within an overall multi-criteria analysis.

The findings of this task will provide supporting information to the Commission in considering how emissions from international maritime traffic could be included in the National Emission Ceilings Directive (Directive 2001/81/EC, NECD) and will further highlight the relative contribution of ship emissions to overall EU emissions.

Assignment methods The assignment methods to be investigated were a selection of “top-down” and “bottom-up” methodologies, summarised as follows:

A. Assignment according to Location of Emissions – ship emissions estimated in each country’s inland waterways, ports, 12 and 200-mile zones;

B. Assignment according to Flag of Ship – ship emissions estimated for the flagged fleet of a country;

C. Assignment according to Industry Fuel Sales Estimates – ship emissions estimated for each country based on industry fuel sales estimates and generic emission factors for the fuel;

D. Assignment according to Reported Fuel Consumption – ship emissions estimated for each country based on reported fuel consumption and generic emission factors for the fuel;

E. Assignment according to Freight Tonnes Loaded – total ship emissions of the 29 countries estimated based on Method A (for 200 mile zones) and split among the countries based on their relative share of freight tonnes loaded;

F. Assignment in proportion to National Emissions – total ship emissions of the 29 countries estimated based on Method A (for 200 mile zones) and split among the countries based on their relative share of national emissions; and

G. Assignment according to Country of Departure/Destination – ship emissions estimated as in Method A but assigned to countries based on port of departure and destination.

Final Report ii


The scope of this task is further outlined in Section 1 of the main section, with general aspects of the methodology and general assumptions given in Section 2 and specific details of each assignment method given in Sections 3 to 9, for methods A to G.

Summary of results of preliminary assignment of emissions As expected, there are significant differences in the distribution of ship emissions between countries using these different assignment methods, and Sections 3 to 9 of this report should be referred to for detailed results. For each method, figures are presented in these sections on:

• Each country’s share of total ship emissions of NOx, SO2, VOC, CO2 and Particulate Matter (PM) for the 29 European countries (EU25 + Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and Croatia);

• Each country’s ship emissions of NOx, SO2, VOC, CO2 and PM as a percentage of total emissions for that country (as given in the RAINS model);

• Preliminary NOx ship emissions for each country (for 2000, 2010, 2015 and 2020);

• Preliminary SO2 ship emissions for each country (for 2000, 2010, 2015 and 2020);

• Preliminary VOC ship emissions for each country (for 2000, 2010, 2015 and 2020);

• Preliminary CO2 ship emissions for each country (for 2000, 2010, 2015 and 2020); and

• Preliminary PM ship emissions for each country (for 2000, 2010, 2015 and 2020).

Under the various methods, the countries with dominant assignments of emissions are briefly highlighted below.

For assignment based on location of emissions (Method A), for the 12 mile zones the UK has the highest emissions assigned from ships, followed by a group including Greece, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Denmark and France, each with broadly similar amounts of emissions. For the 200 mile zones, Italy has the highest emissions from ships, followed by Greece, Spain and the UK.

For assignment based on flag of ship (Method B), Cyprus has the highest emissions from ships, followed by Malta, and for some pollutants Greece, while for others Germany.

For assignment based on fuel sales (Method C) and fuel consumption (Method D), the Netherlands has the highest emissions from ships, followed by Spain, Belgium and Greece.

For assignment based on freight tonnes loaded (Method E), the Netherlands has the highest emissions from ships, followed by the UK, Italy and France.

For assignment based on national emissions (Method F), countries will be ranked in different orders, dependent on the particular pollutant. This is due to the fact that ship emissions are assigned based on national emission ceilings, and these ceilings show different proportions between pollutants for different countries.

For assignment based on country of departure / destination (Method G), the UK, Italy and Spain have the highest emissions from ships.

Final Report iii


Figures 1 to 7 show the relative share of emissions between EU1 countries for each method, where 1.0 is the index given to the country with the largest share for the particular method concerned. Assignments of ship NOx emissions in 2000 have been used for illustrative purposes. Ship emissions other than NOx will, in general, show a similar pattern, with the exception of Method F, where emissions are assigned in proportion to national emissions and therefore different pollutants will have different patterns. Actual emissions assignments in tonnes are given later in the report.

As was expected the figures depict that the allocated emissions and the relative ranking among the countries significantly varies between the different methods.

1 EU25 countries plus Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and Croatia

Final Report iv


Figure 1 Relative amount of ship emissions for European countries based on assignment by location (Method A), using NOx emissions in 2000 for illustrative purposes (1.0 is the index given to the country with the largest share using this method)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O

25 EU countries and 4 candidates

Nor

mal

ised

em

issi

ons

of c

ount

ries

for M

etho

d A

(-).

Method A (12 miles) Method A (200 miles)

Figure 2 Relative amount of ship emissions for European countries based on assignment by

flag (Method B), using NOx emissions in 2000 for illustrative purposes (1.0 is the index given to the country with the largest share using this method)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


Nor

mal

ised

em

issi

ons

of c

ount

ries

for M

etho

d B

(-).

Final Report v


Figure 3 Relative amount of ship emissions for European countries based on assignment by fuel sales (Method C), using NOx emissions in 2000 for illustrative purposes (1.0 is the index given to the country with the largest share using this method)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


Nor

mal

ised

em

issi

ons

of c

ount

ries

for M

etho

d C

(-).


fuel consumption (Method D), using NOx emissions in 2000 for illustrative purposes (1.0 is the index given to the country with the largest share using this method)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


Nor

mal

ised

em

issi

ons

of c

ount

ries

for M

etho

d D

(-).

Final Report vi


Figure 5 Relative amount of ship emissions for European countries based on assignment by freight tonnes (Method E), using NOx emissions in 2000 for illustrative purposes (1.0 is the index given to the country with the largest share using this method)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


Nor

mal

ised

em

issi

ons

of c

ount

ries

for M

etho

d E

(-).


national emissions (Method F), using NOx emissions in 2000 for illustrative purposes (1.0 is the index given to the country with the largest share using this method)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


Nor

mal

ised

em

issi

ons

of c

ount

ries

for M

etho

d F

(-).

Final Report vii


Figure 7 Relative amount of ship emissions for European countries based on assignment by country of departure / destination (Method G), using NOx emissions in 2000 for illustrative purposes (1.0 is the index given to the country with the largest share using this method)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


Nor

mal

ised

em

issi

ons

of c

ount

ries

for M

etho

d G

(-).

Based on the above figure the ranking in Table 1 can be derived for the different allocation methods. In this table, a figure ‘1’ indicates the country with the highest allocated emissions, ‘2’ is the country with the second highest emissions, etc.

Table 1 Ranking based on the emissions allocated to each country under the different assignment methods i.e. 1 = most allocated emissions

Country

A Location (12 Mile Zones)


B Flag

C Fuel sales

D Fuel

consum-ption

E Freight tonnes

F National

emissions

G Departure/ Destination

Austria AUT 24 24 24 23 22 22 20 25

Belgium BEL 11 13 22 3 3 6 14 7

Denmark DNK 4 6 5 10 10 5 18 12

Finland FIN 12 16 11 12 11 12 15 11

France FRA 8 5 12 5 5 4 6 4

Germany GER 3 8 3 7 7 7 2 6

Greece GRC 2 2 4 4 4 11 8 8

Ireland IRL 15 12 23 17 17 16 21 16

Italy ITA 7 1 7 6 6 3 3 2

Luxembourg LUX 28 28 15 23 22 21 26 29

Netherlands NLD 6 7 6 1 1 1 11 5

Portugal PRT 13 10 21 13 12 14 12 13

Final Report viii


Country



B Flag

C Fuel sales

D Fuel

consum-ption

E Freight tonnes

F National

emissions

G Departure/ Destination

Spain ESP 5 3 14 2 2 8 5 3

Sweden SWE 10 11 10 9 9 9 16 10

United Kingdom GBR 1 4 8 8 8 2 1 1

Cyprus CYP 19 18 1 16 16 24 25 18

Czech Republic CZE 26 26 27 23 22 27 9 26

Estonia EST 14 14 19 15 18 17 23 19

Hungary HUN 27 27 28 23 22 26 13 27

Latvia LVA 18 17 25 21 21 15 22 17

Lithuania LTU 23 23 18 19 19 20 19 20

Malta MLT 21 19 2 18 14 25 27 14

Poland POL 17 20 17 11 15 13 4 15

Slovakia SVK 28 28 26 23 22 28 17 28

Slovenia SVN 25 25 29 23 22 23 24 22

Bulgaria BGR 22 22 13 22 20 19 10 24

Romania ROM 20 21 20 20 22 18 7 23

Turkey TUR 9 9 9 14 13 10 28 9

Croatia CRO 16 15 16 23 22 29 28 21

Depending on the assignment method the uncertainty of the presented results is estimated in the range of ±15-45%. More detail is given in the respective sections and in Appendix E.

Assessment of methods Sections 3 to 9 present the detailed findings of the assessment of each of the methods against a set of specific criteria, within an overall multi-criteria analysis. The following criteria were considered:

• Costs to calculate assigned emissions;

• Simplicity and transparency of assignment method;

• Data sources and quality;

• Consistency and accuracy;

• Degree of influence for countries on key variables; and

• Fairness and appropriateness.

Within the remit of this study, the relative importance of these criteria was not identified. As such, it is outside the scope of this study to recommend any particular assignment method. A comprehensive appraisal will need to take into account various political, technical, legal, environmental and economic factors.

Final Report ix


Table 2 depicts the summary of the multi-criteria analysis and the ranking of the assignment methods based on the overall score of the methods, where ‘0’ is the worst score and ‘5’ is the best. A discussion of each method against each criteria is given in the relevant sections.

Table 2 Summary table of assessment of assignment methods (0 is worst score, 5 is best score)

Assignment Method

Criteria A Location

B Flag

C Fuel sales

D Fuel

consumption

E Freight tonnes

F National

emissions

G Departure/Destination

C1. Costs to Calculate Emissions

1.5 1.5 4.5 4.5 2.5 2.5 1.5

C2. Simplicity and transparency of Assignment

2 2 3.5 3.5 3 3 2

C3. Data sources reliability and data quality

4.5 3.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 3.5

C4. Consistency and accuracy

4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3 2.5

C5. Degree of influence for Countries on key variables

3 3 2.5 2.5 2 1 2.5

C6. Fairness and appropriateness

4 1 2.5 2.5 2 0 2

Figure 8 shows graphically the assessment of the individual criteria for each method.

Figure 8 Illustration of assessment of assignment methods

0

1

2

3

4

5

1. Costs toCalculateEmissions

2. Simplicity andTransparency of

AssignmentMethod

3. Data sourcesreliability and data

quality

4. Consistency andaccuracy

5. Degree ofinfluence for

Countries on keyvariables

5. Fairness andappropriateness

Ass

essm

ent (

0-5)

A B C D E F G

Final Report x


Figure 9 shows the aggregated result assuming, purely for illustrative purposes, equal weightings of the individual criteria. As it is not considered appropriate within the scope of this study to recommend specific weightings for the various criteria, it is not possible to draw any firm conclusions from this figure, although it is clearly useful in showing how the methods might compare if each of the criteria is given an equal weighting.

Figure 9 Illustration of mean scores of multi-criteria assessment (Applying equal weighting to each criteria, for illustrative purposes only)

0

1

2

3

4

5

A B C D E F G

For each method, a summary of the main advantages, disadvantages and potential areas for further investigation is given in Table 3 below.

Table 3 Summary of main advantages, disadvantages and areas for further investigation of alternative assignment methods

Assignment Method

Main advantages Main disadvantages Potential areas for further investigation

A – Location • Regarded as most fair / appropriate of the alternative methods, in terms of consideration for location of emissions.

• Has potential to be a relatively accurate method.

• Relatively expensive compared to top-down methods.

• Dependent on Member States having control over emissions in specified sea areas.

• Choice of sea area eg 12 mile, 200 mile zone, etc.

• Enhancements to database (in-port times, increased coverage of vessels (<500GT), ship specific emission factors, spatial resolution etc).

Final Report xi


Assignment Method


B – Flag • No major advantages in comparison to other methods.

• No consideration for location.

• Potential for perverse incentives by encouraging registration of ships with flags of other countries.

• Flags don’t necessarily represent good coverage of national fleets.

• On the basis of the disadvantages of this assignment method as currently presented, this method appears one of the least appropriate of those considered.

C – Fuel sales • Potentially cheap. • Direct link to fuel sales – a

key driver for ship emissions.


• Currently available statistics not sufficiently comprehensive or (possibly) consistent for this method.

• Improving the accuracy, consistency and comprehensiveness of underlying statistics.

• Building in consideration for location.

• Legal definitions to prevent circumventing.

D – Fuel consumption

• Potentially cheap. • Direct link to fuel

consumption – a key driver for ship emissions.

• No consideration for location





E – Freight tonnes

• Direct linkage to freight – a key driver for ship movements.

• No account for non-freight traffic (eg ferries) which can be significant for some countries.


• Potential for double counting freight movements.

• Avoiding double counting of freight movements.



F – National emissions

• No major advantages in comparison to other methods.

• No correlation between national emissions and ship emissions.



G – Departure / destination

• Direct linkage to movements / activity associated with each country.


• Careful consideration in how to assign emissions along a journey to departure / destination ports.

• Approaches for assignment to departure / destination ports.



In general terms, assignment by location (Method A) has key advantages due to its intrinsic consideration of location of emissions and due to a relatively good potential accuracy. For air pollutants, location clearly has an important influence on the consequent environmental impacts. Assignment by location would appear to be consistent with assignment of land based emissions under the NECD, and the Sulphur in Marine Fuel Directive already sets a precedent for sea area based emission controls with the SOx Emission Control Areas covering Member States’ territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and pollution control zones. As such, this method is considered clearly worthy of further investigation as a potential means of assigning ship emissions. Areas for further investigation with this method include choices over the size of zone for assigning emissions and potential enhancements to the underlying database.

Final Report xii


A number of other methods are also considered worthy of further investigation, namely assignment by fuel sales (Method C), fuel consumption (Method D), freight tonnes (Method E) and departure / destination (Method G), as they also have certain positive characteristics as shown in the above table. In particular, Methods C and D could be relatively cheap methods. However, amongst other factors, any further consideration of these would need to investigate how location could be addressed within the method, and how circumventing could be prevented, eg through legal definitions.

Of the specific methods that have been considered in this study, the ones considered to have most limitations in assigning ship emissions include assignment by flag (Method B), and assignment in proportion to national emissions (Method F). For the former method this is due to flags not necessarily representing good coverage of national fleets, the potential for perverse incentives in decisions on which countries ships are flagged in, and the lack of consideration for location of emissions; and for the latter method there is no correlation between national emissions and shipping emissions.

Each of the methods considered in this report, however, could be subject to potential modification, which may alter the assessment findings.

Final Report xiii


Contents

1. Introduction and Scope 1

1.1 This report 1 1.2 Scope of study 1 1.2.1 Assignment methods 1 1.2.2 Pollutants 2 1.2.3 Years of interest 2 1.2.4 Geographic areas 3 1.2.5 Limitations of Scope 5

2. Methods and Basic Assumptions 7

2.1 Discussion of Different Assignment Methods 7 2.2 Assessment of the Different Methods 9 2.3 Basic Assumptions 12 2.3.1 Emission Factors 12 2.3.2 In-Port Activities 14 2.4 Role of New Technologies 17

3. Method A - Assignment According to Location of Emissions 19

3.1 Introduction 19 3.2 Method 19 3.2.1 Ship Emissions at Sea 19 3.2.2 In Port Emissions 21 3.2.3 Emissions on Inland Waterways (IWW) 21 3.2.4 Total emissions for Method A 26 3.3 Assigned Emissions 26 3.3.1 Emissions for 12 Mile Zones 26 3.3.2 Emissions for 200 Mile Zones 30 3.4 Assessment of Method 34

4. Method B - Assignment According to Flag of Ship 37

4.1 Introduction 37 4.2 Method 40

Final Report xiv


4.2.1 Ship Emissions at Sea 40 4.2.2 Ship Emissions in Ports 42 4.2.3 Ship Emissions from Inland Waterways 42 4.3 Assigned Emissions 42 4.4 Assessment of Method 47

5. Method C - Assignment According to Industry Fuel Sales Estimates 49

5.1 Introduction 49 5.2 Method 49 5.3 Assigned Emissions 50 5.4 Assessment of Method 55

6. Method D - Assignment According to Reported Fuel Consumption 57


7. Method E - Assignment According to Freight Tonnes Loaded 65


8. Method F - Assignment in Proportion to Land Based National Emissions 73


9. Method G - Assignment According to Country of Departure / Destination 79

Final Report xv



10. Additional Assignment Method 87

11. Conclusions 89

Table 2-1 Summary description of the assignment methods 8 Table 2-2 Scale used to assess the cost criterion C1 9 Table 2-3 Scale used to assess the simplicity and transparency criterion C2 10 Table 2-4 Scale to assess data source reliability and data quality criterion C3 10 Table 2-5 Scale to assess the consistency and accuracy criterion C4 11 Table 2-6 Scale to assess the degree of influence on key variables criterion C5 11 Table 2-7 Scale to assess the fairness and appropriateness criterion C6 12 Table 2-8 Sulphur contents of fuels used for deriving emission factors. 14 Table 2-9 Comparison of annual emissions estimated for ports found in literature with the estimates

of this study 15 Table 2-10 Assumptions for the duration (hours) of in-port activities, based on port surveys and

database analysis. 16 Table 4-1 Percentage of ships tonnage under the different flags 37 Table 4-2 Number of ships under the flag of the 29 countries (2000) 39 Table 4-3 Distance table used in method B (km) 41 Table 5-1 Average emission factors for different fuel types used by ships in 2000 49 Table 6-1 Summary of literature data on worldwide fuel consumption by ships 57 Table 7-1 Total emissions calculated in Task A (200 mile zones) for the 29 countries 65 Table 11-1 Ranking based on the emissions allocated to each country under the different assignment

methods i.e. 1 = most allocated emissions 94 Table 11-2 Summary table of assessments (0 is worst score, 5 is best score) 96 Table 11-3 Summary of main advantages, disadvantages and areas for further investigation of

alternative assignment methods 97 Figure 1-1 Sea areas differentiated in the emission calculations and assignments 4 Figure 3-1 200 mile zones used in this study 20 Figure 3-2 A3: The countries’ share of reported total ship emissions for inland waterways in 2000

(TREMOVE, 2004) 23 Figure 3-3 A3: Inland waterways ship emissions for NOx (TREMOVE, 2004) 24 Figure 3-4 A3: Inland waterways ship emissions for SO2 (TREMOVE, 2004) 24 Figure 3-5 A3: Inland waterways ship emissions for VOC (TREMOVE, 2004) 25 Figure 3-6 A3: Inland waterways ship emissions for CO2 (TREMOVE, 2004) 25 Figure 3-7 A3: Inland waterways ship emissions for PM (TREMOVE, 2004) 26 Figure 3-8 A: Each country’s share of total ship emissions in the 29 countries’ 12 mile zones in 2000 27 Figure 3-9 A: Each country’s ship emissions in 12 mile zones at sea as percentage of total RAINS

emissions in 2000 (For Denmark the ratio of ship emissions to total emissions for SO2 is 191%, thus not shown on the graph) 27

Figure 3-10 A: Assigned NOx ship emissions (at sea: 12 mile zones) 28 Figure 3-11 A: Assigned SO2 ship emissions (at sea: 12 mile zones) 28 Figure 3-12 A: Assigned VOC ship emissions (at sea: 12 mile zones) 29 Figure 3-13 A: Assigned CO2 ship emissions (at sea: 12 mile zones) 29 Figure 3-14 A: Assigned PM ship emissions (at sea: 12 mile zones) 30 Figure 3-15 A: Each country’s share of total ship emissions in the 29 countries’200 mile zones in 2000 31 Figure 3-16 A: Each country’s ship emissions in 200 mile zones at sea as percentage of total RAINS

emissions in 2000 (Note: a logarithmic scale was chosen to depict the wide range 1.5-425%) 31

Figure 3-17 A: Assigned NOx ship emissions (at sea: 200 mile zones) 32 Figure 3-18 A: Assigned SO2 ship emissions (at sea: 200 mile zones) 32 Figure 3-19 A: Assigned VOC ship emissions (at sea: 200 mile zones) 33 Figure 3-20 A: Assigned CO2 emissions based on 200 mile zones at sea 33

Final Report xvi


Figure 3-21 A: Assigned PM ship emissions (at sea: 200 mile zones) 34 Figure 4-1 B: Each country’s share of total ship emissions in the 29 countries in 2000 (based on ship

flag) 42 Figure 4-2 B: Each country’s ship emissions by flag as percentage of total RAINS emissions (Note: a

logarithmic scale was chosen to depict the wide range 1.5-8,010%) 43 Figure 4-3 B: Assigned NOx ship emissions based on ship flag 44 Figure 4-4 B: Assigned SO2 ship emissions based on ship flag 45 Figure 4-5 B: Assigned VOC ship emissions based on ship flag 45 Figure 4-6 B Assigned CO2 ship emissions based on ship flag 46 Figure 4-7 B: Assigned PM ship emissions based on ship flag 46 Figure 5-1 C: Each country’s share of total ship emissions in the 29 countries in 2000 (based on fuel

sales estimates) 50 Figure 5-2 C: Each country’s ship emissions on the basis of fuel sales, as percentage of total RAINS

emissions in 2000 (For the Netherlands the ratio of ship emissions to total emissions for SO2 is 756%, thus not shown on the graph) 51

Figure 5-3 C: Assigned NOx ship emissions based on fuel sale estimates 51 Figure 5-4 C: Assigned SO2 ship emissions based on fuel sale estimates 52 Figure 5-5 C: Assigned VOC ship emissions based on fuel sale estimates 53 Figure 5-6 C: Assigned CO2 ship emissions based on fuel sale estimates 54 Figure 5-7 C: Assigned PM ship emissions based on fuel sale estimates 54 Figure 6-1 D: Each country’s share of total ship emissions in the 29 countries in 2000 (based on fuel

consumption) 59 Figure 6-2 D: Each country’s ship emissions based on fuel consumption, as percentage of total

RAINS emissions in 2000 (For the Netherlands the ratio of ship emissions to total emissions for SO2 is 755%, thus not shown on the graph) 59

Figure 6-3 D: Assigned NOx ship emissions based on fuel consumption 60 Figure 6-4 D: Assigned SO2 ship emissions based on fuel consumption 60 Figure 6-5 D: Assigned VOC ship emissions based on fuel consumption 61 Figure 6-6 D: Assigned CO2 ship emissions based on fuel consumption 61 Figure 6-7 D: Assigned PM ship emissions based on fuel consumption 62 Figure 7-1 E: Each country’s share of total ship emissions in the 29 countries in 2000 (based on

freight tonnes loaded) 66 Figure 7-2 E: Each country’s ship emissions on basis of freight tonnes loaded, as percentage of total RAINS emissions in 2000 (Note: a logarithmic scale was chosen to depict the wide range

1.5-560%)) 67 Figure 7-3 E: Assigned NOx ship emissions based on freight tonnes loaded 67 Figure 7-4 E: Assigned SO2 ship emissions based on freight tonnes loaded 69 Figure 7-5 E: Assigned VOC ship emissions based on freight tonnes loaded 69 Figure 7-6 E: Assigned CO2 ship emissions based on freight tonnes loaded 70 Figure 7-7 E Assigned PM ship emissions based on freight tonnes loaded 70 Figure 8-1 F: Each country’s share of total ship emissions in the 29 countries in 2000 (based on

terrestrial emissions) 74 Figure 8-2 F: Each country’s ship emissions allocated in proportion to RAINS emissions in 2000

(For Latvia the ratio of ship emissions to total emissions for SO2 is 175%, thus not shown on the graph) 74

