INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
WMO

NATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORIES PROGRAMMEESTABLISHMENT OF A D ATABASEON
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION FACTORS

Report of the Second Expert Meeting

Bratislava, Slovakia
23-24 April 2002

Supporting material prepared for consideration by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
This supporting material has not been subject to formal IPCC review and approval process.

UNEPACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by Tinus Pulles, Katarina Mareckova, Taka Hiraishi, Joe Mangino, Branca
Americano, Tleussen Temertekov, Riitta Pipatti and Kiyoto Tanabe with assistance from Stephanie
F. Finn, Chia Ha, Todd Ngara, Leandro Buendia and Kyoko Miwa. We are grateful to many experts
who contributed to this report and attended the expert meeting. We also thank the staff of the Slovak
Hydrometeorological Institute (SMHU), the SPIRIT a.s., and the Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies (IGES) who assisted in organising the expert meeting.

Table of contents
Summary························································································································1
1. Introduction················································································································2
1-1. Background .........................................................................................................2
1-2. Pilot testing of the prototype database................................................................2
1-3. Objectives of the meeting ...................................................................................3
1-4. Participants .........................................................................................................4
2. Recommendations to the EFDB Steering Group on how to improve the prototype
database ··························································································································52-1. Introduction.........................................................................................................5
2-2. Discussions and Recommendations....................................................................5(A) Comments on the search/input process ...........................................................5(B) Comments on the output process ...................................................................15(C) Comments on the existing data records .........................................................16(D) Comments on the possible data sources/Data submitted through “Single
Input” ...................................................................................................................16(E) Comments on other technical issues ..............................................................16(F) Miscellaneous .................................................................................................17
3. Proposal to the TFB on modalities and procedures to manage and populate thedatabase ························································································································18
3-1. Introduction.......................................................................................................18
3-2. Proposal to the TFB on modalities and procedures to manage and populate thedatabase ....................................................................................................................18(A) Management arrangements............................................................................18(B) Populating the database .................................................................................24
Annex 1: Comments on the prototype database from reviewers
during the pilot testing and discussion on further improvements ················26
Annex 2: List of participants························································································52

Summary
In January 2002, a prototype database on greenhouse gas emission factors (prototype
EFDB) was constructed under the IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Programme (IPCC-NGGIP) in accordance with the functional design agreed at theexpert meeting held in Paris, France, on 2-4 July 2001. The steering group for thisproject (EFDB Steering Group 1 ) decided to proceed with pilot testing of thisprototype database for 8 weeks, from 11 February to 8 April 2002.
Subsequently, the IPCC-NGGIP organised an expert meeting on Establishment of a
Database on Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors in Bratislava, Slovakia, on 23-24
April 2002. The objectives of this meeting were to:l Review the results of the pilot testing of the prototype database;l Identify problems to improve the prototype database;l Discuss the design and functions of the database based on the result of the pilot
testing;l Discuss the procedure and schedule for improvement of the prototype databaseand its release to the public; andl Discuss the modalities and procedures to manage and populate the database.
At this meeting, the participants considered 119 comments from 26 experts obtained
through the pilot testing. The participants agreed on recommendations to the EFDB
Steering Group to improve the design, structure, data content, data input process anddata output format of the prototype database.
The participants also considered the future development of the EFDB and agreed on a
proposal to the Task Force Bureau (TFB) on modalities and procedures to manage andpopulate it.

1

The EFDB Steering Group was established by the Task Force Bureau (TFB) for the IPCC-NGGIP, at
its 6th session, in order to oversee the development of, to ensure good management of, and to assureusability of the emission factors database (EFDB) under the IPCC-NGGIP.

1

1. Introduction
1-1. Background
The quality of national inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources andremovals by sinks of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol (GHG
inventories) depends substantially on reliable emission factors and activity data.
Although it is preferable to use emission factors that reflect national circumstances,emission factor development is expensive, time consuming and necessitates a wide
degree of expertise. The Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories (IPCC Guidelines) and the report on Good Practice Guidance andUncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Good Practice
Report) provide default emission factors for the majority of source and sink categories.
Some of these default emission factors are region or country specific, but in general
not all regions or countries are covered.
Sharing of research information would enable countries to use or develop emission
factors that are more applicable to the circumstances in question than the IPCC default
emission factors without having to bear the associated research costs. For this reason,
many countries have indicated (e.g. in the Expert Group Meeting on National
Feedback on the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, Havana, Cuba, September 1998) that an easily accessible pub lic databaseon GHG emission factors with supporting scientific information would help improve
the quality of GHG inventories in a cost-effective way. A database on GHG emission
factors (EFDB) with supporting scientific information would also support the future
review and update of the IPCC Guidelines under the IPCC National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories Programme (IPCC-NGGIP).
With this background, a project to establish a database on GHG emission factors was
initiated with a scoping meeting held in New Delhi, India, on 24-25 July 2000. After
this meeting, a strategic implementation plan (SIP) for the establishment of an
Emission Factors Database was prepared by the Technical Support Unit (TSU), andendorsed by the Task Force Bureau (TFB) for the IPCC-NGGIP at its 5th session on
14 March 2001 in Geneva.
In accordance with the SIP, the first expert meeting on this EFDB project was held inParis, France, on 2-4 July 2001. The Paris meeting agreed upon the required
information categories and data fields, the functional design, and some aspects of the
EFDB management. Subsequently the TFB, at its 6th session held in Geneva on 9
August 2001, considered the outcomes of the Paris meeting and endorsed the updateof the work plan in the SIP including the draft call for tender to produce a database as
well as establishment of the EFDB Steering Group and its Terms of Reference.

