INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
NATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORIES PROGRAMME

WMO

UNEP

DATABASE OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION FACTORS(IPCC-EFDB)
Second Meeting of the Editorial Board
and Meeting of the Steering Group(18 – 20 February 2004, Tsukuba, Japan)

Meeting Report
Prepared by the Technical Support Unitof the IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories ProgrammeSupporting 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.

The participation of experts from developing countries and countries with economies intransition was funded by the IPCC Trust Fund. The NGGIP would like to thank theGreenhouse Gas Inventory Office of Japan, Center for Global Environmental Research,
National Institute for Environmental Studies, for hosting this meeting.

Report of the 2ndMeeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering Group

Table of contents
1

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

Objectives of the meeting -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

1.2

Participants ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

1.3

Proceedings------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

2 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ················································································ 5
2.1

Issues related to evaluation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5

2.1.1

Issues to be reviewed based on experiences in evaluation····················································52.1.2

Other issues related to evaluation process············································································62.2

How to incorporate GPG-LULUCF into EFDB ----------------------------------------------------- 7

2.3

How to relate the EFDB to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines--------------------------------------------- 9

2.3.1

What could be possible contributions of EFDB to the development of 2006 Guidelines? ····92.3.2

How and when should the EFDB structure be changed?····················································10

2.4Issues related to population/promotion of EFDB---------------------------------------------------11

2.4.1

Incentives to submit data proposals ····················································································112.4.2

Contact with potential data providers/Cooperation with the other organizations··············11

2.4.3

Materials/tools for promotion ·····························································································122.5

Other Issues------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13

3 FUTURE WORK ·················································································································· 13

Appendix 1: List of Participants
Appendix 2: Discussions by Sectoral Breakout Groups
Appendix 3: Background Discussion on Extracting Data from Emissions Models
for Inclusion in EFDB
Appendix 4: A possible approach to evaluation of data from other database
Appendix 5: Comments collected by TSU on the EFDB

Report of the 2ndMeeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering Group

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 evaluate data proposed forinclusion into the EFDB.
The second meeting of the EFDB Editorial Board and the meeting of Steering Group
were convened in Tsukuba, Japan, on 18-20 February 2004. Its objectives were:•To evaluate the proposed additions to the database since the 1st Session of the
Editorial Board Meeting and to discuss further improvement of the EFDB,•
To consider strategies for population of the EFDB and cooperation with otherorganisations,•
To discuss the inclusion of the default parameters in IPCC report on Good
Practice Guidance, for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry in the EFDB,•
To consider EFDB linkage with IPCC work on 2006 Inventory Guidelines,•
To improve the user-friendliness, and•To discuss sector specific issues.
In conclusion, the meeting participants agreed upon the following items as necessary
future work.
 Technical modifications
 Import of the data in the GPG-LULUCF
 Further consideration as to how to relate EFDB to 2006 IPCC Guidelines
 Improvement of guidance (Revision of User Manual)
 Revision of TOR (improvement of evaluation procedure) Analysis of weak area in each sector
 Development and dissemination of promotion materials/tools
 Development of off-line input form (simple package)
As for the improvement of evaluation procedure, it was considered too early to draw aconclusion since the Editorial Board had not gained so much experience yet. Thisissue will be further It was agreed that they needed more experience to assess theevaluation procedure's quality and effectiveness, and that these issues should be
reviewed at a later stage.

3

Report of the 2ndMeeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering Group

1 Introduction
1.1 Objectives of the meeting
The second meeting of Editorial Board and the meeting of Steering Group wereconvened in Tsukuba, Japan, on 18-20 February 2004. The objectives were:•To evaluate the proposed additions to the database since the 1st Session of the
Editorial Board Meeting and to discuss further improvement of the EFDB,•
To consider strategies for population of the EFDB and cooperation with otherorganisations,•
To discuss the inclusion of the default parameters in IPCC report on Good
Practice Guidance, for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry in the EFDB,•
To consider EFDB linkage with IPCC work on 2006 Inventory Guidelines,•
To improve the user-friendliness, and•To discuss sector specific issues.