Figure 8-3 F: Assigned NOx ship emissions based on terrestrial emissions 75 Figure 8-4 F: Assigned SO2 ship emissions based on terrestrial emissions 75 Figure 8-5 F: Assigned VOC ship emissions based on terrestrial emissions 76 Figure 8-6 F: Assigned CO2 emissions based on terrestrial emissions 76 Figure 9-1 Allocation cases 80 Figure 9-2 G: Each country’s share of total ship emissions in the 29 countries in 2000 (based on

departure/destination of ships) 80 Figure 9-3 G: Each country’s ship emissions on basis of departure / destination of ships, as

percentage of total RAINS emissions in 2000 (Note: a logarithmic scale was chosen to depict the wide range 1.5-500%) 81

Figure 9-4 G: assigned NOx ship emissions based on departure/destination of ships 82 Figure 9-5 G: assigned SO2 ship emissions based on departure/destination of ships 82 Figure 9-6 G: assigned VOC emissions based on departure/destination of ships 83 Figure 9-7 G: assigned CO2 ship emissions based on departure/destination of ships 83 Figure 9-8 G: assigned PM ship emissions based on departure/destination of ships 84 Figure 11-1 Relative amount of ship emissions for European countries based on assignment by

location (Method A), using NOx emissions in 2000 for illustrative purposes (1.0 is the index given to the country with the largest share using this method) 91

Figure 11-2 Relative amount of ship emissions for European countries based on assignment by flag (Method B), using NOx emissions in 2000 for illustrative purposes (1.0 is the index given to the country with the largest share using this method) 91

Figure 11-3 Relative amount of ship emissions for European countries based on assignment by fuel sales (Method C), using NOx emissions in 2000 for illustrative purposes (1.0 is the index given to the country with the largest share using this method) 92

Final Report xvii


Figure 11-4 Relative amount of ship emissions for European countries based on assignment by fuel consumption (Method D), using NOx emissions in 2000 for illustrative purposes (1.0 is the index given to the country with the largest share using this method) 92

Figure 11-5 Relative amount of ship emissions for European countries based on assignment by freight tonnes (Method E), using NOx emissions in 2000 for illustrative purposes (1.0 is the index given to the country with the largest share using this method) 93

Figure 11-6 Relative amount of ship emissions for European countries based on assignment by national emissions (Method F), using NOx emissions in 2000 for illustrative purposes (1.0 is the index given to the country with the largest share using this method) 93

Figure 11-7 Relative amount of ship emissions for European countries based on assignment by country of departure / destination (Method G), using NOx emissions in 2000 for illustrative purposes (1.0 is the index given to the country with the largest share using this method) 94

Figure 11-8 Assessment of the individual criteria. 96 Figure 11-9 Illustration of mean scores of multi-criteria assessment (Applying equal weighting to each

criteria, for illustrative purposes only) 97 Appendix A References Appendix B Underlying Assumptions Appendix C Data Used for Calculating Ship Emissions Appendix D Calculated Emission Data Appendix E Uncertainty Analysis

Final Report xviii


Final Report xix


Glossary

ACC Accession Candidate Country (Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, and Croatia for the purpose of this study)

AE auxiliary engine

EEA European Economic Area country (Norway & Iceland for the purposes of this study)

GRT gross registered tonnage

GT gas turbine

HC hydrocarbons

HSD high speed diesel

IWW Inland Waterways

kWh kilo Watt hour

MCR maximum continuous rating

MDO marine diesel oil

ME main engine

MGO marine gas oil

MSD medium speed diesel

PM particulate matter

RO residual oil

S sulphur

Sfc specific fuel consumption

SSD slow speed diesel

ST steam turbine

Final Report xx


Country Codes

AUT Austria

BEL Belgium

DNK Denmark

FIN Finland

FRA France

GER Germany

GRC Greece

IRL Ireland

ITA Italy

LUX Luxembourg

NLD Netherlands

PRT Portugal

ESP Spain

SWE Sweden

GBR United Kingdom

CYP Cyprus

CZE Czech Republic

EST Estonia

HUN Hungary

LVA Latvia

LTU Lithuania

MLT Malta

POL Poland

SVK Slovakia

SVN Slovenia

BGR Bulgaria

ROM Romania

TUR Turkey

CRO Croatia

Final Report 1

c:\documents and settings\woodt\desktop\task 1 final report 05241_v1.doc 13554-01 August 2005

1. Introduction and Scope

1.1 This report This report presents the deliverables under Task 1 of the European Commission contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-Based Instruments.

The overall objective of this task is to make preliminary assignments of ship emissions to European countries.

In particular, this task is intended to assign ship emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), particulate matter (PM) and carbon dioxide (CO2) at a national level and to illustrate the significance of ship emissions, in particular in relation to land based emissions.

Seven different methods were applied to assign preliminary ship emissions to EU Member States and candidate countries for the years 2000, 2010, 2015, and 2020. Each of the methods was appraised against several criteria, within an overall multi-criteria analysis.

The findings of this task will provide supporting information to the Commission in considering how emissions from international maritime traffic could be included in the National Emission Ceilings Directive (Directive 2001/81/EC, NECD).

1.2 Scope of study

1.2.1 Assignment methods Based on the above objectives this task considers the following seven assignment methods:

A. Assignment according to location of emissions (section 3). Ship emissions are estimated for ships within 12 mile and 200 mile zones of countries including ports and inland waterways.

B. Assignment according to flag of ship (section 4). World wide ship emissions of ships travelling under a country’s flag are estimated.

C. Assignment according to industry fuel sales estimates (section 5). Based on a country’s marine fuel sales estimates and generic emission factors potential ship emissions are estimated.

D. Assignment according to reported fuel consumption (section 6). Based on a country’s reported ship fuel consumption and generic emission factors potential ship emissions are estimated.

E. Assignment according to freight tonnes loaded (section 7). Ship emissions are allocated in proportion to a country’s reported freight tonnes.

Final Report 2


F. Assignment in proportion to national emissions (section 8). Ship emissions are allocated in proportion to a country’s national emissions.

G. Assignment according to country of departure/destination (section 9). Ship emissions of each ship movement are allocated based on the country of departure and destination of that movement.

1.2.2 Pollutants For all above assignment methods the following emissions from ships are estimated and assigned:

• Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)

• Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)

• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)2

• Primary Particulate Matter (PM)

• Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Where comparisons are made with total country emissions of NOx, SO2, VOC and PM, the figures used for total emissions are based on the RAINS model3 used for the Clean Air for Europe programme (climate policy scenario-revised version, activity path as in August 2004, emission vector as in November 2004).

Where comparisons are made with total country emissions of CO2, the figures used for total emissions are based on the Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change4. CO2 emission data are not available for Lithuania, Malta, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and Croatia.

1.2.3 Years of interest The emissions from ships are estimated for four years i.e. 2000, 2010, 2015, and 2020. For the three future scenarios (2010, 2015, 2020) a constant growth rate (+2.6%/year5) of the travelled

2 These are exhaust emissions only, i.e. not including VOCs emitted during loading, unloading and gas-freeing of petro-chemical vessels. Loading and unloading emissions were quantified in a separate study for the EC available here: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/pdf/vocloading.pdf 3 It is noted that total emissions in RAINS include inland waterway emissions and emissions from international sea traffic (bunkers), national sea traffic within the EMEP area, and national fishing. International shipping is divided into five regions: Atlantic Ocean within the EMEP region, Baltic Sea, Mediterranean Sea and North Sea (including the English Channel). National sea traffic within the EMEP area and national fishing covers all ships operated between ports in the same country plus fishing vessels. The seagoing ships are divided in the RAINS database into two categories; medium (up to 1000 GRT) and Large (above 1000 GRT) vessels. PM emission data are not available for Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and Croatia. 4 http://ghg.unfccc.int/default1.htf?time=02%3A49%3A16+PM 5 This growth rate is based on SCENES forecasts that correspond well with the long term growth of the world shipping performance of ton-miles (+2.5%/year) over the period 1970-99, UNCTAD (2000). The uncertainties of

Final Report 3


distances on all routes is assumed for methods A, B and G. For the other methods this growth rate is directly applied to the derived emissions for the year 2000 to estimate future emissions.

1.2.4 Geographic areas For methods A, B and G the emissions are not just estimated on a country by country basis but also with a higher spatial resolution. The following nine sea areas as presented in Figure 1-1 are used for spatial resolution in addition to in port, 12 mile zones and 200 mile zones for each of the countries:

1. Baltic Sea,

2. Black Sea,

3. North Sea,

4. Irish Sea,

5. English Channel,

6. Mediterranean Sea,

7. North-East Atlantic Ocean (as defined in ENTEC 2002)6,

8. Rest of EMEP area,

9. Rest of world outside EMEP area (for method B, C, D and G only).

the future, the lack of data and models (economic and ship technology) do not justify the development of more sophisticated growth rates for individual vessel categories, for the purpose of this report. 6 The chosen spatial definition is to a certain extent arbitrary and comparisons with other calculations might be difficult for this specific sea area.

Final Report 4


Figure 1-1 Sea areas differentiated in the emission calculations and assignments

Final Report 5


1.2.5 Limitations of Scope The main objective was to estimate preliminary assignments of emissions for the 29 countries testing different potential assignment methods to support future decisions. Given this context and the limitation of resources, the estimated emissions are often based on generic assumptions and average parameter values rather than country specific inputs and should therefore be regarded as preliminary estimates to give a sense for the expected order of magnitude of emissions on a country basis under different methods, and the relative distribution of emissions between countries under different methods.

It was not within the scope of work to develop new datasets, but to use and programme the emissions database developed under the Entec 2002 ship emissions quantification study for the Commission (Entec 2002). The underlying vessel movements data for that study was based on the most comprehensive databases available at the time7 (the Lloyds Maritime Intelligence Unit (LMIU) ship movements database, in combination with the Lloyd’s Maritime Information System (LMIS) vessel characteristic database), which includes movements of commercial ships > 500 gross tonnes (GT) (approx. 31,000 ships worldwide). As such, for the bottom up calculations in method A, B and G commercial ships > 500 GT are included in the estimates presented in this study.

There are estimated to be approximately 47,000 ships in the range 100-500 GT (based on the LMIS vessel characteristic database) and additionally all smaller ships < 100 GT will not be accounted for in the bottom-up approaches used in this study. This range is likely to include a small ferries and fishing vessels.

However the fuel consumption for the range 100-500 GT is estimated to be small i.e. <8% of total estimated consumption for >100GT (Endresen et al., 2003). Therefore it can be assumed that the total amounts of emissions for the range <500 GT are an order of magnitude smaller than the ones calculated for the range >500 GT. The emissions of smaller vessels are, however, more likely to be released closer to land.

For the bottom-up approaches, emissions from main and auxiliary engines are taken into account but additional emissions from production processes on ships or operation of boilers are not included. For the overall fleet, such processes are not expected to contribute a significant proportion of emissions, although it has not been possible to quantify this within the resources of this study.

7 Also referred to as the Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay databases.

Final Report 6


Final Report 7


2. Methods and Basic Assumptions

In this section the different assignment methods are briefly introduced (section 2.1), the assessment approach is described (section 2.2) and the basic assumptions are briefly discussed (section 2.3).

2.1 Discussion of Different Assignment Methods The following seven assignment methods are applied in this study:

A. Assignment According to Location of Emissions (section 3)

B. Assignment According to Flag of Ship (section 4)

C. Assignment According to Industry Fuel Sales Estimates (section 5)

D. Assignment According to Reported Fuel Consumption (section 6)

E. Assignment According to Freight Tonnes Loaded (section 7)

F. Assignment in Proportion of National Emissions (section 8)

G. Assignment According to Country of Departure/Destination (section 9)

In addition, a further potential assignment method is briefly explored in section 10.

Table 2-1 summarises the different assignment methods and their scope.

Fundamentally, methods A, B, and G are bottom-up approaches and C, D, E, and F are top-down approaches. Methods E and F only provide the ratios to split total emissions among the different countries and rely therefore on emission inputs from another method.

For each assignment method (i = A-G) there will be an underlying function (fi) of variables in the form:

)...()/(countrytoallocatedEmissions 1 ni VarVarfakTk =

The methodical discussion of each assignment method will be based on the identified key variables that define the allocated emissions for a country. Obviously, the identified variables will often be functions of variables and parameters themselves.

Based on the derived function and the estimated uncertainties of the input parameters the uncertainty of the preliminary emission results is estimated. This is summarised in the assessments of each method, with more detail on the quantified uncertainties of the methods given in Appendix E.

Final Report 8


Table 2-1 Summary description of the assignment methods

Assignment method Parameter A.

Location B.

Flag C.

Fuel sales D.

Fuel consumpt

ion

E. Freight tonnes

F. National

emissions

G. Departure/destinati

on Pollutants to be included: SO2, NOx, VOC, CO2, PM

Years to be included: 2000, 2010, 2015, 2020 (Note 2)

Countries to be included EU25+4 (Note 4)

Link to results of other assignment method

- - - - Method A (Note 1)

Method A (Note 1)

-

English Channel Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

North Sea Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Irish Sea Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Baltic Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

NE Atlantic Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Mediterranean Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Black Sea Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Rest of EMEP Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Geographic region to be included

Rest of World (outside EMEP)

N Y Y Y N N Y

Disaggregate by sea area? Y Y N N N N Y (Note 3)

Disaggregate by vessel type? Y (Note 3) Y (Note 3) N N N N Y (Note 3)

Disaggregate by movement type? (domestic/ intra EU/ international; inland/sea)

Y Y N N N N N

Inland waterways Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

In port Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Water bodies to be included

At sea Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Comparison with land based emissions for 2000

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Notes 1. Method A has been selected as the basis for the purposes of this report, although alternative methods

could be used as a basis. 2. The database model develops year 2000 emissions only. Projected emissions will be developed

outside the database in a separate spreadsheet. 3. This disaggregation is undertaken in the detailed database but is not presented separately in the

results. 4. Including Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and Croatia

Final Report 9


2.2 Assessment of the Different Methods The formal assessment consists of a multi-criteria analysis. Each assignment method is qualitatively assessed based on the following criteria that are discussed in more detail in the following subsections:

• Costs to calculate assigned emissions;

• Simplicity and transparency of assignment method;

• Data sources and quality;

• Consistency and accuracy;

• Degree of influence for countries on key variables; and

• Fairness and appropriateness.

Each of these criteria is assessed and graded on a numerical scale 0 to 5

Costs to Calculate Emissions (C1) A comparison of the expected costs for the different assignment methods has been used to define the score for criterion C1. The assessment has been based on the project team’s experience and time spent on assigning the emissions to the individual countries. Table 2-2 depicts the scale and relevant descriptions.

Table 2-2 Scale used to assess the cost criterion C1

Description Scale C1

Very expensive 0

Expensive 1

Moderately expensive 2

Moderately inexpensive 3

Inexpensive 4

Very inexpensive 5

Simplicity and Transparency of Assignment Method (C2) The simplicity of an assignment method is given by the applied underlying model to calculate the emissions for a certain country and the availability of the input data to run the model. A high degree of transparency of the involved method/process is crucial to seek to gain the confidence of stakeholders. Table 2-3 depicts the scale used to assess the simplicity and transparency of the assignment methods.

Final Report 10


Table 2-3 Scale used to assess the simplicity and transparency criterion C2


Most complex method, bottom-up method with high information needs on an individual ship basis, low transparency, almost no assumptions, everything based on primary data and measurements

0

Bottom-up method, low transparency, a few weak assumptions, i.e. the result is not sensitive to these assumptions, the values that are used and generalisations

1

Bottom-up method, transparent, a few strong assumptions, i.e. the result depends strongly on the assumptions and changes significantly for changing input values for the assumptions

2

Combination of two approaches, top-down approach that relies on data gained from bottom-up studies, transparent, a few strong/weak assumptions

3

Top-down approach, transparent, a few strong assumptions, data easily available 4

Simplest method, top-down approach, highly transparent, input data easily available, closed formulas, i.e. numbers can be simply applied to gain a result y=a*b+c, many strong assumptions

5

Data Sources Reliability and Data Quality (C3) The reliability and quality of the underlying data used in an assignment method is crucial for the integrity of the outcome. The reliability covers the aspects of availability for all counties under consideration currently and in the future. The quality refers to the accuracy, level of aggregation involved and closeness to primary source of measurement.

Table 2-4 Scale to assess data source reliability and data quality criterion C3


Highly aggregated data from different unidentified sources. One-off paper etc. 0

Aggregated data from many sources and no data statistics 1

Combination of different data sources, low degree of data aggregation, no statistics on data 2

Many respected data sources, but little information on data statistics 3

A few highly respected data sources from regular programs 4

Highly respected data source from regular program, data from direct measurements including data statistics

5

Consistency and Accuracy (C4) Consistency in the approach and a reasonable accuracy of the assigned amounts is important. Table 2-5 depicts the used scale and the associated descriptions.

Final Report 11


Table 2-5 Scale to assess the consistency and accuracy criterion C4


Method with lots of strong assumptions and uncertainties and poor statistics on results 0

Method with a few weak assumptions and uncertainties and poor statistics on results 1

Assignment method relies on strong assumptions, expected statistics are not necessarily satisfactory

2

Assignment method relies on a few strong assumptions and statistics on results are satisfactory 3

Assignment method relies on a few weak assumptions and statistics on results are good 4

Assignment method has no strong assumptions and statistics on results are excellent 5

It should be noted that accuracy, as defined above, does not necessarily relate to fairness, which is defined separately below.

Degree of Influence for Member States on Key Variables (C5) A method is more likely to be accepted if a clear cause-effect relationship underlies the method. Countries want to see how potential measures will change the estimated emissions. A method is therefore positively assessed the more the involved variables can be controlled on a country level. Table 2-6 depicts the scale used and the associated descriptions.

Table 2-6 Scale to assess the degree of influence on key variables criterion C5


All variables used in the method are outside the influence of an individual country 0

A few variables can be influenced but the result is mainly defined by variables out of scope of an individual country

1

Variables that define a minor part of the result can be influenced by countries 2

A few key variables that define a major part of the result can be influenced by countries 3

All key variables can be controlled and influenced by an individual county 4

All variables can be directly controlled and influenced by an individual country 5

Fairness and Appropriateness (C6) Fairness and appropriateness are biased concepts and different stakeholders will have different conceptions. This is part of the natural situation due to incomplete knowledge, drivers, beliefs and doctrines and general shortcomings in thought and judgement. The authors of this study are in no way exempt from this natural situation.

The fairness and appropriateness of a method is assessed based on the likelihood that someone without a country bias would agree to this assignment method. The fundamental question will therefore be: “Does the assigned amount represent a perceived proper share in relative and absolute terms of the overall contribution to the ship emission problem?”

Final Report 12


Table 2-7 depicts the scale used and the associated descriptions.

Table 2-7 Scale to assess the fairness and appropriateness criterion C6


The assigned amount bears no relation to the country’s contribution to the ship emission problem and it is very unlikely that anyone unbiased would agree to this type of assignment method.

0

The assigned amount has a weak relation to the country’s contribution to the ship emission problem and takes only partly into account the distribution of the benefits from the ship movements.

1

The assigned amount is either an acceptable proxy of the country’s contribution to the problem or reflects well the distribution of the benefits from the ship movements.

2

The assigned amount is an acceptable proxy of the country’s contribution to the problem and takes into account the distribution of the benefits from the ship movements

3

The assigned amount is a good proxy of the country’s contribution to the problem that can be accepted by a majority and reflects the distribution of benefits from the ship movements

4

The assigned amount represents the broadly accepted share of the problem and the distribution of the benefits.

5

Results of Multi Criteria Analysis Once each of the assignment methods is assessed against the above criteria the different methods can be compared. Additionally a weight can be given to each criterion to allow calculation of an aggregate score for an assignment method. However, the derivation of weighting factors for the criteria would need to take into account policy objectives and other factors which are beyond the scope of this study to assess. As such, it is not considered appropriate within the scope of this study to develop specific weighting factors and therefore aggregate scores for each method have not been derived.

2.3 Basic Assumptions As highlighted in Section 1.2.5, in relation to the specific objectives of this study, it was not within the scope of work to develop new datasets, but to use and programme the GIS emissions database developed under the Entec 2002 ship emissions quantification study for the Commission (Entec 2002).

However, to account for the specific requirements of this overall project and to take advantage of more recent data, the main data set was updated and amended in the following areas.

1. Emission factors (section 2.3.1)

2. In-port activities (section 2.3.2)

2.3.1 Emission Factors The emission factors for the year 2000 from the Entec (2002) study have been reviewed and supplemented by the emission factors for particulate matter (PM) at sea. The emission factors

Final Report 13


decided upon for 2000 have been extrapolated to estimate likely future emission factors in the years 2010, 2015 and 2020 under a business as usual scenario.

Existing legislation which will impact upon future emissions include:

• the IMO Technical NOx code under Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78

• caps on the sulphur content of fuels in Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78 and the Directive on the Sulphur Content of Marine Fuels

Emission factors for NOx, SO28 and PM8 have been adjusted to account for the above legislation

as discussed in the following sections. The other modelled emission factors are in general kept constant over the investigated time period 2000-2020. The detailed emission factors used in this study are summarised in Annex B in Table B.3 to Table B. 22. The presented emission factors are average emission factors for different ship types based on average ME and AE composition and expected load factors of these engines.

Steam turbines are being gradually phased out and only a few turbine ships are in operation in the EU fleet.9 Therefore emission factors were kept constant for turbines.

NOx Code Legislation for marine engine emissions includes the IMO Technical NOx code under Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78. Diesel engines with a power output greater than 130 kW installed on a ship constructed after January 2000 must meet this code. The IMO NOx code is implemented under MARPOL 73/78 from 2005 and the legislation will be retrospective and interim certificates have been issued confirming conformity with the code.

New engines will in general meet the NOx code requirements. To meet the requirements of the NOx code, existing engines might need a variety of measures depending upon the engine speed and age. Engine tuning can reduce NOx emissions by 6% (Cooper, 2004), and this will be enough for some engines to comply with the code. However, a significant proportion of existing engines will need additional measures to ensure compliance.

Based on a review of NOx abatement technologies, an average NOx reduction for new engines of about 17% compared to average emission factors used in 2000 is assumed for future emission factors. A conservative implementation rate of abatement technologies of 4%/year is assumed, similar to the ship renewal rate of 4% stated in Cooper (2004).

Sulphur Content and Affected Emission Factors The assumed sulphur contents of fuels for different locations and times are depicted in Table 2-8.

8 As the SO2 and PM emission factors (eg corresponding to movements in SOx ECAs and movements of ferries) are only affected for specific vessels and in certain sea areas these changes in emission factors have to be modelled separately. The emission factors presented in Annex B do not account for these reductions and show the regular emission factors. The only exception is the SO2 emission factors at berth from 2010 onwards. 9 There are 48 steam turbine ships and 7 gas turbine ships in the EU flagged fleet (< 1%).

Final Report 14


Table 2-8 Sulphur contents of fuels used for deriving emission factors.

Type of vessel / location Marine Distillates (MD) (Sulphur content % )

Residual Oil (RO) (Sulphur content % )

Year 2000

All ships in all sea areas 0.2% 2.7%

Year 2010-2020

All ships in emission control areas (Baltic Sea, North Sea & Channel)10

0.2% 1.5%

Passenger ships operating on regular services to or from any Community port at sea10

0.2% 1.5%

All ships at berth in Community ports and on inland waterways11

0.1% 0.1%

All others10 0.2% 2.7%

SO2 emission factors are directly related to the sulphur content of the fuel. Reducing the sulphur content of fuels may have an impact upon other emissions produced, such as NOx, VOC and particulates. For the switch from 2.7% sulphur to 1.5% sulphur only the expected reductions in SO2 (-44%) and PM (-18%) emissions have been modelled as the impact upon the other emissions is deemed not to be significant.

