INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
NATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORIES PROGRAMMEWMOUNEP

5th Meeting of the Editorial Boardandrd3 Meeting of the Management Groupof theIPCC EMISSION FACTOR DATABASE
30 October – 1 November 2007
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC, USA

Meeting Report1.

The 5th meeting of the IPCC Emission Factor Database (EFDB) Editorial Board and the 3rdMeeting of the Management Group was held on 30 October – 1 November 2007 with thefollowing objectives:•To consider good improved strategies for population of the EFDB

•To share the principles and criteria to be used in the evaluation of proposals by data
providers in order to ensure the integrity of the EFDB, while ensuring they do not hinder
the population of the database•To share understanding of the objectives, responsibility and role of the EFDB Editorial
Board and relevant procedures and working practices•

To consider how to ensure consistency of the evaluation criteria over time and among
Sector Experts and the Technical Support Unit (TSU) of the IPCC National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories Programme.

•To elaborate a future strategic development framework of EFDB as a draft input to TFBconsideration.

2.

The participants were members of the IPCC EFDB Editorial Board (EB members) and arepresentative from the UNFCCC secretariat (list of participants attached). The meeting washosted by United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and organised by theTSU of the IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme.

3.

The meeting was called to order at 10:30 on 30 October by Mr. Taka Hiraishi, Co-Chair ofthe IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI). At the beginning of theOpening Session, Mr. Brian McLean, Director of the Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, gave a welcoming speech. After that, Mr. Tinus Pulles(Netherlands) and Mr. Nagmeldin Elhassan (Sudan), Co-Chairs of the Editorial Board
commenced chairing the meeting.

4.

The agenda was adopted noting that there would be plenary sessions and sectoral breakout
group sessions, and that the EFDB Management Group1 would meet on relevant questions
alongside the meeting2.

1

The EFDB Management Group consists of the two Editorial Board Co-Chairs, the two TFB Co-Chairs and twomembers of the TSU. Its role is to provide strategic direction; to give advice and oversight of TSU and EB, etc.
2
There was no question at this session of the EB, which required specific decision by the Management Group.

1

IPCC EFDB Editorial Board

5th Meeting

30 October – 1 November 2007

5.

Presentations by the TSU covered the objectives and expected outputs of the meeting;progress since the 4th meeting of Editorial Board; The TFI’s current work programme,software, publicity etc.; potential data identified by the TSU and issues about its incorporationinto the EFDB; publicity for the EFDB including pamphlets to be produced3; and strategies
for population of the EFDB. Mr. Tinus Pulles made presentation to urge the EB members todiscuss the possibility of collecting emission factors from national GHG inventories
submitted to the UNFCCC.

6.

Based on the suggestions made through these presentations, the following issues werediscussed throughout the meeting (both in plenary sessions and in breakout sessions).
•Outreach – how to increase awareness of the EFDB and improve access and ease of datasubmissions.

•Approach to potential data providers – how to find and involve the experts/institutes thatcould provide data to the EFDB.

•Scientific literature as a source of data for EFDB – whether useful data can be extracted
from scientific literature, and if so how to implement it in practice.

•Data collection from reports to UNFCCC – whether the data used in the national GHG
inventories produced by Parties to the UNFCCC can be accepted and included in theEFDB, and if so how to implement it in practice.

•Other strategies – what else to be done in order to enhance data collection (e.g., whether
sectoral workshops to collect and approve data would be useful?)

7.

Discussion on these issues resulted in a number of proposals, and those proposals wereformulated into the “Plan for Populating the EFDB” after the meeting as a proposition to theTFB from EFDB EB. (See the Annex to this report: “Plan for Populating the EFDB”.)

8.

In addition to the plan mentioned in paragraph 7 above, the following suggestions were madeat the meeting.

9.

•EB members who have worked as UNFCCC reviewers should try to explore candidate
data for EFDB from countries/sectors they have reviewed. EB members have to be careful
about confidentiality issues in doing this.

•The TSU should provide the space in the web EFDB site for the interested potential data
providers to indicate emission factor proposals and contact information.

•It is worth encouraging experts (potential data providers) to document relevant
information in accordance with the EFDB data entry form when they develop newemission factors. In this context, the EB hopes that the EFDB data entry format will bewidely used in the preparation process of national inventory reports or nationalcommunications so that new country-specific emission factors can be readily proposed tothe EFDB.

•EB should seek to strengthen links with academic conferences (e.g., NitroEurope).