1.2 Participants
The meeting was attended by 36 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 Greenhouse Gas Inventory Office of Japan,
Center for Global Environmental Research, National Institute for Environmental
Studies.

1.3 Proceedings
The meeting was opened at 10:30 on 18 February 2004 with opening remarks by TFBCo-Chair. It proceeded according to the agenda shown in Appendix 2. Following the
opening session, the TSU gave several presentations to outline the objectives of themeeting, to show the web statistics (EFDB usage analysis), to show various
developments since the 1st meeting of Editorial Board in January 2003, etc.
Subsequently, various issues listed in the agenda were discussed at plenary sessions aswell as at breakout group sessions since the afternoon of 18 February through themorning of 20 February. In addition, as a special event, a poster session was organised
by National Institute for Environmental Studies in the evening on 18 February.
At the final plenary session, the outcomes of breakout group discussions were
presented by each breakout group. Then, Editorial Board Co-chairs made a wrap-up
presentation to summarise the achievements and conclude the meeting.
The meeting was closed around noon on 20 February 2004.
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.

4

Report of the 2ndMeeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering Group

2 Discussions and Conclusions
This chapter summarises the discussions and conclusions at the meeting as well as
after the meeting via e-mail communications.

2.1 Issues related to evaluation
2.1.1 Issues to be reviewed based on experiences in evaluation
The criteria and procedure for evaluation of new data proposals were agreed at the 1st
meeting of the EFDB Editorial Board (Hayama, Japan, 28-30 January 2003), andstipulated in the terms of reference (TOR) of the EFDB Editorial Board.
At this meeting, the Editorial Board (both at a plenary and at a breakout session) tried
to review these criteria and procedure based on the experiences gained throughimplementation of the evaluation1, particularly with regard to the following points.
 Time frame for each phase in the evaluation process
 TSU initial check Allocation of work among Editorial Board members
 Guidance on “Properties” field Consistent application of criteria
The Board members considered these issues, and made the following comments andsuggestions.
•

Timeframe is not possible to assess – not enough experience.

•

TSU initial check is very useful.

•

Guidance on “properties” field needs improvement. Preferably, it should be more
specific. Space available for information input is not adequate in many fields.

•

In order to ensure consistent application of criteria, further elaboration of
guidance on sector specific issues may be needed.

•

Input procedure needs to be simplified – excel/hard copy of input form andimproved guidance should be provided.

•

Evaluation procedure may need to be simplified. After first check by selectedgroup member, communication within the group will continue via email until
consensus will be reached. Final decision will be posted on the web.

•

TOR may need to be modified in line with comments form Board members.

•

User Manual needs to be improved using comments from users and Board
members. (E.g, a list of parameters as elaborated by sectoral groups should be
attached.)•

Interface of web version needs to be revised to be more user friendly. Currently,
the CD version is much better than the web version.)1

As of 13 February 2004, 63 new data proposals had been submitted to the EFDB and subjected to the
TSU initial check. Some of those had been forwarded to the Editorial Board for evaluation.

5

Report of the 2ndMeeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering Group

Overall, however, it was considered too early to draw a conclusion on these matterssince the Editorial Board had not gained so much experience yet. (For details of the
discussion by each sectoral BOG, see Appendix 2.) It was agreed that they needed
more experience to assess the evaluation procedure's quality and effectiveness, andthat these issues should be reviewed at a later stage.

2.1.2 Other issues related to evaluation processa)

Involvement of original researchers/authors in the evaluation
process

Submissions of secondary data compilations by non-authors can create problems withregards to proper usage of data, particularly in terms of author's intended usage andalso may be a tangential issue of publication rights.
In order to ensure that information is properly presented with information that would
allow for the proper usage in terms of preparing inventories, it would be desirable thatthe original researchers/authors should be involved (or contacted) in the evaluation
process. Another solution to this problem would be to accept only those datasubmitted by the original authors (i.e. to reject proposals based on secondary data).
However, too stringent a rule like this would seriously hamper the EFDB population.
The Board members discussed this issue, and concluded as follows.
•

Involvement of original researchers is appreciated, however it is difficult toachieve in many cases in reality.

