minutes from the 2 cams policy user workshop · 2019. 2. 7. · copernicus atmosphere monitoring...

ECMWF COPERNICUS NOTE

Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service

Minutes from the 2nd CAMS Policy User Workshop

22nd January 2018, Copenhagen, Denmark

Issued by:

NILU/Leonor Tarrasón, Paul D. Hamer and Cristina Guerreiro

INERIS/Laurence Rouïl

Date: 12/07/2018

Ref: CAMS71_D71.4.1.4_2018_Minutes_2nd_Policy User workshop


CAMS71 – NILU – 2nd Policy User Workshop - Minutes of 13

1 Minutes from the 2nd Policy User Workshop The Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) organized its 2nd Policy User Workshop on Monday 22nd January 2018, in co-operation with the European Environment Agency (EEA). The meeting was held at EEAs headquarters at Kongens Nytorv, 6 in Copenhagen, Denmark. There were 41 registered participants to the workshop from 13 different European countries. Representatives from the European Commission DG-ENV, JRC and WMO also participated at the meeting as well representatives from the European Environment Agency (EEA). These minutes provide a short summary of the presentations at the 2nd Policy User Workshop, document the main discussions and include an overview of user requirements and points raised during to support the further development of CAMS products for policy use. The main conclusions are that the work of Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service for the last year has taken into consideration the feedback received by policy users during the 1st Policy User Workshop and that the interaction with policy users’ needs to be strengthen. All presentations from the workshop are currently available at the CAMS website at https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/events/2nd-cams-policy-user-workshop. The user requirements originating from the 2nd Policy User Workshop have already been included in the CAMS user requirement database (URDB) for further analysis and implementation by the CAMS teams. The CAMS Policy team is very thankful to the organizers at EEA and to the participants at the workshop, for their interest and their feedback that contributed to make this another successful Policy User Workshop.

1.1 Overview organization The 2nd Policy User Workshop was organized in four sessions. During the first session, the CAMS team provided updates on their main products, including the CAMS Interim Annual Assessment Report for 2016, first insights related to the 2015 assessment report and information on the extension of CAMS green scenario toolbox. During the second session, participants were invited to reflect on how CAMS policy products may help on air pollution management practices at national level. The third session included a round table discussion on downscaling and the needs and options for increasing the accuracy of CAMS products. Finally, the fourth session explored ways of increased cooperation and coordination with the environmental policy community active in EIONET and FAIRMODE to increase understanding on available CAMS products and avoid duplication of work.

https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/events/2nd-cams-policy-user-workshop



1.2 Summary of presentations, feedback and discussions

The meeting was opened by Martin Adams, Acting Head of Air and climate Change Programme at EEA. Adams welcomed the participants and presented the expectations from EEA on CAMS, pointing out at already on-going initiatives of cooperation such as the newly European AQ Index, where CAMS data is used as basis for extrapolations when monitoring data is otherwise missing. He stressed the significant role of CAMS and European space information to support environmental policy development. Session 1: News about CAMS and new air quality reports Vincent-Henri Peuch, the coordinator of CAMS at ECMWF, gave an overview presentation of the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) and its product portfolio. Copernicus consists of a complex set of systems, which collect data from multiple sources: earth observation satellites and in situ observations, as well as results from atmospheric chemical modelling systems. It processes these data and provides users with reliable and up-to-date information through a set of services related to environmental and security issues. A good example of this up-to-date information was the video of the Ophelia dust storm in 13.10. 2017 in combination with a fire episode that lead to yellow skies over the UK at the time. In the latest years CAMS has focussed considerably on outreach activities to users. Good examples of user uptake of CAMS are already visible as shown by the applications developed by Plumelabs, Euronews and Windy, as well as the European air Quality Index at EEA. Users are interested in services to pass information on air quality onto sensitive individuals and to create personalised alerts. The level of detail information required for such purpose goes beyond what CAMS can deliver for the moment, but the hope is that Sentinel 5P will help CAMS products develop further in spatial resolution. Claire Granier, CNRS, the leader of the emission activity within CAMS, presented an overview of the challenges in building emission inventories and diversity of sources that need to be taken into consideration. For the global services, CAMS is going to move away from the MACC-CITY emission inventory to a new global product based on EDGAR emissions at 0.1 x 0.1 degree resolution. An initial evaluation of these global emissions shows these to be an improvement. For the European emissions, the current MACC-III-TNO emission inventory is widely validated and has a high spatial resolution of 7.7 x 7.7 km. Improvements for the regional emission data include shipping emissions with the addition of harbour emissions and a refined treatment of the emissions along shipping routes. Further efforts will be dedicated to refined temporal profiles and spatial resolution of the emissions. Laurence Rouïl, INERIS, the coordinator of CAMS Policy Products, provided an update of the work carried out under CAMS Policy Products (CAMS_71). The three types of policy products currently developed at CAMS for Policy Use are assessment reports, green forecasts for scenario analysis and source-receptor (S-R) calculation to identify different origins of pollution. Rouïl explained the difference between the interim and assessment reports and mentioned that current work on green scenarios focuses on making them more flexible. She also explained how to use the scenario data from the different projections and reported on the one activation of the S-R analysis that was carried out 2017. Following the recommendations from the past 1st Policy User Workshop, progress has been made in the S-R analysis so that their uncertainties are now better represented.



