Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no 7 th Joint UNECE Task Force & EIONET WS on Emission Inventories and Projections, Thessaloniki 31 Oct – 2 Nov 2006 Vigdis Vestreng, EMEP/MSC-W Inventory Review 2006: Progress and Challenges

Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no Review Mandate ”The Steering Body has approved an approach where capacity building over Europe is meant as the way to improve the quality of emission data within EMEP” This is a very valid approach but it demands time and resources!

Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no The review process per today according to EBE.AIR/GE.1/2005-7, annex III

Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no The review process Joint effort! 50 Parties half MS Separat feedback on NEC and LRTAP Amersfoort conclusion: Continue the current Stage I+II review

Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no Timeline of the emission review work Reporting by Parties - Use of RepDab15. February Stage 1 review – REPDAB Timeliness Formats 10. MarchOfficial emission data sent to MSC-W 10. April Updated WEBDAB open for review team and MSC-E for modelling input Stage 2 review – Key Source Analysis Completeness Consistency internal consistency timeseries and trends implied emission factors Comparability Cross pollutant tests Recalculations Inventory Comparison Fuel sold-fuel used 15. May50 dedicated review reports to Parties available in the web protected site Uploading data in database WEBDAB Country Specific Feedback after 3 months

Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no Timeline of the emission review work Country specific reports in the EMEP web15. May Draft conclusions from stage 3 trial review 15. June Updated WebDab in EMEP website Reporting of preliminary review results to TFEIP spring meeting Report to Steering Body on Present State of Emissions 15. July Annual inventory review report Recommendations for work under TFEIP Sept -OctoberTFEIP meeting and recommendation on review work Conclusion from review stage1 and 2 Evaluation of answers from countries Evaluation of specific questions on emissions Further development of REPDAB and Stage 2 review Communication to Parties on the new reporting round - new REPDAB release 1. December

Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no EMEP centers publish reviews Environ. Sci. Policy (2006) Review Atmospheric emissions of some POPs in Europe: a discussion of existing inventories and data needs Knut Breivik, CCC/EMEP Vigdis Vestreng, MSC-W/EMEP Olga Rozovskaya, MSC-E/EMEP Jozef M. Pacyna, CCC/EMEP

Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no Progress made Format: Not a problem. Most countris respect the reporting requirements (NEC dt different, see next presentation) Internal Consistency: Improved assisted by the availiability and developement of REPDAB

Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no Challenges Completeness: Problem to review (Guidelines). Low: Only 30-60% of dt needed for assessments annually are available NFRs need to be extended to facilitate reporting of e.g. POPs Timeseries consistency: Recalculations from 2000/1990 or in 5 yr intervals.

Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no Conclusions Progress made in a number of aspects Expect new Guidelines with clearer definition of e.g. completeness to assist in design of future reviews. Timely IIRs and extension of NFRs needed. Long term stable and increased resources are needed: - in the countries to respond to the results from the reviews; in particular to improve the completeness and time series consistency of emission data. - in the bodies to keep up and develope further the capacity building review to improve emission data