1. Wish-list to the Emission community

2.  TFMM annual meeting held in Zagreb on the 6-8 May 2013  Main issues :  Review of the implementation of the EMEP monitoring strategy  Feedback and discussion about Intensive Observation Periods (IOPs); source apportionment analyses  Review of the progress of work in modelling: development of the EMEP models, model intercomparison exercises (EURODELTA3)  Development of close cooperation with national experts (HM case study)  Comparing model results to observations necessary to build up confidence in use of model for policy decisions and to improve model parametrisation  Emissions remain one of the most sensitive factors for modelling, and even interpretation of measurements

3.  According to the rules of the Convention :  There is no compliance obligation for Parties who did not ratify the Protocols to exchange gridded data, even though it is in athe text of the 1979 Convention  When they exist, compliance obligations are limited to pollutants and parameters listed in the Protocols  At this stage, emission reporting and review are already heavy tasks for the Parties -> difficult to ask more, except if there are policy justifications (e.g. “black carbon”)  Is it better to have “something highly uncertain” than “nothing” -> Looking for a compromise, developing community of practises, common data sets, etc...  BUT: Is the official EMEP emission inventory used by national experts working on AQ assessments?  NO.... EMEP emissions are not completely suited to develop a comprehensive overview of air pollution indicators' behaviour

4.  What are the most sensitive parameters in emissions to improve model results (chemical species, spatio- temporal resolution, spatial distribution, activities and emission factors...).  Need for gridded emissions : appropriate and reliable spatial distribution influences the quality of model results  Appropriate (agreed) spatial resolution : should go with the improvement of model resolution. Optimum remains to be defined (especially in terms of cost-benefits)  “Non-inventoried “ emissions : biogenic emissions, forest fires, dusts, resuspension...  Completeness of emissions over the targeted domain.  High Temporal resolution: to catch episodes and highest concentration levels

5.  What are the gaps in activities related to emission inventories that need to be quickly filled in (pollutants, sources, emission factors....)?  Chemical composition by sector: PPM, Hg, PAHs, VOCs, dioxines and furanes, PCBs : not only for modelling but also for measurements (source-receptor approaches), and for the effect community (e.g base cation depositions)  Accounting for semi-volatile VOCs that drive secondary organic aerosol formation: correction factor from VOCs, speciation of the heaviest species by sector... No data so far (although requested by both measurement and modelling experts)  EC/OM/OPPM* emissions for PM2.5 and PMcoarse fractions: for both modelling and policy issues  Non-inventoried emissions: common practice to calculate them, common databases (soil properties, land use, forest composition....)  Historical sets of emissions : to learn from the past  Common practises to disaggregate emission data (to improve spatial resolution): use of proxies, which ones...  Information related to emissions to other medias : databases, references... *OPPM : Other Primary Particulate Matter (anthropogenic dust, metals, etc..)

6.  Based on your experience what is level of consistency between global, regional, national and local emission inventories? What is the required level of agreement?  Poor....  Need to access to global scale “reference” emissions ;  Need to know about existing national high resolved spatial emission inventories : how many, where, substances...  Pilot study to assess their consistency with officially reported data; definition of new methodologies, proxies?  Need for feedback, explanations about huge differences between countries: due to national legislation, energy policies, economical reasons  Comparison with scientific oriented inventories : for instance, what to learn from GEIA (Global Emission Initiative)? Scientific inventories contain useful data that we usually look for. Should measurement specialists and modellers investigate by themselves?

7.  Which observations/modelling tools can be used to improve emission inventories?  What are the requirements from emission community to the TFMM?  Running models is a good way to track potential problems in spatial emission inventories: is there an interest for the emission community?  It is possible that some measurements could help in improving emission data: VOCs, heavy metals...  Inverse modelling techniques (also developed for checking emission reporting of GHG) : they could be adapted to some air pollution species... Provided that there is enough observation data.

8.  Why measurement and modelling community needs more emission data than what is actually reported can be illustrated (explanation in MSC-W and MSC-E presentations)  It is possible to prioritize our needs : looking for the 3 most critical points....  Conversely TFEIP and CEIP could express some needs to the TFMM  Is it possible to work together on one or two test cases (country) to analyse  the differences between gridded emissions reported to EMEP and national emissions,  Their impact on modelling air pollution patterns in this country and their comparison to observations?  Working together on the comparison with “scientific- oriented” gridded emissions inventories ?