INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
WMO

NATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORIES PROGRAMMEUNEPDATABASE ON GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION FACTORS(IPCC-EFDB)EFDB EDITORIAL BOARD

Report of the First Meeting

Hayama, Japan
28-30 January 2003
Supporting material prepared for consideration by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
This supporting material has not been subject to formal IPCC review and approval process.

Acknowledgements

This report was prepared by Tinus Pulles, Katarina Mareckova, Taka Hiraishi, Riitta Pipatti, Leandro
Buendia, Kyoko Miwa, Todd Ngara, Fabian Wagner and Kiyoto Tanabe with assistance from
William Kojo Agyemang-Bonsu. We are grateful to the members of the EFDB Editorial Board andsome other experts who contributed to this report and attended the meeting. We also thank the staffof the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) who assisted in organising the meeting.

Report of the 1st Meeting

EFDB Editorial Board

Table of contents
1

INTRODUCTION ····················································································································4
1.1

Background of the EFDB project -------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

1.2

Establishment of the EFDB Editorial Board ------------------------------------------------------- 4

1.3

Objectives of the meeting ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

1.4

Participants ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

1.5

Proceedings --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

2 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS···················································································7
2.1

Modalities and procedures to manage and populate the database ------------------------------- 7

2.1.1

Basic nature of EFDB··········································································································· 7

2.1.2

Responsibility of EFDB Editorial Board ·············································································· 7

2.1.3

Membership of the EFDB Editorial Board··········································································· 8

2.1.4

Concrete procedures for the assessment of data proposals·················································· 9

2.2

General aspects of criteria to be used in the assessment of proposals submitted by data providers11

2.2.1

Basic requirements ············································································································· 11

2.2.2

Criteria to be used in assessment of a data proposal ························································· 12

2.2.3

Provision of technical reference/documentation ································································ 13

2.2.4

Other requirements············································································································· 13

2.3

Criteria to be used in the assessment of proposed data for each sector ------------------------14

2.3.1

BOG1: Energy ···················································································································· 15

2.3.2

BOG2: Industrial Processes/Solvent and Other Product Use ············································ 15

2.3.3

BOG3: Agriculture ············································································································· 16

2.3.4

BOG4: Land Use Change and Forestry ············································································· 16

2.3.5

BOG5: Waste······················································································································ 17

2.4Strategies for populating the EFDB ----------------------------------------------------------------17

2.5

Other discussions--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18

2.5.1

Assessment of a proposal for revision of a data record······················································ 18

2.5.2

Assessment of data proposals made by “Bulk Import” ······················································ 18

2.5.3

Continuation of the EFDB Steering Group ········································································ 19

Appendix 1: List of Participants
Appendix 2: Agenda of the Meeting
Appendix 3: Revised Terms of Reference of the EFDB Editorial Board
Appendix 4: Instructions on Necessary Information in Each Data Field
Appendix 5: Guidance on the “Properties” field
Appendix 6: List of Fuel Categories

Report of the 1st Meeting

EFDB Editorial Board

Summary
The database on GHG emission factors (EFDB) web application was released to the
public at the 8th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP8) in
October 2002. The Task Force Bureau (TFB) for the IPCC National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories Programme (IPCC-NGGIP), at its 9th session (Hayama, Japan, 25-27
November 2002), established the EFDB Editorial Board to assess1 data proposed forinclusion into the EFDB.
The first meeting of the EFDB Editorial Board was convened in Hayama, Japan, on
28-30 January 2003. Its objectives were:•
To share understanding of the objectives, responsibility and role of the EFDB
Editorial Board and relevant procedures and working practises;•
To consider the criteria to be used in the assessment of proposals by data
providers in order to ensure the integrity and scientific soundness of the EFDB;•
To consider how to ensure consistency of the assessment criteria over time andbetween Editorial Co-ordinators and Sector Experts; and•To consider good strategies for population of the EFDB.
To achieve these objectives, the participants considered key issues such as:•
Modalities and procedures for managing and populating the database•
General aspects of criteria to be used in the assessment of proposals by data
providers•
Criteria to be used in the assessment of proposed data for each sector•
Strategies for populating the EFDB
Conclusions of these discussions shown in this report are to be incorporated into theterms of references (TOR) of the EFDB Editorial Board and/or the EFDB User
Manual that are considered key documents for the operation of the EFDB.

1

After the first meeting of EFDB Editorial Board, the Task Force Bureau (TFB), at its 11th session(Geneva, Switzerland, 19 September 2003), decided that the responsibility of the EFDB Editorial
Board should be to “evaluate” whether proposed new emission factors or other parameters are
acceptable or not according to the criteria set out in the terms of reference (TOR) of the EFDB Editorial
Board. The TFB decided to avoid using the term "assess" because it might be misleadingly associatedwith the IPCC Assessment Reports that are produced through a series of official review processes
involving governments and many experts. Pursuant to this decision, the responsibility or exercise of the
EFDB Editorial Board should be described as “evaluate” or “evaluation” rather than “assess” or“assessment” in any relevant documents, including the TOR of the EFDB Editorial Board and the
EFDB User Manual.

