CEIP activities 2018/2019

1. CEIP key activitiesFourth joint session of the Steering Body to EMEP and the Working Group on Effects10-14 September 2018, Geneva Katarina Mareckova, Melanie Tista, Robert Wankmüller, Sabine Schindlbacher, Marion Pinteris, Bernhard Ullrich

2. CEIP activities 2018/2019 2018-2019 workplanfor the implementation of the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (ECE/EB.AIR/140/Add.1, items 1.1.2.1, 1.1.2.2, 1.3.3, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4) Tasks set out in the informal document submitted to the Executive Body for the Convention at its thirty-seventh session, “Draft revised mandates for scientific task forces and centres under the Convention”.

3. CEIP Key Activities 2018(Summary) Standard activities (CEIP Mandate) • Processing and archiving of data reported by Parties • Maintenance and improvement of EMEP emission database (WebDab) • Review of inventory data (initial, in-depth) • Review of Adjustments / support EMEP • Maintenance and improvement of “Gridding tool” • Emission data sets for modellers (gap filling and gridding, documentation of the system) • Develop tests and perform checks of gridded data • Support to Parties (capacity building, online guidance, add hoc, trainings,…..) • Cooperation with EMEP centres and TFs, organisations (JRC, AMAP, EEA, EC, …) and other projects (CAM, NECD review,…) • Outreach and Publications of findings (review findings, technical reports, status reports, assessment reports …) EMEP WP 2018-2019 • Improvement of expert estimates and spatial distribution for selected countries • Spatial distribution (0.1x0.1 long-lat) for selected historical years • Support to UNECE secretariat and IC (compliance issues, adjustment review, add hoc..) • Assessment of BC emissions (cooperation with AMAP) • Improving quality of the EMEP emission inventory: comparisons with other data • Contribution to UNEP global mercury assessment in cooperation with AMAP (workplan item 1.1.4.2)

4. Status of reporting Present state of emission data for modelers ,Report of the Centre on Emission Inventories and ProjectionsECE/EB.AIR/GE.1/2018/7−ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2018/18 http://www.ceip.at/status_reporting/2018_submissions/ Interactive data viewers at: http://www.ceip.at/data_viewers/official_tableau/

5. Status of reporting

6. Status of reporting - emissions CEIP • 47 Parties (92 %) made (re-)submissions in 2018 • Main Pollutants: 47 Parties (Full time series: 37 Parties) • Main heavy metals: 45 Parties (Full time series: 36 Parties) • PMs: 47 Parties (Full time series: 38 Parties) • POPs: 44 Parties (Full time series: 35 Parties) • 43 Parties submitted an IIR • 40 Parties submitted Activity Data (Full time series: 34 Parties)

7. Status of reporting - emissions CEIP Persisting problems • Timeliness (!) • Format of activity data, EFs (!) • Completeness / non reporting • Consistency across years, recalculations • Transparency (IIRs)  See more in Status report and Inventory review report 2018

8. EECCA reporting 2018

9. BC reporting 2018 41 Parties (80%) reported BC 32 Parties full time series (at least 2000 onwards)

10. BC reporting 2018 2016 BC emissions

11. Initial review (S1 and S2) of inventories reported under CLRTAP in 2018 • Initial checks cover: timeliness, completeness, consistency (years, Parties, reporting obligations), indicators • All inventories submitted on time have been reviewed (S1 & S2) • Findings provided 1 March and 23 April in country reports http://www.ceip.at/review_results/review_results_2018/ • Summary in EEA&CEIP joint Inventory review report, Technical report 4/2018,Annexes in form of interactive data viewers http://www.ceip.at/review_results/review_reports/annexes2018/ • Assessment of IIRs - transparency and completeness – IIR Awards 2018 (TFEIP/EIONET meeting in Sofia) • CLRTAP inventories are not always considered priority by Parties – limited feedback to the questions of CEIP