Leonor Tarrasón, NILU, presented the Interim Annual Assessment Report (IAAR) for 2016, with information on the origin of pollution episodes. The CAMS IAA report is elaborated on the basis of non-validated up-to-date observations gathered by the European Environment Agency (EEA) and selected modelled data from the CAMS services. It presents a review of the main episodes that occurred over the past with an analysis of the reasons and main drivers behind these episode events. It provides a timely overview of the pollution situation of the previous year and characterises the climatological situation as compared to previous years. The interim assessment provides European estimates for the main regulatory pollutants (ozone, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5) in terms of concentrations and main environmental indicators. The 2016 report is available at the CAMS webpage http://policy.atmosphere.copernicus.eu/reports/CAMS-71_2016SC2_D71.1.1.6_201707_2016IAR_V4.pdf Laurence Rouïl, INERIS presented the Annual Assessment Report (AAR) for 2015 on the status of air quality in Europe. The main difference with the IAAR is that the CAMS annual report is based on validated data. Importantly, the CAMS assessments of the background situation for the main regulatory pollutants and main environmental indicators is elaborated on the basis of in-situ data, assimilated satellite data and ensemble model calculations. This is an important difference with respect to other European Scale air quality assessments, like the one from EEA that is mostly based on in-situ observations. In 2015, there was an exceptional ozone episode during the summer and also high PM2.5 levels in Poland and in the Po Valley, which is consistent with observations. The discussion was initiated to identify how participants use the CAMS products and what are their main experiences with these products. The representative from Belgium, Elke Trimpeneers, noted that they were using the data from green scenarios and dust products as suggested in the Interim Annual Assessment Reports (IAAR) to identify the origin of episodes when reporting exceedances under EU air quality legislation. The experience of use with these products was positive, but not so with the use of SR- products. The CAMS SR vary considerably yet between EMEP and TNO results and are especially different to their own SR results. Further guidance on how to use the CAMS SR products is therefore necessary. The proposal for guidance from the CAMS team was to produce a pilot exercise identifying episodes to be analyzed jointly by users and CAMS team members. The idea was to identify a series of episodes of interest to the participants in the pilot exercise. The CAMS policy team could then define a workflow on how to use the CAMS products available on–line for the interpretation of the sources contributing to the episode. The response to this proposal for a pilot exercise was very limited at this stage, as only two participants volunteered. Alternative proposals on how to increase the interaction with policy users need to be developed (p.e., see conclusions from final session). The availability of emission data on-line was also a topic for discussion. Emission are essential information for policy applications. In general, participants found it difficult to find data on-line on the CAMS webpages, especially concerning policy user relevant products. Although the global and regional emissions developed by the CAMS emission service are available from the CAMS Catalogue pages, this is not the case for the emission data that is used as basis for the policy scenarios and the

http://policy.atmosphere.copernicus.eu/reports/CAMS-71_2016SC2_D71.1.1.6_201707_2016IAR_V4.pdf

http://policy.atmosphere.copernicus.eu/reports/CAMS-71_2016SC2_D71.1.1.6_201707_2016IAR_V4.pdf



