1. Task Force on Emission Inventories and Projections Revision of LRTAP Emission Reporting Guidelines

2. Content Reasons for revising the current (2009) Reporting Guidelines General principles in the revision process Timing and process Open questions requiring TFEIP clarification (where significant revisions are proposed to the current Guidelines) General discussion – other proposed changes Introduction to proposed changes to reporting templates – annexes and NFR changes (CEIP)

3. Reasons for updating the 2009 Reporting Guidelines Implement recent changes arising from revision of LRTAP protocols: –Gothenburg (2012) (e.g. mandatory IIR and PM 2.5 reporting, voluntary BC reporting, adjustments etc) –Heavy metals (2012) –POPs (2009 - PCBs) Implement changes agreed to the EMEP grid by the Executive Body (2012) – shift to long/lat projection and 0.1 o x 0.1 o resolution Ensure continued alignment with forthcoming UNFCCC/IPCC changes for post-Kyoto CP1 (note: still ‘proposed’) Simplify current text (e.g. definitions brought together) and to correct errors in the existing Guidelines

4. General principles in the revision process Changes to text only where necessary New reporting requirements should be limited to the politically- agreed Protocol changes. We cannot re-write agreed definitions or requirements. Ensure continued alignment with new UNFCCC definitions on notation keys, TCCCA, and general CRF/NFR alignment

5. General principles for the revision process TFEIP’s role in the revision process: –To clarify the technical aspects & requirements related to the proposed changes to reporting –Can offer a (strong?!) opinion to the EMEP Steering Body on other aspects – e.g. removal of non-mandatory pollutants from the reporting requirements, changes to reporting deadlines etc. –Cannot decide on political issues such as compliance e.g. fuel sold/fuel used, how international emissions should be accounted for etc.

6. Proposed timing and future process 1.TFEIP/EIONET meeting – feedback on changes to text and annexes – especially proposed changes to NFR structure 2.Written comments to TFEIP chairs and CEIP by 30 May 3.Updated draft of Guidelines and Annexes ready by 15 Jun – distributed to ad-hoc ‘working group’ and EMEP centers for comments. Comments by 30 June 4.Legal check of Reporting Guidelines text 5.Finalisation of draft Guidelines and Annexes in July, submitted to EMEP SB 6.Discussion and subsequent amendments after EMEP SB 7.Final legal check, presented to Executive Body in Dec 2013 (NFR changes will need to await UNFCCC COP decisions) 8.Translated and published by UNECE/CEIP in 2014 for implementation 2015 onwards

7. Open questions - TCCCA Paragraph 4: Updated definitions of TCCCA criteria from the Revised UNFCCC Reporting Guidelines (Decision 15/CP.17). does the TFEIP agree with the use of the (slightly modified) updated UNFCCC TCCCA criteria?

8. Open questions - substances Paragraph 6. Substances for mandatory reporting –Sulphur dioxide - not sulphur oxides as previously (awaiting legal clarification) –PM 2.5 and PM 10 (but propose removal of TSP) –Carbon monoxide (EB Decision 2002/10 – but decision needs updating e.g. to remove many old POPs, TSP etc) –Removal of all additional heavy metals (As, Cr, Cu, Ni, Se, Zn – not mandatory in Decision 2010/2). Who are the users of this data? Not EMEP Paragraph 7. Voluntary reporting –Black carbon –(could include additional heavy metals here if not deleted) Are the correct substances included? Are the various substance definitions sufficient?