1-2. Pilot testing of the prototype database
A prototype database was constructed in January 2002 in accordance with thefunctional design agreed at the Paris meeting, and was subject to pilot testing by anumber of inventory experts from different countries for 8 weeks, from 11 February2to 8 April 2002. Through the pilot testing, the selected reviewers were invited 2 to
examine every aspect of the prototype database including the structure and the data
input, output procedures according to the guidance prepared by the EFDB SteeringGroup. The objectives of the pilot testing were to:1) Examine the functional design embodied in the prototype database and cons ider
how to improve its utility.
2) Examine the contents (data records) contained in the prototype database andelaborate “influencing factors” or critical pieces of information for searching thenecessary emission factors or other parameters.
3) Collect data to input into the database.
The prototype database experienced more than 700 visits during the pilot testing. In
the end, the Technical Support Unit (TSU) of the IPCC-NGGIP received 119
comments 3 and 11 data items from 26 experts.
Table 1 Grouping of Countries/organisations who reviewed and submitted comments
or dataCategory
Developing countries
Countries with economy in transition
Developed countries
Intergovernmental organisations
Total

Reviewers (Comments/Data)
17 (67/9)
3 (12/0)
4 (31/2)
2 (9/0)26 (119/11)

The 119 comments and 11 data submissions can be categorised as shown in Table 2.

1-3. Objectives of the meeting
The second expert meeting in Bratislava was convened to:l Review the result of the pilot testing of the prototype database;l Identify the problems to improve the prototype database;l Discuss the design and functions of the database based on the results of the pilot
testing;l Discuss the procedure and schedule for improvement of the prototype databaseand its release to the public; andl Discuss the modalities and procedures to manage and populate the database.

2

The invitation to the pilot testing was sent to about 130 experts all over the world.

3

Such comments as just complimenting the TSU or just informing of some typos are not included here.

3

Table 2 Type of comments obtained through the pilot testingType of comments

Relevance to theobjectives of thepilot testing(A) Comments on the search/input process

Relevant to theobjectives #1 &#2(A-1) Comments on the IPCC category selection(A-2) Comments on gas selection(A-3) Comments on the influencing factors selection(A-4) Comments on the other aspects in the search process(A-5) Comments on the other aspects in the input process(B) Comments on the output process

Relevant to theobjectives #1(C) Comments on the existing data records

Relevant to theobjectives #2(D) Comments on the possible data sources,
Data submitted through “Single Input ”

Relevant to theobjectives #3(E) Comments on other technical issues---(F) Miscellaneous---

1-4. ParticipantsThis meeting was attended by 38 participants from 17 countries as well as from theSecretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC), the International Energy Agency (IEA), the Organización
Latinoamericana de Energía (OLADE), the SPIRIT a.s. (EFDB Designer), the Task
Force Bureau of the IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme (IPCCNGGIP/TFB), the IPCC Secretariat and the Technical Support Unit of the IPCC
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme (IPCC-NGGIP/TSU). The meeting
was co-chaired by Tinus Pulles from the Netherlands and Katarina Mareckova fromthe Slovak Republic.
The meeting was kindly hosted by the Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute (SMHU).

4

2. Recommendations to the EFDB Steering Group on
how to improve the prototype database2-1. Introduction
During the second IPCC Expert Meeting on the Establishment of a Database on
Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors, the participants discussed and identified areas of
the EFDB that require further development to finalise the prototype database (Phase Iof the IPCC EFDB project).
This report contains conclusions and recommendations to improve the design,
structure, data content, data input process and data output format of the prototype
database based on comments provided during the pilot testing (Background Paper
No.1 and Addendum: see Annex 1 to this report).
In this chapter, therecommendations follow the format, structure and headings given in background
paper No.1 as provided for the discussions during the second IPCC EFDB meeting.

2-2. Discussions and Recommendations(A) Comments on the search/input process(A-1) Comments on the IPCC category selection (STEP1)<Amend the IPCC category> [No. 1-2, 106-107] 4
Participants agreed that IPCC standard categories should not be modified or changed.
Ø In regards to irrigated rice cultivation, such detailed classification as proposed bycomment No.1 should be included in the information on “properties”.
Ø The amendment of the IPCC source categories should be considered in future
work when revising the current IPCC Guidelines.
The list of the IPCC source categories set up in the prototype database should be inconformity with the IPCC Guidelines 5 .
<Treat some IPCC sub-source categories as influencing factors> [No.3]
As agreed above in <Amend the IPCC category> [No. 1-2].

4

These numbers refer to the comment numbers listed in the background paper No. 1 (see Annex 1 tothis report).
5

After the meeting, the TSU identified some inconsistency between the category list in the prototype
database and that in the IPCC Guidelines. For example, sub-source categories 4D1-4D4 are listed in
the prototype database although there are no such sub-source categories in the IPCC Guidelines.