During the breakout sessions, outstanding data proposals were evaluated. Each sectoral
breakout group reported the results of their evaluation at the final plenary session.
•Energy – 78 data proposals were evaluated. 40 were accepted while 3 were rejected. As
regards the remaining 35 proposals, this group concluded that they need more informationfrom the data provider in order to take a final decision. This group therefore agreed tokeep communication with the data provider to request for necessary information.

3A meeting on the promotion of the IPCC Guidelines was held on 16-18 October 2007 in Geneva, Switzerland.
A pamphlet on EFDB was drafted there.

IPCC - NGGIP - TSU

2

IPCC EFDB Editorial Board

5th Meeting

30 October – 1 November 2007•

Industrial Processes and Product Use (IPPU) – There was no outstanding proposal.
Therefore, this group concentrated on discussion about how to populate the EFDB.

•Agriculture – There were 66 outstanding data proposals. This group concluded that theseproposals could be accepted on condition that some more information is provided by thedata provider. This group therefore agreed to request the data provider4 for necessaryinformation.

•Land-Use Change and Forestry (LUCF) – There were 10 outstanding data proposals. This
group concluded that these proposals could be accepted on condition that some more
information is provided by the data provider. This group therefore agreed to request thedata provider5 for necessary information.

•Waste – This group evaluated 21 outstanding data proposals, and agreed to accept all ofthem.

10. At the final plenary session, Mr. Hiraishi, Co-Chair of the IPCC TFI reminded theparticipants that some EB members’ terms of office were expiring at the end of the year 2007.
He thanked them, and notified that there would be call for nominations of new EB members
to maintain sufficient coverage of expertise in early 2008.
11. All the participants welcomed the offer from Mr Hector D. Ginzo, EB member for LUCF
Sector, to host the next EB meeting in Argentina in 2008. The meeting closed at 13:00 on 1November.
----Annex: Plan for Populating the EFDB
Attachment: List of Participants

4

The data provider is one of the EB members. She agreed to provide necessary information to the EB. Herself
did not participate in the evaluation of her data proposals.
5
The data provider is one of the EB members. He agreed to provide necessary information to the EB. Himself
did not participate in the evaluation of his data proposals.

IPCC - NGGIP - TSU

3

5th Meeting

IPCC EFDB Editorial Board

30 October – 1 November 2007

ANNEX
Plan for Populating the EFDB
Draft plan prepared at the 5th Meting of the Editorial BoardWashington, 30h Oct – 1st Nov, 2007

1. Background
The TFB at its last meeting asked the TSU and the Editorial Board (EB) of the EFDB to prepare a planfor increasing amount of data incorporated in the EFDB beyond the information contained in IPCC
Methodology Reports.
This document outlines the results of the discussion held at the EB 5th meeting held in Washington,
30th Oct – 1st Nov 2007. A number of specific actions (see meeting report) was agreed, this document
describes a plan to develop data proposals over the next year.
The EB decided a number of activities would be needed to both attract more data proposals and to proactively find data. These activities are:•Outreach [All to publicise EFDB, TSU to prepare materials]•Direct Contacts [EB members to lead, support by TSU if needed]•

Scientific Literature [EB members]•Reports to UNFCCC (Annex I Countries’ National Inventory Reports (NIRs) & Non-Annex ICountries’ National Communications) [EB volunteers, supported by TSU]•Workshops [Sectoral EB Members, Arranged by TSU, Invited experts]2. Outreach
It was agreed that the EB, TFB and TSU needed to work further to increase awareness of the EFDB
and to improve access and ease of data submissions.

a. Pamphlet
The TSU was encouraged to distribute the pamphlet produced in the expert meeting on
promotion in Geneva,16-18 October on the EFDB as widely as possible, especially focussing on
those groups that may have data for the EFDB.
The TSU should also develop eye-catching posters, containing invitation for EF proposals, thatthe EB members and others can use at meetings to promote the EFDB.

b. Presentations
The TSU was asked to develop a presentation package that could be downloaded from theinternet and used by the EB or others to present the EFDB. This would aim to increaseawareness of the EFDB and to promote its use, both for those looking for data and for data
providers.
Also the possibility of a Webcast was raised and the TSU will look into the feasibility of this.

c. Further develop website
It was generally agreed that the web site could be improved. Development of the NGGIP website is being considered and the EFDB site should also be updated.
In addition the submission of data should be made easier. The forms on the web site could bemade sector specific to reduce confusion by users. Also a wider range of way of submitting data
should be considered. For example large reports can be given directly to the TSU.

