Task force on measurement S and modelling

1. Task force on measurementS and modelling Wish-list to the Emission community

2. Context • 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. Policy framework : • 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. Key questions and requirements • 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 : OtherPrimaryParticulateMatter (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. How to improveourcooperation? • Why measurement and modelling community needs more emission data than what is actually reported can be illustrated (explanation inMSC-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 oneor twotest 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 ?

14. Thankyou for your attention