5Figure 1. Current style and new style for EF search navigation

Current style: All sectors remain on the screen even after the user has selected aparticular sector.

New style (proposed by SPIRIT): User’s selection is shown simply in one line.

6

<Highlight only the selected IPCC category on the screen> [No. 4]
Participants accepted the new EF search display option as proposed by Mr Peter
Gregus (SPIRIT). (See Figure 1)(A-2) Comments on gas selection (STEP2)<Enable to choose plural gases at a time> [No.5]
It was agreed that SPIRIT should explore the feasibility of allowing users the ability
to query the database for more than one gas per search by each of the following
options:
1) Add reasonable gas groupings to drop-down box (e.g. CO2 , CH4 , and N2O);
2) Add a table where the user can select one or more gases (i.e. checkboxes).
(Option 2 was widely preferred by participants.)<Improve indication of record count in “status ” statement> [No. 6]
Participants agreed that this was a low priority issue, but the SPIRIT should resolve
this technical issue so that the record count shown should not be misleading.
<Improve user-friendliness> [No. 7-8]
Participants agreed to the proposed changes as given in Comment No. 7 and 8 of
Background paper No. 1. Namely:Ø Greenhouse gas selection list should be in the following order: CO2 , CH4 , N 2O,
HFCs, PFCs, SF6 and others;
Ø “SEARCH” button should be made more accessible and more visible.
<Change NOx to NO2 in the list> [No. 108]
This issue was regarded as a low priority, since both NOx and NO2 are not direct
greenhouse gases. The TSU reminded participants of the convention in the IPCC
Guidelines that NOx (NO+NO2 ) emissions from fossil fuel combustion are expressedon a full molecular basis assuming that all NOx emissions are emitted as NO2 .
Therefore, the molecular weight should be changed to 46 but the gas should beindicated as “NOx”. A brief explanatory note may be needed in this case.

(A-3) Comments on the influencing factors selection (STEP3)
During the course of discussion on the influencing factors (Comments No. 9-34, 109),
participants came to recognise the necessity to re-consider the definition of theinfluencing factors in conjunction with the flow of search/input process. Intensive
discussions and considerations were given to this issue, which resulted in thefollowing conclusions:7Ø The flow of search/input process should be modified so that it could be morepractical. The categorisation stage should be clearly distinguished from, andfollowed by, the screen/input stage (see Figure 2).
Ø Most of ‘Influencing Factors’ should be renamed ‘Properties’ and defined as what
EFDB users might see as important information after the categorisation stage insearching or inputting data. Only “Fuel (type)” for Energy Sector, however, should
be considered as essential information to specify at the categorisation stage. (SeeBox 1).
Figure 2. Improvement of the flow of search process

Current flow

Improved flow
1) Categorisation Stage

Step 1: Choose IPCC category

Choose IPCC category
Choose Fuel (only in category 1A)

Step 2: Choose Gas

Choose Gas(es)Initial search

Step 3: Choose Influencing Factors

Initial output table(List of all data records under the
category specified above.)Search
Output table (List of search results)

2) Screen Stage
Screen the data for the optimal
choices by considering

Select a data record and click“detail” button.

Detailed output table (Detailed
information on the selected data
record).

-Properties-

Source of data /etc.
Screen (free text search)
Output table narrowed down
(List of all data records after
screening.)
Select a data record and click“detail” button.
Detailed output table (Detailed
information on the selected data
record).

8

If necessaryBox 1: Main Identifiers and Properties

At first in this discussion, participants proposed that ‘Influencing Factors’ could begrouped into two types, i.e. ‘Main Identifiers’ and additional ‘Properties’.
ü ‘Main Identifiers’ define what EFDB users must specify as essential
information at the categorisation stage in searching or inputting data. ‘Main
Identifiers’ should be regarded as mandatory entry fields and should beselected from pre-defined lists (drop-down lists).
ü ‘Properties’ define what EFDB users might see as important information after
the categorisation stage in searching or inputting data. ‘Properties’ would begiven in memo fields with full text search function.
After giving consideration to each IPCC Sector, however, the participants agreed that
it was only “Fuel (type)” for IPCC category 1A (Fuel Combustion) that would fallunder the classification “Main identifiers”.
Besides the “Fuel (type)” for Fuel Combustion, there is a variety of essential
information that should be specified for sub-source category levels such as“Production of: conventional oil/heavy oil/crude bitumen … (and so on)” for subsource categories under IPCC category 1B (Fugitive Emissions from Fuel). The
meeting concluded, however, that the information for sub-source category levels
should be considered as “Properties” rather than “Main Identifiers”.
Ø Information to be included as properties varies from one source category toanother, but the meeting agreed in the end that all this could fall into one of fivedifferent types presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Properties

Technologies/
Practices

Parameters/
Conditions

Region/Regional
Condition

Abatement/
ControlTechnologies

Example:Example:ExampleExample:ü Combustion
technology

ü Soil type

ü Country,
continent,etc.