12. Recalculations in 2018 (time series consistency) Countries with recalculations of more than ± 30% Difference of SOX (for the year 2005), PM2.5 (for the year 2005) and BC(for the year 2010) national total emissions as reported for the period 2007–2018 and 2015-2018, respectively http://www.ceip.at/review_results/review_reports/annexes2018/, Annexes A and G

13. Completeness EMEP East/West Main pollutants HMs and POPs

14. Share of GNFR sectors 2018, NOxexample s • Public power • Armenia 7 % • Azerbaijan 28% • France 3.5 % • Germany 22% • Turkey 43 % • Serbia 50% • Road transport • Armenia 84% • Azerbaijan 40% • France 58 % • Germany 35% • Turkey 16% CEIP • Agriculture • Ireland 28% • Denmark 16% • France 0.4 % • Germany 10%

15. IIR awards 2010- 2018 2014 Norway France Latvia Belgium Denmark Slovenia UK 2015 Denmark Portugal Canada Luxembourg Italy Turkey Switzerland 2010 France Germany Netherlands Croatia Cyprus 2011 Finland Estonia Austria Croatia Switzerland 2012 UK Germany Netherlands FYR Macedonia Ireland Denmark 2013 Finland Croatia Estonia Sweden Poland Spain Turkey 2018 Switzerland Germany Estonia Slovenia Bulgaria UK 2017 Austria Spain Slovakia Moldova Azerbaijan Hungary Latvia 2016 Germany Sweden Latvia Iceland Macedonia Lithuania Croatia

16. In-depth review (S3) process http://www.ceip.at/review_process/stage3_review_ae/ CEIP • History: 2 cycles • 2008 - 2013 , 44 countries reviewed • 2014 – 2017 ; 45 countries reviewed, 4 outstanding (Armenia, B&H, Montenegro, Finland) • 2018 ; 6 countries reviewed: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Finland, Ukraine, Moldova • System is resource demanding for EMEP and requires regular support of Parties • management (set-up of review teams, communication with Parties,…) • Website , DB, tools (data for reviewers) • Country reports (proofreading, editing,…) • ERTs (about 20-22 reviewers a year needed) • Reporting requirements /formats (UNECE Guidelines) does not really support review process (e.g. AD, EFS not in standardised formats, missing emissions per fuel,….) • CLRTAP inventories are not always considered priority by Parties – limited resources for national inventory teams to follow up recommendations of ERTs

17. R3 2018 Progress Questions/answers per sector / reviewer (11-52) Questions/answers per Party (max 60 ) • Review of 6 Parties completed • Up to 58 questions for a Party, 11 - 52 issues identified by reviewer • Rather limited/late feedback from countries • Revised review guidelines including calculation of TC tested, • RR template updated • Cooperation with review under NECD directive considered useful but does not resulted in reduced workload for ERT and /or CEIP

18. TC next / LR recommendations • The significance threshold was agreed at 2% in 2018 • Instructions to be elaborated and examples needed if this should become a standard part of the review • Possible options to examine for next years, if TC process is adopted for the CLRTAP review : • Option 1 : TC process to be managed mainly before S3 - stage 3 review (e.g. during S2: -> more time / more complete TCs , but difficulty of timing and voluntary resources. • Option 2 : TC process to be continued after the S3: -> more time for Party to respond to the PTC and TC, but difficulty of timing with the holiday period and voluntary resources needed. • Option 3 : Mainly focusing TC process during S3 (as this trial year): -> no need of further voluntary resources, no change in the timing/deadline, but limited TC investigations and no reasonable time for Party to react to TCs. • Option 4 : one of option 1-2-3 combined with a share of TC process with the NECD review : e.g. NECD review focusing on TC for EU MS, CLRTAP focusing on TC for non EU MS.

