Review of the Gothenburg Protocol Emission quality Kristin

Review of the Gothenburg Protocol – Emission quality Kristin Rypdal, TFEIP Chair

Emissions – some issues of relevance for the review • MSC-W and CIAM will work to answer the specific questions raised • This presentation will give an overview of work under TFEIP on quality and uncertainty management of relevance for the revision of the Protocol • Be aware that much presented here is work under development which has not been finally adopted

Changes in emissions since 1990

Uncertainties • All inventory data are uncertain • Scientific • Errors, insufficient implementation – SO 2 inventories are well established with relative small uncertainty in level and trend – NOx inventories are complete and with relative small uncertainty in level and trend • Trucks, NO agriculture may need revisions – NMVOC may still miss some sources (e. g. agriculture) and some Parties may not fully take into account recent reductions, e. g. solvent directive and other regulations, activity data can be missing – NH 3: Methods are available, good data on management practices (includes type of housing, storage and how manure is applied) is largely missing and many countries will use erroneous default assumptions for this and other parameters. Non-agriculture sources are often missing.

Uncertainties • PM inventories are under development – They are not complete (in particular for PM 10) – Emission factors are generally more uncertain than for other pollutants – Activity data can be uncertain for some sources – Recalculations are expected in the coming years – Completion of the Emission Inventory Guidebook for PM is underway and updates will be available this year • Implementation can take some more time

New emission reporting guidelines • Aiming at – Better transparency • Source categories • Stronger requirements for an Informative Inventory Report with documentation of methods and data – Strengthening of reporting requirements for PM will be considered by the appropriate bodies under the Convention • Historical emissions and projections – NEC harmonisation • Harmonisation of inconsistencies in reporting of emissions from aviation and shipping will be left for NEC revision – Harmonisation with UNFCCC and other EU Directives

Higher focus on uncertainty management • Promote good practice • Resource prioritisation – reduce uncertainties where it matters most (key sources) • Improved guidebook – Updated content, stronger guidance – Emission factor database? – EEA collaboration • Institutionalised inventory reviews – Three stages • Final stage regular centralised reviews • Timing not yet decided

Reviews and link to compliance • Stage III reviews can provide relevant information to the Implementation Committee in addition to reports on scientific quality • Need clear roles for National Consultations (for target setting) and Inventory Reviews (compliance & science focused) • Need to have good communication channels between these two activities – Key findings, sources included

National consultations & inventory reviews National reporting of emissions and projections Projections National consultations Emission Inventories Documentation Inventory reviews Basis for ceilings Compliance checking (IC)

Links to compliance (cont. ) • Approaches to handle recalculations due to methodological improvements vs. ceilings is necessary (esp. for more uncertain pollutants) – Transparency – Communication to Implementation Committee • The alternative is a frozen version of the inventory which can be costly or need to ignore any improvement aspect

Conclusions • New guidelines are expected to solve inconsistencies with NEC reporting • More focus on quality and transparency of the reported information that could be used to strengthen the compliance system of the Protocol, this requires a strong link to the basis for establishment of ceilings (national consultations) • Recalculations need to be handled in the compliance context