Joint 1st and 2nd IPCC Expert Meeting on
Short-lived Climate Forcers

Report of IPCC Expert Meeting
11 – 22 October 2021, Virtual Meeting

Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

1Supporting material prepared for consideration by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This
supporting material has not been subject to formal IPCC review processes.
This Joint 1st and 2nd IPCC Expert Meeting on Short-lived Climate Forcers was organised by the IPCC Task
Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI). It was held through ZOOM and MS Teams platforms.
This meeting report was prepared jointly by the Co-Chairs of the IPCC TFI (Eduardo Calvo Buendia and Kiyoto
Tanabe) as well as the Technical Support Unit (TSU) of the TFI (Sandro Federici, Baasansuren Jamsranjav,
Eduard Karapoghosyan, Pavel Shermanau, Valentyna Slivinska) and the consultant of the Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies (Takeshi Enoki), and subjected to review by the meeting participants.
Published by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan on behalf of the IPCC
© Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2022
Please cite as:
IPCC (2022). Joint 1st and 2nd IPCC Expert Meeting on Short-lived Climate Forcers. Eds: Calvo Buendia, E.,
Tanabe, K., Enoki T., Federici S., Jamsranjav B., Karapoghosyan E., Shermanau P., Slivinska V. - Report of the
Joint 1st and 2nd IPCC Expert Meeting on Short-lived Climate Forcers, Pub. IGES, Japan.
IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI)
Technical Support Unit
℅ Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
2108 -11, Kamiyamaguchi
Hayama, Kanagawa
JAPAN, 240-0115
https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp

ISBN 978-4-88788-259-1
2

Table of Contents
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... 3
Preface .................................................................................................................................................... 4
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations......................................................................................................... 5
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 7
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 10
2. Meeting discussion and conclusions .............................................................................................. 13
2.1
ENERGY BOG .................................................................................................................. 13
2.2

IPPU BOG......................................................................................................................... 19

2.3

AFOLU BOG ..................................................................................................................... 23

2.4

WASTE BOG .................................................................................................................... 25

2.5

CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES .............................................................................................. 29

Annex 1: Sectoral Tables....................................................................................................................... 31
Annex 2: Agenda ................................................................................................................................. 105
Annex 3: List of Participants ................................................................................................................ 108

3

Preface
We are pleased to present this report of the Joint 1st and 2nd Expert Meeting on Short-lived Climate Forcers heldon 11-22 October 2021 as a virtual meeting.
At the 45th Session of the IPCC in Guadalajara, Mexico in March 2017, the need for methodology to estimate
emissions of Short-lived Climate Forcers (SLCFs) was brought up for discussion, because of the potential
importance of reducing emissions of such climate forcers for climate change mitigation as well as for air quality
improvement. Following the discussion and decision by the IPCC at its 46th Session in Montreal, Canada(Decision IPCC/XLVI-6), the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI) jointly with Working
Group I held an expert meeting on SLCFs in Geneva, Switzerland, in May 2018 to discuss issues on estimationof emissions and climate effects. This expert meeting in 2018 concluded, among others:-

Improved emission inventories of SLCFs are necessary to enhance scientific understanding and assessmentof their role in climate change as well as to inform climate policy at the national and international levels.

-Internationally-agreed, globally applicable methodologies and emission factors for SLCF emission
inventories are necessary, and the IPCC TFI is in a good position to do that work.

Taking the conclusions and recommendations of this expert meeting in 2018 into consideration, the IPCC
decided, at its 49th Session in Kyoto, Japan in May 2019, to develop a Methodology Report on SLCFs during the
IPCC’s 7th Assessment Cycle (Decision IPCC-XLIX-7).
This Joint 1st and 2nd Expert Meeting on SLCFs was an important step of the preparatory work for that
Methodology Report. It brought together 115 participants comprising scientists and inventory experts identified
and selected by the Bureau of TFI (TFB) in accordance with the procedures set out in Section 7.1 of Appendix A
to the Principles Governing IPCC Work. Discussion and conclusions of this expert meeting are described in thisreport. They are not to preempt the future work for production of the Methodology Report, but to serve as input tothat process. We believe they will inform the scoping as well as the writing of the Methodology Report during the
IPCC’s 7th Assessment Cycle.
We would like to thank all those involved in this meeting, namely, the scientists and experts who participated, themembers of TFB and the ones of TFI Technical Support Unit, for their contribution, that enabled to make thismeeting a success.

Eduardo Calvo Buendia
Co-ChairTask Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Kiyoto Tanabe
Co-ChairTask Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

4List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AD

Activity Data

AP-42

US EPA Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors

AR6

Sixth Assessment Report

AR7

Seventh Assessment ReportBCBlack Carbon

BOG

Break-Out Group

BVOC

Biogenic Volatile Organic Compounds

CH4

MethaneCO

Carbon Monoxide

CO2

Carbon Dioxide

CLRTAP

Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution

EBC

Effective Black Carbon

EC

Elemental Carbon

EEA

European Environment Agency

EF

Emission Factor

EV

Electric Vehicle

EMEP

European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme

GHG

Greenhouse Gas

GWP

Global Warming Potential

HFCs

Hydrofluorocarbons

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

KCA

Key Category Analysis

LPG

Liquified Petroleum Gas

LTO

Landing and Take-Off

N2O

Nitrous Oxide

NH3

Ammonia

NMVOC

Non-Methane Volatile Organic Compounds

NOx

Nitrogen Oxides

NTCF

Near-term Climate Forcers

OA

Organic AerosolOC

Organic Carbon

OM

Organic Matter

PM10

Particulate Matter with aerodynamic diameter ≤ 10 μm (micrometer)

PM2.5

Particulate Matter with aerodynamic diameter ≤ 2.5 μm (micrometer)
5

RF

Radiative Forcing

SCR

Selective Catalytic Reduction

SLCF

Short-lived Climate Forcers

SLCP

Short-lived Climate Pollutants

SO2

Sulphur Dioxide

SOA

Secondary Organic Aerosols

TFI

Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

TSP

Total Suspended Particles

TSU

Technical Support Unit

UNECE

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

UNEP

UN Environnent (United Nations Environnent Programme)

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

US EPA

United States Environmental Protection Agency

VOC

Volatile Organic Compound

WG

Working Group

6

Executive Summary
At the 49th Session held in May 2019 (in Kyoto, Japan) the IPCC approved that the TFI produces an IPCC
Methodology Report on SLCFs during the seventh IPCC assessment cycle (AR7 cycle) and that preparatory
work is carried out during the sixth IPCC assessment cycle (AR6 cycle).
Accordingly, the IPCC TFI held the Joint 1st and 2nd IPCC Expert Meeting on SLCFs (Joint Meeting) on 11 – 22
October 2021 virtually via ZOOM and MS Teams platforms.
Scope of the meeting was mainly to list all relevant source categories of SLCF emissions, aggregated according
to inventory sectors (i.e., Energy, Industrial Processes and Product Use (IPPU), Agriculture, Forestry and Other
Land Use (AFOLU), Waste), and secondarily to identify knowledge gaps in the available methodologicalguidance and datasets needed to estimate SLCFs emissions by all countries in the world.
The following SLCF species were considered: Aerosols− Black Carbon (BC)− Organic Carbon (OC) Precursors (ozone precursors and aerosol precursors)− Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)− Carbon Monoxide (CO)− NMVOC (including Biogenic Volatile Organic Compounds (BVOC))− Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)− Ammonia (NH3)
Methane and halogenated compounds were not included, because inventory methodologies for them are alreadyprovided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006 IPCC Guidelines) and the2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2019 Refinement).
Most of the SLCF species listed above are included in existing methodological guidance analysed. In addition,
the current approach to derive BC and OC emissions as a fraction of PM2.5 (e.g., in the EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant
Emission Inventory Guidebook 2019 (EMEP/EEA Guidebook)) might need improvement or elaboration due tosignificant variability in observed (measured) BC/PM2.5 ratios, which often change when an emission reduction
technology is applied, and because although PM2.5 concentration is the proxy for the radiative impact of all kindsof composing species, its relationship with emissions of SLCF species is limited since most PM2.5 in theatmosphere, aside from dust and sea salt, is of secondary formation.
To facilitate and support the work at the virtual meeting the TSU and the participants went through a desk-work
phase that resulted in the production of three documents for each sector:•

Table 1 - Summary Information - where for each source of emissions and SLCF species information on
availability of methodological information and activity data (AD) is compiled to define its relevance andglobal applicability•

Table 2 - Category List - where all identified relevant sources, and associated SLCF species,
categorized consistently with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines classification scheme have been listed•

Issue paper, a list of main issues related with the categorization of SLCF sources.

Information collated and analysed was mainly sourced from the EMEP/EEA Guidebook, the UNEP Atmospheric
Brown Clouds Emission Inventory Manual and the US EPA Compilation of Air Emissions Factors (AP-42), withadditional information mainly sourced from national methodological frameworks as e.g. the US EPA National
Emissions Inventory.
At the meeting, experts worked on Table 1 by adding:• source categories and/or SLCF species, not yet identified7• for each source category and associated SLCF species, information on the availability of methods toestimate emissions (including AD and emission factors (EFs)), with the aim to judge whether the relevant
methodology is globally applicable or there are limits/knowledge gaps to its application• for each source categories and/or SLCF species for which no methods are currently available, informationon the likelihood to be a significant source.
On the basis of the work done in Table 1, experts worked on Table 2 with the aim to, as far as practicable,
provide a complete categorization of SLCF sources considered relevant for a national emission inventory. (Bothtables are included for each sectoral break-out group (BOG) in Annex 1).
During the work at BOGs on the tables, and associated issue papers, experts identified most relevant gaps,
which are thus listed in the BOG reports, as well as identified some cross-sectoral issues (see Section 2.5).
Outcomes of the BOGs work were presented and discussed at the closing plenary (BOGs reports are publishedon the IPCC TFI website at: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/mtdocs/2110_SLCF.html). Finally, at theclosing plenary cross-cutting issues were discussed in a dedicated session where, without drawing any
conclusion, their relevance for the preparation of the Methodology Report was noted and further consideration of
those was observed to be desirable.
The expert meeting resulted in the collection and categorization of a large amount of information, in a format
expected to be useful for the scoping of the Methodology Report.
Participants noted that levels and rates of SLCF emissions and associated climate impacts are largely moreregionally dependent than GHGs, so to ensure the availability of regional/national datasets of EFs and AD ismore challenging than for a National Greenhouse Gas Inventory.
In summary, this expert meeting concluded that:• Methods to estimate emissions for most relevant SLCF sources are available, and for most of those IPCC
methods can be either directly applicable or applicable with modifications.
• Global coverage of available data on EFs and any needed ancillary parameters remains a challenge forsetting an IPCC default methodology for each of those sources.
• Methods that use same AD to estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from same sources of SLCFs
allow to readily estimate also SLCF emissions, although the availability of data for EFs and any ancillaryparameters may impair such statement.
• Applying the classification scheme of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines to the categorization of SLCF sources isproven effective, facilitates methods design and minimizes data needs. However, the IPCC classification
scheme needs to be expanded to cover additional sources.
• Emissions abatement technologies are a prominent variable when estimating SLCF emissions. In
application of an EF, it needs to be clarified whether the EF is for unabated emissions or for abatedemissions. When developing and presenting default EFs, underlying assumptions about abatement
technology must be clarified.
• Small scale use of fuels has a larger relevance than for GHGs, e.g. cookers, fireplaces, small boilers andstoves used in households; appliances to supply heat, hot water and small-scale power (like, backup
generators),
kerosene
wick
lamps
under
residential,commercial/institutional
andagriculture/forestry/fishing subsectors, and waste open burning-, which has major methodological anddata needs implications.
• Apportioning of SLCF species between sectors, e.g. Energy vs IPPU can effectively be implemented byapplying the same approaches used by 2006 IPCC Guidelines to apportion among sectors GHGs emitted
across a single process.
• Detailed lists of knowledge/data gaps are provided in each BOG report (Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4).
8• The Tiered approach applied in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines relies on the analysis of the significance ofsources and associated species of emissions, i.e. the Key Category Analysis (KCA). The KCA is
performed based on CO2-equivalent emissions using 100-year global warming potentials (GWP) as
common metrics. Emissions of SLCFs would be estimated in mass units and a common metrics has notbeen identified yet at this and previous IPCC meetings on SLCFs. Otherwise, an alternative approach toguide inventory-compilers in the choice of the most appropriate methodological Tier level to be applied foreach source category and associated SLCF species could be designed.

9

1. Introduction• Relevant IPCC decision, and planning of preparatory work for a Methodology Report on SLCFs during
IPCC AR6 cycle
At the 49th Session (IPCC-49) held in May 2019 (in Kyoto, Japan) the IPCC approved that the TFI produces an
IPCC Methodology Report on SLCFs following the Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work (Decision
IPCC-XLIX-7). In Annex 1 to the decision, the approach, output and timeline, and required activities are defined
as follows.
Approach• The preparatory work for the Methodology Report (including supporting materials and scoping) iscompleted as soon as possible, starting in the AR6 cycle. Followed by further methodologicaldevelopment in the AR7 cycle.
Output and Timeline• Expert meetings will produce a series of supporting materials to be published after each meeting but nolater than 2022.
• These supporting materials will be used to inform the scoping of methodological work for SLCFs.
• The scoping meeting will take into consideration the work on SLCFs underway in the reports of Working
Group I (WG I) (April 2021) and Working Group III (WG III) (July 2021)• The outline will be presented for approval to the Panel soon after the scoping meeting.
Required Activities• Technical analysis work by TSU with other experts.
• 3-4 Expert meetings• Scoping Meeting• Approval of outline by the Panel.
According to Decision IPCC-XLIX-7, the TFB planned originally to have two expert meetings in 2020, for which
selected the invitees and defined the main aim as to list all relevant source categories of SLCF emissions,aggregated according to inventory sectors (i.e., Energy, IPPU, AFOLU, Waste), and with the secondary aim to
identify knowledge gaps in the available methodological guidance for their assessment. The meetings had focus
on source categories of SLCF emissions, the first in the AFOLU and Waste sectors and the second in the Energy
and IPPU sectors.
However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic TFB first decided to postpone to 2021 the expert meetings originallyplanned for 2020, with the aim to hold those meetings in person. Subsequently, given the persistent impossibility
to hold in-person meetings, TFB decided to hold those jointly in a virtual format (online) for all sectors: Energy,
IPPU, AFOLU and Waste, as the Joint 1st and 2nd Expert Meeting on SLCF (Joint Meeting).
Further, as consequence of COVID-19 pandemic IPCC decided, at session 53bis, to postpone to the next
assessment cycle (AR7) the scoping approval for the SLCF Methodology Report. Thus, during the current IPCC
cycle (AR6) the joint expert meeting will be followed by a third expert meeting in the year 2022 (April) with theaim to take stock of the information on SLCF provided in the WGI and WGIII contributions to AR6 and haveconsideration of cross-cutting issues in methodologies to estimate SLCF emissions.
• Preliminary desk-work to serve the Joint Meeting on SLCFs
Ahead of the desk-work, TSU made a technical analysis of the main methodological frameworks to estimate
SLCF emissions. The technical analysis goals were to list all source categories and associated SLCF species forwhich methods to estimate emissions are available, and to provide a comparison between SLCF methods and
IPCC methods for GHGs. The technical analysis consisted in a set of excel worksheets, one worksheet for eachsector, where all information collected were organised.

10The following guidelines were analysed by TSU:
• EMEP/EEA Guidebook(https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2019)• UNEP Atmospheric Brown Clouds Emission Inventory Manual(https://www.unep.org/resources/report/atmospheric-brown-clouds-emission-inventory-manual)• US AP-42(https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emissions-factors)

The following SLCF 1 species were considered:
Aerosols− BC− OC Precursors (ozone precursors and aerosol precursors)
− NOx
− CO
− NMVOC (including BVOC)
− SO2
− NH3
Methane and halogenated compounds were not included, because inventory methodologies for them are alreadyprovided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and the 2019 Refinement.
On the basis of the technical analysis prepared by TSU, participants, at their desks, provided additional
information from national methodological frameworks for SLCF emissions and also complemented theinformation compiled by TSU.
• Material prepared to inform work at the Joint Meeting on SLCFs
To serve the work at the expert meeting, all feedbacks received from participants were collected by TSU andelaborated in a set of four documents for each sector (see Annex 1):
i.
ii.
iii.

iv.

An issue paper, with a list of main issues related with the categorization of SLCF sources
An information table on SLCF source categories and associated SLCF species, where for each category
and SLCF species information on availability of methodological information and of AD is compiled todefine its relevance and global applicability (Table 1 Summary Information)
A summary table (Table 2 Category List) where all identified source categories, and associated SLCF
species, for which a method available was identified as:− either the corresponding IPCC method in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, or a modification of it,− or a method from one of the other methodological frameworks
A compilation table where all information collected by TSU and compiled by participants is collated(collected in TFI electronic discussion group and not attached to this meeting report).

• Organization of the Joint Meeting on SLCFs
The Joint Meeting was held on 11 – 22 October 2021 virtually via ZOOM and MS Teams platforms. At the
opening plenary, following the welcome address and explanation of background of the Joint Meeting by TFICo-Chairs, a number of presentations were delivered to inform the discussion at this meeting. After the opening
plenary, the meeting split into 4 sectoral break-out groups (BOGs) and held 4 sessions of each BOG. At theclosing plenary, each of 4 BOG reported on its discussion and conclusions, which was followed by plenary
discussion on cross-cutting issues. The Joint Meeting was closed by expression of appreciation by TFI Co-Chairs
to all the participants and TSU. (See Agenda of the Joint Meeting in Annex 2 and List of Participants in Annex 3).

1 These species were selected taking into account the report of the IPCC Expert Meeting on SLCFs held in Geneva in May 2018(https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/mtdocs/1805_Geneva.html).

11• Outcome of the Joint Meeting on SLCFs
Discussion and conclusions of the Joint Meeting are summarized in Chapter 2 of this meeting report. In addition,
the following outcomes of BOGs work are published on the IPCC TFI website athttps://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/mtdocs/2110_SLCF.html.
A. Main: A list of source categories 1 and associated SLCFs, for further consideration at the Scoping Meetingfor the IPCC Methodology Report on SLCFs emissions.
B. Secondary: A list of identified gaps in methods and EFs and other parameters needed to estimate SLCFs
emissions within a climate change context.
Box: Definition of Short-lived Climate Forcers
In August 2021 (two months ahead of this Joint Meeting), “Climate Change 2021: The PhysicalScience Basis” (Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report) was approved andaccepted by the IPCC. In this report, the “short -lived climate forcers” is defined as follows.
Short-lived Climate Forcers (SLCFs) A set of chemically reactive compounds with short (relative toCO2) atmospheric lifetimes (from hours to decades) but characterised by different physiochemical
properties and environmental effects. Their emission or formation has a significant effect on radiative
forcing over a period determined by their respective atmospheric lifetimes. Changes in their emissions
can also induce long-term climate effects via, in particular, their interactions with somebiogeochemical cycles. SLCFs are classified as direct or indirect, with direct SLCFs exerting climate
effects through their radiative forcing and indirect SLCFs being the precursors of other direct climate
forcers. Direct SLCFs include methane (CH4), ozone (O3), primary aerosols and some halogenatedspecies. Indirect SLCFs are precursors of ozone or secondary aerosols. SLCFs can be cooling or
warming through interactions with radiation and clouds. They are also referred to as near-term climate
forcers (NTCFs). Many SLCFs are also air pollutants. A subset of exclusively warming SLCFs is also
referred to as short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), including methane, ozone, and black carbon.
[IPCC, 2021: Annex VII: Glossary [Matthews, J. B. R., J. S. Fuglestvedt, V. Masson-Delmotte, V.
Möller, C. Méndez, R. van Diemen, A. Reisinger, S. Semenov (ed.)]. In: Climate Change 2021: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors,
C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy,
J.B.R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press. In Press.]

1

Source categories and associated SLCFs included in the list were those: for which a globally applicable method is either already available or can be developed from available knowledge, that although there is a gap in the available methodological knowledge contribute significantly to SLCFs emissions

122. Meeting discussion and conclusions
2.1

ENERGY BOG

The work of the Energy Breakout Group was facilitated by Dario Gomez and reported to the closing plenary
session by Vincent Camobreco. Valentyna Slivinska (TSU) and Takeshi Enoki (consultant) provided technicalsupport.

Discussion:
Consideration of SLCF source categories and associated species provided in Table 1 (see Annex 1)
The experts considered materials prepared as annexed to this report. During the BOG session the expert
discussion was focused on:• Some cross-cutting issues that would apply across all the categories in Table 1:
o Tier 1 EFs for SLCF could be based on the approach for non-CO2 GHG methodology but would need toinclude additional details on fuel characteristics (e.g., S content) and abatement technologies applied(e.g., reduction efficiency and implementation rate), Note some abatement options might have negative
efficiencies. It should maintain as much as possible the Tier 1 structure for non-CO2 GHGs (and forcases where SLCF EFs are already provided, e.g., NMVOC factors provided for oil and gas fugitive
emissions). For GHGs, it is not always the case that the tier 1 approach provides only one default EF fora given fuel and emission source. There are cases, for which ranges or levels are used to express thevariability of diverse emission conditions. A similar structure should be maintained for SLCF. When
information on abatement technologies is not available, the estimates would correspond to unabatedemissions.
o Co-firing (complementary firing or co-combustion) is the combustion of two or more different fuels in thesame combustion system. Methodologies for stationary combustion should allow the possibility of
estimating emissions under co-firing practices and provide the corresponding guidance, including AD
collection, emission factors and other parameters. For CO2 it may be possible to estimate emissions
from a mix of fuels based on each individual fuel’s characteristics (i.e., C content). For SLCF a blended
fuel may have different emissions characteristics compared to burning each fuel individually.
Furthermore, some emission sources could have a variable and poorly defined fuel mix over time.
Therefore, more research is needed on developing SLCF EFs for co-firing of fuels.
o PM2.5 is considered a SLCP highly heterogeneous spatially and temporally (varying from positive tonegative RF depending on sources and meteorological characteristics). The PM2.5 concentration is theproxy for the radiative impact of all kinds of particles. Given that most BC and OC EFs are expressed as
fraction of PM2.5, the participants of this BOG decided to include primary PM2.5 in the list of emissions tobe estimated not only because it is a SLCF but as an intermediate variable often needed to estimate BC
and OC emissions.
o The IPCC methods for SLCFs should include small emissions sources and nonconventional/informal
fuels. Small-scale combustion often with use of informal fuels covers emissions from fuels burned insmaller installations and apparatus than those present in energy industries and industrial facilities. They
include cookers, fireplaces, small boilers and stoves used in households; appliances to supply heat, hotwater and small-scale power (like backup generators) and kerosene wick lamps under residential,commercial/institutional and agriculture/forestry/fishing sectors. These sources are especially relevant indeveloping countries where there could be large numbers of these sources using informal fuels without
any emission controls that are a large contributor to SLCF (and air pollution in general). Combustion andabatement technologies guidance currently in IPCC categories for GHGs will therefore require additional
analysis when developing SLCF guidance for these smaller sources and fuels. Critical aspects ofdeveloping SLCF methodologies for small emission sources include that EFs vary by several of ordersof magnitude as a function of appliances and abatement technologies for a given fuel type. Furthermore,cooking exhaust (meat cooking etc., not from fuel itself) could be considered as small-scale combustion
13

sources for OC, BC, and PM2.5. Emissions from informal combustion normally uses various types offuels across the same year. This practice may be difficult to capture in an inventory. The AD of
non-conventional fuels are often difficult to obtain and there are issues concerning the reconciliation of
AD with the energy balance which may not contain nonconventional fuels. Quality, type, and moisture
content of solid fuels may have a large effect on EFs. Many solid fuels are collected rather thanmarketed and estimates of AD would benefit from diverse inputs. Country-specific practices of one
country are not always translatable to other countries therefore there is the need to develop
country-specific EFs and parameters.
• Discussions around Category 1.A.1 Energy Industries
o The cross-cutting issues mentioned above apply to this category but in particular the co-firing of fuels
could be a major contributor in this category.
o Generally, the methodology at upper level covers lower levels for these stationary combustion sources• Discussions around Category 1.A.2 Manufacturing industries and constructiono The cross-cutting issues mentioned above apply to this category but in particular small-scale
combustion and use on nonconventional and variable fuels may occur under some facilities in particular
for brickworks.
o Emissions arising from off-road and other mobile machinery in industry should, if possible, be broken
out under the corresponding subcategory, because emission factors for mobile sources can be very
different from those for stationary sources.
o The use of product produced as AD instead of fuel used deserves attention for developing T1 factors. In
addition, potential omission or double counting with IPPU sector should be considered.
• Discussions around Category 1.A.3 Transporto For aviation sources the landing and take-off (LTO) is critical for SLCFs so need to highlight that if only
fuel based T1 approach is used the EF needs to reflect the whole LTO and cruise. For more accurate
calculations a T2 should be used based on LTO datao For on road sources there were a number of considerations including: The time dependency of technologies is especially relevant for fleets that have vehicles of different
age and technology class. The time dimension is important for older technologies and within thesame technology because as it ages it emits differently.
 The time dimension is also relevant to estimate emissions for future years. It is expected that themethodology report would allow estimating emissions according to the technologies in use at thetime of issuing the report but since this is a category of rapid technological changes, the IPCC may
wish to consider how EFs and other parameters may be updated to reflect the evolving nature ofroad transportation.
 The engine start-up emissions of SLCF may be large for the high-mileage fleets, especially for the
fleets in developing countries.
 Also note that super emitters might be a large portion of fleet emissions so may need to consider
those in technology or EF development
 As for CH4 and N2O, it is expected that the distance travelled approach would be more appropriate toestimate SLCF emissions. However, it is convenient to have a fuel-based Tier 1 approach even if
not used it provides a check.
 Several new categories were added, see below.
o For waterborne sources the following was discussed:
 IPCC factors and technology description for GHGs might be too simple for SLCFs especially for NOx(e.g., new hybrid types of ships) so the need to use updated information was flagged.
 The need to add a new Tier 3 to the IPCC methodology for NOx and particulates based on engine
power (current GHG approaches does not have a Tier 3 for this category) was identified.
o For off-road sources the following was discussed:14 Although the estimation methods for this subcategory are addressed in Chapter 3 Volume 2 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines (Mobile combustion), off-road mobile combustion encompasses a wide
variety of off-road vehicles and other machinery used across the different combustion categories
namely, mobile combustion under manufacturing industries and construction (1.A.2), mobile
machinery under commercial and institutional (1.A.4.a.ii); mobile equipment used under residential(1.A.4.b.ii) e.g., household and gardening machinery; off-road vehicles and other machinery used inagriculture/forestry/fishing (1.A.4.c.ii); other mobile including military mobile machinery (1.A.5.b.iii).
The methodology for SLCFs should contemplate and be consistent with the widespread distributionof off-road combustion across the mentioned categories.
 Except for SO2, the emissions of SLCFs are highly dependent on the type of equipment andtechnology.
 Most alternative methodologies do not cover BC and OC emissions from these sources.
 Guidance on the collection and/or estimation of AD is required as this may constitute the main
challenge in estimating these emissions.
 A fuel-based methodology may also be useful for these categories.
• Discussions around Category 1.A.4 Other Sectors
o The cross-cutting issues mentioned above apply to this category but in particular small-scale
combustion and use on nonconventional fuels and variable fuel pattern may occur. For this category
especially there would be a diverse amount of combustion technologies and difficulties in collecting AD
on fuels which may not be marketed and therefore not included in traditional energy use data.
o This category is also more likely to have older equipment so age of technology and developing age
dependent technology factors is especially important for this category as well
• Discussions around Category 1.B.1 Fugitive emissions from Solid fuelso The category 1.B.1.a was expanded to include subcategories for underground and surface mines andwithin each category emissions from mining, post-mining activities and flaring and conversion of gas
were included (see below).
o For coal mining and handling, EFs for underground and surface mines should contain, if possible, thethree level values provided for CH4 EFs (e.g., EFs for low, average and high values).
o Regarding cross cutting comment on consistency of Tier definitions, the EMEP Tier 2 approach provides
information for SLCFs at a more aggregated level that is considered for Tier 1 IPCC method for GHGs.
o All SLCFs instead of just NMVOC were included. Mining and post-mining are not combustion sources
so likely there aren’t any NOx or SO2 emissions but were left to further scoping to defineo For category 1.B.1.c Fuel transformation, there could be potential differences in emissions fromcommercial vs informal production so development of EFs would need to take that into consideration.
• Discussions around Category 1.B.2 Fugitive emissions from Oil and natural gas
o All SLCFs instead of just NMVOC were included. Non combustion sources will not likely have any NOx
or SO2 emissions but were left to further scoping to defineo In terms of the cross-cutting issue above about developing Tier 1 factors, the 2019 Refinement provides
Tier 1 default EFs for NMVOC for a number of technologies used under the different oil and natural gas
subcategories. In addition, Annex 4A.2 to Chapter 4 of the 2019 Refinement, presents the percent ofemissions that are leaked, vented, and flared in the data sets used for the Tier 1 EFs. Thisdisaggregation should be kept and, if possible, enriched for NMVOCs and considered for the other
SLCFs, when applicable. It is expected that the IPCC SLCF methodology development for estimating
NMVOC emissions for oil and natural gas would take as a starting point the detailed information alreadyavailable in the 2019 Refinement.
o If alternative methodologies are used for SLCF estimation, it is important to identify which types ofemissions (leaks, venting or flaring) are estimated.
o A new category was added for Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) leakage as shown below.
15

o For category 1.B.2.b.vi Gas post-meter, depending on the approach used to estimate emissions fromroad transportation especially evaporative emissions in category 1.A.3.b.v, checks for double countingof AD may be needed.
• Discussions around Category 1.B.3 Other emissions from energy productiono Add SO2 to potential SLCF emissions from geothermal activities. Some Parties (e.g., Iceland and Italy)
already estimates and report SO2 emissions from geothermal power to the UNFCCC.
o Remove categories for civil power generation facilities and combustion due toagriculture/livestock/fishery facilities (see below)

Consideration of issues associated with the identification of SLCF source categories and associatedspecies.
The experts considered materials prepared by TSU as annexed to this report. During the BOG session theexpert discussion was focused on:
The following issues, which were presented as part of an issue paper on the energy sector, were discussed:• Issue 1 from Issues Paper Discussion: For industrial sources, emissions of SO2, PM, and NMVOCs areoften due to a combination of fuel combustion, the materials that are processed, and emission control
techniques. This poses a challenge for SLCF emission allocation between the Energy sector and the IPPU
sector categories because in some cases the only data available are the sector fuel use or amount ofindustrial product created by the sector.
o Conclusion was that this is the same as for GHG emissions from similar sources and there is alreadyexisting IPCC guidance on avoiding double counting across sectors (Energy and IPPU) so the existing
IPCC guidance on this for GHGs so would also apply to SLCFs• Issue 2 from Issues Paper Discussion: “Civil power generation facilities” and “Combustion due toagriculture/livestock/fishery facilities” have been proposed as new categories for SLCF emission
inventories. The emissions for these categories are estimated like other fuel combustion activities, i.e.
product of amount of fuel consumed and the EF of the fuel. Could these categories be included in 1.A.1.aand 1.A.4.c, respectively or should these categories be added to the IPCC category list?
o There was some confusion of what civil power means but existing IPCC source categories cover all
thermal power sources.
• Issue 3 from Issues Paper Discussion: Categories/subcategories have not been explicitly described to havea methodology to estimate SLCF emissions. Emissions from most categories/subcategories may be
estimated using the method provided in the upper-level category (for example, 1.A.1.a.i. electricity
generation is not explicitly mentioned in existing methodologies but can be estimated using the method for
1.A.1.a.). Other categories, such as 1.B.1.b. spontaneous combustion and burning coal dumps may nothave an existing methodology. See the discussion below for discussion of inclusion of additional categories
and species (also highlighted in above discussion by category)
The following issues were also discussed from the WASTE sector issue paper• Waste incineration Method/AD/Cross-sectoral: Fuel consumption is used as AD in J-STREAM method. In
the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, amount of waste incinerated is used as AD. According to the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines, emissions from waste burnt for energy are reported under the Energy Sector.
o During the discussions it was determined that the J-STREAM method should be consistent with the
IPCC guidance and therefore nothing more was needed in terms of SLCF methodology consideration• Other: Cooking exhaust (J-STREAM) - Method: Times of meals multiplied by emissions (See the Waste
sector compilation table).
16

o During the discussions it was determined that the cooking category could be captured as part of thesmall-scale emission methodology development discussion above as part of Category 1.A.4 Other
Sectors.

Conclusions:
During the BOG sessions the experts concluded on:• The adoption of the list of source categories and associated SLCF species, as provided in the annexed
Table 2 that was based on discussions around Table 1 above.
• The inclusion of additional SLCF source categories and/or species to Table 2, also based on discussions
around Table 1 above:o Need to include PM2.5 in addition to BC and OC.
o Include category 1.A.3.b.v “Evaporative emissions from vehicles” in the table for SLCF and note any
potential double counting with post meter estimates form fugitive emissions in Category 1.B.2
o Include category 1.A.3.b.vi “Urea-based catalysts” there is current confusion on where urea use isincluded for GHG so would be good to include as category with clear guidance on where to report.
There are some SLCF EFs for urea Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) vehicles available in theliterature. Failure of urea SCR systems also has implications on the emissions and should beconsidered.
o Include a new category of Non-exhaust emissions from brake and tire wear for OC, BC etc. (maybe as
fugitive) also important for EVs so EFs not just based on fuel use. There are globally applicable
methodologies
o Include a new category or as new fuel use for existing categories for use of lubricants; the need for a
discussion on avoiding double counting with category 2.D.1 “Lubricant Use” was also noted. The
contribution of lube oil is important for SLCFs (more so than GHGs) and is burned in 2-stroke, but also
other vehicles so need to consider lube oil for all vehicles
o Exclude distinction of 3-way catalysts, also the types of control could vary going forward so need to be
forward looking and not mention specific technology.
o Include category 1.A.3.e.i Pipeline transport with all SLCF species for combustion related emissions
from the operation of pump stations and maintenance of pipelines. Note: the EMEP methodology refers
the estimation of these emissions to that of small-scale combustion under category 1.A.4.
o The category 1.B.1.a was expanded to include the following categories and SLCF species:
 1.B.1.a.i Underground mines 1.B.1.a.i.1 Mining NOx, NH3, SO2, CO, NMVOC, BC, OC and PM2.5
 1.B.1.a.i.2 Post-mining seam gas emissions NOx, NH3, SO2, NMVOC, BC, OC and PM2.5
 1.B.1.a.i.4 Flaring of drained CH4 or conversion of CH4 to CO2 NOx, NH3, SO2, NMVOC, BC, OC andPM2.5
 1.B.1.a.ii Surface mines 1.B.1.a.ii.1 Mining NOx, NH3, SO2, CO, NMVOC, BC, OC and PM2.5
 1.B.1.a.ii.2 Post-mining seam gas emissions NOx, NH3, SO2, NMVOC, BC, OC and PM2.5
o The category 1.B.2.a.vi Other was added with NMVOC to include leakage from the use of LPG in
appliances. A methodology similar to that to estimate post-meter emissions from natural gas appliance
may be developed for LPG.
o Categories for civil power generation facilities and combustion due to agriculture/livestock/fisheryfacilities were not needed.
• Forwarding the following issues to the Plenary discussion:o Consistency between Tiered-approaches: In certain occasions the Tiered approach from alternative
methodologies to estimate emissions for SLCFs is not entirely consistent with the IPCC three-Tiered
approach to estimate GHG emissions. (One example of this is the EMEP methodology for coal mining
17and handling in which the Tier 2 approach provides information at a more aggregated level than the
IPCC Tier 1 approach). When selecting methods from an alternative methodological framework thecharacterization for the Tiers in the report on SLCFs estimation methods should be consistent withthose defined by IPCC, independently from the characterization given in the alternative methodologicalframework.
o Decision trees: The basic decision process in the IPCC guidance indicates the use of higher Tiermethods (Tier 2 or Tier 3) when the detailed data needed are readily available or the category being
estimated is key. Otherwise, if the category is non-key a Tier 1 approach may be applied. For GHG,
KCA) is performed on the basis of CO2-equivalent emissions using GWPs as metrics. Emissions of
SLCFs would be estimated in mass units and therefore KCA as that for GHG would not be possible.
Decision trees are at the core of the IPCC methodology, therefore a substitute/equivalent for the key
category concept needs to be found/identified if the basic decision process for GHG would hold for
SLCFs.