3

Report of the 1st Meeting

EFDB Editorial Board

1 Introduction
1.1 Background of the EFDB project
The quality of national inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources andremovals by sinks of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol (GHG
inventories) depends substantially on reliable emission factors and activity data.
Although it is preferable to use emission factors that reflect national circumstances,emission factor development is expensive, time consuming and necessitates a wide
degree of expertise. The Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories (IPCC Guidelines) and the report on Good Practice Guidance andUncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (GPG2000)
provide default emission factors for the majority of source and sink categories. Someof these default emission factors are region- or country-specific, but in general not all
regions or countries are covered.
Sharing of research information would enable countries to use or develop emission
factors that are more applicable to the circumstances in question than the IPCC default
emission factors, without having to bear the associated research costs. For this reason,
many countries have indicated (e.g. in the Expert Group Meeting on National
Feedback on the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, Havana, Cuba, September 1998) that an easily accessible public databaseon GHG emission factors with supporting scientific information would help toimprove the quality of GHG inventories in a cost-effective way. A database on GHG
emission factors with supporting scientific information would also support the future
review and update of the IPCC Guidelines.
With this background, a project to establish a database on GHG emission factors(EFDB) was initiated with a scoping meeting in New Delhi, India, on 24-25 July 2000.
Subsequently, the functional design was agreed upon at the first expert meeting in
Paris, France, on 2-4 July 2001. The Task Force Bureau (TFB) for the IPCC National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme (IPCC-NGGIP), at its 6th session held in
Geneva on 9 August 2001, considered the outcomes of the Paris meeting andestablished the EFDB Steering Group to oversee the development of the database. A
prototype database was constructed under the supervision of the EFDB SteeringGroup in January 2002, and was subject to pilot testing by a number of inventory
experts from different countries for 8 weeks, from 11 February to 8 April 2002. At thesecond expert meeting in Bratislava, Slovakia, on 23-24 April 2002, participantsconsidered the comments obtained through the pilot testing and discussed how to
improve the prototype database. The EFDB was improved in accordance with theconclusion of the Bratislava meeting, and finally released to the public at the 8th
session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP8) in October 2002.

1.2 Establishment of the EFDB Editorial Board
At the second expert meeting in Bratislava, participants also discussed the future
development of the EFDB and recommended that an editorial board should beestablished to ensure that all emission factors and other parameters contained in the
EFDB are scientifically sound according to criteria that should be established by the
TFB.

4Report of the 1st Meeting

EFDB Editorial Board

In light of this recommendation, the TFB, at its 9th session (Hayama, Japan, 25-27
November 2002), established the EFDB Editorial Board which was composed of 27
members selected from experts nominated by governments. (See Table 1 below.)

Table 1 Members of the EFDB Editorial Board (as of 28 January 2003)
Board Cochairs

Tinus Pulles (The Netherlands)
EnergyEditorial
CoPavel Fott (Czech)
ordinators
3
Timothy Simmons(UK)
SectorDario Gomez
Experts(Argentina)

Industrial
Processes2
William
Agyemang-Bonsu(Ghana)Jos Olivier(The Netherlands)
L. R. Meija(Dominican Rep.)

Katarina Mareckova (Slovakia)
Agriculture
Joe Mangino (US)Li Xu (China)
Keith Lassey (NZ)

LUCF

Waste

Pascal Boeckx(Belgium)

Carlos Lopez(Cuba)

Nagmeldin Goutbi(Sudan)Anders Lindroth(Sweden)Elizabeth Scheehle(US)
Robert Gregory(UK)
Sonia Maria
Manso Vieira(Brazil)Azhari F. M.
Ahamed (Qatar)

Hideaki Nakane(Japan)Magda Lima
(Brazil)Michael Gytarsky(Russia)

Micheal Strogies(Germany)

Kristina Saarinen(Finland)Ian Galbally(Australia)
Anna A.
Romanovskaya(Russia)

Xiaoquan Zhang(China)The TFB noted the list may need to be augmented with additional members (Sector
Experts) in order to fulfil expertise required for the task of the EFDB Editorial Board.

1.3 Objectives of the meeting
The first meeting of the EFDB Editorial Board was convened in Hayama, Japan, on
28-30 January 2003. Its objectives were:•
To share understanding of the objectives, responsibility and role of the EFDB
Editorial Board and relevant procedures and working practises;•
To consider the criteria to be used in the assessment 4 of proposals by data
providers in order to ensure the integrity and scientific soundness of the EFDB;

2This meeting concluded that the team in charge of the “Industrial Processes” Sector should also takecharge of the “Solvent and Other Product Use” Sector.

