1. Review process 2008 Katarina Mareckova, CEIP - Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections TFEIP Tallinn, 27 May 2008

2. Main objective of review process 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 a common 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). National Emissions Ceilings DirectiveEEA

3. Technical Review Process To standardize review process, TFEIP elaborated review guidelines Methods and procedures for the technical review of air pollutant emission inventories reported under the Convention and its protocols EB.AIR/GE.1/2007/16. 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 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 will have the opportunity to clarify issues or provide additional information. Results of the review will be made publicly available

4. Stage 1 Responsibility with CEIP Automated test of submitted inventories (NFR tables) checking:  timeliness,  completeness, and  formats Results provided in country Status reports (pdf) to every Party by 10 th March Summary results presented at TFEIP meeting in May

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 Data (inventories as xml files) from UNFCCC are needed to cover more countries than EU27 and work efficiently Annual country specific Synthesis & Assessment reports are planed for 31 May. Format – excel file. 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 2008).

6. Stage 3 (NEW) Centralized review of quantitative and qualitative information of selected inventories (in 2008 planed 5) Sept-Nov 2008 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 2009?) and summary results reported to EMEP SB (Sept 2009?).

7. Status of reporting & review 2008 (Stage 1 and 2) Katarina Mareckova, Robert Wankmueller CEIP - Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections TFEIP Tallinn, 27 May 2008

8. Reporting requirements CLRTAP  Parties are requested to send data to the CEIP and send Notification form to the secretariat. Parties may also use CDR. The submission should contain emissions and data on: SOx, NOx, NMVOCs, NH 3, CO, HMs, POPs and PMs  The deadline for submission of inventories 15 February, (inventory report (IIR) 6 weeks after the inventory)  Gridded data (for the years 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005 - if not already reported), and  LPS data (reported on a 5-yearly basis) were due 1 March 2007. NECD  The deadline for submission of inventories SOx, NOx, NMVOCs, NH 3, (2005 and 2006) and projections 2010 for EU MS was 31 Dec 2007 All submissions should be reported using the Nomenclature for Reporting (NFR) formats in accordance with the EMEP 2002 Reporting Guidelines

9. Timeliness - CLRTAP inventories in 2008 38 Parties submitted inventories, 30 inventories submitted on time (28 inventories in 2007)

10. Completeness - CLRTAP 2008 as of 15 May 51 Parties to the Convention, 40 Parties signed at least one protocol  35 Parties + Georgia, Malta, and Poland submitted inventories  34 Parties notified secretariat of their data submission to CEIP  Completeness per pollutant: Main pollutants-38; Cd, Hg, PB-34, additional HM 2 -28, PM s - 31, POP s – 31 Parties  13 Inventories resubmitted 4 Parties no submissions in 2008: Luxembourg, Island, Lichtenstein, Russian Federation and EC Not Parties to the Protocols; Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Montenegro, and Turkey, are invited to submit inventories

11. Completeness – example SO x, NO x maps (Time Series from 1980 – 2006)

12. Completeness – example PM 2.5, PM 10 maps (Time Series from 2000 – 2006)

13. Completeness cont. CLRTAP IIR sent by 24 Parties 17 Parties sent projections 2010, only 12 Parties also for year 2020Consistency 37 inventories provided as NFR tables, 5 in other format Completeness per protocol (Included only Parties to the particular protocol) –15 March

14. Consistency; Trends - CLRTAP

15. Inventory comparisons CLRTAP-NECD (CLRTAP = 100%) Plus value indicates that CLRTAP is higher Minus value indicates that NECD is higher

16. Inventory comparisons CLRTAP-UNFCCC (CLRTAP = 100%) Plus value indicates that CLRTAP is higher Minus value indicates that UNFCCC is higher

17. Gridded data – differences in distribution: example CO [Mg] the same national totals submitted in 2008 distributed with base grid 2007 and base grid 2008 7 Parties provided new gridded data, 6 Parties new LPS data base grid 2008 was calculated with new (2008) submitted gridded and LPS data

18. Timeliness – NECD 2007 19 (from 27 due) inventories submitted on time (16 from 25 inventories in 2007)

19. Completeness & consistency NECD 2007 Deadline 31 Dec 2007  26 MS submitted data, 19 inventories on time  Luxembourg no data Completeness  Inventory - 24 MS (2005 and 2006), Greece and Poland only 2006 inventory  Projections – 24 MS (not reported by Luxembourg, Portugal, Hungary) Consistency  18 inventories in non consistent format (modified NFR, other excel tables..) Recalculations – minor

20. Summary / follow up Timeliness of reporting and completeness of reported inventories is improving Standard formats remain problem particularly for NECD submissions and years before 2000 IIR are getting more and more voluminous but less transparent, often no summary in English - explanatory information is difficult to find CRF tables (xml files) of non-EU MS posted on CDR would enable to include these Parties in IEF tests CEIP/ETCACC is working on automation of the review process to the extend possible, but Stage 1 and 2 review still remain resource demanding activity.  Highlite outliers without comments  Provide questions