2.3.2 In-Port Activities The previous estimates for in port times (Entec 2002) were derived from a questionnaire survey of ports, due to limited available information from other sources. This current study reconciled the port times as depicted in Table 2-10, querying the LMIU database (2000) and using additional literature data and port surveys12. Based on this review, the manoeuvring times and the ratio between loading/unloading to hotelling were left unchanged. However the average port times for European ports for different vessel categories were increased by about 20%. The emissions in European ports are calculated based on these average port times. It has to be stated that there are large variations between individual ports but the objective of ship owners and port authorities is clearly to minimise port times13. Therefore actual emissions for individual ports 10 Article 4b Paragraph 3 of Directive 2005/33/EC requires Member States to ensure that marine gas oils are not placed on the market in their territory if the sulphur content exceeds 0.1% by mass. However except for at berth and for inland waterways the use is not limited to 0.1% by mass. So it could be expected that due to availability the average of the sulphur content in MD will tend to decrease towards 0.1% close to EU territory however it is conservatively assumed to stay at 0.2% until 2020 in the current model. The impact of a change to 0.1% MD on the presented results would also be insignificant. 11 In the emission calculations that is incorporated by changing the emission factors for AEs. Emission factors for MEs are not changed as they are expected to run only a short time and will therefore in general not have to switch. 12 Interviews with ports of Rotterdam, Hamburg, and Piraeus 13 The latest Lloyds database allows a much higher time resolution of port times (15 minutes instead of 1day) and could be used in future studies to get more reliable information for individual ports.

Final Report 15


might be quite different from the calculated emissions in this study but it has to be stated that the spatial resolution of this model is sea areas rather than individual ports. A comparison of calculated emissions with data found in literature is presented in Table 2-9 and shows, given the coarse approach based on estimated European averages, a reasonable correspondence.

Table 2-9 Comparison of annual emissions estimated for ports found in literature with the estimates of this study

NOx (t/a)

Literature This study (2000)

Copenhagen 200114 555 323

Koge14 35 26

Hamburg 200015 2,400 4,30016

Piraeus17; 3,800 2,40016

14 Saxe et al. (2003)

15 Umweltbehörde Hamburg (1997) 16 The average in-port durations used in this study are longer than durations reported for Hamburg and shorter than durations reported for Piraeus. 17 Kondopoulos et al.

Final Report 16


Table 2-10 Assumptions for the duration (hours) of in-port activities, based on port surveys and database analysis.

Vessel Description Vessel Category

Manoeuvring Time

Loading & Unloading

Time

Hotelling Time Total Time

(hours) (hours) (hours) (hours)

Liquefied Gas A11 1 19.5 19.5 40

Chemical A12 0.8 16.5 21.0 38

Oil A13 1.5 22.5 20.5 45

Other Liquids A14 1 20.0 22.0 43

Bulk Dry A21 1 58.5 43.0 103

Bulk Dry/Oil A22 1 71.0 5.5 77

Self-Discharging Bulk Dry

A23 1 17.5 19.0 37

Other Bulk Dry A24 1 24.0 19.0 44

General Cargo A31 1 23.0 29.0 53

Passenger/General Cargo

A32 0.8 9.6 4.0 14

Container A33 1 16.5 9.5 27

Refrigerated Cargo A34 1 32.0 22.0 55

Ro-Ro Cargo A35 1 11.0 13.5 26

Passenger/Ro-Ro Cargo

A36 1 6.0 4.0 11

Passenger A37 0.8 15.5 6.5 23

Other Dry Cargo A38 1.1 47.0 5.0 53

Fish Catching B11 0.7 21.0 83.5 105

Other Fishing B12 0.7 16.5 66.5 84

Offshore Supply B21 2 25.0 27.5 55

Other Offshore B22 0.5 33.5 36.5 71

Research B31 0.9 0.0 82.0 83

Towing/Pushing B32 1.7 57.0 18.0 77

Dredging B33 3 24.5 5.5 33

Other Activities B34 1.1 28.0 29.5 59

Other Activities W11 0.5 0.6 26.3 27



Final Report 17


2.4 Role of New Technologies The future availability of continuous location and emission monitoring due to on-board global positioning system (GPS) technology, continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) and the development of universal ship-borne Automatic Identification System (AIS) transponders will further improve the accuracy of the emissions monitoring and positioning. All assignment methods that are based on direct ship emissions/movement related input data, e.g. A, B etc., would potentially become more accurate and gain legitimacy from these new technologies. These technologies will also support the introduction of economic instruments as discussed under the separate report for Task 3 of this contract, which rely on accurate monitoring and locating of the emissions.

GPS systems are standard on the commercial fleet and in combination with a data-logger would allow historic time-location reconstructions of ship movements with a high spatial resolution. A model would therefore not rely on a generic route modelling between two ports anymore but on actual routes and could model time series rather than yearly totals. This would improve the assignment of emissions to actual locations, and also allow the time to be taken into account, which may be a factor in assessing pollution damage caused by certain types of emission.

AIS transponders will allow shore-based systems to inexpensively identify and track AIS-equipped vessels within VHF radio distance i.e. about 40 nautical miles. The foreseen AIS long-range reporting mode would assure that up to 200 nautical miles could be covered. This allows an independent tracking and verification of ship movements as long as the system is switched on. The Safety of Life at Sea Conventions (SOLAS) Chapter V, Regulation 19 states: “All ships of 300 gross tonnage and upwards engaged on international voyages and cargo ships of 500 gross tonnage and upwards not engaged on international voyages and passenger ships irrespective of size shall be fitted with an automatic identification system (AIS),….” According to the convention this should happen by July 2008. This would cover all ships included in the emissions quantifications in this study.

CEMS could provide highly accurate data on emissions from individual ships and is fundamentally feasible, although investment and operating costs can be high. The role of CEMS for ship emissions measurement is discussed in more detail in the Task 2 General Report, as part of this overall study.

Final Report 18


Final Report 19


3. Method A - Assignment According to Location of Emissions

3.1 Introduction This assignment method uses reported individual ship movements between ports to estimate the emissions in ports and along the routes travelled. Task 1A is split into the following three sub-tasks:

1. Ship emissions at sea (section 3.2.1)

2. Ship emissions in ports (section 3.2.2)

3. Ship emissions from inland waterways (section 3.2.3)

The emissions from sea, ports and waterways can then be summed up to give each country’s total ship emissions.

In the following sections for each sub-task the approaches and results are defined.

3.2 Method

3.2.1 Ship Emissions at Sea Two different areas have been considered when calculating ship emissions at sea. The 12 mile zone area that equates to territorial waters and the 200 mile zone area modelled after the exclusive economic zones18. Note that where there is less than 400 or 24 miles between coastal states, the zone is not 200 or 12 miles wide; rather it is at the mid-point between the two coastal states.

For the purpose of this study 200 mile zones as shown in Figure 3-1 for all countries with shorelines were established despite the fact that many countries have not claimed their EEZs (that is to say Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Malta and Slovenia19). The presented emissions for the 200 mile zone include the emissions from the 12 mile zone in order to give a 18 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is an international agreement that sets conditions and limits on the use and exploitation of the oceans. This Convention also sets the rules for the maritime jurisdictional boundaries of the different member states. Under UNCLOS, coastal States can claim sovereign rights in a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The EEZ starts at the outer boundary of the Territorial Sea i.e., 12 nautical miles from the low-water line along the coast. It has to be noted that many countries have not yet claimed their EEZ. Additional information can be found at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm.

19 http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/claims.htm

Final Report 20


comprehensive estimate. To derive emissions for the actual EEZs of a country i.e. the zone 12-200miles the emissions of the 12 mile zone would have to be deducted from the stated emissions of the 200 mile zone as the EEZs do not include the 12 mile zone.

Figure 3-1 200 mile zones used in this study

For each ship movement in the database the emissions in a certain zone are calculated as follows:

Formula 1

(g/kWh) EF)](% LFAE(kW)(%) LFME(kW)[(km/h) v(km) D)( seaat AEME: ⋅⋅+⋅⋅=gE seaAtA

With:

D: Distance a ship travels in a certain zone of a country, e.g. 12 mile zone of country X, estimated based on port of departure, port of arrival, and assumed route.

v: Average speed of a ship depending on ship category (see Annex B Table B.1).

ME: Installed main engine power. This information is gained from the Lloyd’s Maritime Information System (LMIS) database.

LFME: Average load factor of main engine at sea (see Annex B Table B. 2).

Final Report 21


AE: Installed auxiliary engine power. This information is gained from the Lloyd’s Maritime Information System (LMIS) database.

LFAE: Average load factor of auxiliary engine at sea (see Annex B Table B. 2).

EFat sea: Average emission factors for each ship category (see Annex B Table B.3 - Table B.14).

3.2.2 In Port Emissions For each ship calling in a port according to the database the emissions for at berth and manoeuvring activities are calculated based on Formula 2:

Formula 2 (g/kWh) EF)](% LFPAE(kW)(%) LFPME(kW)[)h(T)( portin AEMEportin portin:A ⋅⋅+⋅⋅=gE

With:

T: Average time spent at berth/manoeuvring per calling for a certain ship category (see Table 2-10).

ME: Installed main engine power of the ship calling. This information is gained from the Lloyd’s Maritime Information System (LMIS) database.

LFPME: Average load factors of ship category’s main engine in ports/manoeuvring (see Annex B Table B. 2).


LFPAE: Average load factor of ship category’s auxiliary engine in ports/manoeuvring (see Annex B Table B. 2).

EFin port: Average emission factors for each ship category for at berth /manoeuvring (see Annex B Table B.3 - Table B.14).

For the three future scenarios (2010, 2015, 2020) an identical overall growth rate as was calculated for the at sea emissions is assumed.

3.2.3 Emissions on Inland Waterways (IWW) The emissions on inland waterways are not calculated within the scope of this study as emissions have already be estimated under the TREMOVE program. Two cases can be distinguished:

1. The country has TREMOVE data on emissions of inland waterways for the relevant years 2000, 2010, 2015, and 2020 that can be used (TREMOVE 2004); or

2. No TREMOVE data available.

TREMOVE Data available TREMOVE provides estimates for the emissions from inland waterways for the relevant years.

TREMOVE provides inland waterways data for Netherlands, France, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland and Czech Republic. The remaining countries are not included in

Final Report 22


TREMOVE because their share of total freight transport from IWW is considered to be low, e.g. Germany and Netherlands transport 75% of total freight20. For the five EU15 countries, version 2.2 of TREMOVE was used, whilst for Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic data were only available in version 2.1. For PM emissions, no data were available for Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic, so emissions were estimated from these countries’ contributions to other pollutant emissions.

The following extract describes the underlying assumptions of the TREMOVE model:

‘From TREMOVE demand module the ton-kilometres figures are derived for 1995 to 2020. These are calculated into ton-kilometres per vessel type, commodity type and short/long distance per year, using allocation keys. Total vessel-km by vessel type is calculated by combining ton-km and load factors. The number of vessels itself is not modelled. Finally, what is needed for emission calculations is the number of vehicle-km by vessel type and configuration (i.e. the kind of propulsion technology) in each country. Therefore, vehicle-km is further split to configurations by using the ‘configuration matrix’, …

The vehicle fleet for inland waterways is not modeled explicitly, because the fleet cannot be allocated to a country. Moreover, as for most modes, it is not the type of vehicle used that is important for the emission, but the engine used by that vehicle. In this matter, ships take in a special position. Most ships are able to replace their engine because of the long lifetime of the ships. Experts agreed that this replacement is done every 10 years. Therefore an engine stock model is preferred, rather than a vehicle stock model. Unlike in the road module, it is assumed that purchasing decisions of new engines will only depend on the costs of this engine during its lifetime (10 years). Every cost is written off to money cost per vehicle-kilometre.’ (TREMOVE (2004))

TREMOVE Data not available Emissions from inland waterways are in general small compared to the maritime ship emissions, and countries where there is no TREMOVE data available are those which have a relatively low share of freight transport from IWW. As such, IWW emissions from these countries are assumed to be relatively small and are therefore not taken into account further. In Table C.5, data on IWW collected for different assignment methods are presented.

Results for Inland Waterways For each of the countries where IWW data is available and the five key pollutants, the emissions in kilo-tonnes per year (kT/year) for 2000, 2010, 2015, 2020 are shown in the following graphs. Inland waterway emissions are only available for 8 countries: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland.

20 F. Justen (2003) Inland Waterways Freight Transport in 1990-2001 in the European Union and the candidate countries. ISSN 1562-1234

Final Report 23


Figure 3-2 A3: The countries’ share of reported total ship emissions for inland waterways in 2000 (TREMOVE, 2004)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


% o

f tot

al e

mis

sion

s of

the

29 c

ount

ries

(%)

NOx (%) SO2 (%) VOC (%) CO2 (%) PM (%)

Final Report 24


Figure 3-3 A3: Inland waterways ship emissions for NOx (TREMOVE, 2004)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


NO

x (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Figure 3-4 A3: Inland waterways ship emissions for SO2 (TREMOVE, 2004)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


SO2

(kT/

year

)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Final Report 25


Figure 3-5 A3: Inland waterways ship emissions for VOC (TREMOVE, 2004)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


VOC

(kT/

year

)2000 2010 2015 2020

Figure 3-6 A3: Inland waterways ship emissions for CO2 (TREMOVE, 2004)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


CO

2 (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Final Report 26


Figure 3-7 A3: Inland waterways ship emissions for PM (TREMOVE, 2004)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


PM (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

3.2.4 Total emissions for Method A The total amount of emission assigned according to method A (TEA) to a country i is calculated as the sum of the three distinct elements:

Formula 3 )/(EA)/(EA)/(EA)/( waterwaysinland :portin :seaat :, akgakgakgakgTE iA ++=

3.3 Assigned Emissions

3.3.1 Emissions for 12 Mile Zones The results in the following figures encompass the at sea emissions calculated for the 12 mile zones, the in port emissions, and the inland waterways emissions. Under this assignment method, the UK has the highest emissions assigned from ships, followed by the group Greece, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Denmark and France with similar amounts of emissions. This result can expected if one considers the total area that is assigned to the UK’s 12 mile zone, and considering the high percentage of ship movements around the UK. In future scenarios the impact of the sulphur content restrictions is clearly visible in Figure 3-11 for countries that operate a large proportion of ferries eg. Italy or belong to SOx Emission Control Areas e.g. Germany. For the PM reduction the impact is visible in Figure 3-14 but less significant and by 2010 is overcompensated for all countries by the expected growth in traffic.

Final Report 27


Figure 3-8 A: Each country’s share of total ship emissions in the 29 countries’ 12 mile zones in 2000

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


% o

f tot

al e

mis

sion

s of

the

29 c

ount

ries

(%)

NOx (%) SO2 (%) VOC (%) CO2 (%) PM (%)

Figure 3-9 A: Each country’s ship emissions in 12 mile zones at sea as percentage of total

RAINS emissions in 2000 (For Denmark the ratio of ship emissions to total emissions for SO2 is 191%, thus not shown on the graph)

0

10

20

30

40

50

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


Rat

io o

f shi

p em

issi

ons

to to

tal R

AIN

S em

issi

ons

(%)

NOx SO2 VOC CO2 PM

Final Report 28


Figure 3-10 A: Assigned NOx ship emissions (at sea: 12 mile zones)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


NO

x (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Figure 3-11 A: Assigned SO2 ship emissions (at sea: 12 mile zones)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


SO2

(kT/

year

)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Final Report 29


Figure 3-12 A: Assigned VOC ship emissions (at sea: 12 mile zones)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9A

UT

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


VOC

(kT/

year

)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Figure 3-13 A: Assigned CO2 ship emissions (at sea: 12 mile zones)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


CO

2 (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Final Report 30


Figure 3-14 A: Assigned PM ship emissions (at sea: 12 mile zones)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


PM (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

3.3.2 Emissions for 200 Mile Zones The results in the following figures encompass the at sea emissions calculated for the 200 mile zone, the in port emissions, and the inland waterways emissions. Under this assignment method, Italy has the highest emissions from ships, followed by Greece, Spain and the UK. This seems reasonable if one considers the total area that is assigned to the countries’ 200 mile zones, and if one considers the high percentage of ship movements in those countries’ sea areas. The Mediterranean Sea has a higher ship activity when compared to the North Sea, Irish Sea and the English Channel, so by increasing the area assigned to each country, the countries that have ship movements in the Mediterranean Sea have a higher proportion in total emissions. As expected, absolute emissions assigned when considering the 200 mile zone are higher in each case from emissions assigned when considering the 12 mile zone.

Final Report 31


Figure 3-15 A: Each country’s share of total ship emissions in the 29 countries’200 mile zones in 2000

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


% o

f tot

al e

mis

sion

s of

the

29 c

ount

ries

(%)

NOx (%) SO2 (%) VOC (%) CO2 (%) PM (%)

Figure 3-16 A: Each country’s ship emissions in 200 mile zones at sea as percentage of total

RAINS emissions in 2000 (Note: a logarithmic scale was chosen to depict the wide range 1.5-425%)

1

10

100

1000

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


Rat

io o

f shi

p em

issi

ons

to to

tal R

AIN

S em

issi

ons

(%) NOx SO2 VOC CO2 PM

Final Report 32


Figure 3-17 A: Assigned NOx ship emissions (at sea: 200 mile zones)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


NO

x (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Figure 3-18 A: Assigned SO2 ship emissions (at sea: 200 mile zones)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


SO2

(kT/

year

)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Final Report 33


Figure 3-19 A: Assigned VOC ship emissions (at sea: 200 mile zones)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


VOC

(kT/

year

)2000 2010 2015 2020

Figure 3-20 A: Assigned CO2 emissions based on 200 mile zones at sea

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


CO

2 (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Final Report 34


Figure 3-21 A: Assigned PM ship emissions (at sea: 200 mile zones)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


PM (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

3.4 Assessment of Method

Introduction This assignment method shows a high spatial resolution for where emissions occur. Therefore the outputs from this method could be further used in models to assess expected environmental impacts and benefits of proposed policy measures. The underlying model is not too complex and could be further improved if higher spatial or temporal resolutions are required. The initial costs to set up the model are high in relative terms compared to most other methods considered in this report, however an update with latest input figures would be relatively cheap. This method also follows the same underlying logic used for the assignment of land based emissions in the context of the NECD, ie assignment based on location of emission.

C1A - Costs to Calculate Assigned Emissions = 1.5 (relatively high) The emissions at sea and in ports/manoeuvring are calculated based on a very detailed bottom-up approach. Once set up, the calculations could be easily run with adjusted or new input data. The costs, therefore, would mainly stem from updating the average parameter data e.g. emission factors, vessel speed, etc. and the purchase of the latest movement database.

The rate of change of the underlying assumptions is proportional to the renewal/retrofitting rate of the ship fleet and changes in movement profile. Significant changes that justify an adjustment of the underlying average parameter data are not expected to occur more often than about every 5 years.

Final Report 35


C2A - Simplicity and Transparency of Assignment Method = 2 (quite complex) The underlying formulas are simple multiplications. The complexity stems from the amount of data that has to be handled and the high degree of disaggregation into sea areas, ship categories and flags. There is scope for a reduction in the amount of different emission factors employed and in the amount of ship categories distinguished, without endangering the integrity of the result.

The approach is transparent and all the underlying crucial assumptions are explicitly stated and verified by comparison with other sources.

C3A - Data Sources Reliability and Quality = 4.5 (high) The data sources employed have a high reliability and quality.

C4A – Consistency and Accuracy = 4 (good) The accuracy of the total emissions (TEA) is dominated by the emissions at sea. The standard deviation sTEA for the calculated total emissions with this method is estimated to be in the order of sTEA = 15-25%·EA (for a more detailed discussion see Annex E). This represents a low level of uncertainty compared to the other methods considered in this report. The standard deviation for the calculated emissions at sea, in ports and inland waterways is estimated to be 15-25%·EA:

at sea, 30-38%·EA: in-port, and 40%·EA: iww respectively.

If a higher accuracy for the total emissions is requested the following options could be considered:

• At sea emissions: The distance could be recalculated with a higher accuracy for the different routes in the system. Instead of the average emission factors for a ship category the emission factors for the engine types employed on a specific ship could be used. The time currently calculated based on an average speed of a ship category and the distance of the route could be directly taken from the database, that now logs the time of arrival and departure on a higher resolution for some ports (minutes compared to days).

• In port emissions: Instead of the average time of a ship category spent in port the actual time spent in port could be used based on the latest database that logs with higher time resolution (not held for all ports).

• Inland waterways emissions: A similar approach to the one employed for at sea and in port emissions could be employed for the inland waterways. However it has to be stated that the inland waterways emission are very small compared to the other emissions sources.

C5A - Degree of influence for Countries on Key Variables = 3 (fair) Individual countries do not have a great potential for directly influencing the variables used in the formulas. They have, however, control over the affected waters and would be able to enforce certain requirements. There is a precedent for imposing location based requirements on sea areas in the Sulphur in Marine Fuels Directive (sulphur limits in SOx Emission Control Areas).

Final Report 36


C6A - Fairness and Appropriateness = 4 (good) The location of air pollutant emissions clearly has an important influence on the consequent environmental impacts. As such, assignment based on location is advantageous, and would be consistent with assignment of land based emissions under the NECD, for example.

The 12 mile and 200 mile zones considered in this method correspond to territorial waters and exclusive economic zones21 respectively, where Member States have certain legal rights and responsibilities, and it is reasonable to assume that a high proportion of emissions in these areas will have an impact on their territory. Furthermore, the Sulphur in Marine Fuel Directive sets a precedent in sea area based emission controls with the SOx Emission Control Areas, covering Member States territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and pollution control zones.

21 Where such zones have been claimed.

Final Report 37


4. Method B - Assignment According to Flag of Ship

4.1 Introduction The emissions of ships are assigned to countries based on the flag of the ship. Table 4-1 depicts the percentage of tonnage for each country and Table 4-2 depicts the number of ships of a certain category (>500 GT) registered under the flag of a country. A total of about 8,000 ships was registered under the flags of the 29 countries in 2000.

