Report on the 5th EMEP SB and WGE Joint meeting –EMEP partLaurence ROUÏL

39th session of the Executive Body for CLRTAP

5th joint EMEP/WGE meeting 9-13 September 2019 Representatives of 33 parties attended the meeting (good

representation from EECCA countries) Thematic joint sessions to review key scientific questions in line

with the future review of the Gothenburg Protocolo Nitrogen related issues : key remaining challengeso Black carbon: review of current knowledge in emissions,

monitoring, modelling, impact and mitigation strategies

Positive review of the achievements of 2018-2019 work plan Focus on few items :o Emissions reporting and adjustment applicationso Black carbon o Linking with the urban scale with the Expert Group on Clean Air

Citieso Task force on Hemispheric trans port of air pollutiono The revised EMEP monitoring strategyo Condensable in PM

Emission inventories reporting

Quality and completeness of emission data reported improved over the last years 47 Parties (92 %) reported data, 24

resubmissions in 2019 44 Parties submitted an IIR 40 Parties submitted Activity Data (Full time

series: 34 Parties)

42 Parties reported large point sources

Remaining challenge with reporting of POP emissions for which large inconsistencies in the time series

Gridded data: 30 countries reported in 0.1°*0.1° lat-long

resolution 56% for main pollutants and PM and 61% for

HM and POP of the grid cells had to be partly or completely estimated by the experts in 2019 (CEIP, MSC-East, MSC-West)

Emission reporting framework

Inventory Guidebook updated by the TFEIP and adopted y the EMEP SB in September General guidance chapters updated and aligned with IPCC GHG guidelines

Projection chapter extensively improved

Several sector chapters updated

Tier 1 methodologies finally retained but we ask the Parties to assess their emissions using more sophisticated approached when possible

Thanks to the EU (EC and EEA), Germany, UK, and France

Adoption of an updated version of the reporting template (Annex I) Better presentations of fuel-used/fuel sold data

Facilitate the review and the integration in the emission database

Adoption after a satisfactory trial phase (2019)

Reporting guidelines will be reported

Need for an update to the Guidelines for Reporting Emissions and Projections Data under the Convention (ECE/EB.AIR/125) e.g. with respect to: years for emission projections, stress on the use of Tier 2 methods for key emission sources and the update of the definition of the EMEP grid (0.1° x 0.1°) coverage New item workplan item for CEIP/TFEIP

In-depth review (Stage 3) 2019 : 6 countries reviewed: Albania, Georgia, Norway, the Russian

Federation, Serbia and Turkey Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro missing Rather late feedback from most of the countries Updated process not always very easy to implement (with technical

corrections)

2020: 8 countries proposed for review: EU, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Liechtenstein, Monaco, North Macedonia, Switzerland

2021 and beyond: think about increasing alignment with the NECD process … In the guidelines Positive evaluation of the cooperation with the EC from the reviewers

point of view Focus the CLRTAP process on the parties where problems are

detected and on non-EU Parties Need to maintain sectoral expert review teams (20-22 experts per

year)

Review of the adjustment applications Adjustments approved prior to 2019

The adjustments reported by countries Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Spain and Great Britain prior to 2019 refer to NOx, NMVOC and NH3 emissions for various NFR sectors (prevailingly Road transport and diverse Agriculture categories ).

Reviewed and approved

New adjustment application submitted by the Netherlands

Black carbon emissions

41 Parties (80%à reported black carbon emissions36 Parties reported time series

Black carbon: a step furtherMeasurement strategies well establishedStandards exist

Comparison with modelresults focuses on EC

Consistency with emissioninventories still challenging

EMEP/ACTRIS Network

No health guidelines valuefor BC or EC

Understanding linkages with the Urban scale

First meeting of the expert group in Clean air cities held in Bratislava on the 27th November

Chaired by Rob Maas (TFIAM co-chair) 80 participants : national, city, academic, NGO representatives WHO target values (NO2, PM2.5) are still exceeded in many

European cities Urgent need to understand the linkages between local sources

in the cities (responsible for local air pollution and export at the regional level) and the long range transport contributions (ozone, PM2.5, NO2)

Policy strategies should include both the effects of international and national measures on the city level and the impacts of additional local policies

The question can bring challenges for the researchers: local modelling (personal exposure), health impact of PM compounds, UFP, POPs and emerging pollutants

Contribution and feedback from city authorities and NGOs is essential : linkages should also develop at a governance level.

