1. Sweden’s Experience from the Stage 3 in-Depth Review
Sweden’s Experience from the Stage 3 in-Depth Review
Hakam Al Hanbali
The Swedish EPA
Naturvårdsverket | Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

2. Time Plan & Steps in the Stage 3 Review Process
Time Plan & Steps in the Stage 3 Review Process
Sweden volunteered for the Stage 3 reviews early 2008.
Late September officially invited to the review.
Conducted during 6-10 Oct 2008, in Copenhagen.
Draft report received on 19 December 2008.
Final in-depth review report finalized on 30 March 2009.
Naturvårdsverket | Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

3. Material for the Review Process
Material for the Review Process
The review covered Sweden’s IIR (NOx, CO, NMVOC, SOx, NH3, TSP, PM10 and PM2.5, Pb, Cd, Hg, Dioxin and PAH) for the time series years
All sectors have been included during the review process except the LULUCF-sector.
Naturvårdsverket | Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

4.
Key Review Findings
”The CLRTAP inventory submitted by Sweden appears to be of a good quality and is in general well documented in the informative inventory report (IIR)”.
”The ERT recognizes the level of effort undertaken by Sweden in improving an inventory with a significant level of detail to undertake a detailed review”.
”The inventory for Sweden is comparable with those of other countries as defined in the EMEP/UNECE reporting guidelines”.
Naturvårdsverket | Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

5. Examples of Recommendations for Improvements
Examples of Recommendations for Improvements
”The ERT encourages Sweden to report dairy cows separately, rather than allocating them to other cattle, as activity data is available for dairy cattle”.
”Sweden provides a very detailed description of the recalculations performed, but not all recalculations have been quantified. The ERT encourages Sweden to provide a full quantification of recalculations in their IIR”.
”The ERT encourages Sweden to explain in its IIR the reason for not calculating emissions of other pollutants from garden burning, landfill burning (only PAH and particles are estimated) and to attempt to calculate emissions for future submissions”.
Naturvårdsverket | Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

6.
Sweden’s Experience
The centralized review is a time-demanding process (Sept March 2009).
Although it was a tough review week for the EPA and our experts, the ERT has made an excellent work and that was reflected by the quality of the recommendations that they have made.
There was a good understanding between the Swedish EPA and the ERT during the review process and that was reflected by the timely response for most questions except for a few questions on Agriculture sector.
The findings and recommendations provided by the ERT will certainly promote the quality of future reporting.
Naturvårdsverket | Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

7. Link to the in-depth review report_Sweden
Naturvårdsverket | Swedish Environmental Protection Agency