Table 4-1 Percentage of ships tonnage under the different flags

Flag

% of World GT

% of World dwt (% of deadweight tons)

Austria 0.01% 0.01%

Belgium 0.02% 0.01%

Denmark + Danish International Register 1.14% 0.97%

Finland 0.20% 0.15%

France 0.28% 0.24%

Germany 1.14% 0.94%

Greece 5.24% 6.01%

Ireland 0.03% 0.02%

Italy 1.56% 1.25%

Luxembourg 0.21% 0.19%

Netherlands 0.98% 0.72%

Portugal 0.05% 0.05%

Spain 0.07% 0.05%

Sweden 0.43% 0.21%

United Kingdom 0.97% 0.58%

Cyprus 4.52% 4.78%

Estonia 0.05% 0.03%

Latvia 0.01% 0.00%

Lithuania 0.06% 0.04%

Malta 5.76% 6.33%

Poland 0.13% 0.13%

Final Report 38


Flag

% of World GT

% of World dwt (% of deadweight tons)

Slovakia 0.00% 0.00%

Slovenia 0.00% 0.00%

Bulgaria 0.18% 0.18%

Romania 0.08% 0.07%

Turkey 1.04% 1.11%

Croatia 0.13% 0.13%

Others 75.71% 75.78%

Final Report 39

c:\documents and settings\woodt\desktop\task 1 final report 05241_v1.doc13554-01 August 2005

Table 4-2 Number of ships under the flag of the 29 countries (2000) Number of ships

Aust

ria

Belg

ium

Den

mar

k

Finl

and

Fran

ce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Irela

nd

Italy

Luxe

mbo

urg

Net

herla

nds

Portu

gal

Spai

n

Swed

en

Uni

ted

King

dom

C

ypru

s

Cze

ch

Rep

ublic

Es

toni

a

Hun

gary

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Mal

ta

Pola

nd

Slov

akia

Slov

enia

Bulg

aria

Rom

ania

Turk

ey

Cro

atia

LMIU AUT BEL DNK FIN FRA GER GRC IRL ITA LUX NLD PRT ESP SWE GBR CYP CZE EST HUN LVA LTU MLT POL SVK SVN BGR ROM TUR HRV

Code

Total: Ship Typ

8 26 423 117 98 467 778 35 544 57 744 47 107 195 448 1,298 0 60 0 18 65 1,433 73 3 1 83 54 705 58

A11 Liquified Gas 25 3 3 7 41 18 15 1 3 4 3 7 A12 Chemical 31 4 5 8 41 91 9 36 6 40 9 31 52 3 4 49 1 A13 Oil 20 11 6 11 261 72 6 8 1 2 26 54 129 1 1 307 6 5 2 63 2 A14 Other Liquids 4 3 21 4 6 1 3 1 6 A21 Bulk Dry 5 6 2 245 3 39 2 1 3 452 2 8 450 20 33 11 137 16 A22 Bulk Dry/Oil 0 1 4 2 2 6 2 A23 Self-Discharging

Bulk Dry 0 2 1 4 1

A24 Other Bulk Dry 4 1 1 18 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 2 3 A31 General Cargo 8 1 156 37 10 166 66 21 30 383 15 2 41 63 436 37 7 27 412 3 3 29 31 372 19 A32 Passenger/General

Cargo 0 1 1 1 1 2

A33 Container 61 2 206 45 1 23 5 46 4 48 112 57 5 22 A34 Refrigerated Cargo 12 3 4 31 2 5 51 1 1 13 47 1 1 1 A35 Ro-Ro Cargo 9 30 4 3 16 48 7 16 1 4 54 17 25 8 2 59 1 3 3 18 4 A36 Passenger/Ro-Ro

Cargo 12 5 15 6 50 1 82 6 1 8 3 31 16 2 2 9 1 2 14 6

A37 Passenger 0 2 8 11 12 26 4 14 2 4 15 6 7 2 1 2 2 A38 Other Dry Cargo 8 3 23 4 4 1 3 B11 Fish Catching 1 7 21 6 6 3 22 9 63 4 25 7 8 6 5 3 21 3 B12 Other Fishing 1 1 5 9 3 1 B21 Offshore Supply 21 3 1 21 16 39 2 1 1 4 B22 Other Offshore 7 2 1 3 29 2 2 B31 Research 1 1 2 9 3 8 1 10 1 2 B32 Towing/Pushing 9 19 16 6 23 5 1 28 39 4 16 6 26 7 1 3 3 1 12 1 4 1 B33 Dredging 11 13 3 4 5 45 1 2 32 2 2 B34 Other Activities 3 7 5 4 5 2 2 5 1 18 3 3 25 1 3 1 1 1 1 W11 Other Activities 0 2 4 W12 Other Activities 0 3 W13 Other Activities 0 1 1

Final Report 40


4.2 Method

4.2.1 Ship Emissions at Sea The methods to calculate the emissions at sea are identical to those used in method A and are discussed in detail in section 3.2. The spatial scope for calculating the emissions is global.

For the illustrative purposes of this task, the distances (D) for routes outside the EMEP area are estimated based on rough estimates of average distances between parts of continents as shown in Table 4-3. This is an approximate approach that could be refined further, if this method was considered worthy of more detailed consideration.

Final Report 41


Table 4-3 Distance table used in method B (km) EMEP SAA CAR IBE USP USG CAN CAM SAP EMD WAF UKE SCN NEU JPN SEU BLK AUS NAF EAF RED ARA IND SEA CHI

EMEPSAA 5500CAR 4900 4400IBE 0 5300 6200USP 11800 10100 6900 12700USG 6200 6000 1300 7400 8400CAN 4300 8000 5800 4100 13000 6700CAM 6000 4900 1100 7300 7500 1700 7500SAP 8000 7300 4600 9900 7200 5400 9900 4400EMD 0 4800 5800 4800 12400 7200 5300 6900 9600WAF 2900 3700 6800 3100 12900 8900 8500 8200 9800 2500UKE 0 4800 5400 2000 12000 6300 4400 6500 9100 6500 2900SCN 0 4900 5000 2900 11800 6100 4400 6400 9000 7500 2900 2300NEU 0 4900 4900 2100 11800 6100 4400 6500 9100 6800 2900 1500 800JPN 14600 16700 18300 19400 8800 17700 22200 16500 18800 14100 21600 18500 18500 18600SEU 0 5400 6500 2800 13100 7500 6300 7400 10200 2900 3100 4600 5800 5000 13700BLK 0 4800 5800 4700 12500 7100 5500 7000 9600 2000 2500 6700 7500 6800 13900 2700AUS 11000 17000 20700 19200 19100 22300 15800 21600 15700 10000 15300 9600 18800 18800 7700 9500 9900NAF 0 5500 6300 3100 13000 7500 6200 7400 9900 2300 3100 5100 6200 5300 13800 1200 2300 9600EAF 11300 10900 14900 13100 20000 15800 16700 14900 13400 7300 8600 12900 12800 12900 13800 6800 6800 7900 7000RED 0 5300 6400 0 10100 7700 6200 7500 10100 400 3000 7200 8000 7400 13700 3300 300 9600 2800 6800ARA 5900 19400 12400 5700 18700 13300 12500 13500 15900 6100 13500 5800 5200 5800 13000 5500 6000 9300 5800 7800 5800IND 6200 16900 11900 5100 19100 13000 12300 13200 16300 6000 13900 5200 5400 5200 8400 5400 5600 5700 5600 6500 5500 4200SEA 8400 18400 13600 7200 20100 15000 14200 20400 20500 7600 15500 7400 6900 6800 7800 7200 7300 5900 7400 8300 7300 5900 2000CHI 11900 18600 20300 17700 11600 20900 17100 19600 18600 11200 19700 10400 10600 10800 2300 10600 11000 6200 10700 11700 11000 10400 6500 5900USA 2800 5500 2400 3900 9700 3300 3200 3600 7100 4500 6600 3600 3300 3500 19000 5000 5000 14500 5300 14800 5400 11200 10600 12500 21300 ARA: Arabian Gulf, AUS: Australasia, BLK: Black Sea, CAM: Central America, CAN: Great Lakes - Canada, CAR: Caribbean, CHI: Far East - China Sea, EAF: South & East Africa, EMD: E Mediterranean, IBE: Iberian Atlantic, IND: Indian Sub Continent, JPN: Japan, NAF: North Africa, NEU: North Cont Europe, RED: Red Sea, SAA: South America - Atlantic, SAP: Sout America - Pacific, SCN: Scandinavia/Baltic, SEA: Far East - Asean, SEU: South Europe, UKE: UK/Eire, USA: US Atlantic, USG: US Gulf, USP: North America - Pacific, WAF: West Africa

Final Report 42


4.2.2 Ship Emissions in Ports For the illustrative purposes of this task, the ship emissions in ports are assumed to be in the order of 10% of the emissions at sea. This is considered to be a reasonable estimate given the range of 2-9% given by Endresen (2003).

4.2.3 Ship Emissions from Inland Waterways The same amounts as in method A are used assuming that all emissions within a country are from ships under the flag of this country and no emissions from ships on inland waterways occur outside the flag country.

4.3 Assigned Emissions The following figures encompass the results of this assignment method. Under this assignment method, Cyprus has the highest emissions from ships, followed by Malta, and for some pollutants Greece, while for others Germany. This seems reasonable if one considers the overall ship numbers and tonnage assigned under the different flags as depicted in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2.

Figure 4-1 B: Each country’s share of total ship emissions in the 29 countries in 2000 (based on ship flag)

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


% o

f tot

al e

mis

sion

s of

the

29 c

ount

ries

(%)

NOx (%) SO2 (%) VOC (%) CO2 (%) PM (%)

Final Report 43


Figure 4-2 B: Each country’s ship emissions by flag as percentage of total RAINS emissions (Note: a logarithmic scale was chosen to depict the wide range 1.5-8,010%)

1

10

100

1000

10000

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


Rat

io o

f shi

p em

issi

ons

to to

tal e

mis

sion

s (%

)

NOx SO2 VOC CO2 PM

Final Report 44


Figure 4-3 B: Assigned NOx ship emissions based on ship flag

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


NO

x (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Final Report 45


Figure 4-4 B: Assigned SO2 ship emissions based on ship flag

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


SO2

(kT/

year

)2000 2010 2015 2020

Figure 4-5 B: Assigned VOC ship emissions based on ship flag

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


VOC

(kT/

year

)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Final Report 46


Figure 4-6 B Assigned CO2 ship emissions based on ship flag

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


CO

2 (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Figure 4-7 B: Assigned PM ship emissions based on ship flag

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


PM (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Final Report 47



Introduction This method takes into account the world wide emissions of ships under a country’s flag based on the individual ship movements. This assignment method would fundamentally change the current importance of the flag of a ship. The flag of a ship can be almost freely chosen and therefore by assigning emissions according to flags, the emissions distribution could significantly change, due to specific interests that would arise from countries efforts to control their ship emissions. This method is difficult to defend and may create perverse incentives e.g. to change the flag of ships to reduce emissions etc. This assignment method is therefore considered to have significant limitations in the presented form.

C1B - Costs to Calculate Assigned Emissions = 1.5 (relatively high) The emissions at sea are calculated based on a very detailed bottom-up approach. The in-port emissions are roughly estimated based on cited fractions of the emissions at sea. Once set up, the calculations can be easily run with adjusted or new input data. The costs, therefore, would mainly stem from updating the average parameter data e.g. emission factors, vessel speed, etc. and the purchase of the latest movement database.

The rate of change of the underlying assumptions is proportional to the renewal/retrofitting rate of the ship fleet. Significant changes that justify an adjustment of the underlying average parameter data are not expected to occur more often than about every 5 years.

C2B - Simplicity and Transparency of Assignment Method = 2 (quite complex) The underlying equations are simple multiplication. The complexity stems from the amount of data that has to be handled and the requested high degree of disaggregation into sea areas, ship categories and flags. There is scope for a reduction in the amount of different emission factors employed and in the amount of ship categories distinguished. The fixed fraction used to calculate the in-port emissions makes it a simpler approach compared with A, although that is a simplification purely for the purposes of this report. In practice, in port emissions could be assigned to individual flags in the same way that at-sea emissions have been.


C3B - Data Sources Reliability and Quality = 3.5 (quite high) The data sources employed generally have a high reliability and quality. However, the distances D used to calculate the emissions for movements outside the EMEP area are rough estimates compared with the approach employed within the EMEP area. It would be possible to develop more refined methods for this, if this method was to be considered further.

C4B – Consistency and Accuracy = 2.5 (average) The accuracy of the total emissions (TEA) is dominated by the emissions at sea. The standard deviation of sTEA = 26-32%·TEA, based on the current method, represents a medium level of uncertainty compared to the other methods considered in this report.

If a higher accuracy for the total emissions is needed the following options could be considered:

Final Report 48


• At sea emissions: The world-wide distance D could be recalculated with a higher accuracy for the different routes in the system. Instead of the average emission factors for a ship category the emission factors for the engine types employed on a specific ship could be used. The time currently calculated based on an average speed of a ship category and the distance of the route could be directly taken from the database, that now logs the time of arrival and departure on a higher resolution for some ports (minutes).

• In-port emissions: Instead of the fixed fraction of the emissions at sea the individual callings and an average time in port could be taken into account as in method A.

• Inland waterways emissions: See method A

C5B - Degree of influence for Countries on Key Variables = 3 (fair) As only emissions from ships that are under the flag of a country are counted, a country may influence the amount of emissions allocated through various measures. However, the actions of individual ship operating companies would also have an influence.

C6B - Fairness and Appropriateness = 1.5 (low) It is assumed that the country under which flag the ships are run, and being accountable for the emissions of a country’s fleet would clearly raise awareness of such emissions which may facilitate taking action. However, the amount of vessels with a certain flag is not a good indicator of the amount of vessels with ownership in that country22 or which operate from that particular country. Assignment by flag of ship could create perverse incentives e.g. to change the flag of ships to reduce emissions etc

Furthermore, assignment according to flag of ship, wherever they are in the world, is not necessarily appropriate for air pollutants because they have a more localised environmental impact, compared to greenhouse gas emissions which contribute equally to global climate change wherever they are emitted.

22 Most countries register some of their tonnage under foreign flags. For example, in 1999 for developed market-economies the share of foreign-registered tonnage was 67.5 per cent, e.g. Greece has about three times more ships running under foreign flags than under the national flag (UNCTAD, 2000).

Final Report 49


5. Method C - Assignment According to Industry Fuel Sales Estimates

5.1 Introduction In this method, the emissions of ships are assigned to countries based on industry fuel sales estimates.

5.2 Method This is a top-down approach for the allocation. For each country the total emissions for a fuel type i are calculated based on the fuel sales estimates as follows:

Formula 4 (kg/t) EF(t/a)V)kg/a(E i Fueli Fueli Fuel :C ⋅=

With:

V: Fuel sale estimates for the countries are based on Beicip-Franlab (2002) data on fuel sales (see Table C. 1)

EFFuel i: Average emission factors for fuel type i calculated as the weighted average of the at sea emission factors taking the installed power for main and auxiliary engine in the different engine classes into account (see Table 5-1).

Table 5-1 Average emission factors for different fuel types used by ships in 200023

Fuel type NOx (kg/tonne fuel)

SO2 (kg/tonne fuel)

CO2 (kg/tonne fuel)

VOC (kg/tonne fuel)

PM (kg/tonne fuel)

MD 40 4.4 3,178 1.0 1.0

RO 76 54 3,179 2.5 6.3

For the projected scenarios (2010, 2015, 2020) a fuel sales increase of 2.6%/year for each country is assumed i.e. equal to the expected growth rate for the movements and average future emission factors are used as depicted in Annex B Table B.15 to Table B. 22. For the illustrative purposes of this task, the impact of SECAs and the sulphur directive on the average sulphur

23 For average future emission factors only the IMO NOx code was taken into account as this code affects the world wide emission factors. All other emission factors are kept constant as other restrictions e.g. sulphur content in emission control areas are not deemed sufficiently significant on a worldwide scale for the illustrative purposes of this method.

Final Report 50


content of the fuel sold was not modelled and a constant sulphur content of 2.7% was assumed. Clearly this could be accounted for in a refinement of this method.

5.3 Assigned Emissions For each of the 29 countries the amount of emissions of the five pollutants in kT/year for 2000, 2010, 2015, 2020 are depicted in absolute and relative terms graphically in the following figures. No differentiation into vessel categories and sea areas has taken place. In addition, it must be noted that no fuel sales data were available for Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia and Luxembourg, and that no residual oil sales data were available for Austria and Romania. Slovenia, Romania and Croatia are expected to have fuel sales for domestic and/or international shipping and Austria Czech Republic and Hungary expected to have fuel sales for inland waterways movements.

Under this assignment method, the Netherlands has the highest emissions from ships, followed by Spain, Belgium and Greece. This can be expected given the underlying fuel sales data. The variations between the different emissions for a country are due to the two different fuel types (MD and RO) and the different emission factors for these fuels.

Figure 5-1 C: Each country’s share of total ship emissions in the 29 countries in 2000 (based on fuel sales estimates)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


% o

f tot

al e

mis

sion

s of

the

29 c

ount

ries

(%)

NOx (%) SO2 (%) VOC (%) CO2 (%) PM (%)

Final Report 51


Figure 5-2 C: Each country’s ship emissions on the basis of fuel sales, as percentage of total RAINS emissions in 2000 (For the Netherlands the ratio of ship emissions to total emissions for SO2 is 756%, thus not shown on the graph)

0

50

100

150

200

250

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


Rat

io o

f shi

p em

issi

ons

to to

tal R

AIN

S em

issi

ons


Figure 5-3 C: Assigned NOx ship emissions based on fuel sale estimates

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


NO

x (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Final Report 52


Figure 5-4 C: Assigned SO2 ship emissions based on fuel sale estimates

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200A

UT

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


SO2

(kT/

year

)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Final Report 53


Figure 5-5 C: Assigned VOC ship emissions based on fuel sale estimates

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


VOC

(kT/

year

)2000 2010 2015 2020

Final Report 54


Figure 5-6 C: Assigned CO2 ship emissions based on fuel sale estimates

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


CO

2 (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Figure 5-7 C: Assigned PM ship emissions based on fuel sale estimates

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


PM (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Final Report 55



Introduction This method is simple and transparent. The spatial relationship to the emissions is, however, relatively poor for the method in its presented form. By raising the price of the fuel a country could influence assigned emissions. This method is regarded as potentially easy to circumvent and therefore legal definitions and boundary conditions would need to be addressed.

C1C - Costs to Calculate Assigned Emissions = 4.5 (low) The emissions are calculated based on a simple top down approach, that uses only two variables that are multiplied i.e. fuel sales figures and emission factors per fuel.

Significant changes that justify an adjustment of the underlying emission factors are not expected to occur more often than about every 5 years.

C2C - Simplicity and Transparency of Assignment Method = 3.5 (quite simple) The underlying formulae are simple multiplication and summations.

C3C - Data Sources Reliability and Quality = 2.5 (average) Average emission factors can be readily developed. There could be country-specific emission factors introduced for SO2 based on the average sulphur content in the fuel sold.

The completeness and overall quality of the data has to be regarded as relatively poor at the current time e.g. unreported/unrecorded offshore bunkering, no world wide consistent / continual recording. The sales figures are currently derived from a report submitted to the EC (BeicipFranlab, 2002). For 2000, domestic fuel sales were not available, so they were estimated for this study by assuming that domestic and international sales have the same ratio in 2000 as in 1999. Also, international fuel sales for the accession countries were only available from 1990-1999. Therefore, to project sales to 2000, the average growth between each pair of years for each country was used.

C4C – Consistency and Accuracy = 2.5 (average) The accuracy of the total emissions (EC) is equally dominated by the two variables. A standard deviation of sEc = 36-42%·EC is estimated which represents a high level of uncertainty compared to the other methods considered in this report.

If a higher accuracy for the total emissions is requested the sales estimate could be improved. Loss of accuracy could occur because of off-shore and international fuel sales. Further improving the accuracy of the emission factors could be done for individual emissions that are directly related to the fuel characteristics e.g. SO2 and sulphur content if the information is available on a country by country level. In general, however, average emission factors have to be applied as fuel tracking to a specific engine type cannot be regarded as viable.

C5C - Degree of influence for Countries on Key Variables = 2.5 (average) The countries are able to influence the sales and the sulphur content of the fuel by different means. The emission factors cannot be or can be only weakly influenced by countries except as mentioned for sulphur.

Final Report 56


C6C - Fairness and Appropriateness = 2.5 (average) It is likely that some of the benefits from selling the fuel will be distributed in the country (work places, tax etc.). Being accountable for the emissions of a country’s fuel sales would raise the awareness of the emissions associated with this sector.

However, in its current form, this method does not account for the location of emissions (important for air pollutants) and it could be regarded as potentially easy to circumvent.

Final Report 57


6. Method D - Assignment According to Reported Fuel Consumption

6.1 Introduction The IEA estimates that the international Marine Bunkers for world-wide and OECD24 in 2002 were 145.74 Mt and 83.08 Mt respectively (IEA, 2004)25. Endresen (2004) estimates the total international bunker and domestic bunker consumption for vessels >100 GT as 144 Mt and 22 Mt for 2000, respectively. The domestic bunker consumption is assumed to be 15% of the total. Corbett (1999) estimates a fuel consumption of the international cargo fleet of 140-147 Mt for 1993, but updates the estimates to 289 Mt in Corbett (2003) for 2001, which is about double the reported fuel consumption by international marine bunkers. Corbett (2003) attributes the large discrepancy to the fact that internationally registered vessels might consume domestic supplies of marine fuels. A summary is depicted in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1 Summary of literature data on worldwide fuel consumption by ships

Source of data Fuel Consumption (Million Tonnes)

Corbett and Koehler (2003) 289

Endresen (2003) 166

Skjolsvik (2000) 120-147

Corbett (1999) 140-147

RIVM and EDGAR databases 121

Average (Standard Deviation of Data) 161 (±58 i.e. ±36%)

6.2 Method This is a top-down approach for the allocation and similar to method C. For each country the total emissions for a fuel type i are calculated based on the reported fuel consumption as follows:

24 Australia, Austria, Belgium , Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States

25 International marine bunkers cover those quantities delivered to sea-going ships of all flags, including warships. NB warships represent approximately 20% of the global fleet but are not included in any other assignment methods. Consumption by ships engaged in transport in inland and coastal waters is not included. IEA(2004)

Final Report 58


Formula 5 (kg/t) EF(t/a)C)kg/a(E i Fueli Fueli Fuel :D ⋅=

With:

C: Reported fuel consumption for a country based on fuel consumption data from Eurostat26 (see Table C. 2). Consumption data are on bunkers that cover the quantities delivered to sea-going vessels of all flags and on inland navigation and yachting. Vessels engaged in coastal water transport are not included.

EFFuel i: Average emission factors for fuel type i calculated as the weighted average of the at sea emission factors taking the installed power for main and auxiliary engine in the different engine classes into account (see Table 5-1)..

6.3 Assigned Emissions For each of the 29 countries the amount of the five pollutant emissions in kT/year for 2000, 2010, 2015, 2020 are depicted in absolute and relative terms graphically in the following figures. It must be noted that no fuel sale data were available for Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Luxembourg. Slovenia and Romania are expected to have fuel consumption for domestic and/or international shipping and Austria Czech Republic and Hungary expected to have fuel consumption for inland waterways movements.

Under this assignment method, the Netherlands has the highest emissions from ships, followed by Spain, Belgium and Greece. This can be expected considering that the fuel consumption data follow the same order. As expected the assignment methods C and D show the same trend for the six countries with the highest emissions, and a comparable trend for the remaining countries.

26 http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/

Final Report 59


Figure 6-1 D: Each country’s share of total ship emissions in the 29 countries in 2000 (based on fuel consumption)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


% o

f tot

al e

mis

sion

s of

the

29 c

ount

ries

(%)

NOx (%) SO2 (%) VOC (%) CO2 (%) PM (%)

Figure 6-2 D: Each country’s ship emissions based on fuel consumption, as percentage of total

RAINS emissions in 2000 (For the Netherlands the ratio of ship emissions to total emissions for SO2 is 755%, thus not shown on the graph)

1

51

101

151

201

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


Rat

io o

f shi

p em

issi

ons

to to

tal R

AIN

S em

issi

ons

(%)

NOx SO2 VOC CO2 PM

Final Report 60


Figure 6-3 D: Assigned NOx ship emissions based on fuel consumption

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


NO

x (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Figure 6-4 D: Assigned SO2 ship emissions based on fuel consumption

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


SO2

(kT/

year

)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Final Report 61


Figure 6-5 D: Assigned VOC ship emissions based on fuel consumption

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


VOC

(kT/

year

)2000 2010 2015 2020

Figure 6-6 D: Assigned CO2 ship emissions based on fuel consumption

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


CO

2 (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Final Report 62


Figure 6-7 D: Assigned PM ship emissions based on fuel consumption

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


PM (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020


Introduction This method is fundamentally the same as method C and therefore is also simple and transparent. The spatial relationship to the emissions is, however, relatively poor for the method in its presented form. By raising the price of the fuel a country could influence assigned emissions. This method is regarded as potentially easy to circumvent and therefore legal definitions and boundary conditions would need to be addressed.

C1D - Costs to Calculate Assigned Emissions = 4.5 (low) The emissions are calculated based on a simple top down approach, that uses only two variables that are multiplied i.e. fuel consumption figures and emission factors per fuel.

Significant changes that justify an adjustment of the underlying emission factors are not expected to occur more often than about every 5 years.

C2D - Simplicity and Transparency of Assignment Method = 3.5 (quite simple) The underlying formulas are simple multiplication and summations.

C3D - Data Sources Reliability and Quality = 2.5 (average) Average emission factors can be readily developed. There could be country-specific emission factors introduced for SO2 based on the average sulphur content in the fuel sold.