The Task Force on hemisphericTransport of air pollution (TFHTAP)

The EMEP SB welcomed a new set-up for the task force management : Two lead countries : US and Canada Helped by two vice-chairs nominated by Germany and

Poland to support specific scientific topics

A new mandate to be adopted this week Priorities within the workplan

Synthesis of the HTAP experiment to be released in the coming weeks

Global emissions inventory update in cooperation with other global initiatives

Understanding benefits of methane mitigation strategies for ozone impacts on health and ecosystems

Development of the open-source FAst Scenario Screening Tool (openFASST)

Revision of the EMEP monitoring strategy

Adopted by the EMEP SB in September 2019 for implementation in 2020-2029

Two years process coordinated by the CCC under the umbrella of the TFMM. Excellent contributions received from the national experts

Driving conceptso Major revisions not seen necessary (level approach, multi-topic,

no new thematic areas beyond the ones currently considered)

o Review of important measurands and their temporal/spatial resolution

o Harmonization with other initiatives still very important

o Regional vs local measurements, links to AQD

o Feasible and engaging

o Ambitious in scope, relaxed in compliance (not opposite)

o Secure long-time series

Revision of the EMEP monitoring strategy

Implementation index kept as an informative indicator

EMEP field campaings: a key point in the strategy

Last campaign focused on carbonaceous compounds (winter 2017-2018)

59 sites in 24 countries EC, OC and levoglucosan

New Eurodelta-Carb Model intercomparison execise launched by the TFMM: Wood burning

EC and condensable

BaP

10 teams already involved

joint activity with Copernicus /CAMS

The « Condensable » issue (i) Condensable part in PM is released as gas but forms particles

shortly after the release : their measurement requires specific protocols, and they are not systematically taken t into account in PM emissions reporting

Driven by emissions measurement techniques used to qualify emission factors o In road transport condensable component is included

o In industrial sector it is not

o Question : combustion/ residential sources ?

Accounting or not for the condensable part in combustion sources may change PM emissions by a factor of 5

If considered as secondary PM, it may be treated by the models. But large diversity of appliance makes the question difficult to solve by the modelers

Condensable part is not included in VOC emission inventories either because of their low volatility (SVOCs or ISVOCs)

Accounting for condensable in PM :

Proposed strategy for dealing with condensable in PM:

EMEP SB agreed that accounting for the condensable part in PM emissions, especially for the residential heating sector, is essential when dealing with scientific assessments (incl. S/R matrices for IAM)

However this can raise some policy issues (national legislation, emission monitoring standards.. )

EMEP SB recommends to develop a “decoupled” stepwise approach . On the scientific side: Parties are urged to report correctly about their practices regarding

PM emission estimates in the IIR Reported emissions, complementary information and scientific state

of the art will be used by EMEP experts for elaborating PM emissions expert estimates that account for condensable science-based estimates for modelling purposes

All the modelling activities performed under EMEP (air quality assessments, scenarios analysis, source-receptor calculations for integrated assessment modelling) will use science-based emission estimates and the Parties will be informed about the emissions used for modelling

Policy discussions should start within the policy bodies (EB, WGSR)

Workshop on the « Condensable issue » in 2020

Hosted by MSC-West (Met Norway) and funded by the Nordic Research Council

Aim: Harmonizing and improving approaches to PM inventory emissions and modelling, accounting for so-called condensable compounds

Bringing together experts in emission measurements, atmospheric chemistry, inventory experts and modellers to systematically consider and recommend best approaches for dealing with semi-volatile emission with regard to PM2.5

Recommendations and methodologies will be discussed at the next EMEP SB meeting in 2020 and presented at the EB in December 2020

Thank you for your attention !