1. Experiences from the 2006 Stage 3 trial centralised review
Karin Kindbom
16th meeting of the Task Force on Emission Inventories and Projections
Expert Panel on Review
14 June 2006, Amersfoort, The Netherlands

2. Why an in-depth review?
In-depth (stage 3) review builds on results from stages 1 & 2, aim at assessing full quality of inventories: Transparency, Completeness, Consistency, Comparability and Accuracy
Makes full use of information in IIRs to assess inventory quality and provide feedback to the TF Inventory Improvement Programme
A lever for resources for inventory improvement
Increases confidence in the quality of reported data

3. Objectives of the trial stage 3 review
To gain experience with in-depth review within the framework of the LRTAP Convention
Test and clarify procedures and scope for a formal third stage review
for Parties to be reviewed
for Convention secretariat to support review process
for the TF and its expert panel on review to overview review process in relation to stage 1 and stage 2 review activities already in place

4. Objectives of trial stage 3 review, cont.
To assess the value of the review process in improving:
Quality of inventories and confidence in the quality of inventories
Exchange of inventorying experience and expertise between Parties
Capacity building
Assess the usefulness of the present Emission Reporting Guidelines (ECE/EB.AIR/80, Air Pollution Studies series, No. 15) and the Emission Inventory Guidebook (EEA, 2005) for detailed review purposes

5. Objectives of trial stage 3 review, cont.
evaluate the perceived value added from a stage 3 review over stages 1&2;
evaluate if the centralized review is an efficient stage 3 model;
estimate resource requirements;
discuss timing issues;
consider organisation and management issues.

6. Trial centralised review management
Took place from 27th of February to 3rd of March 2006 at EEA in Copenhagen.
Was planned and coordinated by the TFEIP Expert Panel on Review in cooperation with ETC-ACC.
9 national experts performed the review, of which two were lead reviewers
11 countries´ inventory submissions were reviewed
A trial review secretariat of 3 persons (Task Force, ETC-ACC and EMEP MSC-W).

7. Trial centralised review planning process
Sept-Oct 2005: TFEIP agreement to perform the trial review and invitation to countries to participate;
11-12 Jan 2006: Planning meeting in Gothenburg;
27th Jan 2006: Review material and information distributed to review experts;
27 Jan - 27 Feb: Experts start to get acquainted and work with review material;
27 Feb - 3 Mar: Review week in Copenhagen;
Lead reviewers edit draft review reports and send back to experts and review secretariat;
Review experts and review secretariat approve of the draft reports;

8. Trial centralised review planning process, cont.
Draft reports sent by review secretariat to the individual country for comments and clarifications;
Comments on reports from countries to review secretariat. Feedback from countries on the review process usefulness and timing;
Clarifications of report comments from countries with Review Experts via review secretariat;
Lead reviewers and review secretariat finalise review reports and send to countries;
14th of June: Reporting back on experiences to the Task Force
15th July: Review Secretariat produce a trial stage 3 review chapter for the annual review report.

9. Volunteering countries reviewed
Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Cyprus
the Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
Slovakia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom

10. Data reviewed Data in the NFR format Data from submission 2005
The pollutants SO2, NOX, NMVOC and NH3
The time period
Data for the source sectors
Energy
Industrial processes and solvent use
Agriculture

11. Country specific review material
Information from 2005 submissions, CLRTAP/NEC
IIR, Informative Inventory Report
Officially reported data
Country specific results from review stages 1 & 2
Answers to questions sent to countries during the review week
Country comments and clarifications on review reports

12. Supporting review material
Guidelines
UNECE, Emission Reporting Guidelines
Link to EMEP/CORINAIR Guidebook
Guidebook Chapter on Good Practice Guidance
Protocol reporting requirements by country
Review mandate and guidance
Draft methods and procedures for the technical review of air pollutant emission inventories reported under the Convention and its protocols (Annex III of EB.AIR/GE.1/2005/7)
Guidance for Reviewers (draft, prepared for this trial centralized review).

13. Trial review roles and responsibilities
Expert review team
Review and assess country submissions regarding Transparency, Completeness, Consistency, Comparability, Accuracy, and in relation to Guidelines.
Lead reviewers
Manage and monitor day to day work during review week
Edit draft and final review reports in cooperation with secretariat
Secretariat
Collate review material and provide to experts
Communication with expert review team and countries
Finalisation of review reports in co-operation with lead reviewers

14. Trial centralised review: outputs
Individual review conclusions and recommendations for each participating Party
communicated back only to the Party
Feedback on the process to this meeting
as feedback on the reporting and review process
as a basis for discussions on future development of the review process

15. Experiences and Feedback - Guidelines
The Emission Reporting Guidelines could be amended to better assist Parties in their reporting and to facilitate future in-depth reviews;
clear guidance regarding what criteria to review against (e.g. in order to be able to assess completeness).
an IIR is necessary for detailed review purposes and should be mandatory.
availability of relevant activity data is important, several options were discussed (but no conclusive suggestions).

16. Experiences and Feedback-Guidelines/Reporting Template
Comparability and source allocation:
Not enough clarity, Parties are allocating emissions to different sources
Transparency:
Lack of transparency especially in codes “Other”. Extensions?
Consistency and aggregations:
present mix of aggregated and detailed sectors
makes summaries for assessment purposes difficult
allows inconsistent reporting of aggregated emissions and increases the risk of errors

17. Experiences and Feedback – Guidebook
Suitable as reference for the pollutants covered in the review, but probably needs development for other pollutants

18. Experiences and Feedback – Stage 1&2 and value added from stage 3
Usefulness of stage 1&2 review
Very useful input to the detailed review. Recommended improvement of time-series test and more IEF comparisons
Value added from a stage 3 over stages 1&2
Ability to provide country-specific feedback and recommendations for prioritization and improvement
A deeper assessment of comparability; e.g. methodology, emission factors
Sharing of knowledge and good practice among the national experts participating in the review
For reviewed countries ... to be added

19. Experiences and feedback- Centralised Review
The centralized review is an efficient stage 3 model
11 reviewed countries too many
No firm recommendations for future reviews i.e. how often; possibilities to cycle between countries, sources, pollutants
Harmonisation with UNFCCC desirable but not possible to copy directly
LRTAP review process needs a more scientific approach and be directed towards policy needs (UNFCCC compliance based)
LRTAP review process should be sufficiently flexible to potentially focus on different issues in different years thus fulfilling the objective of improving the quality of emission data

20. Experiences and feedback
Review organisation and management
If review process becomes formalised, careful consideration is needed regarding organisation and management
Roles and responsibilities have to be defined for participating experts, for secretariat and administrative functions.
Timing issues and resource requirements
Timing, depends on future review focus.
Resource requirements ~ 10 days/expert, ~15 days/lead reviewer, ~30 days for secretariat, ?/participating country
Costs for traveling, accommodation, meeting facilities

21. Conclusions and next steps
Centralized review is a good model
Value added from a stage 3 over stages 1&2
Next steps
Scope and purpose of future reviews
Review guidance
Mandate, roles and responsibilities