Final Report 63


The consumption figures are extracted from the Eurostat website. Data on Croatia were not available at the time of the research for this report. The quality and reliability of the fuel consumption data depend on the approach used to derive it. Eurostat obtains data from the National Administrations responsible for energy statistics for most countries or the Ministry responsible for Energy or a National Energy Agency/Authority. Eurostat imposes no specific data collection technique, so methods vary significantly from country to country and depend on the fuel type and production/consumption sector.

C4D – Consistency and Accuracy = 2.5 (average) The accuracy of the total emissions (ED) is equally dominated by the two variables. A standard deviation of sEc = 36-42%·EC is estimated which represents a high level of uncertainty compared to the other methods considered in this report.

If a higher accuracy for the total emissions is requested the estimates of the fuel consumption should be improved. Improving the accuracy of the emission factors is not considered a viable option except for sulphur, where country specific emission factors are an option if the sulphur content is different from the average content assumed for the emission factors.

C5D - Degree of influence for Countries on Key Variables = 2.5 (average) The countries are able to influence the consumption and the sulphur content of the fuel by different means. The emission factors can not be or can be only weakly influenced by countries except for SO2.

C6D - Fairness and Appropriateness = 2.5 (average) It is likely that some of the benefits from consuming the fuel will be distributed in the country. Being accountable for the emissions of a country’s fuel consumption would raise the awareness of the emissions associated with this sector.

However, in its current form, this method does not account for the location of emissions (important for air pollutants) and it could be regarded as potentially easy to circumvent.

Final Report 64


Final Report 65


7. Method E - Assignment According to Freight Tonnes Loaded

7.1 Introduction This approach only provides the ratios for splitting total emissions among the countries. Therefore the total emissions to be distributed have to be estimated by another approach that provides total emissions for the countries under consideration. Firstly the system boundaries for calculating the total emissions have to be decided upon. In the following calculations the total emissions calculated from task A (200 miles) are used as shown in Table 7-1. It has to be stated that any total emissions calculated by any method could be used to split based on the derived ratios.

Table 7-1 Total emissions calculated in Task A (200 mile zones) for the 29 countries

Year NOx SO2 VOC CO2 PM

kT/year kT/year kT/year kT/year kT/year 2000 2,810 1,949 99 120,644 235

2010 3,382 1,945 128 155,666 278

2015 3,710 2,212 145 177,046 317

2020 4,061 2,515 165 201,442 360

7.2 Method For each country (i) the emissions assigned (EE,i) are calculated as follows:

Formula 6

(kg/a) TE(t/a)TFT

(t/a)FT)kg/a(E 29

29 E, ⋅= ii

With:

FTi: Reported freight tonnes loaded for country i based on EUROSTAT reports. (Eurostat 2002, 2003, 2004 - presenting data for the EU15, New Member States, the accession countries and IWWs). Table C. 3 depicts the freight tonnes data used.

TFT29: Total freight for the 29 countries under consideration TFT29 = ∑i=1..29 FTi

TE29: Total emissions to be assigned to the 29 countries.

Final Report 66


A major potential pitfall that exists for this method is that there could be an element of double counting in the freight flows, where goods imported into a country’s port are then directly exported to a third country.

7.3 Assigned Emissions For each of the 29 countries the amount of the five emissions in kT/year for 2000, 2010, 2015, 2020 are depicted in absolute and relative terms in the following figures. Absolute numbers are based on the results and projections from task A (at sea: 200 mile zones). Freight tonnes data are not available for Croatia, although Croatia is reported to have ship movements (see method A).

Under this assignment method, the Netherlands have the highest emissions from ships, followed by the UK, Italy and France. This can be expected considering that the reported freight tonne data show the same pattern, with the Netherlands loading more freight than any other country.

Figure 7-1 E: Each country’s share of total ship emissions in the 29 countries in 2000 (based on freight tonnes loaded)

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


% o

f tot

al e

mis

sion

s of

the

29 c

ount

ries

(%)

NOx (%) SO2 (%) VOC (%) CO2 (%) PM (%)

Final Report 67


Figure 7-2 E: Each country’s ship emissions on basis of freight tonnes loaded, as percentage of total RAINS emissions in 2000 (Note: a logarithmic scale was chosen to depict the wide range 1.5-560%))

1

10

100

1000

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


Rat

io o

f shi

p em

issi

ons

to to

tal R

AIN

S em

issi

ons


Figure 7-3 E: Assigned NOx ship emissions based on freight tonnes loaded

Final Report 68


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


NO

x (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Final Report 69


Figure 7-4 E: Assigned SO2 ship emissions based on freight tonnes loaded

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


SO2

(kT/

year

)2000 2010 2015 2020

Figure 7-5 E: Assigned VOC ship emissions based on freight tonnes loaded

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


VOC

(kT/

year

)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Final Report 70


Figure 7-6 E: Assigned CO2 ship emissions based on freight tonnes loaded

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


CO

2 (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Figure 7-7 E Assigned PM ship emissions based on freight tonnes loaded

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


PM (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Final Report 71



Introduction This method is simple and transparent. Currently method A is used to estimate the overall emissions to be split, but alternatively a cheaper method could be used to derive overall emissions eg. method C or D. There is a certain relationship between freight and emissions but it is less correlated than for fuel. A country will not be able to change the assigned freight as easily as the fuel sales or the vessel’s flag. This method could be easy to circumvent and therefore legal definitions would need to be addressed.

C1E - Costs to Calculate Assigned Emissions = 2.5 (depends on underlying method, average assumed) The distribution ratios are easily gained once the data is collected, but there is the need for an input of the total emissions. The costs therefore depend heavily on the method employed to gain the total emissions to be distributed. The costs will be the similar to the method used to gain the total emission i.e. for a bottom-up approach see method A or B and for a top-down approach see method C or D.

C2E - Simplicity and Transparency of Assignment Method = 3 (quite simple) The underlying formulas are simple multiplication.

C3E - Data Sources Reliability and Quality = 2.5 (average) The freight figures are currently derived from various publications from EUROSTAT (Eurostat, 2002, 2003, and 2004). Gross weight of goods handled in all ports is recorded but the figures do not exclude double counting (based on inwards and outwards transport). To increase consistency a one-source solution is preferred. Freight data are available to download from the EUROSTAT web site but only for 13 countries. The quality and reliability of the freight data depend on the used approach to derive it. The figures for goods loaded and unloaded for Latvia, Poland, Slovenia, Malta and Turkey include transit traffic. No data are available on Croatia for sea-borne transport.

C4E – Consistency and Accuracy = 2.5 (average) A standard deviation of sE = 21-29%·EE,i is estimated which represents a medium level of uncertainty compared to the other methods considered in this report. The accuracy can be improved by either getting more reliable total emissions or freight data.

C5E - Degree of influence for Countries on Key Variables = 2 (quite low) Freight is one of the main drivers for ship movements, and is the underlying cause of a high percentage of ships movements to and from countries. However countries have only limited direct influence on the freight especially freight passing through. The method reflects a certain cause-effect relationship but seems more appropriate on a continent level than a country level.

C6E - Fairness and Appropriateness = 2 (quite low) While a country might also benefit from the transport of the freight it will not be able to control the amount of freight and will therefore not feel accountable. Furthermore, any vessel movements not related to freight would go unaccounted for, e.g. ferries, fishing vessels, which

Final Report 72


would lead to unfairness due to countries having differing proportions of unaccounted movements.

Final Report 73


8. Method F - Assignment in Proportion to Land Based National Emissions

8.1 Introduction As in method E, this approach only provides the ratios for splitting total emissions among the countries. Therefore the total emissions to be distributed have to be estimated by another approach that provides total emissions for the countries under consideration. Therefore, the system boundaries for calculating the total emissions have to be decided upon. In the following calculations the total emissions calculated in task A, shown in Table 7-1 (at sea: 200 mile zones) are used to generate specific figures. It has to be stated that any total emissions calculated could be split based on the gained ratios.

8.2 Method For each country (i) the emissions assigned (EF,i) are calculated as follows:

Formula 7

(kg/a) TE(t/a)TLBE

(t/a)LBE)kg/a(E 29

29 F, ⋅= ii

With:

LBEi: 2010 NECD emission ceilings for NOx, SO2 and VOC and the Kyoto Protocol targets for CO2. Table C. 4 depicts the land based emissions data used to calculate the ratio.

TLBE29: Total land based emissions for the 29 countries under consideration TLBE29 = ∑i=1..29 LBEi

TE29 Total emissions to be assigned to the 29 countries.

8.3 Assigned Emissions For each of the 29 countries the amount of the five pollutant emissions in kT/year for 2000, 2010, 2015, 2020 is depicted in absolute and relative terms in the following figures. There are currently no NECD ceilings for PM emissions and therefore there are no PM emissions assigned under method F. In addition to this, Turkey and Croatia have no NECD emission ceilings for NOx, SO2 and VOC, and Cyprus, Lithuania, Malta, Slovenia, Turkey and Croatia have no Protocol targets for CO2.

Under this assignment method different pollutants of countries will be ranked in a different order. This is due to the fact that ship emissions are assigned based on land emissions ceilings, and these ceilings on land emissions show different ratios for different countries.

Final Report 74


Figure 8-1 F: Each country’s share of total ship emissions in the 29 countries in 2000 (based on terrestrial emissions)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


% o

f tot

al e

mis

sion

s of

the

29 c

ount

ries

(%)

NOx (%) SO2 (%) VOC (%) CO2 (%)

Figure 8-2 F: Each country’s ship emissions allocated in proportion to RAINS emissions in 2000

(For Latvia the ratio of ship emissions to total emissions for SO2 is 175%, thus not shown on the graph)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


Rat

io o

f shi

p em

issi

ons

to to

tal R

AIN

S em

issi

ons

(%) NOx SO2 VOC CO2

Final Report 75


Figure 8-3 F: Assigned NOx ship emissions based on terrestrial emissions

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


NO

x (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Figure 8-4 F: Assigned SO2 ship emissions based on terrestrial emissions

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


SO2

(kT/

year

)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Final Report 76


Figure 8-5 F: Assigned VOC ship emissions based on terrestrial emissions

0

5

10

15

20

25

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


VOC

(kT/

year

)2000 2010 2015 2020

Figure 8-6 F: Assigned CO2 emissions based on terrestrial emissions

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


CO

2 (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Final Report 77



Introduction This method is simple and transparent. Currently method A is used to estimate the overall emissions to be split, but also a cheaper method could be used to derive overall emissions eg. method C or D. There is however no relationship between land based emissions and shipping emissions. This method is not regarded a viable assignment method.

C1F - Costs to Calculate Assigned Emissions = 2.5 (depends on underlying method, average assumed) The distribution ratios are easily gained once the data is collected, but there is the need for an input of the total emissions. The costs therefore depend heavily on the method employed to gain the total emissions to be distributed. The costs will be similar to the method used to gain the total emission i.e. for a bottom-up approach see method A or B and for a top-down approach see method C or D.

C2F - Simplicity and Transparency of Assignment Method = 3 (average) The underlying formulas are simple multiplication. The ratio is easily calculated and for the emissions to be distributed the simplicity depends on the chosen approach. The process is transparent.

C3F - Data Sources Reliability and Quality = 3.5 (quite high) The land-based emissions are currently derived from two sources. The National Emission Ceilings (NECs) for NOx, SO2 and VOCs, and the Kyoto Protocol targets for CO2 emissions are used to derive the percentage contribution of each country to the total EU-25 and candidate countries ship emissions. NECs are available for EU15 countries from Directive 2001/81/EC, for New Member States and EU accession countries in the accession treaty for each country, and for Bulgaria and Romania from the UNECE Gothenburg Protocol. The Kyoto protocol provides a reduction commitment as a percent of emission in 1999 for all countries except Cyprus, Malta and Turkey. However, emission data for 1999 are also not available for Lithuania, Slovenia and Croatia. No ceilings/targets are available for PM so emissions are not calculated for this pollutant. The quality and reliability of the total emissions data depends on the approach used to derive it.

C4F - Consistency and Accuracy = 3 (quite good) A standard deviation of sE = 21-29%·EE,i is estimated which represents a medium level of uncertainty compared to the other methods considered in this report. It should be noted, however, that accuracy as defined in this study does not relate to fairness, which is dealt with separately below.

C5F - Degree of influence for Countries on Key Variables = 1 (low) According to this method, any effort in land based emissions will have the same proportional effect on the perceived ship emissions. A country can therefore solely focus on its land-based emissions and need not tackle the ship emissions at the source. Depending on how this method might operate in practice, a change in proportionate allocations might only be expected when new ceilings or targets are set

Final Report 78


C6F - Fairness and Appropriateness = 0 (very low) It can not be argued that land-based emissions can be perceived as a good proxy for a country’s induced ship emissions, for example this method can assign significant ship emissions to countries with little or no coastline and inland water ways. It is not plausible that measures and policies that only focus on the land-based emissions should reduce a country’s ship emissions.

Final Report 79


9. Method G - Assignment According to Country of Departure / Destination

9.1 Introduction For each ship movement in the database the emissions caused by this movement are allocated according to the departure or destination port of the ship.

9.2 Method The emissions are therefore calculated as in method A i.e.

Formula 8

(g/kWh) EF)](% LFAE(kW)(%) LFME(kW)[(km/h) v

(km) Dc)( seaat AEME: ⋅⋅+⋅⋅⋅

=gE seaAtG

With:

c: Split factor for emissions as shown in Figure 9-1 based on port of departure/destination

D: Distance a ship travels between two ports within EMEP or between an EMEP port and a continent outside EMEP.

v: Average speed of a ship depending on ship category (see Table B.1).





EFat sea: Average emission factors for each ship category (see Annex B Table B.3 to Table B.14).

Final Report 80


Figure 9-1 Allocation cases

For the illustrative purposes of this task, to correct for the emissions allocated to a country’s passing ports, the calculated emissions are multiplied by the following correction factor F(country) for these preliminary estimates. The first term in brackets corrects for allocated emissions due to the number of callings registered as passing callings for a specific country and is therefore always less than 1. The second term corrects for the unallocated emissions to passing ports assuming a proportional allocation based on the world wide statistic on passing callings compared to real callings and is the same constant for all countries and will be bigger than 1.

Formula 9

+⋅

=

Callings Real TotalCallings Passing Total

1 xof portsin callings Total

xof portsin callings Passing - xof portsin callings Total)( xCountryF

9.3 Assigned Emissions For each of the 29 countries the amount of the five pollutant emissions in kT/year for 2000, 2010, 2015, 2020 are depicted in absolute and relative terms in the following figures.

Under this assignment method, the UK, Italy and Spain have the highest emissions from ships, with the order varying slightly between pollutants.

Figure 9-2 G: Each country’s share of total ship emissions in the 29 countries in 2000 (based on departure/destination of

EU+4 to EU+4

EU+4 to NON-EU+4

NON-EU+4 to EU+4

Case 1: Half of the emissions

assigned to each country

Case 2: All emissions assigned to

origin country

Case 3: All emissions assigned to

destination country

GIS

Distancesin SeaAreas

Emissionfactors

Final Report 81


ships)

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


% o

f tot

al e

mis

sion

s of

the

29 c

ount

ries

(%)

NOx (%) SO2 (%) VOC (%) CO2 (%) PM (%)

Figure 9-3 G: Each country’s ship emissions on basis of departure / destination of ships, as

percentage of total RAINS emissions in 2000 (Note: a logarithmic scale was chosen to depict the wide range 1.5-500%)

1

10

100

1000

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


Rat

io o

f shi

p em

issi

ons

to to

tal R

AIN

S em

issi

ons


Final Report 82


Figure 9-4 G: assigned NOx ship emissions based on departure/destination of ships

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


NO

x (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Figure 9-5 G: assigned SO2 ship emissions based on departure/destination of ships

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


SO2

(kT/

year

)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Final Report 83


Figure 9-6 G: assigned VOC emissions based on departure/destination of ships

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


VOC

(kT/

year

)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Figure 9-7 G: assigned CO2 ship emissions based on departure/destination of ships

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


CO

2 (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Final Report 84


Figure 9-8 G: assigned PM ship emissions based on departure/destination of ships

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


PM (k

T/ye

ar)

2000 2010 2015 2020


Introduction For each ship movement in the database the emissions caused by this movement are allocated according to the departure or destination port of the ship. For the illustrative purposes of this task, assumptions have been made on the proportion of emissions associated with a specific journey that are assigned to the departure and destination port. It is considered that the method, in its presented form, may be easy to circumvent and therefore legal definitions would need to be defined.

C1G - Costs to Calculate Assigned Emissions = 1.5 (relatively high) As in method B, the emissions at sea are calculated based on a very detailed bottom-up approach. The port emissions are roughly estimated based on cited fractions of the emissions at sea. Once set up the calculations could be easily run with adjusted or new input data. The costs therefore would mainly stem from updating the average parameter data e.g. emission factors, vessel speed, etc. and the purchase of the latest movement database.

Final Report 85


The rate of change of the underlying assumptions is proportional to the renewal/retrofitting rate of the ship fleet. Significant changes that justify an adjustment of the underlying average parameter data are not expected to occur more often than about every 5 years.

C2G - Simplicity and Transparency of Assignment Method = 2 (quite complex) The underlying formulas are simple multiplication. The complexity stems from the amount of data that has to be handled and the requested high degree of disaggregation into ship categories and flags. There is scope for a reduction in the amount of different emission factors employed and in the amount of ship categories distinguished. The use of a fixed fraction to calculate the in port emissions, makes it a simpler approach compared with A.


C3G - Data Sources Reliability and Quality = 3.5 (quite high) The data sources employed have a high reliability and quality. The distances D used to calculate the emissions for movements outside the EMEP area are however average estimates based on the continent rather than a port compared to the approach employed within the EMEP area.

C4G - Consistency and Accuracy = 2.5 (average) The accuracy of the total emissions (TEA) is dominated by the emissions at sea. A standard deviation of sTEA = 26-32%·TEA is estimated which represents a medium level of uncertainty compared to the other methods considered in this report.

If a higher accuracy for the total emissions is requested the following options could be considered:

• At sea emissions: The worldwide distance D could be recalculated with a higher accuracy for the different routes in the system. Instead of the average emission factors for a ship category the emission factors for the engine types employed on a specific ship could be used. The time currently calculated based on an average speed of a ship category and the distance of the route could be directly taken from the database, that now logs the time of arrival and departure on a higher resolution for some ports (minutes).

• In-port emissions: Instead of the fixed fraction of the emissions at sea the individual callings and an average time in port could be taken into account as in method A.

• Inland waterways emissions: See method A

C5G - Degree of influence for Countries on Key Variables = 2.5 (average) The emissions are mainly defined by the activity in a country’s ports. As this is more or less given for Europereadily, the countries can not readily influence the variables.

C6G - Fairness and Appropriateness = 2 (quite low) This method would require careful consideration of how emissions along a route are assigned to the departure and destination port. Furthermore, this method does not take into account the

Final Report 86


location of emissions, which is clearly an important consideration in assigning air pollutant emissions.

Final Report 87


10. Additional Assignment Method

The focus of this report has been on the seven specified assignment methods, discussed in the previous sections. As such, it has been possible to give only limited consideration to an additional assignment method that is not just an extension of the existing methods, within the resources of this study. In this section, an additional potential assignment method is discussed, which would try to assign the emissions based on which country mainly benefits economically from the ship transport.

The emissions produced on a ship journey would therefore be assigned to the country where the transported product comes from and the country where the product will be consumed or used in a production step that changes the product. Emissions from ferries would be assigned to the departure/destination countries assuming that the movement mainly benefits these countries.

The emissions from a ship journey would be derived in a similar way as discussed under assignment method A, but this method would require additional information on where the cargo was produced and where it will be consumed for a specific ship movement. This information might be difficult to get for the required level of detail. However as more and more products get electronically tagged and tracked this might be possible in the future.

A proxy to this assignment method could be gained from trade figures between different countries and average sea distances between these countries to gain a weighted allocation key for emissions based on the movements of goods between countries. The absolute amount of emissions to be split could be gained from any of the other methods to estimate emissions under the discussed assignment methods.

Three particular questions would have to be addressed in any further consideration of this assignment method:

• What fraction of the total produced emissions of a transport journey will be assigned to the countries?

• What is the split of the emissions assignment between the two countries of production and consumption of the product?

• How will the emissions of a ship journey be allocated to the different products transported on a ship?

The fraction of emissions of a journey that are assigned may be a political (as well as environmental and economic) question and does not affect the concept, e.g. the total emissions produced on a journey, emissions within EU-waters, emissions produced within 12/200 mile zones, etc.

The split of the emissions between the two countries that trade the product is also mainly a political (and environmental / economic) decision, e.g. 50:50, depending on which emissions are accounted for, only the country of consumption etc.

The allocation of a ship’s emissions to products transported on this journey could be either based on the relative weight of a product or based on the relative volume occupied by the product.

Final Report 88


Final Report 89


11. Conclusions

Results of preliminary assignment of emissions The results of the preliminary assignment of ship emissions to European countries are presented in detail in sections 3 to 9 in this report. These cover the following assignment methods:

• Method A: Assignment according to Location of Emissions (section 3)

• Method B: Assignment according to Flag of Ship (section 4)

• Method C: Assignment according to Industry Fuel Sales Estimates (section 5)

• Method D: Assignment according to Reported Fuel Consumption (section 6)

• Method E: Assignment according to Freight Tonnes Loaded (section 7)

• Method F: Assignment in proportion to National Emissions (section 8)

• Method G: Assignment according to Country of Departure / Destination (section 9)

As expected, there are significant differences in the distribution of ship emissions between countries using these different assignment methods, and the abovementioned sections of this report should be referred to for detailed results. For each method, figures are presented on:

• Each country’s share of total ship emissions of NOx, SO2, VOC, CO2 and Particulate Matter (PM) for the 29 European countries (EU25 + Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and Croatia);

• Each country’s ship emissions of NOx, SO2, VOC, CO2 and PM as a percentage of total emissions for that country (as given in the RAINS model);

• Preliminary NOx ship emissions for each country (for 2000, 2010, 2015 and 2020);

• Preliminary SO2 ship emissions for each country (for 2000, 2010, 2015 and 2020);

• Preliminary VOC ship emissions for each country (for 2000, 2010, 2015 and 2020);

• Preliminary CO2 ship emissions for each country (for 2000, 2010, 2015 and 2020); and

• Preliminary PM ship emissions for each country (for 2000, 2010, 2015 and 2020).

Under the various methods, the countries with dominant assignments of emissions are briefly highlighted below.

For assignment based on location of emissions (Method A), for the 12 mile zones the UK has the highest emissions assigned from ships, followed by a group including Greece, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Denmark and France, each with broadly similar amounts of emissions. For the 200 mile zones, Italy has the highest emissions from ships, followed by Greece, Spain and the UK.

Final Report 90


For assignment based on flag of ship (Method B), Cyprus has the highest emissions from ships, followed by Malta, and for some pollutants Greece, while for others Germany.

For assignment based on fuel sales (Method C) and fuel consumption (Method D), the Netherlands has the highest emissions from ships, followed by Spain, Belgium and Greece.

For assignment based on freight tonnes loaded (Method E), the Netherlands has the highest emissions from ships, followed by the UK, Italy and France.

For assignment based on national emissions (Method F), countries will be ranked in different orders, dependent on the particular pollutant. This is due to the fact that ship emissions are assigned based on national emission ceilings, and these ceilings show different proportions between pollutants for different countries.

For assignment based on country of departure / destination (Method G), the UK, Italy and Spain have the highest emissions from ships. .

Figures 11-1 to 11-7 show the relative share of emissions between EU27 countries for each method, where 1.0 is the index given to the country with the largest share for the particular method concerned. Assignments of ship NOx emissions in 2000 have been used for illustrative purposes. Ship emissions other than NOx will, in general, show a similar pattern, with the exception of Method F, where emissions are assigned in proportion to national emissions and therefore different pollutants will have different patterns.

As was expected the figures depict that the allocated emissions and the relative ranking among the countries significantly varies between the different methods.

