slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Review of Emission Data and IIRs Submitted under CLRTAP and NECD Gridded Emissions and LPS PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Review of Emission Data and IIRs Submitted under CLRTAP and NECD Gridded Emissions and LPS

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 26

Review of Emission Data and IIRs Submitted under CLRTAP and NECD Gridded Emissions and LPS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 179 Views
  • Uploaded on

Review of Emission Data and IIRs Submitted under CLRTAP and NECD Gridded Emissions and LPS. Katarina Mareckova, Robert Wankmueller, Elisabeth Kampel, Michael Gager and Stephan Poupa TFEIP, ETC ACM 14 May 2012, Bern. Content. Review process and review results under the CLRTAP/ NECD

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Review of Emission Data and IIRs Submitted under CLRTAP and NECD Gridded Emissions and LPS' - jabari


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Review of Emission Data and IIRs Submitted under CLRTAP and NECD Gridded Emissions and LPS

Katarina Mareckova, Robert Wankmueller, Elisabeth Kampel, Michael Gager and Stephan Poupa TFEIP, ETC ACM14 May 2012, Bern

content
Content
  • Review process and review results under the CLRTAP/ NECD
    • Completeness
    • Stage 1 & 2
    • Gridded data, LPS
    • Stage 3 centralised in-depth review
    • Roster of experts
  • IIR - Awards 2012
review process t tccca
Review process – T TCCCA
  • Methods and procedures for the technical review of air pollutant emission inventories reported under the Convention and its protocols (Review GuidelinesEB.AIR/GE.1/2007/16)
    • Stage 1 - automated tests, Country reports posted on the web during March
    • Stage 2 - S&A country reports posted in Mayhttp://www.ceip.at/review-results/review-results-2012/
    • Stage 3 – Centralised in depthreviewofselectedinventories
  • Summary of S1 and S2 findings: In CEIP/EEA technical report Inventory review 2011 http://webdab1.umweltbundesamt.at/download/Reports/2011/InventoryReport2011_forWeb.pdf
short history of emission reporting to unece
Short HistOry of emission rEporting to UNECE
  • 80s - National emissions of sulphur, nitrogenoxides, ammonia, NMVOC, carbonoxides and methane(1980 or 1986? onwards and eachfollowingyear)
  • EMEPWebDab – earliest information identified “reported in 1995” http://www.ceip.at/webdab-emission-database/
  • HMs, POPs – first occur in 1996 data (reported in 1998)
  • SNAP sectors
  • Harmonisation with UNFCCC reporting system, 2002 onwards – emissions reported in NFR sectors (NFR01, NFR02, NFR09), GHGs excluded

http://www.emep.int/mscw/index_mscw.html e.g. Emission datareportedto UNECE/EMEP: Evaluation ofthespatialdistributionofemissions. MSC-W Status Report 2001,EMEPMSC-W Mote 1/01 July 2001

reporting of inventories under the clrtap in 2012
Reporting of inventories under the CLRTAP in 2012

http://www.ceip.at/overview-of-submissions-under-clrtap/2012-submissions/

44 (86%) submissions from 51 Parties (41 in 2010, 43 in 2010), 34 Parties within deadline - 31 resubmissions