19. TC lessons learned (observations of LRs) • For some countries (generally not EU MS), there are many not estimated emissions, so it would be very time consuming for ERT to estimate emissions for most of all these missing categories in the frame of the TC process + identification of cases above the threshold. • New item in the review process /An additional task not easy to manage given the same deadline and time budget than before  • The time budget of CLRTAP review is rather limited and it might be difficult to extend voluntary effort for the CLRTAP review.

20. In depth review strategy 2019 - 2023 • Continue in-depth reviews keeping main principles as in cycles before and aim to limit overlap with review under NECD to the extent possible, streamlining of the process should be advantage for all • In-depth review 2018 – 2020 focus on non EU MS 6-8 Parties a year • EU MS might be included in the package if requested by IC or review teams • The NEW Review guidelines including guidance for technical corrections(as Annex) to be approved by EMEP SB meeting 2018 • 2019 (2020) evaluate experience from cooperation with EC (NECD review) and in cooperation with experienced reviewers propose strategy for next 3-5 years • There might be a need to harmonize the time schedule with NECD and UNFCCC reviews to limit burden on countries and reviewers

21. Nb. of Experts from individual Parties participated in review Nb. of Experts in ECE roster per country 25 Parties 99 experts in roster

22. Updated Proposal for in-depth review 2019-2023 Review 2018-2020 is focusing on non EU MS, Strategy for years 2021 – 2023 will be updated for EMEP SB meeting 2020 Red font indicates countries with irregular reporting of data, insufficient completeness and limited feedback to ERTs Selection of Parties to be reviewed in particular year is modified depending on submitted data, recommendations of review teams and EMEP

23. Technical reports published by CEIP in 2018 • Methodologiesappliedtothe CEIP GNFR gap-filling 2018. Part I: Main pollutantsandParticulate Matter (NOx, NMVOCs, SOx, NH3, CO, PM2.5, PM10, PMcoarse), Technical report CEIP 1/2018, • Methodologiesappliedtothe CEIP GNFR gap-filling 2018. Part II: Heavy Metals(Pb, Cd, Hg),Technical report CEIP 2/2018 • Methodologiesappliedtothe CEIP GNFR gap-filling 2018. Part III: Persistent organicpollutants (Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, Total polycyclicaromatichydrocarbons, Dioxin and Furan, Hexachlorobenzene, Polychlorinatedbiphenyls), Technical report CEIP 3/2018 • Inventory Review 2018. Review ofemissiondatareportedunderthe LRTAP Conventionand NEC Directive, Stage 1 and 2 review, Status ofgriddedand LPS data, Technical report CEIP 4/2018 • Methodologies applied to the technical review of emission data, Technical report CEIP 5/2018 • Documentation of the new EMEP gridding system, Technical report CEIP 6/2018 • 6 Stage 3 Country Reports, 3 Adjustment Country Reports • Emission chapter in Joint MSC-W & CCC & CEIP Report, Status report 20 : "Transboundary particulate matter, photo-oxidants, acidifying and eutrophying components" 18

24. CEIP Key Activities 2019(Summary) Standard activities (CEIP Mandate) • Processing and archiving of data reported by Parties • Maintenance and improvement of EMEP emission database (WebDab) • Review of inventory data (initial, in-depth) • Management of Adjustment review • Maintenance and improvement of “Gridding tool” • Emission data sets for modellers (gap filling and gridding, documentation of system) • Develop more tests and perform checks of gridded data • Support to Parties (capacity building, online guidance, add hoc, trainings,…..) • Cooperation with EMEP centres and TFs, organisations (JRC, AMAP, EEA, EC, …) and other projects (CAMS, NECD review,…) • Outreach and Publications of findings (review findings, technical reports, status reports, assessment reports …) • Further Improve gridded data (0.1x0.1 long-lat) for selected historical years /pollutants • Assessment of BC emissions cont. (cooperation with AMAP) • Support work on condensable and semi-volatile compounds as requested • Support to UNECE secretariat and IC (compliance issues, adjustment review, add hoc..)