Katarina Mareckova, Robert Wankmueller, Elisabeth Kampel, Michael Gager and Stephan Poupa TFEIP, ETC ACM 14 May 2012, Bern Review of Emission Data and IIRs Submitted under CLRTAP and NECD Gridded Emissions and LPS

CONTENT Review process and review results under the CLRTAP/ NECD Completeness Stage 1 & 2 Gridded data, LPS Stage 3 centralised in-depth review Roster of experts IIR - Awards 2012

REVIEW PROCESS – T TCCCA Methods and procedures for the technical review of air pollutant emission inventories reported under the Convention and its protocols ( Review Guidelines EB.AIR/GE.1/2007/16) Stage 1 - automated tests, Country reports posted on the web during March Stage 2 - S&A country reports posted in May Stage 3 – Centralised in depth review of selected inventories Summary of S1 and S2 findings: In CEIP/EEA technical report Inventory review _forWeb.pdf

SHORT HISTORY OF EMISSION REPORTING TO UNECE 80s - National emissions of sulphur, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, NMVOC, carbon oxides and methane (1980 or 1986? onwards and each following year) EMEP WebDab – earliest information identified “reported in 1995” HMs, POPs – first occur in 1996 data (reported in 1998) SNAP sectors Harmonisation with UNFCCC reporting system, 2002 onwards – emissions reported in NFR sectors (NFR01, NFR02, NFR09), GHGs excluded e.g. Emission data reported to UNECE/EMEP: Evaluation of the spatial distribution of emissions. MSC-W Status Report 2001,EMEP MSC-W Mote 1/01 July 2001

REPORTING OF INVENTORIES UNDER THE CLRTAP IN (86%) submissions from 51 Parties (41 in 2010, 43 in 2010), 34 Parties within deadline - 31 resubmissions 30 IIRs (26 in 2011, 30 in 2010, ) 35 Parties reported AD – significant improvement comparing to 2009 No data from: Rep. of Moldova, USA, EU Azerbaijan, Bi&H, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan

REPORTING Reporting Austria Belgium Denmark Finland Slovakia United Kingdom Completeness in WebDab France Germany Ireland Norway Sweden United Kingdom

REPORTING UNDER UNECE TOP10 Reporting since 1995 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Czech republic Denmark Finland France Slovakia Sweden United Kingdom TOP10 Completeness in WebDab (nat. totals) Bulgaria Croatia Estonia France Germany Hungary Ireland Norway Sweden United Kingdom

HISTORY OF EMISSION REPORTING UNDER CLRTAP SINCE 2002 (NFR) Inventories

COMPLETENESS 2012 REPORTING UNDER CLRTAP Pollutants Main pollutants: 44 (41) PM: 36 (34) POPs (Diox, PAHs, HCB, PCBs): 36 Cd, Hg, Pb: 37 (39) Additional HMs: 33 (33) Projections: 21 (4 WaM), Activity 18 (4 WaM) Gridded data (sectoral + national totals): 26 LPS: 24

GRIDDED EMISSIONS AND LPS

GRIDDED DATA (20,22,21) (19,22,21) (19,21,19) (18,19,18)

LPS DATA REPORTED IN 2012 MAIN PM HM POPs

NECD INVENTORIES

NECD TIMELINESS OF REPORTING Complete EU inventory reporting for 2009 and 2010!! 9 MS submitted IIRs 25 MS used NFR templates MS provided projections for post 2010

NECD DISTANCE TO CEILINGS Final 2010 data will be available end of this year grey indicates that road transport emissions are based on fuel used red indicates emissions above respective NEC ceiling

16 NE carries risk of potential underestimation EU NEC Directive status report estimates potential contribution of these sources for only 2 countries it would effect the reaching of ceilings NECD - REPORTING OF NE ( NOT ESTIMATED )

SHARE OF E-PRTR 2010 ON CLRTAP / UNFCCC TOTALS 2010 (MAIN, GHG S )

SHARE OF E-PRTR 2010 ON CLRTAP 2010 TOTALS (HMS, POPS)

STAGE 3 REVIEW

STAGE 3 IN-DEPTH CENTRALIZED REVIEW Main objectives a)complement the reporting guidelines in supporting Parties to compile and submit high quality inventories b)support Parties in meeting their reporting obligations under the Protocols c)increase confidence of policymakers in the data used for air pollution modelling The aim is to check in detail each Party inventory at least once every five years => to review approximately 10 Parties annually

STAGE 3 IN-DEPTH CENTRALIZED REVIEW Centralized review is review of quantitative and qualitative information of selected inventories by pollutant, country or sector Joint activity of EMEP/CEIP and EEA The work plan is (annually) approved by the EMEP Executive Body 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

STAGE 3 - EXPERIENCE Review benefits 34 Parties reviewed since in all inventories identified areas for improvement Motivates experts to improve their own inventories and IIRs For reviewers provides a level of training on priorities for enhancing TCCCA of inventories Builds an enthusiastic network of motivated and informed experts Interaction with Parties Most Parties responded on time and comprehensive A few Parties – NIR not provided, late responses, limited explanatory information after the review week It’s challenge if Parties are reviewed and parallel providing reviewers to the ERT

ROSTER OF EMISSION EXPERTS - HISTORY 20 Parties to the Convention (out of 51) have nominated experts to the roster: Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, the European Community, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Macedonia, Norway, the Netherlands, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom 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) the roster currently contains a total of 65 inventory experts (24 more comparing to 2008) from which 43 experts participated at least in one S3 review

REVIEW TEAMS teams LR – Chris Dore (UK) and Ann Wagner (EU) 27 experts invited 16 accepted invitation (AUT, DE, EU, EE, FIN, FRA,GR, IRL, LAT, NL, SWE) still needed : generalist, sectors: industry, agriculture, waste Review experts (10-15d): Preparatory work and follow up activities Review the inventory and complete transcripts and relevant chapters LR – 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 Active participation of experts from EECCA and South- East European countries in the review process should be increased Not complete inventories resp. not provided NIRs limits the review Interaction with Parties Lead reviewers

THANK YOU