ü CO2 captureü Fertiliser
dosageü Manure
management
systemü Land Useü Catalyst type

OthersAny additional
information that
does not fit into
the other fourü Climate(zone)

Ø The “Abatement / Control Technologies” are treated as a separate “property”
because of their specific consideration in emission reduction and control analyses.
In some cases the distinction between “Technologies / Practices” and “Abatement /Control Technologies” might be subtle or difficult to differentiate. For example in9the Agriculture Sector, “anaerobic lagoon” is a manure management system andfalls under “Technologies / Practices”, but “covered anaerobic lagoon with biogas
collection” would fall under “Abatement / Control Technologies”. The EFDB
guidance manual should make clear that the latter is explicitly intended to makeGHG abatement information more easily retrievable.
Ø EFDB user manual should be made available to assist users in searching andinputting data, in particular when inputting appropriate properties. The user manual
should clearly guide EFDB users in what each data field means, indicatingconcrete examples of “Properties”.
Ø The output table should look like Figure 3 and Table 4.
Ø EFDB users can screen the data records presented in the initial output table(Figure 3) to narrow them down to the optimal choices by:ü Using filter function on the webpage, orü Exporting the table to MS-Excel and using its functions.
Ø Filter function on the webpage should be applied to each column in the output
table. For example, when searching for new data from a source other than the
Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines, the user would filter out all the data records withdata source = " Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines", by applying the filter func tion to
the column for “Source of Data”.

10Figure 3. Image of the output table which should appear after the categorisation stage

IPCC Source Category: Agriculture (4) -> Manure Management (4B) -> Cattle (4B1) -> Dairy Cattle (4B1a)
Gas: Methane (CH4)
Previous 10 <Displaying 11 to 20 records out of 31 total records.
Region/Description Technologies/ Parameters/ Regional
EF-ID Gasof parameter Practices
Conditions Conditions

42021 CH4

About half ofManureManagement cattle manure isused for fuelEmissionwith theFactorremainder

Abatement/
Others(OtherControl
Value
Technologie s Properties)

Unit

Data
Data
ProviderProvider Country

Region: Asia,
Climate: Warm

27 kg/head

IPCC

–

2 kg/head

IPCC

–

/yr

managed in dry
systems.

43171 CH4

> Next 10

Almost all
ManureManagement livestock
manure is
Emissionmanaged as a
Factorsolid on pasture

Region: Latin
America,
Climate: Warm/yr

and ranges .

43199 CH4

44212 CH4…
…

…
…

ManureManagement
Emission
FactorRegion: Eastern
Europe,Climate:Temperate

Anaerobic
ManureManagement lagoon
Emission
Factor
…
…

…
…

…
…

filterfilterfilter

Export to XLS

g/animal EEA/

19,000 /yr

CoveredRegion: Asia, anaerobic
Climate: Warm lagoon with bio
gas collection…
…
…
…

filterfilter

CITEPA

10 kg/head
/yr

…
…

filter…
…

…
…

FranceKiyotoTanabe Japan
…
…

…
…

filterfilter

Source ofdata
Revised1996 IPCC
Guidelines
for National
Greenhouse
Gas
Inventories
Revised1996 IPCC
Guidelines
for National
Greenhouse
Gas
Inventories

CORINAIR94

Journal ofanimalhusbandry***/****…
…

filterDetail

Detail

Detail

Detail

DetailTable 4. The detailed output table which should appear when “detail” button is clicked

Emission Factor Detail (ID: 44212)
Administrative information
Data Provider:
Data Provider Country:
Data Provider Contact: a)Date calculated:
Date received:
Date posted to EFDBTechnical information
Gas:
IPCC Category:
Fuel
Properties
Technologies/Practices
Parameters/Conditions
Region/Regional Conditions
Abatement/Control Technologies
OthersDescription:
Value: b)
Value in common units:
Equation:
IPCC Worksheet Number:
Source of data:
Technical Reference:

Reference language:
Abstract in English:
Upper confidence limit:
Lower confidence limit:
Data quality:
Distribution shape:
Data quality reference:
Other info on data quality:
Usage/Review information c)Type of emission factor:
Measurement standard:
Periodicity of measurement:
External quality control performed:
Date of measurement:
Comments from the data provider:
Comments from others:<N.B., This is a hypothetical data record.>
Kiyoto TanabeJapan
08/05/1999
23/05/2002
25/07/2002
CH4
Agriculture (4) -> Manure Management (4B)->
Cattle (4B1) -> Dairy Cattle (4B1a)
Anaerobic lagoon
Region: Asia,
Climate: Warm (Average temperature above 25oC)
Covered anaerobic lagoon with bio gas collection
Manure Management Emission Factor
10 kg/head/yr
10 kg/head/yr
See Page **** of the 1996 IPCC Guidelines
Worksheet 4-1, Sheet 1 of 2.
Journal of animal husbandry. ***/ ****
K. Tanabe (2000), "Methane Emissions from
Livestock Manure." In International Methane
Emissions, Society of animal husbandry, ………
EnglishThe manure management is one of the major
sources of CH4, ………….
12 kg/head/yr
8 kg/head/yr
****
****
****
****
Measured
****
****
****
08/05/1999****

a) This information will not be shown to users. It will be kept to the EFDB manager.
b) In the excel output, figures and units should be put in separate cells .
c) Information on applicability (such as country of applicability, year of applicability) was removed
since this information can be delivered in the “properties” fields.

