1 / 15

Recommendations from the Stage 3 Trial Review

Read about the experiences, recommendations, and outcomes from the Stage 3 trial review of emission inventories. Gain valuable insights into procedures, scope, and management for future reviews.

fmichael
Download Presentation

Recommendations from the Stage 3 Trial Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Recommendations from the Stage 3 Trial Review Karin Kindbom 7th Joint TFEIP & EIONET meeting 31 October-2 November, Thessaloniki, Greece

  2. Outline • What has been done? • Stage 3 review experiences and discussions from Review Expert Panel meeting in Amersfoort, June 2006 (16th TFEIP meeting) • Recommendations

  3. What has been done so far? • A trial stage 3 centralised review was agreed at the 6th joint TFEIP/EIONET meeting in Rovaniemi, Finland, October 2005. Parties were asked to voluntarily take part. • The trial centralised review was performed in late February 2006. • Review Expert Panel meeting in Amersfoort, June 2006, discussing experiences from the trial centralised review. • The trial review and experiences are documented in Chapter 4 of “Inventory review 2006”, EMEP Technical Report MSC-W 1/2006.

  4. Overall objective of the trial stage 3 review • To gain experience with in-depth review within the framework of the LRTAP Convention; • assess the usefulness of the present Guidelines and the Emission Inventory Guidebook • assess value added from a stage 3 review over stages 1&2 • test and clarify procedures, scope and management

  5. Trial centralised review: outputs • Individual review conclusions and recommendations for each participating Party • communicated back only to the Party • Feedback on the process to theTask Force • as feedback on the reporting and review process • as a basis for discussions on future development of the review process • The work was carried out with ETC-ACC support

  6. Experiences and discussions: Usefulness of Guidelines for review purposes • Clear guidance regarding what criteria to review against necessary in order to be able to assess completeness. • An IIR is necessary for review purposes and should be made mandatory; level of detail? • needs to suit review and provide transparency • everything cannot be in IIR • if more info in the IIR, review will provide better feedback • Activity data that can be used in verifying emissions should be made available. • A number of recommendations for the reporting template to improve the comparability, transparency and consistency of data reported by countries.

  7. Experiences and discussions: Usefulness of Guidebook for review purposes • GB discussion extensive • for key categories and pollutants GB generally OK for review • not strong enough, inadequate for review purposes for some pollutants/categories • need clear default methods to review against • need to distinguish need for inventory compilers and inventory reviewers • useful for completeness, i.e. to identify sources of pollutants • is it possible to have GB suited both for compliance and improvement?

  8. Recommendations: Guidelines and Guidebook • A number of items identified from the review as problematic already fed into: • the Guidelines revision process, • the planned Guidebook improvement.

  9. Experiences and discussions: Usefulness of stage 1&2, value added from stage 3 • Stage 1&2 review very useful input to the detailed review and an excellent way of giving feedback to countries. • A number of benefits from participating in a Stage 3 review, for the countries being reviewed and for the experts participating in the review. • Stage 3 provides country specific feedback and recommendations to help in prioritisation and inventory improvement, • A deeper assessment of comparability possible in Stage 3 review, e.g. methodologies and emission factors used.

  10. Recommendation: Review stages • Review Stages 1, 2 and 3 are all valuable and useful and should be retained

  11. Experiences and discussions: Purpose of stage 3 review • Objective of the review must be clear • validation (good enough, GL) • verification (numbers make sense?) • Expectations on individual review reports/review process • to be used as lever for resources • help prioritising funding/inventory improvement • sharing of best practice and information across countries

  12. Experiences and discussions: Procedures, scope and management • Centralised review is an efficient stage 3 model • Harmonisation with UNFCCC desirable but not possible to copy directly • LRTAP review process should be flexible enough to potentially focus on different issues in different years • Mandate, roles and responsibilities to be defined for participating experts, for secretariat and administrative functions. • Mandate and procedures for communication; • for parties involved, which parties involved? • relation to policy processes? • Need for collaboration Convention/EU

  13. Experiences and discussions: Timing and resource requirements • Timing and resource requirements depend on future review scope and focus. • Once established resource requirements might be lower. • Review process must be compatible with existing flow, not impose time consuming process.

  14. Recommendation: Purpose, procedures, scope and management • Further work is needed

  15. Recommended future steps • To develop structure for Stage 3 review during 2007, not perform another stage 3 review; • Methods and Procedures document lays down stage 3 review mandate, but scope is not elaborated • aim for end-2007, a more formal proposal for stage 3 review • an idea of resources needed to report to SB, output could be to perform review in 2008 • could consider providing a series of options to SB for their selection based on available resources

More Related