1 / 21

Experiences from the 2006 Stage 3 trial centralised review

Experiences from the 2006 Stage 3 trial centralised review. Karin Kindbom 16 th meeting of the Task Force on Emission Inventories and Projections Expert Panel on Review 14 June 2006, Amersfoort, The Netherlands. Why an in-depth review?.

glinda
Download Presentation

Experiences from the 2006 Stage 3 trial centralised 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. Experiences from the 2006 Stage 3 trial centralised review Karin Kindbom 16th meeting of the Task Force on Emission Inventories and Projections Expert Panel on Review 14 June 2006, Amersfoort, The Netherlands

  2. Why an in-depth review? • In-depth (stage 3) review builds on results from stages 1 & 2, aim at assessing full quality of inventories: Transparency, Completeness, Consistency, Comparability and Accuracy • Makes full use of information in IIRs to assess inventory quality and provide feedback to the TF Inventory Improvement Programme • A lever for resources for inventory improvement • Increases confidence in the quality of reported data

  3. Objectives of the trial stage 3 review • To gain experience with in-depth review within the framework of the LRTAP Convention • Test and clarify procedures and scope for a formal third stage review • for Parties to be reviewed • for Convention secretariat to support review process • for the TF and its expert panel on review to overview review process in relation to stage 1 and stage 2 review activities already in place

  4. Objectives of trial stage 3 review, cont. • To assess the value of the review process in improving: • Quality of inventories and confidence in the quality of inventories • Exchange of inventorying experience and expertise between Parties • Capacity building • Assess the usefulness of the present Emission Reporting Guidelines (ECE/EB.AIR/80, Air Pollution Studies series, No. 15) and the Emission Inventory Guidebook (EEA, 2005) for detailed review purposes

  5. Objectivesof trial stage 3 review, cont. • evaluate the perceived value added from a stage 3 review over stages 1&2; • evaluate if the centralized review is an efficient stage 3 model; • estimate resource requirements; • discuss timing issues; • consider organisation and management issues.

  6. Trial centralised review management • Took place from 27th of February to 3rd of March 2006 at EEA in Copenhagen. • Was planned and coordinated by the TFEIP Expert Panel on Review in cooperation with ETC-ACC. • 9 national experts performed the review, of which two were lead reviewers • 11 countries´ inventory submissions were reviewed • A trial review secretariat of 3 persons (Task Force, ETC-ACC and EMEP MSC-W).

  7. Trial centralised review planning process • Sept-Oct 2005: TFEIP agreement to perform the trial review and invitation to countries to participate; • 11-12 Jan 2006: Planning meeting in Gothenburg; • 27th Jan 2006: Review material and information distributed to review experts; • 27 Jan - 27 Feb: Experts start to get acquainted and work with review material; • 27 Feb - 3 Mar: Review week in Copenhagen; • Lead reviewers edit draft review reports and send back to experts and review secretariat; • Review experts and review secretariat approve of the draft reports;

  8. Trial centralised review planning process, cont. • Draft reports sent by review secretariat to the individual country for comments and clarifications; • Comments on reports from countries to review secretariat. Feedback from countries on the review process usefulness and timing; • Clarifications of report comments from countries with Review Experts via review secretariat; • Lead reviewers and review secretariat finalise review reports and send to countries; • 14th of June: Reporting back on experiences to the Task Force • 15th July: Review Secretariat produce a trial stage 3 review chapter for the annual review report.

  9. Austria Belarus Belgium Cyprus the Czech Republic Denmark Finland Slovakia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Volunteering countries reviewed

  10. Data reviewed • Data in the NFR format • Data from submission 2005 • The pollutants SO2, NOX, NMVOC and NH3 • The time period 1980-2003 • Data for the source sectors • Energy • Industrial processes and solvent use • Agriculture

  11. Country specific review material • Information from 2005 submissions, CLRTAP/NEC • IIR, Informative Inventory Report • Officially reported data • Country specific results from review stages 1 & 2 • Answers to questions sent to countries during the review week • Country comments and clarifications on review reports

  12. Supporting review material • Guidelines • UNECE, 2002. Emission Reporting Guidelines • Link to EMEP/CORINAIR Guidebook • Guidebook Chapter on Good Practice Guidance • Protocol reporting requirements by country • Review mandate and guidance • Draft methods and procedures for the technical review of air pollutant emission inventories reported under the Convention and its protocols (Annex III of EB.AIR/GE.1/2005/7) • Guidance for Reviewers (draft, prepared for this trial centralized review).

  13. Trial review roles and responsibilities • Expert review team • Review and assess country submissions regarding Transparency, Completeness, Consistency, Comparability, Accuracy, and in relation to Guidelines. • Lead reviewers • Manage and monitor day to day work during review week • Edit draft and final review reports in cooperation with secretariat • Secretariat • Collate review material and provide to experts • Communication with expert review team and countries • Finalisation of review reports in co-operation with lead reviewers

  14. Trial centralised review: outputs • Individual review conclusions and recommendations for each participating Party • communicated back only to the Party • Feedback on the process to this meeting • as feedback on the reporting and review process • as a basis for discussions on future development of the review process

  15. Experiences and Feedback - Guidelines • The Emission Reporting Guidelines could be amended to better assist Parties in their reporting and to facilitate future in-depth reviews; • clear guidance regarding what criteria to review against (e.g. in order to be able to assess completeness). • an IIR is necessary for detailed review purposes and should be mandatory. • availability of relevant activity data is important, several options were discussed (but no conclusive suggestions).

  16. Experiences and Feedback-Guidelines/ReportingTemplate • Comparability and source allocation: • Not enough clarity, Parties are allocating emissions to different sources • Transparency: • Lack of transparency especially in codes “Other”. Extensions? • Consistency and aggregations: • present mix of aggregated and detailed sectors • makes summaries for assessment purposes difficult • allows inconsistent reporting of aggregated emissions and increases the risk of errors

  17. Experiences and Feedback – Guidebook • Guidebook • Suitable as reference for the pollutants covered in the review, but probably needs development for other pollutants

  18. Experiences and Feedback – Stage 1&2and value added from stage 3 • Usefulness of stage 1&2 review • Very useful input to the detailed review. Recommended improvement of time-series test and more IEF comparisons • Value added from a stage 3 over stages 1&2 • Ability to provide country-specific feedback and recommendations for prioritization and improvement • A deeper assessment of comparability; e.g. methodology, emission factors • Sharing of knowledge and good practice among the national experts participating in the review • For reviewed countries ... to be added

  19. Experiences and feedback- Centralised Review • The centralized review is an efficient stage 3 model • 11 reviewed countries too many • No firm recommendations for future reviews i.e. how often; possibilities to cycle between countries, sources, pollutants • Harmonisation with UNFCCC desirable but not possible to copy directly • LRTAP review process needs a more scientific approach and be directed towards policy needs (UNFCCC compliance based) • LRTAP review process should be sufficiently flexible to potentially focus on different issues in different years thus fulfilling the objective of improving the quality of emission data

  20. Experiences and feedback • Review organisation and management • If review process becomes formalised, careful consideration is needed regarding organisation and management • Roles and responsibilities have to be defined for participating experts, for secretariat and administrative functions. • Timing issues and resource requirements • Timing, depends on future review focus. • Resource requirements ~ 10 days/expert, ~15 days/lead reviewer, ~30 days for secretariat, ?/participating country • Costs for traveling, accommodation, meeting facilities

  21. Conclusions and next steps • Centralized review is a good model • Value added from a stage 3 over stages 1&2 Next steps • Scope and purpose of future reviews • Review guidance • Mandate, roles and responsibilities

More Related