18

2.2

IPPU BOG

The work of the IPPU BOG was facilitated by Kristina Saarinen and reported to the closing plenary session by
Vigdis Vestreng. Pavel Shermanau (TSU) and Eduard Karapoghosyan (TSU) provided technical support.
Delineation of work and cross-cutting issues:
•
•

•
•

•

The task of the expert meeting is not to provide EFs for all regions of the world, but to focus on theavailability and applicability of the methodology to estimate emissions and to identify possible gaps.
Assessment of the source categories and associated SLCF species, as well as expert judgement onwhether a source is insignificant or not should be focused on the climate effect of the SLCFs (not on air
pollution)“IPCC methodology” in Table 1 means the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and the 2019 Refinement
methodology (even though the latter is not yet adopted by the UNFCCC).
The definition of “Insignificant sources” is provided in footnote 3 (iii) to the guidance document 1.
However, the IPPU experts felt that this cross-cutting issue should further be clarified between different
BOGs.
For the nomination of authors for the new methodology report on SLCFs, it is recommended thatcountries nominate experts with in-depth knowledge of SLCFs from different IPPU sectors andpreferably with good knowledge about emission inventory work.

Discussion:
Consideration of SLCF source categories and associated species provided in Table 1.
The experts considered materials prepared as annexed to this report. During the BOG session the expert
discussion was focused on:• The allocation principleo The way emissions are to be distributed between Energy and IPPU is elaborated in the Issue paper(see Annex 1). In the IPPU sector, guidance on the allocation of emissions between industry, energy
and waste sectors should be detailed especially for 2 C 1 Iron and steel, e.g. related to flaring of blast
furnace gas, diffuse/fugitive emissions from storage of fuels at the industrial facilities, off-road
machinery, paved/unpaved roads, etc. Also, care should be taken to ensure that emissions coming fromthe use of fuels or from the treatment of waste are allocated under the respective inventory sectors andnot under IPPU. Waste containing fuels may be used in many activities and clear guidance should begiven which is energy use and which is non-energy useo The IPPU sector emissions should be estimated keeping in mind that there is a possibility for double
counting with the Energy and Waste sectors in cases where the method is not clearly defined only for
those emissions arising from the industrial process itself or from the use of solvents/products.
• SLCF species
o SLCFs considered: BC, OC, SOx, NOx, CO, NMVOC and NH3.
o All Sulphur and nitrogen compounds 2 to be as NO2 and SO2.
o Definition of NMVOC 3 compounds to be considered for climate purposes.
Guidance to experts for the virtual joint 1st and 2nd expert meeting on SLCFs
Sulphur oxides cover all sulphur compounds expressed as sulphur dioxide (SO2) (including sulphur trioxide (SO3), sulphuric acid
(H2SO4), and reduced sulphur compounds, such as hydrogen sulphide (H2S), mercaptans and dimethyl sulphides, etc.); NOx cover nitricoxide and nitrogen dioxide, expressed as nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
3 Non-methane volatile organic compounds” (NMVOCs) cover all organic compounds of an anthropogenic nature, other than methane,that are capable of producing photochemical oxidants by reaction with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight. Volatile organic
compounds (VOC) have been defined as any organic compound having a vapour pressure of 0.01 kPa or more at 293.15 K or having thecorresponding volatility under the conditions of use. To be considered if the definition above used in the UNECE Convention on
Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) is sufficient, or if there is need to be redefined for climate purposes. In addition, under12

19

o A definition of BC and OC and possibly EC should be provided in SLCF guidelines.
o The EFs to be provided for BC (OC, EC) should include information of the measurement method used
to develop them as well as information on whether the condensable particle fraction is or is not included.
o BC can be estimated with the use of shares of BC in PM2.5, in case no direct emission factors areavailable. If using shares of PM emissions to estimate BC, information should be provided on if thecondensable particle fraction is nor not included. Note that BC covers both the filterable andcondensable particle fractions, however, the condensable fraction is not present in all sources. Notealso that while TSP emissions may be measured and thus be rather accurate, uncertainty is addedusing default shares to calculate PM2.5 from TSP and additional uncertainty by using default shares tocalculate BC from this PM2.5.
• General on Methodology, AD and default EFs
o It is important to clearly spell out the differences between IPCC, EMEP/EEA and AP42 methodologies interms of the different approaches (e.g., the Tier 1 approach in each methodology can be different).
o The BOG recognized that AD collection is needed where the AD is not the same or is additional to thatdata collected for the GHG inventories. The guidance should be given on how to collect or estimate ADthat can be used in the calculation of SLCF emissions.
o Although the default Tier 1 methods presented in the EMEP/EEA Guidebook may be globally applicable,
the default Tier 1 EFs may not if they have been developed in the context of a specific region becauseof the considerable variability in process and abatement techniques at plant level. Many of the EFs are
representative to the EU 2015 abatement level (EMEP/EEA Guidebook), which may not be the global
case. Therefore, higher Tier methods that include more components, such as AD, technology specificEFs, abatement efficiencies for specific abatement techniques etc. may be easier to convert to local
conditions anywhere but would also include the need to collect this data regarding the region to which itis applied. The methods to be developed could thus provide default values for e.g. the penetration of acertain process and/or abatement techniques in the industrial activity for certain regions as well as
default values for the abatement efficiencies taking into account the impact of maintenance.
o The presentation of any SLCF EFs must include information on if the EF is for unabated emissions orfor abated emissions and what has been the default efficiency considered in the preparation of thisdefault EF. For instance, information of abatement technologies and their efficiencies (as ranges, e.g.
60-80%,) can be found in the EMEP/EEA Guidebook.
• SLCF category specific methodologies
o Even though there are no PM process emissions from Lime productions, there might be other emissions
from storage and handling and transport on site. On-site transport and mobile machinery should beallocated under Energy/Transport and the part of storage and handling relevant to IPPU should bereported in this sector, if not emissions will not be accounted for.
o As waste fuels and scrap materials may include plastics, the possibility of BC emissions should be
noted when developing methods. This may be the case e.g. for secondary production of non-ferrous
metals, e.g. recycling of lead, zinc etc.
o For non-ferrous industry (copper, lead, zinc, nickel), a mass balance approach to estimate SO2 could
provide more accurate results than EF approach.
o The category of Solvent and Other Product Use includes various emission sources which are notcovered in the current IPCC Guidance. In the future IPCC SLCF methodology report it would be useful
to have sub-categories such as e.g. in the EMEP/EEA Guidebook: Domestic solvent use including
fungicides, Road paving with asphalt, Asphalt roofing, Coating applications, Degreasing, Dry cleaning,
Chemical products, Printing, Other solvent use (to be specified in the national inventory report), Other
product use (to be specified in the national inventory report).
o The activity in the source categories Ammonia production and Hydrogen production (Chemical Industry)
are increasing and need to be monitored.
the UNECE CLRTAP the reporting unit is kilotonnes, while the carbon content in VOCs is not considered. The Chapter 7 Volume 1 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines provides a conversion factor 44/12 and default mass of 0.6 to convert NMVOCs into CO220

o Food and Beverage charbroiling, fat frying, grain handling, fermenting/ distilling, drying/ roasting, natural
gas cooking – risk for double counting with Energy.

Conclusions:
During the BOG sessions the experts concluded on:• The adoption of the updated list of source categories and associated SLCF species, as provided in theannexed Table 2• The inclusion of the following additional comments, SLCF source categories and/or species to Table 2 wererecommended:o CO from 2C7 Other metals - Rare Earth Production is insignificant.
o 2C7 Other metals – Metal welding and cutting. Literature suggests emissions of PM (not BC, mainly
metal oxides), but also CO, NOx and SO2 from metal welding and cutting might be insignificant, but thisneeds further evaluation.
o 2F Product Uses as Substitutes for Ozone Depleting Substances. Ammonia is used in refrigeration. The
source is added to Table 1, but the significance of the source must be looked into. Also, emissions of
NMVOC are possible (use of propane, butane, pentane, etc.).
o Hydrogen production – the 2019 Refinement introduced this source category in IPPU with themethodology focused on stand-alone facilities using fossil fuels (please note, that hydrogen production
at refineries is included in Energy sector). Allocation of fuel combustion and process related emissions
is an issue• The BOG decided not to include the following two sources in Table 2 as insignificant in addition to thosementioned in the Issue paper and in line with the comments provided in Table 1:o Explosives Manufacturingo Ordnance Detonation• The following issues related to the identification of relevant source-categories and associated SLCF
species:o Storage and Handling of materials (raw materials, feedstock, fuels, final products, etc.) may lead to
SLCF emissions (particularly NMVOC). This source of emissions can be present in each source
category. The information on possible SLCFs emissions from Storage and Handling should be analysedand should be provided in the future methodology report• Forwarding the following issues to the Plenary discussion:o Definition of BC and VOC emissionso New SLCF methods to clearly indicate the division of emissions between Energy-IPPU-Waste sectors
to avoid double-countingo Need to additional or new AD collection to enable calculation of SLCFs (e.g. process and abatement
technologies)o Need to present SLCF default EFs with information of the process and abatement efficiencies used in
the development of the EFo Better understanding of different approaches used in the Tier methods of the different international
guidance (IPCC, EMEP/EEA, US EPA) is needed• The IPPU Gaps list as follows:o General gaps:
 Lack of AD, additional or different AD can be needed for SLCFs than to GHGs
 Abatement techniques and efficiencies
21 Availability of regional or country specific EFs for all SLCFs
 Definition of BC and OC emissions, measurements standards, availability of EFs for BC and OC,
and documentation of EFs with indication of measurement standards
 Definition of VOC (NMVOC), speciation
 Allocation of energy and process emissions, in terms of disaggregation between different processes No agreed climate metrics for SLCFs
o Categories gaps:
 2A2 Lime production – Data collection by type of kiln, and abatement
 2B8f Carbon black – BC and OC from diffuse emissions, NMVOCs from storage tanks
 2C1 Iron and Steel – Fugitive PM emissions, SO2 from desulfurization, PM and SO2 from foundries,
PM, OC, EC, CO and VOCs from scrap preparation. Rolling mills – SO2 from use of volatile
halogenated organics (VHO) 2C5 Lead production and 2C6 Zinc production – Data collection of domestic industries (processes,
abatement, raw material) 2C7 Other (Copper) – SO2 from acid mist
 2D3 Solvent use (Domestic solvent use) – Guidance on how to collect AD and on how to estimate
AD if there are no statistics (e.g. modelling from a similar country etc.)
 2D3 Solvent use (Coating application and Degreasing) – AD
 2D3 Solvent use (Printing) – Collection of AD (use of ink and/or applied abatement techniques,default efficiencies for abatement are provided in EMEP/EEA)
 2D3 Solvent use (Other Solvent use) – AD capita or product/solvent use
 2D4 Other (Asphalt Roofing) – SO2 emissions in roofing materials
 2F Product Uses as Substitutes for Ozone Depleting Substances – NH3, NMVOC – Methods, AD,EFs
 2H1 Pulp and Paper Industry – Updated EFs

22

2.3

AFOLU BOG

The work of the AFOLU BOG was facilitated by Dominique Blain and reported to the closing plenary session by
Savitri Garivait. Sandro Federici and Eriko Nakamura (TSU) provided technical support.

Discussion:
Consideration of SLCF source categories and associated species provided in Table 1 (see Annex 1), as
well as with the identification of SLCF source categories and associated species
The experts considered materials prepared as annexed to this report. During the BOG session the expert
discussion was focused on:• Manure management (IPCC 3.A.2)
o IPCC methods for estimating N2O and CH4 emissions provide a good basis for globally applicableestimation methods for NOx/NH3 and NMVOCs respectively.
o Although, where EMEP methods are used to source data, TAN (Total Ammonia Nitrogen) and Nex(Total Nitrogen Excreted) need to be reconciled. Further, fluxes of NOx/NH3 and of indirect emissions ofN2O need to be consistent with each other.
• Managed Soils (IPCC 3.C.4 and 3.C.5 – Direct and Indirect N2O Emissions from Managed Soils)
o IPCC methods for estimating direct and indirect N2O emissions provide a good basis for estimating
direct and indirect NOx and NH3.
o NOx and NH3 emissions are part of the same process that determines N2O emissions; although EFs
provided in the 2019 Refinement for the aggregate of NH3+NOx need to be revised.
o However, the nomenclature of the category won’t cover additional species as NOx and NH3, so either
new categories are created, and this is the proposal, or the nomenclature of existing categories isrevised.
o Further, the need to maintain N-balance across source-categories within this sector (i.e., NH3, NOx, N2O
emissions from manure management, including anaerobic digestion) and across sectors (NH3, NOx,N2O emissions from manure combustion and incineration)o Main gap identified is the availability of EF values to cover the global variability ofagrosytems/agro-practices (e.g., fertilizer spreading vs fertilizer incorporation into the soil, irrigation,
drainage, soil type).
o• Burningo The nature of fires was discussed as a trigger for the inclusion of emissions in an inventory that
according with some should focus on the use of fire as a management tool/practice.
 Burning in Forest Lando Underlying assumptions of parameters/calculations used in IPCC and alternative methods need
likely to be reconciled.
o Factors/parameters values used for emission estimation need to be updated with new literature.
 Burning in Croplando To reconcile the IPCC method with the need to estimate in the sector the open burning ofagricultural waste in crop fields.
o During COVID-19 pandemic, connections were observed between solid waste burning and crop
residue burning in Southeast Asia, that can be cross-sectoral with the Waste sectoro Need of specific emission factors (NOx, SO2, etc.) for sugarcane burning, particularly in Southand Central America, Southeast Asia.
 Burning in all other lands
o For peat fires need to reconcile nomenclatures of soil types and land use categories.
o Consistency between IPCC land use definitions and open burning categories should be assured.
• Others

23

A number of sources of SLCFs emissions for which no methods are available and/or no corresponding
IPCC categories are available, although further consideration and investigation is seen needed to allow todraw conclusions, have been discussed.
o For NMVOC emissions from “Livestock manure applied to soils” as well as from “Urine and Dungdeposited on pasture” the discussion pointed out the lack of knowledge on actual emissions produced
per unit of activity and on the main variables determining the rate of emissions.
o For NMVOC emissions from Pesticide application, although a methodology is available from the US
AP-42, the methodology is data intensive and therefore not likely to be replicated all across the World.
Thus, although the source deserves further consideration and investigation no default methodology for
its inclusion in Methodology Report on SLCF emissions has been identified.
o Biogenic VOCs from Cultivated crops; Managed deciduous/coniferous forests; Grassland; Tundra;
Other Low Vegetation; Other Vegetation (Mediterranean shrub). The discussion pointed out differencesin emissions attribution between man-made vegetation -i.e. cropland, pasture and plantation for whichassociated VOC fluxes are triggered by and depends on the human activity that set and manage theculture- and natural vegetation i.e. forests, rangeland and other natural systems- where VOCs
emissions would anyhow occur, regardless of the human impact, and for which anyhow the difference inthe rate of emissions associated with human impacts cannot be quantified to derive a robust default
methodology given the current knowledge.
o Fugitive dust from tilling is recognized as a significant source of OC and EC from PM10, although the
only available methodology, from US National Emission Inventory, is seen complex and likely notapplicable globally.
A sources category of SLCFs emissions for which no methods and no corresponding IPCC category areavailable and for which the available knowledge was not enough to have any consideration at this expert
meeting:o Fugitive dust from animals

Conclusions:

During the BOG sessions the experts concluded on:• The addition of source-categories to cover emissions of NMVOCs, NH3 and NOx from Manure management
as well as from Fertilizer uses
• The exclusion of “Fugitive dust from animals” from the list of potential source categories to be considered
for the Methodology Report on SLCF emissions• The inclusion in the list of those categories to be considered for a Methodology Report of all
source-categories listed in table 1, including those for which no method globally applicable (i.e., under any
national circumstances) was identified, since the further investigation of those categories was consideredneeded in order to conclude on their relevance.
• Gaps were identified mainly in:o Disaggregated default IPCC EF for NOx and NH3 from managed soils
o Burning, specific values for fuel load, combustion factors, and EFs associated with most relevant crops
as well as management systems, including for cropland open burningo Manure management, N balance, including digestate/manure transfer (including transfer towaste-treatment facilities) and co-digestion of manure and other organic matter (OM) (e.g., crop
residues/slashes from pruning/trimming). Improve representation of grazing practices to properly countfor the fraction of dung/urine left on pasture/yardso Globally applicable methods and EFs for fugitive dust from tilling/machinery-operations in farms, andfrom animals

24

2.4

WASTE BOG

The work of the Waste BOG was facilitated by Jongikhaya Witi and reported to the closing plenary session by
Erin McDuffie. Baasansuren Jamsranjav (TSU) provided technical support.

Discussion:
Consideration of SLCF source categories and associated species provided in Table 1.
The experts considered materials prepared as annexed to this report. During the BOG session the expert
discussion was focused on:• 4.A.1 Solid Waste Disposal – recommendation to add sub-categories for landfill fires and flaring
Proposed sub-categories (and compounds):
o 4.A.1 – Managed Waste Disposal Sites: 4.A.1.a – Landfill fires (PM (BC/OC), NOx, CO, NMVOC, SO2)
 4A.1.b – Flaring (PM (BC/OC), NOx, CO, NMVOC, SO2)
 4.A.1.c – Decomposition (CO, NMVOC, NH3)o 4.A.2 – Unmanaged Waste Disposal Sites
 4.A.2.a – Landfill fires (PM (BC/OC), NOx, CO, NMVOC, SO2)
 4.A.2.b – Flaring (n/a)
 4.A.2.c – Decomposition (CO, NMVOC, NH3)o 4.A.3 – Uncategorized Waste Disposal Sites
 4.A.3.a – Landfill fires (PM (BC/OC), NOx, CO, NMVOC, SO2)
 4.A.3.b – Flaring (PM (BC/OC), NOx, CO, NMVOC, SO2)
 4.A.3.c – Decomposition (CO, NMVOC, NH3)
• 4.B. Biological Treatment of Solid Waste – suggest splitting anaerobic digestion and composting into two
sub-categories
Proposed sub-categories (and compounds):
o 4.B.1 – Composting (NH3, CO, NMVOC)
o 4.B.2 – Anaerobic Digestion (NH3)

Consideration of issues associated with the identification of SLCF source categories and associatedspecies.
The experts considered materials prepared by TSU as annexed to this report. During the BOG session theexpert discussion was focused on:• Key Categories
o Of the five Waste sector categories, 4.C. Incineration and Open Burning of Waste is a dominant sourceof air pollutant emissions. Efforts to develop robust estimates of AD and EFs for this category should beprioritized• Impact/Importance of Waste Emissionso Waste emissions from many categories (e.g., landfill fires, landfill flares, open burning) have a greater
impact at the local level (e.g., local air quality impacts next to landfills), than at the national or global
level.
• Uncertainties
o Limited activity and EF data result in large uncertainties in air pollutant emissions from Waste sector,
BUT these uncertainties should not limit efforts to develop robust emission estimates for Waste
25• Key Issues (see Table 1 for complete list of issues)o Methodological Approach Available methods (e.g., IPCC, EMEP, USEPA NEI) for many categories may be applicable to Tier 1
approach (or as a starting point to develop Tier 1 approach) Flexible reporting may be beneficial for categories where emissions can’t be derived at the
sub-category level (e.g., emissions from waste incineration with or without energy recovery)o AD
 There is limited AD on the amount of waste burned (and burned per capita), composition of waste,smouldering or burning conditions, waste disposal approaches in rural areas, etc.,
 For Open Burning:- The definition of the fraction of waste burned (Bfrac) needs to be clarified- The estimation of the fraction of population burning waste (Pfrac) should be revised- The classification of materials included in the definition of agricultural waste burning or land
clearing needs to be clarified so that emissions can be apportioned to the correct sector(AFOLU/Waste) without double counting or missing emissionso EFs
 Tier 1 EFs for many categories will need to be regionally or technologically specific (e.g., open
waste burning, biological treatment, etc.,)
 Some regional EF estimates are available (e.g., EMEP/EEA and US EPA), but others will need to be
developed based on measurements of real conditions

Conclusions:
During the BOG sessions the experts concluded on:• The adoption of the list of source categories and associated SLCF species, as provided in the annexed
Table 2• The inclusion of additional SLCF source categories and/or species to Table 2:o Landfill fires and flares (PM, CO, NOx, SO2, NMVOC) added to 4.A (see Tables 1 and 2)
o NH3 added to 4.A (see Tables 1 and 2)
o 4.B split into sub-categories for composting and anaerobic digestion (see Tables 1 and 2)• The following issues for further consideration, related to the identification of relevant source-categories andassociated SLCF species:o Key Knowledge Gaps

 4.A Solid Waste Disposal- AD+ No known guidance available to help countries estimate the amount of waste burned atlandfills+ It may be difficult to find information about flaring efficiencies and volumes at landfills- EFs+ There will be a need to develop regional EFs for landfill fires, flares, and decomposition(using available methodologies as a starting point)- Other+ The significance of NH3 from decomposition needs to be investigated further26

+ Landfill fires and flaring - It is unclear how activity and EF data change for different landfill

types (e.g., managed vs. unmanaged), but weighted correction factors for different site types
may be appropriate to use (analogous to CH4 GHG guidelines). This needs to be investigatedfurther.

 4.B Biological Treatment of Solid Waste- AD+ Limited data, especially on amount of green-waste (composting)+ Need to know the amount of N in the feedstock (waste + manure), which might vary
regionally (anaerobic digestion)- EFs+ There will be a need to develop regional EFs for composting (using available methodologies
as a starting point)+ Lack or limited data about N in feedstocks constraints quality of EFs- Other+ Feedstock storage emissions (length of storage period, if stored at all at the AD site) –consistency with AFOLU to avoid potential double counting
 4.C Incineration and Open Burning of Waste- AD+ The assumption of no urban open burning needs to be re-evaluated+ The equation to estimate the amount of waste open burned needs to be reviewed and thedefinition of Bfrac clarified+ The estimation of the population fraction that is burning waste (Pfrac) also needs to be
re-evaluated.
- EFs+ Waste Incineration - Need to be technology dependent and account for abatement
efficiencies+ Available EFs for open burning are not likely globally applicable+ Need to develop non-laboratory EFs for tire burning (for tire burning outside of landfills)- Other+ Waste incineration - Emissions will depend on incineration conditions (e.g., waste moisture
content, level of smoulder, etc.) and these impacts on EF will need to be considered further.
+ Open burning - Emissions will depend also on environmental conditions (e.g., soil moisture
content, meteorology, etc.) and these impacts on EFs will need to be considered further.
 4.D Wastewater Treatment and Discharge- AD+ It is unclear whether the total amount of wastewater treated at facilities (EMEP method) or
the wastewater flow rate (USEPA NEI method) is more readily available nationally or globally.
- EFs+ Available EFs (NMVOC, NH3 (EPA-only)) are not specific to domestic or industrial
wastewater treatment. Domestic wastewater EFs for NH3 from EMEP are for latrines only.
- Other+ If landfill leachate is treated onsite at the landfill include under 4.D.2, [if treated wastewater isdirected to another treatment facility include under 4.D.1.]
 4.E Other Waste
- AD
- EFs
+ Global Tier 1 EF may be able to be derived for car fires+ Tier 1 EF for building fires is likely not globally applicable- Other27

• Forwarding the following issues to the Plenary discussion:o During the BOG sessions the experts didn’t achieve a common view on the definition of agricultural
waste burning, which needs to be clarified. The definition needs to help clarify which types of agriculturalor small-scale biomass burning activities to include in this category.

28

2.5 CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES
During the BOGs discussion following cross-cutting issues were identified by experts:• Black carbon (BC) / Effective black carbon (EBC) / Elemental carbon (EC): BC is identifiable by its
properties: strong visible light absorption, refractory, insoluble, and composed of aggregated carbon
spherules. Many common measurement methods do not quantify this material specifically, instead reportinga proxy like light absorption or refractory component, with names like “EBC” or “EC”. This working group
recognizes that these analytical differences and measurement technical differences create uncertainty in
EFs and predicted light absorption. However, the working group also acknowledges the need to constrain
highly variable emissions and the small number of input measurements. For practical purposes, emission
measurements, where any standard method is used to quantify BC, EBC, or EC are to be considered
equivalent for the development of BC EFs. During the development of the methodological report on SLCFs,
the authors may revisit this consideration in light of the likely availability of more abundant and differentiatedinformation on the carbon fraction of carbonaceous aerosols.
• Organic carbon (OC) / Organic material (OM): OC is the amount of carbon present in carbonaceous
excluding EC (defined above) and mineral carbon (dust carbon occurring as calcite, dolomite or otherC-bearing minerals). Thermal-optical analysis is used to quantitatively determine OC and EC. Organic
aerosols (OA) and OM can be considered equivalent terms and refers to the mass concentration of organic
particulate species present in the aerosols. This mass might be built by hundreds of organic compounds.
The difference with OC is that OM and OA consider the mass of heteroatoms, such as O and H, having a
relevant contribution. OM could be 20-100% more than OC, depending on the duration of ageing of OC in
the atmosphere. Two options exist for EFs and for inventories: Using OC values may increase consistencyof reporting, but OM mass will have in total to be assessed by modelling activities. OM is atmosphericallymore relevant, but it may be inconsistently reported, depending on sampling conditions at time of themeasurement. At this stage and due to the fact that not many data exist for different sectors and classes atleast transparency on whether OC or OM values are reported would be necessary. On the other hand,
many models input seasonally and spatially dependent OM:OC ratios so that the model could convert
inventory estimates of OC in OM for its simulations.
• PM2.5 is highly heterogeneous spatially and temporally (varying from positive to negative RF depending on
sources and meteorological characteristics). Measurements and modelling of particles concentration havebeen used to evaluate the radiative effect of absorption or scattering. One example is the effect oflight-absorbing particles reducing surface albedo in the cryosphere not only due to BC but also otherabsorbing compounds (e.g. brown carbon, dust). Although the composition is not always known, the effectof PM2.5 is evaluated based on average compositions determined by local/emissions characteristics (manycountries have EFs for PM2.5). Given that most BC and OC EFs are expressed as fraction of PM2.5, theparticipants of the Energy BOG concluded that primary PM2.5 should be included in the list of emissions tobe estimated not only because it is as SLCF but as an intermediate variable often needed to estimate BC
and OC emissions.
Further, several BOGs highlighted the importance of characterizing the condensable portion 1 of PM andhow that can impact BC and OC estimates since these are often calculated as the fraction of PM.
• Precursors of secondary organic aerosols (SOA). There is an asymmetry in the set of selected SLCFs
regarding the role of aerosols precursors. While the precursors of inorganic aerosols have been clearlytargeted, the precursors of organic SOA have not been considered. A large source of uncertainty stands inthe actual SOA formation yields in real-world conditions. However, the precursors are better known:
1 The condensable portion of PM is not always measured or may be measured by applied methods, given that some do not capture all
the condensable PM. Since PM mass estimate is dependent on the method, applying a fraction to derive BC or OC from PM measured
under different conditions or different methods can introduce errors.

29

aromatic NMVOC + intermediate volatility OCs (iVOCs). Semi-volatile compounds are also important, butthey could be already partly accounted for in current primary OC inventories. It is important to note that in a
first approximation, precursors of anthropogenic SOA can be represented therefore with a few classes oforganic compounds, hence not requiring a molecular-level speciation (which for compounds with molecularcarbon numbers of 10 to 25, it would be even impossible). At this stage, this may be flag as a scientific gap
and a topic for future research.
• Ozone formation in the troposphere depends on direct sunlight concurrence with ozone-precursor
emissions (e.g., NMVOC and NOx). Similarly, secondary aerosol formation depends on concurrence with
PM-precursor emissions (e.g., NH3, SO2, NOx, NMVOC) and primary aerosol emissions (BC, OC). Thus,
timing (i.e., hour to monthly frequency) and place (i.e., within 50-100 km spatial resolution) of emissions domatters for a climate-relevant inventory of emissions.
Cross-cutting issues were further discussed at the closing plenary. Although no conclusions were drawn,
agreement was general on the need to further explore those issues.

30Annex 1: Sectoral Tables
Through a desk-work phase implemented, by TSU and participants, ahead of the meeting, two tables have been prepared for each sector with information on source
categories and associated SLCF species.
Table 1 provides Summary of Information including on methods and factors available to estimate SLCFs emissions from the relevant source category. Associated to Table 1,
Issue paper provides for relevant sectoral issues to be addressed in formulating a complete list of sectoral source-categories and associated SLCF species.
Table 2 provides List of relevant sectoral source-categories and associated SLCFs.
Both Tables, and the associated Issue paper, were used to inform the work of BOGs at the expert meeting.

31

Table 1 Summary Information (Energy)
A
IPCC
code1

B
Category2

C

D

E

F

G

H

SLCFs3

IPCC
methodapplicable4

Alternative
Methodology

AvailableEFs/parameters6

Globally
applicable7

Gaps

1.A

Fuel combustion activities

1.A.1

Energy Industries

1.A.1.aMain
activityelectricity andheat production

NOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC

5

1.A.1.c

NOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OCPetroleumrefining

Yes

-

Yes
(see Energy
compilationtable)

Yes(as per IPCC
method withmodifications,see comment#3 to 1.A)Yes
(see Energy
compilationtable)

Yes(as per IPCC
method withmodifications,see comment#3 to 1.A)

Yes

-

PM2.5
Manufacture of solid fuels and other energy industries

1.A.1.c.i

Manufacturesolid fuelsof

1.A.1.c.ii

Otherenergyindustries

NOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC

Comments9(if any)8

1. G: In certain occasions the tiered approach from alternative methodologies to estimate emissions
for SLCFs is not entirely consistent with the IPCC three-tiered approach to estimate GHG emissions.
When selecting methods from an alternative methodological framework the characterization for thetiers in the report on SLCFs estimation methods should be consistent with those defined by IPCC,
independently from the characterization given in the alternative methodological framework.
2. C: Given that most BC and OC EFs are expressed as fractions of PM2.5, the methodology willneed to include PM2.5 in the list of emissions to be estimated as intermediate variable to estimate
BC and OC emissions.
3. F: Maintain the Tier 1 structure like for non-CO2 GHGs for the development of default emission
factors but if necessary; add layers to include details on fuels, technologies (with and withoutabatement), etc. When information on abatement technologies is not available, the estimates would
correspond to unabated emissions.
D: The methodology at upper level covers lower levels for stationary combustion.

PM2.5

1.A.1.b

I

Yes

-

Yes
(see Energy
compilationtable)

Availability ofmethods toestimate SLCF
emissions fromco-firingpractices. (Seecomment #3 incolumn I).

1. E: US NEI method incorporates handling efficiencies of prevention facilities.
2. G: Emissions of SLCFs for subcategories under 1. A.1.a.i, 1.A.1.a.ii, 1.A.1.a.iii and 1.A.1.a.iv
can be estimated using the method for category 1.A.1.a.
3. F: Co-firing (complementary firing or co-combustion) is the combustion of two or more different
fuels in the same combustion system. Methodologies for stationary combustion should allow thepossibility of estimating emissions under co-firing practices and provide the corresponding
guidance, including activity data collection, emission factors and other parameters.
See comment #2 to 1.A

E: US NEI method incorporates handling efficiencies of prevention facilities.

See comment #2 to 1.A

Yes(as per IPCC
method withmodifications,see comment#3 to 1.A)E. AP-42 emission factor applied to fuel produced
See comment #2 to 1.A

PM2.5

32

A
IPCC
code1

B
Category2

C

D

E

F

G

H

SLCFs3

IPCC
methodapplicable4

Alternative
Methodology

AvailableEFs/parameters6

Globally
applicable7(if any)8

1.A.2

Manufacturing industries and construction

1.A.2.a.

Iron and steel
Non-ferrous
metalsChemicals
Pulp, paper andprint
Food processing,
beverages andtobacco1.A.2.b
1.A.2.c
1.A.2.d
1.A.2.e

1.A.2.f

1.A.2.g
1.A.2.h
1.A.2.i
1.A.2.j
1.A.2.k
1.A.2.l

1.A.2.mGaps

Comments9
1. Please see the comments to 1.A and 1.A.1
2. E: Small-scale combustion may occur under some facilities. Comments ##1-7 to 1.A.4 apply alsohere.
3. E: Emissions arising from off-roadand other mobile machinery in industry should, if possible, be broken out under the corresponding
subcategory. Comments ##1-4 to 1.A.3-e-ii apply also here.

-

E. AP42: emission factor applied to product produced-

Non-metallic
minerals

Transport
equipment
Machinery
Mining(excluding fuels)and quarrying
Wood and wood
products

5I

E. AP42: emission factor applied to product produced
1. E. The use of product produced as activity data instead of fuel used deserves attention fordeveloping T1 factors. In addition, potential omission or double counting with IPPU sector should
be considered.
2. F, G: Brickworks range from facilities with inefficient and highly polluting technologies to modern
plants with appropriate emission control. The Tier 1 method should be able to reflect the wide
variety of emissions associated with the different manufacturing technologies and emission
abatement systems.

NOX,
NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OCYes-

Yes(see Energy
compilationtable)

Yes(as per IPCC
method withmodifications,see comment#3 to 1.A)-

Construction
Textileandleather-

Non-specified
industry-

PM2.5

Small-scale
combustion may
occur undersome facilities.
Comments ##1-7
to 1.A.4 apply
also here.

33

See comment #2 to 1.A

A
IPCC
code1

B
Category2

1.A.3

Transport

1.A.3.a

Civil aviation

1.A.3.a.i

1.A.3.a.ii

international
aviation(international
bunkers)
Domestic
aviation

C

D

E

F

G

H

SLCFs3

IPCC
methodapplicable4

Alternative
Methodology

AvailableEFs/parameters6

Globally
applicable7(if any)8

NOX,SO2,CO,NMVOC,BC, OCYes(fuelconsumptionbased
and LTO
based)

5-Yes(see Energy
compilationtable)

Yes(as per IPCC
method)PM2.5

1.A.3.b

1.A.3.b.i

1.A.3.b.ii

1.A.3.b.iii

Gaps

Embeddingemissions fromlanding andtake-off in the
Tier 1 EFs of afuel-based
approach. (Seecomment #1 to
1.A.3.a)Roadtransportation

Cars

Light duty trucks

Heavy
duty
trucks and buses

NOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OCNOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC
PM2.5
NOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OCYes(fuelconsumption and kmtravelled)-Yes(see Energy
compilationtable)

Yes(as per IPCC
method)ITimedependency oftechnologies(See comments##1 and 2 to
1.A.3.b)

34

Comments9

1. E, F: LTO is critical for SLCFs so need to highlight that if only fuel based T1 approach is used
the EF needs to reflect the whole LTO and cruse phase even without the LTO activity data
2. E: Indicate that for more accurate calculations use T2 based on LTO data

See comment #2 to 1.A
1. E: The time dependency of technologies is especially relevant for mobile source fleet that has
vehicles of different age and technology class. The time dimension is important for older
technologies and also that as technology ages it emits differently Super emitters might be a large
portion of fleet emissions. In addition, the emission characteristics of the old vehicular fleet isrelevant to estimate emissions across the time series of interest.
2.E: The time dimension is also relevant to estimate emissions for future years. It is expected thatthe methodology report would allow estimating emissions according to the technologies in use at
the time of issuing the report but since this is a category of rapid technological changes, the IPCC
may wish to consider how emission factors and other parameters may be updated to reflect theevolving nature of road transportation.
3. E: As for CH4 and N2O, it is expected that the distance travelled approach would be more
appropriate to estimate SLCF emissions. However, it is convenient to have a fuel-based Tier 1
approach even if not used it provides a check. Regarding the development of Tier 1 default EFs,see comment #3 to 1.A.
4. E, F: The engine start-up emissions of SLCF may be large for the high-mileage fleets. We needto address this concern, especially for the fleets in developing countries

See comment #2 to 1.A

A
IPCC
code1

1.A.3.b.iv.