27 EU25 countries plus Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and Croatia

Final Report 91


Figure 11-1 Relative amount of ship emissions for European countries based on assignment by location (Method A), using NOx emissions in 2000 for illustrative purposes (1.0 is the index given to the country with the largest share using this method)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


Nor

mal

ised

em

issi

ons

of c

ount

ries

for M

etho

d A

(-).

Method A (12 miles) Method A (200 miles)

Figure 11-2 Relative amount of ship emissions for European countries based on assignment by

flag (Method B), using NOx emissions in 2000 for illustrative purposes (1.0 is the index given to the country with the largest share using this method)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


Nor

mal

ised

em

issi

ons

of c

ount

ries

for M

etho

d B

(-).

Final Report 92


Figure 11-3 Relative amount of ship emissions for European countries based on assignment by fuel sales (Method C), using NOx emissions in 2000 for illustrative purposes (1.0 is the index given to the country with the largest share using this method)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


Nor

mal

ised

em

issi

ons

of c

ount

ries

for M

etho

d C

(-).


fuel consumption (Method D), using NOx emissions in 2000 for illustrative purposes (1.0 is the index given to the country with the largest share using this method)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


Nor

mal

ised

em

issi

ons

of c

ount

ries

for M

etho

d D

(-).

Final Report 93


Figure 11-5 Relative amount of ship emissions for European countries based on assignment by freight tonnes (Method E), using NOx emissions in 2000 for illustrative purposes (1.0 is the index given to the country with the largest share using this method)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


Nor

mal

ised

em

issi

ons

of c

ount

ries

for M

etho

d E

(-).


national emissions (Method F), using NOx emissions in 2000 for illustrative purposes (1.0 is the index given to the country with the largest share using this method)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


Nor

mal

ised

em

issi

ons

of c

ount

ries

for M

etho

d F

(-).

Final Report 94


Figure 11-7 Relative amount of ship emissions for European countries based on assignment by country of departure / destination (Method G), using NOx emissions in 2000 for illustrative purposes (1.0 is the index given to the country with the largest share using this method)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

AU

T

BE

L

DN

K

FIN

FRA

GE

R

GR

C

IRL

ITA

LUX

NLD

PR

T

ES

P

SW

E

GB

R

CY

P

CZE

ES

T

HU

N

LVA

LTU

MLT

PO

L

SV

K

SV

N

BG

R

RO

M

TUR

CR

O


Nor

mal

ised

em

issi

ons

of c

ount

ries

for M

etho

d G

(-).

Based on the above figures the ranking in Tables 11-1 can be derived for the different allocation methods. In this table, a figure ‘1’ indicates the country with the highest allocated emissions, ‘2’ is the country with the second highest emissions, etc.

Table 11-1 Ranking based on the emissions allocated to each country under the different assignment methods i.e. 1 = most allocated emissions

Country

A 12 Mile Zones

A 200 Mile Zones B C D E F G

Austria AUT 24 24 24 23 22 22 20 25

Belgium BEL 11 13 22 3 3 6 14 7

Denmark DNK 4 6 5 10 10 5 18 12

Finland FIN 12 16 11 12 11 12 15 11

France FRA 8 5 12 5 5 4 6 4

Germany GER 3 8 3 7 7 7 2 6

Greece GRC 2 2 4 4 4 11 8 8

Ireland IRL 15 12 23 17 17 16 21 16

Italy ITA 7 1 7 6 6 3 3 2

Luxembourg LUX 28 28 15 23 22 21 26 29

Netherlands NLD 6 7 6 1 1 1 11 5

Final Report 95


Country

A 12 Mile Zones

A 200 Mile Zones B C D E F G

Portugal PRT 13 10 21 13 12 14 12 13

Spain ESP 5 3 14 2 2 8 5 3

Sweden SWE 10 11 10 9 9 9 16 10

United Kingdom GBR 1 4 8 8 8 2 1 1

Cyprus CYP 19 18 1 16 16 24 25 18

Czech Republic CZE 26 26 27 23 22 27 9 26

Estonia EST 14 14 19 15 18 17 23 19

Hungary HUN 27 27 28 23 22 26 13 27

Latvia LVA 18 17 25 21 21 15 22 17

Lithuania LTU 23 23 18 19 19 20 19 20

Malta MLT 21 19 2 18 14 25 27 14

Poland POL 17 20 17 11 15 13 4 15

Slovakia SVK 28 28 26 23 22 28 17 28

Slovenia SVN 25 25 29 23 22 23 24 22

Bulgaria BGR 22 22 13 22 20 19 10 24

Romania ROM 20 21 20 20 22 18 7 23

Turkey TUR 9 9 9 14 13 10 28 9

Croatia CRO 16 15 16 23 22 29 28 21

Depending on the assignment method the uncertainty of the presented results is estimated in the range of ±15-45%.

Assessment of methods Sections 3 to 9 present the detailed findings of the assessment of each of the methods against a set of specific criteria, within an overall multi-criteria analysis.

Table 11-2 depicts the summary of the multi-criteria analysis and the ranking of the assignment methods based on the overall score of the methods, where ‘0’ is the worst score and ‘5’ is the best. A discussion of each method against each criteria is given in the relevant sections.

Final Report 96


Table 11-2 Summary table of assessments (0 is worst score, 5 is best score)

Assignment Method

Criteria A Location

B Flag

C Fuel sales

D Fuel

consum-ption

E Freight tonnes

F National

emissions

G Departure/Destination

C1. Costs to Calculate Emissions

1.5 1.5 4.5 4.5 2.5 2.5 1.5

C2. Simplicity and transparency of Assignment

2 2 3.5 3.5 3 3 2

C3. Data sources reliability and data quality

4.5 3.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 3.5

C4. Consistency and accuracy

4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3 2.5

C5. Degree of influence for Countries on key variables

3 3 2.5 2.5 2 1 2.5

C6. Fairness and appropriateness

4 1 2.5 2.5 2 0 2

Figure 11-8 shows graphically the assessment of the individual criteria for each method.

Figure 11-8 Assessment of the individual criteria.

0

1

2

3

4

5

1. Costs toCalculateEmissions

2. Simplicity andTransparency of

AssignmentMethod

3. Data sourcesreliability and data

quality

4. Consistency andaccuracy

5. Degree ofinfluence for

Countries on keyvariables

5. Fairness andappropriateness

Ass

essm

ent (

0-5)

A B C D E F G

Final Report 97


Figure 11-9 shows the aggregated result assuming, for illustrative purposes, equal weightings of the individual criteria. It should be noted that it is not considered appropriate within the scope of this study to recommend specific weightings for the various criteria, due to the range of political, technical, legal, environmental and economic factors involved. As such, it is not possible to draw any firm conclusions from this figure, although it is clearly useful in showing how the methods might compare if each of the criteria is given an equal weighting.

Figure 11-9 Illustration of mean scores of multi-criteria assessment (Applying equal weighting to each criteria, for illustrative purposes only)

0

1

2

3

4

5

A B C D E F G

For each method, a summary of the main advantages, disadvantages and potential areas for further investigation is given in Table 11-3 below.

Table 11-3 Summary of main advantages, disadvantages and areas for further investigation of alternative assignment methods

Assignment Method


A – Location • Regarded as most fair / appropriate of the alternative methods, in terms of consideration for location of emissions.

• Has potential to be a relatively accurate method.

• Relatively expensive compared to top-down methods.

• Dependent on Member States having control over emissions in specified sea areas.

• Choice of sea area eg 12 mile, 200 mile zone, etc.

• Enhancements to database (in-port times, increased coverage of vessels (<500GT), ship specific emission factors, spatial resolution etc).

Final Report 98


Assignment Method


B – Flag • No major advantages in comparison to other methods.


• Potential for perverse incentives by encouraging registration of ships with flags of other countries.

• Flags don’t necessarily represent good coverage of national fleets.


C – Fuel sales • Potentially cheap. • Direct link to fuel sales – a

key driver for ship emissions.






D – Fuel consumption

• Potentially cheap. • Direct link to fuel

consumption – a key driver for ship emissions.

• No consideration for location





E – Freight tonnes

• Direct linkage to freight – a key driver for ship movements.

• No account for non-freight traffic (eg ferries) which can be significant for some countries.


• Potential for double counting freight movements.

• Avoiding double counting of freight movements.



F – National emissions

• No major advantages in comparison to other methods.

• No correlation between national emissions and ship emissions.



G – Departure / destination

• Direct linkage to movements / activity associated with each country.


• Careful consideration in how to assign emissions along a journey to departure / destination ports.

• Approaches for assignment to departure / destination ports.



In general terms, assignment by location (Method A) has key advantages due to consideration of location of emissions and due to high potential accuracy. For air pollutants, location clearly has an important influence on the consequent environmental impacts. Assignment by location would appear to be consistent with assignment of land based emissions under the NECD, for example, and the Sulphur in Marine Fuel Directive already sets a precedent for sea area based emission controls with the SOx Emission Control Areas, covering Member States territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and pollution control zones. As such, this method is clearly worthy of further investigation as a potential means of assigning ship emissions. Areas for further

Final Report 99


investigation with this method include choices over the size of zone and potential enhancements to the underlying database.

A number of other methods are also considered worthy of further investigation, namely assignment by fuel sales (Method C), fuel consumption (Method D), freight tonnes (Method E) and departure / destination (Method G), as they also have certain positive characteristics as shown in the above table. However, amongst other factors, any further consideration of these would need to investigate how location could be addressed within the method, and how circumventing could be prevented, eg through legal definitions.

Of the methods that have been considered in this study, the ones considered to be least appropriate for assigning ship emissions include assignment by flag (Method B), and assignment in proportion to national emissions (Method F). For the former method this is due to flags not necessarily representing good coverage of national fleets and the potential for perverse incentives in decisions on which countries ships are flagged in; and for the latter method there is no correlation between national emissions and shipping emissions.

Final Report 100


Final Report A - 1


Appendix A References Beicip Franlab (2002), ‘Advice on the impacts of reduction in sulphur content of Marine fuels marketed in the EU’, European Commission DG ENV, Contract ENV.C1/SER/2001/0063, Study/C.1/01/2002, April 2002

Endresen (2003), ’Emission from international sea transportation and environmental impact’, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 108, No. D17, 4560, doi: 10.1029/2002JD002898,2003 (ACH 14 - p.1-22)

Entec (2002), ‘Quantification of emissions from ships associated with ship movements between ports in the European Community’, European Commission, July 2002

EPA (2000), ‘Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data’, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation EPA420-R-00-002, February 2000

Eurostat (2003), ‘Panorama of Transport, Statistical Overview of Transport in the European Union; Data 1970-2000’ European Commission, ISBN 92-894-4845-8, Cat. No KS-DA-02-001-EN-N, Luxembourg

Eurostat (2002), ‘Aviation and Maritime statistics in the candidate countries; Data 1995-2000’ European Commission, ISBN 92-894-3886-X, Cat. No KS-CB-02-001-EN-N, Luxembourg

Eurostat (2004), ‘Statistics in Focus, Transport, Inland Waterways Freight Transport in 1990-2002 in the European Union and the candidate countries’ European Commission, ISSN 1562-1324, Cat. No KS-NZ-04-009-EN-N, Luxembourg

International Energy Agency (2004), ‘Key World Energy Statistics’, http://library.iea.org/dbtw-wpd/Textbase/nppdf/free/2004/keyworld2004.pdf

TREMOVE (2004), ‘TREMOVE 2.0 Model Description’, European Commission DG ENV Directorate C – Environment and Health, Service Contract B4-3040/2002/342069/MAR/C.1, 19 April 2004

Saxe H., Larsen T. (2003), ‘Air pollution from ships in three Danish ports’, The Environmental Assessment Institute, Linnesgade 18, 1361 Copenhagen K, Denmark

The Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain (2004), ‘EU Legislation on Air pollution; Directive 2001/81/EC on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants, Environmental Fact sheet No. 16, June 2004, Sweden

UNCTAD (2000), Review of Maritime Transport 2000, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, UNCTAD/RMT(2000)/1

UNFCCC (1998), ‘Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Third Session; Addendum, Part Two: Action taken by the conference of the Parties at its third session, Distr. General, FCCC/CP/1997/7/Add.1, March 1998.

Umweltbehörde Hamburg (1997), ‘Luftreinhaltung in Hamburg 1982 bis 2000’, Umweltbehörde Hamburg, Billstrasse 84, 20539 Hamburg Germany

Final Report B - 1


Appendix B Underlying Assumptions

Final Report B - 2


Final Report B - 3


Table B.1 Ship categories used in emissions analysis (Entec 2002)

Ship Type LMIU Code Ship Count Ships Excluded28

Average Speed (km/h)

Liquefied Gas A11 781 11 31.2

Chemical A12 1712 19 25.3

Oil A13 3706 77 26.0

Other Liquids A14 124 0 24.0

Bulk Dry A21 4617 19 26.5

Bulk Dry/Oil A22 186 0 25.0

Self-Discharging Bulk Dry A23 79 0 25.7

Other Bulk Dry A24 373 6 23.9

General Cargo A31 9702 410 22.8

Passenger/General Cargo A32 42 3 27.0

Container A33 2503 22 35.7

Refrigerated Cargo A34 1094 37 31.4

Ro-Ro Cargo A35 1274 16 28.6

Passenger/Ro-Ro Cargo A36 496 17 28.4

Passenger A37 386 27 38.5

Other Dry Cargo A38 197 6 25.1

Fish Catching B11 1024 109 25.7

Other Fishing B12 185 5 24.7

Offshore Supply B21 577 22 24.6

Other Offshore B22 165 38 23.1

Research B31 217 25 25.1

Towing/Pushing B32 777 53 23.8

Dredging B33 164 13 21.2

Other Activities B34 266 36 25.2

Other Activities W11 11 0 18.1



TOTAL 27 30667 974 -

28 Vessels were excluded on the basis of incomplete database records, as discussed in Section 2.2..

Final Report B - 4


Table B. 2 Assumptions regarding engine operation for the different activities (Entec 2002).

% load of MCR for ME operation

% of time all MEs operating

% of electric power from shaft generators

% load of MCR for AE operation

at sea 80 100 50 30

in port (tankers-using pumps a)

20 100 0 60

in port 20 5 0 40

manoeuvring b) 20 100 0 50

a) For sea vessel categories A11 liquefied gas, A12 Chemical, A13 Oil, and A14 Other liquid. The tanker, in port ME characteristics can possibly be interpreted from the table as “all tankers operate at 20% MCR all the time in port”. In reality this is not correct, since some tankers (especially those not using diesel electric propulsion) will not run MEs in port but rely on AE power, and others will operate in port but with engine loads > 20%. The assumed characteristics have thus been chosen in an attempt bring the results to a “reasonable approximation” within the constraints of the project.

b) “Manoeuvring” associated with arrival at and departure from a port, i.e. when a ship decreases ME load at the end of a period “at sea”, up to the point when the ship is stationary “in port” and vice versa.

Final Report B - 5


Table B.3 Emission factors for “at sea” operation regarding ship type in 2000.

2000 At sea NOx SO2 CO2 HC PM sfc in g/kWh A11 Liquefied Gas 8.8 12.4 816 0.31 1.03 257 A12 Chemical 16.3 11.0 650 0.55 1.34 204 A13 Oil 14.8 11.7 690 0.50 1.43 217 A14 Other Liquids 16.3 11.0 649 0.55 1.30 204 A21 Bulk Dry 17.7 10.6 627 0.59 1.61 197 A22 Bulk Dry / Oil 16.7 10.1 646 0.56 1.50 203 A23 Self-Discharging

Bulk Dry 14.2 11.4 695 0.48 1.27 219

A24 Other Bulk Dry 17.2 10.6 634 0.57 1.52 200 A31 General Cargo 16.2 10.9 649 0.54 1.28 204 A32 Passenger/General

Cargo 15.6 11.2 658 0.53 1.15 207

A33 Container 17.3 10.8 635 0.57 1.56 200 A34 Refrigerated Cargo 17.1 10.8 636 0.57 1.47 200 A35 Ro-Ro Cargo 15.3 11.1 655 0.52 1.17 206 A36 Passenger/Ro-Ro

Cargo 13.3 9.9 688 0.42 0.73 217

A37 Passenger 13.2 11.8 697 0.46 0.81 219 A38 Other Dry Cargo 11.2 12.8 755 0.39 0.96 238 B11 Fish Catching 14.0 11.4 678 0.47 0.83 213 B12 Other Fishing 13.3 12.2 721 0.45 1.31 227 B21 Offshore Supply 13.9 11.0 677 0.49 0.79 213 B22 Other Offshore 13.5 11.1 684 0.44 0.78 215 B31 Research 14.1 11.5 675 0.48 0.85 212 B32 Towing / Pushing 13.7 10.8 674 0.42 0.80 212 B33 Dredging 14.1 11.4 675 0.49 0.84 212 B34 Other Activities 12.5 10.7 706 0.42 0.75 222 W11 Other Activities 13.4 11.1 651 0.47 0.77 205 W12 Other Activities 12.7 11.5 678 0.20 0.80 213

Final Report B - 6


Table B.4 Emission factors for “at berth” operation regarding ship type in 2000.

2000 At berth NOx SO2 CO2 HC PM sfc in g/kWh A11 Liquefied Gas 10.1 12.4 810 0.6 1.5 255 A12 Chemical 13.3 12.2 716 1.0 1.5 225 A13 Oil 12.5 12.6 743 1.1 1.7 234 A14 Other Liquids 13.4 12.2 716 0.9 1.4 225 A21 Bulk Dry 13.5 12.2 718 0.5 1.0 226 A22 Bulk Dry / Oil 13.4 12.2 721 0.5 0.9 227 A23 Self-Discharging Bulk

Dry 13.3 12.3 725 0.5 0.9 228


Cargo 13.4 12.3 722 0.5 0.9 227


Cargo 13.2 12.2 725 0.5 0.9 228

A37 Passenger 13.2 12.3 725 0.5 0.9 228 A38 Other Dry Cargo 13.0 12.5 731 0.5 0.9 230 B11 Fish Catching 13.3 12.2 723 0.4 0.9 227 B12 Other Fishing 13.2 12.4 727 0.5 0.9 229 B21 Offshore Supply 13.2 11.8 723 0.5 0.9 227 B22 Other Offshore 13.2 12.3 724 0.5 0.9 228 B31 Research 13.2 12.3 724 0.5 1.0 228 B32 Towing / Pushing 13.1 12.2 725 0.5 1.0 228 B33 Dredging 13.1 12.3 724 0.5 1.0 228 B34 Other Activities 13.0 11.0 724 0.5 0.9 228 W11 Other Activities 13.3 12.3 721 0.5 0.9 227 W12 Other Activities 12.8 12.4 726 0.4 1.1 228

Final Report B - 7


Table B.5 Emission factors for “manoeuvring” operation regarding ship type in 2000.

2000 Manoeuvring NOx SO2 CO2 HC PM sfc in g/kWh A11 Liquefied Gas 9.8 12.5 818 0.67 1.55 257 A12 Chemical 13.3 12.2 715 1.04 1.60 225 A13 Oil 12.5 12.7 745 1.10 1.82 235 A14 Other Liquids 13.4 12.2 715 0.92 1.44 225 A21 Bulk Dry 14.0 11.9 698 1.30 1.84 220 A22 Bulk Dry / Oil 13.5 11.5 712 1.20 1.74 224 A23 Self-Discharging Bulk Dry 12.4 12.4 743 0.96 1.62 234 A24 Other Bulk Dry 13.7 11.9 704 1.24 1.79 222 A31 General Cargo 13.2 12.1 715 1.03 1.59 225 A32 Passenger/General Cargo 13.1 12.3 720 0.92 1.48 226 A33 Container 13.8 12.0 705 1.19 1.73 222 A34 Refrigerated Cargo 13.7 12.0 707 1.06 1.58 223 A35 Ro-Ro Cargo 12.8 12.2 719 1.06 1.68 226 A36 Passenger/Ro-Ro Cargo 11.8 11.4 741 0.90 1.57 233 A37 Passenger 11.8 12.6 747 0.97 1.71 235 A38 Other Dry Cargo 10.7 13.4 788 0.86 1.75 248 B11 Fish Catching 12.5 12.3 730 0.85 1.48 229 B12 Other Fishing 11.9 12.9 760 0.92 1.66 239 B21 Offshore Supply 12.0 12.0 734 1.07 1.75 231 B22 Other Offshore 11.8 12.3 739 0.95 1.72 232 B31 Research 12.1 12.5 734 1.06 1.80 231 B32 Towing / Pushing 11.7 12.0 735 1.01 1.87 231 B33 Dredging 11.9 12.5 736 1.14 1.90 231 B34 Other Activities 11.2 11.5 755 0.96 1.69 237 W11 Other Activities 12.1 12.2 716 0.89 1.51 225 W12 Other Activities 10.9 12.6 740 0.56 2.05 232

Final Report B - 8


Table B.6 Emission factors for “at sea” operation regarding ship type in 2010 (Note 1)

2010 At sea NOx SO2 CO2 HC PM sfc in g/kWh A11 Liquefied Gas 8.3 12.4 816 0.31 1.03 257 A12 Chemical 15.2 11.0 650 0.55 1.34 204 A13 Oil 13.8 11.7 690 0.50 1.43 217 A14 Other Liquids 15.2 11.0 649 0.55 1.30 204 A21 Bulk Dry 16.5 10.6 627 0.59 1.61 197 A22 Bulk Dry / Oil 15.6 10.1 646 0.56 1.50 203 A23 Self-Discharging Bulk Dry 13.3 11.4 695 0.48 1.27 219 A24 Other Bulk Dry 16.0 10.6 634 0.57 1.52 200 A31 General Cargo 15.0 10.9 649 0.54 1.28 204 A32 Passenger/General Cargo 14.5 11.2 658 0.53 1.15 207 A33 Container 16.1 10.8 635 0.57 1.56 200 A34 Refrigerated Cargo 15.9 10.8 636 0.57 1.47 200 A35 Ro-Ro Cargo 14.3 11.1 655 0.52 1.17 206 A36 Passenger/Ro-Ro Cargo 12.4 9.9 688 0.42 0.73 217 A37 Passenger 12.3 11.8 697 0.46 0.81 219 A38 Other Dry Cargo 10.5 12.8 755 0.39 0.96 238 B11 Fish Catching 13.1 11.4 678 0.47 0.83 213 B12 Other Fishing 12.4 12.2 721 0.45 1.31 227 B21 Offshore Supply 13.0 11.0 677 0.49 0.79 213 B22 Other Offshore 12.5 11.1 684 0.44 0.78 215 B31 Research 13.2 11.5 675 0.48 0.85 212 B32 Towing / Pushing 12.8 10.8 674 0.42 0.80 212 B33 Dredging 13.1 11.4 675 0.49 0.84 212 B34 Other Activities 11.7 10.7 706 0.42 0.75 222 W11 Other Activities 12.4 11.1 651 0.47 0.77 205 W12 Other Activities 11.8 11.5 678 0.20 0.80 213 Note

1. Note that impact of sulphur in fuel limitations is taken into account in a separate calculation

Final Report B - 9


Table B.7 Emission factors for “at berth” operation regarding ship type in 2010 (Note 1).