•

Submissions from secondary sources should be accepted when appropriate
documentation is available.

•

It is encouraged to establish cooperative relationship between researchers andinventory coordinators.

b)

Procedure and criteria for evaluation of data extracted fromemissions models

There is a tendency for inventory methods to move towards emission models, since
single sample-based emission factors tend to be static, not representative of a varietyof conditions, and become outdated. As the EFDB evolves, it may become important
to look at how to incorporate information from these models into the EFDB.
One of the possibilities is to connect EFDB users directly to the models. In this case,however, it should be carefully considered how the Editorial Board can evaluate thosemodels in a consistent manner with the case of other data proposals. (This issue isdiscussed in Appendix 3 more in details.)
The Board members discussed this issue, and concluded as follows.
•

Data (parameters) from emission models should be accepted:
 When models are described in the IPCC Methodology Reports (e.g., theRevised 1996 IPCC Guidelines, GPG2000, GPG-LULUCF)
 When the algorithm and/or equations are provided in the documentation
6

Report of the 2ndMeeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering Group•At this stage parameters from complicated models should not be included,
however links to the models can/should be provided.

•

In principle, models should be described in IPCC Methodology Reports andparameters, EFs should be included in EFDB.

c)

Procedure and criteria for bulk-imported data proposals frompublications

The TOR of the EFDB Editorial Board stipulates:
13. … In principle, the EFDB Editorial Board will accept without further assessment thedata already published by the IPCC. The data presented in emission factor handbooks orinternational scientific emission databases may be also accepted without further assessmenton the condition that the Editorial Board collectively judges that those handbooks or
databases are internationally recognised as authoritative information sources2.

The 1st meeting of the EFDB Editorial Board (28-30 January 2004, Hayama, Japan)
agreed that this issue might be reconsidered when such data proposals are actually
made by "Bulk Import".
At this meeting, a possible approach to evaluation of bulk-imported data proposals
was suggested (see Appendix 4), but this issue was not discussed as such data
proposals had not been actually made by “Bulk Import" yet.

2.2 How to incorporate GPG-LULUCF into EFDBThe IPCC developed a report on Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use
Change and Forestry (GPG-LULUCF) to ensure that country inventories on
LULUCF are neither over- nor underestimated as far as can be judged, anduncertainties are reduced as far as practicable, and to facilitate the best use ofavailable resources, taking different national circumstances into account. This report
was adopted/accepted by the IPCC at its XXIst Session (Vienna, Austria, 3-7
November 2003) and welcomed by the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC at
its 9th session (Milan, Italy, 1-12 December 2003).
In the GPG-LULUCF, Chapter 3 (LUCF Sector Good Practice Guidance) provides
methodological advice on the estimation of emissions and removals of CO2 and nonCO2 greenhouse gases in the LULUCF Sector. It is divided into six sections based onland-use categories; and each section is further divided into two sub-sections based on
the status and recent history of the land use. This structure of the GPG-LULUCF(Chapter 3) is different from that of the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines (Chapter 5 of
Vol.3) which the EFDB structure follows. Also, it should be noted the relation
between the GPG-LULUCF categories and 1996 categories is not one-to-one, whichmakes it difficult to link these categories mechanically.

2

For clarification, those publications or databases that were granted this special treatment (i.e.
acceptance without further assessment) should be explicitly listed and marked somewhere on the EFDB
webpage.

7

Report of the 2ndMeeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering Group