3This position was renamed as “Editorial Sector Co-ordinators” after the meeting.

4

See footnote 1 on page 3.

5

Report of the 1st Meeting

EFDB Editorial Board••

To consider how to ensure consistency of the assessment criteria over time andbetween Editorial Co-ordinators and Sector Experts; andTo consider good strategies for population of the EFDB.

1.4 Participants
The meeting was attended by 34 participants, including the EFDB Editorial Board
members, the EFDB Steering Group members, a representative from the Secretariat of
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and theTechnical Support Unit of the IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme(IPCC-NGGIP/TSU). The list of participants is attached to this report (Appendix 1).
The meeting was kindly hosted by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies(IGES).

1.5 Proceedings
The meeting was opened at 10:30 on 28 January 2003 with opening remarks by Taka
Hiraishi, TFB Co-Chair. It proceeded according to the agenda shown in Appendix 2.
At the opening session, the participants elected Tinus Pulles from the Netherlands andKatarina Mareckova from the Slovak Republic as Office Bearers to co-chair the
meeting.
Following the opening session, the TSU gave two presentations to outline thebackground of the EFDB project, objectives of the meeting, etc. The TSU also madean on-line demonstration of the EFDB to show how it works in practice.
Subsequently, intensive exchange ensued on the following issues at plenary sessions
as well as at breakout group sessions5 since the afternoon of 28 January through themorning of 30 January.
•
Modalities and procedures to manage and to populate the database•
General aspects of criteria to be used in the assessment of proposals by data
providers•
Criteria to be used in the assessment of proposed data for each sector•
Strategies for populating the EFDBAt the final plenary session, the outcomes of breakout group discussions were
presented by each breakout group. Then, Tinus Pulles made a wrap-up presentation tosummarise the achievements and conclude the meeting.
The meeting was closed around noon on 30 January 2003.
Due to the time limitation, the participants could not reach full agreement on someissues at the meeting. After the meeting, therefore, follow-up discussions were madeon those remaining issues via e-mail, mainly at a breakout group level (i.e. sector
level), including those members of the EFDB Editorial Board who were absent fromthe meeting.
5

Five breakout groups were formed to discuss sector-specific issues; namely, breakout group 1(BOG1) for Energy, BOG2 for Industrial Processes, BOG3 for Agriculture, BOG4 for LUCF and
BOG5 for Waste.

6Report of the 1st Meeting

EFDB Editorial Board

2 Discussions and Conclusions
This chapter summarises the discussions and conclusions at the meeting as well as
after the meeting via e-mail communications among relevant breakout group members.
Conclusions of these discussions shown in this chapter are to be incorporated into theterms of references (TOR) of the EFDB Editorial Board and/or the EFDB User
Manual that are considered key documents for operation of the EFDB.

2.1 Modalities and procedures to manage and populate

the database
The TFB, at its 9th session, considered and provisionally agreed upon modalities andprocedures to manage and to populate the database. Those provisional modalities andprocedures were presented to the meeting participants in the form of a discussion
paper (Discussion Paper No.1) for consideration and further elaboration.
The participants gave their careful consideration to, among others, the issues on thebasic nature of the EFDB, the responsibility of the EFDB Editorial Board, themembership of the EFDB Editorial Board, and the concrete procedures for theassessment of data proposals.

2.1.1 Basic nature of EFDBThe basic nature of EFDB had been discussed at a series of the expert meetings on
this project. As a result, it had been concluded and agreed by the TFB that the EFDB
should serve as a “library”, rather than an “authority”, where users can find emission
factors and other parameters with background documentation that can be used for
estimating greenhouse gas emissions in national submissions of inventories to the
UNFCCC.6 The responsibility for using the information in the EFDB appropriately
will always remain with the users themselves.
This basic nature of EFDB was repeatedly stressed and reaffirmed during the meeting,as it is crucial in considering the responsibility of EFDB Editorial Board and thecriteria for the assessment of data proposals.

2.1.2 Responsibility of EFDB Editorial Boarda)

Scientific check or reality check

The discussion paper suggested that the objective of EFDB Editorial Board be toensure all emission factors and other parameters contained in the EFDB are
scientifically sound. Many participants expressed concerns or made reservations
about it. Considering the limited resources available to the EFDB Editorial Board,
many participants were of the opinion that it was difficult to carry out scientific6

An authoritative nature of the EFDB is deemed inconsistent with the fact that the EFDB is not subject
to an official review processes defined by the IPCC. The EFDB is supposed to be a database tofacilitate the use of the IPCC Methodology Reports (e.g., Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories). It will be classified as Supporting Material according to the “Proceduresfor the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports”.

