Katarina Mareckova, Robert Wankmueller, Michael Gager

TFEIP 2 May 2011, Stockholm

Review of emission data submitted under CLRTAP and NECD Reporting of Gridded emissions

Content Review process and review results

2011 Stage 1 & 2

Stage 3 centralised in-depth review Roster of experts Challenges http://www.ceip.at/review-process/

Emission data for modellers Gridding for the future

 Review 2011 http://www.ceip.at/review-process/

Review Guidelines (EB.AIR/GE.1/2007/16)Methods and procedures for the technical review of air pollutant emission inventories reported under the Convention and its protocols Stage 1 - automated tests, Country reports posted on

the web during March http://www.ceip.at/review-process/review-2011/review-reports-2011/

Stage 2 - S&A country reports posted 31 May

Summary of findings 2011/ Aug 2011

Technical report Inventory review 2010 http://www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/emep/pdf/2010/InvRevRept2010.pdf

Reporting of inventories under the CLRTAP in 2011

http://www.ceip.at/emission-data-webdab/submissions-under-clrtap/201-submissions/

41(80%) submissions from 51 Parties (43 in 2010), 34 Parties within deadline, 12 resubmissions

27 IIRs (30 in 2010), 33 Parties reported AD – significant improvement comparing to 2009

7 Parties no data

No data from: Iceland, Luxembourg, Malta, Russian F., Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Bi&H

Completeness / under CLRTAP

Pollutants Main pollutants: 41 PM: 34 POPs (Diox, PAHs, HCB, PCBs): 36 Cd,Hg, Pb : 35 Additional HMs: 30

Projections: 19 (3 WaM) , Activity 14 (1 WaM)

Gridded data: 3 LPS: 5

Reporting under the NECD 2010

26 MS reported inventories under NECD 24 MS reported on time 13 MS resubmitted data

Detailed information provided in NECD status report 2010

Malta no data

NOx/ NO2

NM VOC

SOx/ SO2 NH3 CO PM10 CO2 CH4 N2O SF6 HFCs PFCs

Austria 8% 1% 32% 0.2% 19% 2% 35% 5% 0.3% 0% 0% 0%Belgium 29% 33% 73% 6% 68% 15% 44% 3% 33% 3% 32% 102%Bulgaria 42% 3% 101% 11% 10% 30% 58% 11% 4% 0% 0% 0%Cyprus 45% 1% 90% 38% 14% 61% 64% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0%Czech Rep. 47% 4% 80% 11% 28% 15% 66% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0%Denmark 19% 5% 65% 2% 1% 3% 43% 6% 1% 0% 0% 0%Estonia 36% 6% 89% 5% 10% 21% 73% 7% 5% 0% 0% 0%Finland 37% 10% 63% 6% 23% 5% 104% 18% 25% 0% 0% 0%France 17% 7% 80% 2% 5% 1% 36% 33% 8% 23% 3% 52%Germany 27% 4% 53% 3% 26% 6% 55% 14% 10% 3% 1% 44%Greece 45% 2% 83% 0.4% 7% 0% 62% 8% 8% 0% 0% 100%Hungary 15% 1% 18% 16% 6% 1% 47% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%Iceland 0% 0% 16% EPRTR 165% EPRTR 145% 21% 11% 0% 0% 71%Ireland 32% 2% 69% 1% 2% 5% 41% 6% 2% 51% 1% 99%Italy 9% 1% 18% 17% 9% 2% 18% 11% 0.4% 8% 0.1% 0%Latvia 10% 0.3% 23% 3% 0% 6% 7% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%Lithuania 12% 16% 50% 13% 3% 8% 42% 4% 30% 0% 0% 0%Luxembourg 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 18% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0%Malta 49% 0% 64% 0% 0% 36% 76% 39% 0% 0% 0% 0%Netherlands 21% 11% 85% 2% 25% 6% 51% 5% 10% 0% 5% 69%Norway 9% 10% 58% 3% 1% 10% 29% 3% 25% 0% 0.1% 100%Poland 37% 2% 57% 3% 10% 12% 59% 30% 46% 0% 1% 64%Portugal 29% 6% 64% 15% 8% 4% 48% 11% 14% 0% 0.02% 0%Romania 41% 4% 88% 13% 8% 19% 59% 9% 8% 0% 0% 2%Slovakia 34% 5% 90% 3% 52% 0% 62% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%Slovenia 28% 8% 63% 4% 12% 3% 44% 20% 3% 0% 1% 100%Spain 31% 8% 60% 18% 17% 13% 44% 11% 12% 0% 3% 50%Sweden 19% 14% 49% 5% 8% 10% 95% 7% 8% 32% 1% 117%Switzerland 6% 2% 22% 0% 3% 0% 16% 0% 3% 12% 0% 0%UK 31% 15% 74% 5% 12% 12% 48% 23% 13% 14% EPRTR 179%All countries 25% 6% 59% 7% 18% 10% 53% 11% 10% 5% 2% 38%

