Fairmode: Latest developments P. Thunis + Fairmode chairs & co-chairs + Fairmode Community

WG2 Emissions L. Tarrason M. Guevara WG1 Assessment S. Janssen C. Guerreiro WG4 Planning A. Clappier A.Monteiro J. Lumbreras WG3 Src. App. C. Belis G. Pirovano FAIRMODE Forecasting (F. Meleux) Monitoring & Modeling (A. Miranda) Spatial Representativeness (O. Kracht) e-reporting

Guidance Document on Model Quality Objectives  Version (V1.1) released in April 2015 (  Aveiro discussions on open issues (e.g. observation uncertainty from different instruments, exceedances, data-assimilation…)  Some points are mature enough for integration (e.g. MQO for data-assimilation) whereas others need additional work (e.g. hourly/daily vs. yearly observation uncertainly)  Version 2.0 is in preparation. Assessment

EU composite mapping exercise  Background: Countries, regions and/or cities produce yearly air quality maps (different coverage, resolutions, methodologies…)  Task: Collect national, regional or local air quality assessment maps and compile an overall composite EU air quality map  Aim: use the map to support guidance on  Model Quality Objective (WG1)  Data assimilation / data fusion methodologies (CCA M&M)  Emissions consistency (WG2)  Reporting  Challenges: (political issues, data overlay, competition, compliance…) Assessment

28 positive feedbacks 17 countries 15 “official” national maps (NCP) Schedule  Set-up of the database & visualisation interface (Nov 15)  Start participants up-load (Oct 15)  First prototype version and results: Baveno plenary Feb 16 Assessment

WG2 Emissions L. Tarrason M. Guevara WG1 Assessment S. Janssen C. Guerreiro WG4 Planning A. Clappier A.Monteiro J. Lumbreras WG3 Src. App. C. Belis G. Pirovano FAIRMODE Forecasting (F. Meleux) Monitoring & Modeling (A. Miranda) Spatial Representativeness (O. Kracht) e-reporting

Purpose of the JRC benchmarking tool 1.Compare bottom-up and top down emission inventories 2.Enhance communication between national and city authorities by understanding main features of the comparison Emissions

 Further analysis of BU vs. TD (common issues) and more locations (Comp. Map)  Learn from diversity of top-down datasets  Check whether we can improve TD inventories based on BU inventories  Based on experience  Continuous improvements to the bench. methodology INERIS-EC4MACS; TNO-MAC II & III; JRC 7 & 1 km Emissions Benchmarking 11 cities 7 regions

Guidance on traffic emissions  Mapping of current practices (on-going)  Questionnaire will be sent to  map current current practices  identify the main problems with current practices  identify experts to contribute to EFM work  Identify links with GHG emission for 2016  Working group to test/analyse emission factor models – HBEFAvs COPERT – links to ERMES  Set-up a working group to evaluate SPECIEU developed in WG3 Emissions

WG2 Emissions L. Tarrason M. Guevara WG1 Assessment S. Janssen C. Guerreiro WG4 Planning A. Clappier A.Monteiro J. Lumbreras WG3 Src. App. C. Belis G. Pirovano FAIRMODE Forecasting (F. Meleux) Monitoring & Modeling (A. Miranda) Spatial Representativeness (O. Kracht) e-reporting

Online database with 160 real-world PM fingerprint of 50 different types of EU specific sources. Essential input for quality check in source apportionment and bottom-up emission inventories Continuous development and inclusion of new profiles SPECIEUROPE GUIDELINES ON SOURCE APPORTIONMENT  Guidelines for receptor models available since 2014  Guidelines including source oriented models is in preparation Performance indicators Common definition of sources Input data Reporting SA results Src. App.

Inter-comparison exercise  Assess performances and uncertainties of SA methodologies (including both Source and receptor models)  QA/QC, Harmonisation, complementarity, guidance on good practice  10 source categories  3 months / 3 months  10 receptors (1 speciated)  ECMWF meteorology  TNO SoAp emissions  MACC Bound. Conditions Src. App. Goals:

Receptor Model Source Model Both Participation Schedule  Datasets (emissions, meteorology, measures, BC)  available  Modeled SA estimates to be provided by end 2015  Analysis of results  first half 2016  Details of collaboration with WG4 to be defined  Discussion  Technical meeting (June 2016) Src. App. 72 participants

WG2 Emissions L. Tarrason M. Guevara WG1 Assessment S. Janssen C. Guerreiro WG4 Planning A. Clappier A.Monteiro J. Lumbreras WG3 Src. App. C. Belis G. Pirovano FAIRMODE Forecasting (F. Meleux) Monitoring & Modeling (A. Miranda) Spatial Representativeness (O. Kracht) e-reporting

15 AURORA, all stations in Belgium EMEP, all stations in Belgium PM10  Objective: Assess model performances in scenario mode.  A benchmarking methodology (incl. indicators) has been developed and is currently tested by several groups.  EMEP source-receptors relationships (comparison among countries)  EMEP vs. country models (comparison among models) Planning

Green scenarios Planning

Future  Generalize the approach to other countries / regions  Make use of “reference” benchmarks  Strengthen the links to source apportionment (WG3) 17

WG2 Emissions L. Tarrason M. Guevara WG1 Assessment S. Janssen C. Guerreiro WG4 Planning A. Clappier A.Monteiro J. Lumbreras WG3 Src. App. C. Belis G. Pirovano FAIRMODE Forecasting (F. Meleux) Monitoring & Modeling (A. Miranda) Spatial Representativeness (O. Kracht) e-reporting

Background  No agreement on how to define Sp. Rep.  No agreement on methodologies to assess Sp. Rep.  Collab. with AQUILA Assessment of the state of the art  A questionnaire has been sent out early 2015  Feasibility of an inter-comparison exercise  June 2015 Actions  Compilation of dataset  End 2015  Inter-comparison exercise  2016 Spat. Repres. 20 participants

WG2 Emissions L. Tarrason M. Guevara WG1 Assessment S. Janssen C. Guerreiro WG4 Planning A. Clappier A.Monteiro J. Lumbreras WG3 Src. App. C. Belis G. Pirovano FAIRMODE Forecasting (F. Meleux) Monitoring & Modeling (A. Miranda) Spatial Representativeness (O. Kracht) e-reporting

21  Fairmode overall recommendations to summarize:  Survey directed to National contact points (Baveno 2015)  Technical aspects in collaboration with the EEA (formatting issues…)  Feedback on IPR from a Src. App. viewpoint  The outcome of the Baveno meeting  Timing: October 2015  Future: Input from composite mapping exercise. e-reporting