7

Report of the 1st Meeting

EFDB Editorial Board

review. Also, taking into account the basic nature of EFDB, many participants feltthat scientific assessment was beyond the mandate of EFDB Editorial Board.
The participants agreed that the responsibility of the EFDB Editorial Board should be
to conduct reality checks, rather than scientific checks, in order to ensure that allemission factors and other parameters contained in the EFDB fulfil certain criteriawith respect to robustness, applicability and documentation. (These criteria areelaborated in Section 2.2.2 below.)
The terms of reference (TOR) of the Editorial Board were revised accordingly after
the meeting. (See Appendix 3, page 4.)b)Responsibility for errors in submitted data/information

It was also questioned whether the EFDB Editorial Board takes any responsibility if
the submitted data/information contains errors such as those that may be due totranscription errors on the side of the data provider.
The participants agreed that the TSU and the EFDB Editorial Board should makeefforts, to the extent possible, in checking potential mistakes in the data provided.
They also agreed, however, that it is difficult for the EFDB Editorial Board to assume
full responsibility in this regard. In consequence, the necessity to include a disclaimer
on this matter was recognised. To this end, it was decided that the following
paragraph be inserted into the EFDB User Manual.
While the EFDB Editorial Board has examined each entry, and associated backgroundtechnical documentation where made available by the data provider, following review
criteria that include robustness and applicability of the data, the ultimate responsibilityof using this information appropriately resides with the users themselves. The
members of the EFDB Editorial Board are not responsible for errors in the data as
shown in the database, such as those that may be due to transcription errors from thedata provider or other errors due to the inaccurate presentation of the data on
submission from the data provider. The database users are highly encouraged toconsult the background technical reference for the entry to better evaluate theapplication of the data for their own situation.
The participants also recognised the importance of making every effort to have therelevant documentation available to the users.

2.1.3 Membership of the EFDB Editorial Board
The participants agreed with the TFB that the expertise required for assessment ofdata in a variety of IPCC Source/Sink Categories is not fully covered by the current
EFDB Editorial Board. Two proposals were made as solutions to this problem.
1) Call for additional nominations of experts for missing expertise (e.g., expertise inforests in North America, South America, Australia, China, etc.)
2) Allow EFDB Editorial Board members to consult other experts on an ad hoc basis.
In this case, the name and contact information for the expert consulted should be
included in the decision on the data proposal. A list of consulted experts should be
published in the EFDB to give full credit for their contribution. (The TOR of the8

Report of the 1st Meeting

EFDB Editorial Board

Editorial Board was revised accordingly after the meeting. See Appendix 3, page
5.)
The participants also concluded that the team in charge of the “Industrial Processes”
Sector should also take charge of the “Solvent and Other Product Use” Sector.

2.1.4 Concrete procedures for the assessment of data proposals
Questions were raised concerning the concrete procedures for the assessment of data
proposals. The agreement reached on each of those questions is shown below. For
details of agreed procedures, see the revised TOR of the Editorial Board. (SeeAppendix 3, page 6.)a)

Who prepares a draft decision?

For each data proposal, the Editorial Sector Co-ordinators responsible for the relevant
sector will appoint one of the members of the sector group to take the lead in theassessment. The appointed expert will look into the data proposal and prepare a draft
decision to either accept or reject the proposal. The appointed expert should keep theother Sector Experts, Editorial Sector Co-ordinators and the TSU informed. The
appointed expert will post the result of this assessment with rationale on the Editorial
Board webpage.
Subsequently, the Editorial Sector Co-ordinators responsible for the sector shallcomment on the draft decision. Other Sector Experts may post their comments on thewebsite as well.
b)

Who takes the final decision?

The final decision will in principle be based on consensus within the sector group.
The Editorial Sector Co-ordinators will merge the assessment by the appointed expert
and the comments by the other members of the sector group into the final decision toeither accept or reject a proposed emission factor or other parameter. The decision
will be endorsed by the Board Co-chairs, and implemented by the TSU.
If there is no consensus, the Editorial Sector Co-ordinators will decide in consultation
with the Board Co-Chairs.
The Board Co-chairs will have overall responsibility for the assessment of emission
factors or other parameters for the EFDB. They will decide in case the Editorial
Sector Co-ordinators do not reach consensus or the data provider refutes the decisionby the EFDB Editorial Board7.
c)

Who communicates with the data provider?

In principle, it should be the TSU who communicates with the data providers.
However, in order to facilitate the assessment, the appointed expert to take the leadin assessing the particular data proposal (see above) may directly contact the data
7

The data provider will be given the opportunity (once) to comment or refute the decision by the
EFDB Editorial Board before the Board Co-chairs endorse it. See the revised TOR of the Editorial
Board (Appendix 3, page 6).

