ITALY – Report of the individual review of the greenhouse gas inventory submitted in the year 2003


Significato di alcune sigle che compaiono nel testo:

AD = activity data CRF = common reporting format EF = emission factor ERT = expert review team LUCF = land use change and forestry NIR = national inventory report PFC = perfluorocarbon

Stralci della relazione sui vari argomenti


Emission profiles and trends In the year 2001, the most important GHG in Italy was carbon dioxide (CO2), contributing 84.5 per cent to total (excluding LUCF) national GHG emissions expressed in CO2 equivalent, followed by nitrous oxide (N2O) – 8.1 per cent, and methane (CH4) – 6.7 per cent. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) taken together contributed 0.7 per cent of overall GHG emissions in the country. The Energy sector accounted for 83.3 per cent of total GHG emissions, followed by Agriculture (7.8 per cent), Industrial Processes (6.3 per cent) and Waste (2.4 per cent). Total GHG emissions excluding LUCF amounted to
545,358.3 Gg CO2 equivalent and increased by 7.1 per cent from 1990 to 2001.

Completeness The inventory covers the major source and sink categories for both direct and indirect GHGs included in the IPCC Guidelines. However, Italy has not provided potential emissions for PFCs. Tables 5.B and 8(a) are also not filled in. CH4 emissions from waste incineration and N2O emissions from solvent and other product use are not estimated (NE). Italy has not estimated emissions from limestone and dolomite use, and has not submitted complete CRF tables for the years 1990-2000.

Transparency Italy’s inventory is not very transparent because only limited documentation is provided, especially on the recalculations performed. The ERT recommends that Italy improve the level of transparency in its inventory preparation, in particular by providing information on any recalculations done and using notation keys consistently in the CRF tables. Notwithstanding these shortcomings, the information contained and the methods described in the NIR should allow for reconstruction of the major parts of the inventory.

Recalculations and time-series consistency Comparison between the 2002 submission and the 2003 submission indicates that Italy has done a considerable amount of recalculation. However, these recalculations are not reported, although the reasons for some of them (but not all the actual recalculations) are provided. This statement of the reasons is not enough to allow the ERT to assess the impact of the recalculations on the trend in emissions. The sector most affected by the recalculations is Industrial Processes: emissions in 1990 and 2000 are 15 per cent and 11 per cent higher, respectively, in the 2002 submission than in the 2003 submission. Emissions in the Waste sector decreased by 5.5 per cent and 8 per cent for 1990 and 2000, respectively. These recalculations were performed as a result of improvements in the national energy data, improved methodologies and use of the IPCC good practice guidance.

Follow-up to previous reviews Since the previous review the inventory of Italy has seen a considerable improvement. This includes

the submission of the first NIR, the quantitative estimation of uncertainties, and the development of tier 1 and tier 2 key source analyses. The major unresolved issues from the previous inventories include the lack of complete CRF tables for the whole time series, including the filling in of the recalculations table.


In 2001, the Energy sector accounted for 83 per cent of total GHG emissions in Italy (excluding LUCF). The four largest key sources contributed 77 per cent of total emissions: these were CO2 emissions from stationary sources for gas, oil and coal, and CO2 emissions from road vehicles. Over the period 1990-2001, GHG emissions from the Energy sector increased by 8.2 per cent. Most of the growth occurred in the energy industries (+11.6 per cent) and in transport (+23.8 per cent). Combined, these two sectors contributed
63 per cent of total GHG emissions.


In 2001, the Industrial Processes sector accounted for 6.3 per cent of total CO2 equivalent emissions (without LUCF). CO2 represented 62 per cent of the sector’s emissions in 2001, N2O 26 per cent and fluorinated gases (F-gases) 13 per cent. In the period 1990-2001, Industrial Processes CO2 equivalent emissions increased by 7 per cent. However, CO2 levels decreased by 7 per cent and N2O increased by 22 per cent, whereas F-gas emissions showed a sharp increase of about 150 per cent. Emissions from the Solvent and Other Product Use sector, limited to CO2, decreased by 27 per cent from1990 to 2001. For 2001, both actual and potential emissions for individual F-gases were reported, except for PFCs, for which only actual emissions were provided (potential emissions for HFC-23 are zero); for other years only actual emissions per individual compound were provided in the CRF trend table. The ERT recommends that the missing potential emissions be included. Italy clarified that CO2 emissions from limestone and dolomite use as defined in the IPCC Guidelines under category 2.A.3 are not included in cement and lime production, as can be inferred from the NIR, but are reported elsewhere under ceramic, glass and paper production.


The Agriculture sector contributed 7.8 per cent of Italy’s total CO2 equivalent emissions in 2001 (it contributed 50.2 per cent of CH4 emissions and 54.7 per cent of N2O emissions). CH4 emissions from agriculture decreased by 4.7 per cent over the period 1990-2001, but N2O emissions increased by 2.8 per cent over the same period. Those changes are mostly due to changes in the animal population and changes in the use of fertilizers. The NIR does not provide sufficient information on the methodologies and EFs.


The LUCF sector is a net sink, offsetting 18,654 Gg CO2 equivalent, or 4 per cent of Italy’s total GHG emissions in 2001. The magnitude of this sink decreased by 21 per cent during the period 1990-2001, as did its contribution to the

national total, which was 5.5 per cent in 1990 and 4.0 per cent in 2001. Reporting in the 2001 CRF is not complete since some tables have not been filled in and notation keys have generally not been used. Non-CO2 emissions, which may be of a significant magnitude, are also not reported. However, Italy indicated that non-CO2 emissions from forest fires will be reported in the next submissions. Inconsistencies were detected between the NIR and the CRF. The CRF shows recalculated values for LUCF net removals for 1999 and 2000, but the reasons for the recalculation are not provided. Only standing carbon pool is included in the report, and no reasons are given for the exclusion of the other forest pools. Emissions due to forest fires are only partially reported (only CO2 emissions are reported). Non-CO2 gases emitted during forest fires are not reported for
2001, although they were reported in previous submissions. A single value was provided for net changes in the carbon content of mineral soils due to cultivation, for a wide range of vegetation cover types. The ERT recommends that the Party provide disaggregated information on the EFs used for different soil types in its future submissions, rather than applying a single EF to very different situations.


The Waste sector contributes 2.4 per cent of total national GHG emissions
(excluding LUCF). Total emissions from the sector have increased slightly since 1990 and were 1.3 per cent higher in 2001 than in the base year
(1990). Reporting in the CRF tables is largely complete.


Expert Review Team of nominated experts:

Generalists – Mr. William Kojo Agyemang-Bonsu (Ghana) and Mr. Jan Pretel
(Czech Republic);

Energy – Mr. Audace Ndayizeye (Burundi), Mr. Poorundeo Ramgolam (Mauritius) and Ms. Karen Treanton (International Energy Agency, IEA);

Industrial Processes – Mr. Jamidu Katima (Tanzania) and Mr. Jos G. J. Olivier (Netherlands);

Agriculture – Ms. Tajda Mekinda-Majaron (Republic of Slovenia) and Ms. Penny Reyenga (Australia);

Land-use Change and Forestry (LUCF) – Mr. Daniel Martino (Uruguay) and Mr. Nijavalli H. Ravindranath (India);

Waste – Ms. Tatiana Tugui (Republic of Moldova) and Ms. Irina B. Yesserkepova (Kazakhstan).

Mr. William Kojo Agyemang-Bonsu and Ms. Penny Reyenga were the lead reviewers of this review.

The review was coordinated by Ms. Astrid Olsson (UNFCCC secretariat).