1.A.3.b.v

1.A.3.b.vi

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Category2

SLCFs3

IPCC
methodapplicable4

Alternative
Methodology

AvailableEFs/parameters6

Globally
applicable7(if any)8Motorcycles

PM2.5
NOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC
PM2.5

Evaporativeemissions fromvehicles5

1.A.3.d

1.A.3.d.i

Gaps

See comment #2 to 1.A

NMVOC

Yes (as per
IPCC method)

Urea-based
catalysts

NOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OCYes (as per
IPCC methodwithmodifications)Non-exhaustemissionsBC, OC

Yes

Emissions of
SLCFs fromvehicles equippedwith urea selective
catalytic reduction
systems
Emissions of BC
and OC fromautomotive wear
Emissions of
SLCFs from theuse of lubricantsin all types ofvehiclesUse of lubricants

NOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC

Railways

PM2.5
NOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC
PM2.5

Yes

NOX,
NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OCYes-

Yes(see Energy
compilationtable)

Yes(as per IPCC
method)-Yes(see Energy
compilationtable)

Yes(as per IPCC
method)

1. E: EFs of some SLCFs from vehicles equiped with urea SCR systems are becoming available(e.g., EMEP, Guo, J., Ge, Y., Hao, L., Tan, J., Li, J., & Feng, X. (2014). Atmosphericenvironment, 99, 1-9; Grigoratos, T., Fontaras, G., Giechaskiel, B., & Zacharof, N. (2019).
Atmospheric environment, 201, 348-359; Ntziachristos, L., Papadimitriou, G., Ligterink, N., &Hausberger, S. (2016). Atmospheric environment, 141, 542-551).
2. E: Failure of urea SCR systems has implications on the emissions.
E: Tire and brake wear for OC, BC etc. needs to be included as a category (maybe as fugitive).
G: Emissions from automotive wear. There are globally applicable methodologies. However, afuel-based approach may not be possible for this type of emissions.
See comment #2 to 1.A
E: The contribution of lube oil is important for SLCFs (more so than GHGs) and is burned in
2-stroke but also other vehicles so need to consider lube oil for all vehicles, with category 2.D.1

See comment #2 to 1.A
E: US EPA estimates by number of trains on link times fuel consumed by train class times
emission factor for all except
See comment #2 to 1.A
E: EPA uses distance travelled times EF. OPRF estimate by engine power.
E. IPCC factors and technology description for GHGs might be too simple for SLCFs especially forNOx (e.g., new hybrid types of ships) so flag need to use new information
E. Flag the need to add a new Tier 3 to the IPCC methodology for NOx and particles based onengine power (current GHG approaches do not have a T3 for this category)

Waterborne
navigation
International
waterborne
navigation(international
bunkers)

Comments9
See comment #2 to 1.A

PM2.5

1.A.3.cI

Emission
estimation
methods basedon engine power

35

A
IPCC
code1

1.A.3.d.ii

B
Category2
Domestic
waterborne
navigation

C

D

E

F

G

H

SLCFs3

IPCC
methodapplicable4

Alternative
Methodology

AvailableEFs/parameters6

Globally
applicable7(if any)8

Gaps

NOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC
PM2.5

1.A.3.eOthertransportation

1.A.3.e.i

Pipelinetransport

NOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC

Off-road

NOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC

1.A.3.e.ii

5Comments9

See comment #2 to 1.A

Yes (e.g.,
EMEP)

Yes

-

Yes
(see Energy
compilationtable)

Yes(as per IPCC
method withmodifications
see comment#3 to 1.A)

Most alternative
methodologies
do not cover BC
and OCemissions

PM2.5

1.A.4

I

Other Sectors

36

1. E: Combustion related emissions from the operation of pump stations and maintenance ofpipelines.
2. E: The EMEP methodology refers the estimation of these emissions to that of small-scale
combustion under category 1.A.4.
1. D, E: Although the estimation methods for this subcategory are addressed in Chapter 3 Volume
2 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Mobile combustion), off-road mobile combustion encompasses awide variety of off-road vehicles and other machinery used across the different combustion
categories namely, mobile combustion under manufacturing industries and construction (1.A.2),
mobile machinery under commercial and institutional (1.A.4.a.ii); mobile equipment used underresidential (1.A.4.b.ii) e.g., household and gardening machinery; off-road vehicles and othermachinery used in agriculture/forestry/fishing (1.A.4.c.ii); other mobile including military mobile
machinery (1.A.5.b.iii). The methodology for SLCFs should contemplate and be consistent with thewidespread distribution of off-road combustion across the mentioned categories.
2. D, E: The emissions from the diverse types of equipment used across all categories arise fromthe combustion of small number of fuels (typically diesel oil, gasoline and LPG) to power theequipment.
3. E: Except for SO2, the emissions of SLCFs are highly dependent on the type of equipment andtechnology.
4. E: Guidance on the collection and/or estimation of AD is required as this may constitute themain challenge in estimating these emissions.
5. E: MOVES model estimates by product of an adjusted EF multiplied by rated power, load factor,
engine population and activity
See comment #2 to 1.A
1. D, E: The IPCC methods for GHGs should generally cover SLCFs from this category including
small emissions sources and nonconventional fuels.
2. H: However, need to point out that combustion and abatement technologies especially in small
emission sources may go beyond what is currently in IPCC categories for GHGs so may require
additional analysis when developing SLCF guidance.
3. G. Emissions from SLCFs are more diverse than GHGs for this category so it would need more
focus when developing EFs and guidance for SLCFs
4. H. This category is also more likely to have older equipment, so the age of technology isespecially important for this category as well.
5. F: EFs vary in several of orders and magnitude as a function of appliances and abatement
technologies
6. G: Country-specific practices of one country are not always translatable to other countries. Needto develop country-specific EFs and parameters.

A
IPCC
code1

1.A.4.a

1.A.4.a.i

1.A.4.a.ii

1.A.4.bB
Category2

D

E

F

G

H

SLCFs3

IPCC
methodapplicable4

Alternative
Methodology

AvailableEFs/parameters6

Globally
applicable7(if any)85

Stationary
combustion

Off-road vehicles
and
other
machinery
Residential

Stationary
combustion

1.A.4.b.ii

Off-road vehicles
and
other
machinery
Agriculture/forest
ry/fishing

I

Gaps

Comments9
7. E, F: Emissions from informal combustion normally used of various types of fuels across thesame year. This practice may be difficult to capture in an inventory.

Commercial/
institutional

1.A.4.b.i

1.A.4.cC

NOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OCYes-

Yes(see Energy
compilationtable)

Yes(as per IPCC
method)NOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC
PM2.5

NOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OCNOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC
PM2.5

Guidance on thetreatment and thecollection of AD for
informalcombustion (seecomment #7 to
1.A:4 andcomment #1 to
1.A.4.a.i)
Guidance todevelopcountry-specificEFs and otherparameters (seecomments ##2-6
to 1.A.4)
Most alternative
methodologies do
not cover BC andOC emissions

Yes

-

Yes
(see Energy
compilationtable)

Yes(as per IPCC
method)See 1.A.4.a.i
concerningemissions fromsmall scale
combustion and
AD concerns withuse of informal
fuels

Yes

-

Yes
(see Energy
compilationtable)

Yes(as per IPCC
method)Most alternative
methodologies do
not cover BC andOC emissions

37

1. G: Many solid fuels are collected rather than marketed and estimates of activity data would
benefit from diverse inputs. There are issues concerning the reconciliation of AD with the energybalance.
See comments ##1-7 to 1.A:4

See comments to 1.A.3.e.ii
See comment #2 to 1.A
1.See comment #1 to 1.A.4.i
2. F: Quality, type, and moisture content of solid fuels may have a large effect on emission factors.
3. G: Special consideration should be given to identifying contributions of stationary diesel
generators and kerosene wick lamps, as well as candle burning for BC.
4. E: US NEI Survey data are used to estimate number of appliances, types, appliance emission
controls if any, burn rate, types of wood for NOX, CO, BC.
5. cooking exhaust (meat cooking etc., not from fuel itself) could be considered as small-scale
combustion sources for OC, BC, and PM2.5
See comments ##1-7 to 1.A.4

See comment #2 to 1.A

A
IPCC
code1

B
Category2

C

D

E

F

G

H

SLCFs3

IPCC
methodapplicable4

Alternative
Methodology

AvailableEFs/parameters6

Globally
applicable7(if any)8

1.A.4.c.i

Stationary

NOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC

1.A.4.c.ii

Off-road vehicles
and
other
machinery

NOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC

1.A.4.c.iii

Fishing (mobile
combustion)

1.A.5

1.A.5.b.ii

1.A.5.b.iii

Other(Not specified
elsewhere)
Mobile(waterborne
component)

Mobile (other)

Yes

5

-

Yes
(see Energy
compilationtable)

Yes(as per IPCC
method)NOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC
PM2.5

NOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OCNOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC

1.B

PM2.5
Fugitive emissions from fuels

1.B.1

Solid fuel1.B.1.aCoal mining andhandling

1.B.1.a.i

Undergroundmines

1.B.1.a.i.1

MiningI

Gaps

Comments9

See 1.A.4.a.i

Collected solid fuels used for drying or other processes may need special attention to provide
accurate activity data.

Most alternative
methodologies
do not cover BC
and OCemissionsSee comments to 1.A.3.e.ii

See comment #2 to 1.A

Yes
-

Yes
(see Energy
compilationtable)

Yes(as per IPCC
method)Most alternative
methodologies
for off-road do
not cover BC andOC emissions

See comments to 1.A.3.e.ii
See comment #2 to 1.A
See comments ##1-3 to 1.A
1. B: Category 1.B.1.a was expanded to include subcategories for underground and surface mines
2. B: Within each category emissions from mining, post-mining activities and flaring andconversion of gas were included.
3. C: All SLCFs instead of just NMVOC were included. Mining and post-mining are not combustion
sources then likely there aren’t any NOx or SO2 emissions but leave to authors to define
4. Regarding comment #1 to 1.A, note that the EMEP tier 2 approach provides information for
SLCFs at a more aggregated level than the Tier 1 IPCC method for GHG.

NOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OCYes(as per IPCC
method)

38

A

B

IPCC
code1

Category2

1.B.1.a.i.2

Post-miningseamgasemissions

1.B.1.a.i.4

Flaringofdrained CH4 orconversionofCH4 to CO2

1.B.1.a.ii

Surface mines

1.B.1.a.ii.1

Mining1.B.1.a.ii.2

1.B.1.c

1.B.1.c.i.

1.B.1.c.ii

1.B.2
1.B.2.a.i

Post-miningseamgasemissions

C

D

E

F

G

H

SLCFs3

IPCC
methodapplicable4

Alternative
Methodology

AvailableEFs/parameters6

Globally
applicable7(if any)85

PM2.5
NOX,NH3,
SO2,
NMVOC,BC, OC
PM2.5
NOX,NH3,
SO2,
NMVOC,BC, OC
PM.25

Gaps

and

See comment #2 to 1.A

See comment #2 to 1.A
Yes(as per IPCC
method)See comment #2 to 1.A

NOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC
PM2.5
NOX,NH3,
SO2,
NMVOC,BC, OC
PM.25

Coke production

Oil and naturalgas
Exploration

NOX,
NH3, CO,NMVOC,BC, OCNOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC
PM2.5
NOX,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC
PM2.5

Comments9Yes(as per IPCC
method)Yes(as per IPCC
method)See comment #2 to 1.A
Yes(as per IPCC
method)See comment #2 to 1.A
A: 2019 Refinement category
E: Differences in emissions from commercial vs informal production may be significant and themethodology should contemplate this situation.

Fueltransformation
Charcoalbiocharproduction

I

Yes

-

Yes
(see Energy
compilationtable)

Yes(as per IPCC
method)See comment in
Category 1.B.1.c
concerning
developing EFs
for commercial
and informal
production

A: 2019 Refinement category

A: 2019 Refinement category
See comment #2 to 1.A

Yes

-

Yes
(see Energy
compilationtable)
including the

1. E: Regarding comment #1 to.A, note that the 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
provides tier 1 default emission factors for NMVOC for a number of technologies used under thedifferent oil and natural gas subcategories. In addition, Annex 4A.2 to Chapter 4 of the 2019
Refinement, presents the percent of emissions that are leaked, vented, and flared in the data sets
used for the Tier 1 emission factors. It is expected that the IPCC methodology for estimatingYes(as per IPCC
method)

39

A

.

B

IPCC
code1

Category2

1.B.2.a.ii

Production andupgrading

1.B.2.a.iii

Transport

1.B.2.a.iv

Refining

1.B.2.a.v

Distribution of oil
products

1.B.2.a.vi

Other

1.B.2.b

Natural gas

1.B.2.b.i

Gas exploration

1.B.2.b.ii

Production andgathering

1.B.2.b.iii

Processing

1.B.2.b.v

Transmission
and storage
Gas distribution

1.B.2.b.vi

Gas post-meter

1.B.2.b.iv

1.B.3

C

D

E

F

G

H

SLCFs3

IPCC
methodapplicable4

Alternative
Methodology

AvailableEFs/parameters6

Globally
applicable7(if any)8NOX,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC
PM2.5
NMVOC
NOX,
NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC
PM2.5

5-

Comments9
NMVOC emissions for oil and natural would take as a starting point the detailed information
already available in the2019 Refinement. This disaggregation should be kept and, if possible,
enriched for NMVOCs and considered for the other SLCFs, when applicable.
2. E: If alternative methodologies are used, it is important to identify, which types of emissions(leaks, venting or flaring) are estimated.
3. H: A methodology similar to that to estimate post-meter emissions from natural gas appliance
may be developed for LPG.
4. E: US NEI model to estimate emissions for each piece of equipment on a well pad in a county orbasin, based on average equipment counts taken from surveys, literature searches, or the GHG
reporting program, also accounting for control devices and gas composition

2019
Refinement
for eachcategory-

NMVOC

Leakage from theuse of LPG in
appliances has
not been
considered.

NMVOC

NOX,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC
PM2.5
NOX,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC
PM2.5
NOX,NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC
PM2.5

Gaps

I

-

Yes

NMVOC

-

Yes
(see Energy
compilationtable)
including the2019
Refinement
for eachcategoryYes(as per IPCC
method)-NMVOC

G: Depending on the approach used to estimate emissions from road transportation, checks fordouble counting of AD may be needed.

NMVOC

Other emissions from energy production

40

A
IPCC
code1
1.B.3.aB
Category2

C

D

E

F

G

H

SLCFs3

IPCC
methodapplicable4

Alternative
Methodology

AvailableEFs/parameters6

Globally
applicable7(if any)85

Other
Geothermalenergyextraction

NH3, SO2

No

EMEP

Gaps

Yes
(see energy
compilationtable)

I
Comments9

A: additional category identified.
E: electricity produced by emission factor
C: Some Parties (e.g., Iceland and Italy) already estimates and report SO2 emissions fromgeothermal power to the UNFCCC.

1. Apply here the 2006 IPCC Guidelines categorization. If the 2019 Refinement has a specific category while the 2006 IPCC Guidelines have not, use it and notes that it is a 2019 Refinement category
2. Use the IPCC category name or use “Others” for all those categories for which IPCC does not provide a specific categorization followed by the name of the new category taken from the relevant
guidebook/sourcebook/guidelines. If the 2019 Refinement has a specific category while the 2006 IPCC Guidelines have not, use it and note that it is a 2019 Refinement category
3. List here SLCFs for which the method, as noted in Columns D or E, applies. Where different methods apply to different SLCFs from the same source-category compile a row of information for each method
4. Is an applicable IPCC method available?
In the case the IPCC method needs modifications further than providing for the SLCF EF to be applicable, answer “yes with modifications” and possibly provide in the comment box indication on the modificationneeded. Examples of modifications are, additional parameters, e.g. technologies, and/or additional data to ensure full coverage of SLCFs emissions
5. In case the IPCC methodology is not applicable or there is not an IPCC methodology for the listed category (i.e. Column D has been compiled with “No”), provide the reference to any other methodologicalsource from which the category is sourced
6. Provide reference to the source where default values for EFs and any other parameters are provided
7. Is the method globally applicable so far as can be judged? The answer should be based on the availability, or likelihood of availability in the next future without need of significant additional resources, of activity
data as national datasets or regional datasets or global datasets. In Column I “comments” you may provide for information about datasets availability
8. In the case the experts identify any gaps that need to be closed in the next future to allow for a global methodology, such gaps should be noted here with, where possible, guidance on research and/or datacollection work considered to be needed
9. In providing any additional information/comment on any information compiled in any of the previous columns, first provide the letter of the column to which the comment applies

41Issue Paper (Energy sector)
IssuesI.

For industrial sources, emissions of SO2, PM, and NMVOCs are often due to a combination of fuelcombustion, the materials that are processed, and emission control techniques. This poses a challenge
for SLCF emission allocation between the Energy sector and the IPPU sector categories because insome cases the only data available are the sector fuel use or amount of industrial product created by
the sector.

II.

“Civil power generation facilities” and “Combustion due to agriculture/livestock/fishery facilities” havebeen proposed as new categories for SLCF emission inventories. The emissions for these categories
are estimated like other fuel combustion activities, i.e. product of amount of fuel consumed and theemission factor of the fuel. Could these categories be included in 1.A.1.a and 1.A.4.c, respectively or
should these categories be added to the IPCC category list?

III.

The following categories/subcategories have not been explicitly described to have a methodology toestimate SLCF emissions. Emissions from most categories/subcategories may be estimated using themethod provided in the upper-level category (for example, 1.A.1.a.i. electricity generation is not explicitly
mentioned in existing methodologies, but can be estimated using the method for 1.A.1.a.). Other
categories, such as 1.B.1.b. spontaneous combustion and burning coal dumps may not have an existing
methodology. Could the group confirm the list to identify if any categories/subcategories are missing
from tables1/2?
Method provided by group(✔: method provided)-

Category/subcategory
1.A. Fuel combustion activities
1.A.1 Energy industries
1.A.1.a Main activity electricity and heat production
1.A.1.a.i Electricity generation
1.A.1.a.ii Combined heat and power generation
1.A.1.a.iii Heat plants
1.A.1.a.iv Other
1.A.3 Transport
1.A.3.b Road transportation
1.A.3.b.i Cars
1.A.3.b.i.1 with 3-way catalysts
1.A.3.b.i.2 without 3-way catalysts
1.A.3.b.ii Light duty trucks
1.A.3.b..ii.1 with 3-way catalysts
1.A.3.b.ii.2 without 3-way catalysts
1.A.3.b.v Evaporative emissions from vehicles
1.A.3.b.vi Urea-based catalysts
1.A.3.e Other transportation
1.A.3.e.i Pipeline transport
1.A.5 Other (Not specified elsewhere)
1.A.5.a Stationary
1.A.5.b Mobile
1.A.5.b.i Mobile (aviation component)
1.A.5.b.ii Mobile (waterborne component)
1.A.5.b.iii Mobile (other)
1.A.5.c Multilateral operations
1.B Fugitive emissions from fuels
1.B.1 Solid fuels
1.B.1.a Coal mining and handling
1.B.1.a.i Underground mines
1.B.1.a.i.1 Mining activities
1.B.1.a.i.2 Post-mining seam gas emissions
1.B.1.a.i.3 Abandoned underground mines✔
No (but same as 1.A.1.a?)
No (but same as 1.A.1.a?)
No (but same as 1.A.1.a?)
No (but same as 1.A.1.a?)✔
No (but same as 1.A.3.b.i?)
No (but same as 1.A.3.b.i?)✔
No (but same as 1.A.3.b.ii?)
No (but same as 1.A.3.b.ii?)
No
No
✔
No
No
No
✔
✔
No
✔
No (but same as 1.B.1.a?)
No (but same as 1.B.1.a?)
No (but same as 1.B.1.a?)
No (but same as 1.B.1.a?)42

1.B.1.a.i.4 Flaring of drained methane or conversion of methane to CO2
1.B.1.a.ii Surface mines
1.B.1.a.ii.1 Mining activities
1.B.1.a.ii.2 Post-mining seam gas emissions
1.B.1.a.ii.3 Abandoned surface mines
1.B.1.a.iii Coal exploration
1.B.1.b Uncontrolled combustion and burning coal dumps
1.B.1.c Fuel transformation
1.B.1.c.i Charcoal and biochar production
1.B.1.c.ii Coke production
1.B.1.c.iii Solid to solid fuel production
1.B.1.c.iv Gasification transformation
1.B.2 Oil and natural gas
1.B.2.a Oil
1.B.2.a.vii Abandoned oil wells
1.B.2.b Natural gas
1.B.2.b.viii Abandoned gas wells

No (but same as 1.B.1.a?)
No (but same as 1.B.1.a?)
No (but same as 1.B.1.a?)
No (but same as 1.B.1.a?)
No (but same as 1.B.1.a?)
No (but same as 1.B.1.a?)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

From WASTE sector issue paper
1. Waste incineration: Method/Activity data/Cross-sectoral: Fuel consumption is used as AD in J-STREAM
method. In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, amount of waste incinerated is used as AD. According to the 2006
IPCC Guidelines, emissions from waste burnt for energy are reported under the Energy Sector.
2. Other: Cooking exhaust (J-STREAM) - Method: Times of meals multiplied by emissions (See the Waste
sector compilation table).

43

A
IPCC categorization
1.A
1.A.1
1.A.1.a.
1.A.1.b.
1.A.1.c.
1.A.1.c.i.
1.A.1.c.ii.
1.A.2
1.A.2.a.
1.A.2.b.
1.A.2.c.
1.A.2.d.
1.A.2.e.
1.A.2.f.
1.A.2.g.
1.A.2.h.
1.A.2.i.
1.A.2.j.
1.A.2.k.
1.A.2.l.
1.A.2.m.
1.A.3.
1.A.3.a.
1.A.3.a.i.
1.A.3.a.ii.
1.A.3.b.
1.A.3.b.i.
1.A.3.b.ii.
1.A.3.b.iii.
1.A.3.b.iv.
1.A.3.b.v
1.A.3.b.vi
1.A.3.c.
1.A.3.d.
1.A.3.d.i.
1.A.3.d.ii.
1.A.3.e.
1.A.3.e.i
1.A.3.e.ii.
1.A.4.
1.A.4.a.
1.A.4.a.i.

Table 2 Category list (Energy)

B
Category
Fuel combustion activities
Energy Industries
Main activity electricity and heat production
Petroleum refining
Manufacture of solid fuels and other energy industries
Manufacture of solid fuels
Other energy industries
Manufacturing industries and construction
Iron and steel
Non-ferrous metals
Chemicals
Pulp, paper and print
Food processing, beverages and tobacco
Non-metallic minerals
Transport equipment
Machinery
Mining (excluding fuels) and quarrying
Wood and wood products
Construction
Textile and leather
Non-specified industry
Transport
Civil aviationinternational aviation (international bunkers)
Domestic aviation
Road transportation
Cars
Light duty trucks
Heavy duty trucks and buses
Motorcycles
Evaporative emissions from vehicles
Urea-based catalysts
Non-exhaust emissions
Use of lubricants
Railways
Waterborne navigationinternational waterborne navigation (international bunkers)
Domestic waterborne navigation
Other transportation
Pipeline transport
Off-road
Other Sectors
Commercial/institutional
Stationary combustion

C

I

SLCFs

PM 2.5

NOX

NH3

SO2

CO

NMVOC

BC

OC

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X

X

X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

44

Comments(Please see the corresponding comment in Table 1)

A
IPCC categorization
1.A.4.a.ii.
1.A.4.b.
1.A.4.b.i.
1.A.4.b.ii.
1.A.4.c.
1.A.4.c.i.
1.A.4.c.ii.
1.A.4.c.iii.
1.A.5
1.A.5.b.ii.
1.A.5.b.iii.
1.B
1.B.1
1.B.1.a.
1.B.1.a.i
1.B.1.a.i.1
1.B.1.a.i.2
1.B.1.a.i.4
1.B.1.a.ii
1.B.1.a.ii.1
1.B.1.a.ii.2
1.B.1.c.
1.B.1.c.i.
1.B.1.c.ii.
1.B.2
1.B.2.a
1.B.2.a.i.
1.B.2.a.ii.
1.B.2.a.iii.
1.B.2.a.iv.
1.B.2.a.v.
1.B.2.a.vi
1.B.2.b
1.B.2.b.i.
1.B.2.b.ii.
1.B.2.b.iii.
1.B.2.b.iv.
1.B.2.b.v.
1.B.2.b.vi.
1.B.3
1.B.3.a.

B

C

Category
Off-road vehicles and other machinery
Residential
Stationary combustion
Off-road vehicles and other machinery
Agriculture/forestry/fishing
Stationary
Off-road vehicles and other machinery
Fishing (mobile combustion)
Other (Not specified elsewhere)
Mobile (waterborne component)
Mobile (other)
Fugitive emissions from fuels
Solid fuelCoal mining and handling
Underground mines
MiningPost-mining seam gas emissions
Flaring of drained CH4 or conversion of CH4 to CO2
Surface mines
MiningPost-mining seam gas emissions
Fuel transformation
Charcoal and biochar production
Coke production
Oil and natural gas
Oil
Exploration
Production and upgrading
Transport
Refining
Distribution of oil products
Other
Natural gas
Gas exploration
Production and gathering
Processing
Transmission and storage
Gas distribution
Gas post-meter
Other emissions from energy production
Other
Geothermal energy extraction

SLCFs

PM 2.5

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X

X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X

X

X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X

X

X
X
X

X
X
X

45

I
Comments(Please see the corresponding comment in Table 1)

A
IPCC
code 1B
Category 2

C
SLCF 3

2A Mineral Industry

2A1

Cementproduction

2A2

Lime production

SO2,
NMVOC –
process
emissionsSeecomments

No process
emissions,allemissionsD
IPCC
Methodapplicable 4

Yes

Yes

E
Alternative
methodology 5

FAvailable
EFs/
Parameters 6

EMEP/EEA,US AP-42,
UNEP,
REAS, USSPECIATE,
MEP China

EMEP/EEA,US AP-42,
US
SPECIATE

Table 1 Summary Information (IPPU)
G

H

Globally
applicable 7

Gaps 8(if any)

Yes

Yes

Data
collection bytype of kiln,
andI
Comments 9

SO2 – non-combustion source (raw materials)
NMVOC – non-combustion source (other processes)
The basic Tier 1 method ADxEF can be modified to include abatement ADxEF (1-Abatement efficiency).
BC (EC) and OC.
For establishing BC EF, it is important to have data on PM2.5 EF, inventory of particles/profile, fraction of BC (EC) in
PM2.5.
BC (EC) and OC are combustion related.
Data on abatement techniques, their efficiency, maintenance are very important.
C,D:
According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines combustion emissions should be estimated in Energy sector. EMEP/EEA
presents only BC (PM) in IPPU and estimates other gases (NOx, CO, NMVOC, SO2) in Energy, although sulphur iscontained in fuels and raw materials. It is assumed that these SLCFs emissions to be mainly due to the combustion of thesolid and waste fuels and to be included in category 1.A.2.f. Manufacturing Industries – Non-Metallic Minerals (Energy
Sector), also double counting should be avoided.
OC emission factor is presented in the US SPECIATE, UNEP, REAS.
C,F:
EMEP/EEA – BC (incl. combustion emissions)
US SPECIATE – BC, OC, PM2.5, SO4, NO3, remaining PM species (incl. combustion emissions)
UNEP – SOx, BC, OC, PM2.5, PM10 (incl. combustion emissions)
US AP-42 – NOx, NMVOC, SOx, CO (incl. combustion emissions)
REAS – BC, OC, PM2.5, PM10 (incl. combustion emissions)
MEP China – NMVOC, PM2.5, PM10 (incl. combustion emissions)
Significant emissions of PM during different sub processes (storage, crushing, calcining), however as the raw materials aremostly calcium carbonate and dolomite no OC or BC emissions occurs.
BC emissions are related to combustion, but what happens with carbon fuel storage emissions?
If the emissions of BC are considered in this sector it is important to take in to account that the magnitude of the differences

Apply here the 2006 IPCC Guidelines categorization. If the 2019 Refinement has a specific category, while the 2006 IPCC Guidelines have not, use it and note that it is the 2019 Refinement category
Use the IPCC category name and use “Others” for all those sources from which IPCC does not provide a specific categorization followed by the name of a new category taken from the relevant guidebook/sourcebook/guidelines. If the2019 Refinement has the specific category, while the 2006 IPCC Guidelines have not, use it and note that it is the 2019 Refinement category
3 List here SLCFs for which the method, as noted in Column E, applies. Where different methods apply to different SLCFs from the same source category, compile a row of information for each method
4 Is an applicable IPCC method available?
In the case when the IPCC method needs modifications, further than providing for the SLCF EF to be applicable, answer “yes with modifications” and possibly provide in the comment box indication on the modification needed. Examples
of modifications are, additional parameters, e.g. technologies, and/or additional data to ensure full coverage of SLCF emissions
5 In case the IPCC methodology is not applicable or there is not an IPCC methodology for the listed category (i.e. Column E has been compiled with “No”), provide the reference to any other methodological source from which thecategory is sourced
6 Provide reference to the source, where default values for EFs and any other parameters are provided
7 Is the method globally applicable so far as can be judged? The answer should be based on the availability, or likelihood of availability in the next future without need of significant additional resources, of activity data as national
datasets or regional datasets or global datasets. In Column I “Comments” you may provide information about datasets availability
8 In the case when the experts identify any gaps that need to be closed in the next future to allow for a global methodology, such gaps should be noted here with, where possible, guidance on research and/or data collection work
considered to be needed
9 In providing any additional information/comment on any information compiled in any of the previous columns, first provide the letter of the column to which the comment applies
1
2

46

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 3D
IPCC
Methodapplicable 4

arecombustion
relatedE
Alternative
methodology 5

FAvailable
EFs/
Parameters 6
UNEP,
REAS,
MEP China

G

H

I

Globally
applicable 7

Gaps 8(if any)

Comments 9abatement

for PM emissions factors (BC) between types of kilns (uncontrolled) is important (i.e. Shaft Kiln 3 kg/Mg lime and rotary
long kiln 140 kg/Mg lime) this could be considered in the evaluation of whether a Tier 1 method is globally applicable or not.
Also, traditional lime kilns (built using brick or stones) probably are not considered in the EMEP guidelines and arecommonly used in countries with small production of lime and the aggregate could be important.
As indicated below, others SLCF are accounted for in the energy sector as combustion is the significant source.
C, D:
According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines combustion emissions should be estimated in Energy sector.
EMEP/EEA presents only BC (PM) in IPPU and estimates other gases (NOx, CO, NMVOC, SO2) in Energy, althoughsulphur is contained in fuels and raw materials.
It is done because it is very difficult to separate process and combustion emissions and the majority of emissions for other
SLCFs to be due to the combustion of fuels.

Seecomments

OC emission factor is presented in the US SPECIATE, UNEP, REAS.

2A3

Glass production(incl. glass fibre/
mineral wool)

NMVOC
process
relatedSee
comments–

Yes,
EMEP/EEA
withmodifications.
Tier 1 ofthe 2006 IPCC
Guidelines
includes thecullet ratio

EMEP/EEA,US AP-42,
US
SPECIATE,
MEP China

C,F:
EMEP/EEA – BC (incl. combustion emissions)
US SPECIATE – BC, OC, PM2.5, SO4, NO3, remaining PM species (incl. combustion emissions)
UNEP – BC, OC, PM2.5, PM10 (incl. combustion emissions)
US AP-42 – NOx, SOx, CO (incl. combustion emissions)
REAS – BC, OC, PM2.5, PM10 (incl. combustion emissions)
MEP China – PM2.5, PM10 (incl. Industrial processes), give EFs to BC and OC
NMVOC come from process
BC and OC from combustion.
Dust from material handling
Small amount of dust and NMVOC emissions from non-melting activities (coating, cutting, and milling). It is glass type
dependent.
References - Best available techniques (BAT) reference document for the manufacture of glass, Joint Research Center,
Scalet et al., 2013. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ff8a3955-d0d0-46f5-8a15-4b638896cb56

Yes

C,D:
According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines combustion emissions should be estimated in Energy sector.
EMEP/EEA presents only BC (PM) in IPPU and estimates other gases (NOx, CO, NMVOC, SO2) in Energy, althoughsulphur is contained in fuels and raw materials.
OC emission factor is presented in the US SPECIATE.
C,F:
EMEP/EEA – BC (incl. combustion emissions)
US SPECIATE – BC, OC, PM2.5, SO4, NO3, remaining PM species (incl. combustion emissions)
US AP-42 – NOx, NMVOC, SOx, CO (incl. combustion emissions)

2A4

Other Process
Uses of
Carbonates:- bricks- ceramics

SO2,
NMVOC

No.
The IPCC
methods are
based oncarbonates

BC, OC - US
SPECIATE,
REAS
SO2 – USMEP China – PM2.5, PM10 (incl. Industrial Processes, give emission factors to OC and BC as 0)
To check BC, OC, NMVOC as process emissions, because it can be combustion related.

US
SPECIATE,
US AP-42,
UNEP,
REAS,

Sulphur is contained in fuels and raw materials (SO2 emissions)
Clay/ceramic processing: The basic steps include raw material procurement, beneficiation, mixing, forming, green

47

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 3- others (tiles,
gypsum,refractory, frit)Seecomments

D
IPCC
Methodapplicable 4
consumed(limestoneanddolomite) as
AD, SLCF
methodologi
es useoutput AD(bricks, tiles,etc.).

E
Alternative
methodology 5
AP-42, UNEPF
Available
EFs/
Parameters 6
MEP China

G

H

I

Globally
applicable 7

Gaps 8(if any)

Comments 9machining, drying, presinter thermal processing, glazing, firing, final processing, and packaging. There are PM emissions
from many stages, and combustion emissions from drying and other thermal processes. Mixing generally is a wet process.
However, VOC emissions from this step may arise from the volatilization of binders, plasticizers, and lubricants. EPA-42 Ch
11.7 provides an emission factor for VOC emission
Combustion processes may be considered in Energy sector.
C,D:
EMEP/EEA provides no guidance for this category.
According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines combustion emissions should be estimated in Energy sector.
US SPECIATE presents BC and OC.

2A5

Other
- coal cleaning- clay processing- sand and gravel
processing- lightweightaggregate
manufacturing- taconite oreprocessing- phosphate rockprocessing

C,F:
US SPECIATE – BC, OC, PM2.5, SO4, NO3, remaining PM species (incl. combustion emissions)
UNEP – SO2 (bricks), PM2.5, PM10 (incl. combustion emissions)
US AP-42 – NOx, SOx, NMVOC, CO (incl. combustion emissions)
REAS - BC, OC, PM2.5, PM10 (incl. combustion emissions)
MEP China – NMVOC, PM2.5, PM10 (incl. combustion emissions)C,D:No SLCF process emissions, Energy emissions should be estimated in Energy sector

No
IPCC
guidance

C,F:
US AP-42 - NOx, CO, NMVOC, SOx (combustion emissions)This category excludes coal mining.
EMEP follows AP-42. Fugitive emissions of TSP, PM10, PM2.5 from quarrying drilling, blasting, extraction, crushing, ofstone, sand and clay Emissions of TSP, PM10, PM2.5 are calculated AD x EF.
No specific impact on NMVOC, BC.
All activity with mining such as material handling and processing, transport, that involves use and combustion of fuel inmachinery, etc, should be considered elsewhere (Energy, transport).
Similar can be said for construction, demolition. Use of fuel, solvents, etc are considered elsewhere
Coal cleaning: The first stages include typical mining activities: coal load/unload, crushing, storage, where fugitive
emissions of PM are expected. Process use water to separate coal sizes, but then it needs to be dried. Final stage consistsof drying coal materials where most of the NMVOC, NOx, SO2, CO2 emissions occur. But this stage should be included inelsewhere.
AP-42 (Ch 11.10) gives EF and description of the process
Clay/ceramic processing: The basic steps include raw material procurement, beneficiation, mixing, forming, green
machining, drying, presinter thermal processing, glazing, firing, final processing, and packaging
There are Pm emissions from many stages, and combustion emissions from drying and other thermal processes. Mixing
generally is a wet process. However, VOC emissions from this step may arise from the volatilization of binders, plasticizers,
and lubricants. EPA-42 Ch 11.7 provides an emission factor for VOC emission
Combustion processes may be considered in Energy sector.