2010 At Berth NOx SO2 CO2 HC PM sfc in g/kWh A11 Liquefied Gas 9.1 6.9 795 0.6 1.2 250 A12 Chemical 12.0 5.7 698 1.0 1.2 220 A13 Oil 11.4 7.8 730 1.1 1.5 230 A14 Other Liquids 12.0 4.6 695 0.9 1.1 219 A21 Bulk Dry 11.9 1.6 690 0.5 0.5 217 A22 Bulk Dry / Oil 11.8 1.5 692 0.5 0.5 218 A23 Self-Discharging Bulk Dry 11.7 1.3 695 0.5 0.4 218 A24 Other Bulk Dry 11.9 1.5 690 0.5 0.5 217 A31 General Cargo 11.8 1.2 691 0.5 0.4 217 A32 Passenger/General Cargo 11.8 1.0 691 0.5 0.4 217 A33 Container 11.9 1.4 690 0.5 0.5 217 A34 Refrigerated Cargo 11.8 1.1 690 0.5 0.4 217 A35 Ro-Ro Cargo 11.7 1.3 692 0.5 0.5 218 A36 Passenger/Ro-Ro Cargo 11.6 1.3 695 0.5 0.4 219 A37 Passenger 11.6 1.5 696 0.5 0.5 219 A38 Other Dry Cargo 11.5 1.6 702 0.5 0.5 221 B11 Fish Catching 11.7 1.0 692 0.4 0.4 218 B12 Other Fishing 11.6 1.4 697 0.5 0.4 219 B21 Offshore Supply 11.6 1.6 695 0.5 0.5 219 B22 Other Offshore 11.6 1.5 695 0.5 0.5 219 B31 Research 11.7 1.6 695 0.5 0.5 219 B32 Towing / Pushing 11.6 2.0 697 0.5 0.6 219 B33 Dredging 11.6 2.0 696 0.5 0.6 219 B34 Other Activities 11.5 1.6 699 0.5 0.5 220 W11 Other Activities 11.7 1.1 691 0.5 0.4 217 W12 Other Activities 11.3 2.7 700 0.4 0.7 220 Note


Final Report B - 10


Table B.8 Emission factors for “manoeuvring” operation regarding ship type in 2010 (Note 1).

2010 Manoeuvring NOx SO2 CO2 HC PM sfc in g/kWh A11 Liquefied Gas 9.2 12.5 818 0.67 1.55 257 A12 Chemical 12.4 12.2 715 1.04 1.60 225 A13 Oil 11.6 12.7 745 1.10 1.82 235 A14 Other Liquids 12.4 12.2 715 0.92 1.44 225 A21 Bulk Dry 13.0 11.9 698 1.30 1.84 220 A22 Bulk Dry / Oil 12.5 11.5 712 1.20 1.74 224 A23 Self-Discharging Bulk Dry 11.5 12.4 743 0.96 1.62 234 A24 Other Bulk Dry 12.8 11.9 704 1.24 1.79 222 A31 General Cargo 12.3 12.1 715 1.03 1.59 225 A32 Passenger/General Cargo 12.2 12.3 720 0.92 1.48 226 A33 Container 12.8 12.0 705 1.19 1.73 222 A34 Refrigerated Cargo 12.7 12.0 707 1.06 1.58 223 A35 Ro-Ro Cargo 11.9 12.2 719 1.06 1.68 226 A36 Passenger/Ro-Ro Cargo 11.0 11.4 741 0.90 1.57 233 A37 Passenger 11.0 12.6 747 0.97 1.71 235 A38 Other Dry Cargo 10.0 13.4 788 0.86 1.75 248 B11 Fish Catching 11.6 12.3 730 0.85 1.48 229 B12 Other Fishing 11.1 12.9 760 0.92 1.66 239 B21 Offshore Supply 11.2 12.0 734 1.07 1.75 231 B22 Other Offshore 11.0 12.3 739 0.95 1.72 232 B31 Research 11.3 12.5 734 1.06 1.80 231 B32 Towing / Pushing 10.9 12.0 735 1.01 1.87 231 B33 Dredging 11.1 12.5 736 1.14 1.90 231 B34 Other Activities 10.4 11.5 755 0.96 1.69 237 W11 Other Activities 11.3 12.2 716 0.89 1.51 225 W12 Other Activities 10.1 12.6 740 0.56 2.05 232 Note


Final Report B - 11


Table B.9 Emission factors for “at sea” operation regarding ship type in 2015 (Note 1).



Final Report B - 12



2015 At berth NOx SO2 CO2 HC PM sfc in g/kWh A11 Liquefied Gas 8.8 6.9 795 0.6 1.2 250 A12 Chemical 11.6 5.7 698 1.0 1.2 220 A13 Oil 11.0 7.8 730 1.1 1.5 230 A14 Other Liquids 11.5 4.6 695 0.9 1.1 219 A21 Bulk Dry 11.5 1.6 690 0.5 0.5 217 A22 Bulk Dry / Oil 11.4 1.5 692 0.5 0.5 218 A23 Self-Discharging Bulk Dry 11.3 1.3 695 0.5 0.4 218 A24 Other Bulk Dry 11.4 1.5 690 0.5 0.5 217 A31 General Cargo 11.4 1.2 691 0.5 0.4 217 A32 Passenger/General Cargo 11.3 1.0 691 0.5 0.4 217 A33 Container 11.4 1.4 690 0.5 0.5 217 A34 Refrigerated Cargo 11.4 1.1 690 0.5 0.4 217 A35 Ro-Ro Cargo 11.3 1.3 692 0.5 0.5 218 A36 Passenger/Ro-Ro Cargo 11.2 1.3 695 0.5 0.4 219 A37 Passenger 11.2 1.5 696 0.5 0.5 219 A38 Other Dry Cargo 11.1 1.6 702 0.5 0.5 221 B11 Fish Catching 11.3 1.0 692 0.4 0.4 218 B12 Other Fishing 11.2 1.4 697 0.5 0.4 219 B21 Offshore Supply 11.2 1.6 695 0.5 0.5 219 B22 Other Offshore 11.2 1.5 695 0.5 0.5 219 B31 Research 11.2 1.6 695 0.5 0.5 219 B32 Towing / Pushing 11.1 2.0 697 0.5 0.6 219 B33 Dredging 11.2 2.0 696 0.5 0.6 219 B34 Other Activities 11.1 1.6 699 0.5 0.5 220 W11 Other Activities 11.2 1.1 691 0.5 0.4 217 W12 Other Activities 10.9 2.7 700 0.4 0.7 220 Note


Final Report B - 13





Final Report B - 14


Table B.12 Emission factors for “at sea” operation regarding ship type in 2020 (Note 1).



Final Report B - 15



2020 At berth NOx SO2 CO2 HC PM sfc in g/kWh A11 Liquefied Gas 8.5 6.9 795 0.6 1.2 250 A12 Chemical 11.1 5.7 698 1.0 1.2 220 A13 Oil 10.5 7.8 730 1.0 1.5 230 A14 Other Liquids 11.1 4.6 695 0.9 1.1 219 A21 Bulk Dry 11.0 1.6 690 0.5 0.5 217 A22 Bulk Dry / Oil 11.0 1.5 692 0.5 0.5 218 A23 Self-Discharging Bulk

Dry 10.8 1.3 695 0.5 0.4 218


Cargo 10.9 1.0 691 0.5 0.4 217


Cargo 10.8 1.3 695 0.5 0.4 219

A37 Passenger 10.8 1.5 696 0.5 0.5 219 A38 Other Dry Cargo 10.6 1.6 702 0.5 0.5 221 B11 Fish Catching 10.8 1.0 692 0.4 0.4 218 B12 Other Fishing 10.8 1.4 697 0.5 0.4 219 B21 Offshore Supply 10.8 1.6 695 0.5 0.5 219 B22 Other Offshore 10.8 1.5 695 0.5 0.5 219 B31 Research 10.8 1.6 695 0.5 0.5 219 B32 Towing / Pushing 10.7 2.0 697 0.5 0.6 219 B33 Dredging 10.7 2.0 696 0.5 0.6 219 B34 Other Activities 10.7 1.6 699 0.5 0.5 220 W11 Other Activities 10.8 1.1 691 0.5 0.4 217 W12 Other Activities 10.5 2.7 700 0.4 0.7 220 Note


Final Report B - 16





Final Report B - 17


Table B.15 Year 2000 average emission factors for fuel (g/kwh)

2000 NOx SO2 CO2 VOC PM sfc

Fuel g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh

MD 9.3 1.0 750 0.24 0.23 236

RO 15.7 11.2 659 0.53 1.31 207

Table B.16 Year 2000 average emission factors for fuel (kg/tonne fuel)

2000 NOx SO2 CO2 VOC PM

Fuel kg/tonne fuel kg/tonne fuel kg/tonne fuel kg/tonne fuel kg/tonne fuel

MD 40 4.4 3,178 1.0 1.0

RO 76 54 3,179 2.5 6.3

Table B.17 Year 2010 average emission factors for fuel (g/kwh)



MD 8.8 1.0 750 0.24 0.23 236

RO 14.6 11.2 659 0.53 1.31 207

Table B. 18 Year 2010 average emission factors for fuel (kg/tonne fuel)



MD 37 4.4 3,178 1.0 1.0

RO 71 54 3,179 2.5 6.3

Table B. 19 Year 2015 average emission factors for fuel (g/kwh)



MD 8.5 1.0 750 0.24 0.23 236

RO 14.1 11.2 659 0.53 1.31 207

Final Report B - 18





MD 36 4.4 3,178 1.0 1.0

RO 68 54 3,179 2.5 6.3

Table B. 21 Year 2020 average emission factors for fuel (g/kwh)



MD 8.3 1.0 750 0.24 0.23 236

RO 13.6 11.2 659 0.53 1.31 207




MD 35 4.4 3,178 1.0 1.0

RO 65 54 3,179 2.5 6.3

Final Report C - 1


Appendix C Data Used for Calculating Ship Emissions

Final Report C - 2


Final Report C - 3


Table C. 1 Fuel sales for 2000, Domestic and International sales (BeicipFranlab, 2002)*

Country Heavy fuel oil – HFO (kT/year) Marine Distillate – MD (kT/year)

2000 2010 2015 2020 2000 2010 2015 2020

Austria _ _ _ _ 0 0 0 0

Belgium 4528 5853 67917 7565 775 1002 11632 1296

Denmark 856 1107 12844 1431 566 731 8484 945

Finland 449 580 6732 750 240 310 3600 401

France 2570 3322 38552 4294 1,040 1344 15600 1738

Germany 1710 2210 25650 2857 813 1050 12188 1358

Greece 3598 4651 53976 6012 1,056 1365 15845 1765

Ireland 56 72 840 94 128 166 1925 214

Italy 1770 2288 26550 2957 908 1173 13616 1517

Luxembourg _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Netherlands 11600 14994 174000 19382 2,736 3537 41046 4572

Portugal 480 620 7200 802 171 221 2567 286

Spain 5425 7012 81370 9064 2,109 2726 31630 3523

Sweden 1267 1637 19001 2117 247 320 3709 413

United Kingdom 996 1287 14936 1664 2,052 2652 30780 3429

Cyprus 130 169 1957 218 59 77 889 99

Czech Republic _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Estonia 143 185 2152 240 66 86 993 111

Hungary _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Latvia* 10 13 150 17 10 13 150 17

Lithuania 43 55 639 71 17 22 256 28

Malta 41 53 617 69 27 35 411 46

Poland 579 748 8681 967 171 221 2565 286

Slovakia _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Slovenia _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Bulgaria 0 0 0 0 14 18 212 24

Romania* _ _ _ _ 60 78 900 100

Turkey 277 359 4162 464 301 389 4509 502

Croatia _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Total 36528 47218 547925 61035 13567 17537 203506 22,669

*Data presented are adjusted to 2000 values from data on domestic navigation in 1999. Fuel sales for 2000 have been projected to 2010, 2015 and 2020 using a growth rate of 2.6%

For Austria and Luxembourg, missing data are for domestic navigation

Final Report C - 4


Table C. 2 Fuel consumption in kT (Eurostat web-site)

Country Heavy fuel oil – HFO (kT) Marine Distillate – MD (kT)

2000 2010 2015 2020 2000 2010 2015 2020

Austria _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Belgium 4818 6228 7081 8050 859 1110 1262 1435

Denmark 853 1103 1254 1425 615 795 904 1028

Finland 545 704 801 911 257 332 378 429

France 2594 3353 3812 4334 967 1250 1421 1616

Germany 1705 2204 2506 2849 777 1004 1142 1298

Greece 3134 4051 4606 5237 1013 1309 1489 1693

Ireland 57 74 84 95 116 150 170 194

Italy 1956 2528 2875 3268 971 1255 1427 1622

Luxembourg _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Netherlands 11582 14971 17021 19352 2715 3509 3990 4536

Portugal 471 609 692 787 248 321 364 414

Spain 5405 6987 7943 9031 2121 2742 3117 3544

Sweden 1266 1636 1861 2115 282 365 414 471

United Kingdom 980 1267 1440 1637 2012 2601 2957 3362

Cyprus 143 185 210 239 50 65 73 84

Czech Republic _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Estonia 65 84 96 109 49 63 72 82

Hungary _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Latvia 0 0 0 0 8 10 12 13

Lithuania 72 93 106 120 25 32 37 42

Malta 298 385 438 498 0 0 0 0

Poland 248 321 364 414 50 65 73 84

Slovakia _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Slovenia _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Bulgaria 1 1 1 2 64 83 94 107

Romania _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Turkey 303 392 445 506 297 384 436 496

Croatia _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Total 36496 47176 53636 60981 13496 17445 19834 22550

Fuel consumption for 2000 has been projected to 2010, 2015 and 2020 using a growth rate of 2.6%

Final Report C - 5


Table C. 3 Freight tonnes data for 2000 (Eurostat 2002, Eurostat 2003, Eurostat 2004)

Country Countries Abbreviation

Freight tonnes (kT)

Freight tonnes (kT)

Freight tonnes (kT)

Freight tonnes (kT)

2000 2010 2015 2020

Austria AUT 10980 14193 16137 18346

Belgium BEL 299532 387183 440204 500484

Denmark DNK 338723 437843 497800 565968

Finland FIN 80700 104315 118600 134841

France FRA 407169 526318 598391 680334

Germany GER 242500 313462 356387 405190

Greece GRC 127700 165069 187673 213372

Ireland IRL 45300 58556 66575 75691

Italy ITA 446600 577288 656340 746218

Luxembourg LUX 11514 14883 16921 19239

Netherlands NLD 719508 930056 1057416 1202217

Portugal PRT 56400 72904 82888 94238

Spain ESP 234900 303638 345218 392491

Sweden SWE 159300 205916 234113 266172

United Kingdom GBR 573000 740676 842103 957419

Cyprus CYP 7400 9565 10875 12365

Czech Republic CZE 1738 2247 2554 2904

Estonia EST 39800 51447 58492 66501

Hungary HUN 4415 5707 6488 7377

Latvia LVA 51800 66958 76127 86552

Lithuania LTU 22700 29343 33361 37929

Malta MLT 5700 7368 8377 9524

Poland POL 57243 73994 84126 95647

Slovakia SVK 1205 1558 1771 2013

Slovenia SVN 9000 11634 13227 15038

Bulgaria BGR 23800 30765 34977 39767

Romania ROM 38500 49766 56581 64329

Turkey TUR 149000 192602 218976 248962

Croatia CRO _ _ _ _

Total 4166127 5385253 6122699 6961130

Freight tonnes data for 2000 have been projected to 2010, 2015 and 2020 using a growth rate of 2.6%

Final Report C - 6


Table C. 4 National Emission Ceiling data for NOx, SO2, VOC (2010) and Kyoto Protocol targets for CO2 by 2008-2012

NOx (kT/year) SO2 (kT/year) VOC (kT/year) CO2 (kT/year)

Austria 103 39 159 54464

Belgium 176 99 139 104333

Denmark 127 55 85 47932

Finland 170 110 130 49588

France 810 375 1050 337213

Germany 1051 520 995 931448

Greece 344 523 261 75532

Ireland 65 42 55 28261

Italy 990 475 1159 394626

Luxembourg 11 4 9 10436

Netherlands 260 50 185 154192

Portugal 250 160 180 38776

Spain 847 746 662 239802

Sweden 148 67 241 56356

United Kingdom 1167 585 1200 537352

Cyprus 23 39 14 _

Czech Republic 286 265 220 155953

Estonia 60 100 49 34773

Hungary 198 500 137 67373

Latvia 61 101 136 21138

Lithuania 110 145 92 **

Malta 8 9 12 _

Poland 879 1397 800 390034

Slovakia 130 110 140 53616

Slovenia 45 27 40 **

Bulgaria 266* 856* 185* 76351

Romania 437* 918* 523* 157415

Turkey _ _ _ _

Croatia _ _ _ **

Total 9022 8317 8858 4016961

* The NECs for the two accession candidate countries (Bulgaria and Romania) have not yet been established. Therefore, the figures given in this table for these two countries are taken from the 1999 Gothenburg Protocol.

** These countries have a Kyoto Protocol target but there are no data on emissions in the base year (1990).

Final Report C - 7


Table C. 5 Comparison of IWW data for different tasks

IWW NOx emissions IWW Freight

Task A(iii); TREMOVE Task D; Fuel Consumption Task F; Freight tonnes

kT/y kT/y kT (gross weight of goods)

Austria 1.4 10980

Belgium 4.6 7.9 120132

Denmark 6.0 242223

Finland 6.6

France 3.4 21.9 70669

Germany 32.6 11.0

Greece 28.5

Ireland 1.6

Italy 8.0

Luxembourg 11514

Netherlands 25.1 26.4 313708

Portugal 1.7

Spain 63.0

Sweden 7.6

United Kingdom 38.0

Cyprus

Czech Republic 0.6 1738

Estonia 0.3

Hungary 0.6 4415

Latvia 0.3

Lithuania 0.1

Malta

Poland 0.4 0.2 9943

Slovakia 1205

Slovenia

Bulgaria 0.1 6000

Romania 13000

Turkey 11.0

Croatia

Final Report C - 8


Final Report D - 1


Appendix D Calculated Emission Data

Final Report D - 2


Final Report D - 3


Table D. 1 NOx emissions (kT/year) 2000 2010

Country Task A 12 miles

Task A 200

miles

Task B Task C Task D Task E Task F Task G Task A 12 miles

Task A 200

miles

Task B Task C Task D Task E Task F Task G

Austria AUT 1.43 1.43 4.11 0.00 0.00 7.41 32.08 1.43 1.83 1.83 5.02 0.00 0.00 8.91 38.61 1.83 Belgium BEL 20.00 36.58 5.37 375.13 400.53 202.04 54.82 183.53 23.90 43.86 6.71 452.63 483.26 243.14 65.97 220.42

Denmark DNK 77.07 172.36 406.50 87.70 89.43 228.48 39.56 80.53 92.47 207.10 488.67 105.64 107.70 274.95 47.60 96.28 Finland FIN 12.28 24.07 62.14 43.71 51.70 54.43 52.95 90.07 14.56 28.74 74.73 52.67 62.31 65.51 63.72 108.01 France FRA 61.52 264.02 53.42 236.93 235.82 274.65 252.30 306.07 73.75 317.46 64.60 285.62 284.32 330.52 303.62 367.77

Germany GER 82.02 132.77 646.46 162.46 160.66 163.57 327.37 211.28 103.28 164.34 781.80 195.80 193.64 196.85 393.96 258.12 Greece GRC 86.79 383.31 612.21 315.73 278.70 86.14 107.15 171.37 104.05 460.92 736.73 380.77 336.08 103.66 128.95 205.58 Ireland IRL 7.12 46.38 4.26 9.39 8.97 30.56 20.25 33.96 8.45 55.72 5.08 11.28 10.78 36.77 24.36 40.65

Italy ITA 71.15 449.94 330.43 170.83 187.50 301.25 308.37 534.40 84.61 540.66 397.58 205.86 225.96 362.52 371.09 641.50 Luxembo

urg LUX 0.00 0.00 24.95 0.00 0.00 7.77 3.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.07 0.00 0.00 9.35 4.12 0.00

Netherlands NLD

72.87 161.06 356.78 991.06 988.83 485.33 80.99 286.82 88.91 195.03 430.35 1195.48 1192.81 584.05 97.46 345.90

Portugal PRT 10.55 94.15 9.58 43.32 45.72 38.04 77.87 77.40 12.53 113.15 11.48 52.24 55.09 45.78 93.71 93.08 Spain ESP 75.10 371.67 31.22 496.62 495.62 158.45 263.83 523.43 89.44 446.40 37.48 598.71 597.49 190.68 317.49 627.22

Sweden SWE 29.56 93.77 91.57 106.16 107.50 107.45 46.10 90.91 35.22 112.46 110.23 128.08 129.68 129.31 55.48 108.71 United

Kingdom GBR 132.99 308.02 280.08 157.76 154.96 386.51 363.50 557.44 158.89 369.60 336.65 189.53 186.17 465.13 437.44 668.34

Cyprus CYP 3.68

20.50 869.71 12.29 12.87 4.99 7.16 24.84 4.35 24.58 1044.59 14.81 15.52 6.01 8.62 29.75

Czech Republic CZE

0.64 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.00 1.17 89.08 0.64 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.00 0.00 1.41 107.20 0.79

Estonia EST 8.97 35.93 11.24 13.55 6.90 26.85 18.69 21.35 10.72 43.16 13.46 16.33 8.31 32.31 22.49 25.53 Hungary HUN 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.00 2.98 61.67 0.56 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.00 3.58 74.22 0.70

Latvia LVA 5.13 20.65 1.01 1.16 0.32 34.94 19.00 27.79 6.08 24.74 1.21 1.40 0.38 42.05 22.87 33.28 Lithuania LTU 1.49 2.94 13.78 3.92 6.47 15.31 34.26 14.33 1.75 3.50 16.52 4.73 7.80 18.43 41.23 17.15

Malta MLT 3.27 11.68 743.70 4.22 22.65 3.84 2.49 46.85 3.86 13.99 893.81 5.08 27.35 4.63 3.00 56.24 Poland POL 5.16 11.55 14.06 50.82 20.85 38.61 273.79 34.36 6.09 13.78 16.92 61.29 25.15 46.47 329.48 41.11

Slovakia SVK 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.81 40.49 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.98 48.73 0.02 Slovenia SVN 1.13 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.07 14.02 14.09 1.34 1.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.31 16.87 16.91 Bulgaria BGR 2.41 9.14 31.69 0.57 2.64 16.05 82.85 8.85 2.85 10.94 38.05 0.68 3.15 19.32 99.71 10.57

Romania ROM 3.59 9.78 10.48 2.40 0.00 25.97 136.12 10.21 4.24 11.68 12.57 2.87 0.00 31.25 163.81 12.13 Turkey TUR 47.59 113.11 163.46 33.11 34.91 100.51 0.00 165.76 56.82 135.62 196.23 39.84 42.01 120.95 0.00 198.17 Croatia CRO 6.69 33.04 17.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.32 8.00 39.74 21.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.14

Total 831 2,810 4,798 3,319 3,314 2,810 2,810 3,533 999 3,382 5,774 4,001 3,995 3,382 3,382 4,243

Final Report D - 4


Table D. 1 Cont’d NOx emissions (kT/year) 2015 2020

Country Task A

12 miles

Task A 200

miles Task B Task C Task D Task E Task F Task G

Task A 12 miles

Task A 200

miles Task B Task C Task D Task E Task F Task G Austria AUT 2.06 2.06 5.58 0.00 0.00 9.78 42.35 2.06 2.34 2.34 6.17 0.00 0.00 10.70 46.36 2.34

Belgium BEL 26.33 48.18 7.51 493.51 526.94 266.73 72.37 241.46 29.08 52.96 8.50 537.10 573.51 291.99 79.22 264.21 Denmark DNK 101.28 226.82 534.98 115.50 117.78 301.63 52.22 105.47 110.66 247.85 584.70 126.07 128.61 330.19 57.17 115.22

Finland FIN 15.95 31.48 81.72 57.55 68.06 71.86 69.91 118.25 17.42 34.39 89.35 62.78 74.22 78.67 76.52 129.22 France FRA 81.02 347.99 71.06 311.87 310.39 362.58 333.08 403.02 88.82 380.56 77.91 339.96 338.28 396.91 364.61 440.78



urg LUX 0.00 0.00 32.94 0.00 0.00 10.25 4.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.04 0.00 0.00 11.22 4.95 0.00

Netherlands NLD

98.59 214.78 472.82 1304.03 1301.09 640.72 106.91 380.07 109.66 236.66 518.39 1419.88 1416.67 701.38 117.04 417.35



