1 / 22

Review process 2010

Review process 2010. Katarina Mareckova, Robert Wankmueller CEIP - Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections TFEIP Larnaca ,10 May 2010. Main objective of the review.

arty
Télécharger la présentation

Review process 2010

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 process 2010 Katarina Mareckova, Robert Wankmueller CEIP - Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections TFEIP Larnaca ,10 May 2010

  2. Main objective of the review • The technical review of national inventories will check and assess Parties' data submissions with a view to improve the quality of emission data and associated information reported to the Convention. • The review also seeks to achieve acommon approach to prioritizing and monitoring inventory improvements under the Convention with those of other organizations with similar interests such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the European Union National Emission Ceilings (NEC) Directive. • The review of data reported under CLRTAP is performed jointly with those reported under the amended  National Emissions Ceilings Directive (2001/81/EC) and the process is supported by the European Environment Agency (EEA). 

  3. Process • To standardize review process, TFEIP elaborated review guidelinesMethods and procedures for the technical review of air pollutant emission inventories reported under the Convention and its protocols  EB.AIR/GE.1/2007/16. • The three stages of the annual technical review, covering quantitative and qualitative aspects of data, are: • Stage 1: An initial check of submissions for timeliness, format and completeness; • Stage 2: A synthesis and assessment of all national submissions with respect to consistency and comparability of data with recommendations for data quality improvement; • Stage 3: In-depth reviews of selected inventories, by pollutant, country or sector, as in the work plan agreed by the Executive Body • At each stage, Parties have the opportunity to clarify issues or provide additional information. • Results are publicly available at www.ceip.at

  4. Stage 1 • Responsibility with CEIP • Automated test of submitted inventories (NFR tables) checking: • timeliness, • completeness (separately for 1980-89, 1990-99, 2000-08) • formats • LPS and gridded data • Results providedin country Status reports (on line - http://www.ceip.at/review-process/review-2010/review-results-2010/ )

  5. Stage 2 • More detailed checks of comparability and consistency, performed jointly with EEA • trends, KCA, indicators • recalculations, • comparison of NECD, CLRTAP and UNFCCC submissions • IEF - for Key categories – reporting of Activity Data !!! • Annual country specific Synthesis & Assessment reports are planed for 31 May. • Countries will have 4 weeks to provide comments • Summary results of review Stage 1 and 2 will be presented in Technical Review Report (SB meeting Sept 2010).

  6. Stage 3 • Centralized review of quantitative and qualitative information of selected inventories • Joint responsibility (set up in review guidelines Annex III) • EMEP SB set up (legal) frame for the process (and approve the summary reports) • Parties; nominate and support expert reviewers and volunteer for review • UNECE secretariat ; communicate with the Parties and with CEIP maintain roster of experts • TFEIP panel on Review; develop relevant documents • Review Guidelines • Guidance for reviewers, Templates,… • CEIP technical support of review process • EEA volunteered to provide facilities and technical support • Expert review teams (ERT), review the inventories and compile review reports (within 6 weeks after the review) • Country Review Reports will be posted on the web (Dec 2010) summary results reported to EMEP SB (Sept 2010).

  7. Stage 3 in 2010 15 Parties / 46 experts http://www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/emep/review/Roster_of_review_experts__CLRTAP.pdf 2010 ERTs: only 10 experts confirmed (3 -FR, 2- DE, FR; 1- EC, AT, IT, IR, NL, NO, UK) Parties to be reviewed: Austria, Cyprus, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, Russian Federation*, Slovakia, Switzerland, and United Kingdom

  8. Stage 3 in 2010 - workplan 1st week of June – data for reviewers on line (Wiki) 21-25 June| centralised review in Copenhagen (EEA premises) July – August| compilation of country reports Sept-Oct| comments from Parties (6 weeks) Nov- Dec| Country reports posted on the website

  9. Status of reporting & review 2010 (Stage 1 and 2) Katarina Mareckova, Robert Wankmueller, Michael Gager CEIP - Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections TFEIP Larnaca, 10 May 2010

  10. Reporting requirements • CLRTAP • Parties are requested to send data to the CEIP and send Notification formto the secretariat. Parties may also use CDR.The submission should contain emissions and data on:SOx, NOx, NMVOCs, NH3, CO, HMs, POPs and PMs • The deadline for submission of inventories 15 February, (inventory report (IIR) 6 weeks after the inventory) • Gridded and LPS data(for the years 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005 - if not already reported), and • NECD • The deadline for submission of inventories SOx, NOx, NMVOCs, NH3, (2007 and 2008) and projections 2010 for EU MS was 31 Dec 2009 All submissions should be reported using the Nomenclature for Reporting (NFR09) formats in accordance with the EMEP 2009 Reporting GuidelinesECE/EB.AIR/97)

  11. Timeliness - CLRTAP inventories in 2010 40 Parties (from 51) submitted inventories in 2010 34 inventories submitted on time (30 in 2008, 28 inventories in 2007)

  12. Completeness CLRTAP • No submissions in 2010: • 4 PartiesLuxembourg, Island, Italy, Russian Federation • Albania, Armenia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Montenegro, and Turkey are invited to submit inventories • IIRsent by 27 Parties • 17 Parties sent projections 2010, only 12 Parties also for year 2020 Consistency • 38 inventories provided as NFR09 tables, 2 in other format

  13. Timeliness – NECD2009 23 (from 27 due) inventories submitted on time(16 from 25 inventories in 2007, 19 in 2008)

  14. Completeness & consistency NECD2009 • Deadline 31 Dec 2009 • All 27 MS submitted data, 23 inventories on time (13 resubmissions) • Completeness • All MS provided 2007 & 2008 inventories • Projections – 26 MS (not reported by Germany) • Consistency • all MS used NFR templates (19 inventories in NFR09) – only 5 submissions passed RepDab test • Recalculations – under preparation…

  15. Update of historical gridded NOx emissions Difference between original and recalculated expert estimates

  16. Update of historical gridded PM2.5 emissions Difference between original and recalculated expert estimates Difference for total EMEP area minimal, but for some countries visible

  17. LPS reported to EMEP (2005 onwards) • LPS submitted to EMEP • Main – 18 Parties (~1630) • PM – 14 Parties (~1630) • HM – 2 Parties (~36) • POPs – 2 Parties (~30) • facilities reported to E-PRTR > 20000

  18. Reported LPS for Main Pollutants and Particulate Matter (2005 onwards)

  19. Reporting of Gridded /LPS data Main objective – support environmental analyses • Up to date • 50 x 50 EMEP grid • 10 (11) SNAP categories (or National totals) • 2012 onwards (data due 1 March 2012) • Model results indicate that with finer scaling better results can be obtained • Geographical coordinates (long/lat) • Finer scaling (25-25 or 20x20 or 10 x10) • GNFR categories • Area sources without LPS (LPS reported separately)

  20. Summary / follow up • Timeliness of reporting and completeness of reported inventories is gradually improving, but • Significant gaps in reporting of LPS data • Limited data reported for extended EMEP area • Not updated inventories before 2000 • Activity data not reported • IIR are getting more and more voluminous but less transparent, often no summary in English - explanatory information is difficult to find • Reporting of LPS is critical for development of next gridding matrix (posible solution / reporting of all? facilities included in E-PRTR)

More Related