48

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 32B Chemical Industry
2B1
Ammonia
production

NOx, NH3,CO,
NMVOC,SOx

D
IPCC
Methodapplicable 4

Yes, withmodification,
the method
is slightly
different: fueland carbon
content(IPCC-CO2)
per output ofammonia vs.
EF of SLCF
per output ofammoniaE
Alternative
methodology 5

EMEP/EEAF
Available
EFs/
Parameters 6

EMEP/EEA,
UNEP, USAP-42,REAS, MEP
China

G

H

I

Globally
applicable 7

Gaps 8(if any)

Comments 9
Taconite ore processing: only PM emissions from extraction, crushing and grinding. Pellet formation is a combustion
process
AP-42 Ch 11.23
Phosphate rock processing. The major emission sources for phosphate rock processing are dryers, calciners, and grinders.
These sources emit particulate matter (PM) in the form of fine rock dust and sulphur dioxide (SO2). Emissions are due toCombustion process. AP-42 Ch 11.21

Yes

C,D:
In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, in the case of ammonia production no distinction is made between fuel and feedstock
emissions with all emissions accounted for in the IPPU Sector.
The method for CO2 and SLCFs is slightly different: input of fuel and its carbon content (IPCC-CO2) by output of ammonia
vs. EF of SLCF by output of ammonia (SLCF).

2B2

Nitric Acid
production

NOx, NH3

Yes

EMEP/EEA,
UNEP, US
AP-42

Yes

2B3

Adipic Acid
production

NOx, CO,
NMVOC

Yes

Yes

2B4

Caprolactam,
Glyoxal andGlyoxylic Acid
Production
CarbideProduction

EMEP/EEA,
UNEP, US
AP-42

2B5

2B6

Titanium Dioxide
Production

Expected to be a growing source

C,F:
EMEP/EEA – NOx, CO, NH3. NMVOC - Tier2, Tier 2 - technology specific. EMEP/EEA distinguishes fuel combustion
emissions from process emissions.
UNEP – NOx, CO, NH3, SOx, NMVOCUS AP-42 – NH3, SO2, CO, NMVOC, also NOx and PM for fuel combustion. US AP-42 and WebFIRE emissions
databases distinguish emissions from fuel combustion used to generate heat for the reformer (NOx, VOC, CO, PM) andemissions from removing impurities in the natural gas feedstock (NH3, SO2, CO, NMVOC).
Check availability of method and EFs for NH3
REAS – NH3
MEP China – NMVOC
C,F: IPCC and those listed here only include process emissions, not fuel combustion.
EMEP/EEA – NOx.
UNEP – NOx and NH3
US AP-42 – NOx
C,F:
EMEP/EEA – NOx, CO
UNEP and US AP-42 – NOx, CO, NMVOC
C,D,F:No SLCF process emissions in this category
EMEP/EEA - 2.B.10.a Other (Glyoxylic Acid) – Not Estimated (NE)
C,D,F:No SLCF process emissions in this category.
Energy Emissions should be estimated in Energy Sector

NOx, CO,SOxYes, withmodification.
Seecomments

EMEP/EEA

EMEP/EEA,
UNEP

EMEP/EEA – TSP only
US AP-42 – SOx
US EPA NEI / EPA SPECIATE – BC, OC
To check. BC - NFR 2B6 Titanium dioxide: no methods in the EMEP GB, e.g. Finland uses domestic EFs for particles andfor BC 1.8% of PM2.5 (a calculated average of chemical industry BC fractions).
The chloride process does not emit SO2, while the sulphate process does
C,D:
The 2006 IPCC Guidelines do not include the sulphate route (only chloride route), so AD and EF for both routes are

Yes

49

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 3

2B7
2B8

2B8a
2B8b

2B8c

2B8d
2B8e
2B8f

2B9
2B10

D
IPCC
Methodapplicable 4

E
Alternative
methodology 5

FAvailable
EFs/
Parameters 6

G

H

I

Globally
applicable 7

Gaps 8(if any)

Comments 9

Soda ash
CO, NH3
Yes
production
Petrochemical and Carbon Black Production
Extraction of
petroleum andnatural gas
Methanol
Ethylene
NMVOC
Yes

EMEP/EEA- Propylene

NMVOC

REAS,
MEP China

Ethylene
Dichloride andVinyl Chloride
Monomer
Ethylene Oxide
Acrylonitrile

NMVOC(No IPCC
guidance –same asethylene)
Yes

EMEP/EEA,MEP China

Yes

NMVOC
NMVOC

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Carbon Black
Secondary
Carbonblack(recovery ofcarbonblack)[NOx], CO,
NMVOC,
SOx,
BC,
OC

Yes

EMEP/EEA
EMEP/EEA,MEP China
EMEP/EEA,US AP-42,
US EPA
NEI/EPA
SPECIATE,
UNEP,
REAS

needed.
C,F:
EMEP/EEA – NOx, CO, SOx
UNEP ABC EIM – SOx
C, F:
EMEP/EEA – CO and NH3 (OK)Yes

Energy sector (MEP China – NMVOC)

EMEP/EEA,
REAS, MEP
China

No SLCF process emissions in this category, CO is used and NMVOC is utilisedD:
The 2006 IPCC Guidelines include Geographical adjustment factor.
C,F:
EMEP/EEA, REAS, MEP China - NMVOC
D: EMEP/EEA: The default emission factor for Ethylene production emissions only takes into account the amount ofemitted NMVOC directly related to the ethylene production. In fact, actual emissions can relate not only to ethylene
production but also to the production of other olefins as propylene. Propylene is produced by thermal cracking of
naphtha fractions, in the same process as the production of ethylene.
C,F: EMEP/EEA - 2.B.10.a Other (Dichloroethane + vinyl chloride) – NMVOCMEP China - Chloroethylene production - NMVOC

Yes

Yes

BC OC fromdiffuseemissions
NMVOCs forstoragetanks

Fluorochemical
Production
Other (please specify)- Hydrogen[CO, otherproduction
SLCFs?]- Sulfuric acidSOx

No IPCC
guidance

EMEP/EEA

C,F: EMEP/EEA - 2.B.10.a Other (Ethylene Oxide) - NMVOC
C,F: EMEP/EEA - 2.B.10.a Other (Acrylonitrile) – NMVOCMEP China - NMVOCNo IPCC methodology for NMVOCs from oil storage tanks – EFs from EMEP and AP42No IPCC methodology for PM diffuse emissions
C,F:
EMEP/EEA – NOx, CO, NMVOC, SOx, BC
UNEP – NOx, CO, NMVOC, SOx, BC
US AP-42 – NOx, SOx, NMVOCUS EPA NEI / EPA SPECIATE – BC, OC
REAS – NMVOC, BC, OC. Also PM2.5 and PM10
No process emissions in this category, it is the source of F-gases emissions
Similar to Ammonia production
Allocation of emissions
Production from Ammonia
Different feedstock – different EFs
D, E:
EMEP/EEA, REAS, UNEP, US AP-42 - SOx

EMEP/EEA,
UNEP,
REAS, US
AP-42

Combustion emissions should be estimated in Energy sector (MEP China – NMVOC in Sulphuric acid)

50

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 3D
IPCC
Methodapplicable 4

E
Alternative
methodology 5- Sulphurrecovery

CO,
SOx,
NMVOC

- Ammonium
nitrateNH3

EMEP/EEA- Ammonium
phosphate

NH3
[SO2]

UNEP,
US AP-42- UreaNH3, BC,[NMVOC]

EMEP/EEA- Polyethylene

NMVOC

EMEP/EEA- Polyvinylchloride

NMVOC

EMEP/EEA- Styrene

NMVOC

EMEP/EEA- Polystyrene

NMVOC

EMEP/EEA- Styrenebutadiene,
Styrene-butadiene
latex,
Styrene-butadiene
rubber (SBR)- Acrylonitrile
Butadiene
Styrene (ABS)resins- Formaldehyde- Ethylbenzene

NMVOC

EMEP/EEA

NMVOC

EMEP/EEA

EMEP/EEA

NMVOC
NMVOC

EMEP/EEA
EMEP/EEA- Phthalicanhydride

NMVOC[CO, SO2]

EMEP/EEA
EMEP/EEA,MEP China
EMEP/EEA,US AP-42- Benzene- Methylbenzene /Toluene

NMVOC
NMVOC

No IPCC
guidance

US AP-42F
Available
EFs/
Parameters 6
US AP-42

EMEP/EEAMEP China
MEP China

G

H

I

Globally
applicable 7

Gaps 8(if any)

Comments 9D:
Sulphur recovery refers to the conversion of hydrogen sulphide (H2S) to elemental sulphur. Hydrogen sulphide is aby-product of processing natural gas and refining high-sulphur crude oils.
It should be estimated in Energy sector.
C,F:
EMEP/EEA, REAS, UNEP, US AP-42 – NH3

EMEP/EEA,
REAS,
UNEP, US
AP-42
UNEP,
US AP-42

C:
EMEP/EEA presents only TSP and PM, no SOx and NH3.
UNEP references the US EPA. The US AP-42 – totals for one plant - NH3, [SOx (Energy - combustion emissions)]
C,F:
EMEP/EEA – NH3 and BC
UNEP, US AP-42, REAS – NH3,
MEP China – NMVOC (Energy?)

EMEP/EEA,
UNEP,
REAS, USAP-42,MEP China
EMEP/EEA,REAS,MEP China
EMEP/EEA,
REAS
EMEP/EEA,REAS,MEP China
EMEP/EEA,REAS,MEP China,
US AP-42
EMEP/EEA,REAS,MEP China,
US AP-42

B:
EMEP/EEA - Styrene butadiene, Styrene-butadiene latex, Styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) - NMVOCUS AP-42 – Synthetic rubber, synthetic fibres - NMVOCREAS – Synthetic rubber – NMVOCMEP China – Butadiene – NMVOC

C,F:
EMEP/EEA – NMVOCUS AP-42 – NMVOC [ CO, SO2 (Energy)]

MEP China
MEP China

51

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 3- Xylene- Glycol- Terephthalic
acid

NMVOC
NMVOC
NMVOC,CO- Polyethylene
terephthalate- Maleic
anhydride- Explosives
Manufacturing-- manufacture of
explosives-- open burning of
explosives wastes

2C Metal Industry
2C1
Iron and Steel
Production- Sintering- Pellets- Pig Iron
- Blast furnace- Open hearth
furnace- Electric arc
furnace (scrap
emissions)- fugitive/diffuse
emissions fromraw materials

D
IPCC
Methodapplicable 4

E

MEP China
MEP China
MEP China,
US AP-42F
Available
EFs/
Parameters 6
MEP China
MEP China
MEP China,
US AP-42

NMVOC

US AP-42

US AP-42

NMVOC,CO
NOx, SOx,
CO,
NMVOC

US AP-42

US AP-42

US AP-42

US AP-42

Alternative
methodology 5

G

H

I

Globally
applicable 7

Gaps 8(if any)

Comments 9

C,F:
MEP China – NMVOC,
US AP-42 – CO, NMVOC

For manufacture of explosives, these emissions methods and factors are detailed and described in AP-42. But theemission factors are considered low reliability, because of variability in the processes used in this sector. Also, total
emissions are quite small for the U.S. I suggest we consider putting this sector in the “not significant” category.
B:
EMEP/EEA presents Explosives manufacturing in 2B10 Other Chemical Industry – with no guidance.
US AP-42 presents Explosives manufacturing in Chapter 6 Organic Chemicals (sub-chapter 6.3):
Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and sulphur (SOx) are the major emissions from the processes involving the manufacture,
concentration, and recovery of acids in the nitration process of explosives manufacturing. Emissions from the manufactureof nitric and sulfuric acid are discussed in other sections. Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions result primarily fromfugitive vapours from various solvent recovery operations.
Explosive wastes and contaminated packaging material are regularly disposed of by open burning, and such results inuncontrolled emissions, mainly of NOx and particulate matter.

NOx, CO,NMVOC,
SOx, BC,
OC

Yes.
Issues withcoking androlling mills(Energy and
IPPU
sectors, see
below)

EMEP/EEA,US AP-42,
US EPA
NEI/EPA
SPECIATE,
UNEP,
REAS, MEP
China

Yes

Fugitive PMemissions

No IPCC method for fugitive PM (BC, OC) emissions from:(1) receiving, uploading and conveying of raw materials,(2) storage piles(3) paved and unpaved roads within facilities
SO2 from
desulfurization PM size distribution has to be considered in fugitive emissions
PM and SO2
fromfoundries

Desulfurization process is not included in IPCC method (SOx and PM)

PM, OC, EC,
CO andVOCs from
scrap
preparation

No IPCC methodology for Scrap preparation (PM, EC, OC, CO, NMVOCs), previous metal melting in electric arc furnaces,
only data in AP42 from solvent degreasing. With methodology 2.D.3)

PM and SO2 foundry emissions, from the use of Cupola furnaces – No IPCC methodology

Flaring BFG in IPPU
C,F: EMEP/EEA: Tier 1 EF for Iron & Steel (NMVOC and BC), Tier 2 EFs for technologies (NOx, CO, NMVOC, BC).
US EPA NEI / EPA SPECIATE – BC, OC, PM2.5, SO4, NO3, remaining PM species
REAS - CO, BC, OC, PM2.5, PM10 - Crude steel and Pig iron EFs
UNEP - NOx, CO, NMVOC, SOx, BC,OC - only Pig iron (no steel)
MEP China – Iron and Steel – NMVOC.
US EP-42 – Gray iron foundries (NMVOC, CO, SOx, NOx) and Iron&Steel (NOx, CO), Coking (NOx, CO, NMVOC, SOx

52

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 3- Rolling mills- Coking

2C2

Ferroalloys
production

2C3

Aluminium
Production- primary(Prebake
andSoderberg)- secondary

2C4
2C5

NMVOC,
SO2

NOx, CO,SOx,
NMVOC,
NH3
BC
NOx, CO,NMVOC,
SOx, BC,OC

D
IPCC
Methodapplicable 4

E
Alternative
methodology 5

No
IPCC
guidanceG

H

I

Globally
applicable 7

Gaps 8(if any)

Comments 9

EMEP/EEA

Yes
Yes,
with
modifications.
IPCC
Guidelines inTier1
differentiate
Prebake andSoderberg(EMEP/ EEA– Tier 2), no
secondaryemissionsF
Available
EFs/
Parameters 6

EMEP/EEA

SO2
from
the use of
VHO

EMEP/EEA

Yes

EMEP/EEA,US
EPA
NEI/EPA
SPECIATE,
UNEP,
REAS, MEP
China

Yes

D: EMEP/EEA – NMVOC (hot rolling mills, Tier 3)
In general, it can be said that emissions from rolling mills are small compared to the other emissions from the (integrated)steel plant. Therefore, rolling mills will not be considered as a separate source in the Tier 1 and Tier 2 emission factors.
D: Coking emissions should be reported in Energy sector, to check reporting NH3 (US AP-42).

[Possibly other SLCF species]
C.F:
EMEP/EEA - BC. T1 EF for BC (10% of PM2.5) based on USEPA 2011
Aluminium production is very energy intensive.
SO2 is the main process emission gas, also from anodeBC from anode baking and fuels, also BC is from secondary aluminium.
C,F: EMEP/EEA: primary – NOx, CO, SOx, BC, secondary – BC
US EPA NEI / EPA SPECIATE – BC, OC, PM2.5, SO4, NO3, remaining PM species
UNEP: NOx, CO, NMVOC, SOx, BC, OC
REAS – SOx, BC, OC, PM2.5, PM10
Norway: BC, OC - BC and OC from aluminium:
https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/artikler-og-publikasjoner/_attachment/107884?_ts=13dfd568678
See table 5.3. It seems that Norway estimates some emissions from secondary aluminium.
SO2 from electrolysis and consumption of anode, anode baking furnace.
NOx from the same sources plus from use of natural gas in foundries.
Norway EFs for NOx from electrolysis is 0.15 kg NOx/tonne of Al
CO from electrolysis
BC, OC possible from electrolysis, anode baking, use of fuels
NMVOC – foundries, anode baking, storage and handling, paste plant
Secondary Aluminium – all species from fuels
B,C,D: 2019 Refinement sub-category. MEP China presents only PM2.5 and PM10 in Aluminium oxide (Energy)[- alumina/
aluminium oxide]
Magnesiumproduction
Lead Production- primary- secondary- electrolytic

and NH3). Despite robust test methods, the emission factors listed here can not be reliably applied across the industry
because there is considerable variability in the process at different facilities.
When volatile halogenated organic (VHO) gas is used some sulphur dioxide will also be emitted. (EMEP), but no EFs isreported[SOx],[NOx][CO][BC, OC]

Yes

EMEP/EEA,
UNEP, USAP-42, USEPA
NEI/EPA
SPECIATE,
REAS, MEP
China

Yes
Need tocheck theprocesses
andfeedstocks
used in thedomestic

Datacollection ofdomestic
industries(processes,
abatement,
raw material)

53

B,C: No SLCF process emissions in this category, it is the source of CO2 and F-gases emissions
For Magnesium production,
MEP China –SO2,PM2.5, PM10 (incl. Industrial Processes, give emission factors to SO2,OC and BC as 0)
Plant-specific emissions
Primary leadSOx – can occur or not depending on the plant structure, processes and abatement(EMEP T1 and T2 EFs for EU countries for 2015 abatement level)- emissions are diffuse emissions from the oxidation stages, directemissions from the sulphuric acid plant and the emissions of residual sulphur in the furnace charge.
Good extraction and sealing of the furnaces prevents diffuse emissions, with the collected gases from the oxidation stages
passed to a gas-cleaning plant and then to the sulphuric acid plant or gypsum plant.

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 3D
IPCC
Methodapplicable 4

E
Alternative
methodology 5

FAvailable
EFs/
Parameters 6

G

H

I

Globally
applicable 7

Gaps 8(if any)

Comments 9plants andtheircorrespondences to thedefault
methods.
Also if any
abatement
techniques
are used andmaintained.
Default
efficiencies
of different
abatement
techniques
are widely
available,
however, thedomestic
maintenancesituation to
be checked.

NOx - can occur or not depending on the plant structure, processes and abatement(EMEP no EFs)- may be formed in the melting stages or from
nitrogen components that are present in the concentrates or as thermal NOx. The sulphuric acid produced can absorb alarge part of the NOx, and this can affect the sulphuric acid quality. Other
furnaces that use oxy-fuel burners can also exhibit a reduction in NOX. The range for all the processes is 20 mg/Nm3
to 300 mg/Nm3
BC, OC, CO -yes, especially if plastics are present(EMEP T1 PM EFs for EU countries for 2015 abatement level and T2 unabated EFs for European countries 2014 –both for filterable PMs while BC needs both filterable and condensable PMs)
(EMEP/USEPA T2 unabated EF for filterable PMs while BC needs both filterable and condensable PMs)
Organic carbon compounds and CO can be emitted from the drying stage depending on the raw materials and the fuelused for drying.
The most significant source of organic carbon compounds and CO is the reduction step of the smelting process, especiallywhen plastic/plastic residues are present in the furnace charge. An afterburner is the most common technique used toabate this pollutant.
Secondary lead –SOx and NOx at low levels(EMEP EF for SOx for European 2015 abatement level)
Most important SOx and NOx emission ia smelting furnaces. The amount of SOx formed depends on the amount of sulphur
contained in the raw materials and in the fuel used. A major part of the sulphur remains inthe slag formed during the smelting process, some can be converted to SOx. SOx in the off-gas has been measured atabout 0.1% v/v. At a blast furnace using coke as fuel an even smaller off-gas concentration in the range of about 0.03% v/v
has been measured
BC –noEMEP T1 and T2 EFs for filterable PMs, no BC fraction, which would require both filterable and condensable PMs
Mass-balance for SO2 can be more accurate than the EF approach

2C6

Zinc production- primary- secondary- electrolytic- zinc oxide- zinc calcine

SOx[BC, OC]

Yes

EMEP/EEA,REAS,MEP China

Yes
Need tocheck theprocesses
andfeedstocks
used in thedomesticplants andtheircorrespondences to thedefault

Data
collection ofdomestic
industries(processes,
abatement,
raw material)

C,F: EMEP/EEA, US AP-42 and UNEP – SOx. EMEP/EEA – PM2.5, PM10, TSP.
US EPA NEI / EPA SPECIATE – BC, OC, PM2.5, SO4, NO3, remaining PM species. SPECIATE Profiles - 91139 sintering
furnace, 91168 lead processing.
REAS – SOx, BC, OC, PM2.5, PM10MEP China – Lead production and Electrolytic lead production - PM2.5 and PM10
Primary zinc
SO2 – depending on processes and abatement/construction(EMEP T1 and T2 unabated and EU 2015 abatement level)
mainly from roasting (sulphur in the feed), lower levels from electrolysis and H2SO4 plant from tanks, sinter plant(depending on S content of the feedstock) ovens and separation (coverings to reduce emissions)NOx – maybe depending on the processfrom roasting and smelting if N components present in the concentrates or as thermal NOx
BC – no information(EMEP EFs for filterable unabated PMs only)
Secondary zinc
SO2 – depending on processes and abatement/construction(EMEP T1 and T2 unabated and EU 2015 abatement level)

54

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 3

2C7

Other (please specify)- Copper
SOx,
BC,
OC
[NMVOC]D
IPCC
Methodapplicable 4

No IPCC
guidance

E
Alternative
methodology 5

EMEP/EEAF
Available
EFs/
Parameters 6

EMEP/EEA,UNEP,US AP-42,
REAS

G

H

I

Globally
applicable 7

Gaps 8(if any)

Comments 9methods.
Also if any
abatement
techniques
are used andmaintained.
Default
efficiencies
of different
abatement
techniques
are widely
available,
however, thedomestic
maintenancesituation to
be checked.
Yes,
EMEP/EEA

BC and NOx – no information(EMEP EFs for filterable unabated PMs only)
Mass-balance for SO2 can be more accurate than the EF approach
C,D,F:
EMEP/EEA and UNEP – SOx, PM2.5, PM10, TSP.
NOx and CO are reported in Energy sector.
REAS – SOx, BC, OC, PM2.5, PM10MEP China – Zinc, Electrolytic zinc, zinc oxide, zinc calcine production - PM2.5 and PM10

SO2 from
acid mist

SO2: Copper smelting important source. Also The basic Tier 1 method ADxEF can be modified to include abatement
ADxEF (1-Abatement efficiency).
SO2, SO3: from acid mist from acid plants within smelting process and acid mist from other metallurgical processes suchas flotation, lixiviation and mills
BC: from Pyro-refining, final step in smelting, with fuels (oil or natural gas) to extract remaining oxygen.
NMVOC: solvent use in solvent extraction/electrowinning
Recycling – Secondary – BC
Recover of wires - fires
Mass-balance for SO2 can be more accurate than the EF approach- Nickel

SOx

EMEP/EEA

EMEP/EEA

C,D,F:
EMEP/EEA – SOx, BC
US EPA NEI / EPA SPECIATE – BC, OC, PM2.5, SO4, NO3, remaining PM species
UNEP –SOx, PM2.5, PM10.
[NMVOC EF taken form 1996 IPCC for rolling mills]
US AP-42 – SOx
REAS – SOx, BC, OC, PM2.5, PM10MEP China – PM2.5 and PM10
Mass-balance for SO2 can be more accurate than the EF approach
Abatement is important
C,D,F:
EMEP/EEA – SOx
NOx, CO are assumed to be mainly due to combustion activities and addressed in Energy sector. SOx emissions are to alarge extent from the ore – IPPU sector. TSP or PM factors represent filterable PM emissions only (excluding any

Yes,
EMEP/EEA

55

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 3- Other metals

D
IPCC
Methodapplicable 4

SOx

E
Alternative
methodology 5

EMEP/EEAF
Available
EFs/
Parameters 6

G

H

I

Globally
applicable 7

Gaps 8(if any)

Comments 9
condensable fraction).
MEP China –SO2, PM2.5, PM10 (incl. Industrial Processes, give emission factors to SO2, OC and BC as 0)
B,C,D:
EMEP/EEA – SOx.
The emission factors are adapted from therevised BREF document for the non-ferrous metal industry (European Commission, 2014) and applicable for precious
metal production facilities controlled by a fabric filter, hot electrostatic precipitators and cyclone.

EMEP/EEA(Silicium
production,
Magnesiumproduction,
Alloyedmetal
manufacturing,
Galvanizing,
Electroplating,
Manufacture ofbasic
preciousand non-ferrous
metals, Other)- Rare Earths

B,C,D:
2019 Refinement category. Possible source of SLCF emissions
B,C,D:No methodological guidance - Insignificant source - Possible source of SLCF emissions.
Further data collection is needed.

- Metal welding
and cutting
2D Non-Energy Products from Fuels and Solvent Use
2D1
Lubricant Use
2D2
Paraffin Wax Use
2D3
Solvent Use
Only very
generalguidance isgiven in the2006 IPCC
Guidelines
and theRevised1996 IPCC
Guidelines no methods
and EFs- Domestic
NMVOC
solvents use

No emissions in this category
No emissions in this category

EMEP/EEA

EMEP/EEA,
REAS, MEP
China, US
AP-42

Yes –
EMEP/EEAThe EFs
need to bechecked for
global use
but there arealso EFs per
capitaData

Guidance on
how tocollect AD
and on how
to estimate
AD if there
are nostatistics(e.g.,
modellingfrom a56(EMEP T1 EFs per capita is universal and provided for both Western/Other countries)(EMEP T1 EFs for different product categories for European countries 2015)
EMEP: T2 EFs for different product categories using USEPA 1005 /EU 2012 methods) – global per capita(EMEP : solvent contents by different product groups in Europe 2015)
NMVOC – yes – a growing source (1990 ~4%, 2019 ~8%)
Per capita EF can over or underestimate emissions from country to country, intra-city EFs

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 3- Coatingapplication

NMVOC

D
IPCC
Methodapplicable 4

E
Alternative
methodology 5

EMEP/EEA(Paint application,
Manufacture ofautomobiles, Car
repairing,
Construction andbuildings,
Domestic use,
Coil coating, Boatbuilding, Wood,
Other industrial
paint application,
Other
non-industrial
paint application)

F
Available
EFs/
Parameters 6

EMEP/EEA,REAS,US AP-42,
US
SPECIATE

G

H

I

Globally
applicable 7

Gaps 8(if any)

Comments 9collection bydifferent
productgroups (T2)
may bechallenging
Yes –EMEP/EEA

similarcountry etc.)

AD

Share In 1990 12%, in 2019 9% of NMVOCs
Per capita EFs can over or under estimate emissions, type of paints and solvent content is important, economic indicators(other proxies) can be used, if the types of paints or solvent content is not known
The inventorying of NMVOCs' emissions from the categories coating, degreasing, dry cleaning is problematic, and done byapplication of the 'Tier 1'-like methodology described in the EMEP/EEA Guidebook (methodology given, however emission
factors should be discussed), however for the local air quality assessment, the modellers sometimes including
commissioned analysis about that. Unfortunately, we have still very limited knowledge about the real composition of paints
and coatings which is crucial information for the emission estimation. The problem is also in the market analysis (paints andcoatings sold = paints and coatings used). If we know the volume of coatings used in industry (e.g., painting of vessels), we
can somehow estimate NMVOCs emissions. The paints and coatings used for both: industrial and non-industrial purposes
should be in compliance with current EU Directives (and Decisions, such as :https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2020.414.01.0019.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2020%3A414%3ATOC&utm_campaign=ESIG%20Newsflash%20October%202021&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Mailjet
and concentration of solvents in paints and coatings (probably?) decreasing from year to year. The estimation of thevolume of solvents can be (theoretically) carried out, it might be worth to ask ESIG for some help (Europe,
https://www.esig.org/).
Poland: 2D3d, Coating applications, methodology: Tier 1, country specific EF [NMVOCs, Waterborne paints 0.03 Mg/Mg
paints (assumption: non-industrial purposes), Conventional solvent paints, 0.5 Mg/Mg paints (assumption: industrial
purposes)], Uncertainty 28% (possibly bigger).All of EFs are derived from the former analysis of Institute of Ecology ofIndustrial Areas (Katowice, Poland).
B:
US AP-42 presents NMVOC for the following sub-categories (Non-industrial surface coating, Industrial surface, Can
coating, Magnet wire, Other metal coating, Flat wood interior panel, Paper, Polymeric, Automobile, Metal coil surface
coating, Large appliances, Metal furniture, Magnetic tape, Plastic parts surface coating, Paints and Varnish).

- Degreasing

NMVOC

EMEP/EEA(Metaldegreasing,Electronic
components
manufacturing,
Other industrial
cleaning)- Dry cleaning

EMEP/EEA,REAS,US AP-42

Yes – EMEP/
EEA

NMVOC

EMEP/EEA

EMEP/EEA,
REAS

Yes – EMEP/EEA

C: US EPA NEI / EPA SPECIATE presents for Surface coating - BC, OC, PM2.5, SO4, NO3, remaining PM species
4% of NMVOC in 1990, <2% in 2019
Degreasing is rather industrial category, and the type of solvents used are specific for the particular type of industry. The
amount (volume) of industrial solvents used for degreasing is not can be possible from some kind of bottom-up inventory
compared with data about sold chemicals.
Poland: 2D3e, Degreasing (of metal), methodology: Tier 1, country specific EF (NMVOCs, 1 Mg/Mg solvent - 100%
evaporating), Uncertainty 30% (possibly bigger).

AD

An insignificant source 0.1-0.3%"Tier 1 method has been used for calculation of fugitive emissions from this category. Activity data (population) used for
calculation of fugitive emissions of NMVOC was taken from statistical yearbook [GUS] and emission factors have beendeveloped by the Institute for Ecology of Industrial Areas (IETU)."

57

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 3- Chemical
products(Polyester,
Polyvinylchloride,
Polyurethanefoam, Polystyrene
foam, Rubber,Pharmaceuticalproducts, Paints
manufacturing,Inks, Glues,
Asphalt blowing,
Adhesive,
Magnetic tapes,
Films andphotographs
manufacturing,Textile finishing,
Leather tanning,
Other)- Printing- Other solvent
and product use(Other use ofsolvents andrelated activities,
Glass wool
enduction,
Mineral wool
enduction, Fat,

D
IPCC
Methodapplicable 4

NMVOC

E
Alternative
methodology 5

FAvailable
EFs/
Parameters 6

EMEP/EEA

G

H

I

Globally
applicable 7

Gaps 8(if any)

Comments 9
Poland: 2D3f, Dry cleaning, methodology: Tier 1, country specific EF (NMVOCs, 0.15 Mg/1000 people (inhabitants)),
Uncertainty 30% (possibly bigger).
Use of solvents in the subcategories under “Chemical Products” is mainly considered insignificant (3-4% of NMVOC) but
can in some countries be source of a considerable part of NMVOC emissions, These processes are complicated, variable
and unique so that no general guidance can be provided. Guidance in EMEP/EEA Guidebook can be applied in mostcountries where production volumes are known.

Yes –EMEP/EEA
globalB:
MEP China presents NMVOC for the following products (Ink, Dye, Tire, Textile, Artificial leather/ synthetic leather, Acrylic
production, Nylon, Vinylon, Artificial board Manufacturing, Architectural coating production, Cementing compound, Foamed
plastic, Gelatinous fibre, Woolen yarn, Silk production, Cloth production) and PM2.5 for Carbon production, Fertilizer
production

NMVOC

NMVOC

Only very
generalguidance isgiven in the2006 IPCC
Guidelines
and theRevised1996 IPCC
Guidelines no methods
and EFs

EMEP/EEA

EMEP/EEA

EMEP/EEA,REAS,US AP-42

EMEP/EEA,MEP China,
REAS

Yes –
EMEP/EEA
globalYes –EMEP/EEA
globalCollection of
AD (use of
ink and/or
appliedabatement
techniques,default
efficiencies
forabatement
are provided
in
EMEP/EEA)
AD: capita or
product/solv
ent useA minor source today, 2-3% of NMVOC. includes several subprocesses. If no abatement is used 50-80% of solvents used
are emitted.
EMEP/EEA-NMVOCThe Tier 1 approach for emissions from other product use uses the general equation: E pollutant = AR production x EF
pollutant(1) This equation is applied at the national level. It involves either the use of solvent consumption data or combining ink
consumption with emission factors for the industry. Unless the solvent consumption data is used, no account is taken of theuse of water-based or low solvent inks, and no account is taken of the extent of controls such as incineration. In cases
where specific abatement options are to be taken into account a Tier 1 method is not applicable and a Tier 2 or Tier 3
approach must be used
The Tier 2 approach is similar to the Tier 1 approach. To apply the Tier 2 approach, both the activity data
and the emission factors need to be stratified according to the different printing processes that may occur in the country
A minor source ~4% of NMVOC emissions. EMEP/EEA methods represent EU countries and are based on detailed massbalances on national production, import and export
statistics on the use of products/chemicals and information from industries and trade organisations. Methods are productand pollutants specific because the NMVOC concentrations vary by pollutant or the use pattern of the product.
Preservation of wood with organic solvent-born preservatives and use of solvent containing vehicle treatments are small
activities but almost all NMVOCs included in the AD are emitted.
B:
MEP China (Nonedible vegetable oil production)

58

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 3

2D4

Edible andnon-edible oil
extraction,
Application ofglues andadhesives,
Preservation ofwood, Underseal
treatment andconservation ofvehicles, Vehicles
dewaxing, Aircraft
deicing, Use of
fireworks, Use of
tobacco, Use ofshoes, Other)
Other (please specify)- Road paving
NOx, CO,with asphalt
NMVOC, BC- Asphalt roofing

NOx, CO,NMVOC, BC

D
IPCC
Methodapplicable 4

Yes.
The update
is needed.
Generalguidance isin the 2006
IPCC
Guidelines
without
methods andEFs, some
guidance in
the Revised
1996 IPCC
Guidelines
with default
EFsE
Alternative
methodology 5

EMEP/EEA

EMEP/EEAF
Available
EFs/
Parameters 6

G

H

I

Globally
applicable 7

Gaps 8(if any)

Comments 9
REAS (Preservation of wood, Vehicles treatment, Adhesive application)

EMEP/EEA,
UNEP, USAP-42,REAS, MEP
China

Yes

EMEP/EEA,UNEP,US AP-42

Yes

An insignificant source, ~0.1% of NMVOC
C,F:
EMEP/EEA – NMVOC, BC
UNEP – NOx, CO, NMVOCUS AP-42 – NOx, CO, SOx, NMVOCREAS, MEP China – NMVOC
Yes – SO2
emissions inroofing
materials

EPA calcs
An insignificant source for NMVOC
SO2 emissions – but this is for asphalt blowing (listed under 2D3), which is listed above? Clarify what process included
here?
https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.10071
Another paper, including recycled content, not sure what stages (e.g., transport) are included in emissions:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344913000554
New work showing there are numerous missing emissions of SVOCs. Major SOA precursors (Both roofing and paving),
even after application: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abb9785

2E

Electronics
Industry

2F

Product Uses as
Substitutes for
Ozone Depleting

NH3,
NMVOC

Method, AD,
EFs

59

C,F:
EMEP/EEA – CO, NMVOC, BC
UNEP – CO, NMVOCUS AP-42 – CO, NMVOC (VOCs from both the process and fuel combustion)
No SLCF process emissions, it is the source of F-gases and N2O emissions.
Energy emissions should be estimated in Energy sector (US EPA NEI / EPA SPECIATE – BC, OC. Also, PM2.5, SO4, NO3,
remaining PM species)
It is the source of F-gases emissions.
NH3 and NMVOC emissions are also possible

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 3

Substances

2G

D
IPCC
Methodapplicable 4

E
Alternative
methodology 5

FAvailable
EFs/
Parameters 6

G

H

I

Globally
applicable 7

Gaps 8(if any)

Comments 9https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-08/documents/eiip_areasourcesnh3.pdf
Information of Ammonia emissions from refrigeration in food industry in Chile. 57 tonne NH3/year -.
http://www.chilealimentos.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Informe-Final_3-29112017_Sin-anexos.compressed-1-1.pdf
No SLCF process emissions.
Source of F-gases and N2O emissions.