12

Recommendations on the specific issues listed in the section (A-3) are shown below.
<Improve/change the way to indicate “CORINAIR-split”> [No. 9-11]
Participants agreed that “CORINAIR split” should not be used as ’Influencing
Factors’. CORINAIR data should be properly mapped to the IPCC sector and be reimported into the EFDB. Any additional detail as contained in the CORINAIR Split
should be translated into the 5 groups of properties, though this would be a timeconsuming task.
<Enable inclusive search rather than exclusive search> [No. 12]
It was agreed that EFDB users should be provided with the ability to perform an“AND” or an “OR” search within each property group, but an “AND” search forsearches defining entries in different property groups only.
<Seek better use of the “Ignoring the influencing factors ” option> [No. 13-15]
Participants accepted the proposed changes as given in the “Possible solutions ” toComment No. 13 in Background paper No. 1. The new output table shown in Figure 3
was proposed in accordance with this change.
<Make the lists of influencing factors for specific sources more appropriate>[No. 16-34, 109]
Participants agreed to reorganise fuel categories so that the fuels will be ranked bytypes, keeping the use of IPCC fuel terminology. In this regard, the IPCC Fuel
categories presented in the IPCC Guidelines should be followed. (See page 1.19 of
Vol.1 Reporting Instructions, the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines.) Suggested
examples (main fuel category, sub fuel category, specific fuel) are:1)

Solid – Coal – Coal type2)

Liquid – Gasoline – Motor Gasoline

The importance of technical information was emphasised in the meeting, and it wasagreed that the Editorial Board should need to further consider this issue (in Phase II).
It was suggested that published papers, scientific journals and other documents should
be made available. Technical references will need to be traceable to a scientific library.
Participants also agreed on the importance of abstracts to be available in English.
Live links to other databases or reports, however, will not be feasible since links may
not be maintained or may be moved to other web addresses without notice.

13

(A-4) Comments on the other aspects in the search process<Doubt the necessity of options 2 & 3> [No. 35]
Participants agreed that search options 2 & 3 are useful and there is no need to remove
them.
<Clarify what the EF-ID is and why it is needed> [No. 36-38]
It was agreed that SPIRIT should define and sort EF-ID into appropriate IPCC
Categories so that it would be easily identifiable with major IPCC categories and ofuse to EFDB users. It was suggested to link the initial figure of EF-ID to the IPCC
major sector where that EF belongs. (For example, EF-ID 1xxx for Energy, 4xxx for
Agriculture, etc.)<Enable inclusive search rather than exclusive search in the Find EF option 2>[No. 39]
It was agreed that users should be given the capability of performing an “AND” or an“OR” search also in the Find EF option 2.
<Improve drop-down lists in the Find EF option 2> [No.40]
Participants agreed that this was a low priority issue, but the SPIRIT should resolve
this technical issue in line with the Comment No.40 in Background Paper No.1.

(A-5) Comments on the other aspects in the input process<Improve user-friendliness of “Single Input” process > [No. 41-43]
As regards the “self-creating catalogue ” for production technology etc. proposed by
the Comment 41 in Background Paper No.1, it is not acceptable any longer because it
was agreed that the “properties” should be given by memo fields with full text search,
not by drop-down lists.
Participants recommended that the SPIRIT highlight mandatory data entry fields sothat data providers can easily recognise them.
The issue on change/update of submitted data should be considered by the Editorial
Board in future. The tasks of the Editorial Board will include reviewing the proposed
entries in the “property” fields by the data provider.
<Include a unit which is missing from the drop-down list > [No. 44]
It was agreed that the EFDB should include the EF unit as proposed by Comment No.
44 in Background Paper No.1
<Refine the format for data submission > [No. 45-47]
The problem with data fields on “possible applicability” (Comment No.45) no longer
matters in the new structure of data fields. (See Table 3, footnote c.)14Participants agreed to the recommendation and possible solutions as provided within
Comments No.46 and 47 in Background Paper No. 1. The necessity of a user manualfor data providers was recognised.

(B) Comments on the output process<Improve the “Find EF – Results” table > [No. 48-57]
The new output table was suggested as shown in Figure 3.
Some additional proposals were made as follows:Ø EFs will not be presented in a hierarchical manner (rank) – users to judge
applicability of EF data.
Ø Screen sorting capabilities (of initial EF results) will be incorporated as toimprove output tables (exportable to Excel).
Ø Detail sorting shall be performed outside the database by users.
Ø IPCC Guidelines and IPCC Good Practice Report should be correctly referenced.
<Improve indication of record count in “status ” statement> [No. 58-59]
Participants agreed that this was a low priority issue. The SPIRIT (programmer)
should resolve this technical issue so that the record count shown should not be
misleading.
<Indicate the reason of no matching> [No. 60]
Participants felt that it would neither be easy nor useful to give reasons for “nomatching” search results, but the following suggestions were made on possible
solutions.
Ø Refine search process (steps) - electronic ‘HELP” guidance available to users.
Ø Notify users via a message that data may not exist.
Ø Provide users with EFDB manual (electronic or hardcopy format).
<Rectify technical errors> [No. 61-62]
It was agreed that these technical issues should be addressed by SPIRIT and resolved
as discussed in comments 61 and 62 of Background Paper No.1.