With this background, the Steering Group and the Editorial Board were invited toconsider how to incorporate the GPG-LULUCF into the EFDB. This issue wasdiscussed in the LUCF BOG, and they concluded to make several suggestions.
<EFDB structure>• Based on demands of data providers and users, need to have the interface thatallows the user to access both 1996 IPCC Revised Guidelines and IPCC LULUCF
GPG;• When the data are submitted the provider should indicate where it should go(Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines or GPG-LULUCF);• For the terms of consistency, old data tables should be retained in the EFDB. The
footnote should be provided to indicate that the table have been updated;• Initial properties and terminology (identified at the First EFDB Meeting) are
attributed to Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines. These should be supplemented withnew terms and parameters from the GPG-LULUCF.
<Optional proposals on how the changes could be implemented>• The changes proposed are of technical issue;• The EFDB parameters from the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines should be
retained and updated wherever necessary (see bullet 3 in EFDB structure). New
parameters from the GPG-LULUCF should be added;• The mapping back table in the GPG-LULUCF should be used as the basis fordeveloping the new structure and re-consideration of properties and terminology;• Both re-structuring and supplementing properties and terms could be done inparallel. References to the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines and the GPG-LULUCF
should be included in the User Manual.
• Involve colleagues from Agricultural Component of the EFDB for morecompetent consideration of the parameters to be provided.

This issue was further considered after the meeting by the TSU and Steering Group,
based on these suggestions from LUCF BOG of Editorial Board. Finally, it was
decided to take a temporary pragmatic approach for the time being as follows3.
<Note on Processing Data from GPG-LULUCF in the CDROM version 1.1>
In processing data of emission factors and other parameters from the IPCC Good
Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (GPGLULUCF), 18 new categories were temporarily added under “5 Land-Use Change& Forestry” in the list of "IPCC Category". These categories consist of 6 land use
categories in GPG-LULUCF namely: Forest land (5-FL), Cropland (5-CL),
Grassland (5-GL), Wetlands (5-WL), Settlements (5-SL), and Other land (5-OL).
Each land use category is further sub-categorized into two based on the status andrecent history of land use. Thus, for instance, for Forest land (5-FL), the subcategories are: Forest land Remaining Forest land (5-FL-1) and Land Converted toForest land (5-FL-2). These categories correspond to the sections and subsectionsof Chapter 3 of GPG-LULUCF. Linkage between these categories and the 1996
IPCC Guidelines’ reporting categories is elaborated in Section 3.1.2 of GPGLULUCF (pages 3.11-3.14)

3The data provided in the GPG-LULUCF were included into the updated CDROM (version 1.1)
released at UNFCCC-COP10 in Buenos Aires in December 2004.

8

Report of the 2ndMeeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering GroupThe EFDB will likely be remodeled after the completion of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines so that the new structure of the source/sink categories will beembodied. The current source/sink categories in the 1996 Guidelines will be
retained in view of the need for the Parties to the UNFCCC to continue using the1996 Guidelines for several years after the completion of the 2006 Guidelines.
The search function will be improved so that users can search for data according
to either source/sink classification (1996 Guidelines or 2006 Guidelines).
The 18 new categories that were temporarily added in the updated CDROM
version will be integrated into the new source/sink classification when the EFDB
is remodeled after the completion of 2006 Guidelines.

2.3 How to relate the EFDB to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
In response to the decision of IPCC XX and the invitation from the SBSTA at its 17th
session the IPCC will revise and update the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (1996 Guidelines). This work will becompleted in 2006. The terms of reference (TOR), table of contents (TOC) andworkplan for the new guidelines (2006 Guidelines) as agreed by the IPCC at its XXIst
Session are shown in the attachment to this paper.
According to the TOR of the 2006 Guidelines, the IPCC Emission Factor Database(EFDB) is regarded as one of the important resources on which the IPCC will basethis work. Besides, the second expert meeting on the EFDB project (Bratislava,
Slovakia, 23-24 April 2002) concluded that the amendment of the IPCC source
categories laid out in the EFDB should be considered in future work when the current
IPCC Guidelines are revised.
With this background, the EFDB Steering Group was invited to consider how the
EFDB should relate to the 2006 Guidelines.

2.3.1 What could be possible contributions of EFDB to thedevelopment of 2006 Guidelines?4
The participants recognized two possible ways for EFDB (and its Editorial Board) tocontribute to the development of 2006 Guidelines.
 Contribute as an on-line tool to collect up-to-date data for inclusion into the2006 Guidelines.
 Share the experiences, findings and outputs gained through the EFDB
activities with authors of the 2006 Guidelines. For example, criteria forevaluation of data, guidance on “properties” as well as the list of fuelcategories that the EFDB Editorial Board developed will be helpful to them.
In addition, it was noted that several members of EFDB Editorial Board would alsojoin the development of 2006 Guidelines as Lead Authors. In the expectation that this4

Essence of the outcome of this discussion was introduced by the Board Co-chair to the meeting of Coordinating Lead Authors of 2006 IPCC Guidelines held in Oslo, Norway, in May 2004. Also, the
EFDB and some experiences gained through its activities were introduced by TSU in a series ofsectoral meetings for 2006 IPCC Guidelines held from June to November in 2004.