9Report of the 1st Meeting

EFDB Editorial Board

provider by e-mail in order to ask for more information on the proposed data. The
appointed expert may also contact the data provider to recommend specificrevisions/additions to be made. If the data provider agrees to the recommendation, theoriginal proposal should be revised by the data provider himself/herself. All these
correspondences should be copied to the TSU.
d)

Should communications be via e-mail or web application?

The participants agreed that the Editorial Sector Coordinators and the Sector Experts
should discuss via e-mail and provide a draft decision and comments on it via the
web application (EFDB Editorial Board webpage).
Figure 1 EFDB Editorial Board webpage

10

Report of the 1st Meeting

EFDB Editorial Board

2.2 General aspects of criteria to be used in theassessment 8 ofproviders

proposals

submitted

by

data

The EFDB will be open to any relevant proposal on emission factors or other relatedparameters. Acceptance of such proposals however shall be subject to assessment by
the Editorial Board using well-defined criteria. The participants were invited todevelop the well-defined criteria at this meeting based on Discussion Paper No.2.
This section summarises major discussions and conclusions on the criteria.

2.2.1 Basic requirements
The participants noted that an initial check has to be made by the TSU to ensure thedata proposal satisfies some basic requirements before the EFDB Editorial Board
starts the assessment.
a)Need to avoid duplication

In order to avoid duplication of data records, the TSU should check if the same data
record coming from the same technical paper or source is already contained in the
EFDB. If the same data record is found in the EFDB, the data proposal should not be
forwarded to the EFDB Editorial Board. In this case, the TSU should explain it to thedata provider.
b)

Qualification or classification of data providers

There will be a wide variety of data providers ranging from a national inventory
agency to an individual expert who are not so familiar to the community. The
participants discussed whether there should be some qualifications for data providers,
and whether data providers should be classified according to the level of assessment
required.
The conclusion was that there is no need for qualifications or classifications. All data
providers who have been registered through the procedure established by the TFB9
will be treated equally.
c)

Need to complete mandatory fields10

The EFDB software can automatically check whether the mandatory fields except“Properties” are left blank or not. In the case that a mandatory field except

8

See footnote 1 on page 3.

9In order to ensure traceability of all proposals to individuals or institutions and thereby allowing
communication between the data provider and the EFDB Editorial Board, the procedure for registrationof data providers was developed by the EFDB Steering Group and the TSU, which was endorsed by the
TFB at its 9th session.
10

Mandatory fields are those fields (or pieces of information) that must be specified in data proposals
since they are deemed essential in order for EFDB users to examine the applicability of the data record
to their national GHG inventories. These include “(name of the) Data Provider”, “Properties”,“Description (of what the data record is)”, “Source of Data”, etc.

11

Report of the 1st Meeting

EFDB Editorial Board“Properties” is left blank, the EFDB software will alert the data provider and urge
him/her to complete it. This ensures that all mandatory fields except “Properties”
contain information when the TSU receives the data proposal.
Nevertheless, the participants noted that the TSU has to pay attention to mandatory
fields before forwarding the data proposal to the EFDB Editorial Board. This isbecause the information in the mandatory fields may sometimes make no sense. (Thiscannot be checked by the EFDB software.)
The participants also recognised the necessity for the TSU to ensure that theproperties that must be specified are not missing in the “Properties” field before
forwarding the data proposal to the EFDB Editorial Board.

2.2.2 Criteria to be used in assessment of a data proposal
As mentioned in Section 2.1.2 above, the participants agreed that the responsibility of
the EFDB Editorial Board is not to perform scientific checks, but to ensure that allemission factors and other parameters contained in the EFDB fulfil certain criteria.
The criteria were finally defined as shown below.
The EFDB should assist countries in producing inventories that are neither over- norunderestimates so far as can be judged and in which uncertainties are reduced as far aspracticable. To achieve this, a proposed emission factor or other parameter should• be in line with the fundamental principles and approaches of the Revised 1996
IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories and the IPCC reporton Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories;• be accompanied by documentation describing the conditions of its derivation andinformation regarding the level of uncertainty, preferably quantified but at aminimum some qualitative indicators, to be attached to it;• be unbiased and as accurate as possible;• contribute to the EFDB by adding a value for a source not already covered or byproviding a different value or an identical but independent value for an existing
emission factor or parameter type. The technical information in the “properties
fields” should provide the information needed to differentiate between thealternative values for emission factors or parameters for a particular source.
To meet these standards, the proposed emission factor or other parameter should be:•robust, i.e. within the accepted uncertainty, the value is unlikely to change if
there was repetition of the original measurement programme or modelling activity.
•
applicable, i.e. matches either a specific IPCC Source/Sink Category or
subcategory, or another well-defined source category that can be used in anational inventory compilation. An emission factor can only be applicable if thesource and its mix of technology, operating and environmental conditions andabatement and control technologies under which the emission factor wasmeasured or modelled are clear and allow the user to see how it can be applied.
•
documented, i.e. access information to the original technical reference must be
provided to evaluate the robustness and applicability as described above. The
information provided in the database should be detailed and comprehensive
enough so that users may be able to evaluate the applicability to a national GHG
inventory.
12

Report of the 1st Meeting

EFDB Editorial Board

These criteria are stipulated in more detail in the revised TOR of the EFDB Editorial
Board. (See Appendix 3, pages 4-5.)

