1 / 26

Katarina Mareckova, Robert Wankmueller, Michael Gager TFEIP 2 May 2011, Stockholm

Review of emission data submitted under CLRTAP and NECD Reporting of Gridded emissions. Katarina Mareckova, Robert Wankmueller, Michael Gager TFEIP 2 May 2011, Stockholm. Content. Review process and review results 2011 Stage 1 & 2 Stage 3 centralised in-depth review Roster of experts

juana
Download Presentation

Katarina Mareckova, Robert Wankmueller, Michael Gager TFEIP 2 May 2011, Stockholm

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. Review of emission data submitted under CLRTAP and NECD Reporting of Gridded emissions Katarina Mareckova, Robert Wankmueller, Michael Gager TFEIP2 May 2011, Stockholm

  2. Content • Review process and review results 2011 • Stage 1 & 2 • Stage 3 centralised in-depth review • Roster of experts • Challenges • http://www.ceip.at/review-process/ • Emission data for modellers • Gridding for the future

  3. Review 2011 http://www.ceip.at/review-process/ • Review Guidelines (EB.AIR/GE.1/2007/16)Methods and procedures for the technical review of air pollutant emission inventories reported under the Convention and its protocols • Stage 1 - automated tests, Country reports posted on the web during March http://www.ceip.at/review-process/review-2011/review-reports-2011/ • Stage 2 - S&A country reports posted 31 May • Summary of findings 2011/ Aug 2011 Technical report Inventory review 2010 http://www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/emep/pdf/2010/InvRevRept2010.pdf

  4. Reporting of inventories under the CLRTAP in 2011 http://www.ceip.at/emission-data-webdab/submissions-under-clrtap/201-submissions/ 41(80%) submissions from 51 Parties (43 in 2010), 34 Parties within deadline, 12 resubmissions 27 IIRs (30 in 2010), 33 Parties reported AD – significant improvement comparing to 2009 7 Parties no data No data from: Iceland, Luxembourg, Malta, Russian F., Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Bi&H

  5. Completeness / under CLRTAP • Pollutants • Main pollutants: 41 • PM: 34 • POPs (Diox, PAHs, HCB, PCBs): 36 • Cd,Hg, Pb : 35 • Additional HMs: 30 • Projections: 19 (3 WaM) , Activity 14 (1 WaM) • Gridded data: 3 • LPS: 5

  6. Reporting under the NECD 2010 • 26 MS reported inventories under NECD 24 MS reported on time 13 MS resubmitted data • Detailed information provided in NECD status report 2010 Maltano data

  7. Share of E-PRTR 2008 on CLRTAP /UNFCCC totals 2008

  8. Share of E-PRTR 2008 on CLRTAP totals 2008 (HMs , POPs)

  9. Stage 3 in-depth review

  10. Stage 3 in-depth centralized review • Centralized review of quantitative and qualitative information of selected inventories by pollutant, country or sector, as in the work plan agreed by the EMEP Executive Body • The main objectives for the reviews are: • to complement the reporting guidelines in supporting Parties to compile and submit high quality inventories • to support Parties in meeting their reporting obligations under the Protocols • to increase policymakers’ confidence in the data used for air pollution modelling • The aim is to check in detail the inventories of each Party at least once every five years (review approximately 10 Parties annually) • 2 expert review teams (ERT) • ERT optimaly: LR+ generalist + 8 sectoral experts

  11. Stage 3 in-depth centralized review Joint activity of EMEP and EEA • CEIP • Coordination of the whole process • Technical support of ERT • Communication with Parties • Publication of final reports • CEIP/TFEIP/EEA • Guidance for reviewers, transcripts and templates for review reports • www.ceip.at

  12. Plan for stage 3 in-depth reviews */ Did not submit a complete emission inventory nor/or did not submit an IIR during the 2008, 2009, 2010 reporting rounds. **/ Did not submit neither inventory data in NFR nor an IIR for the last three reporting rounds. Participation of the United States of America and Canada in the in-depth review process of emission inventories would require clarification.

  13. Stage 3 - Experience 2010 • Review benefits • Motivate experts to improve their own inventories • Provides a level of training on priorities for enhancing TCCCA of inventories • Builds an enthusiastic network of motivated and informed experts • In general good interaction with Parties • Most Parties responded on time and comprehensive • Russia – NIR not provided , limited explanatory information after the review week • In all inventories identified areas for improvement • The role of lead reviewer is very important – the effort 15- 20 days

  14. Stage 3 - Experience 2010 • Difficulties arise if Parties has to be reviewed as well as providing reviewers to the ERT • Time schedule – ERT needs to send questions before review week. Constraints - Reports are finalized during holiday season. • The values for Parties providing reviewers is trough internal qualification or gaining additional expertise • Not complete review teams

  15. Roster of emission experts • 17 Parties to the Convention (out of 51) have nominated experts to the roster • Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the European Community, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom • the roster currently contains a total of 50 inventory experts (9 more comparing to 2008) • the nominated experts are suitably qualified to review all emission sectors as well as general inventory issues, such as good practice, uncertainties, and quality assessment and quality control (QA/QC)

  16. Review teams 2011 • 2 teams • 27 experts invited so far • 16 accepted invitation (EU, FRA, GER, ITA, IRL, LAT, KAZ, NL, NOR, CH) • 2 still open • LR – Kristina Saarinen (Fin) and Kevin Hausmann (DE) • needed : waste, industry, agro?, generalist? • Review experts (10-15d): • Preparatory work and follow up activities • Review the inventory and complete transcripts and relevant chapters • LR – coordination of the team, compilation of the reports, assistance to less experienced reviewers

  17. Challenges • The limited number of review experts constitutes serious constraint to the successful conducting of the reviews • Not complete inventories resp. not provided NIRs limits the review • Interaction with Parties • Participation of experts from EECCA and South-East European countries in the review process

  18. Gridded emissions now and in the future

  19. Reporting of gridded emissions • Current system • 50x50kmEMEP grid (polar stereographic projections) • 11 SNAP sectors + national totals • Reporting of LPS • 2009Reporting Guidelines (ECE/EB.AIR/97): • 50x50km EMEP grid, • 21 GNFR sectors • Reporting of LPS

  20. Reporting of gridded emissions - modellers needs • Finer spatial resolution of emission data • If EMEP stereographic projection than 10x10 km (or 20 x 20 km) • Longitude/Latitude projection would be more appropriate to connect modelling at global and regional scales (e.g. 0.2 x 0.2 degree ) • Source categories no more than 2 or 4 additional categories to SNAP11limits - emission characteristics for new categories (seasonality, height distribution, VOC speciation, etc.) • include specific sector associated with shipping emissions

  21. Currentandsuggestednewdomainborders FigureprovidedbyMSC-E 30°N-82°N, 30°W-90°E

  22. GNFR Key categories 2011

  23. GNFR Key categories

  24. Aggregation of GNFR to be used in models (proposal)

More Related