policy products. In addition, the access to the policy user webpages is not easy to find from the CAMS webpages. On the positive side, the representative from EEA -Alberto Gonzalez Ortiz proposed to use the CAMS Interim Annual Assessment Report (IAAR) as reference in the EEAs annual air quality report because it includes Interesting information explaining the sources of the episodes and climatological assessments that are complementary to the type of information currently in EEAs annual report. He also expressed satisfaction that during last year, EEA and CAMS have cooperated to coordinate their respective assessment reports and send consistent conclusions to Member States. An additional issue was raised by Anke Lükewille, EEA, concerning the temporal evolution of the estimates from CAMS ensemble with respect to data assimilations. The number of models using data assimilation for the different components has evolved and increased since to 2010 so that looking back several years, the actual results are not comparable in methodology used. The recommendation was to consider whether a re-calculation of the result for earlier years should be carried out in order to secure consistency of the results for climatological comparison and evaluation. Session 2: How CAMS policy products may help in air pollution management Michael Schulz, MET NORWAY and Martin Schaap, TNO shared their presentation of the Source-

receptor (SR) calculations under episodes in main European City Areas. The SR analysis can be

activated on-demand up to 5 times a year, but it was only activated once in 2017. The current system

for carrying out SR calculations in main European cities is made with two models of the CAMS

ensemble in order to help identifying the robustness of the results. The presentation explored the

differences between the two modelling systems (EMEP and LOTOS EUROS). Firstly, it considered

whether the results were model dependent, and concluded that the differences could not be

attributed to the models different chemical and physical treatment of aerosol processes. Secondly, it

examined whether the results are dependent on the city area chosen and by testing various

possibilities, it concluded that the results do change according to the city area chosen. Thirdly, it

tested the associated non-linearities in the results. There are some cases of non-linearity in the

results, at approximately 20%. It is important to validate the S-R results for the local vs external

contributions, following the twin-site approach in TFMM, where background versus inner city

observations are used. Initial validation of this type in Berlin showed some success. Finally, the

conclusion is that EMEP SR results should probably be considered as the best guess, and that LOTOS-

EUROS SR results could be used as support to the interpretation.

Augustin Collette, INERIS, presented the CAMS updated service for Green Scenarios, the CAMS Air Control Tool (ACT), that currently includes forecasting results both sector and for specific policy scenarios. The “CAMS ACT” is a flexible modelling tool to estimate policy interventions and to estimate contributions from different sources. It forecasts the impact of various emission scenario on air pollutant concentrations in Europe. The ACT concept now has evolved to provide a web-based, interactive tool capable of examining different emission reductions simultaneously while looking at different reductions for four different anthropogenic emission sectors. The methodology is based on



the CHIMERE model as training model and involves using a surrogate model to derive a non-linear combination of main CHIMERE training model runs. This allows the tool to account for non-linear processes. The training model used 10%, 30%, 60%, and 90% reductions in emissions. It was found that the second order polynomial is the best at fitting the training models and reducing errors. The target was to reduce errors to 0.1 ugm-3 or 0.5%. The tool is currently been tested and is expected to be available in the summer of 2018. The discussion showed that there is a large interest for the SR calculations due to its large relevance

for policy applications. There were raised different opinions on what type of scenarios should be given

priority and whether the data should be presented as potencies or as percentage reductions.

Differences between the various modelling approaches is still a key issue of concern, although it was

recognized that the approach followed by the EMEP and CHIMERE models is preferable to the

LOTOS_EUROS approach. The representative from JRC, Philippe Thunis invited the CAMS teams to

participate in the discussions currently taking place within FAIRMODE to explain better the

differences between different modelling approaches. FAIRMODE has carried out a series of inter-

comparisons that conclude indeed that for non-linear compounds, the preferred method for policy

planning applications is the scenario analysis (or BF) method used by EMEP and CHIMERE in contrast

to the tagging method (or PSAT) used by LOTOS EUROS.

Activities at national level to design policy responses and prevent high levels of exposure and air pollution episodes can benefit from access to CAMS ACT and some of the SR results, if their better explained. It was suggested to use some episodes as examples and analyze these together with representatives from Member States (for instance, the episode in December 2016). It was recognized that the initiation process for the SR calculations is not yet decided, so any suggestions from Member States on how to proceed in this regard would be greatly appreciated. In this type of analysis, the definition of the city areas under consideration would be of great importance to secure the comparability of the results. The response from participants (HU, WMO) indicated a high level of interest for impact-based

forecasting and the development of services that consider air pollution in terms of health impacts

and related societal costs. The CAMS team drew a note of caution to that respect. The CAMS data

and forecasts is not to be used in local scale for health exposure applications. It complements the

data and tools developed by local authorities but it is not meant to substitute it. The CAMS data adds

information on the sector allocation of background air pollution, including information on the long-

range component. For local, urban and health exposure applications a more refined spatial resolution

than the one currently available in CAMS would be necessary (see also discussion in session 3).