2.2.3 Provision of technical reference/documentation
In relation to one of the criteria set out in Section 2.2.2 above, the participantsconsidered whether the provision of technical reference or documentation should be
required of data providers, and if so, how to secure it.
The participants agreed that there should be a minimum provision of documentation
to allow for checking robustness and applicability of data proposed. There was also a
general consensus that this documentation should be limited to the EFDB Editorial
Board usage.
In conclusion, the following stipulation was included in the revised TOR of the EFDB
Editorial Board. (See Appendix 3, page 5, paragraph 7.)
The data provider should be encouraged to provide an electronic or hard-copy of thetechnical reference to the TSU at the time of data submission or alternatively, makeavailable this information in a publicly accessible form such as widely available
scientific journals or proceedings.
The TSU should archive the documentation provided by data providers, and is notexpected to distribute it to EFDB users.

2.2.4 Other requirements
Each data record contained in the EFDB is composed of various data fields. Data
providers are requested to provide as much information as possible in relevant data
fields when they input the data proposal. The EFDB Editorial Board should examine
the information in each data field and consider whether the data proposal satisfies thecriteria set out in Section 2.2.2 above.
The participants considered what kind of instructions should be given in order for data
providers to complete data fields. As a result, a set of instructions on data fields was
elaborated for incorporation into the EFDB User Manual. (See Appendix 4.) Data
providers are required to follow these instructions.
<Data Provider Contact>
Many participants were of the opinion that contact information of data providers
should be made known to EFDB users so that they can contact the data providers to
ask for further information if necessary. However, in the procedure for registration ofdata providers which was endorsed by the TFB at its 9th session, it was stipulated thatthe contact information of data providers should be kept confidential. As acompromise, the participants concluded that if the data provider consents, the contact
information should be made available to general EFDB users. In line with thisconclusion, the following arrangement was suggested.
Data providers are highly encouraged to show their e-mail address in “Data Provider
Contact” field. However, they can opt to conceal their e-mail addresses from EFDB
users if they wish. In this case, contact information of the TSU (ipcc-efdb@iges.or.jp)
will be shown in this field so as to enable EFDB users to contact the data provider(the data source) via TSU.

13

Report of the 1st Meeting

EFDB Editorial Board

Accordingly, a revision of the procedure for registration of data providers should be
proposed to the TFB at its 10th session.
<Properties>
The “Properties” field was originally considered not mandatory 11 , which meant it
could be left unspecified.
The participants however agreed that some of the sub fields under the “Properties”
must be specified in order to facilitate users’ judgment of the usefulness and usabilityof the data record. The EFDB Editorial Board should ensure that such information isprovided during data submissions.
Thus, the “Properties” field was turned mandatory. Further details on “Properties”
field are mentioned in Section 2.3 below and in Appendix 5.

12

2.3 Criteria to be used in the assessmentof proposed

data for each sector
During the meeting, five breakout groups (BOGs) were convened to consider sectorspecific issues as follows.
BOG1: Energy Sector
BOG2: Industrial Processes Sector
BOG3: Agriculture Sector
BOG4: LUCF Sector
BOG5: Waste Sector
Each BOG was composed of the Editorial Co-ordinators and Sector Experts for thatparticular sector, and some other participants in the meeting.
The BOGs were invited to focus on the following issues.
•
To consider sector-specific questions (if any) that must be included in the welldefined criteria for assessment of data proposals.
•
To elaborate or improve the list of examples of “Properties” for the sector13.
•
To consider how to collect up-to-date relevant data for the sector.
In particular, a lot of time was devoted to elaboration and improvement of the list of
examples of “Properties” for each sector.
Discussion on this issue by each BOG was continued after the meeting via e-mail.
The results were integrated as shown in Appendix 5 of this meeting report, which isintended to be an integral part of the EFDB User Manual.
Outcomes of each BOG discussion are briefly summarised in the following sections.
11

See footnote 10 on page 11.

12

See footnote 1 on page 3.

13

Drafts of the lists were prepared by the TSU and presented in addenda to the Discussion Paper No.3
for the meeting.