Country

Other GHGs

Share of E-PRTR 2008 on CLRTAP /UNFCCC totals 2008

Share of E-PRTR 2008 on CLRTAP totals 2008 (HMs , POPs)

As Cd Pb Hg Ni Cr Cu Zn HCB HCH PCDD +

PCDF PCBs PAHs Austria 0% 0% 9% 21% EPRTR EPRTR 0% EPRTR 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Belgium 58% 76% 93% 45% 46% 74% 27% 84% 6222% 0% 47% EPRTR 11%Bulgaria 6% 27% 8% 10% 2% 24% 5% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Cyprus 91% 57% 0% 92% 86% 0% 3% 73% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Czech Rep. 74% 83% 66% 92% 63% 8% 36% 11% 0% 0% 54% 0% 11%Denmark 17% 0% 0% 38% 6% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 138% EPRTR 0%Estonia 98% 84% 90% 91% 84% 92% 51% 88% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Finland 21% 13% 7% 50% 29% 44% 3% 13% 40% 0% 31% 5% 3%France 59% 57% 46% 76% 64% 53% 9% 80% 0% 0% 35% 0% 42%Germany 94% 42% 58% 195% 15% 46% 1% 5% 11011% 0% 81% 27% 3%Greece 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% EPRTR 0% 0%Hungary 1% 0% 8% 9% 2% 2% 88% 2% 0% 0% 10% EPRTR 2%Iceland EPRTR 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11326% 0% 1040%Ireland 3% 4% 1% 5% 5% 2% 0% 4% 0% 0% 9% 0% 31%Italy 1% 2% 6% 2% 7% 2% 1% 5% 0% 0% 32% 15584% 1%Latvia 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Lithuania 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Luxembourg 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% EPRTR 0% 0%Malta 38% 6% 0% 0% 29% 0% 0% 271% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Netherlands 40% 94% 59% 58% 89% 47% 2% 41% 0% 0% 20% 0% 2%Norway 29% 19% 36% 20% EPRTR 14% 11% EPRTR 0% 0% 0% EPRTR 453%Poland 7% 3% 8% 35% 4% 19% 8% 7% 0% 0% 231% 0% 43%Portugal 48% 56% 16% 41% 55% 35% 23% 129% 0% 0% 77703% 0% 143%Romania 0% 3% 9% 22% 5% 5% 0% 52% 0% 0% 53% 0% 0%Slovakia 10% 2% 50% 23% 13% 20% 16% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Slovenia EPRTR 0% 6% 2% EPRTR EPRTR EPRTR EPRTR 0% 0% 5% 0% 1%Spain 26% 12% 15% 35% 31% 23% 7% 22% 6% 0% 32% EPRTR 13%Sweden 61% 12% 31% 20% 18% 81% 3% 15% 0% 0% 13% 0% 37%Switzerland EPRTR 1% 13% 30% EPRTR 0% 0% EPRTR 0% 0% 870% EPRTR 35%UK 10% 16% 56% 50% 54% 28% 17% 16% 0% 0% 12% 1% 12%All countries 26% 22% 23% 35% 24% 21% 11% 32% 576% 0% 3023% 521% 63%

Country

HM POPS

Stage 3 in-depth review

Stage 3 in-depth centralized review

Centralized review of quantitative and qualitative information of selected inventories by pollutant, country or sector, as in the work plan agreed by the EMEP Executive Body

The main objectives for the reviews are: a) to complement the reporting guidelines in supporting

Parties to compile and submit high quality inventories b) to support Parties in meeting their reporting obligations

under the Protocols c) to increase policymakers’ confidence in the data used for

air pollution modelling The aim is to check in detail the inventories of each Party at least

once every five years (review approximately 10 Parties annually) 2 expert review teams (ERT) ERT optimaly: LR+ generalist + 8 sectoral experts

Stage 3 in-depth centralized review

Joint activity of EMEP and EEA CEIP

Coordination of the whole process Technical support of ERT Communication with Parties Publication of final reports

CEIP/TFEIP/EEA Guidance for reviewers, transcripts and templates

for review reports

www.ceip.at

Plan for stage 3 in-depth reviews

2008 France, Norway, Portugal and Sweden ( voluntary round of stage 3 )

2009 Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Spain

2010 Austria, Cyprus, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, Russian Federation*, Slovakia, Switzerland and United Kingdom

2011 Czech Republic, Belarus, Croatia, Estonia, Greece*, Iceland (2010), Luxembourg**, Macedonia, Slovenia and Ukraine*

2012 Georgia*, EU, Kazakhstan**, Kyrgyzstan**, Liechtenstein*, Malta * Monaco*, Rep. of Moldova*, Serbia* and Turkey*

2013 Albania**, Armenia**, Azerbaijan**, Bosnia and Herzegovina**, France, Montenegro**, Norway, Portugal and Sweden

*/ Did not submit a complete emission inventory nor/or did not submit an IIR during the 2008, 2009, 2010 reporting rounds.**/ Did not submit neither inventory data in NFR nor an IIR for the last three reporting rounds.Participation of the United States of America and Canada in the in-depth review process of emission inventories would require clarification.