Session 3: Needs and options for increased resolution and accurate emission data Vincent-Henri Peuch, ECMWF, introduced the session explaining CAMS approach to spatial resolution issues. For CAMS purposes, 10 km is a useful scale resolution in Europe. It is consistent with the synoptic scale meteorology. It is consistent with the resolution of satellite data. It means that the data



size is manageable. Many applications require finer spatial resolution, and this leaves room for downstream services and commercial applications. Therefore, 10 km is the chosen resolution for CAMS by design. A higher resolution is demanded by the Member State, but this is an area of opportunity for downscaling activities, which include statistical, hybrid, and deterministic methods. In the next phase, after 2020, CAMS is proposing a national uptake programme where they will provide funding to support the uptake of AQ products, keeping their resolution at 10km but allowing for finer resolutions in downstream services. CAMS can offer scientific and technical support to define and implement down-stream activities, and each Member State will maintain control of its reporting/fine scale AQ forecasting. Frédérik Meleux, INERIS, provided an overview of methods used in different countries for downscaling. First,

he discussed a dynamical approach with fine resolution dispersion models at national scale (like in

Norway and Italy). This approach uses CAMS products as boundary conditions, either from the global

or from the regional services. There are also statistical and data fusion approaches to downscaling.

The second part of the presentation focused on the data fusion approach that combines model results

and observations. INERIS has developed a downscaling system following this data fusion approach to

transfer CAMS regional AQ products to local scale. The downscaling system consists of two tools. The

first tool involves a means for evaluating the quality of CAMS 50 regional AQ products at local scale.

The tool is able to calculate skill scores and to detect exceedances of thresholds. The aim of this first

tool is to evaluate the need to downscale the regional AQ products at particular locations. The second

tool involves carrying out data fusion of observations and CAMS regional AQ products. It has the

specific aim to target the data fusion of stations with a greater local influence. The tool considers the

robustness of the approach in many situations. Users will be able to carry out their own set-up, the

service will evolve according to users requests. The second tool will be available soon.

Stijn Janssen, VITO, presented a downscaling methodology to produce fine scale NO2 concentrations that shows very high spatial variability even over very short distances. (see results available at http://maps.atmosys.eu/). Health impact assessments need fine scale resolutions. He demonstrated very high drop- off in the health impact assessment with increasingly coarse model resolution. The VITO downscaling method is based on pre-computed single source annual dispersion kernels. The method for producing fine spatial scale NO2 concentrations involves using traffic emission from the SHERPA tool and redistributing the emissions down to 100m using the Open Transport Map as proxy. However, one weakness it that the method uses only line segments and no information on traffic technologies are used. The method is also not as good in general as the local models based on bottom-up emissions. Leonor Tarrasón, NILU, explained how on the benchmarking activities currently at carried out within FAIRMODE are a valuable for providers and developers of downscaling systems. Most downscaling approaches rely on the quality of local scale emission inventories. The quality of local scale emissions require enhanced attention in the context of policy options and understanding air pollution. The tools developed within FAIRMODE allow a comparison of bottom-up methodologies with different resolutions and levels of disaggregation. Both the emission Δ-tool and the emission composite mapping are tools that can provide useful means to compare methodologies, understand limitation in the use of generalized proxies and generally improve the inventories used in Europe for air quality

http://maps.atmosys.eu/



policy applications. The activities in FAIRMODE constitute a complementary approach to validate and improve emissions estimates besides the use of in-situ observations and satellite data. Hugo van der Gon, TNO, presented examples on the use of satellite data to validate emission data in what is called as “top-down” emission validation. Satellite observations are currently used in Europe, China and the US to estimate revised emissions as part of the verification of reported emissions. The top-down emission approach is usually based the application of inverse-modelling techniques. A specific example for SO2 emissions shows how the inverse modelling technique is trained and validated over the US where additional very good in-stack measurement of SO2 are in place. They then tested the inverse method over Europe and were able to highlight cases of errors in the SO2 emission inventories. They could relate the changes to possible changes in technology. Hotspots and point sources are ideal examples of how satellites can give direct benefit to the emission community.

The discussion that followed recognized the use of satellite data for informing emission compilation

as a promising advance, though far in future. The Italian representative requested higher resolution

from fire emissions to be able to us the product for risk management. It was noted that in risk

assessment, fire emissions need higher resolution, and that the situation will not be improved with

the introduction of GEO satellites that will improve the temporal resolution but not the spatial

information (moving from 10 km daily to 10 km hourly with GEO). For gas and particle components,

sentinel 4 will be a game-changer with respect to spatial resolution. The representative from UBA

informed that Germany has developed a national project for downstream services from CAMS based

on model output statistics for ozone and particulate matter. The most urgent need from their

perspective is to improve emissions and particle chemistry.

