1. 1 Planning of the Stage 3 In-depth Review 2008 Joint TFEIP/EIONET air emissions meeting Tallinn, 26-27 May 2008 Martin Adams Expert Panel on Review European Environment Agency

2. 2 Stage 3 review - 2008 Report of the Executive Body meeting – Dec 2007 (ECE/EB.AIR/91.corr): (m)Approved methods and procedures for the emission inventory reviews, including the stage 3 in-depth reviews, and encouraged Parties to nominate experts for the roster of review experts and to volunteer for stage 3 reviews in 2008;

3. 3 Which Parties will be reviewed?  In 2008, a Stage 3 review will be performed on inventories from volunteering Parties  From 2009, Stage 3 reviews will be mandatory (5 Parties per review team will be proposed by CEIP to the EMEP SB). The Implementation Committee or Executive Body may also request a review of an individual Party  Parties will be reviewed on a rolling basis  Offers by Parties who would like their inventories to be reviewed this year are still welcomed.

4. 4 Who will do the reviewing?  The UNECE, in cooperation with CEIP and EEA, has extended an invitation to LRTAP Convention parties to nominate experts to a roster of experts  Reviewers and lead reviewers will be selected by CEIP from the roster each year and invited to participate in that year’s review  To date 32+ nominations have been received  More nominations from all countries are encouraged! For experts who require funding in order to participate, this is being investigated  Please contact CEIP or Convention secretariat for further information on the nomination process

5. 5 Guidance for reviewers  A separate document presenting general guidance to reviewers has been prepared & circulated as a meeting document  Draws heavily upon the agreed ‘Methods and Procedures’ document and corresponding IPCC reviewer guidelines to encourage harmonisation of review approaches  It is an informal (TFEIP) document and so can be readily updated drawing from the Stage 3 review experiences

6. 6 Review reports  An expert review team will produce a review report for each country reviewed.  Reports will be no more than 10 pages, focussing on strengths and identified problems, plus an overall appraisal of quality and reliability, trends, EFs etc and adherence to the reporting guidelines and Guidebook  The report will be in 2 parts:  Part 1: Key review findings  Part 2: Recommendations to the Party

7. 7 Part 1: Key review findings  Draft sent to the designated emission expert of Party.  The final version will be sent to the Party’s representative to the EB and the Implementation Committee of the Convention (only for the pollutants covered by protocols which are in force for the respective Party)  A one-page summary including assessment of mandatory reporting requirements, timeliness, formats, completed tables  Key issues related to data quality including: transparency, appropriate use of methods, major issues concerned with completeness, trends, inconsistencies etc

8. 8 Part 2: Recommendations to Party  Sent to only the designated emission expert of Party.  Comments on:  Inventory system and QA/QC recommendations (1 page)  Sector specific recommendations for inventory improvements (1 page each): a)Energy and transport b)Industrial processes and solvents, other products’ use, waste c)Agriculture

9. 9 Timing  Some issues already identified concerning publication of the reports on the EMEP website as outlined in the Methods and Procedures document: 1.Draft review reports prepared within 6 weeks of review 2.Following editing, Party’s shall have 4 weeks to comment and respond should they wish. 3.Comments incorporated by the review team within 6 weeks 4.Reports sent to Parties designated emissions expert, Implementation committee etc  “Published on the EMEP website after approval by the Steering Body” (annual Sept meeting)

10. 10 Timing  Review to report finalisation 16 weeks.  So a review in September means reports will be finalised January of the following year. Publication only after approval by September EMEP SB meeting is 12 months from the date of review  Options that the review reports can instead be endorsed by the EMEP Bureau (through a delegated responsibility from the EB) will be investigated.

11. 11 Templates for reviewers ……

12. 12 www.eea.europa.eumartin.adams@eea.europa.eu European Environment Agency