70 likes | 83 Views
Revised emission reporting Guidelines – Projection issues. Kristin Rypdal, TFEIP chair. Purpose of revision. Meet evolving needs for data for EMEP and other Bodies of the Convention Better transparency
E N D
Revised emission reporting Guidelines – Projection issues Kristin Rypdal, TFEIP chair
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
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
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
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?
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
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?