30 IIRs (26 in 2011, 30 in 2010, )

35 Parties reported AD – significant improvement comparing to 2009

No data from: Rep. of Moldova, USA, EU

Azerbaijan, Bi&H, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan

reporting 1995 2012
reporting 1995 - 2012
  • Reporting
  • Austria
  • Belgium
  • Denmark
  • Finland
  • Slovakia
  • United Kingdom
  • Completeness in WebDab
  • France
  • Germany
  • Ireland
  • Norway
  • Sweden
  • United Kingdom
reporting under unece
repOrting under uNECE
  • TOP10 Reporting since 1995
  • Austria
  • Belgium
  • Bulgaria
  • Czech republic
  • Denmark
  • Finland
  • France
  • Slovakia
  • Sweden
  • United Kingdom
  • TOP10 Completeness in WebDab (nat. totals)
  • Bulgaria
  • Croatia
  • Estonia
  • France
  • Germany
  • Hungary
  • Ireland
  • Norway
  • Sweden
  • United Kingdom
completeness 2012 reporting under clrtap
Completeness 2012 Reporting under CLRTAP
  • Pollutants
    • Main pollutants: 44 (41)
    • PM: 36 (34)
    • POPs (Diox, PAHs, HCB, PCBs): 36
    • Cd, Hg, Pb: 37 (39)
    • Additional HMs: 33 (33)
  • Projections: 21 (4 WaM) , Activity 18 (4 WaM)
  • Gridded data (sectoral + national totals): 26
  • LPS: 24
necd timeliness of reporting

NECD Timeliness of reporting

  • Complete EU inventoryreportingfor 2009 and 2010!!
  • 9 MS submitted IIRs
  • 25 MS used NFR templates 2009
  • 10 MS providedprojectionsfor post 2010
necd distance to ceilings

NECD Distance to ceilings

  • Final 2010 data will be available end of this year
  • grey indicates that road transport emissions are based on fuel used
  • red indicates emissions above respective NEC ceiling
necd reporting of ne not estimated
NECD - Reporting of NE (not estimated)
  • NE carries risk of potential underestimation
  • EU NEC Directive status report estimates potential contribution of these sources
  • for only 2 countries it would effect the reaching of ceilings
stage 3 in depth centralized review
Stage 3 in-depth centralized review
  • Main objectives
    • complement the reporting guidelines in supporting Parties to compile and submit high quality inventories
    • support Parties in meeting their reporting obligations under the Protocols
    • increase confidence of policymakers in the data used for air pollution modelling
  • The aim is to check in detail each Party inventory at least once every five years => to review approximately 10 Parties annually
stage 3 in depth centralized review1
Stage 3 in-depth centralized review
  • Centralized review is review of quantitative and qualitative information of selected inventories by pollutant, country or sector
  • Joint activity of EMEP/CEIP and EEA
  • The work plan is (annually) approved by the EMEP Executive Body
  • 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

http://www.ceip.at/review-of-inventories/centralised-review-stage-3/

stage 3 experience 2008 2011
Stage 3 - Experience 2008-2011

Review benefits

    • 34 Parties reviewed since 2008 - in all inventories identified areas for improvement
    • Motivates experts to improve their own inventories and IIRs
    • For reviewers provides a level of training on priorities for enhancing TCCCA of inventories
    • Builds an enthusiastic network of motivated and informed experts
  • Interaction with Parties
    • Most Parties responded on time and comprehensive
    • A few Parties – NIR not provided, late responses, limited explanatory information after the review week
    • It’s challenge if Parties are reviewed and parallel providing reviewers to the ERT
roster of emission experts history
Roster of emission experts - history
  • 20 Parties to the Convention (out of 51) have nominated experts to the roster:
  • Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, the European Community, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Macedonia, Norway, the Netherlands, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom
  • 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)
  • the roster currently contains a total of 65 inventory experts (24 more comparing to 2008) from which 43 experts participated at least in one S3 review
review teams 2012
Review teams 2012
  • 2 teams
  • LR – Chris Dore (UK) and Ann Wagner (EU)
  • 27 experts invited
  • 16 accepted invitation (AUT, DE, EU, EE, FIN, FRA,GR, IRL, LAT, NL, SWE)
  • still needed : generalist, sectors: industry, agriculture, waste
  • 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
challenges
Challenges
  • The limited number of review experts constitutes serious constraint to the successful conducting of the reviews
  • Active participation of experts from EECCA and South-East European countries in the review process should be increased
  • Not complete inventories resp. not provided NIRs limits the review
  • Interaction with Parties
  • Lead reviewers