9Report of the 2ndMeeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering Groupwould allow EFDB to take pro-active position within the 2006 Guidelines process,several suggestions were made as follows.
•

Closely link the 2006 Guidelines and the EFDB To support the process as much as possible with the functionality that wasavailable within the EFDB•

Clearly define "tasks" for Guidelines and EFDB Use the specific qualities of both textual information (Guidelines) andnumerical information and query tools in defining.

•

what should/could be in either of the two?



what must be in both?
•

EFs and parameters as included in the Guidelines (defaults)•

sector & fuel definitions

A clear distinction between the two could be: 2006 Guidelines should contain relatively stable, mostly textual information:


explanation of methods

definitions (e.g, definitions of sectors, fuels, units)

principles of the algorithms of emission calculation models

tables with default values (to be used if user doesn't know any better) EFDB should contain numerical information (specific emission factors andother parameters) that is more sensitive to new scientific knowledge.
•

Offer EFDB functionality to 2006 Guidelines authors
 EFDB would be able to offer its "forum" functionality to the authors andmanagement of the 2006 Guidelines development process. For example,
separate user groups "volume authors" could be created within the system
where the authors of 2006 Guidelines could propose, and comment on, newemission factors or update proposals for existing ones. The advantages of thiswould be:•

For EFDB: Inclusion of all newly proposed emission factors would
be facilitated during the development of 2006 Guidelines.

•

For 2006 Guidelines process: A well-organised web forum would be
provided for exchange of views and information during the process.
Also, it would facilitate harmonized and consistent documentationfor emission factors throughout the Guidelines.

2.3.2 How and when should the EFDB structure be changed?
The current source/sink categories in the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines are very
likely to be modified in the 2006 Guidelines. Accordingly, the EFDB will likely need
to be remodeled after the completion of the 2006 Guidelines so that the new structureof the source/sink categories could be embodied. The current source/sink categories in
the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines should be retained in view of the need for the10

Report of the 2ndMeeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering Group

Parties to the UNFCCC to continue using the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines forseveral years after the completion of the 2006 Guidelines.
It was noted in the meeting that a clear distinction should be made between theunderstanding of:•

Search structure: both 1996 and 2006 sector structures would live
simultaneously for several years, if not forever.

•

Database structure: database structure could be hidden for the user and only
tuned such that the above is possible.

It was agreed that the search function should be improved so that users can search fordata according to either source/sink classification (1996 Guidelines or 2006
Guidelines). It was also agreed that this issue of necessary changes to structure
should be considered after the completion of 2006 Guidelines.

2.4 Issues related to population/promotion of EFDB
2.4.1 Incentives to submit data proposals
The data input process contains many requirements to ensure the quality and usabilityof EFDB, which may well discourage scientists/experts to submit their data. In orderto motivate them to submit data, incentives should be devised and highlighted while
efforts should be made to improve user-friendliness of the interface.
Two merits were highlighted by TSU and noted by the participants.
•

Submission of data to EFDB will benefit data providers because it would promote
their research results/publications, since references to relevant publications will
be contained in the dataset.

•

Data providers could be involved in ongoing IPCC activities. Submission ofresearch results to EFDB may give them opportunities to make contributions to
IPCC Methodology Reports (e.g., 2006 IPCC Guidelines) even in the case they
are not designated authors of those reports.”

The participants agreed to these merits, but they felt that they needed to further
consider how to increase the incentives to submit data proposals.