15

(C) Comments on the existing data records<Address data gaps/data deficiency> [No. 63-68, 110-118]
It was agreed that these issues should be addressed by the Editorial Board (or theSteering Group).
Other suggestions were:Ø Not all Default IPCC EFs have yet been entered into present EFDB system.
Import of Default data should be completed as early as possible.
Ø Data entry errors should be corrected (erroneous data).
Ø EF Duplication – review all properties and references to ensure duplication – ifdifferences exist – should maintain and support both (or more) records since it will
be up to the user to decide the applicability of each emission factor.
Ø New EFs, based on new research or technology will be added but will not replace
other EFs within the specific sector.
Ø EFDB users should be informed semi-annually of the EF update list.
Ø EFDB users should also be alerted on the HOME page as to EF update list (flagchanges on website)Ø An ON-LINE User Manual should be included.

(D) Comments on the possible data sources/Data submitted
through “Single Input”<Explore possible data sources> [No. 69-77, 119]It was agreed that these issues should be addressed by the Editorial Board (or theSteering Group).
Other suggestions were:Ø Data input page should be automated to ensure that mandatory fields are enteredprior to the submission of EF for review.
Ø Steering Group or future Editorial Board will identify a list of ‘registered’ data
providers and other data providers, if necessary.

(E) Comments on other technical issues<Set “Back” buttons as appropriate on pages> [No. 78-87]
Various suggestions were made as follows, among which the SPIRIT is encouraged toseek the best solutions in consultation with the Steering Group and the TSU.
Ø Revise search option by allowing users to address (via check box for step 1 to 3)
search criteria (i.e. fuel type and additional properties) on one screen, therefore
reducing the need to use the back button.
16Ø BACK button should be made more visible – presently dynamic page search,
therefore pages are rebuilt when using the designed BACK button rather than thebrowser’s back button (need to inform the users of the BACK button’s function).
Ø SPIRIT will address the issue of the browser closing when EFs are exported to
DOC, XLS and other data export format.
Ø Provide ON LINE assistance and quick search guidance to users.
<Assist users in selecting appropriate browsers> [No. 88-94]
Participants agreed that the EFDB users should be encouraged to use an appropriate
browser (appropriate version of Internet Explorer or Netscape Navigator), and that theaccess to the browser software should be provided in IPCC EFDB CD ROM or
through the internet.
Ø Note to users on required browsers – WARNING ON REQUIRED VERSION –On Line.
Ø EFDB access speed is dependent on host location of EFDB server.
Ø User manual to be made available in a hardcopy and an electronic fo rmat.

(F) Miscellaneous<Use appropriate terms > [No. 95-97]
The Steering Group and/or the Editorial Board may wish to identify appropriate‘emission factor’ terminology (emission parameter, leakage rate, conversion factorsetc.) However, it was agreed that the term “emission factors” should be used to cover
all data to be included in the EFDB with clear explanation about it. In order to avoid
confusion, each data record should clearly indicate what the data represent and what
the dimensions are 6 .
Suggestions were made as follows:Ø Use a general term (i.e. Emission Parameter) in description and provide a more
specific definition for relevant sectors.
Ø Include in EFDB user manual relevant terminology for ‘factors’ available in the
EFDB.
<Enhance accessibility of developing country experts to the EFDB> [No. 98-102]
Production of CD-ROM version was supported by the participants. Besides, anothersuggestion was made to the effect that the establishment of mirror sites might deserve
consideration.
<Others> [No. 103-105]
The issues raised here were beyond the scope of this project (IPCC-EFDB).

6

If there is no dimension, “No dimension” should be indicated.

17

3. Proposal to the TFB on modalities and procedures
to manage and populate the database3-1. Introduction
During the second IPCC Expert Meeting on the Establishment of a Database on
Greenhouse Gas Emission Factor, the participants also discussed the future
development of the EFDB, namely how to manage and populate the EFDB after its
release to the public at COP8 (Phase II of IPCC EFDB project). The database should
contain as many defa ult emission factor as possible as its first release. Bulk upload ofdefault data presented in the IPCC Guidelines and Good Practice Report should bedone in Phase I.
The discussion resulted in a proposal to the Task Force Bureau (TFB) on the IPCCNGGIP on modalities and procedures to manage and populate the database.