14

Report of the 1st Meeting

EFDB Editorial Board

2.3.1 BOG1: Energy
Major conclusions of BOG1 discussions include, among others:• When providing an emission factor for fuel combustion or fugitive emission it isassumed that data providers will have a clear view of the activity to which theemission factor relates and will be able to carefully specify the conditions and fueltype which define the factor and help the user. These essential data should bereported in the sub-fields of the “Properties” field and, depending on the source
category, certain of these are marked as mandatory to ensure that the data are madeavailable.
• CO2 emissions from fuel combustion are directly determined by the carbon content
of the fuel. All source categories are treated identically, including mobile sources.
If submission of a separate factor for incomplete oxidation is made this should bespecific to a source category and technology. However, if the submitted emission
factor includes an adjustment for incomplete oxidation this fact must be stated.
• The number of different processes used in the oil and gas sector makes it essentialthat an emission factor be accompanied by sufficient information for a user to judge
whether it is appropriate for use in local conditions. This is particularly important
where Tier 1 emission factors are provided as they will be applied to activity data
embracing several or many different processes.
The elaborated list of examples of “Properties” for Energy Sector is included inAppendix 5. (See Appendix 5, Table 1, pages 4-7.) BOG1 also considered the list offuel categories after the meeting, which resulted in the table in Appendix 6.

2.3.2 BOG2: Industrial Processes/Solvent and Other Product Use
Major conclusions of BOG2 discussions include, among others:• The Industrial Processes Sector is featured by many sub-categories, many different
methods, and many compounds (6 GHGs, 4 precursors).
• “Region/Regional conditions” is not relevant to the Industrial Processes Sector.
• Special attention should be drawn to the issue on CO2 emissions from non-energy
use of fossil fuels (e.g., risk of double counting with fuel combustion). The EFDB
Editorial Board should be cautious of this issue so that relevant emission factors orother parameters should be stored in the correct IPCC Source/Sink Category.
• Possible general data providers for the Industrial Processes Sector are: national
inventory compilers and their experts; editors and authors of well-accepted
emission factor handbooks/databases; international scientific organisations; etc.
• Possible source-specific data providers are: international industry associations; key
manufacturing companies; active national industrial organisations; key national
research institutes; etc.
It was agreed that the Solvent and Other Product Use Sector will be also taken care ofby this sector group.
The elaborated list of examples of “Properties” for Industrial Processes Sector andthat for Solvent and Other Product Use Sector are included in Appendix 5. (SeeAppendix 5, Tables 2 and 3, pages 8-17.)

15

Report of the 1st Meeting

EFDB Editorial Board

2.3.3 BOG3: Agriculture
Major conclusions of BOG3 discussions include, among others:• Measurement fields (protocol, time, frequency) need to be highly ‘encouraged’ forrecords checked as ‘measured’ inputs.
• Is the development of emission factor from background data adequately describedfrom inputs? – This should be described in “Comments from Data Provider” subfield.
• Representativeness of the sampling should be described in “Measurement” field.
• Considerations where emission factor models are the basis for input data(validated? representative?) – This should be described in “Other Information on
Data Quality” field.
• Data providers should be encouraged to submit a hard copy of the technicalreference to the TSU at time of submission (for internal use only, as library ofreferences for Guidelines development).
BOG3 also came up with suggestions for improvement of instructions on data fields(see Section 2.2.4) that were fully taken into account in developing Appendix 4.
The elaborated list of examples of “Properties” for Agriculture Sector is included inAppendix 5. (See Appendix 5, Table 4, pages 18-21.)

2.3.4 BOG4: Land Use Change and Forestry
Major conclusions of BOG4 discussions include, among others:• Criteria and examples should be considered preliminary, since the report on Good
Practice Guidance for LULUCF14 is under development. It might be possible torevise them, especially for the soil part.
• It is proposed to expand the expertise for LUCF section of EFDB Editorial Board toensure complete coverage of forest types and geographical regions (e.g., forests inNorth America, South America, Australia, China, etc.)• The following sector-specific issues must be assessed in reviewing new data
proposals in the LUCF sector.
! The significance of emission/removal category for a country.
! Measurement fields (protocol, time, frequency) need to be highly ‘encouraged’
for records checked as ‘measured’ inputs.
! Do the background (input) data adequately describe the emission factor
submitted?
! The availability of relevant emission factors and reliability of data used todetermine them.
! Representativeness of the sampling! Considerations where emission factor models are the basis for input data(validated? representative?)
The elaborated list of examples of “Properties” for LUCF Sector is included inAppendix 5. (See Appendix 5, Table 5, pages 22-30.)

14This report is scheduled to be completed in November 2003. After completion of this report, the needfor additional expertise in various land use types other than forests may arise. Thus, the list of sector
experts may need to be extended.

