Review process 2010

Katarina Mareckova, Robert WankmuellerCEIP - Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections

TFEIPLarnaca ,10 May 2010

Main objective of the review Main objective of the review The technical review of national inventories will check and assess

Parties' data submissions with a view to improve the quality of emission data and associated information reported to the Convention.

The review also seeks to achieve a common approach to prioritizing and monitoring inventory improvements under the Convention with those of other organizations with similar interests such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the European Union National Emission Ceilings (NEC) Directive.

The review of data reported under CLRTAP is performed jointly with those reported under the amended  National Emissions Ceilings Directive (2001/81/EC) and the process is supported by the European Environment Agency (EEA). 

ProcessProcess To standardize review process, TFEIP elaborated review

guidelines Methods and procedures for the technical review of air pollutant emission inventories reported under the Convention and its protocols   EB.AIR/GE.1/2007/16.

The three stages of the annual technical review, covering quantitative and qualitative aspects of data, are: Stage 1: An initial check of submissions for timeliness, format and

completeness; Stage 2: A synthesis and assessment of all national submissions with

respect to consistency and comparability of data with recommendations for data quality improvement;

Stage 3: In-depth reviews of selected inventories, by pollutant, country or sector, as in the work plan agreed by the Executive Body

At each stage, Parties have the opportunity to clarify issues or provide additional information.

Results are publicly available at www.ceip.at

Stage 1Stage 1 Responsibility with CEIP Automated test of submitted inventories (NFR

tables) checking: timeliness, completeness (separately for 1980-89, 1990-99,

2000-08) formats

LPS and gridded data

Results provided in country Status reports (on line - http://www.ceip.at/review-process/review-2010/review-results-2010/ )

Stage 2Stage 2 More detailed checks of comparability and consistency,

performed jointly with EEA trends, KCA, indicators recalculations, comparison of NECD, CLRTAP and UNFCCC submissions

IEF - for Key categories – reporting of Activity Data !!! Annual country specific Synthesis & Assessment reports

are planed for 31 May. Countries will have 4 weeks to provide comments Summary results of review Stage 1 and 2 will be

presented in Technical Review Report (SB meeting Sept 2010).

Stage 3 Stage 3 Centralized review of quantitative and qualitative information of

selected inventories Joint responsibility (set up in review guidelines Annex III)

EMEP SB set up (legal) frame for the process (and approve the summary reports)

Parties; nominate and support expert reviewers and volunteer for review UNECE secretariat ; communicate with the Parties and with CEIP

maintain roster of experts TFEIP panel on Review; develop relevant documents

Review Guidelines Guidance for reviewers, Templates,…

CEIP technical support of review process EEA volunteered to provide facilities and technical support Expert review teams (ERT), review the inventories and compile review

reports (within 6 weeks after the review) Country Review Reports will be posted on the web (Dec 2010)

summary results reported to EMEP SB (Sept 2010).

Stage 3 in 2010

15 Parties / 46 experts http://www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/emep/review/Roster_of_review_experts__CLRTAP.pdf

2010 ERTs: only 10 experts confirmed (3 -FR, 2- DE, FR; 1- EC, AT, IT, IR, NL, NO, UK)

Parties to be reviewed: Austria, Cyprus, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, Russian Federation*, Slovakia, Switzerland, and United Kingdom

Stage 3 in 2010 - workplan 1st week of June – data for reviewers on line

(Wiki) 21-25 June| centralised review in

Copenhagen (EEA premises) July – August| compilation of country reports Sept-Oct| comments from Parties (6 weeks) Nov- Dec| Country reports posted on the

website

Status of reporting & review 2010 (Stage 1 and 2)

Katarina Mareckova, Robert Wankmueller, Michael GagerCEIP - Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections

TFEIPLarnaca, 10 May 2010

Reporting requirements Reporting requirements CLRTAP

Parties are requested to send data to the CEIP and send Notification form to the secretariat. Parties may also use CDR. The submission should contain emissions and data on:SOx, NOx, NMVOCs, NH3, CO, HMs, POPs and PMs

The deadline for submission of inventories 15 February, (inventory report (IIR) 6 weeks after the inventory)

Gridded and LPS data (for the years 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005 - if not already reported), and

NECD The deadline for submission of inventories SOx, NOx, NMVOCs, NH3,

(2007 and 2008) and projections 2010 for EU MS was 31 Dec 2009

All submissions should be reported using the Nomenclature for Reporting (NFR09) formats in accordance with the EMEP 2009 Reporting Guidelines ECE/EB.AIR/97)

Timeliness - CLRTAP inventories in 2010Timeliness - CLRTAP inventories in 2010

40 Parties (from 51) submitted inventories in 2010 34 inventories submitted on time (30 in 2008, 28 inventories in 2007)

Completeness CLRTAP Completeness CLRTAP No submissions in 2010:

4 Parties Luxembourg, Island, Italy, Russian Federation

Albania, Armenia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Montenegro, and Turkey are invited to submit inventories

IIR sent by 27 Parties 17 Parties sent projections 2010, only 12 Parties

also for year 2020

ConsistencyConsistency 38 inventories provided as NFR09 tables, 2 in

other format

Timeliness – NECD 2009Timeliness – NECD 2009

23 (from 27 due) inventories submitted on time (16 from 25 inventories in 2007, 19 in 2008)

Completeness & consistency NECD 2009Completeness & consistency NECD 2009 Deadline 31 Dec 2009

All 27 MS submitted data, 23 inventories on time (13 resubmissions)

Completeness All MS provided 2007 & 2008 inventories Projections – 26 MS (not reported by Germany)