9. Open questions - Large Point Sources (LPS) Paragraph 8. Pollutants and thresholds –PCB added. Reporting threshold same as E-PRTR (consistent with other substances) –Paragraph 29. “Differences of 10% between LPS data reported to LRTAP and elsewhere should be commented upon in the IIR”. (Needed? Threshold too low?) Should BC be added? e.g. as a fraction of PM 2.5 ? Should current general references to E-PRTR be replaced by references to the PRTR (Kiev) Protocol ? Is the list of LPS substances suitable for EMEP purposes? Is reporting of all mandatory inventory pollutants required? Should reporting of stack heights be required if such information is not being used by the EMEP centres? (For EU + other countries E-PRTR data is then sufficient for LRTAP purposes)

10. Open questions - Notation keys Paragraph 11. Notation keys and definitions –Updated definitions of notation keys added from the Revised UNFCCC Reporting Guidelines (Decision 15/CP.17 ) Does the TFEIP agree with the use of the updated UNFCCC definitions? The definition of NE by UNFCCC is significantly different than currently. The main change is to introduce a threshold of ‘significance’. Is there support within TFEIP to follow the same ‘significance’ approach as under UNFCCC for Annex I Parties? If so, is the proposed threshold (0.05%) suitable? Given the typically higher uncertainties of air pollutant emissions compared to GHGs, would a higher threshold be more appropriate?

11. Open questions - Methods General –There is a proposal to change many of the current ‘shoulds’ to ‘shalls’ to strengthen the reporting requirements, and improve clarity on expectations from Parties. (Protocol legal aspects need to be considered) Are there instances where the proposed ‘shalls’ are considered inappropriate? Paragraph 30. Key categories –Proposal to delete requirement to perform key category analysis on ‘base year’ inventory (i.e. perform on just the latest year) Is the proposal supported?

12. Open questions - Reporting Years for emission inventory reporting –Change of first year of mandatory reporting from 1980 to 1990 for main pollutants, HMs and POPs, as well as the reference year where applicable for Parties. –PM 2.5 and PM10, and where available BC emissions, shall be reported from 2000 onward –Parties may voluntarily report earlier years Should PM and BC emissions also be reported from 1990 as for the other pollutants?

13. Open questions - Reporting Reporting deadlines. EMEP proposes changes to the reporting deadlines. –Emission inventories and projections from 15 Feb to 1 Feb (with a 2 week resubmission ‘window’). –Gridded data and LPS data from 1 Mar to 15 Feb –IIR same date – 15 March Does TFEIP agree? There is presently a 3 week re-submission ‘window’. This could be deleted and the original reporting deadlines kept? No submissions after the reporting deadline would be accepted.

14. Open questions - Reporting Reporting formats. –Use of the latest reporting template becomes mandatory. –Data submitted in old or incorrect templates will not be accepted by CEIP – Parties will have to resubmit in the correct template. –A transitional period (1-2 years?) will give Parties flexibility to change to the new template. –This reduces resource requirements for CEIP – much unnecessary time is presently spent by CEIP converting old data formats to NFR09. It also aligns CLRTAP with standard practices under UNFCCC for GHG inventory reporting by Annex I parties. Does TFEIP agree?

15. Open questions - Reporting Reporting frequencies i. Annual reporting: –Emission inventories (incl. activity data) of mandatory pollutants, and where available BC (and additional HMs?) –‘Latest available’ projections for years 2020, 2025, 2030 and where available 2040 and 2050 (for substances with ceilings/reduction commitments and BC only). Includes underlying projection parameters. –Informative inventory report (IIR) Does TFEIP agree? Should we add the requirement to annually report full time series of data (i.e. 1990 to X-2 for main pollutants etc) to improve time- series consistency and also to harmonise with UNFCCC practices? ‘Latest available’ projections – is a stronger requirement needed to ensure projections are also regularly updated? Projections of other substances? (HMs, POPs?)

16. Open questions - Reporting Reporting frequencies i. Five yearly: –Gridded data –LPS data –For all mandatory substances and BC where available for gridded data Should this shift to a more frequent reporting requirement? Every two years?

17. General questions Is further clarification required in the Guidelines on accounting of: –Intentionally vs. unintentionally produced emissions (e.g. accidental emissions, fires etc) –Anthropogenic vs. non-anthropogenic (e.g. agricultural crop emissions of NMVOCs) –Paragraph 36. Is the text on adjustments satisfactory? – given separate guidance has been developed and agreed to by the Executive Body (i.e. we should not repeat information available in other official documents but instead refer to it)

18. Other questions, requests (?)