Other Product
Manufacture andUse

2H Other
2H1
Pulp and Paper
Industry(Chipboard,
Paper pulp (Kraft
process), Paper
pulp (acid sulphite
process), Paper
pulp (neutral
sulphitesemi-chemical
process))NOx,
CO,
NMVOC,
SOx,
NH3,
BC,
OC

Yes.
The update
is needed.

EMEP/EEA

The 2006
IPCC
Guidelines
have noguidance forPulp and
Paper
Industry, butthere isguidance in
the Revised
1996 IPCC
Guidelines AD x default
EF

EMEP/EEA,UNEP,US AP-42,
US
SPECIATE,REAS,MEP China

Yes

Updated EFs

Tier 1 default emission factors are those for Kraft pulping, since this is by far the most important process in the
manufacturing of pulp and paper. Values are taken from the BREF document for pulp and paper industries (European
Commission, 2001); the emission factor for CO is from US EPA (1985) and the emission factor for BC1 is obtained from US
EPA, SPECIATE database version 4.3 (US EPA, 2011), The Tier 2 approach is similar to the Tier 1 approach. To apply the
Tier 2 approach, both the activity data and the emission factors need to be stratified according to the different techniquesthat may occur in the country. The emission factors from all pollutants needs to be updated.
Data on abatement techniques and equipment, their efficiency, maintenance are very important. Some examples ofemission control:
Particulates emissions :can be controlled by electrostatic precipitators, scrubbers, cyclone collectors and wire meshdemister pads. Electrostatic precipitators are the main type of collectors used to control recovery furnace particulate
emissions
C,E,F:
EMEP/EEA – NOx, CO, SO2, NMVOC, BC.
NH3 emissions occur from the pulping process and need to be determined plant by plant
UNEP – NOx, CO, SO2, NMVOC, BC, OC.
US AP-42 – SOx - Chemical Wood Pulping
REAS and MEP China – NMVOCUS EPA NEI / EPA SPECIATE – BC, OC. Also, PM2.5, SO4, NO3, remaining PM species

2H2

Food andBeverages
Industry(Bread, Wine,
Beer
Spirits, Sugar
production
Flour production,
Meat, fish etc.
frying / curing)

NMVOC,CO, NH3,
SOx

Yes,
update isneeded.
The 2006
IPCC
Guidelines
have noguidance forFood andBeverage

EMEP/EEA

EMEP/EEA,
UNEP, USAP-42,REAS, MEP
China

Norwegian inventory: 2% of BC of TSP and 25% of OC of the TSP
The Tier 1 approach needs emission factors for all relevant pollutants. These emission factors integrate all
sub-processes within the industry from the feed of raw material to the final shipment of the products off site.

Yes

The Tier 2 approach is similar to the Tier 1 approach. To apply the Tier 2 approach, both the activity data and the emission
factors need to be stratified according to the different techniques that may occur in the country. In the case of food andbeverages production, these techniques are the various kinds of food and beverages produced (e.g., bread, sugar, wine,beer).
B, C, F:US AP-42 – NMVOC, CO – malt beverages

60

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 3- Food andBeveragecharbroiling, fat
frying, grain
handling,
fermenting/distilling, drying/roasting, natural
gas cooking

D
IPCC
Methodapplicable 4
Industry, butthere isguidance in
the Revised
1996 IPCC
Guidelines AD x default
EF, for someproducts

BC, OCE
Alternative
methodology 5

FAvailable
EFs/
Parameters 6

G

H

I

Globally
applicable 7

Gaps 8(if any)

Comments 9
EMEP/EEA – animal rendering and animal feed - NMVOCUS AP-42 - Sugar beet processing - NMVOC, CO, SOx (Energy emissions).
US AP-42 - Meat Smokehouses - NMVOC, Meat Rendering Plants - NH3
US AP-42 – Coffee roasting - NMVOC, CO
MEP China – NMVOC for various products

US SPECIATEUNEP and REAS – NMVOC
BC emissions result from incomplete combustion during charbroiling activities. Commercial charbroiling operations are asignificant source of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions within the overall nonpoint source emission inventories. The magnitude ofPM emissions largely depends on the type of cooking equipment and the type of meat cooked. Under-fired charbroilingcooking operations are a major source of PM emissions compared to other charbroiling equipment operations.
The Tier 1 method for estimating emissions from charbroiling is based on the type of equipment used for charbroiling. Thismethod relies on per capita emission factors and the population of the inventory area. The per capita emission factors are
dependent on the type of equipment used for charbroiling/commercial cooking activities (i.e., conveyorized, under-fired,flat-griddle, clamshell griddle, and deep-fat frying). Activity data for the Tier 1 method can be at the national, state, regional,
or other required inventory area–level.

US
SPECIATE

Double counting with Energy
NFR 2L Meat frying and barbeques: Emission factors for TSP, PM10 and PM3.5 (no EF for BC) can befound www.air.sk/tno/cepmeip

2H3

Other (please specify)- OrdnanceNOx, CO,detonation
NMVOC,SOx- Wood industry(Plywood
manufacturing,
Waferboard/orient
ed strandboard,
Particleboard,
Medium density
fiberboard,
Hardboard andfiberboard, Wood
Preserving,
Engineered wood
products)

NOx, CO,NMVOC,SOx

B,C,F:US EPA NEI / EPA SPECIATE – BC, OC.
Also PM2.5, SO4, NO3, remaining PM species
No
IPCC
Guidance

US AP-42

US AP-42

For detonation of explosives (2H3), this guidance are marked as “draft” in AP-42 and I don’t think they were ever officiallyadopted. The total emissions from this sector are also quite small. Recommend we mark this sector in the “not significant”
category.

No
IPCC
Guidance

US AP-42

US AP-42

Dust, TOC, TVOC and formaldehyde emissions from drying process. Two stages of TVOC and dust emissions: a) duringdrying and b) pressing. From (urea/phenol) formaldehyde-based resin use. NH3, NOX or SOX in the press exhaust arealso possible
Formaldehyde-free resins reduces TVOC. Is technology and end-product dependent.
TVOC emissions also from painting / paper-impregnation and surfaces treatments of boards
Emissions from mechanical wood industry (pressing) - to check. For particle board, fiberboard, and engineered wood
products, this pressing stage can be an important source of VOCs.
Gluing and coating are covered in Solvents
AD is to be checked
References
Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Production of Wood-based Panels. Industrial Emissions

61

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 3D
IPCC
Methodapplicable 4

E
Alternative
methodology 5

FAvailable
EFs/
Parameters 6

G

H

I

Globally
applicable 7

Gaps 8(if any)

Comments 9
Directive 2010/75/EU (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control); Kristine Raunkjær Stubdrup, Panagiotis Karlis, Serge
Roudier, Luis Delgado Sancho; 2016. https://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2019-11/WBPbref2016_0.pdf
B, C, D:
Combustion emissions should be reported in Energy sector, solvents use in IPPU – 2D3. Solvents.
US AP-42 – NOx, CO, NMVOC, SO2
Engineered wood products – NMVOC.
The drying process leads to VOC emissions, but emission factors may also include fuel combustion VOC.
EMEP/EEA – 2I Wood Industry – only TSP (US EPA 1995 EF)
Energy sector
US AP-42 – Charcoal – NOx, CO, NMVOC
Waste sector
US AP-42 – NMVOC- Charcoal- Waste watercollection,
treatment andstorage- Solid waste
incineration

Waste sector
MEP China – BC62

Issue Paper (IPPU sector)
Issues

1. Allocation of emissions between Energy sector and IPPU sector

According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines emissions from fuel combustion should be estimated in Energy sector.
Also, all emissions from coke production should be reported in Energy. All fugitive emissions from oil and gas
industry should be estimated in Energy sector as well.
In some cases, fuels are used as feedstock and reductant and serve two-fold purposes to produce energy(heat) and to participate in a chemical reaction to produce final products (for example, use of coke in iron andsteel, natural gas in ammonia production).
In Mineral Industry (cement, lime, glass, bricks, etc.) all combustion emissions from natural gas or coal arereported in Energy sector and CO2 emissions from chemical decomposition of carbonates reported in IPPU.
Several chemical elements are present in both - raw materials and fuels, for example sulphur, which is thesource of SO2 emissions.
As it is difficult to estimate separate contribution of fuels or raw materials to final emissions, allocation to some
sectors is used with indication of potential double counting. So, in the particular cases of use of coke in iron andsteel and natural gas in ammonia – all emissions are allocated to IPPU.
The 2019 EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook is generally consistent with the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines with focus on air pollutants, not greenhouse gases.
In Mineral industry the EMEP/EEA methodology suggests to allocate all emissions to Energy sector, except
particulate matters (PM), which include black carbon (BC) and organic carbon (OC).
Only BC emission factors (EFs) are provided in Mineral industry. There is no OC EFs in EMEP/EEA
methodology. Other methodological sources provide with some estimates of OC, for example US SPECIATE.
The participants are welcomed to discuss the issue of estimation and allocation of SLCF emissions in Mineralindustry.
It is suggested to follow the EMEP/EEA approach.

2. Categories with no process (IPPU) emissions
The IPPU categories in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines focus on process GHG emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs,
PFCs, SF6, NF3). CH4 and F-gases are SLCFs, but out of the scope of consideration, as methodology isalready provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
So, there are several IPPU categories which should be excluded from the SLCF IPPU sources mainly for two
reasons:i) a category is a solely source of F-gases (or N2O, CO2, CH4)ii) a category is a source of combustion emissions (combustion emissions are estimated in Energy) andprocess emissions, but process emissions give rise only to GHGs which out of the scope (CH4, etc.).
The examples of these cases are listed below:- 2B4 Caprolactam, Glyoxal and Glyoxylic Acid Production- 2B5 Carbide production- 2B8a Methanol- 2B9 Fluorochemical Production- 2C4 Magnesium production- 2D1 Lubricant Use- 2D2 Paraffin Wax Use- 2E Electronics Industry- 2F Product Uses as Substitutes for Ozone Depleting Substances- 2G Other Product Manufacture and Use63-

2H3 Other. Wood Industry (In Wood industry the use of solvents is estimated in category 2D3Solvent use).

3. Other cases of allocation
There are several categories, which can be considered as industrial sources depending on classification, but inorder to follow methodological approaches of complete and accurate emissions estimation, they should betreated in other sectors (e.g., Energy, Waste):--

Sulphur recovery in refineries
US AP-42 provides methodology for sulphur recovery in refineries, where hydrogen sulphide is aby-product of processing natural gas and refining high-sulphur crude oils with missions of CO, SOx,
NMVOC.
It should be reported in Energy sector.
Alumina/aluminium oxide
The 2019 Refinement sub-category provides methodology for CO2 process emissions. MEP China
presents PM2.5 and PM10 in Aluminium oxide. It is combustion emissions – Energy sector.
Cocking
According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, the cocking emissions should be reported in Energy sector.
Charcoal
All charcoal related emissions (combustion and fugitives) should be reported in Energy sector.
Waste treatment
Evaporative emissions in industry Waste Water Collection, Treatment and Storage (AP-42) and Solid
waste incineration (MEP China) - it is Waste sector emissions according to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

4. Insignificant sources

There are several IPPU sources in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and the 2019 Refinement or there are someliterature publications that indicate possible emissions of SLCFs. These sources are not in the guidance of
EMEP/EEA or other methodological guidance on SLCFs, which suggest that these sources are of insignificant
nature:- 2C7 Other metals - Rare Earths Production.
The 2019 Refinement category for CO2 and F-gases. This source is limited only to some countries. Literaturesuggests CO emissions which can be insignificant.
-- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.02.019- 2C7 Other metals – Metal welding and cutting.
Literature suggests emissions of PM (not BC, mainly metal oxides), but also CO, NOx and SO2 from metal
welding and cutting. This can be considered as insignificant source.
-- https://dx.doi.org/10.5812/jhealthscope.58267-- http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.076- 2F Product Uses as Substitutes for Ozone Depleting Substances
Ammonia is used in refrigeration. There is no guidance in EMEP/EEA. Some publications:-https://www.ashrae.org/File%20Library/About/Position%20Documents/Ammonia-as-a-Refrigerant-PD-2017.pdf-- https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei13/ammonia/sullivan.pdf

64Table 2 Category list (IPPU)
A
IPCC
code
2A1

B

C

I

Category

SLCF

Comments

Cement production

SO2, NMVOC– processemissions

SO2 – non-combustion source (raw materials)
NMVOC – non-combustion source (other processes)
The basic Tier 1 method ADxEF can be modified to include abatement ADxEF (1-Abatement efficiency).
BC (EC) and OC.
For establishing BC EF, it is important to have data on PM2.5 EF, inventory of particles/profile, fraction of BC (EC) in PM2.5.
BC (EC) and OC are combustion related.
Data on abatement techniques, their efficiency, maintenance are very important.
C,D:
According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines combustion emissions should be estimated in Energy sector. EMEP/EEA presents only BC (PM) in IPPU and estimates other gases (NOx, CO, NMVOC, SO2)
in Energy, although sulphur is contained in fuels and raw materials. It is assumed that these SLCFs emissions to be mainly due to the combustion of the solid and waste fuels and to be included in
category 1.A.2.f. Manufacturing Industries – Non-Metallic Minerals (Energy Sector), also double counting should be avoided.
OC emission factor is presented in the US SPECIATE, UNEP, REAS.

2A2

Lime production

No process
emissions, allemissions are
combustion
related

C,F:
EMEP/EEA – BC (incl. combustion emissions)
US SPECIATE – BC, OC, PM2.5, SO4, NO3, remaining PM species (incl. combustion emissions)
UNEP – SOx, BC, OC, PM2.5, PM10 (incl. combustion emissions)
US AP-42 – NOx, NMVOC, SOx, CO (incl. combustion emissions)
REAS – BC, OC, PM2.5, PM10 (incl. combustion emissions)
MEP China – NMVOC, PM2.5, PM10 (incl. combustion emissions)
Significant emissions of PM during different sub processes (storage, crushing, calcining), however as the raw materials are mostly calcium carbonate and dolomite no OC or BC emissions occurs.
BC emissions are related to combustion, but what happens with carbon fuel storage emissions?
If the emissions of BC are considered in this sector it is important to take in to account that the magnitude of the differences for PM emissions factors (BC) between types of kilns (uncontrolled) is
important (i.e., Shaft Kiln 3 kg/Mg lime and rotary long kiln 140 kg/Mg lime) this could be considered in the evaluation of whether a Tier 1 method is globally applicable or not.
Also, traditional lime kilns (built using brick or stones) probably are not considered in the EMEP guidelines and are commonly used in countries with small production of lime and the aggregate could be
important.
As indicated below, others SLCF are accounted for in the energy sector as combustion is the significant source.
C, D:
According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines combustion emissions should be estimated in Energy sector.
EMEP/EEA presents only BC (PM) in IPPU and estimates other gases (NOx, CO, NMVOC, SO2) in Energy, although sulphur is contained in fuels and raw materials.
It is done because it is very difficult to separate process and combustion emissions and the majority of emissions for other SLCFs to be due to the combustion of fuels.
OC emission factor is presented in the US SPECIATE, UNEP, REAS.

2A3

Glass production (incl. glass
fibre/ mineral wool)

NMVOC –
process

C,F:
EMEP/EEA – BC (incl. combustion emissions)
US SPECIATE – BC, OC, PM2.5, SO4, NO3, remaining PM species (incl. combustion emissions)
UNEP – BC, OC, PM2.5, PM10 (incl. combustion emissions)
US AP-42 – NOx, SOx, CO (incl. combustion emissions)
REAS – BC, OC, PM2.5, PM10 (incl. combustion emissions)
MEP China – PM2.5, PM10 (incl. Industrial processes), give EFs to BC and OC
NMVOC come from process
BC and OC from combustion.

65

A
IPCC
code

B

C

I

Category

SLCF

Comments

relatedDust from material handling
Small amount of dust and NMVOC emissions from non-melting activities (coating, cutting, and milling). It is glass type dependent.
References - Best available techniques (BAT) reference document for the manufacture of glass, Joint Research Center, Scalet et al., 2013.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ff8a3955-d0d0-46f5-8a15-4b638896cb56
C,D:
According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines combustion emissions should be estimated in Energy sector.
EMEP/EEA presents only BC (PM) in IPPU and estimates other gases (NOx, CO, NMVOC, SO2) in Energy, although sulphur is contained in fuels and raw materials.
OC emission factor is presented in the US SPECIATE.

2A4

Other Process Uses ofCarbonates:- bricks- ceramics- others (tiles, gypsum,refractory, frit)SO2, NMVOC

C,F: EMEP/EEA – BC (incl. combustion emissions)
US SPECIATE – BC, OC, PM2.5, SO4, NO3, remaining PM species (incl. combustion emissions)
US AP-42 – NOx, NMVOC, SOx, CO (incl. combustion emissions)
MEP China – PM2.5, PM10 (incl. Industrial Processes, give emission factors to OC and BC as 0)
To check BC, OC, NMVOC as process emissions, because it can be combustion related.
Sulphur is contained in fuels and raw materials (SO2 emissions)
Clay/ceramic processing: The basic steps include raw material procurement, beneficiation, mixing, forming, green machining, drying, presinter thermal processing, glazing, firing, final processing, andpackaging. There are PM emissions from many stages, and combustion emissions from drying and other thermal processes. Mixing generally is a wet process. However, VOC emissions from this step
may arise from the volatilization of binders, plasticizers, and lubricants. EPA-42 Ch 11.7 provides an emission factor for VOC emission
Combustion processes may be considered in Energy sector.
C,D:
EMEP/EEA provides no guidance for this category.
According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines combustion emissions should be estimated in Energy sector.
US SPECIATE presents BC and OC.

2B1

Ammonia production

NOx, NH3,CO,
NMVOC,SOxC,F:
US SPECIATE – BC, OC, PM2.5, SO4, NO3, remaining PM species (incl. combustion emissions)
UNEP – SO2 (bricks), PM2.5, PM10 (incl. combustion emissions)
US AP-42 – NOx, SOx, NMVOC, CO (incl. combustion emissions)
REAS - BC, OC, PM2.5, PM10 (incl. combustion emissions)
MEP China – NMVOC, PM2.5, PM10 (incl. combustion emissions)
Expected to be a growing source
C,D:
In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, in the case of ammonia production no distinction is made between fuel and feedstock emissions with all emissions accounted for in the IPPU Sector.
The method for CO2 and SLCFs is slightly different: input of fuel and its carbon content (IPCC-CO2) by output of ammonia vs. EF of SLCF by output of ammonia (SLCF).
C,F:
EMEP/EEA – NOx, CO, NH3. NMVOC - Tier2, Tier 2 - technology specific. EMEP/EEA distinguishes fuel combustion emissions from process emissions.
UNEP – NOx, CO, NH3, SOx, NMVOCUS AP-42 – NH3, SO2, CO, NMVOC, also NOx and PM for fuel combustion. US AP-42 and WebFIRE emissions databases distinguish emissions from fuel combustion used to generate heat for thereformer (NOx, VOC, CO, PM) and emissions from removing impurities in the natural gas feedstock (NH3, SO2, CO, NMVOC).
Check availability of method and EFs for NH3
REAS – NH3
MEP China – NMVOC

66

A
IPCC
code
2B2

B

C

I

Category

SLCF

Comments

Nitric Acid production

NOx, NH3

2B3

Adipic Acid production

2B6

Titanium Dioxide Production

C,F: IPCC and those listed here only include process emissions, not fuel combustion.
EMEP/EEA – NOx.
UNEP – NOx and NH3
US AP-42 – NOx
NOx, CO,C,F:
NMVOC
EMEP/EEA – NOx, CO
UNEP and US AP-42 – NOx, CO, NMVOC
NOx, CO, SOx To check. BC - NFR 2B6 Titanium dioxide: no methods in the EMEP GB, e.g. Finland uses domestic EFs for particles and for BC 1.8% of PM2.5 (a calculated average of chemical industry BC
fractions)
The chloride process does not emit SO2, while the sulphate process does

2B7

Soda ash production

CO, NH32B8
2B8b

Petrochemical Industry
Ethylene

NMVOC- Propylene

NMVOC

2B8c
2B8d
2B8e
2B8f

2B10

Ethylene Dichloride and Vinyl NMVOC
Chloride Monomer
Ethylene Oxide
NMVOC
Acrylonitrile
NMVOC

C,D:
The 2006 IPCC Guidelines do not include the sulphate route (only chloride route), so AD and EF for both routes are needed.
C,F:
EMEP/EEA – NOx, CO, SOx
UNEP ABC EIM – SOx
C, F:
EMEP/EEA – CO and NH3 (OK)D:The 2006 IPCC Guidelines include Geographical adjustment factor.
C,F:
EMEP/EEA, REAS, MEP China - NMVOC
D: EMEP/EEA: The default emission factor for Ethylene production emissions only takes into account the amount of emitted NMVOC directly related to the ethylene production. In fact, actual emissions
can relate not only to ethylene production but also to the production of other olefins as propylene. Propylene is produced by thermal cracking of naphtha fractions, in the same process as the productionof ethylene.
C,F: EMEP/EEA - 2.B.10.a Other (Dichloroethane + vinyl chloride) – NMVOCMEP China - Chloroethylene production - NMVOC
C,F: EMEP/EEA - 2.B.10.a Other (Ethylene Oxide) - NMVOC
C,F: EMEP/EEA - 2.B.10.a Other (Acrylonitrile) – NMVOCMEP China - NMVOCNo IPCC methodology for NMVOCs from oil storage tanks – EFs from EMEP and AP42

Carbon Black
Secondary Carbon
black (recovery ofcarbon black)[NOx], CO,
NMVOC, SOx,
No IPCC methodology for PM diffuse emissions
BC,
OC
C,F:
EMEP/EEA – NOx, CO, NMVOC, SOx, BC
UNEP – NOx, CO, NMVOC, SOx, BC
US AP-42 – NOx, SOx, NMVOCUS EPA NEI / EPA SPECIATE – BC, OC
REAS – NMVOC, BC, OC. Also, PM2.5 and PM10

- Hydrogen production[CO, other
SLCFs?]- Sulfuric acid

SOx

Similar to Ammonia production
Allocation of emissions
Production from Ammonia
Different feedstock – different EFs
D, E:
EMEP/EEA, REAS, UNEP, US AP-42 - SOx

67

A
IPCC
code

2C1

B

C

I

Category

SLCF

Comments- Ammonium nitrate

NH3- Ammonium phosphate

NH3
[SO2]

- UreaNH3, BC,[NMVOC]- Polyethylene- Polyvinylchloride- Styrene- Polystyrene- Styrene butadiene,
Styrene-butadiene latex,
Styrene-butadiene rubber
(SBR)

NMVOC
NMVOC
NMVOC
NMVOC
NMVOC

- Acrylonitrile Butadiene
Styrene (ABS) resins- Formaldehyde- Ethylbenzene- Phthalic anhydride

NMVOC- Benzene- Methylbenzene / Toluene- Xylene- Glycol- Terephthalic acid

NMVOC
NMVOC
NMVOC
NMVOC
NMVOC,CO- Polyethylene
terephthalate- Maleic anhydride
Iron and Steel Production- Sintering- Pellets- Pig Iron
- Blast furnace- Open hearth furnace- Electric arc furnace (scrap
emissions)- fugitive/diffuse emissions
from raw materials

NMVOC

NMVOC
NMVOC
NMVOC
[CO, SO2]

NMVOC, CONOx, CO,NMVOC,
SOx, BC,
OC

Combustion emissions should be estimated in Energy sector (MEP China – NMVOC in Sulphuric acid)
C,F:
EMEP/EEA, REAS, UNEP, US AP-42 – NH3
C:
EMEP/EEA presents only TSP and PM, no SOx and NH3.
UNEP references the US EPA. The US AP-42 – totals for one plant - NH3, [SOx (Energy - combustion emissions)]
C,F:
EMEP/EEA – NH3 and BC
UNEP, US AP-42, REAS – NH3,
MEP China – NMVOC (Energy?)

B:
EMEP/EEA - Styrene butadiene, Styrene-butadiene latex, Styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) - NMVOCUS AP-42 – Synthetic rubber, synthetic fibres - NMVOCREAS – Synthetic rubber – NMVOCMEP China – Butadiene – NMVOC

C,F:
EMEP/EEA – NMVOCUS AP-42 – NMVOC [ CO, SO2 (Energy)]

C,F:
MEP China – NMVOC,
US AP-42 – CO, NMVOCNo IPCC method for fugitive PM (BC, OC) emissions from:(1) receiving, uploading and conveying of raw materials,(2) storage piles(3) paved and unpaved roads within facilities
PM size distribution has to be considered in fugitive emissions
Desulfurization process is not included in IPCC method (SOx and PM)
PM and SO2 foundry emissions, from the use of Cupola furnaces – No IPCC methodology
No IPCC methodology for Scrap preparation (PM, EC, OC, CO, NMVOCs), previous metal melting in electric arc furnaces, only data in AP42 from solvent degreasing. With methodology 2.D.3)

68

A
IPCC
code

B

C

I

Category

SLCF

Comments
Flaring BFG in IPPU

- Rolling mills

NMVOC,
SO2

2C2

Ferroalloys production

BC

2C3

Aluminium Production- primary(Prebake and Soderberg)- secondaryNOx, CO,NMVOC,
SOx, BC,OC

C,F: EMEP/EEA: Tier 1 EF for Iron & Steel (NMVOC and BC), Tier 2 EFs for technologies (NOx, CO, NMVOC, BC).
US EPA NEI / EPA SPECIATE – BC, OC, PM2.5, SO4, NO3, remaining PM species
REAS - CO, BC, OC, PM2.5, PM10 - Crude steel and Pig iron EFs
UNEP - NOx, CO, NMVOC, SOx, BC,OC - only Pig iron (no steel)
MEP China – Iron and Steel – NMVOC.
US EP-42 – Gray iron foundries (NMVOC, CO, SOx, NOx) and Iron&Steel (NOx, CO), Coking (NOx, CO, NMVOC, SOx and NH3). Despite robust test methods, the emission factors listed here cannot
be reliably applied across the industry because there is considerable variability in the process at different facilities.
When volatile halogenated organic (VHO) gas is used some sulphur dioxide will also be emitted. (EMEP), but no EFs is reported
D: EMEP/EEA – NMVOC (hot rolling mills, Tier 3)
In general, it can be said that emissions from rolling mills are small compared to the other emissions from the (integrated) steel plant. Therefore, rolling mills will not be considered as a separate sourcein the Tier 1 and Tier 2 emission factors.
[Possibly other SLCF species]
C.F: EMEP/EEA – BC. T1 EF for BC (10% of PM2.5) based on USEPA 2011
Aluminium production is very energy intensive.
SO2 is the main process emission gas, also from anode.
BC from anode baking and from fuels, also BC is from secondary aluminium.
C,F: EMEP/EEA: primary – NOx, CO, SOx, BC, secondary – BC
US EPA NEI / EPA SPECIATE – BC, OC, PM2.5, SO4, NO3, remaining PM species
UNEP: NOx, CO, NMVOC, SOx, BC, OC
REAS – SOx, BC, OC, PM2.5, PM10
Norway: BC, OC - BC and OC from aluminium: https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/artikler-og-publikasjoner/_attachment/107884?_ts=13dfd568678. See table 5.3. It seems that Norway estimate
some emissions from secondary aluminium.
SO2 from electrolysis and consumption of anode, anode baking furnace.
NOx from the same sources plus from use of natural gas in foundries.
Norway EFs for NOx from electrolysis is 0.15 kg NOx/tonne of Al
CO from electrolysis
BC, OC possible from electrolysis, anode baking, use of fuels
NMVOC – foundries, anode baking, storage and handling, paste plant

2C5

Lead Production- primary- secondary- electrolytic[SOx],[NOx][CO][BC, OC]

Secondary Aluminium – all species from fuels
Plant-specific emissions
Primary leadSOx – can occur or not depending on the plant structure, processes and abatement(EMEP T1 and T2 EFs for EU countries for 2015 abatement level)- emissions are diffuse emissions from the oxidation stages, directemissions from the sulphuric acid plant and the emissions of residual sulphur in the furnace charge.
Good extraction and sealing of the furnaces prevents diffuse emissions, with the collected gases from the oxidation stages passed to a gas-cleaning plant and then to the sulphuric acid plant or gypsum
plant.
NOx - can occur or not depending on the plant structure, processes and abatement(EMEP no EFs)- may be formed in the melting stages or from
nitrogen components that are present in the concentrates or as thermal NOx. The sulphuric acid produced can absorb a large part of the NOx, and this can affect the sulphuric acid quality. Other
furnaces that use oxy-fuel burners can also exhibit a reduction in NOX. The range for all the processes is 20 mg/Nm3

69

A
IPCC
code

B

C

I

Category

SLCF

Comments
to 300 mg/Nm3
BC, OC, CO -yes, especially if plastics are present(EMEP T1 PM EFs for EU countries for 2015 abatement level and T2 unabated EFs for European countries 2014 – both for filterable PMs while BC needs both filterable and condensable PMs)
(EMEP/USEPA T2 unabated EF for filterable PMs while BC needs both filterable and condensable PMs)
Organic carbon compounds and CO can be emitted from the drying stage depending on the raw materials and the fuel used for drying.
The most significant source of organic carbon compounds and CO is the reduction step of the smelting process, especially whenplastic/plastic residues are present in the furnace charge. An afterburner is the most common technique used to abate this pollutant.
Secondary lead –SOx and NOx at low levels(EMEP EF for SOx for European 2015 abatement level)
Most important SOx and NOx emission ia smelting furnaces. The amount of SOx formed depends on the amount of sulphur contained in the raw materials and in the fuel used. A major part of thesulphur remains inthe slag formed during the smelting process, some can be converted to SOx. SOx in the off-gas has been measured at about 0.1% v/v. At a blast furnace using coke as fuel an even smaller off-gas
concentration in the range of about 0.03% v/v has been measured
BC –noEMEP T1 and T2 EFs for filterable PMs, no BC fraction, which would require both filterable and condensable PMs
Mass-balance for SO2 can be more accurate than the EF approach

2C6

Zinc production- primary- secondary- electrolytic- zinc oxide- zinc calcine

SOx[BC, OC]

C,F: EMEP/EEA, US AP-42 and UNEP – SOx. EMEP/EEA – PM2.5, PM10, TSP.
US EPA NEI / EPA SPECIATE – BC, OC, PM2.5, SO4, NO3, remaining PM species. SPECIATE Profiles - 91139 sintering furnace, 91168 lead processing.
REAS – SOx, BC, OC, PM2.5, PM10MEP China – Lead production and Electrolytic lead production - PM2.5 and PM10
Primary zinc
SO2 – depending on processes and abatement/construction(EMEP T1 and T2 unabated and EU 2015 abatement level)
mainly from roasting (sulphur in the feed), lower levels from electrolysis and H2SO4 plant from tanks, sinter plant (depending on S content of the feedstock) ovens and separation (coverings to reduce
emissions)NOx – maybe depending on the processfrom roasting and smelting if N components present in the concentrates or as thermal NOx
BC – no information(EMEP EFs for filterable unabated PMs only)
Secondary zinc
SO2 – depending on processes and abatement/construction(EMEP T1 and T2 unabated and EU 2015 abatement level)
BC and NOx – no information(EMEP EFs for filterable unabated PMs only)
Mass-balance for SO2 can be more accurate than the EF approach

2C7

Other

C,D,F:
EMEP/EEA and UNEP – SOx, PM2.5, PM10, TSP.
NOx and CO are reported in Energy sector.
REAS – SOx, BC, OC, PM2.5, PM10MEP China – Zinc, Electrolytic zinc, zinc oxide, zinc calcine production - PM2.5 and PM10

70

A
IPCC
code

B

C

I

Category

SLCF

Comments- Copper

SOx,
BC,
OC
[NMVOC]

SO2: Copper smelting important source. Also The basic Tier 1 method ADxEF can be modified to include abatement ADxEF (1-Abatement efficiency).
SO2, SO3: from acid mist from acid plants within smelting process and acid mist from other metallurgical processes such as flotation, lixiviation and mills
BC: from Pyro-refining, final step in smelting, with fuels (oil or natural gas) to extract remaining oxygen.
NMVOC: solvent use in solvent extraction/ electrowinning
Recycling – Secondary – BC
Recover of wires - fires
Mass-balance for SO2 can be more accurate than the EF approach- Nickel

SOx

C,D,F:
EMEP/EEA – SOx, BC
US EPA NEI / EPA SPECIATE – BC, OC, PM2.5, SO4, NO3, remaining PM species
UNEP –SOx, PM2.5, PM10.
[NMVOC EF taken form 1996 IPCC for rolling mills]
US AP-42 – SOx
REAS – SOx, BC, OC, PM2.5, PM10MEP China – PM2.5 and PM10
Mass-balance for SO2 can be more accurate than the EF approach
Abatement is important
C,D,F:
EMEP/EEA – SOx
NOx, CO are assumed to be mainly due to combustion activities and addressed in Energy sector. SOx emissions are to a large extent from the ore – IPPU sector. TSP or PM factors represent filterable
PM emissions only (excluding any condensable fraction).

- Other metals

SOx(Silicium production,
Magnesium production,
Alloyed metal
manufacturing, Galvanizing,
Electroplating, Manufactureof basic precious andnon-ferrous metals, Other)- Metal welding and cutting

2D3

MEP China –SO2, PM2.5, PM10 (incl. Industrial Processes, give emission factors to SO2, OC and BC as 0)
B,C,D:
EMEP/EEA – SOx.
The emission factors are adapted from therevised BREF document for the non-ferrous metal industry (European Commission, 2014) and applicable for precious metal production facilities controlled by a fabric filter, hot electrostatic precipitatorsand cyclone.

B,C,D:No methodological guidance - Insignificant source - Possible source of SLCF emissions.
Further data collection is needed

Solvent Use- Domestic solvents use

NMVOC- Coating application

NMVOC(EMEP T1 EFs per capita is universal and provided for both Western/Other countries)(EMEP T1 EFs for different product categories for European countries 2015)
EMEP: T2 EFs for different product categories using USEPA 1005 /EU 2012 methods) – global per capita(EMEP: solvent contents by different product groups in Europe 2015)
NMVOC – yes – a growing source (1990 ~4%, 2019 ~8%)
Per capita EF can over or underestimate emissions from country to country, intra-city EFs
Share In 1990 12%, in 2019 9% of NMVOCs
Per capita EFs can over or under estimate emissions, type of paints and solvent content is important, economic indicators (other proxies) can be used, if the types of paints or solvent content is not

71

A
IPCC
code

B

C

I

Category

SLCF

Comments(Paint application,
Manufacture ofautomobiles, Car repairing,
Construction and buildings,
Domestic use, Coil coating,
Boat building, Wood, Other
industrial paint application,
Other non-industrial paintapplication)

known
The inventorying of NMVOCs' emissions from the categories coating, degreasing, dry cleaning is problematic, and done by application of the 'Tier 1'-like methodology described in the EMEP/EEA
Guidebook (methodology given, however emission factors should be discussed), however for the local air quality assessment, the modellers sometimes including commissioned analysis about that.
Unfortunately, we have still very limited knowledge about the real composition of paints and coatings which is crucial information for the emission estimation. The problem is also in the market analysis(paints and coatings sold = paints and coatings used). If we know the volume of coatings used in industry (e.g. painting of vessels), we can somehow estimate NMVOCs emissions. The paints andcoatings used for both: industrial and non-industrial purposes should be in compliance with current EU Directives (and Decisions, such as:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2020.414.01.0019.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2020%3A414%3ATOC&
utm_campaign=ESIG%20Newsflash%20October%202021&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Mailjet
and concentration of solvents in paints and coatings (probably?) decreasing from year to year. The estimation of the volume of solvents can be (theoretically) carried out, it might be worth to ask ESIGfor some help (Europe, https://www.esig.org/).
Poland: 2D3d, Coating applications, methodology: Tier 1, country specific EF [NMVOCs, Waterborne paints 0.03 Mg/Mg paints (assumption: non-industrial purposes), Conventional solvent paints, 0.5
Mg/Mg paints (assumption: industrial purposes)], Uncertainty 28% (possibly bigger).
All of EFs are derived from the former analysis of Institute of Ecology of Industrial Areas (Katowice, Poland).
B:
US AP-42 presents NMVOC for the following sub-categories (Non-industrial surface coating, Industrial surface, Can coating, Magnet wire, Other metal coating, Flat wood interior panel, Paper,
Polymeric, Automobile, Metal coil surface coating, Large appliances, Metal furniture, Magnetic tape, Plastic parts surface coating, Paints and Varnish).