Consistency all MS used NFR templates (19 inventories in

NFR09) – only 5 submissions passed RepDab test

Recalculations – under preparation…

Update of historical gridded NOx emissions

Difference between original and recalculated expert estimates

Update of historical gridded PM2.5 emissions Difference between original and recalculated expert estimates Difference for total EMEP area minimal, but for some

countries visible

Country(EU27)

Main Pollutants(NOx, NMVOC, SOx, NH3, CO)

Particulate Matter(PM2.5, PM10)

Country Main Pollutants(NOx, NMVOC, SOx, NH3, CO)

Particulate Matter(PM2.5, PM10)

Austria Albania

Belgium Armenia

Bulgaria Azerbaijan

Cyprus Belarus Czech Republic Bosnia & Herzegovina

Denmark Canada

Estonia Croatia Finland Georgia

France Iceland

Germany Kazakhstan

Greece (1) Kyrgyzstan

Hungary Liechtenstein

Ireland Monaco

Italy Montenegro

Latvia Norway Lithuania Republic of Moldova

Luxembourg FYR of Macedonia

Malta Russian Federation Netherlands Serbia (2)

Poland Switzerland Portugal Turkey

Romania Ukraine Slovakia United States of America

Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom

A grey background color indicates that only gridded national total values are available (w hich cannot be used for the gridding)

A red background color indicates that no reported gridded data is available

Reported gridded data for Main Pollutants and Particulate Matter (2005 onwards)

1) Only NMVOC, SOx and CO

2) Only NOx and SOx

A green background color indicates that reported gridded sectoral data is available

Country(EU27)

Heavy Metals(Pb, Cd, Hg)

POPs(PCDD/PCDF, POPs, HCB,

HCH, PCBs)

Country Heavy Metals(Pb, Cd, Hg)

POPs(PCDD/PCDF, POPs, HCB,

HCH, PCBs)

Austria (5) Albania

Belgium (4) Armenia

Bulgaria Azerbaijan

Cyprus (3) Belarus (3)

Czech Republic Bosnia & Herzegovina

Denmark (5) Canada

Estonia (5) Croatia (5)

Finland (3) Georgia

France (5) Iceland

Germany Kazakhstan

Greece Kyrgyzstan

Hungary (5) Liechtenstein

Ireland Monaco

Italy (7) Montenegro

Latvia Norway

Lithuania (6) Republic of Moldova

Luxembourg FYR of Macedonia

Malta Russian Federation Netherlands (7) Serbia

Poland (3) Switzerland (2)

Portugal Turkey

Romania Ukraine Slovakia (5) United States of America

Slovenia 1) Only PCDD/PCDF reported 5) HCH and PCB is missing

Spain (4) 2) HCB is missing 6) HCB and HCH is missing

Sweden (7) 3) HCH is missing 7) HCB, HCH and PCB is missing

United Kingdom (1)4) PCB is missing

HCB for Estonia as w ell as HCH and PCP for Ireland is available only as gridded national total. The other POPs are available as gridded sectoral data

A red background color indicates that no reported gridded data is available

Reported gridded data for Heavy Metals and Persistent Organic Pollutants (2005 onwards)

A green background color indicates that reported gridded sectoral data is available

A grey background color indicates that only gridded national total values are available (w hich cannot be used for the gridding)

LPS reported to EMEP (2005 onwards)

LPS submitted to EMEP Main – 18 Parties (~1630) PM – 14 Parties (~1630) HM – 2 Parties (~36) POPs – 2 Parties (~30)

facilities reported to E-PRTR > 20000

Reported LPS for Main Pollutants and Particulate Matter (2005 onwards)

NOx NMVOC SOx NH3 CO PM2.5 PM10 NOx NMVOC SOx NH3 CO PM2.5 PM10

Austria Albania

Belgium Armenia

Bulgaria 28 28 28 28 28 Azerbaijan

Cyprus 8 8 8 8 8 8 Belarus

Czech Republic 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 Bosnia & Herzegovina

Denmark 71 73 72 6 71 72 72 Canada

Estonia 29 35 29 12 30 24 24 Croatia 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Finland 322 203 289 38 235 220 227 Georgia

France 756 756 756 756 756 756 756 Iceland

Germany Kazakhstan

Greece Kyrgyzstan

Hungary Liechtenstein

Ireland 20 19 20 20 15 15 Monaco 1 1 1 1 1

Italy Montenegro

Latvia 6 2 3 5 1 Norway

Lithuania 16 8 14 2 16 Republic of Moldova 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Luxembourg FYR of Macedonia 12 12 12 12 12

Malta Russian Federation

Netherlands Serbia

Poland Switzerland

Portugal 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Turkey

Romania Ukraine

Slovakia 42 42 42 42 42 United States of America

Slovenia 7 7 1 7 4 4

Spain 171 166 140 19 166 166 166

Sweden

United Kingdom

Reported notation keys are not counted

Each dif ferent long./lat. position is counted as LPS

Reporting of Gridded /LPS data

Up to date 50 x 50 EMEP grid 10 (11) SNAP categories (or National totals)

2012 onwards (data due 1 March 2012) Model results indicate that with finer scaling better

results can be obtained Geographical coordinates (long/lat) Finer scaling (25-25 or 20x20 or 10 x10) GNFR categories

Area sources without LPS (LPS reported separately)

Main objective – support environmental analyses

Summary / follow upSummary / follow up Timeliness of reporting and completeness of reported

inventories is gradually improving, but Significant gaps in reporting of LPS data Limited data reported for extended EMEP area Not updated inventories before 2000 Activity data not reported IIR are getting more and more voluminous but less

transparent, often no summary in English - explanatory information is difficult to find

Reporting of LPS is critical for development of next gridding matrix (posible solution / reporting of all? facilities included in E-PRTR)