1. Revised emission reporting Guidelines – Projection issues
Kristin Rypdal, TFEIP chair

2. Purpose of revision
Meet evolving needs for data for EMEP and other Bodies of the Convention
Better transparency
Harmonisation of reporting requirements between NEC as well as other requirements (UNFCCC, EU Monitoring Mechanism etc.)
More data, but maybe less relevant
Close collaboration with EEA

3. Plan Technical consideration by TFEIP in June
Progress report to EMEP SB in September, clarification of unresolved issues
Flag policy issues to WGSR
Recommendations from TFEIP in early November
NEC harmonisation if necessary
Adoption by EMEP SB in 2007
Comments and input from TFIAM will be brought forward
Draft text and tables available on the TFEIP web site
TFEIP experts or EMEP SB representatives

4. Overview of changes relevant for projections
Target years for projections are 2025 and 2030 (in addition to 2010, 2015 and 2020)
Projections are to be reported for PM2.5 and PM10 (in addition to SO2, NOx, NH3 and NMVOC)
National projection parameters (activity data and emissions) are made consistent with EU GHG Monitoring Mechanism
Projection parameters for integrated assessment modelling is left open

5. Issues
Terminology
The Convention is using Current Legislation and Current Reduction Plans
While NEC is using With Measures and With Additional Measures
Does this mean the same thing? Is there a potential for harmonisation of terminologies? Should these be better defined in an Annex to the Guidelines or elsewhere?
Should the EU MM tables be modified to accommodate air pollution needs?
Would imply an additional burden?
Some key parameters only?

6. Issues (cont.)
What scenarios should be reported (BAU, with measures/ with additional measures)?
Can reporting requirements be met through submission of copies of NEC report?
Should the Informative Inventory Report be used to report documentation of national projections?
If yes, what should the scope and content of such documentation be?
What would be its purpose?
Is additional transparency needed to take into account differences between RAINS and reported emissions/projections

7. Data for RAINS
”Parties should report additional projected activity data suitable for integrated assessment modelling when decided by the EMEP SB. The EMEP SB will decide the format for reporting these data”
Is national consultations undertaken by IIASA a better way of reporting such data than using the guidelines and predefined formats?
Should these consultations be explicitely mentioned?
Should tabular information be offered in addition?
Is this flexible timing (to meet policy needs) adequate?