- Degreasing

NMVOC(Metal degreasing,Electronic components
manufacturing, Other
industrial cleaning)- Dry cleaning

NMVOC

C: US EPA NEI / EPA SPECIATE presents for Surface coating - BC, OC, PM2.5, SO4, NO3, remaining PM species
4% of NMVOC in 1990, <2% in 2019
Degreasing is rather industrial category, and the type of solvents used are specific for the particular type of industry. The amount (volume) of industrial solvents used for degreasing is not can be
possible from some kind of bottom-up inventory compared with data about sold chemicals.
Poland: 2D3e, Degreasing (of metal), methodology: Tier 1, country specific EF (NMVOCs, 1 Mg/Mg solvent - 100% evaporating), Uncertainty 30% (possibly bigger).
An insignificant source 0.1-0.3%"Tier 1 method has been used for calculation of fugitive emissions from this category. Activity data (population) used for calculation of fugitive emissions of NMVOC was taken from statistical yearbook[GUS] and emission factors have been developed by the Institute for Ecology of Industrial Areas (IETU)."- Chemical products(Polyester,
Polyvinylchloride,
Polyurethane foam,
Polystyrene foam, Rubber,Pharmaceutical products,
Paints manufacturing, Inks,
Glues, Asphalt blowing,
Adhesive, Magnetic tapes,
Films and photographs
manufacturing, Textile
finishing, Leather tanning,
Other)- Printing

NMVOC

Poland: 2D3f, Dry cleaning, methodology: Tier 1, country specific EF (NMVOCs, 0.15 Mg/1000 people (inhabitants)), Uncertainty 30% (possibly bigger).
Use of solvents in the subcategories under “Chemical Products” is mainly considered insignificant (3-4% of NMVOC) but can in some countries be source of a considerable part of NMVOC emissions,
These processes are complicated, variable and unique so that no general guidance can be provided. Guidance in EMEP/EEA Guidebook can be applied in most countries where production volumes
are known.
B:
MEP China presents NMVOC for the following products (Ink, Dye, Tire, Textile, Artificial leather/ synthetic leather, Acrylic production, Nylon, Vinylon, Artificial board Manufacturing, Architectural coatingproduction, Cementing compound, Foamed plastic, Gelatinous fibre, Woolen yarn, Silk production, Cloth production) and PM2.5 for Carbon production, Fertilizer production

NMVOC

A minor source today, 2-3% of NMVOC. includes several subprocesses. If no abatement is used 50-80% of solvents used are emitted.
EMEP/EEA-NMVOCThe Tier 1 approach for emissions from other product use uses the general equation: Epollutant = ARproduction X EFpollutant

72

A
IPCC
code

B

C

I

Category

SLCF

Comments(1) This equation is applied at the national level. It involves either the use of solvent consumption data or combining ink consumption with emission factors for the industry. Unless the solvent
consumption data is used, no account is taken of the use of water-based or low solvent inks, and no account is taken of the extent of controls such as incineration. In cases where specific abatement
options are to be taken into account a Tier 1 method is not applicable and a Tier 2 or Tier 3 approach must be used

- Other solvent and product
use

2D4

NMVOC

(Other use of solvents andrelated activities, Glasswool enduction, Mineralwool enduction, Fat, Edible
and non-edible oil
extraction, Application ofglues and adhesives,
Preservation of wood,
Underseal treatment andconservation of vehicles,
Vehicles dewaxing, Aircraft
deicing, Use of fireworks,
Use of tobacco, Use ofshoes, Other)- Road paving with asphalt- Asphalt roofing

The Tier 2 approach is similar to the Tier 1 approach. To apply the Tier 2 approach, both the activity data
and the emission factors need to be stratified according to the different printing processes that may occur in the country
A minor source ~4% of NMVOC emissions. EMEP/EEA methods represent EU countries and are based on detailed mass balances on national production, import and export
statistics on the use of products/chemicals and information from industries and trade organisations. Methods are product and pollutants specific because the NMVOC concentrations vary by pollutant or
the use pattern of the product.
Preservation of wood with organic solvent-born preservatives and use of solvent containing vehicle treatments are small activities but almost all NMVOCs included in the AD are emitted.
B:
MEP China (Nonedible vegetable oil production)
REAS (Preservation of wood, Vehicles treatment, Adhesive application)

NOx, CO,NMVOC, BC

NOx, CO,NMVOC, BC

An insignificant source, ~0.1% of NMVOC
C,F:
EMEP/EEA – NMVOC, BC
UNEP – NOx, CO, NMVOCUS AP-42 – NOx, CO, SOx, NMVOCREAS, MEP China – NMVOCEPA calcs
An insignificant source for NMVOC
SO2 emissions – but this is for asphalt blowing (listed under 2D3), which is listed above? Clarify what process included here?
https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.10071
Another paper, including recycled content, not sure what stages (E.g. transport) are included in emissions:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344913000554

2F

Product Uses as
Substitutes for Ozone

NH3,
NMVOC

New work showing there are numerous missing emissions of SVOCs. Major SOA precursors (Both roofing and paving), even after application: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abb9785
C,F:
EMEP/EEA – CO, NMVOC, BC
UNEP – CO, NMVOCUS AP-42 – CO, NMVOC (VOCs from both the process and fuel combustion)
It is the source of F-gases emissions.
NH3 and NMVOC emissions are also possible

73

A
IPCC
code

2H1

B

C

I

Category

SLCF

Comments

Depleting Substances
Pulp and Paper Industry(Chipboard, Paper pulp
(Kraft process), Paper pulp(acid sulphite process),
Paper pulp (neutral sulphitesemi-chemical process))

2H2

Food and Beverages
Industry(Bread, Wine, Beer
Spirits, Sugar production
Flour production, Meat, fishetc. frying / curing)

2H3

NOx,
CO,
NMVOC,
SOx,
NH3,
BC,
OC

NMVOC,CO, NH3,
SOx- Food and Beveragecharbroiling, fat frying, grain
handling, fermenting/distilling, drying/ roasting,natural gas cooking

BC, OC- Wood industry(Plywood manufacturing,
Waferboard/oriented
strandboard, Particleboard,
Medium density fiberboard,
Hardboard and fiberboard,

NOx, CO,NMVOC,
SOx

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-08/documents/eiip_areasourcesnh3.pdf
Information of Ammonia emissions from refrigeration in food industry in Chile. 57 ton NH3/year -.
http://www.chilealimentos.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Informe-Final_3-29112017_Sin-anexos.compressed-1-1.pdf
Tier 1 default emission factors are those for Kraft pulping, since this is by far the most important process in the manufacturing of pulp and paper. Values are taken from the BREF document for pulp andpaper industries (European Commission, 2001); the emission factor for CO is from US EPA (1985) and the emission factor for BC1 is obtained from US EPA, SPECIATE database version 4.3 (USEPA, 2011), The Tier 2 approach is similar to the Tier 1 approach. To apply the Tier 2 approach, both the activity data and the emission factors need to be stratified according to the different techniquesthat may occur in the country., The emission factors from all pollutants needs to be updated.
Data on abatement techniques and equipment, their efficiency, maintenance are very important. Some examples of emission control:
Particulates emissions :can be controlled by electrostatic precipitators, scrubbers, cyclone collectors and wire mesh demister pads. Electrostatic precipitators are the main type of collectors used tocontrol recovery furnace particulate emissions
C,E,F:
EMEP/EEA – NOx, CO, SO2, NMVOC, BC.
NH3 emissions occur from the pulping process and need to be determined plant by plant
UNEP – NOx, CO, SO2, NMVOC, BC, OC.
US AP-42 – SOx - Chemical Wood Pulping
REAS and MEP China – NMVOCUS EPA NEI / EPA SPECIATE – BC, OC. Also PM2.5, SO4, NO3, remaining PM species
Norwegian inventory: 2% of BC of TSP and 25% of OC of the TSP
The Tier 1 approach needs emission factors for all relevant pollutants. These emission factors integrate all sub-processes within the industry from the feed of raw material to the final
shipment of the products off site.
The Tier 2 approach is similar to the Tier 1 approach. To apply the Tier 2 approach, both the activity data and the emission factors need to be stratified according to the different techniques that may
occur in the country. In the case of food and beverages production, these techniques are the various kinds of food and beverages produced (e.g., bread, sugar, wine, beer).
B, C, F:US AP-42 – NMVOC, CO – malt beverages
EMEP/EEA – animal rendering and animal feed - NMVOCUS AP-42 - Sugar beet processing - NMVOC, CO, SOx (Energy emissions).
US AP-42 - Meat Smokehouses - NMVOC, Meat Rendering Plants - NH3
US AP-42 – Coffee roasting - NMVOC, CO
MEP China – NMVOC for various products
UNEP and REAS – NMVOC
BC emissions result from incomplete combustion during charbroiling activities. Commercial charbroiling operations are a significant source of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions within the overall nonpoint
source emission inventories. The magnitude of PM emissions largely depends on the type of cooking equipment and the type of meat cooked. Under-fired charbroiling cooking operations are a major
source of PM emissions compared to other charbroiling equipment operations.
The Tier 1 method for estimating emissions from charbroiling is based on the type of equipment used for charbroiling. This method relies on per capita emission factors and the population of theinventory area. The per capita emission factors are dependent on the type of equipment used for charbroiling/commercial cooking activities (i.e., conveyorized, under-fired, flat-griddle, clamshell
griddle, and deep-fat frying). Activity data for the Tier 1 method can be at the national, state, regional, or other required inventory area–level.
Double-counting with Energy
NFR 2L Meat frying and barbeques: Emission factors for TSP, PM10 and PM3.5 (no EF for BC) can be found www.air.sk/tno/cepmeip
B,C,F:US EPA NEI / EPA SPECIATE – BC, OC. Also, PM2.5, SO4, NO3, remaining PM species
Dust, TOC, TVOC and formaldehyde emissions from drying process. Two stages of TVOC and dust emissions: a) during drying and b) pressing. From (urea/phenol) formaldehyde-based resin use.
NH3, NOX or SOX in the press exhaust are also possible
Formaldehyde-free resins reduces TVOC. Is technology and end-product dependent.
TVOC emissions also from painting / paper-impregnation and surfaces treatments of boards
Emissions from mechanical wood industry (pressing) - to check.

74

A
IPCC
code

B

C

I

Category

SLCF

Comments

Wood Preserving,
Engineered wood products)

For particle board, fiberboard, and engineered wood products, this pressing stage can be an important source of VOCs gluing and coating are covered in Solvents
AD is to be checked
References:Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Production of Wood-based Panels. Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control); Kristine
Raunkjær Stubdrup, Panagiotis Karlis, Serge Roudier, Luis Delgado Sancho; 2016. https://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2019-11/WBPbref2016_0.pdf
B, C, D:
Combustion emissions should be reported in Energy sector, solvents use in IPPU – 2D3. Solvents.
US AP-42 – NOx, CO, NMVOC, SO2
Engineered wood products – NMVOC.
The drying process leads to VOC emissions, but emission factors may also include fuel combustion VOC.
EMEP/EEA – 2I Wood Industry – only TSP (US EPA 1995 EF)

75

A

B

C

IPCC code1

Category2

SLCF3

3.A.2

3.A.2.a.i.
3.A.2.a.ii.
3.A.2.b
3.A.2.c
3.A.2.d3.A.2.e
3.A.2.f
3.A.2.g
3.A.2.h
3.A.2.i
3.A.2.j
3.A.2.a.i.
3.A.2.a.ii.
3.A.2.b
3.A.2.c
3.A.2.d3.A.2.e
3.A.2.f
3.A.2.g
3.A.2.h
3.A.2.i
3.A.2.j
3.D.2

3.D.2.x

D
IPCC
Methodapplicable4

E
Alternative
Methodology5

Table 1 Summary Information (AFOLU)

F
AvailableEFs/parameters6

G

H

I

Globally
applicable7

Gaps(if any)8Comments9

Main GAP, emission factors
available from
EMEP/AP-42/EMEP may
not/likely not cover theentire variability ofagro-systems/practices in
the World

ManureManagement

Dairy Cows
Other Cattle
Buffalo
Sheep
Goats
CamelsHorsesMules & Asses
Swine
Poultry
Other
Dairy Cows
Other Cattle
Buffalo
Sheep
Goats
CamelsHorsesMules & Asses
Swine
Poultry
Other

NOx –
NH3

Yes
(IPCC
method for
N2Oemissions)

---

Yes
(see AFOLU
compilationtable)

Yes(as per IPCC
method)Need to reconcile TAN and
Nex in the methods toestimate NOx and NH3 vs
N2O
B. EMEP provides subdivisions for: Laying hens. Broilers, Turkey

NMVOC

Yes
(IPPC
method forCH4emissions)

---

Yes
(see AFOLU
compilationtable)

Yes(as per IPCC
method)B. EMEP provides subdivisions for: Laying hens. Broilers, Turkey
E. Estimated at Tier 2 only and as a fraction of emission from housing - if a default method is needed EMEP
and IPCC have to be considered for reconciliation
See Issue II
This may be part of 3.C.4 (organic fertilizer) or 3.A.2. (MMS “daily spread”)

Other“Livestock manure
applied to soils”

E. source: EMEP.
For NOx – NH3 The methodology uses TAN (Total Ammoniacal Nitrogen) instead of Nex (Total Nitrogen)(AP-42 and UNEP provides methods for NH3 only)
For NMVOC. An emission rate is applied to the animal population

NMVOC

No

EMEP
(3.D.a.2.a)
Tier 2 onlyNo(see AFOLU
compilationtable)

Commonpractice but
poor
understandin
g ofemission-pro
cess

The literature investigation
evidenced a lack inmeasurements on both
amplitude and duration ofemissions (7 papers from 3
teams). Only a small part of
NMVOC is characterized.

76

EMEP provides a Tier 2 method only, and as a fraction of emission from housing: the ratio is the same as
the one obtained for ammonia, indicating that it may contribute significantly. It is not completely consistent
with Tier 1 methodology, for which livestock manure applied to soil is not accounted for NMVOC emissions
This category is not listed in table2
BOG concludes that the knowledge is insufficient to consider this source of VOCs in the upcoming
methodology report.

A

B

C

IPCC code1

Category2

SLCF3

3.D.2.x“Urine and dungdeposited bygrazing livestock”

NMVOC

D
IPCC
Methodapplicable4

No

E
Alternative
Methodology5
EMEP(3.D.a.3.a)
Tier 2 onlyF
AvailableEFs/parameters6
No(see AFOLU
compilationtable)G

H

I

Globally
applicable7

Gaps(if any)8Comments9

Commonpractice, butpoor
understandin
g of emission
process

Under investigation forliterature to assess
significance (TSU)

This may be part of 3.C.4 (urine and dung deposited) or 3.A.2. (MMS “urine and dung”)
EMEP provides a Tier 2 method onlyThis category is not listed in table2

Cross-sectoral
Need to reconcile Nex andNOx in the methods toestimate NOx
Notes from Oct 18
cross-sectoral discussion
Energy, Waste, AFOLU)

New tocheck with
Waste/Energy

Manureincineration

Anaerobic
digestion of animal
manureNOx,
CO, BC

NH3,
NOx

No

Yes

EMEP (Waste
sector)Yes

Yes (IPCC)

Methodological gaps:
Energy and Waste sectors
have available emission
factors for incineration ofmanure; methodologicalchallenges:
1. integrated collection ofactivity data on manure
management
2. Energy sector:
developing data andemission factors forsmall-scale combustion
such as on-farm burning ofmanure, manure burned forcooking
3. AFOLU sector:
maintaining integrity of Nbalance in cross-sectoral
guidanceGaps:
1. Activity data on manureand digestate transfer
between farms and waste
treatment facilities
2. SLCF emissions from thetreatment, storage andspreading of digestate(Agricultural soils, other?).
3. On-farm co-digestion
Challenges:
maintain N balance integrity

77

Notes from Oct 18 cross-sectoral discussion Energy, Waste, AFOLU)
Allocation:- all manure incineration for the purpose of generating energy should be reported in the Energy sector(IPCC). This includes combustion emissions and pre-treatment emissions; the latter may or not besignificant, but if significant could be included in solid fuel transformation.
- all other manure incineration and open burning should be reported in the Waste sector
N emitted as NOx from manure incineration, kg N-NOxanimal-1yearhttps://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs43016-020-0113-y/MediaObjects/43016_2020_113_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

IPCC guidance (2019 Refinements) provides N2O EFs for anaerobic digesters in the Agriculture sector,
although it describes this technology as one for "waste stabilization", whose output is "captured and flared
or used as a fuel" (Table 10.21, 19R V4 ch10). Non-CO2 emissions from the combustion of output gases
are allocated to the Energy sector; emissions from storage or other uses of digestate should be reported at
the point of use or disposal. Any fugitive emissions from the anaerobic digestion process itself are allocatedto the Agriculture sector.
EMEP considers anaerobic digestion in the context of facilities, not in an agricultural context. Accordingly, it
does not consider on-farm anaerobic digestion and reports all emissions from anaerobic digestion in the
Waste sector. NH3 emissions from the digestion process itself are considered negligible. Methods areprovided for estimating emissions from storage of manure and of digestate on a facility site (as opposed tofarm infrastructure).
In both IPCC and EMEP frameworks, on-farm manure storage is considered as part of manure
management, and the application of digestate to agricultural lands part of soil management.

A

B

C

IPCC code1

Category2

SLCF3

3.C.1

Burningiii

3.C.1.aBurning in Forest
Land

3.C.1.b3.C.1.c

3.C.1.d

3.C.4

3.C.4

Burning in
CroplandBurning in
Grassland

D
IPCC
Methodapplicable4

E
Alternative
Methodology5

F
AvailableEFs/parameters6

G

H

I

Globally
applicable7

Gaps(if any)8Comments9

when estimation methods
for the pre-digestion
storage and treatment, theanaerobic digestion itself
and the use of digestate(combustion, storage,
spreading onto fields) are
reported in multiple sectors.
(See also challenges inmanure incineration)Yes(as per IPCC
method)

NOx –
NH3 –
SO2 –
CO –
NMVOC
– BC &
OC

Yes

---

Yes
(see AFOLU
compilationtable)

Yes(as per IPCC
method)Yes(as per IPCC
method)Yes(as per IPCC
method)Burning in all otherlands

Underlying assumptions ofparameters/calculations
need likely to be reconciled
Tables 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 ofthe IPCC GLs could be
expanded to include open
burning on cropland, which
is not adequately
represented in “prescribedburning” or “slash and burn”

there is supplemental
guidance for peatland
burning by soil types in the2013 Suppl. On Wetlands.
Need to reconcile
nomenclatures of soil types
and land use categories

Direct N2O emissions from managed soils (This is the name of the IPCC category which was not meant to include other species than
GHGs. emissions of NOx and NH3 are included under this category to reflect the need to reconcile methods)
Sources of N:- Inorganic N
fertilisers (includesurea);- Sewage sludge
applied to soils;- Other organic
fertilisers applied
to soils (including
compost)- Crop residues
applied to soils

NOx –
NH3

Yes

---

Yes
(see AFOLU
compilationtable)

Yes(as per IPCC
method)2019 Refinement provides
a combined EF for NOx
and NH3; should be
separated.
Verify with issue paper: EFsshould be different when
fertilizers are incorporated
in the soils - for both NOx
and NH3.

78

AFOLU BOG recommendation for SLCFs:
1.same allocation as IPCC for reporting emissions from on-farm digesters (AFOLU) - with clarification
regarding the allocation of emissions when manure is transferred between facilities and farms
2. maintain on-farm manure storage, application of digestate in AFOLU sector.
3. ensure methodological integrity in all manure-related emission sources (N mass balance)

E. source: EMEP, UNEP, US-NEI for 3.C.1.a and 3.C.1.b; US-NEI for 3.C.1.c and 3.C.1.d
Global Fire Databaseiv also provides potentially useful parameters for significant fire events
Factors/parameters values need likely to be updated with new literature
IPCC lists four crop types (maize, wheat, rice, sugarcane) and other approaches more detailed. Need
more specific emission factors (NOx, SO2, etc.) for sugarcane burning, particularly in South and Central
America, Southeast Asia. During COVID-19 pandemic, observed connection between solid waste burningand crop residue burning in Southeast Asia – potential cross-sectoral issue.
biochar production: ensure that all emissions are property accounted for in the Energyv or IP sectors(x-sectoral issue) - if not, consult whether some emissions should be reported in the land sector.
Significance of emissions from open-pit burning for biochar production needs to be assessed.

Consistency in the land use definitions/categories;
Ignition types in NEI (wildfire, prescribed fire, croplands) may not map to land use categories (NEI methods
is not a T1 method)
B. See Issue I
Nomenclature issue. IPCC and EMEP guidance give different meaning to “indirect emissions” Cannotchange existing IPCC category; could be augmented with new categories for NOx and NH3 emissions, both
direct and indirect.

E. source: EMEP, AP-42, UNEP

A

B

C

IPCC code1

Category2

SLCF3

3.C.4

Sources of N:- Livestock manure
applied to soils;- Urine and dungdeposited bygrazing livestock;

3.C.5

Indirect NOx
emissions frommanaged soils

3.D.2

Other

3.D.2.x

3.D.2.x

3.D.2.x

Other:“Pesticide
application”

NOx –
NH3

NOx

NMVOC

3.D.2

Yes

Yes

No

“Cultivated crops”

Alternative
Methodology5

---

---

US AP-42(9.2.2)

EMEP(11.C.1111,
11.C.1112)“Manageddeciduous/conifero
us forests”“Grassland;
Tundra; Other Low
Vegetation; Other
Vegetation(Mediterranean
shrub)”EF
AvailableEFs/parameters6

No
EMEP(11.C.110401,
11.C.110402,
11.C.110403,
11.C.110404)

G

H

I

Globally
applicable7

Gaps(if any)8Comments9

Need to reconcile TAN and
Nex in the methods toestimate NOx and NH3 vsN2O

Yes(see AFOLU
compilationtable)

Yes(as per IPCC
method)Yes(see AFOLU
compilationtable)

Yes(as per IPCC
method)see AFOLU
compilation
table

Method may
not beapplicableglobally due
to itscomplexityand due tothe lack ofdata onglobalpesticideuse.

The applicability ofmethods for global
development is uncertain.

Method is
simple,uncertainty isvery large.

Current knowledge may beinsufficient to support thedevelopment of globally
applicable methods except perhaps for simple
situations such as somecrop type replacement.

EMEP (3.D.e)

NMVOC

3.D.2.x

D
IPCC
Methodapplicable4

see AFOLU
compilation
table

Default EFs do not
represent grazing practices
in South America.

E. source:
EMEP, AP-42 for NH3 only
F. EFs based on AAP instead of on of Nex

B See Issue I This row should be clarified: the processes causing indirect NOx emissions may also cause
direct emissions of NOx. Indirect NOx emissions from managed soils can cause NOx and emissions tomanaged and natural soils. The Tier 1 EF should be used. Verify with Issue Paper
See Issues IV and V
See Issue III
Pesticide application for agricultural purposes is 3-4% of the total VOC emissions in US excluding biogenic
and wildfire emissions. This category is in the top 10 of anthropogenic VOC sources.
NEI method is not a tier 1 method, but there may be a tier 1 approach in the Emission Inventory
Improvement Program (EIIP) Ch9.
Pesticide use may be increasing globally, but is approximately constant in the US.
BOG concludes that source deserves further consideration.
Should naturally occurring emissions (not influenced by human management) from ecosystems be reported
in inventories of anthropogenic emissions.
There is some evidence that intensive ecosystem management may impact NMVOC emissions, e.g.
coppice trees (ref).
Accuracy of the present methodologies could be questioned.
Main drivers: crop types, leaf area and env’al conditions.

Method is
simple,uncertainty isvery large.
See Issue VI
BOG recommends to consider tillage as a significant source of OC and EC from PM10, based on anassessment of available data and monitoring tools.

Other

Future consideration might be given to a potential C imbalance resulting from significant lateral C
transportation from fugitive dust.

79

A

B

C

IPCC code1

Category2

SLCF3

3.D.2.x

3.D.2.x

Other:“Fugitive dust fromtilling”

Other:“Fugitive dust fromanimals”

BC –
OC

OC

D
IPCC
Methodapplicable4

No

No

E
Alternative
Methodology5

US EPA NEI(4.3 Agriculture– Crops andLivestock dust)

US EPA NEI(4.3 Agriculture– Crops andLivestock dust)F
AvailableEFs/parameters6(see AFOLU
compilationtable)(see AFOLU
compilationtable)G

H

I

Globally
applicable7

Gaps(if any)8Comments9

Method may
not beapplicableglobally due
to itscomplexity

Some parameters may notreflect crops, technologies
or practices in all
countriesvi.

E. 2017 National Emissions Inventory: January 2021 Updated Release, Technical Support Document U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
See Issue VI
Significance (in US): 10-14% of PM2.5 (tbc)vii
Possible significance elsewhere unknown; SLCF fraction in dust appears to be small
Are other agricultural practices - e.g. harvest or post-harvest operations – also causing these emissions?
E. 2017 National Emissions Inventory: January 2021 Updated Release, Technical Support Document U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
See Issue VII
Significance (in US): to be confirmedviii.
Possible significance elsewhere unknown

O

1. Apply here the 2006 IPCC Guidelines categorization. If the 2019 Refinement has a specific category while the 2006 IPCC Guidelines have not, use it and notes that it is a 2019 Refinement category
2. Use the IPCC category name or use “Others” for all those categories for which IPCC does not provide a specific categorization followed by the name of the new category taken from the relevant guidebook/sourcebook/guidelines. If
the 2019 Refinement has a specific category while the 2006 IPCC Guidelines have not, use it and note that it is a 2019 Refinement category
3. List here SLCFs for which the method, as noted in Columns D or E, applies. Where different methods apply to different SLCFs from the same source-category compile a row of information for each method
4. Is an applicable IPCC method available?
In the case the IPCC method needs modifications further than providing for the SLCF EF to be applicable, answer “yes with modifications” and possibly provide in the comment box indication on the modification needed. Examples ofmodifications are, additional parameters, e.g. technologies, and/or additional data to ensure full coverage of SLCFs emissions
5. In case the IPCC methodology is not applicable or there is not an IPCC methodology for the listed category (i.e. Column D has been compiled with “No”), provide the reference to any other methodological source from which thecategory is sourced
6. Provide reference to the source where default values for EFs and any other parameters are provided
7. Is the method globally applicable so far as can be judged? The answer should be based on the availability, or likelihood of availability in the next future without need of significant additional resources, of activity data as national
datasets or regional datasets or global datasets. In Column I “comments” you may provide for information about datasets availability
8. In the case the experts identify any gaps that need to be closed in the next future to allow for a global methodology, such gaps should be noted here with, where possible, guidance on research and/or data collection work considered
to be needed
9. In providing any additional information/comment on any information compiled in any of the previous columns, first provide the letter of the column to which the comment appliesi) For each category a single row is compiledii) All SLCFs associated with the source-category listediii) Classification of biomass type for Forest Lands such as -Conifer forest, deciduous forest, mixed forest, grassland, shrubland, as well as in case of agro-residue burning (rice, wheat, sugarcane, oil seeds) and relevant emissions
factors are major challenges faced by those working on development of emission inventory of SLCFs. Need to provide these sub-sectors. What about fuel use? What about biochar?
iv) It might be helpful to briefly look at how GFED, GFAS, FINN, other global fire databases do or do not improve our understanding of fire management and emissions from managed fires. Is there a grouping of fires into "wildfires"? Are"prescribed" fires evident or statistically modelled? Are there improved emission factors, combustion completeness, fuels, burning/management types from these fire models? How can they be compared with the IPCC approaches ornot? Do they help with identifying peat or wetlands? Do they miss agricultural or grassland?
v) CO2, CH4, NOX, CO from biochar production is in Table 4.3.3 in Volume 2 (Energy), in 2019 Refinementvi) Depends on silt % and best estimate of number of tilling passes. US estimates by crop type and tilling type. See NEI2017_tsd_AgDust in Teams folder for detailsvii) 8% of US OC emissions and 5% of EC emissions not including wildfires. See NEI-AgDust.xlsx in Teams folder for all data.
viii) Not a significant source of OC or EC in US

80Issue Paper (AFOLU sector)
IssuesI.

2006 IPCC Categories 3.C.4 (Direct N2O emissions from managed soils) and 3.C.5 (Indirect N2Oemissions from managed soils) well fit methods applied to estimate direct emissions of NOx and NH3 andindirect emissions of NOx respectively.
However, the category name should be then revised to be expanded to e.g. N-based GHGs (although N
is also a component of other GHGs as Nitrogen trifluoride and other fluorinated, and Allyl cyanide).

II.

Tier 1 methodology for NMVOCs emissions from manure over land (as applied fertilizer or as urine anddung deposited) is missing.

III.

A new category non-present in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines is reported as 3.D.2.x “Pesticide application“ for
NMVOCs emissions.
Methodological information is available in AP-42_9.2.2. The algorithm to calculate NMVOC from pesticide
application requires to:
1. Determine both the application method and the quantity of pesticide product applied;
2. Determine the type of formulation used;
3. Determine the specific AI(s) in the formulation and its vapor pressure(s);4. Determine the percentage of the AI (or each AI) present;
5. Determine the VOC content of the formulation.

IV.

Three new categories for NMVOCs non-present in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, reported as:a. 3.D.2.x “Cultivated crops”,
b. 3.D.2.x “Managed deciduous/coniferous forests”,
c. 3.D.2.x “Grassland; Tundra; Other Low Vegetation; Other Vegetation (Mediterranean shrub)”.
Methodological information is available in EMEP.
The methodology for cultivated crop requires as activity data the area cultivated for the specific crop, asparameters the dry matter of standing crop, the time length of the cultivation period, and the EF – EMEP
guidance provides default values for all parameters and the EF.
The methodology for all other vegetation requires as activity data the area covered and as parameters theaverage potential emissions, the foliar biomass density, the environmental correction factor representing
the effects of short-term (e.g. hourly) temperature and solar radiation changes on emissions integrated
across the growing season, and the EF - EMEP guidance provides default values for all parameters andthe EF; although the environmental correction factor is geographically-based and therefore need to be
calculated for all non-EU geographical areas.

V.

With reference to two new categories for NMVOCs listed at IV. i.e.:a. 3.D.2.x “Managed deciduous/coniferous forests”,
b. 3.D.2.x “Grassland; Tundra; Other Low Vegetation; Other Vegetation (Mediterranean shrub)”.
These emissions would occur also in absence of any human actions and could therefore be consideredjust natural and therefore excluded from a national inventory. Although a component, e.g. from forest
plantations, could be considered as a consequence of human actions and therefore included in thenational inventory.

VI.

A new category non-present in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines is reported as 3.D.2.x “Fugitive dust from tilling”
for BC, OC, NOx emissions as PMs associated with land tilling.
Methodological information is available in the US EPA NEI. The methodology requires as activity data thearea tilled, and the EF needs to be measured or calculated starting from an emissions rate for which
default values are not provided.

81

VII.

PM is emitted by livestock, not only in manure management operations. PM emissions are therefore
allocated in a new category non-present in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines as: 3.D.2.x “Fugitive dust fromanimals”. Speciation of PM in BC and OC is not explored by EMEP, while US EPA NEI provides for
speciation of PM in OC, NOx. NH3.
Methodological information is available in the US EPA NEI. The methodology requires as activity data theanimal population and the EF is calculated by applying a particle size multiplier (defaults provided), a
percent silt content (area specific), the number of passes/tillings over the area (defaults provided).

From the WASTE sector Issue paper
1. 5.B.2 Biological treatment of waste – Anaerobic digestion at biogas facilities (EMEP/EEA Guidebook)covers co-digestion of different feedstocks (e.g., waste material, energy crops, manures). In the 2006
IPCC Guidelines, anaerobic digestion of manure is considered/included in AFOLU sector (not in Waste
sector).
2. Open burning:a. EMEP/EEA Guidebook covers small-scale (agricultural) waste e.g., crop residues (e.g., cereal
crops, peas, beans, soya, sugar beet, oil seed rape, etc.), wood, pruning, slash, leaves, plastics,
and other general wastes. The method requires a prior knowledge of the weight of agricultural
waste produced per hectare of forestry, orchard and farm so national area of forestry and orchardis required. In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, agriculture residue burning is considered in AFOLU
sector.
b. EPA NEI covers residential yard waste open burning, land clearing and residential household
waste. The emissions from land clearing debris are estimated based on the number of acres
disturbed from non-residential, residential, and road construction. The number of acres disturbed ismultiplied by a fuel loading factor to determine the amount of land clearing debris burned in eachcounty. This number is multiplied by emissions factors from AP42. In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines,
emissions from land clearing burning are considered in AFOLU sector.
3. Other waste EMEP: The category covers sludge spreading, car fires and house fires. In the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines, sludge spread on agricultural land are considered in AFOLU sector

82

Table 2 Category list (AFOLU)
A
IPCC
code

B

D

J

Category1

SLCFs2

Comments

3.A.2
3.A.2.a.i.
3.A.2.a.ii.
3.A.2.b
3.A.2.c
3.A.2.d3.A.2.e
3.A.2.f
3.A.2.g
3.A.2.h
3.A.2.i
3.A.2.j
3.C.1

Manure Management
Dairy Cows
Other Cattle
Buffalo
Sheep
Goats
CamelsHorsesMules & Asses
Swine
Poultry
Other
Burning

3.C.1.aBurning in Forest Land

3.C.1.b

Burning in Cropland3.C.1.c

Burning in Grassland

3.C.1.d

Burning in all other lands

3.C.4

Direct N2O emission from managed soil

3.C.4

Direct N2O emissions from managed soils

NOx – NH3 –NMVOCsNOx – NH3 –SO2 – CO –NMVOC –
BC & OCNOx – NH3
3.C.4

Direct N2O emissions from managed soils

3.C.5

Indirect N2O emissions from managed soils

3.C.5

Indirect N2O emissions from managed soils

NOx

•
•

Main gap: the emission factors available from EMEP/AP-42/UNEP may likely not cover the entire variability of global agro-systems and practices.
There is a need to reconcile TAN and Nex in the EMEP and IPCC methods to estimate NOx and NH3 vs N2O.

•••

Underlying assumptions of parameters/calculations need likely to be reconciled.
Factors/parameters values need to be updated with new literature
Tables 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 of the IPCC 2006 GLs could be expanded to include open burning on cropland, which is not adequately represented in “prescribed burning” or“slash and burn”.
IPCC 2006 GLs list four crop types (maize, wheat, rice, sugarcane) while other approaches are more detailed.
There is a need of more specific emission factors (NOx, SO2, etc.) for sugarcane burning, particularly in South and Central America, Southeast Asia.
During COVID-19 pandemic, connections were observed between solid waste burning and crop residue burning in Southeast Asia, and noted as a potential cross-sectoralissue.
For biochar production, BOG agreed on the followings:oTo ensure that all emissions are properly accounted for in the Energy or IP sectors (cross-sectoral issue);o
To assess the emissions from open-pit burning for biochar production.