Kingdom GBR 174.03 404.79 368.82 208.08 204.39 510.25 479.88 731.89 190.15 442.38 402.85 228.15 224.10 558.57 525.31 799.88

Cyprus CYP 4.77 26.94 1144.83 16.17 16.94 6.59 9.46 32.60 5.20 29.43 1250.94 17.64 18.45 7.21 10.35 35.61 Czech

Republic CZE 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.00 0.00 1.55 117.61 0.88 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.00 1.69 128.74 0.99






Total 1,100 3,710 6,331 4,368 4,361 3,710 3,710 4,653 1,209 4,061 6,926 4,761 4,753 4,061 4,061 5,092

Final Report D - 5


Table D. 2 SO2 emissions (kT/year) 2000 2010

Country

Task A 12 miles

Task A 200

miles Task B Task C Task D Task E Task F Task G Task A

12 miles

Task A 200






urg LUX 0.00 0.00 24.28 0.00 0.00 5.39 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.63 0.00 0.00 5.38 0.94 0.00

Netherlands NLD

38.24 98.61 234.99 638.44 637.37 336.55 11.72 184.39 21.11 64.46 269.36 825.27 823.89 335.94 11.69 163.01



Kingdom GBR 100.33 222.59 197.85 62.80 61.77 268.02 137.07 398.85 75.63 177.03 229.82 81.18 79.85 267.54 136.82 383.37

Cyprus CYP 3.03 14.93 575.59 7.31 7.94 3.46 9.14 18.54 2.41 17.45 701.58 9.44 10.27 3.46 9.12 20.62 Czech

Republic CZE 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.81 62.09 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.81 61.98 0.04






Total 581 1,949 3,241 2,032 2,030 1,949 1,949 2,480 462 1,945 3,800 2,627 2,624 1,945 1,945 2,469

Final Report D - 6


Table D. 2 Cont’d SO2 emissions (kT/year) 2015 2020

Country Task A

12 miles

Task A 200


Task A 12 miles

Task A 200






urg LUX 0.00 0.00 30.28 0.00 0.00 6.11 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.43 0.00 0.00 6.95 1.21 0.00

Netherlands NLD

23.99 73.28 306.24 938.28 936.71 381.95 13.30 185.32 27.30 83.34 348.19 1,066.76 1,064.98 434.29 15.12 210.72



Kingdom GBR 85.98 201.28 261.29 92.29 90.78 304.18 155.56 435.87 97.76 228.84 297.07 104.93 103.22 345.86 176.87 495.56

Cyprus CYP 2.74 19.84 797.65 10.74 11.67 3.93 10.37 23.45 3.12 22.56 906.88 12.21 13.27 4.47 11.79 26.66 Czech

Republic CZE 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.92 70.47 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 1.05 80.12 0.06






Total 525 2,212 4,320 2,987 2,984 2,212 2,212 2,807 597 2,515 4,912 3,396 3,392 2,515 2,515 3,192

Final Report D - 7


Table D. 3 VOC emissions (kT/year) 2000 2010

Country

Task A 12 miles

Task A 200


12 miles

Task A 200






urg LUX 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.19 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.13 0.00

Netherlands NLD

3.19 6.13 12.53 31.74 31.67 17.06 2.06 10.57 4.11 7.91 16.18 41.02 40.94 22.07 2.67 13.65



Kingdom GBR 5.18 11.02 9.63 4.54 4.46 13.59 13.38 20.29 6.69 14.24 12.45 5.87 5.77 17.58 17.31 26.22

Cyprus CYP 0.15 0.72 29.43 0.39 0.41 0.18 0.16 0.89 0.20 0.93 38.04 0.50 0.53 0.23 0.20 1.15 Czech

Republic CZE 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.04 2.45 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.05 3.17 0.04






Total 32.9 98.8 164.9 104.9 104.7 98.8 98.8 127.2 42.6 127.8 213.3 135.6 135.4 127.8 127.8 164.5

Final Report D - 8


Table D. 3 Cont’d VOC emissions (kT/year) 2015 2020

Country Task A

12 miles

Task A 200


Task A 12 miles

Task A 200






urg LUX 0.00 0.00 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.17 0.00

Netherlands NLD

4.66 8.99 18.39 46.64 46.54 25.11 3.04 15.51 5.29 10.21 20.92 53.03 52.92 28.49 3.45 17.61



Kingdom GBR 7.61 16.20 14.16 6.67 6.56 19.99 19.69 29.82 8.55 18.32 16.05 7.59 7.46 22.69 22.35 33.69

Cyprus CYP 0.23 1.05 43.25 0.57 0.60 0.26 0.23 1.31 0.25 1.19 49.11 0.64 0.68 0.29 0.26 1.48 Czech

Republic CZE 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.06 3.61 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.07 4.10 0.05






Total 48.4 145.4 242.5 154.1 153.9 145.4 145.4 187.1 54.8 165.0 275.3 175.3 175.0 165.0 165.0 212.0

Final Report D - 9


Table D. 4 CO2 emissions (MT/year) 2000 2010

Country

Task A 12 miles

Task A 200 miles

Task B Task C Task D Task E Task F Task G Task A 12 miles

Task A 200 miles

Task B Task C Task D Task E Task F Task G

Austria AUT 0.07 0.07 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.32 1.64 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.41 2.11 0.10 Belgium BEL 0.99 1.67 0.28 16.86 18.05 8.67 3.13 7.45 1.26 2.14 0.35 21.79 23.33 11.19 4.04 9.59 Denmark DNK 3.25 7.16 16.12 4.52 4.67 9.81 1.44 3.52 4.19 9.24 20.81 5.84 6.03 12.66 1.86 4.52 Finland FIN 0.57 1.06 2.76 2.19 2.55 2.34 1.49 3.90 0.73 1.36 3.56 2.83 3.30 3.02 1.92 5.03 France FRA 2.87 11.27 2.56 11.48 11.32 11.79 10.13 13.08 3.68 14.54 3.31 14.83 14.63 15.21 13.07 16.86 Germany GER 3.89 5.97 24.84 8.02 7.89 7.02 27.97 9.26 5.12 7.81 32.18 10.36 10.20 9.06 36.10 12.04 Greece GRC 3.94 15.98 25.89 14.80 13.18 3.70 2.27 7.73 5.08 20.64 33.43 19.13 17.04 4.77 2.93 9.96 Ireland IRL 0.33 1.89 0.17 0.59 0.55 1.31 0.85 1.43 0.42 2.43 0.22 0.76 0.71 1.69 1.10 1.84 Italy ITA 3.52 19.70 14.80 8.51 9.30 12.93 11.85 23.97 4.50 25.42 19.10 11.00 12.03 16.69 15.29 30.90 Luxembourg LUX 0.00 0.00 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.96 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.40 0.00 Netherlands NLD 3.50 7.11 15.14 45.57 45.45 20.84 4.63 12.22 4.48 9.15 19.53 58.91 58.75 26.88 5.98 15.73 Portugal PRT 0.49 3.93 0.40 2.07 2.29 1.63 1.16 3.13 0.63 5.07 0.52 2.68 2.95 2.11 1.50 4.05 Spain ESP 3.39 15.55 1.34 23.95 23.92 6.80 7.20 21.99 4.34 20.05 1.72 30.95 30.92 8.78 9.29 28.30 Sweden SWE 1.34 4.03 3.97 4.81 4.92 4.61 1.69 4.03 1.72 5.19 5.12 6.22 6.36 5.95 2.18 5.18 United Kingdom GBR 6.00 13.35 11.76 9.69 9.51 16.59 16.14 23.82 7.70 17.20 15.18 12.52 12.29 21.41 20.82 30.66 Cyprus CYP 0.18 0.90 34.10 0.60 0.61 0.21 0.00 1.12 0.23 1.15 44.02 0.78 0.79 0.28 0.00 1.44 Czech Republic CZE 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.05 4.68 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.06 6.04 0.04 Estonia EST 0.40 1.54 0.46 0.67 0.36 1.15 1.04 0.92 0.51 1.99 0.60 0.86 0.47 1.49 1.35 1.18 Hungary HUN 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.13 2.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.16 2.61 0.04 Latvia LVA 0.24 0.89 0.04 0.06 0.03 1.50 0.63 1.19 0.31 1.15 0.05 0.08 0.03 1.94 0.82 1.53 Lithuania LTU 0.07 0.14 0.57 0.19 0.31 0.66 0.00 0.60 0.09 0.18 0.74 0.25 0.40 0.85 0.00 0.77 Malta MLT 0.16 0.53 30.22 0.22 0.95 0.17 0.00 1.93 0.20 0.68 39.00 0.28 1.22 0.21 0.00 2.48 Poland POL 0.25 0.51 0.54 2.38 0.95 1.66 11.71 1.45 0.31 0.66 0.70 3.08 1.22 2.14 15.11 1.87 Slovakia SVK 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.05 2.08 0.00 Slovenia SVN 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.58 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.74 Bulgaria BGR 0.11 0.39 1.21 0.04 0.21 0.69 2.29 0.39 0.14 0.50 1.56 0.06 0.27 0.89 2.96 0.50 Romania ROM 0.17 0.43 0.41 0.19 0.00 1.11 4.73 0.45 0.21 0.55 0.53 0.25 0.00 1.44 6.10 0.58 Turkey TUR 2.16 4.94 6.54 1.84 1.91 4.31 0.00 7.46 2.77 6.37 8.44 2.38 2.47 5.57 0.00 9.59 Croatia CRO 0.32 1.52 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.41 1.96 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 Total 38.34 120.64 196.63 159.24 158.91 120.64 120.64 152.42 49.28 155.67 253.90 205.84 205.41 155.67 155.67 196.34

Final Report D - 10


Table D. 4 Cont’d CO2 emissions (MT/year) 2015 2020

Country Task A

12 miles

Task A 200


Task A 12 miles

Task A 200






urg LUX 0.00 0.00 2.22 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.53 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.52 0.00 Netherla

nds NLD 5.09 10.39 22.20 66.98 66.79 30.58 6.80 17.87 5.80 11.83 25.26 76.15 75.94 34.79 7.73 20.34 Portugal PRT 0.71 5.77 0.59 3.04 3.36 2.40 1.71 4.60 0.81 6.56 0.67 3.46 3.82 2.73 1.94 5.23

Spain ESP 4.94 22.80 1.96 35.19 35.16 9.98 10.57 32.18 5.62 25.92 2.23 40.01 39.97 11.36 12.03 36.58 Sweden SWE 1.96 5.90 5.82 7.07 7.23 6.77 2.48 5.88 2.23 6.71 6.61 8.04 8.22 7.70 2.83 6.69

United Kingdom GBR 8.75 19.55 17.26 14.24 13.98 24.35 23.68 34.85 9.95 22.23 19.63 16.19 15.89 27.71 26.95 39.63

Cyprus CYP 0.26 1.31 50.05 0.89 0.90 0.31 0.00 1.63 0.30 1.49 56.91 1.01 1.03 0.36 0.00 1.86 Czech

Republic CZE 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.07 6.87 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.08 7.82 0.05 Estonia EST 0.58 2.26 0.68 0.98 0.53 1.69 1.53 1.34 0.66 2.57 0.77 1.11 0.61 1.92 1.74 1.53

Hungary HUN 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.19 2.97 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.21 3.38 0.05 Latvia LVA 0.35 1.31 0.06 0.09 0.04 2.20 0.93 1.74 0.40 1.49 0.07 0.11 0.04 2.50 1.06 1.98

Lithuania LTU 0.11 0.20 0.84 0.28 0.45 0.96 0.00 0.88 0.12 0.23 0.96 0.32 0.52 1.10 0.00 1.00 Malta MLT 0.23 0.77 44.35 0.32 1.39 0.24 0.00 2.82 0.26 0.87 50.42 0.36 1.58 0.28 0.00 3.21

Poland POL 0.36 0.75 0.80 3.50 1.39 2.43 17.19 2.12 0.41 0.85 0.90 3.98 1.58 2.77 19.56 2.41 Slovakia SVK 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.05 2.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.06 2.69 0.00 Slovenia SVN 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.85 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.96 Bulgaria BGR 0.16 0.57 1.78 0.07 0.30 1.01 3.37 0.57 0.18 0.65 2.02 0.08 0.35 1.15 3.83 0.65


Total 56.09 177.05 288.74 234.02 233.54 177.05 177.05 223.30 63.93 201.44 328.43 266.07 265.52 201.44 201.44 254.02

Final Report D - 11


Table D. 5 PM emissions (kT/year) 2000 2010

Country

Task A 12 miles

Task A 200


12 miles

Task A 200






urg LUX 0.00 0.00 2.41 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.92 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 Netherla




Cyprus CYP 0.31 1.69 75.84 0.88 0.95 0.42 0.00 2.01 0.33 2.10 96.03 1.14 1.23 0.49 0.00 2.45 Czech






Total 69.2 235.2 413.4 243.7 243.4 235.2 0.0 299.7 77.5 278.3 518.2 315.0 314.7 278.3 0.0 355.9

Final Report D - 12


Table D. 5 Cont’d PM emissions (kT/year) 2015 2020

Country Task A

12 miles

Task A 200


Task A 12 miles

Task A 200






urg LUX 0.00 0.00 3.32 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.77 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Netherla




Cyprus CYP 0.38 2.38 109.18 1.30 1.40 0.56 0.00 2.78 0.43 2.71 124.13 1.47 1.59 0.64 0.00 3.16 Czech






Total 88.2 316.5 589.3 358.1 357.7 316.5 0.0 404.7 100.4 360.0 670.1 407.2 406.7 360.0 0.0 460.3

Final Report


Appendix E Uncertainty Analysis

Final Report


Method A at Sea For each ship movement in the database the emissions in a certain zone are calculated as follows:

Formula 10

(g/kWh) EF)](% LFAE(kW)(%) LFME(kW)[(km/h) v(km) D)( seaat AEME: ⋅⋅+⋅⋅=gE seaAtA

With:

D: Distance a ship travels in a certain zone of a country, e.g. 12 mile zone of country X, estimated based on port of departure, port of arrival, and assumed route.






EFat sea: Average emission factors for each ship category (see Annex B Table B.3 - Table B.14).

Neglecting the term (AE·LFAE) as small compared to the main engine load (AE·LFAE << ME·LFME) the relative standard deviation of the calculated emissions (sE) can be estimated to be:

Formula 11 2

seaat

EF2

ME

LF2

ME2

v22

: EFLFMEs

vs seaat ME

+

+

+

+

=

ssDs

Es D

seaAtA

E

With:

si Standard deviation of variable i

Assuming a relative standard deviation of 10% for the three variables Formula 1 is calculated with generic data, i.e. v, LF, and EF, and assuming a relative standard deviation of 5% for the specific data, i.e. D and ME results in a relative standard deviation of ≈ 19% for the calculated emissions. Given that most of the quoted emission factors already have sEF/EF = 10-20%, e.g. Entec (2002), Endresen (2003), EPA (2000), it can be assumed that the standard deviation sE for the calculated emissions on a specific route are in the order of:

sE = 15-25%·EA

The total emissions TEA in a country are gained by summing up all the emissions of the individual ship movements inside a country’s catchment zone therefore:

TEA: at sea = Σ EA, At sea, with a standard deviation of sTEA = 15-25%·TEA

Final Report


Method A in Port For each ship calling in a port according to the database the emissions for at berth and manoeuvring activities are calculated based on Formula 2:

Formula 12 (g/kWh) EF)](% LFPAE(kW)(%) LFPME(kW)[)h(T)( portin AEMEportin portin:A ⋅⋅+⋅⋅=gE

With:

T: Average time spent at berth/manoeuvring per calling for a certain ship category (see Table 2-10).

ME: Installed main engine power of the ship calling. This information is gained from the Lloyd’s Maritime Information System (LMIS) database.

LFPME: Average load factors of ship category’s main engine in ports/manoeuvring (see Annex B Table B. 2).


LFPAE: Average load factor of ship category’s auxiliary engine in ports/manoeuvring (see Annex B Table B. 2).

EFin port: Average emission factors for each ship category for at berth /manoeuvring (see Annex B Table B.3 - Table B.14).

Substituting the term of the employed power by P = (ME·LFPME +AE·LFPAE) the relative standard deviation of the calculated emissions (sE) can be estimated to:

Formula 13 2

portin

EF222

portin:A EFPTseaat

+

+

=

sssE

s PTE

With:


Assuming relative standard deviations of 20% for the time (T) and the average employed power during stay (P) and 10-25% for the emission factors (EF) results in a relative standard deviation sE for the emissions in ports of

sE = 30-38%·EA: in-port.

The total emissions TEA: in-port of a country are gained by summing up all the emissions of the individual ship callings in ports of a country:

TEA: in-port = Σ EA, in-port, with a standard deviation of sTEA = 30-38%·TEA: in-port

Final Report


Method A Total Emissions The total amount of emission assigned according to method A (TEA) to a country i is calculated as the sum of the three distinct locations:

Formula 14 )/(EA)/(EA)/(EA)/( waterwaysinland :portin :seaat :, akgakgakgakgTE iA ++=

The standard deviation sTE can be estimated to be:

Formula 15 ( ) ( ) ( )2 waterwaysinland E:

2portin E:

2seaat E:

2 sss ++=TEAs

with:

sE: at sea = 15-25%·EA: at sea

sE: in port = 30-38%·EA: in port.

sE: inland waterways = 40%·EA: inland waterways

Assuming EA: in port ≈ 10%·EA: at sea and EA: inland waterways ≈ 5%·EA: at sea Formula 7 reveals the importance of the different emissions regarding the standard deviation of the total amounts. As expected is the uncertainty of the total emissions dominated by the uncertainty of the emissions at sea as at sea emissions make up the main part of total emissions.

Formula 16

( ) ( ) ( ) seaat :A2

seaat :A2

seaat :A2

seaat :A E25.4%-15.4E%2E3.8%-3.0E25%-15 ⋅=⋅+⋅+⋅=TEAs

Method B The methods to calculate the emissions at sea are identical to those used in method A and are discussed in detail in section 3.2. The spatial scope for calculating the emissions is global.

The distances (D) for routes outside the EMEP area are estimated based on average distances between parts of continents as shown in Table 4-3.

Assuming relative standard deviations of 10% for v, LF, and 10-20% for EF and for D an increased relative standard deviation of 20%, the standard deviation sE for the calculated emissions on a specific route will be in the order of:

SB = 26-32%·EB

Final Report E - 1

Method C This is a top-down approach for the allocation. For each country the total emissions for a fuel type i are calculated based on the fuel sales estimates as follows:

Formula 17 (kg/t) EF(t/a)V)kg/a(E i Fueli Fueli Fuel :C ⋅=

With:

V: Fuel sale estimates for the countries are based on Beicip-Franlab (2002) data on fuel sales (see Table C. 1)


The relative standard deviation can be estimated to be: Formula 18

2

i Fuel

EF22

: EF

+

=

sVs

Es V

FueliC

Ec

With:

si Standard deviation of variable I

Assuming a relative standard deviation of sV/V = 30% for the sales estimates similar to fuel consumption (see Table 6-1) and sEF/EF = 20-30% for the emission factors as they are highly aggregated, the standard deviation of the emissions allocated are in to order of:

sEc = 36-42%·EC

Method D This is a top-down approach for the allocation and similar to method C. For each country the total emissions for a fuel type i are calculated based on the reported fuel consumption as follows:

Formula 19 (kg/t) EF(t/a)C)kg/a(E i Fueli Fueli Fuel :D ⋅=

With:

C: Reported fuel consumption for a country based on fuel consumption data from Eurostat29 (see Table C. 2). Consumption data are on bunkers that cover the quantities delivered to sea-going vessels of all flags and on inland navigation and yachting. Vessels engaged in coastal water transport are not included.

29 http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/

Final Report E - 2


The relative standard deviation can be estimated to be: Formula 20

2

i Fuel

EF22

: EF

+

=

sCs

Es C

FueliD

Ec

With:


Assuming a relative standard deviation of sC/C = 30% for the fuel consumption and sEF/EF = 20-30% for the emission factors, the standard deviation of the emissions allocated is in to order of:

sEc = 36-42%·EC

Method E For each country (i) the emissions assigned (EE,i) are calculated as follows:

Formula 21

(kg/a) TE(t/a)TFT

(t/a)FT)kg/a(E 29

29 E, ⋅= ii

With:

FTi: Reported freight tonnes loaded for country i based on EUROSTAT reports. (Eurostat, 2002, 2003, 2004). Table C. 3 depicts the freight tonnes data used.

TFT29: Total freight for the 29 countries under consideration TFT29 = ∑i=1..29 FTi

TE29: Total emissions to be assigned to the 29 countries.

The relative standard deviation can be estimated as: Formula 22

2

29

TE29

2

29

TFT292

FTi

2

, TETFTFTi

+

+

=

sssEs

iE

E

With:


Assuming a relative standard deviation of = 10% for sFTi/FTi and sTFT29/TFT29 of the reported freight tons loaded and sTE29/TE29 = 15.4-25.4% for the total emission as presented for method A in section 3.2, the standard deviation of the emissions allocated can be estimated to be in the order of:

sE = 21-29%·EE,i

Final Report E - 3

Method F As in method E, this approach only provides the ratios for splitting total emissions among the countries. Therefore the total emissions to be distributed have to be estimated by another approach that provides total emissions for the countries under consideration. Therefore, the system boundaries for calculating the total emissions have to be decided upon. In the following calculations the total emissions calculated in task A, shown in Table 7-1 (at sea: 200 mile zones) are used to generate specific figures. It has to be stated that any total emissions calculated could be split based on the gained ratios.

For each country (i) the emissions assigned (EF,i) are calculated as follows:

Formula 23

(kg/a) TE(t/a)TLBE

(t/a)LBE)kg/a(E 29

29 F, ⋅= ii

With:

LBEi: 2010 NECD emission ceilings for NOx, SO2 and VOC and the Kyoto Protocol targets for CO2. Table C. 4 depicts the land based emissions data used to calculate the ratio.

TLBE29: Total land based emissions for the 29 countries under consideration TLBE29 = ∑i=1..29 LBEi

TE29 Total emissions to be assigned to the 29 countries.

The relative standard deviation can be estimated as: Formula 24

2

29

TE29

2

29

TLBE292

LBEi

2

, TETLBELBEi

+

+

=

sssEs

iF

F

With:


Assuming a relative standard deviation of 10% for sLBEi/LBEi and sTLBE29/TLBE29 of the reported emissions and sTE29/TE29 = 15-25% for the total emission as presented for method A in section 3.2, the standard deviation of the emissions allocated can be estimated to be in to order of:

sF = 21-29%·EE,i

Method G For each ship movement in the database the emissions caused by this movement are allocated according to the departure or destination port of the ship. The emissions are therefore calculated as in method A i.e.

Formula 25

Final Report E - 4

(g/kWh) EF)](% LFAE(kW)(%) LFME(kW)[(km/h) v

(km) Dc)( seaat AEME: ⋅⋅+⋅⋅⋅

=gE seaAtG

With:

c: Split factor for emissions as shown in Figure 9-1 based on port of departure/destination

D: Distance a ship travels between two ports within EMEP or between an EMEP port and a continent outside EMEP.






EFat sea: Average emission factors for each ship category (see Annex B Table B.3 to Table B.14). Neglecting the term (AE·LFAE) as small compared to the main engine load (AE·LFAE << ME·LFME) the relative standard deviation of the calculated emissions (sE) can be estimated as:

Formula 26 2

seaat

EF2

ME

LF2

ME2

v22

: EFLFMEs

vs seaat ME

+

+

+

+

=

ssDs

Es D

seaAtG

G

With:


Assuming relative standard deviations of 10% for v, LF, 10-20% for EF and for D an increased relative standard deviation of 20% the standard deviation sG for the calculated emissions on a specific route will be in the order of:

SG = 26-32%·EG

As the total emissions will be dominated by the emissions at sea, the relative accuracy for the total emissions will be in the same range.

european commission directorate general environment...

Documents