The discussion under this session also showed the need for finer resolution results in Member States.

CAMS offers reliable background information at 10km scale and has good arguments why this is the

appropriate scale for their data and products. The main question then is how CAMS can contribute

to ensure that downstream products (either from commercial or from regulatory expert) follow a set

of best practice guidelines. Downscaling practices and quality assurance require dialogue,

cooperation and competence building activities. To improve such dialogue, the representative from

EEA, Martin Adams, proposed that CAMS should consider to take a more active role in the on-going

“Fitness-check” process on the air quality legislation launched by DG-ENV and identify relevant

scientific guidance for such review.

Session 4: Co-operation and co-ordination Zlatko Kregar, DG-ENV, recognised the value of CAMS to provide an important input to national and local environmental authorities, including an overview of status of air pollution in Europe. DG-ENV appreciates the overlap and complementarity of the different European Air Quality reports. It is important to prevent situations with contradictory messages or conclusions. Therefore is communication and exchange of information important for the CAMS services, both with national AQ forecasting users CAMS and specially to continue interaction with the FAIRMODE community.



Alberto Gonzalez Ortiz, EEA, provided a summary of the current status of co-operation between EEA and CAMS. In the autumn of 2017, the EEA launched the new European Air Quality Index that uses up-to-date regulatory data reported by Members States and CAMS for filling in the gaps between the EEA data. In addition, EEA is an up-to-date in-situ data provider to CAMS. A contract with a subcontractor to ensure and improve data deliveries to CAMS to be signed soon. He hopes for continued good cooperation in the future. Areas for co-operation include the elaboration of high resolution maps based on extended use of data assimilation, the possible inclusion of CAMS regional forecast in the EEA AQ index, increased usage of the policy support tools, the coordination of annual assessment reports, and initiatives on the quality assurance of AQ management on local and national level. Philippe Thunis, JRC, showed that there is scope for multiple synergies between FAIRMODE and CAMS activities. It is desirable that experiences of use of CAMS products as compiled under FAIRMODE activities can contribute to improve the CAMS policy products – and vice versa. A good example of this is the current evaluation of source allocation versus source receptor methods taking place in FAIRMODE and where the CAMS teams should benefit from participating. Other areas for collaboration include testing and feedback for assessment and forecasting testing metrics and testing and benchmarking urban scale emissions. Good communication and exchange between the two programs should be secured, to harvest synergies and avoid overlaps. A. Baklanov, WMO, presented current activities under the Global atmospheric Watch (GAW) program where CAMS has an important contribution to make. The GAW concept is consistent with CAMS, i.e., science for services. CAMS is currently used within GAW to allow for model nesting from the global to regional to city scale products. GAW supports diverse activities such as climate change; ecosystem services; health and urban AQ; sand and dust; vegetation, fire and smoke; food security from atmospheric composition and agriculture; and for transport security due to volcanic ash. The WMO priority now is on urbanization for megacities with focus on attainment of SDG sustainable development goals. CAMS data can contribute to many of these activities.

In the discussion that followed this final session, the focus was on how to enhance the involvement

of policy users and not only organizations with CAMS. The representative from Germany, Ute Dauert,

said that the present workshop had been very intense and proposed that the next CAMS policy user

workshops could extend over two days, from noon-to-noon, to allow users digest the enormous

amount of information presented in the workshops and better interact with the CAMS team. Vincent-

Henri Peuch offered to add training sessions to the workshop, if requested. It was also recognized

that, given the complexity of the policy user products and their interpretation, direct interaction via

webinars and bilateral video-conferences and participation in pilot studies could be prioritized.



1.3 Identified follow-up actions The comments, requests and feedback provided by the CAMS users during the workshop are essential for shaping the future development of the service. The following user requirements gathered during the workshop are already collected in the «User Requirement Database » (URDB), and will support the user interaction work at ECMWF and the definition of future CAMS policy product evolution.

Strengthen co-operation EEA-CAMS: A representative from EEA proposed to use the CAMS Interim Annual Assessment Report (IAAR) as reference in the EEAs Annual Air Quality report because it includes Interesting information explaining the sources of the episodes and climatological assessments that are complementary to the type of information currently in EEAs annual report. The CAMS team will work with the EEA team to establish the best way to secure cross-references and links between these two reports.

