katarina mareckova, robert wankmueller, michael gager tfeip 2 may 2011, stockholm
DESCRIPTION
Review of emission data submitted under CLRTAP and NECD Reporting of Gridded emissions. Katarina Mareckova, Robert Wankmueller, Michael Gager TFEIP 2 May 2011, Stockholm. Content. Review process and review results 2011 Stage 1 & 2 Stage 3 centralised in-depth review Roster of experts - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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)