Review process 2008

Katarina Mareckova, CEIP - Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections

TFEIPTallinn, 27 May 2008

Main objective of review processMain objective of review process 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). 

Technical Review ProcessTechnical Review Process 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 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 will have the opportunity to clarify issues or provide additional information.

Results of the review will be made publicly available

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

tables) checking: timeliness, completeness, and formats

Results provided in country Status reports (pdf) to every Party by 10th March

Summary results presented at TFEIP meeting in May

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

Data (inventories as xml files) from UNFCCC are needed to cover more countries than EU27 and work efficiently

Annual country specific Synthesis & Assessment reports are planed for 31 May. Format – excel file .

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 2008).

Stage 3 (NEW)Stage 3 (NEW) Centralized review of quantitative and qualitative information of

selected inventories (in 2008 planed 5) Sept-Nov 2008 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 2009?) and

summary results reported to EMEP SB (Sept 2009?).

Status of reporting & review 2008 (Stage 1 and 2)

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

TFEIPTallinn, 27 May 2008

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

LPS data (reported on a 5-yearly basis) were due 1 March 2007. NECD

The deadline for submission of inventories SOx, NOx, NMVOCs, NH3, (2005 and 2006) and projections 2010 for EU MS was 31 Dec 2007

All submissions should be reported using the Nomenclature for Reporting (NFR) formats in accordance with the EMEP 2002 Reporting Guidelines

Timeliness - CLRTAP inventories in 2008Timeliness - CLRTAP inventories in 2008

38 Parties submitted inventories, 30 inventories submitted on time (28 inventories in 2007)

Completeness - CLRTAP 2008 Completeness - CLRTAP 2008 as of 15 May as of 15 May

51 Parties to the Convention, 40 Parties signed at least one protocol 35 Parties + Georgia, Malta, and Poland submitted inventories 34 Parties notified secretariat of their data submission to CEIP Completeness per pollutant: Main pollutants-38; Cd, Hg, PB-34,

additional HM2-28, PMs - 31, POPs – 31 Parties 13 Inventories resubmitted

4 Parties no submissions in 2008: Luxembourg, Island, Lichtenstein, Russian Federation and EC

Not Parties to the Protocols; Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Montenegro, and Turkey, are invited to submit inventories

Completeness – example SOCompleteness – example SOxx, NO, NOxx maps maps(Time Series from 1980 – 2006)(Time Series from 1980 – 2006)

Completeness – example PMCompleteness – example PM2.52.5, PM, PM1010 maps maps (Time Series from 2000 – 2006)(Time Series from 2000 – 2006)

Completeness cont. CLRTAP Completeness cont. CLRTAP

IIR sent by 24 Parties 17 Parties sent projections 2010, only 12

Parties also for year 2020

ConsistencyConsistency 37 inventories provided as NFR tables, 5 in

other format

SO2 1985 NOx SO2 1994 VOC POPs HMs Goth prBY 100% 100% 82% 88% 100%

2005 86% 87% 85% 86% 82% 89% 90%2006 78% 73% 78% 81% 75% 81%

2005 gridd 87% 43-43-32% 48% 70%

Completeness per protocol (Included only Parties to the particular protocol) –15 March

Consistency; Trends - CLRTAPConsistency; Trends - CLRTAP

Inventory comparisons CLRTAP-NECDInventory comparisons CLRTAP-NECD(CLRTAP = 100%)(CLRTAP = 100%)

Plus value indicates that CLRTAP is higherMinus value indicates that NECD is higher

Inventory comparisons CLRTAP-UNFCCCInventory comparisons CLRTAP-UNFCCC(CLRTAP = 100%)(CLRTAP = 100%)

Plus value indicates that CLRTAP is higherMinus value indicates that UNFCCC is higher

Gridded data – Gridded data – differences in differences in distribution:distribution:example example CO [Mg]CO [Mg]

the same national totals submitted in 2008 distributed with base grid 2007 and base grid 2008

7 Parties provided new gridded data, 6 Parties new LPS data

base grid 2008 was calculated with new (2008) submitted gridded and LPS data

Timeliness – NECD 2007Timeliness – NECD 2007

01/12/07

31/12/07

30/01/08

29/02/08

30/03/08

Finl

and

Cyp

rus

Ger

man

y

Slov

akia

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Bulg

aria

Esto

nia

Aus

tria

Den

mar

k

Hun

gary

Net

herla

nds

Fra

nce

Slo

veni

a

Mal

ta

Belg

ium

Latv

ia

Rom

ania

Port

ugal

Sw

eden

Pol

and

Irel

and

Lith

uani

a

Italy

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Spai

n

Gre

ece

Luxe

mbo

urg

date

of s

ubm

issi

on

NECD reporting 2007

31 DEC 2007

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

Completeness & consistency NECD 2007Completeness & consistency NECD 2007 Deadline 31 Dec 2007

26 MS submitted data, 19 inventories on time Luxembourg no data

Completeness Inventory - 24 MS (2005 and 2006), Greece and

Poland only 2006 inventory Projections – 24 MS (not reported by Luxembourg,

Portugal, Hungary) Consistency

18 inventories in non consistent format (modified NFR, other excel tables..)

Recalculations – minor

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

inventories is improving Standard formats remain problem particularly for

NECD submissions and years before 2000 IIR are getting more and more voluminous but less

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

CRF tables (xml files) of non-EU MS posted on CDR would enable to include these Parties in IEF tests

CEIP/ETCACC is working on automation of the review process to the extend possible, but Stage 1 and 2 review still remain resource demanding activity.

Highlite outliers without comments Provide questions