3-2. Proposal to the TFB on modalities and procedures tomanage and populate the database(A) Management arrangements(A-1) Boundary conditions
The EFDB is developed under the work plan endorsed by the TFB. The final
responsibility of the system and its data is with the IPCC. The Management Plan forthe maintenance of the EFDB is meant to fully recognise this responsibility, throughdefining a pragmatic and cost-effective management structure to ensure the following:a. A sustained availability of the information available in EFDB throughi. The Internet;
ii. Distribution of the information contained in EFDB on CDROMs for users with limited Internet access.
b. A sustained inflow of new emission factors and other parameters that
supports estimation of emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily at nationallevel
c. Appropriate presentation, publication and dissemination of information on
the EFDB and its contents
A goal of the EFDB is to grow towards a recognised library, where users can findemission factors and other parameters with background documentation that can beused for estimating greenhouse gas emissions in national submissions of inventories
to the UNFCCC. The responsibility of using this information appropriately will
always remain with the national expert using it.
The EFDB shall be open to any relevant proposals on emission factors or other relatedparameters. Acceptance of such proposals will be subject to assessment by an editorial
board using well-defined criteria. This means proposals will not be automatically
accepted or rejected but will be checked for possible technical errors by the editorial
board prior to publication in the EFDB.

18

Different values of emission factors for a particular source category can be accepted at
the same time, even if those values are contributed by the same provider. A provider
might make several measurements and obtained different results, or the data provider
has collected scientific literature and is merely reporting the various results ofdifferent researchers for the same emission parameter. In either case, “properties”
field of the data in the EFDB must clearly differentiate between the values reported.
This process will thus facilitate the distribution of alternative values for emission
parameters from which end users can then make informed choices about the mostappropriate applications.

(A-2) Management plan – Role of the EFDB Steering Group
Figure 4 presents an overview of the proposed management structure for the EFDB.
The TSU will be responsible for the technical maintenance (system management) of
the EFDB.
The steering group for this EFDB project (EFDB Steering Group) established by the
Task Force Bureau at its 6th session will continue to be responsible for the data
management of EFDB7 . The EFDB Steering Group will produce an annual work plan
to be submitted to the TFB for its consideration and approval, describing thefollowing:i. The statistics of usage of EFDB in the past year;
ii. Proposals for members of the Editorial Board that will assess
all proposals for new emission factors or updates of existingones before inclusion in the EFDB;
iii. Any plans for modifications of the database structure or theuser interface, including the budget needed for such changes.
In future, responsibilities of the Steering Group may be merged or be absorbed by the
Editorial Board, subject to the decision by the TFB.

7

According to the terms of reference (TOR) of the EFDB Steering Group endorsed by the TFB at its
7th session, “the objective, responsibilities and membership of the EFDB Steering Group should be
reviewed by the TFB subsequent to the completion of the first version of the EFDB which is planned
for at the end of 2002 (by COP8).”

19

Figure 4. Management structure for the EFDBTFBSupervise

Supervise

Supervise

Steering Group
AdviceTSU

Editorial Board
SupportBoard Co-chairs (2)EnergyEditorial Co-ordinators (2)Sector Experts (3-5)

Dataassessment

Industrial Processes
Editorial Co-ordinators (2)Sector Ex perts (3-5)

Technical
maintenanceDatamanagement

Agriculture
Editorial Co-ordinators (2)Sector Experts (3-5)

LUCF
Editorial Co-ordinators (2)Sector Experts (3-5)

EFDB
Database +Web-server

Waste
Editorial Co-ordinators (2)Sector Experts (3-5)

20(A-3) Draft Terms of Reference of the Editorial Board
Objective
1. The objective of the EFDB Editorial Board is to ensure all emission factors andother parameters contained in the emission factors database (EFDB) under the
IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme (IPCC-NGGIP) are
scientifically sound according to the criteria 8 endorsed by the Task Force Bureau(TFB) on the IPCC-NGGIP.
Responsibility
2. In order to achieve the objective mentioned in paragraph 1 above, the EFDB
Editorial Board should assume the responsibility to assess whether the proposed
new emission factors or other parameters are acceptable or not. The EFDB Editorial
Board will not evaluate the quality of the data already published by the IPCC and/orin the open literature, but determine whether the newly submitted data arescientifically sound and documentation is sufficient.
Membership
3. The Editorial Board will consist of the following members:a. Two experts as Editorial Co-ordinators 9 for each of the sectors:
i. Energy
ii. Industrial Processesiii. Agriculture
iv. Land-Use Change and Forestry
v. Wasteb. Three to five additional experts as Sector Experts for each of the sectors
above.
c. Two Board Co-chairs10 who will have overall responsibility of assessmentof emission factors for the EFDB. They will also be responsible forassessment of emission factors and other parameters in Solvent and Other
Product Use and any other source category not covered by the experts listed
above.
d. A representative of the Technical Support Unit (TSU) to represent data andsystem management.
4. The members of the Editorial Board other than the representative of the TSU will
be selected by the NGGIP TFB upon recommendation by the Steering Group fromthe experts officially nominated by governments/IPCC National Focal Points forthis purpose. 11 In this selection, geographical balance as well as balance of

8

Well-defined criteria should be developed by the Steering Group or at an expert meeting involving theSteering Group as well as the Editorial Board.
9

There are some other names proposed, such as “lead facilitators” and “lead sector editors”

10

Member(s) of the Steering Group may become the Board Co-chair(s) if the TFB deems it appropriate.

11

Another option is to select the members from the experts who participated in the previous meetingsof this project (New Delhi meeting in 2000, Paris meeting in 2001, and Bratislava meeting in 2002).
The final decision on this matter is up to the TFB or the IPCC Bureau. In either case, the slate of initial
members of the Editorial Board will be prepared by the TSU in consultation with the current EFDB
Steering Group, and submitted to the TFB for its consideration and endorsement.