•
•
•
•

•
There is supplemental guidance for peatland burning by soil types in the 2013 Supplement GLs on Wetlands.
•
There is a need to reconcile nomenclatures of soil types and land use categories.
•
Consistency in the land use definitions/categories should be assured.
•
Ignition/Burning types accounted in the US NEI (wildfire, prescribed fire, croplands) may not map to land use categories, since the US NEI method is not a Tier 1 method.
•
This is a nomenclature issue•
Emissions of NOx and NH3 are included under this category to reflect the need to reconcile methods.
•
Existing IPCC category cannot be changed, but new categories for NOx and NH3 emissions could be added for both direct and indirect emissions.
For sources of N including Inorganic N fertilisers (includes urea); Sewage sludge applied to soils; Other organic fertilisers applied to soils (including compost); Crop residues applied tosoils:•To separate EF for NOx from EF for NH3 to avoid possible confusion.
•
To verify if EFs should be different when fertilizers are incorporated in the soils - for both NOx and NH3.
For source of N including Livestock manure applied to soils; Urine and dung deposited by grazing livestock:•
Need to reconcile TAN (Total Ammonia Nitrogen) and Nex (Total Nitrogen Excreted) in the methods to estimate NOx and NH3 vs N2O.
•
It was noted that the default EFs do not represent grazing practices in South America.
•
This is a nomenclature issue.
•
Emissions of NOx and NH3 are included under this category to reflect the need to reconcile methods.
•
Existing IPCC category cannot be changed, but new categories for NOx and NH3 emissions could be added for both direct and indirect emissions.
•
IPCC and EMEP GLs give different meaning to “indirect emissions”.
•
It was noted that indirect NOx emissions from managed soils can cause NOx emissions to managed and natural soils.

83

A
IPCC
code

B

D

J

Category1

SLCFs2

Comments••••

Tier 1 EF should be used.
There is none IPCC method available.
Alternative methods estimated at Tier 2 only.
If a default method is needed, alternative methods have to be reconciled.

3.D.2

Other

3.D.2.x

Other: “Livestock manure applied to soils”

NMVOCs

•

BOG agreed that the current knowledge of this source category is insufficient to be considered in the upcoming methodology report.

3.D.2.x

Other: “Urine and dung deposited by grazing
livestock”

NMVOCs

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Literature review by TSU to assess the significance of this source category is still on-going.
BOG agreed that this source deserves further consideration and investigation.
This is cross-sectoral between Energy, AFOLU and Waste sectors.
There is a need to reconcile TAN and Nex in the methods to estimate NOx.
BOG agreed on the followings:oAll manure incineration for the purpose of generating energy should be reported in the Energy sector (IPCC). This includes combustion emissions and pre-treatment
emissions.
o
If the pre-treatment emission is significant, it could be reported in the solid fuel transformation source category.
o
All other manure incineration and open burning should be reported in the Waste sector.
This is cross-sectoral between AFOLU and Waste sectors
BOG agreed on the followings:
1.
To use the same allocation as IPCC for reporting emissions from on-farm digesters (AFOLU), with clarification regarding the allocation of emissions during thetransfer of manure between facilities and farms.
2.
To maintain on-farm manure storage, application of digestate in AFOLU sector.
3.
To ensure methodological integrity in all manure-related emission sources (N mass balance)
US NEI method may not be applicable globally due to its complexity and due to the lack of data on global pesticide use.
Current knowledge may be insufficient to support the development of globally applicable methods.
BOG agreed that this source deserves further consideration and investigation.
Estimation method is simple, but uncertainty is very large.
Current knowledge may be insufficient to support the development of globally applicable methods.
BOG agreed that this source deserves further consideration and investigation, especially on the main drivers including crop types, leaf area and environmental conditions.
Estimation method is simple, but uncertainty is very large.
Current knowledge may be insufficient to support the development of globally applicable methods.
BOG agreed that this source deserves further consideration and investigation, especially on the main drivers including crop types, leaf area and environmental conditions.
Estimation method is simple, but uncertainty is very large.
Current knowledge may be insufficient to support the development of globally applicable methods.
BOG agreed that this source deserves further consideration and investigation, especially on the main drivers including crop types, leaf area and environmental conditions.
BOG agreed to consider tilling as a significant source of OC and EC from PM10, based on an assessment of available data and monitoring tools.
US NEI method may not be applicable globally due to its complexity.
Parameters involved in the US NEI method may not reflect crops, technologies or practices in other countries.

•

BOG agreed that the knowledge is insufficient to consider this source of SLCFs in the upcoming methodology report.

3.D.2.x

Other: “Manure incineration”

NOx – NH3 –SO2 – CO –NMVOC –
BC & OC••

3.D.2.x

Other: “Anaerobic digestion of animal
manure”

NH3, NOx

3.D.2.x

Other: “Pesticide application”

NMVOCs

3.D.2.x

Other: “Cultivated crops”

3.D.2.x

Other: “Managed
forests”

3.D.2.x

Other: “Grassland; Tundra; Other Low
Vegetation; Other Vegetation (Mediterranean
shrub)”

3.D.2.x

Other: “Fugitive dust from tilling”

BC – OC –NOx

3.D.2.x

Other: “Fugitive dust from animals”

OC – NOx –NH3deciduous/coniferous

1. For each category a single row is compiled
2. All SLCFs associated with the source-category listed

NMVOCs84

Table 1 Summary Information (Waste)
A
IPCC
code 1
4.A

B
Category 2

C
SLCF 3

Solid Waste
Disposal

D
IPCC
methodapplicable 4

E
Alternative
methodology 5

FAvailableEFs/parameters 6

G

H

I

Globally
applicable? 7

Gaps (if any) 8

Comments 9
Comments from Experts:
B) It is the view of the experts that burning from landfill fires and flaring should be reported under 4A, not 4C (but this source
should use methodology and guidance for Open Burning 4C2).
B) The experts recommend that emissions from flaring, landfill fires, and decomposition processes be estimated separately foreach managed, unmanaged, and uncategorised landfill types.
E) For landfill fires – compilers will need to cross check the activity data between the proposed methods and the first orderdecay (FOD) method to avoid double counting of emissions (because waste burning will reduce the amount of organic material
available for decomposition).
E) Experts suspect that there may be more burning at unmanaged sites. Might also need to distinguish between shallow anddeep sites in future guidelines.
E) Experts discussed that 2006 IPCC Guidelines distinguish managed/unmanaged sites based on cover material andcompactness of waste at each site (need to know aeration conditions at landfills for GHGs). We may need to apply a similar
approach and use weighted correction factors (like methane correction factor).
CROSS-SECTORAL (with Energy sector) - biogas collected from landfills is used for energy and emissions should be in that
sector.

4.A.1
4.A.1.aManaged
Waste
Disposal Sites
Managed
Waste
Disposal Sites

CROSS-SECTORAL (with Energy sector) - energy used to manage the landfill sites should be considered in the energy sector.

PM(BC/OC),
NOx, CO,No, but
methods for
Open-

Information
on estimating
activity data

Yes

Limited activity
data available(amount ofComments from Experts:
C) Burning emissions will be important at the local level, may be less important at the national level, and may not be significant
at the global level.

Apply here the 2006 IPCC Guidelines categorization. If the 2019 Refinement has a specific category while the 2006 IPCC Guidelines have not, use it and note that it is a 2019 Refinement category.
Use the IPCC category name or use “Others” for all those categories for which IPCC does not provide a specific categorization followed by the name of the new category taken from relevant guidebook/sourcebook/guidelines. If the2019 Refinement has a specific category while the 2006 IPCC Guidelines have not, use it and note that it is a 2019 Refinement category.
3 List here SLCFs for which the method, as noted in Column E, applies. Where different methods apply to different SLCFs from the same source-category, compile a row of information for each method.
4 Is an applicable IPCC method available?
In the case the IPCC method needs modifications further than providing for the SLCF EF to be applicable, answer “yes with modifications” and possibly provide in the comment box indication on the modification needed. Examples ofmodifications are, additional parameters, e.g., technologies, and/or additional data to ensure full coverage of SLCF emissions.
5 In the case the IPCC methodology is not applicable or there is not an IPCC methodology for the listed category (i.e., Column D has been compiled with “No”), provide the reference to any other methodological source from which thecategory is sourced.
6 Provide reference to the source where default values for EFs and any other parameters are provided.
7 Is the method globally applicable so far as can be judged? The answer should be based on the availability, or likelihood of availability in the next future without need of significant additional resources, of activity data as national
datasets or regional datasets or global datasets. In Column I “Comments” you may provide for information about datasets availability.
8 In the case the experts identify any gaps that need to be closed in the next future to allow for a global methodology, such gaps should be noted here with, where possible, guidance on research and/or data collection work considered
to be needed.
9 In providing any additional information/comment on any information compiled in any of the previous columns, first provide the letter of the column to which the comment applies.
1
2

85

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 3– Landfill fires

NMVOC,
SO2

4.A.1.b

Managed
Waste
Disposal Sites– FlaringPM(BC/OC),
NOx, CO,NMVOC,SO2

D
IPCC
methodapplicable 4
Burning(4C2) may
be anapplicable
starting point

No

E
Alternative
methodology 5

SO2 – massbalance; see
Comments forother possible
methodologicalreferences

F
AvailableEFs/parameters 6
and EFs foropen burning
is available in
IPCC 4C2(may not be
landfill
specific)

May beavailableparametersin AP-42,
EMEP

G

H

I

Globally
applicable? 7

Gaps (if any) 8

Comments 9waste burned).
Activity data isparticularly
uncertain forthis category
and will remain
uncertain, but is
an important
category toincludeMethods yes,
but there
may bedifferences inflareefficiencies

Limited EF data
available(though there
may be a few
measurements
available)
Refine existing
methods so thatthey areapplicable toderivation of a
Tier 1 methodH) There is no methodology or guidance that the experts are aware of to help countries estimate the amount of waste burnedat landfills specifically. This activity data will likely need to be based on measurements.
C) Future authors should consider the significance of SO2 emissions from this source SO2 emissions would depend on the S
content of the waste.
E) This category should include emissions from intentional and unintentional fires.
E) The authors may have to review the applicability of the Open Burning methods (municipal solid waste – Equation 5.7,
Chapter 5, Volume 5 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines) to emissions from landfill fires. MSW in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines may notinclude waste landfilled.
E) It is the practice in some areas to empty small local landfills by burning them.
C/E) Default speciation for NMVOC could be considered as the same as for open burning of municipal waste (there may not
be landfill fire-specific studies). The experts have identified this as a gap.
Comments from Experts:
D) Note that flaring emissions (for GHGs) from landfills in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines are not treated at a Tier 1 level.
E) These emissions will depend on the efficiency of the flare.
C) SO2 emissions would depend on the S content of the flared gas. Mass balance could be used to covert H2S to SO2. Theseemissions will be small relative to other categories of SO2 emissions.
E) Methods may be available from EMEP Chap. 1B2C
(https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2019/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/1-energy/1-b-fugitives/1-b-2-c-venting/view).
E) There may be information in AP-42 Section 2.4 MSW landfills (Table 2.4.4 – flares treated as a control device from landfills,
includes emission rates, https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/draft/d02s04.pdf). Key update would be the estimation of
fraction burned.
E) New research in Estonia highlighted emissions can be site specific(https://www.klab.ee/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/KHG-inventuuri-j%25C3%25A4%25C3%25A4tmesektori-arendust%25C3%2
5B6%25C3%25B6.pdf)
E) The landfill biogas flares will be a lower temperature than other (e.g., industrial) flares, which will impact the EFs.
C) for all compounds, this source is likely significant at the local level, less significant at the national and global levels.
E) EF could be expressed as compound per volume biogas flared.
C) NOx emissions may be a significant source at the local, but not national level.
C/E/H) There is limited information on PM or NMVOC speciation. It might be difficult to find a proxy based on industrial orfugitive flaring.

86

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 34.A.1.c

4.A.2
4.A.2.a4.A.2.b

4.A.2.cManaged
CO
Waste
Disposal Sites– Other(decomposition)

Unmanaged
Waste
Disposal Sites
Unmanaged
Waste
Disposal Sites– Landfill fires

Unmanaged
Waste
Disposal Sites– Flaring
Unmanaged
Waste
Disposal Sites– Other(decomposition)

D
IPCC
methodapplicable 4
No

E
Alternative
methodology 5
NEI (uses AP42EF)F
AvailableEFs/parameters 6
CO

G

H

I

Globally
applicable? 7

Gaps (if any) 8

Comments 9

No to EFsbutmethodology
yes (requires
derivation ofEFs)

No globally
applicable Tier
1 information
on EFs

D: Method requires concentration of pollutant in landfill gas. See the Waste sector compilation table.
Comments from Experts:E/F) Methodology may be globally applicable but the EF (which relies on default CO concentrations at landfills, described in
Section 3.5 of the 2017 NEI Technical Support Document) is not globally applicable.
E/F) Activity data could be based on co-emitted methane emissions from managed landfills.

NMVOC

No

EMEP/EEA

NMVOC

No to EFsbutmethodology
yes (requires
derivation ofEFs)

No globally
applicable Tier
1 information
on EFsNH3

No

Yes (?)

?

?

?

PM
(BC/OC),
NOx, CO,NMVOC,
SO2

No, but
methods forOpen
Burning(4C2) may
be anapplicable
starting point-

Information
on estimating
activity data
and EFs foropen burning
is available in
IPCC 4C2(may not be
landfill
specific)

Yes

Limited activity
data available(amount ofwaste burned)

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Limited EF data
available(though there
may be a few
measurements
available)
n/a

CO,
NMVOC,
NH3 (?)

No

Yes, NEI,EMEP (sameas 4.A.1.c)

It is unclear
how
parameters
might differ
betweenmanagedandunmanaged
landfills

Methods may
be globally
applicable,
but not EFs

No globally
applicable Tier
1 information
on EFs

C: Method/Emission factor (EF) for PM2.5 is provided but not for BC.
D: National total waste deposited to landfills multiplied by EF. See the Issue Paper.
F: For NMVOC, see the Waste sector compilation table (feedback in cell R9).
Comments from Experts:
E) EMEP method would need to be updated before incorporation by the IPCC (updated to use similar approach to NEI
method, which uses a ratio of CO to CH4 emissions for landfills)
F) Activity data could be based on co-emitted methane emissions from managed landfills
Comments from Experts:
C) New research shows that NH3 may be emitted from landfills.

Comments from Experts:
E/H) The methods will be the same as for managed landfills (4.A.1.a). There will be the same challenges for deriving activity
data and EFs for unmanaged landfills.
E) It is the practice in some areas to empty small local landfills by burning them. May have more fires than managed sites.
H) It is not clear how EFs (or gas concentrations) are different between managed and unmanaged landfills.

Comment from Experts:
C) It is the consensus of the experts that there is likely little or no flaring at unmanaged landfills.
Comments from Experts:E/F) The method for this sub-category will be the same as for managed landfills (4.A.1.c), but the EFs and activity data may bedifferent.
F/H) It is unclear how EFs (or gas concentrations) are different between managed and unmanaged landfills.
E/H) It is unclear if NH3 is produced from uncategorized sites (recent research is only for managed sites, no information on
unmanaged sites).

87

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 3

4.A.3

Uncategorised
Waste
Disposal Sites

4.A.3.a

Uncategorised
Waste
Disposal Sites– Landfill fires

PM(BC/OC),
NOx, CO,NMVOC,
SO2

4.A.3.b

Uncategorised
Waste
Disposal Sites– Flaring

4.A.3.c

Uncategorised
Waste Disposal
Sites – Other(decomposition)PM(BC/OC),
NOx, CO,NMVOC,SO2CO,
NMVOC,
NH3 (?)

4.B

D
IPCC
methodapplicable 4

E
Alternative
methodology 5

FAvailableEFs/parameters 6

G

H

I

Globally
applicable? 7

Gaps (if any) 8

Comments 9No, but
methods forOpen
Burning(4C2) may
be anapplicable
starting point
No

-

-

-

-

Comments from Experts:
E/H) It is unclear how the parameters and methods for uncategorized sites (4.A.3) should differ from those applied to managed(4.A.1) or unmanaged (4.A.2) landfills.

-

-

-

-

Comments from Experts:
E/H) It is unclear how the parameters and methods for uncategorized sites (4.A.3) should differ from those applied to managed(4.A.1) or unmanaged (4.A.2) landfills.

No

-

-

-

-

Comments from Experts:
E/H) It is unclear how the parameters and methods for uncategorized sites (4.A.3) should differ from those applied to managed(4.A.1) or unmanaged (4.A.2) landfills.

BiologicalTreatment of
Solid Waste

Comments from the Experts:B) The experts recommend that emissions from anaerobic digestion be distinguished in a separate sub-category fromcomposting.
C) The experts have concluded that flaring emissions at anaerobic digestion treatment plants (NOx) are possible but negligible(could be included in future GL for completeness).

4.B.1

BiologicalTreatment of
Solid Waste –Composting

NH3
CO

NH3
NMVOC

4.B.2

BiologicalTreatment of
Solid Waste –Anaerobic

NH3

NH3(Composting): Yes
CO(Composting)
: Yes
NH3
(Composting): Yes (T2)
NMVOC
(Composting): Yes (T2)

EMEP/EEA

NH3(Anaerobic
digestion):No

EMEP/EEAEPA NEI

NH3(Composting)CO(Composting)Yes (as per
IPCC
method), no
to EFs

Methods areglobally
applicable, but
the EFs are not

NH3
NMVOC
(VOC)

Yes (as per
IPCC
method). EFs
not globally
applicable.

Limitedinformation on
activity data(amount ofgreen waste)
and no globally
applicable EFs

Yes (to be
confirmed).
There is a
Tier 1

Tier 1 EF could
be improved.
Emission of N
in NH3 per N in

NH3
(Anaerobic
digestion)

88

CROSS-SECTORAL – note Issue 2
F: No Tier 1 (T1) EFs for NH3 and CO emissions from composting. See the Issue Paper.
Comments from Experts:
E) Per EMEP guidance, sludge composting should be included in 4.B.1
B: Reported under 4.A.1 Managed Solid Waste Disposal Sites. See the Waste sector compilation table.
Requires amount of yard trimmings and food waste recovered for compositing and population, then EFs applied from the
California Air Resources Board (see compilation table).
Comments from Experts:
E) This method is only applicable to composting of residential yard scraps and food (e.g., ‘green waste’, not biosolids fromwastewater treatment plants or manure management facilities).
D: The method considers the potential for NH3 emissions from the following sources: during storage of feedstock on thepremises of the biogas facility and during storage of the digestate.
T1 approach estimates the total emissions, and total annual amount of N in the feedstock is used for estimation of NH3emissions.

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 3

Digestion

4.C

Incineration
and Open
Burning of
Waste

4.C.1

Waste
Incineration

NOx
NH3
SO2
CO
NMVOC
BC
OC

D
IPCC
methodapplicable 4

Yes

E
Alternative
methodology 5

AP42
EMEP/EEAEPA NEIUNEP

F
AvailableEFs/parameters 6

NOx: AP42,
EMEP/EEA,
UNEP
NH3:
EMEP/EEA
SO2: AP42,
EMEP/EEA,
UNEP
CO: AP42,
EMEP/EEA,UNEP
NMVOC:
EMEP/EEA,
UNEP
BC:
EMEP/EEA,EPA/NEI,UNEPOC:EPA/NEI,
UNEP

G

H

I

Globally
applicable? 7

Gaps (if any) 8

Comments 9methodwithout
considering
differencespre- andposttreatment.
Tier 2
accounts forthe type of
waste
digestedYes (as per
IPCC
method)feedstock (soneed to know
the N content of
the feedstock,default values
provided in
EMEP/EEA, but
the list may not
be complete)

Conditions arevariable (e.g.,different
moisturecontent, level ofsmolder, etc.)
and will need tobe consideredfurther.

Anaerobic digestion at biogas facilities covers co-digestion of different feedstocks (e.g., waste material, energy crops,
manures). In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, anaerobic digestion of manure is considered/included in AFOLU sector.
See the Issue Paper.
Comments from Experts:
CROSS-SECTORAL - The experts note that it will be important to cross check with the AFOLU sector (manure management)on the correct accounting of emissions within the Waste sector of the storage (of stock piling) of pre- (feedstock) andpost-treatment product (digestate), as well as treatment stage (to make sure that there is no double counting, and that Nitrogenflow models account for changes in N correctly). The emissions from storage of feedstock may not be large due to shortstorage times.
(AFOLU) Emissions from anaerobic digestion of manure on farms (storage, digestion, post-storage) should be included in
AFOLU, not Waste.
Emissions from anaerobic digestion of manure in treatment plants (co-digestion with municipal waste, or transported to an
offsite treatment facility) should be included in Waste, not AFOLU.
E/F) The farmer will need to know how much organic waste (or type of waste) that was added to the manure in the digestor.
There may be defaults for added waste types
E/H) Emissions should be treated under the waste sector if routed to off-site (off-farm) biological treatment facilities.
F) N content may be regionally dependent for municipal waste and from farms
Comments from Experts
CROSS-SECTORAL (AFOLU) – experts recommend that emissions from agricultural waste burning on fields should beconsidered in AFOLU. The classification of fire types included in this category needs to be clarified (e.g., waste burning on
farms/orchard, etc. of crop residues (e.g., cereal crops, peas, beans, soya, sugar beet, oil seed rape, etc.), wood,pruning, slash, leaves, plastics, and other general wastes)
CROSS-SECTORAL (Energy) – agricultural waste burning for energy should be considered in the Energy sector
B (EMEP/EEA): Categories by type of waste: municipal waste incineration, industrial waste incineration, hazardous waste
incineration, clinical waste incineration, sewage sludge incineration, cremation. See the Issue Paper and Waste sector
compilation table.
Comments from Experts:
B/E/F) Emissions from waste incineration will vary based on waste type, combustion technology used, the use of emission
controls, and operational conditions. It is the consensus of the experts that the methods across all waste and technology types
will likely be that same, therefore the experts recommend keeping 4.C.1 as a single category. However, Tier 1 EFs will need to
be technology dependent, waste type. Guidance on ensure timeseries consistency can be informed by guidance in the 2019
Refinement.
F) Future guidelines will also need to include a table on different abatement efficiencies
CROSS-SECTORAL – Emissions from waste incineration (to avoid double counting) …
with energy recovery should be included in Energy, not Waste
without energy recovery should be included in Waste, not Energy
Note: if it is difficult to split emissions between (1) and (2), it will be important that all waste incineration emissions are reported
either under Energy OR Waste and record where emissions are reported
E) Cremation (human and animal) – there will be large regional differences that will likely need regional default factors. This is
an important source of PM at the local level, but further investigation is needed as to whether or not this is a significant sourceon the national or global scale. Both the US NEI (AP-42) and EMEP have some guidance on activity data and EFs.

89

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 3D
IPCC
methodapplicable 4

E
Alternative
methodology 5

FAvailableEFs/parameters 6

G

H

I

Globally
applicable? 7

Gaps (if any) 8

Comments 9
C) Per convention, do not need to consider whether CO is fossil or not (assume CO2 emissions include all oxidation products).
E) Per EMEP guidance, sludge incineration should be included in 4.C.1.
E) Old report from US EPA "AIR EMISSIONS FROM SCRAP TIRE COMBUSTION", year 1997
https://www3.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/tire_eng.pdf particulate matter, metals, PAHs (laboratory measurements).

4.C.2

Open Burningof Waste

NOx
SOx
CO
NMVOC
BC
OC

No

NOx
NH3
SO2
CO
NMVOC
BC
OC

Yes

J-STREAMAP42
EPA NEI
UNEP

NOx
SOx
CO
NMVOC
BC
OC

Cannot be
determinedat this time

NOx: AP42,
EPA NEI(AP42),
UNEP
NH3: UNEP
SO2: AP42,
EPA NEI(AP42),UNEP
CO: AP42,
EPA NEI,UNEP
NMVOC:EPA NEI(VOC),UNEP
BC: EPA NEI(AP42),UNEP
OC: EPA NEI(AP42),UNEP

Yes (as per
IPCC
method). EFs
from the NEI
aredependent
on land covertype and EFs
are likely notglobally
applicable.

F: EFs are for T2.
D: Fuel consumption times emission factor.
In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, amount of waste incinerated is used as AD. See the Issue Paper and Waste sector compilationtable.

Cannot be
determined at
this time

Comments from Experts:
No additional comments (no J-STREAM experts in the BOG meetings)
B (EPA NEI): Residential yard waste and residential household waste.
B (UNEP): Municipal solid waste open burning. There are two kinds of burning activities: burning at source (i.e., communitythat generates the solid waste) and burning at disposal sites.
D (EPA NEI): Yes (T2)

Equation toestimate
amount ofwaste burned
needs to bereviewed.

See the Waste sector compilation table.
Comments from Experts:
E) Experts recommend that three parameters required for estimation: a) Fraction of household waste, b) fraction ofhousehold waste burned, c) fraction that (ultimately) oxidizes to CO2.
D/E/F) Note on the Bfrac parameter in the current GHG guidelines, the definition of Bfrac needs to be clarified in future
guidelines. The GHG guidelines were developed for CO2 and need to be refined for SLCFs (however, the current approach
may also need to be updated for GHGs). This was discussed in the process of the 2019 Refinement, but was not updated atthat time for GHGs.
- The current default for Bfrac - 60% of waste burned is too high. There is not a lot of literature on this, but this needs to bereviewed.
D/E/F) The current assumption in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines is also that waste is only burned in rural areas (not burned inurban areas). This assumption needs to be reviewed further as there is evidence that waste is burned in urban areas (at leastin Mexico, Africa, and Brazil). Based on survey data in Brazil, urban waste was burned due to infrequent urban trash collection.
Also consider: African Waste Management Outlook.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969720362653?via%253Dihub
E/F) A general methodology approach could also be Emission = A *EF, where A = waste generated per capita * amount ofwaste burned. But this approach will likely need regional parameters and should be investigated by future authors. Note thatwaste generated per capita could be investigated based on socioeconomic class.
E) There are other nuances in waste composition and the possibility of multiple disposal methods in locations withoutmunicipal collection.
F) Organics and plastics are a large fraction of waste in developing countries and the waste composition would impact
emission. factors
F) Reference – A reference (currently under review) that provides a summary of ~100 studies of EFs and fractions of waste
being open burned around the world.

90

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 3

NOx
SO2
CO
NMVOC
BC

NOx
SO2
CO
NMVOC
(VOC)
BC
OC
4.D

D
IPCC
methodapplicable 4

No

No

E
Alternative
methodology 5

EMEP/EEAEPA NEIF
AvailableEFs/parameters 6

NOx
SO2
CO
NMVOC
BC

NOx
SO2
CO
NMVOC
(VOC)
BC
OC

G

H

I

Globally
applicable? 7

Gaps (if any) 8

Comments 9

No. Tier 1 EF
basedonvegetation
type. May not
be globally
applicable.
Waste
composition
will
vary
globally-

EF only deals
with agriculture,
mixed MSW is
missing in the
EMEP
guidanceF) Cook and Velis (2021) open burning of plastics – provides estimates for the mass of solid waste open burned in LIMIC and
HIC countries based on a detailed review.
B: Small-scale (agricultural) waste e.g., crop residues (e.g., cereal crops, peas, beans, soya, sugar beet, oil seed rape, etc.),wood, pruning, slash, leaves, plastics, and other general wastes. The method requires a prior knowledge of the weight ofagricultural waste produced per hectare forestry, orchard and farmland.
In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, agriculture residue burning is considered in AFOLU sector. See the Issue Paper and Waste
sector compilation table.
Comments from Experts:
F) EMEP EFs do not include a mixed municipal solid waste, some of these may be available in energy chapters.
B/E) EMEP guidance does include car and building fires. These should be considered under category 4.E.
B/E) It is the consensus of the authors that emissions from Tire burning should be included in this category (4.C.2). In the
EMEP guidance, tires are treated as a type of waste, but there is no EF. Since category 4.C does not consider whether fires
are intentional or unintentional, all tire burning can be under 4.C.2. If the tires are being burned in the landfill, those emissions
would be in the landfill category.
B: Land clearing.
In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, emissions from land clearing burning are considered in AFOLU sector. See the Issue Paper andWaste sector compilation table.

-

Comments from Experts:
CROSS-SECTORAL – Emissions from biomass burning (e.g., land clearing not at farms) at the site of production, should be
included in AFOLU, not Waste.
Note: Issues of allocation/categorization that may need to be further discussed.
General Comments from Experts:
E/H) Emissions from leachate – leachate could be directed back to landfill or directed to treatment plants. In some cases, thismight be treated onsite. One suggestion from experts is to include these emissions in 4.D.2, unless the treatment is occurringat the landfill site, then this should be included in landfill emissions.

Wastewater
Treatment
andDischargeC) There could be PM emissions from aeration, but these are likely small. There needs to be further investigation on whether
or not this is a significant source.
B/E) Emissions from anaerobic digestion at treatment facilities should be included in 4.D. (likely are included already).
Emissions from flaring (where there is no energy recovery) from anaerobic wastewater treatment with methane capture –should be considered.
C/E) It is worth considering whether the NH3 emission methodology should be based on existing N2O methods vs. CH4(emissions will depend on the amount of N).
CROSS-SECTORAL - (Energy) – Emissions from the combustion of biogas collected for energy recovery purposes should be
included in Energy, not Waste. Note: If flared (without energy recovery), included in Waste.

91

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 3

Wastewater
Treatment
andDischarge

NMVOC

4.D

D
IPCC
methodapplicable 4
No

E
Alternative
methodology 5
EMEP/EEAF
AvailableEFs/parameters 6
NMVOC

G

H

I

Globally
applicable? 7

Gaps (if any) 8

Comments 9

EF for NMVOC
needs
anupdate

B: Activities considered within the 5.D Wastewater Handling sector are biological treatment plants and latrines (storage tanksof human excreta, located under naturally ventilated wooden shelters). Includes 5.D.1 Domestic wastewater handling, 5.D.2
Industrial Wastewater handling and 5.D.3 Other wastewater handling.
F: According to the EMEP/EEA Guidebook, EF (T1) for NMVOC emissions for 5.D Wastewater Handling has been derived
from one study, and it may not be applicable to all wastewater treatment plants.
D: AD (T1) is total amount of wastewater handled by all wastewater treatment plants in the country.
See the Issue Paper and Waste sector compilation table.

Method (yes)EF (no –based on 1
localisedstudy)

Comments from Experts:
F) The EMEP/EEA NMVOC EF is highly uncertain and likely not globally applicable. This EF is applied to both industrial anddomestic treatment facilities.
NH3
NMVOC

4.D.1

Domestic
Wastewater
Treatment andDischarge

NH3

NH3

No

No

No

EPA NEIEMEP/EEA

National
InstituteofEnvironmental
Research

NH3
NMVOC
(VOC)

NH3

NH3

Method may
be globally
applicable,
but it may bedifficulttocollect
national
informationon
wastewaterflow rates.
EFsmayalso not be
globally
applicable
Method yes,
EF is notcountry
specific andtherefore isapplicable toTier 1
EF= NH3 per
ton
waste
water
handled. It
cannotbedetermined if
this EF is
globally
applicable atthis time. But
the method
couldbeappliedglobally

Potentiallylimited data on
wastewater flowrate

B: Does not split into domestic and industrial.
D: Method is based on the wastewater flow rate.
See the Issue Paper and Waste sector compilation table.

EFs are only for
latrines

F: NH3 EF is for T2 (latrines).

EFs are only for
latrines

Comments from Experts:
F/H) In the current NEI method, the EF is not technology dependent. However, these emissions are likely also sensitive totechnology and operating conditions. This should be reviewed.

Comments from Experts:B) Commercial wastewater treatment emissions should be included in 4.D.1. The wastewater composition could vary forindustrial and commercial sources.
B) Untreated wastewater emissions would fall under 4.D.1.
D: AD is mass of wastewater handled.
See the Waste sector compilation table.
Comments from Experts:
No further comments (no NIER experts in the Waste BOG discussions).

92

A

B

C

IPCC
code 1Category 2

SLCF 3

Industrial
Wastewater
Treatment andDischarge

NMVOC

4.D.2

4E

Other
Others:
5.E
Other waste

NH3

D
IPCC
methodapplicable 4
No

No guidancein the IPCC
Guidelines

E
Alternative
methodology 5
The
IPCC
methodology
could be astarting point

EMEP/EEAF
AvailableEFs/parameters 6
NMVOC

NH3

G

H

I

Globally
applicable? 7

Gaps (if any) 8

Comments 9

Method(yes).
No
available EFs

No

EF dataneededdifferent
industries

are
for

For cars (needto develop EFs
as a function ofcarweight).
Buildings
method is notglobally
applicable

D: AD is amount of wastewater handled.
F: According to the EMEP/EEA Guidebook, T2 EF is based on one study, and it may not be applicable to all wastewater
treatment plants.
Comments from Experts:
E) EFs would depend on the type of industry
No guidance in the IPCC Guidelines
B: Activities covered under this category are sludge spreading, car fires and house fires. However, according to the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines, sludge spreading is considered in AFOLU sector.
D: For sludge spreading, the relevant activity statistics are the standard statistics on sludge production and the fraction that isdried by spreading. For accidental fires, activity data can be obtained from national statistics or national emergency
management agencies.
F: No T1 EFs. NH3 EF (T2) for sludge spreading.
See the Issue Paper and Waste sector compilation table.
Comments from Experts:
CROSS-SECTORAL - (Energy/Waste) – There are emissions from different uses/treatment of sludge (e.g., co-firing with coalin cement industry (Energy), landfilling (Waste), biological treatment (Waste)
CROSS-SECTORAL – sludge spreading in EMEP (NH3) – In the EMEP guidance, N2O emissions from this source areincluded in AFOLU and NH3 emissions are included under 4E. For consistency, the experts recommend that NH3 emissions
from sludge spreading be included in AFOLU rather than waste.
B/F/G/H) EMEP guidance for cars and building fires should be included here. However, methods and EFs are likely notglobally applicable.
Cooking exhaust:
D: Times of meals multiplied by emissions. See the Issue Paper and Waste sector compilation table.
Comments from Experts:
No further comments (not J-STREAM experts in the Waste BOG discussions).

Others:CookingexhaustBCOCNo guidancein the IPCC
Guidelines

J-STREAMBCOC

No additional
information isavailable atthis time

No additional
information isavailable at thistime

CROSS-SECTORAL – this source should be considered in the energy sector, not waste.
D: Times of meals multiplied by emissions. See the Issue Paper and Waste sector compilation table.
Comments from Experts:
No further comments (not J-STREAM experts in the Waste BOG discussions).
CROSS-SECTORAL – this source should be considered in the energy sector, not waste.

Note 1 : In this document “EMP/EEA” refers to the EMEP/EEA 2019 Guidebook
Note 2 : Each time a method is required for BC/OC, a method must also be defined for PM2.5 (indeed BC/OC is often estimated as a fraction of PM2.5)

93

Issue Paper (Waste sector)
Issues:
4.A Solid Waste Disposal
1.

Method/Activity data: The methods in AP42 and EMEP/EEA 2019 Guidebook don’t overlap with IPCC
method (AP42 method requires concentration of pollutant in landfill gas). However, annual amount of waste
deposited in solid waste disposal sites are used in both IPCC First-order Decay (FOD) method and
EMEP/EEA 2019 Guidebook method – the same activity data (AD) can be shared for estimation ofemissions.

