Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no

7th Joint UNECE Task Force & EIONET WS on Emission Inventories and Projections, Thessaloniki 31 Oct – 2 Nov 2006

Vigdis Vestreng, EMEP/MSC-W

Inventory Review 2006: Progress and Challenges

Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no

Review Mandate

”The Steering Body has approved an approach where capacity building over Europe is meant as the way to improve the quality of emission data within EMEP”

This is a very valid approach but it demands time and resources!

Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no

The review process per todayaccording to

EBE.AIR/GE.1/2005-7, annex III

Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no

The review process

Joint effort! 50 Parties half MS

Separat feedback on NEC and LRTAP

Amersfoort conclusion: Continue the current Stage I+II review

Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no

Timeline

of theemissio

nreviewwork

Reporting by Parties - Use of RepDab 15. February

Stage 1 review – REPDAB Timeliness

Formats

10. March Official emission data sent to MSC-W

10. April Updated WEBDAB open for review team

and MSC-E for modelling input

• Stage 2 review – Key Source AnalysisCompletenessConsistency

internal consistency timeseries and trendsimplied emission factors

Comparability Cross pollutant testsRecalculations Inventory Comparison Fuel sold-fuel used

15. May50 dedicated review reports to Parties available in the web protected site

Uploading data indatabase WEBDAB

CountrySpecificFeedbackafter 3 months

Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no

Timeline

of theemissio

nreviewwork

Country specific reports in the EMEP web 15. May

Draft conclusions from stage 3 trial review

15. June Updated WebDab in EMEP websiteReporting of preliminary review results to TFEIP spring

meetingReport to Steering Body on Present State of Emissions

15. JulyAnnual inventory review reportRecommendations for work under TFEIP

Sept -October

TFEIP meeting and recommendation on review work

Conclusion from review stage1 and 2

Evaluation of answers from countries

Evaluation of specific questions on emissions

Further development of REPDAB and Stage 2 review

Communication to Parties on the new reporting round - new REPDAB release

1. December

Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no

EMEP centers publish reviews

Environ. Sci. Policy (2006)

Review

Atmospheric emissions of some POPs inEurope: a discussion of existing inventories and data needs

Knut Breivik, CCC/EMEPVigdis Vestreng, MSC-W/EMEPOlga Rozovskaya, MSC-E/EMEPJozef M. Pacyna, CCC/EMEP

Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no

Progress made

Format: Not a problem. Most countris respect the reportingrequirements (NEC dt different, see next presentation)Internal Consistency: Improved assisted by the availiability and developement of REPDAB

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2004 2005 2006

Nu

mb

er o

f P

arti

es

Timeliness Transparency - Replies Transparency - IIRs

Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no

Challenges

Completeness: Problem to review (Guidelines). Low: Only 30-60% of dt needed for assessments annually are available

NFRs need to be extended to facilitate reporting of e.g. POPs

Timeseries consistency: Recalculations from 2000/1990

or in 5 yr intervals.

Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no

Conclusions

• Progress made in a number of aspects

• Expect new Guidelines with clearer definition of e.g. completeness to assist in design of future reviews. Timely IIRs and extension of NFRs needed.

• Long term stable and increased resources are needed:- in the countries to respond to the results from the reviews; in particular to improve the completeness and time series consistency of emission data. - in the bodies to keep up and develope further the capacity building review to improve emission data