21

expertise should be ensured.
5. The selected experts will serve the Editorial Board for two years. There will be an
option for another 2 years to ensure continuity of the work of the Editorial Board.
6. The TSU will maintain the actual membership lists of the Editorial Board. The email lists will be maintained on the EFDB server to facilitate communication
among the Editorial Board members.
Procedure for assessment
7. The procedure to assess a proposed new emission factor or other parameter will be
performed using both the functionality of the EFDB web site and e- mail.
8. The procedure for assessment should follow the flow chart below, resulting in adecision on including the new information in the EFDB within 9 weeks after
proposal:
Task

W1

W2

W3

W4

W5

W6

W7

W8

W9

W10

Data provider proposes new data
TSU notifies Editorial Co-ordinators andSector Experts
Editorial Co-ordinators and Sector Experts
assess the proposed data
Editorial Co-ordinators prepare draft
decision
Board Co-chairs, Sector Experts, [and Data
provider] comment on the draft decisions
Board Co-chairs make a final decision in
consultation with Editorial Co-ordinators
Publish the new information in the EFDB

Web publication 2-4 times a year

a. When a proposal on new data is submitted to the EFDB (by using Single
Input menu for example), the TSU will:i. Send the proposal to the Editorial Co-ordinators and Sector Experts
for the relevant sector by e- mail within 1 week, and ask them tomake a decision within 8 weeks from the notification.
ii. Notify the data provider who submitted the new data that the
proposal has been sent to the Editorial Board and that a decision is
to be expected within 8 weeks from the notification.
b. Each of the Editorial Co-ordinators and Sector Experts for the sector willassess whether the new information should be accepted, rejected or
subjected to revision for acceptance. A short rationale for the decision isessential12 . Each assessment should be communicated to Editorial Coordinators. This must happen within 4 weeks after the notification by the
TSU.
c. Subsequently, the Editorial Co-ordinators responsible for the sector will
prepare a draft decision on the basis of the assessments by the Sector
12

A uniform check sheet would be helpful for this purpose.

22

Experts and themselves within 1 week. The decision will in principle bebased on consensus. If the decision is not based on consensus, this must be
clearly stated.
d. The Editorial Co-ordinators will send the draft decision to the Board Cochairs and the Sector Experts [and to the data provider] 13 for comments
within two weeks.
e. One week later the Board Co-chairs will make a final decision in
consultation with the Editorial Co-ordinators for the sector. If the decision
is positive the Editorial Board will request the TSU to make the new data
available to all on the EFDB web site.
f. The TSU will send a message by e- mail to the data provider, indicating thedecision of the Editorial Board.
g. The TSU will publish (upload) the new information onto the web site andwill place a notification on the changes on the home page of the web site
two to four times a year.
h. The TSU will also publish the new information by CD-ROMs annually or
semi-annually.
9. A periodic process for uploading data on the EFDB will be established in future.
However, due to the need to populate the EFDB effectively, participants recognised
the need for a temporary continuous process during the initial data submission
period. The switch from a continuous to a periodic process will be proposed by the
Editorial Board, Steering Group and the TSU and determined by the TFB. The
process switch may also depend on quantity of submitted data.
Annual meeting10.
To ensure consistency of the decision criteria over time and between Editorial
Co-ordinators and Sector Experts, an annual meeting of the Editorial Board will beorganised in late spring or early summer of each year.
11.
All members of the Editorial Board, and a limited number of experts
nominated by governments will participate in this meeting. Governments areencouraged to nominate their national inventory experts to represent the primaryusers of EFDB.
12.
The agenda of the meeting will contain, amongst others, the following
elements:
a. An overview of the achievements of the past year;
b. A presentation of the work plan by the EFDB Steering Group;.
c. Identification of weak points in the database and proposals for
improvement of emission factors and other parameters in specific sectors,
sub-sectors and source categories.
d. Other issues relating to EFDB functionality, review procedures andprocess, data collection, data dissemination, administrative issues, etc.
13.
A smaller meeting of only the EFDB Steering Group, the Board Co-chairs andEditorial Co-ordinators for each sector is encouraged, once a year, in order toensure good management of the EFDB.

13

Some participants in the meeting questioned the necessity of this process. On the other hand, someother participants stressed the necessity of this process to demonstrate that the assessment is
implemented in a transparent and open manner. This issue was left to the decision by the TFB.

23

(B) Populating the database
During the pilot testing of the prototype database, the TSU received some information
on possible data sources. Also, some data were submitted to the TSU for inclusion
into the database.
The EFDB Steering Group and the TSU will make efforts to collect those data andconsider whether they could be included into the database or not. Also, it was agreed
that the participants at this meeting will serve as a temporary Editorial Board andprovide any additional input to assist the TSU and the EFDB Steering Group with thefinalisation of Phase I of the IPCC EFDB project.
In the future, some procedures and criteria to continuously promote populating the
EFDB should be developed. For example, the annual meeting as suggested above will
identify weak points in the database content and encourage relevant experts to explore
or develop necessary emission factors and other parameters in specific sectors, subsectors and source categories.

24