16

Report of the 1st Meeting

EFDB Editorial Board

2.3.5 BOG5: Waste
Major conclusions of BOG5 discussions include, among others:• Use of Surveys: In future it may be useful to have a table similar to measured data.
- Data on how surveys conducted important.
• Provision of information on measurement methods is highly encouraged.
• There may be room for improvement of definition of measurement categories. It is
recommended to call for number of measurements, length of measurement period,
season, etc.
• Possible data providers for solid waste are the International Solid Waste
Association, World Bank, and academia.
• Possible data providers for wastewater are academia, sanitation experts, and water
quality experts.
• Possible data providers for multiple sources are regional & local sanitation
organizations, sanitation companies, municipalities, statistics agencies, IPCC waste
experts, inventory agencies and WHO.
• It should be noted that information on waste is usually collected for other reasons(i.e. waste generation rates on city level – not national).
The elaborated list of examples of “Properties” for LUCF Sector is included inAppendix 5. (See Appendix 5, Table 6, pages 31-41.)

2.4 Strategies for populating the EFDBThe TSU had received several offers for, or expression of interest in, providing
data/information to the EFDB. In fact, in consultation with the EFDB Steering Group,
the TSU had started registering the potential data providers following the procedureendorsed by the TFB at its 9th session. However, it was unforeseeable how many data
would be proposed to the EFDB in the near future.
In order to enhance the utility as a public library of high quality data on GHG
emission factors and other parameters, some procedures or mechanisms should be
devised to continuously promote population of the EFDB. The participants wereinvited to give some consideration also to this issue. Namely, they were asked toconsider how to popularise the EFDB as well as how to populate the EFDB
strategically.
As a result, the following suggestions were made.
• The EFDB must be popularised enough in order to receive a lot of voluntary data
proposals from inventory experts/scientists in various regions of the world. To
this end, the TSU should make every effort to advertise it at every opportunity.
• It is recommended that the TSU contact inventory agencies through focal points toprovide data.
• List of possible data providers as proposed by BOGs should be utilised by the
TSU.
• EFDB Editorial Board members should promote the EFDB in their countries.
• The revision of the 1996 guidelines will trigger the provision of these data.
• Linkages with other databases and the UNFCCC website should be pursued.
17

Report of the 1st Meeting

EFDB Editorial Board

•
•
•
•

The Second National Communications of non-Annex I parties could be anothersource for the EFDB population.
The TSU should seek the possibility of cooperation or collaboration with otherorganisations such as UNFCCC, UNITAR, and UNDP.
Ways to enable easy access to the EFDB web application should be sought (e.g.,
by changing the URL to a simpler one).
The TSU could contact authors of the report on Good Practice Guidance andUncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories to provide data.

2.5 Other discussions
2.5.1 Assessment of a proposal for revision of a data record
During the meeting, a question was raised what would happen if a data provider
revises a data record.
Data records in the EFDB can be revised ONLY by the data provider who originallysubmitted them. No data provider can revise or delete data records that were
submitted by other data providers. When a data provider takes action on the EFDB
webpage to revise a data record which was originally submitted by him/her, theinformation will be forwarded to the EFDB Editorial Board as a proposal for revisionof an existing data record.
The procedure for assessment set out in the revised TOR of the EFDB Editorial Board
is applicable to this kind of proposal. The EFDB Editorial Board should assess the
proposal for revision of an existing data record according to the same criteria and thesame procedure as those for a new data proposal.

2.5.2 Assessment of data proposals made by “Bulk Import”
A question was raised whether the same strict criteria as set out in Section 2.2.2
would be applied to a set of many data proposals made by “Bulk Import” from otherdatabases or documents.
The participants could not reach a clear consensus on this matter at the meeting due tothe time constraint, but through e-mail communications after the meeting it wasagreed that the following sentence should be included in the revised TOR of the
EFDB Editorial Board. (See Appendix 3, page 6, paragraph 13.)The EFDB Editorial Board will accept without further assessment the data alreadypublished by the IPCC. The data presented in emission factor handbooks orinternational scientific emission databases may be also accepted without further
assessment on the condition that the Editorial Board collectively judges that thosehandbooks or databases are internationally recognised as authoritative information
sources.
For clarification, those publications or databases that were granted this special
treatment (i.e. acceptance without further assessment) should be explicitly listed andmarked somewhere on the EFDB webpage.
This issue might be reconsidered when this kind of data proposals are actually madeby “Bulk Import”.
18

Report of the 1st Meeting

EFDB Editorial Board

2.5.3 Continuation of the EFDB Steering GroupThe EFDB Steering Group was convened during the meeting to discuss the future
development of the EFDB. They recognised the need of further development of the
EFDB functionality, and hence they concluded that the EFDB Steering Group needs
to continue to serve for the project. This conclusion was reported to the plenary of thismeeting, and supported by the participants.

19