Re-analysis for several previous years: CAMS should consider a re-calculation of the CAMS regional re-analysis for earlier years (since for instance, the year 2000) because the number of models using data assimilation for the different components has evolved and the quality of the results has increased since the beginning of the service. This re-analysis would secure the consistency of the CAMS results for climatological comparison and evaluation

Enhanced availability of emission data: While the emission data used for the regional forecasts and re-analysis is available in the CAMS pages, the access to the scenario emission data used in the CAMS green scenarios policy products is not in place. CAMS should consider improving the availability of CAMS emission scenario data in the policy portal.

Pilot Study organization and test protocols: CAMS should investigate ways to enhance user-interaction and provide guidance on the use of CAMS policy products, for instance, by organizing a pilot study and preparing a protocol to test the CAMS products that could then be analyzed and interpreted in cooperation with the CAMS policy team. Such activities could be carried out in cooperation with FAIRMODE and be centered about the analysis of source-receptor relationships or the analysis of the origin of pollution episodes.

Guidance for downscaling activities: CAMS should consider how to provide guidance on best practices for the elaboration of downscaling results that are currently in great demand by policy users. Such guidance activities could be carried out in co-operation with FAIRMODE to gain synergies and avoid duplication of work.

Contribution to “Fitness- Check “of the Air quality Directives: CAMS should consider to take a more active role in the on-going “Fitness-check” process on the air quality legislation launched by DG-ENV and help identify relevant scientific basis for such review.

Organization of Policy User Workshops: CAMS should consider to extend the duration of the CAMS policy workshops to last from noon to noon to allow for better in-depth interaction with users, given the extent and complexity of the CAMS policy products.



2 Agenda of the meeting 09:30 Registration News about CAMS and new air quality reports 10:00 Welcome (Martin Adams, EEA) 10:10 Last updates on the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service and its product

portfolio (Vincent-Henri Peuch, ECMWF) 10:30 CAMS Emissions for the global and regional services (Claire Granier, CNRS) 10:45 The CAMS Policy Products Overview and what is new in 2017 (Laurence Rouïl, INERIS) 11:00 The Interim Annual Assessment Report for 2016 (Leonor Tarrasón, NILU) 11:15 First insights on Annual Assessment Report for 2015 on the status of air quality in

Europe (Laurence Rouîl, INERIS) 11:30 -12:00 Discussion, user questions and feedback 12:00 -13:00 Lunch How CAMS policy products may help in air pollution management 13:00 Source-receptor calculations for main European City Areas: status of 2017 products

and their validation (Michael Schulz, MET NORWAY and Martijn Schaap, TNO) 13:30 Towards a user-friendly green scenario toolbox: understanding the influence of

various sources under episodes (Augustin Colette) 14:00 - 14:30 Open discussion on how those products fulfill users’ needs (led by Laurence Rouïl) 14:30-14:45 Coffee Break Needs and options for increased resolution and accurate emission data 14:45 Introduction on CAMS approach to resolution issues (Vincent-Henri Peuch, ECMWF) 14:55 Downscaling options for modelled results (Frédérik Meleux, INERIS) 15:05 Improved tools for NO2 exposure in Europe (Stijn Janssen, VITO) 15:15 How to make emission inventories more robust and accurate - cooperation with

FAIRMODE WG2 (Leonor Tarrasón, NILU) 15:30 Improvement of emission data using satellite data (Hugo Denier van der Gon, TNO) 15:45 -16:15 Open discussion on the relevance of these various options for policy users (led by

Leonor Tarrasón) Cooperation and coordination 16:15 Expectations for cooperation from DG-ENV (Zlatko Kregar, DG-ENV) 16:25 Increased coordination with EEA and EIONET (Alberto González Ortiz, EEA) 16:35 Proposal for increased cooperation with JRC (Philippe Thunis, JRC) 16:45 WMO views on the usefulness of CAMS for the GAW programme and for supporting

monitoring of relevant SDGs (Alexander Baklanov, WMO) 16:50 Feedback from participants and conclusions of the meeting 17:00 End of meeting


atmosphere.copernicus.eu copernicus.eu ecmwf.int

ECMWF - Shinfield Park, Reading RG2 9AX, UK

Contact: [email protected]

minutes from the 2 cams policy user workshop · 2019. 2. 7. · copernicus atmosphere monitoring...

Documents