2. Gridded data review Vigdis Vestreng, MSC-W TFEIP. Dessau, Germany 23-24 May 2007 Oslo Center for Interdisciplinary, Environmental and Sosial Research

3. Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no The importance of gridded data WHERE do the emissions occur Determine atmospheric dispersion patterns Impact: Population Ecosystems Environmental policy – Abatement options

4. Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no Reporting of gridded SECTOR data Increasing (PM!), max 30% complete

5. Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no Need for further guidance

6. Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no Quality of GS: Review overview Format Internal consistency Boundary Completeness PM coarse =PM 10 -PM 2.5 > 0 Cross-pollutant

7. Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no INTERNAL CONSISTENCY –UK EXAMPLE Vintage? SNAP-NFR? Other? WE DO SCALE THE GRIDS TO THE TOTALS! CompoundUnit Diff 1A - 3B (Excl. S11) Diff 3A - 3B (Incl S11) CdMg-20 COGg-2175 CrMg13 CuMg10 DIOXsg I-Teq-3615 HgMg-30 NH3Gg-20 NiMg-1020 NMVOCGg-400 PbMg00 PM10Gg00 PM2.5Gg20 SeMg23 SO2 (as SO2)Gg-31 ZnMg123

8. Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no Cross pollutant – UA example

9. Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no Example of Completeness REPORTED ANCILLARY DATA Ref. EMEP report 1/2004

10. Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no Example: Completeness per sector

11. Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no Review results: Main problems 1.Format - BG, CH, HU, IT, FR, NO, UK 2.PM coarse < 0 - DK, FR, IE, NO, PT, UA, UK 3.Internal consistency (Tab. 3b/1a): ~ 50% of Parties failed - Wrong PM units – emission vintage - other 4.Boundary - BG, SE Grid-fraction file updates – 14 Countries - AT, BY, CH, CZ, DK, DE, ES, FI, NL, NO, PL, RU,SE, UA 5.X-pollutant - UA, sea areas

12. Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no LPS GL02 definition check SOx, NOx, CO more than 500 000 kg/yr In addition: NMVOC: 10 000 kg/yr NH3: 1 000 kg/yr PM10. 100 000 kg/yr PM2.5: 50 000 kg/yr Proposed GL08 Current Checks Results: CY failed. Lower LPS limits for certain pollutant in Draft GL

13. Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no Further work to imporve quality of GS Min. 70% EMEP estimates of GS - Inclusion of other and higher quality ancillary data (Road maps?/employment/satellite) Increased use of reported LPS data (EPER data?), both position and quantity Develop test for (reported) gridded data Further development of REPDAB for GS Natural emission distribution? Wild fires?

14. Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no Resulting differences in spatial distribution of emissions Demonstrate the importance MSC-W report to the EMEP SB Presentation to TFEIP in Ireland

16. Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no Convention on LRTAP: Timeliness of official submissions 2007

17. Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no

18. Stage II Review tests (6/12) Separately for NEC and LRTAP KEY SOURCE ANALYSIS (Detailed/aggregated) Timeliness Format COMPLETENESS PER POLLUTANT COMPLETENESS PER SECTOR CONSISTENCY OF GRIDDED DATA

19. Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no Stage II Review tests (12/12) CROSS POLLUTANT RECALCULATIONS INVENTORY COMPARISON TRENDS TIME SERIES Implied emission factors

20. Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no Stage II Review tests – 2007 changes Overview of the internal consistency of gridded data Update of cross pollutant test 3A, by excluding the ratios NMVOC/CO and CO/NH3 for sector NFR 6A, since CO was pre-filled with “NA” for CO in reporting Table 1. Further, last year’s “Agriculture”=sector NFR 4B+4D have been re- designed to NFR 4B+4D1 in accordance with the 2004 Table 1 reporting template Internal consistency of non-gridded data is checked by REPDAB during the Stage 1 review, and has been excluded from the current Stage 2 review

21. Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no

28. Trends in totals

29. Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no

32. X-pollutant: NOx/CO