For both EPA NEI and EMEP/EEA guidance, the methods for decomposition at solid waste disposal sites arelikely globally applicable, however the EFs are likely not globally applicable.
There was no discussion of activity data
4.B Biological Treatment of Solid Waste
1. Category: In the EMEP/EEA 2019 Guidebook, composting and anaerobic digestion are separate categories.
The method in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines covers both composting and anaerobic digestion as types of
biological treatment of solid waste.
The experts recommend that anaerobic digestion be covered under 4.B.1 and composting be covered undercategory 4.B.2
2. Cross-sectoral: 5.B.2 Biological treatment of waste – Anaerobic digestion at biogas facilities (EMEP/EEA
2019 Guidebook) covers co-digestion of different feedstocks (e.g., waste material, energy crops, manures).
In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, anaerobic digestion of manure is considered/included in AFOLU sector (not in
Waste sector). The issue is shared with AFOLU sector (Issue paper).
The experts should confirm with AFOLU BOG that manure digestion emissions are covered in AFOLU andnot Waste.
3. Method/Activity data: 5.B.2 Biological treatment of waste – Anaerobic digestion at biogas facilities(EMEP/EEA 2019 Guidebook) considers the potential for NH3 emissions from the following sources ofbiogas facilities: during storage of feedstock on the premises of the biogas facility and during storage of thedigestate. Tier 1 approach estimates the total emissions and requires total annual amount of N in thefeedstock entering the biogas plants. However, amount of waste anaerobically treated is used as AD in
Waste sector method of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
The experts suggest that the compilers need to be aware of this to make sure there is no double counting in any
nitrogen flow models applied.
4. Emission factor: No Tier 1 EFs for NH3 and CO emissions from composting in the EMEP/EEA 2019
Guidebook.
Correct, there are no Tier 1 EFs for composting from EMEP/EEA or EPA NEI guidance
4.C Incineration and Open Burning of Waste
4.C.1
1.

Waste Incineration

Category: The EMEP/EEA 2019 Guidebook divides into sub-categories by type of waste: municipal waste
incineration, industrial waste incineration, hazardous waste incineration, clinical waste incineration, sewage
94

sludge incineration and cremation. The method in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines covers these sub-categories(no guidance on cremation) as types of waste.
It was the consensus of the experts that the methods for 4.C.1 are likely the same for all types of waste andshould be kept as a single category. However, the EFs will need to be technology dependent, there willneed to be information on abatement efficiencies, and some types of waste may require different methods,
based on the details of the technology.
2.

Method/Activity data/Cross-sectoral: Fuel consumption is used as AD in J-STREAM method. In the 2006
IPCC Guidelines, amount of waste incinerated is used as AD. According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines,
emissions from waste burnt for energy are reported under the Energy Sector. The issue is shared with
Energy sector (Issue paper).
There were no JSTREAM experts in the Waste BOG to provide further comments

4.C.2
1.

Open Burning of Waste

Cross-sectoral:I.

EMEP/EEA 2019 Guidebook covers small-scale (agricultural) waste e.g., crop residues (e.g., cereal
crops, peas, beans, soya, sugar beet, oil seed rape, etc.), wood, pruning, slash, leaves, plastics, andother general wastes. The method requires a prior knowledge of the weight of agricultural waste
produced per hectare of forestry, orchard and farm so national area of forestry and orchard isrequired. In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, agriculture residue burning is considered in AFOLU sector.
The issue is shared with AFOLU sector (Issue paper).
Waste BOG should confirm with AFOLU BOG that crop residue burning is included in AFOLU andnot waste.

II.

EPA NEI covers residential yard waste open burning, land clearing and residential household waste.
The emissions from land clearing debris are estimated based on the number of acres disturbed from
non-residential, residential, and road construction. The number of acres disturbed is multiplied by afuel loading factor to determine the amount of land clearing debris burned in each county. This
number is multiplied by emissions factors from AP42. In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, emissions fromland clearing burning are considered in AFOLU sector. The issue is shared with AFOLU sector(Issue paper).
Waste BOG should confirm with AFOLU BOG that land clearing emissions are included in AFOLU
and not Waste.

4.D Wastewater Treatment and Discharge
1.

Category: EPA NEI does not split into domestic and industrial.
The EPA NEI methods and activity data consider wastewater treatment at commercial, industrial, anddomestic publicly owned treatment works. Therefore, this EF is likely not globally applicable and cannot be
used for the individual sub-categories.

2.

Method/Activity data:
I.

II.

Tier 1 approach for 5.D Wastewater Handling (EMEP/EEA 2019 Guidebook) applies the total amountof wastewater handled by all wastewater treatment plants in the country as AD. Activities consideredwithin the 5.D Wastewater Handling category (EMEP/EEA 2019 Guidebook) are biological treatment
plants and latrines. In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, amount of organically degradable material (and otherparameters) and amount of N in wastewater/effluent are used for estimation of CH4 and N2Oemissions from wastewater treatment and discharge, respectively.
EPA NEI method is based on the wastewater flow rate.
95

There is likely limited availability of wastewater flow rates at facilities, and a more globally applicableapproach may be to account for the amount of waste handled at a treatment facility, following EMEP/EEA
guidance.
2.

Emission factor: According to the EMEP/EEA 2019 Guidebook, Tier 1 EF for NMVOC emissions for 5.D
Wastewater Handling category has been derived from one study and it may not be applicable to all
wastewater treatment plants.
Correct, the EF for NMVOC is highly uncertain and not globally applicable.

4.E Other2006 IPCC Guidelines: Emissions from other waste handling activities than listed in categories 4A to 4D
categories. No guidance.
Other: 5.E Other waste (EMEP/EEA 2019 Guidebook)
1. Cross-sectoral: The category covers sludge spreading, car fires and house fires. In the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines, sludge spread on agricultural land are considered in AFOLU sector. The issue is shared with
AFOLU sector (Issue paper).
It is the consensus of the experts that car and building fires be included in category 5E. The Waste BOG
should confirm with the AFOLU BOG that sludge spread on agricultural land should be included in AFOLU
and not Waste.
2. Method/Activity data: For sludge spreading, the relevant activity statistics are the standard statistics on
sludge production and the fraction that is dried by spreading. For accidental fires, activity data can beobtained from national statistics or national emergency management agencies.
For cars, it may be possible to develop a globally applicable EF, but there will be no globally applicable EF
for buildings. The Waste BOG did not discuss sources of activity data.
Other: Cooking exhaust (J-STREAM)
1. Method: Times of meals multiplied by emissions (See the Waste sector compilation table). The issue isshared with Energy sector (Issue paper).
Waste BOG did not provide further comments

96

Table 2 Category list (Waste)
A

B

C

I

IPCC
code

Category 1

SLCFs 2

Comment
Comments from Experts:
B) It is the view of the experts that burning from landfill fires and flaring should be reported under 4A, not 4C (but this source should use methodology and guidance from OpenBurning 4C2).
B) The experts recommend that emissions from flaring, landfill fires, and decomposition processes be estimated separately for each managed, unmanaged, and uncategorised
landfill types.
E) For landfill fires – compilers will need to cross check the activity data between the proposed methods and the first order decay (FOD) method to avoid double counting ofemissions (because waste burning will reduce the amount of organic material available for decomposition).

4.A Solid Waste Disposal

E) Experts suspect that there may be more burning at unmanaged sites. Might also need to distinguish between shallow and deep sites in future guidelines.
E) Experts discussed that the 2006 IPCC Guidelines distinguish managed/unmanaged sites based on cover material and compactness of waste at each site (need to know
aeration conditions at landfills for GHGs). We may need to apply a similar approach and use weighted correction factors (like methane correction factor).
CROSS-SECTORAL (with Energy sector): biogas collected from landfills is used for energy and emissions should be in that sector.
4.A.1

CROSS-SECTORAL (with Energy): energy used to manage the landfill sites should be considered in the energy sector.

Managed Waste Disposal Sites

Comments from Experts:
C) Burning emissions will be important at the local level, may be less important at the national level, and may not be significant at the global levelH) There is no methodology or guidance that the experts are aware of to help countries estimate the amount of waste burned at landfills specifically. This activity data will likely
need to be based on measurements.

Landfill fires

PM(BC/OC),
NOx, CO,NMVOC,SO2C) Future authors should consider the significance of SO2 emissions from this source SO2 emissions would depend on the S content of the waste.
E) This category should include emissions from intentional and unintentional fires.
E) The authors may have to review the applicability of the Open Burning methods (municipal solid waste – 2006 IPCC Guidelines Eq. 5.7) to emissions from landfill fires. MSW
in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines may not include waste landfilled.
E) It is the practice in some areas to empty small local landfills by burning them.
C/E) Default speciation for NMVOC could be considered as the same as for open burning of municipal waste (there may not be landfill fire-specific studies). The experts haveidentified this as a gap.

1
2

For each category a single row is compiled
All SLCFs associated with the source-category listed

97

A

B

C

I

IPCC
code

Category 1

SLCFs 2

Comment
Comments from Experts:
D) Note that flaring emissions (for GHGs) from landfills in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines are not treated at a Tier 1 level.
E) These emissions will depend on the efficiency of the flare.
C) SO2 emissions would depend on the S content of the flared gas. Mass balance could be used to covert H2S to SO2. These emissions will be small relative to othercategories of SO2 emissions.

FlaringPM(BC/OC),
NOx, CO,NMVOC,SO2

E) Methods may be available from EMEP Chap. 1B2C
(https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2019/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/1-energy/1-b-fugitives/1-b-2-c-venting/view).
E) There may be information in AP-42 Section 2.4 MSW landfills (Table 2.4.4 – flares treated as a control device from landfills, includes emission rates,
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/draft/d02s04.pdf ). Key update would be the estimation of fraction burned.
E) New research in Estonia highlighted emissions can be site specific(https://www.klab.ee/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/KHG-inventuuri-j%25C3%25A4%25C3%25A4tmesektori-arendust%25C3%25B6%25C3%25B6.pdf)
E) The landfill biogas flares will be a lower temperature than other (e.g., industrial) flares, which will impact the EFs.
C) For all compounds, this source is likely significant at the local level, less significant at the national and global levels.
E) EF could be expressed as compound per volume biogas flared.
C) NOx emissions may be a significant source at the local, but not national level.
C/E) There is limited information on PM or NMVOC speciation. It might be difficult to find a proxy based on industrial or fugitive flaring.
CO:
D: Method requires concentration of pollutant in landfill gas. See the Waste sector compilation table.
Comments from Experts:E/F) Methodology may be globally applicable but the EF (which relies on default CO concentrations at landfills, described in Section 3.5 of the 2017 NEI Technical Support
Document) is not globally applicable.
E/F) Activity data could be based on co-emitted methane emissions from managed landfills.

Other (decomposition)

NMVOC,CO, NH3

NMVOCs:
C: Method/Emission factor (EF) for PM2.5 is provided but not for BC.
D: National total waste deposited to landfills multiplied by EF. See the Issue Paper.
F: For NMVOC, see the Waste sector compilation table (feedback in cell R9).
Comments from Experts:
E) EMEP method would need to be updated before incorporation by the IPCC (updated to use similar approach to NEI method, which uses a ratio of CO to CH4 emissions forlandfills)
F) Activity data could be based on co-emitted methane emissions from managed landfills

98

A

B

C

I

IPCC
code

Category 1

SLCFs 2

Comment

4.A.2

NH3:
Comments from Experts:
C) New research shows that NH3 may be emitted from landfills.

Unmanaged Waste Disposal Sites

Landfill fires

PM(BC/OC),
NOx, CO,NMVOC,
SO2

FlaringPM(BC/OC),
NOx, CO,NMVOC,
SO2

Other (decomposition)

NMVOC,CO, NH3

Comments from Experts:
E/H) The methods will be the same as for managed landfills (4.A.1.a). There will be the same challenges for deriving activity data and EFs for unmanaged landfills.
E) It is the practice in some areas to empty small local landfills by burning them. May have more fires than managed sites.
H) It is not clear how EFs (or gas concentrations) are different between managed and unmanaged landfills.
Comment from Experts:
C) It is the consensus of the experts that there is likely little or no flaring at unmanaged landfills.

Comments from Experts:E/F) The method for this sub-category will be the same as for managed landfills (4.A.1.c), but the EFs and activity data may be different.
F/H) It is unclear how EFs (or gas concentrations) are different between managed and unmanaged landfills.
E/H) It is unclear if NH3 is produced from uncategorized sites (recent research is only for managed sites, no information on unmanaged sites).

4.A.3

Uncategorised
Sites

Waste Disposal

Landfill fires

Flaring

Other (decomposition)

4.B Biological Treatment of Solid Waste

PM(BC/OC),
NOx, CO,NMVOC,SO2
PM(BC/OC),
NOx, CO,NMVOC,SO2
NMVOC,CO, NH3

NH3, CO,NMVOC

Comments from Experts:
E/H) It is unclear how the parameters and methods for uncategorized sites (4.A.3) should differ from those applied to managed (4.A.1) or unmanaged (4.A.2) landfills.

Comments from Experts:
E/H) It is unclear how the parameters and methods for uncategorized sites (4.A.3) should differ from those applied to managed (4.A.1) or unmanaged (4.A.2) landfills.

Comments from Experts:
E/H) It is unclear how the parameters and methods for uncategorized sites (4.A.3) should differ from those applied to managed (4.A.1) or unmanaged (4.A.2) landfills.
Comments from the Experts:B) The experts recommend that emissions from anaerobic digestion be distinguished in a separate sub-category from composting.
C) The experts have concluded that flaring emissions at anaerobic digestion treatment plants (NOx) are possible but negligible (could be included in future guidelines forcompleteness).
CROSS-SECTORAL – note Issue 2.

99

A

B

C

I

IPCC
code

Category 1

SLCFs 2

Comment

4.B.1

Composting

NH3, CO,NMVOC

F: No Tier 1 (T1) EFs for NH3 and CO emissions from composting. See the Issue Paper.
Comments from Experts:
E) Per EMEP guidance, sludge composting should be included in 4.B.1.
B: Reported under 4.A.1 Managed Solid Waste Disposal Sites. See the Waste sector compilation table.
Requires amount of yard trimmings and food waste recovered for compositing and population, then EFs applied from the California Air Resources Board (see compilation table)

4.B.2

Anaerobic Digestion

NH3 (NOx?)

Comments from Experts:
E) This method is only applicable to composting of residential yard scraps and food (e.g., ‘green waste’, not biosolids from wastewater treatment plants or manure
management facilities).
D: The method considers the potential for NH3 emissions from the following sources: during storage of feedstock on the premises of the biogas facility and during storage ofthe digestate.
T1 approach estimates the total emissions, and total annual amount of N in the feedstock is used for estimation of NH3 emissions.
Anaerobic digestion at biogas facilities covers co-digestion of different feedstocks (e.g., waste material, energy crops, manures). In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, anaerobic
digestion of manure is considered/included in AFOLU sector.
See the Issue Paper.
Comments from Experts:
CROSS-SECTORAL - The experts note that it will be important to cross check with the AFOLU sector (manure management) on the correct accounting of emissions within the
Waste sector of the storage (of stock piling) of pre- (feedstock) and post-treatment product (digestate), as well as treatment stage (to make sure that there is no double
counting, and that Nitrogen flow models account for changes in N correctly). The emissions from storage of feedstock may not be large due to short storage times.
(AFOLU) Emissions from anaerobic digestion of manure on farms (storage, digestion, post-storage) should be included in AFOLU, not Waste.
Emissions from anaerobic digestion of manure in treatment plants (co-digestion with municipal waste or transported to an offsite treatment facility) should be included in Waste,
not AFOLU.
E/F) The farmer will need to know how much organic waste (or type of waste) that was added to the manure in the digestor. There may be defaults for added waste types
E/H) Emissions should be treated under the waste sector if routed to off-site (off-farm) biological treatment facilities.
F) N content may be regionally dependent for municipal waste and from farms.
Comments from Experts
CROSS-SECTORAL (AFOLU): experts recommend that emissions from agricultural waste burning on fields should be considered in AFOLU. The classification of fire types
included in this category needs to be clarified (e.g., waste burning on farms/orchard, etc. of crop residues (e.g., cereal crops, peas, beans, soya, sugar beet, oil seed rape,etc.), wood, pruning, slash, leaves, plastics, and other general wastes).

4.C Incineration and Open Burning of
Waste

4.C.1

Waste Incineration

NOx, NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OCCROSS-SECTORAL (Energy): agricultural waste burning for energy should be considered in Energy sector.
B (EMEP/EEA): Categories by type of waste: municipal waste incineration, industrial waste incineration, hazardous waste incineration, clinical waste incineration, sewage
sludge incineration, cremation. See the Issue Paper and Waste sector compilation table.
Comments from Experts:
B/E/F) Emissions from waste incineration will vary based on waste type, combustion technology used, the use of emission controls, and operational conditions. It is theconsensus of the experts that the methods across all waste and technology types will likely be that same, therefore the experts recommend keeping 4.C.1 as a single category.

100

A

B

C

I

IPCC
code

Category 1

SLCFs 2

Comment
However, Tier 1 EFs will need to be technology dependent, waste type. Guidance on ensure timeseries consistency can be informed by guidance in the 2019 Refinement.
F) Future guidelines will also need to include a table on different abatement efficiencies.
CROSS-SECTORAL – Emissions from waste incineration (to avoid double counting):- with energy recovery should be included in Energy, not Waste- without energy recovery should be included in Waste, not Energy
Note: if it is difficult to split emissions between (1) and (2), it will be important that all waste incineration emissions are reported either under Energy OR Waste and record
where emissions are reported
E) Cremation (human and animal) – there will be large regional differences that will likely need regional default factors. This is an important source of PM at the local level, but
further investigation is needed as to whether or not this is a significant source on the national or global scale. Both the US NEI (AP-42) and EMEP have some guidance on
activity data and EFs.
C) Per convention, do not need to consider whether CO is fossil or not (assume CO2 emissions include all oxidation products).
E) Per EMEP guidance, sludge incineration should be included in 4.C.1.
E) Old report from US EPA "AIR EMISSIONS FROM SCRAP TIRE COMBUSTION", year 1997 (https://www3.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/tire_eng.pdf)
particulate matter, metals, PAHs (laboratory measurements).
J-STREAM:
F: EFs are for T2.
D: Fuel consumption times emission factor.
In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, amount of waste incinerated is used as AD. See the Issue Paper and Waste sector compilation table.
Comments from Experts:
No additional comments (no J-STREAM experts in the BOG meetings).
Comments from Experts:
E) Experts recommend that three parameters required for estimation: a) Fraction of household waste, b) fraction of household waste burned, c) fraction that (ultimately)
oxidizes to CO2.

4.C.2

Open Burning of Waste

NOx, NH3,
SO2, CO,NMVOC,BC, OC

D/E/F) Note on the Bfrac parameter in the current GHG guidelines, the definition of Bfrac needs to be clarified in future guidelines. The GHG guidelines were developed for CO2
and need to be refined for SLCFs (however, the current approach may also need to be updated for GHGs). This was discussed in the process of the 2019 Refinement but was
not updated at that time for GHGs.
- The current default for Bfrac - 60% of waste burned is too high. There is not a lot of literature on this, but this needs to be reviewed.
D/E/F) The current assumption in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines is also that waste is only burned in rural areas (not burned in urban areas). This assumption needs to be reviewed
further as there is evidence that waste is burned in urban areas (at least in Mexico, Africa, and Brazil). Based on survey data in Brazil, urban waste was burned due toinfrequent urban trash collection. Also consider: African Waste Management Outlook.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969720362653?via%253Dihub
E/F) A general methodology approach could also be Emission = A * EF, where A = waste generated per capita * amount of waste burned. But this approach will likely needregional parameters and should be investigated by future authors. Note that waste generated per capita could be investigated based on socioeconomic class.
E) There are other nuances in waste composition and the possibility of multiple disposal methods in locations without municipal collects.
F) Organics and plastics are a large fraction of waste in developing countries and the waste composition would impact EFs.

101

A

B

C

I

IPCC
code

Category 1

SLCFs 2

Comment
F) Reference – A reference (currently under review) that provides a summary of ~100 studies of EFs and fractions of waste being open burned around the world.
F) Cook and Velis (2021) open burning of plastics – provides estimates for the mass of solid waste open burned in LIMIC and HIC countries based on a detailed review.
EMEP:
B: Small-scale (agricultural) waste e.g., crop residues (e.g., cereal crops, peas, beans, soya, sugar beet, oil seed rape, etc.), wood, pruning, slash, leaves, plastics, and othergeneral wastes. The method requires a prior knowledge of the weight of agricultural waste produced per hectare forestry, orchard and farmland.
In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, agriculture residue burning is considered in AFOLU sector. See the Issue Paper and Waste sector compilation table.
Comments from Experts:
F) EMEP EFs do not include a mixed municipal solid waste, some of these may be available in Energy chapters.
B/E) EMEP guidance does include car and building fires. These should be considered under category 4.E.
B/E) It is the consensus of the authors that emissions from Tire burning should be included in this category (4.C.2). In the EMEP guidance, tires are treated as a type of waste,
but there is no EF. Since category 4.C does not consider whether fires are intentional or unintentional, all tire burning can be under 4.C.2. If the tires are being burned in thelandfill, those emissions would be in the landfill category.
EPA:
B: Land clearing.
In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, emissions from land clearing burning are considered in AFOLU sector. See the Issue Paper and Waste sector compilation table.
Comments from Experts:
CROSS-SECTORAL – Emissions from biomass burning (e.g., land clearing not at farms) at the site of production, should be included in AFOLU, not Waste.
Note: issues of allocation/categorization that may need to be further discussed.
General Comments from Experts:
E/H) Emissions from leachate – leachate could be directed back to landfill or directed to treatment plants. In some cases, this might be treated onsite. One suggestion fromexperts is to include these emissions in 4.D.2, unless the treatment is occurring at the landfill site, then this should be included in landfill emissions. A summary of practices in
China was provided. Authors should investigate this further.
C) There could be PM emissions from aeration, but these are likely small. There needs to be further investigation on whether or not this is a significant source.

4.D Wastewater Treatment and Discharge

B/E) Emissions from anaerobic digestion at treatment facilities should be included in 4.D. (likely are included already).
Emissions from flaring (where there is no energy recovery) from anaerobic wastewater treatment with methane capture – should be considered.
C/E) It is worth considering whether the NH3 emission methodology should be based on existing N2O methods vs. CH4 (emissions will depend on the amount of N).

4.D Wastewater Treatment and Discharge

NH3,
NMVOC

CROSS-SECTORAL (Energy) – Emissions from the combustion of biogas collected for energy recovery purposes should be included in Energy, not Waste. Note: If flared(without energy recovery), included in Waste.
EMEP:
B: Activities considered within the 5.D Wastewater Handling sector are biological treatment plants and latrines (storage tanks of human excreta, located under naturally
ventilated wooden shelters). Includes 5.D.1 Domestic wastewater handling, 5.D.2 Industrial Wastewater handling and 5.D.3 Other wastewater handling.
F: According to the EMEP/EEA Guidebook, EF (T1) for NMVOC emissions for 5.D Wastewater Handling has been derived from one study, and it may not be applicable to all
wastewater treatment plants.
D: AD (T1) is total amount of wastewater handled by all wastewater treatment plants in the country.
See the Issue Paper and Waste sector compilation table.

102

A

B

C

I

IPCC
code

Category 1

SLCFs 2

Comment
Comments from Experts:
F) The EMEP/EEA NMVOC EF is highly uncertain and likely not globally applicable. This EF is applied to both industrial and domestic treatment facilities.
EPA:
B: Does not split into domestic and industrial.
D: Method is based on the wastewater flow rate.
See the Issue Paper and Waste sector compilation table.
Comments from Experts:
F/H) In the current NEI method, the EF is not technology dependent. However, these emissions are likely also sensitive to technology and operating conditions. This should be
reviewed.
EMEP:
F: NH3 EF is for T2 (latrines).
Comments from Experts:B) Commercial wastewater treatment emissions should be included in 4.D.1. The wastewater composition could vary for industrial and commercial sources.

4.D.1

4.D.2

Domestic Wastewater Treatment
and Discharge

Industrial Wastewater Treatment
and Discharge

NH3,
NMVOC

NH3,
NMVOC

4.E OtherB) Untreated wastewater emissions would fall under 4.D.1.
NIER:
D: AD is mass of wastewater handled.
See the Waste sector compilation table.
Comments from Experts:
No further comments (no NIER experts in the Waste BOG discussions).
D: AD is amount of wastewater handled.
F: According to the EMEP/EEA Guidebook, T2 EF is based on one study, and it may not be applicable to all wastewater treatment plants.
Comments from Experts:
E) EFs would depend on the type of industry.
B: Activities covered under this category are sludge spreading, car fires and house fires. However, according to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, sludge spreading is considered in
AFOLU sector.
D: For sludge spreading, the relevant activity statistics are the standard statistics on sludge production and the fraction that is dried by spreading. For accidental fires, activity
data can be obtained from national statistics or national emergency management agencies.
F: No T1 EFs. NH3 EF (T2) for sludge spreading.

Other waste

NH3

See the Issue Paper and Waste sector compilation table.
Comments from Experts:
CROSS-SECTORAL - (Energy/Waste) – There are emissions from different uses/treatment of sludge (e.g., co-firing with coal in cement industry (Energy), landfilling (Waste),
biological treatment (Waste).
CROSS-SECTORAL – sludge spreading in EMEP (NH3) – In the EMEP guidance, N2O emissions from this source are included in AFOLU and NH3 emissions are included

103

A

B

C

I

IPCC
code

Category 1

SLCFs 2

Comment
under 4E. For consistency, the experts recommend that NH3 emissions from sludge spreading be included in AFOLU rather than Waste.
B/F/G/H) EMEP guidance for cars and building fires should be included here. However, methods and EFs are likely not globally applicable.
Cooking exhaust:
D: Times of meals multiplied by emissions. See the Issue Paper and Waste sector compilation table.
Comments from Experts:
No further comments (not J-STREAM experts in the Waste BOG discussions)
CROSS-SECTORAL – this source should be considered in the Energy sector, not Waste.

Note 1: In this document “EMP/EEA” refers to the EMEP/EEA 2019 Guidebook
Note 2: Each time a method is required for BC/OC, a method must also be defined for PM2.5 (indeed BC/OC is often estimated as a fraction of PM2.5)

104

Annex 2: Agenda
Joint 1st and 2nd IPCC Expert Meeting on Short-Lived Climate Forcers
In relation to Methodologies for Energy, Industrial Processes and Product Use (IPPU), Agriculture, Forestry andOther Land Use (AFOLU) and Waste Sectors

11 – 22 October 2021
Virtual Meeting

AgendaDay 1 – Opening Plenary
Monday, 11 October 2021
Opening Plenary

Background and Scope(IPCC TFI Co-Chairs Eduardo Calvo Buendia and Kiyoto Tanabe) – 10min Adoption of agenda(IPCC TFI TSU Head – Sandro Federici) – 5 min Presentations• WGI presentation in relation to SLCFs(Jan Sigurd Fuglestvedt) – 20 min• EMEP/EEA methodology on SLCFs(Kristina Saarinen) – 20 min• US EPA inventory of SLCFs(Rob Pinder) – 15 min• UNEP Atmospheric Brown Clouds Emission Inventory Manual(Maheswar Rupakheti) -15 min• SLCF inventory in China(Bofeng Cai) – 15 min
5 min break

11.00 11.15

Day 1
Monday,11 October
2021
11.00-14.00

11.15 12.40(GMT, UTC+0)
Geneva Time
(UTC+2)13.00-16.00
Tokyo time (UTC+9)
20.00-23.00
Lima time (UTC-5)
06.00-09.00

12.40 12.45

12.45 13.15

13.15 14.00

 Presentations• Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR)(Monica Crippa) – 10 min• Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Interactions and Synergies(GAINS) (Zbigniew Klimont) – 10 min• Community Emissions Data System (CEDS)(Steven Smith) – 10 min
 TSU guidance and Q & A session• Guidance on work in BOGs (Energy, IPPU, AFOLU and Waste)(IPCC TFI TSU Pavel Shermanau) – 10 min• Q & A Session – 35 min105Day 2, 3, 4 and 5 – Parallel Break-out Groups Sessions (Energy, IPPU, AFOLU and Waste)
Facilitators and Rapporteurs are TBC
BOGs Sessions (Energy, IPPU, AFOLU, Waste)••

Working in BOGs, supported by materials prepared by TSU – sectoral categories’ tables and issue papers
Preparation of BOGs’ outcomes – sectoral categories’ list, issues and gaps, BOGs’ reports for the Closing plenary

Day 2
Wednesday,
13 October
2021

11.00-14.00(GMT, UTC+0)
Geneva time (UTC+2)
13.00-16.00
Tokyo time (UTC+9)
20.00-23.00
Lima time (UTC-5)
06.00-09.00

Day 3
Thursday,14 October
2021

20.30-23.30(GMT, UTC+0)
Geneva time (UTC+2)
22.30-01.30
Tokyo time (UTC+9)05.30-08.30 (Friday, Oct 15)
Lima time (UTC-5)
15.30-18.30

Day 4
Monday,18 October
2021

11.00-14.00(GMT, UTC+0)
Geneva time (UTC+2)
13.00-16.00
Tokyo time (UTC+9)
20.00-23.00

IPPU
BOG

AFOLU
BOG

Facilitator:
Kristina
Saarinen

Facilitator:
Dominique
Blain

Facilitator:
Jongikhaya Witi

Rapporteur:
Vincent
Camobreco

Rapporteur:Vigdis Vestreng

Rapporteur:
Savitri Garivait

Rapporteur:Erin E.
McDuffie

TSU:
Takeshi Enoki
Valentyna
Slivinska

TSU:
Pavel
Shermanau
EduardKarapoghosyan

TSU:
SandroFederici

EnergyBOG
Facilitator:
Dario Gomez

Lima time (UTC-5)
06.00-09.00

Day 5
Tuesday,
19 October
2021

20.30-23.30(GMT, UTC+0)
Geneva time (UTC+2)
22.30-01.30
Tokyo time (UTC+9)05.30-08.30 (Wednesday, Oct
20)
Lima time (UTC-5)
15.30-18.30

106

Waste
BOG

TSU:
Baasansuren
Jamsranjav

Day 6 – Closing Plenary
Friday, 22 October 2021
Closing Plenary Session

Day 6
Friday,22 October 2021


11.00 - 13.05

Reports from BOGs, including Q & A
 Each BOG 30 min
plus 5 min break

11.00-14.00(GMT, UTC+0)
13.05 - 13.50

Discussion on Cross-Sectoral issues
 TSU Presentation – 5 min
 Discussion – 40 min

Way forward and Closing Remarks(IPCC TFI Co-Chairs Eduardo Calvo Buendia and Kiyoto
Tanabe) – 10 min

Geneva Time (UTC+2)
13.00-16.00
Tokyo time (UTC+9)
20.00-23.00
Lima time (UTC-5)
06.00-09.00

13.50 - 14.00

107Annex 3: List of Participants
Komi Akpé Agbossou
Université de Lomé
Togo

Richard Claxton
Aether Ltd
United Kingdom

Gossi Awad Ahmed Babiker
University of Khartoum
Sudan

Monica Crippa
Joint Research Centre, European Commission
Italy
Laura Elena Dawidowski
National Atomic Energy Commission
Argentina

Hiroko Akiyama
National Agriculture and Food Research Organization
Japan
Anouk Aimée Bass
Federal Office for the Environment
Switzerland
Maria de Fatima Andrade
University of São Paulo
BrazilMartial Bernoux
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Italy
Kendal Blanco Salas
National Meteorological InstituteCosta Rica
Tami Bond
Colorado State University
United States
Nathan Borgford-Parnel
Climate and Clean Air Coalition
Switzerland

Stefano Decesari
National Research Council
Italy
Premakumara Jagath Dickella Gamaralalage
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Japan
Julia Drewer
UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology
United Kingdom
Jan S. Fuglestvedt
CICERO
NorwayQingxian Gao
Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences
China
Amit Garg
Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad
India

Bofeng Cai
Chinese Academy for Environmental Planning
China

Savitri Garivait
The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment(JGSEE)
ThailandVincent Camobreco
Environmental Protection Agency
United States

Rebecca M. Garland
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research
South Africa

Paula Soledad Castesana
National Scientific and Technical Research Council(CONICET)
Argentina

Sophie Génermont
National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food andEnvironment
France108

Veronika Ginzburg
Yu.A.Izrael Institute of Global Climate and Ecology
Russian Federation

Hanna-Lii Kupri
Estonian Environmental Research Centre
Estonia

Andrew P. Grieshop
North Carolina State University
United States

Camila Labarca
Ministry of Environment
Chile

Céline Gueguen
Transparency for LifeFrancePuji Lestari
Bandung Institute of Technology
Indonesia

Kevin Hausmann
German Environment Agency
Germany

James Douglas MacDonald
Environment and Climate Change
CanadaKentaro Hayashi
National Agriculture and Food Research Organization
Japan

Guadalupe Alejandra Martinez Nuñez
Climate Change Division
Uruguay

Detlev Helmig
Boulder A.I.R. LLC
United States

Aminata Mbow Diokhane
Centre de Gestion de la Qualité de l'Air
SenegalAmara Holder
Environmental Protection Agency
United States

Jessica L. McCarty
Miami University
United States

Gill-Ran Jeong
NOAA ARL - George Mason University
United States

Erin McDuffie
AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow
United States

Yugo Kanaya
Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology(JAMSTEC)Japan

Meimalin Moreno
Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research
Venezuela

Sergey Kakareka
National Academy of Sciences
Belarus
Zammath Khaleel
Ministry of Environment and Energy
Maldives
Karin E. Kindbom
IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute
SwedenOle-Kenneth Nielsen
Aarhus University
Denmark
Leonidas Ntziachristos
Aristotle University Thessaloniki
GreeceJosè Abraham Ortinez-Alvarez
Instituto Nacional de Ecología y Cambio Climático
MexicoZbigniew KlimontInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
Austria

Naga Oshima
Meteorological Research Institute,Japan Meteorological Agency
Japan

Patricia Krecl Abad
Federal University of Technology
BrazilDidin Agustian Permadi
National Institute of Technology
Indonesia

109

Cecilia Elena Penengo
Ministry of Environment
UruguayNguyen Thi Kim Oanh
Asian Institute of Technology
ThailandRobert W. Pinder
Environmental Protection Agency
United States

Aimable Uwizeye
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Italy

Polina Polumieva
Yu.A. Izrael Institute of Global Climate and Ecology
Russian Federation

Vigdis Vestreng
Norwegian Environment Agency
NorwayS. Enrique Puliafito
Universidad Tecnologica Nacional
Argentina

Jongikhaya Witi
Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment
South Africa

Xavier Querol
Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water
Research, IDAEA-CSIC
Spain

Noureddine Yassaa
Centre de Développement des Energies Renouvelables
Algeria

Kristina Saarinen
Finnish Environment Institute
FinlandMarlene Schmidt Plejdrup
Aarhus University
Denmark
Steven J. Smith
Joint Global Change Research Institute
United States

Xunhua Zheng
Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of
Sciences
China
Songli Zhu
Energy Research Institute, National Development andReform Commission
China

Luis Gerardo Ruiz Suárez
National Institute for Ecology and Climate Change
MexicoMaheswar Rupakheti
Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies Germany
Francisco Salazar Sperberg
Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias
Chile
Ute Maria Skiba
UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology
United Kingdom
Michael Strogies
German Environment Agency
Germany
Toshihiko Takemura
Kyushu University
Japan

110

IPCC TFI Bureau

UNFCCC

Eduardo Calvo Buendia (TFI Co-chair)
Universidad Nacional Mayor de
San Marcos (UNMSM)
Peru

Vitor Gois Ferreira
UNFCCC
Germany

Kiyoto Tanabe (TFI Co-chair)
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
Japan
Fahmuddin Agus
Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research andDevelopment
Indonesia
Said Abdallah Batouli
National Center of Documentation and Scientific
Research
Comoros

IPCC TFI TSU℅ Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies (IGES)Japan
Sandro Federici
Baasansuren Jamsranjav
Pavel Shermanau
Valentyna Slivinska

Dominique Blain
Environment and Climate Change
CanadaEduard Karapoghosyan

Fatma Betül Demirok
Turkish Statistical InstituteTurkeyEriko Nakamura

Toru MatsumotoTakeshi Enoki (consultant)Dario Gomez
National Atomic Energy Commission
Argentina
Bundit Limmeechokchai
Sirindhorn International Insitute of Technology,
Thammasat University
ThailandRiitta Pipatti
Statistics Finland
Finland
Yasna Rojas
Instituto Forestal de Chile
Chile
Rob Sturgiss
Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources
Australia
Tom Wirth
Environmental Protection Agency
United States
Irina Yesserkepova
Joint Stock Company (JSC) "Zhasyl Damu"
Kazakhstan

111