Stage 3 - Experience 2010

Review benefits Motivate experts to improve their own inventories Provides a level of training on priorities for enhancing

TCCCA of inventories Builds an enthusiastic network of motivated and informed

experts In general good interaction with Parties

Most Parties responded on time and comprehensive Russia – NIR not provided , limited explanatory information

after the review week In all inventories identified areas for

improvement The role of lead reviewer is very important – the

effort 15- 20 days

Stage 3 - Experience 2010

Difficulties arise if Parties has to be reviewed as well as providing reviewers to the ERT

Time schedule – ERT needs to send questions before review week. Constraints - Reports are finalized during holiday season.

The values for Parties providing reviewers is trough internal qualification or gaining additional expertise

Not complete review teams

Roster of emission experts 17 Parties to the Convention (out of 51) have

nominated experts to the roster Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the European

Community, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom

the roster currently contains a total of 50 inventory experts (9 more comparing to 2008)

the nominated experts are suitably qualified to review all emission sectors as well as general inventory issues, such as good practice, uncertainties, and quality assessment and quality control (QA/QC)

Review teams 2011 2 teams 27 experts invited so far 16 accepted invitation (EU, FRA, GER, ITA, IRL, LAT,

KAZ, NL, NOR, CH) 2 still open LR – Kristina Saarinen (Fin) and Kevin Hausmann (DE) needed : waste, industry, agro?, generalist?

Review experts (10-15d):Preparatory work and follow up activities Review the inventory and complete transcripts and relevant chaptersLR – coordination of the team, compilation of the reports, assistance to less experienced reviewers

Challenges The limited number of review experts

constitutes serious constraint to the successful conducting of the reviews

Not complete inventories resp. not provided NIRs limits the review

Interaction with Parties Participation of experts from EECCA and

South-East European countries in the review process

Gridded emissions now and in the future

Reporting of gridded emissions

Current system 50x50km EMEP grid (polar stereographic

projections) 11 SNAP sectors + national totals Reporting of LPS

2009 Reporting Guidelines (ECE/EB.AIR/97): 50x50km EMEP grid, 21 GNFR sectors Reporting of LPS

Reporting of gridded emissions - modellers needs

Finer spatial resolution of emission data If EMEP stereographic projection than 10x10 km

(or 20 x 20 km) Longitude/Latitude projection would be more

appropriate to connect modelling at global and regional scales (e.g. 0.2 x 0.2 degree )

Source categories no more than 2 or 4 additional categories to SNAP11 limits - emission characteristics for new categories (seasonality, height distribution, VOC speciation, etc.) include specific sector associated with shipping

emissions

Current and suggested new domain borders

30°N-82°N, 30°W-90°E

Figure provided by MSC-E

GNFR Key categories 2011

A_PublicPower14%

B_IndustrialComb11%

C_SmallComb6%

D_IndProcess2%

G_RoadRail35%

H_Shipping4%

I_OffRoadMob7%

T_IntAviCruise4%

z_memo15%

Other3%

NOx - EU/EFTA/HR

A_PublicPower46%

B_Industri-

al-Comb22%

C_Small-

Comb10%

D_IndProces

s4%

G_RoadRail0%

H_Shipping2%

I_OffRoad-Mob1%

T_IntAvi-

Cruise0% z_me

mo14%

Other0%

SOx - EU/EFTA/HR C_SmallCom

b11%

D_IndProcess6%

F_Solvents34%

G_RoadRail14%

H_Ship-ping2%

I_OffRoad-Mob3%

O_AgriLive-stoc

k4%

S_Natu-ral7% z_m

emo15%

Other5%

NMVOC - EU/EFTA/HR

D_IndProcess1%

G_RoadRail2%

L_OtherWasteDisp1%

M_WasteWater1%

N_WasteIncin0%

O_AgriLivestock72%

P_AgriOther21%

R_Other0%S_Natural

0%

Other1%

NH3 - EU/EFTA/HR

A_PublicPowerB_IndustrialComb

C_SmallComb

D_IndProcess

G_RoadRail

I_OffRoadMob

N_WasteIncinS_Natural z_memoOther

CO - EU/EFTA/HR

GNFR Key categories

Aggregation of GNFR to be used in models (proposal)