Objectives for emission monitoring

Priority setting with respect to improvement of the present monitoring methodolo- gies can only take place effectively after the clear assessment of the objectives that have to be reached by the monitoring.

The objectives of the PER as communicated to the public have been presented in chapter 2.1 Vision. However, these are more formal duties, which might not always correspond with the wishes and requirements of the policy departments that are in fact the clients of the PER. Therefore, a more complete overview has been made of different possible aims for the PER.

Different objectives require different types of information from the PER. To illus- trate the relation between the type of information that is needed and the objective that has to be fulfilled, Table 4.1 presents the potential objectives along two axes, viz. the size and character of the information and the detail and accuracy of the in- formation. Both can be limited and low or extended and high. With regard to effi- ciency and effectiveness, it is recommendable to put effort only in large detail, ac- curacy and the size of the data if it is required to meet the objective.

Table 4.1 clearly shows that different objectives need different levels of detail and sizes of data sets. The ‘straightforward’ emission monitoring required for interna- tional reporting of national emissions (such as the Nomenclature For Reporting – NFR, see Appendix), needs only low levels of detail, accuracy for a limited set of data on emissions at sector level. Wanting to follow the mitigation of emissions re- quires additional detail and accuracy in order to be able to distinguish significant emission reduction trends. Understanding of the mitigation trends requires more data on e.g. dust concentrations of waste gas flows and mitigation technologies ap- plied in order to be able to develop a mitigation policy. On top of this, compliance with National emission Regulation (NeR) requires more detailed and accurate data in order to show that emission standards have been respected. The Arhus protocol on dissemination of information to the public (‘right to know’) requires the same amounts of data with similar accuracy. The presently operational Data Ware House on emissions, approachable by Internet, focuses on professional users and fulfils not all requirements of the Arhus protocol.

More extended information is needed for the development of environmental policy and scientific aims, where a true understanding of emissions, dispersion, exposure and health effects in relation to each other is required. This type of information is needed, but not on an annual basis, since these insights concern not trends but mechanisms and interrelations. It would be cost-effective to collect this informa- tion by studies that are conducted not every year. In that case, the PER is not the

most suitable instrument to collect these extended amounts of data (this area is shaded dark grey in Table 4.1). A policy research program such as the National Aerosol Program [ref. 4] seems a suitable instrument that integrates different types of information and focuses towards a central policy question in order to work effi- ciently in a project manner.

The other objectives have to be met by the PER with the exception of the NeR compliance, which is performed by the provincial authorities, but is closely related to the individual registration of companies within the PER.

Table 4.1 Different monitoring objectives and corresponding requirements in terms of detail & accuracy and size & character of the information needed.

Size & character INFOR-

MATION

Limited Extended

Low Compliance with (inter) _{national reporting obliga-}

tion (emission assessment) Assessment of emissions and trends (mitigation assess- ment) Understanding of miti- gation (mitigation policy) Understanding of emis- sion, exposure and mitigation of health effects (environmental policy) D e tail & ac cur acy H igh

Compliance with stan- dards / National emis- sion Regulation (compliance with law) Dissemination of infor- mation to the public (right to know - Arhus)

Understanding of emis- sion, dispersion, exposure and health effects

(science)

Legend 2001 situation 1995 situation Extended situation

As a general observation or characterisation of the present state of the PER, Table 4.1 indicates that only the international compliance of emission reporting is being met 1, requiring low detail and accuracy for a limited data set. Assessment of emis- sions and trends has not been able for a large number of substances among which PM. Also, the background information on the state of (mitigation) technologies is not available since the introduction of the annual Environmental Report. These

1

In fact, the Dutch PER does not fulfill the obligation to report national emissions for each year since 1990, since emissions are not recalculated for all years after a meth- odological revision. This is only done for index years and the last three years.

more demanding objectives could be reached in the 1995 PER where individual company registration was executed intensively and primarily for the PER. The budget for the PER was in those days much larger than presently is the case. The reconstruction of the PER has been saving costs at the expense of certain func- tionalities. In the present analysis, we will explore the possibilities for restoring the 1995 functionalities in a cost-effective way.

At this moment the monitoring of PM and PM10 emissions doesn’t seem to cause

many questions. Infomil, an intermediate organization on environmental regulation between the various authorities and target groups, operates a helpdesk and handles questions on PM emission. Infomil only has a few questions per year on monitor- ing of PM emissions related subjects [Personal communication Infomil, Peeters Weem]. This picture is confirmed by an interview with a regulatory body. Cur- rently PM (and PM10) emissions do not seem to be an issue of concern [Personal

communication Province of Friesland, Van Scheltinga].