4

IPCC EFDB Editorial Board

5th Meeting

30 October – 1 November 2007

The web site should have some way of thanking data providers; a “what’s new” section can beused. A facility to indicate each data provider might help highlighting their contribution.
The TSU will explore ways of enabling data providers to cite the data records in the EFDB.

3. Direct Contacts
Direct requests for data may be successful but it is difficult to identify those holding data beyond thoseknown to the EB members. EB members should take the lead in this contacting those they know, butshould keep the TSU informed. If needed a formal request letter could be provided by the TSU/TFI
Co-Chairs if a more formal approach is thought to be useful.

4. Scientific Literature
Reviewing and staying abreast of the scientific literature is a natural task for EB members and part oftheir everyday activities. When suitable data for the EFDB are seen they should be proposed to theEFDB by the EB member. If all the required data is available then the data items can be assessed andapproved by the EB and entered in the EFDB by the EB as “data provider”. The originator of the data
would be informed and thanked. If not all the mandatory data is available then the originator will need
to be contacted for clarification.
Prior to the EB 5th meeting, the TSU has identified a number of papers which may contain useful data.
These have been distributed to EB members for them to extract and submit data to the EFDB for
assessment by the EB.

5. Reports to UNFCCC
Inventories produced by Parties to the UNFCCC may use emission factors that would be valuableadditions to the EFDB. The EB decided a trial project to assess the feasibility and ease of collecting
data from these national sources.
Firstly, some EB members agreed voluntarily to look at their own national NIR and extract the country
specific data6. This would be entered into the bulk data entry forms. This data will be quickly reviewedby the EB and entered into a version of the EFDB NOT available to the public. Only if sufficient data
is available for individual data items may these be approved for entry into the full public EFDB, thismay involve further information collection from the national experts. For several non-Annex I Parties
to the UNFCCC, while inventories are included in their National Communications, the detailed
emission factor information is included in background reports not the National Communications.
Volunteers would initiate similar data identification exercise.
This will be revisited at the next EB meeting where a decision on the usefulness of this information
can be assessed and review and approval procedures agreed.
Annex I Volunteers: Russia, Finland, Japan, Netherland, United States, United Kingdom, NewZealand
Non-Annex I Volunteers: Brazil. Egypt is updating its inventory and some new information may beavailable over the next year.

6Common Reporting Format （CRF） contains list of areas of country- and plant-specific emission
factors, which might provide a lead for this test.

IPCC - NGGIP - TSU

5

IPCC EFDB Editorial Board

5th Meeting

30 October – 1 November 2007Nov 2007
1 2 345Apr 2008
6 7 8Oct 2008
9 10 11 12

5th EFDB Meeting Washington decides to run tis experiment
EB Memb ers analyse "their" NIRs
Copy candidates into "Bulk import" Excel files
Bulk export file ready …

EB Members send Excel files to TSU
TSU to distribute Excel files to EB members
EB Sector BOGs to review proposals
EB to send questions to countries
EB finalise review
Preparare 6th EFDB meeting
6th EFDB Meeting to decide on experiment
KeyEB members tasks
TSU tasks
EFDB EB Meetings

6. WorkshopsThe EB strongly supported the idea of sectoral workshops to collect and approve new data for theEFDB.
These workshops would focus on a sub-sector where the EB thinks that both the EFDB needs
strengthening and that there is data available. The workshops would bring together experts with datawith the members of the EB who can review and approve the data for the EFDB.

a. Process
The EB identifies sub-sectors where a meeting would be useful. So far the following have been
identified:• Energy – Fugitive Emissions•IPPU – F- gases•IPPU – Nitric Acid

Subject to the availability of funds, the TSU would plan a workshop. These could be held back-to-backwith other meetings, to save travelling, or if that is not possible then a stand-alone meeting may be
more appropriate. Appropriate experts should be invited, the TSU, EB and TFB are likely to know themain players in the fields but will consult widely to ensure suitable candidates attend. The meetingwill:• Review data from experts and literature, identify suitable data for EFDB
•A sub-set of EB will attend; they can approve data at the meeting and will aim to upload data
to the EFDB by end of meeting.

•TSU will support EB members and participants throughout, from selecting and assessing data
to preparing data for entry to EFDB

•Produce meeting report summarising datab. Resources
The workshops can be arranged and planned by the TSU.
Two meetings could be held in 2008, each with about 30 participants. IPCC funding would be requiredfor 20 participants (i.e., ten travel supports for developing/EIT participants per meeting).

IPCC - NGGIP - TSU6