2.4.2 Contact with potential data providers/Cooperation with theother organizations
The participants also recognized the importance of contacting potential data providers
to facilitate EFDB population. Possible channels would include: IPCC Focal Points
 UNFCCC UNDP (National Communications Support Programme) UNECE/TFEIP
 FAO
 IPIECA
11

Report of the 2ndMeeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering Group ICAO
 IMO
 WRI
It was agreed that among others the co-operation with UNFCCC 5 was important.
Several suggestions were made to make better use of UNFCCC process, such as:•

Official letter from TSU/TFB to UNFCCC, which they can forward/attach totheir inventory focal point (this applies to Annex I only).

•

Disseminate the official letter during reviews (in-country (reviewers/compilers),
centralized). Then, Expert Review Teams would stimulate experts in the country
being reviewed to upload their emission factors•

Read the letter (drafted/written by TSU) at lead reviewers meeting. Communicate
with lead reviewers.

•

Collect data of emission factors that can be found in national inventory reports(Annex I).

•

In Non-Annex I National Communication countries that have EFs can easily be
identified (4th Compilation and Synthesis: /SBI/2002/8, /SBI/2002/16, and 5thCompilation & Synthesis SBI/2003/13).

•

Take advantage of strategic opportunities (technical workshops, CGE, etc)

It was also agreed that the members of Editorial Board and Steering Group should
actively promote the EFDB within their own inventory community6.

2.4.3 Materials/tools for promotion
The Steering Group and TSU had been making efforts to promote the EFDB on
various occasions (e.g., UNFCCC-COP/SB sessions), using materials such as: Fact sheet PowerPoint presentation (in English)
 EFDB User Manual
The Editorial Board members were also encouraged to promote it using thesematerials.
In addition to these existing materials, development/use of the following
materials/tools was suggested.
 A letter to potential data providers to stimulate submissions of data
proposals.
 Posters (A0 or A1 size) to be used in meetings/workshops
 Non-English versions of PowerPoint presentations, fact sheets and posters
 Leaflet
5

It was noted that many EFDB Editorial Board members are involved in the UNFCCC Review process
as well.

6

In relation to this, it was suggested that the names and contact details of the Board members should beshown on the poster, website, etc. However, a consensus could not be reached on this matter.

12

Report of the 2ndMeeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering Group

2.5 Other Issues
The participants agreed upon the need for technical improvements of EFDB based on
the comments collected by TSU from users and Board members. (See Appendix 5.)

3 Future Work
In conclusion, the meeting participants agreed upon the following items as necessary
future work.
 Technical modifications7•

Search function taking GPG-LULUCF & 2006 Guidelines into account•Improvement of input form•

Update information management, language management

 Import of the data in the GPG-LULUCF8
 Further consideration as to how to relate EFDB to 2006 IPCC Guidelines
 Improvement of guidance (Revision of User Manual)•

Highlight of importance of “Abstract in English”•

Standardisation of units•

Clarification of type of parameters

 Revision of TOR (improvement of evaluation procedures, particularly withregard to communication among EB members, para 17c-d)9
 Analysis of weak area in each sector
 Development and dissemination of promotion materials/tools•

Letter to UNFCCC and/or potential data providers•

Posters, Leaflet•

Translated versions of PowerPoint presentations, fact sheets and posters

 Development of off-line input form (simple package)10
As for the improvement of evaluation procedure, it was considered too early to draw aconclusion since the Editorial Board had not gained so much experience yet. It wasagreed that they needed more experience to assess the evaluation procedure's quality
and effectiveness, and that these issues should be reviewed at a later stage.

7

Some technical improvements were made by SPIRIT a.s. following the outcome of this meeting.

8

The data provided in the GPG-LULUCF were included into the updated CDROM (version 1.1)
released at UNFCCC-COP10 in Buenos Aires in December 2004.

9

Some suggestions were made for revision of TOR (i.e., procedures for evaluation), but it was decided
to keep to the existing TOR procedures as much as possible until the Editorial Board gain much
experience enough to evaluate the process and how it works.

10

Mini-batch import form (XLS) could be used.

13

Report of the 2nd Meeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering Group (EFDB)

Appendix 1: List of Participants
IPCC Emission Factor Database
The 2 Meeting of the Editorial Board / Meeting of the Steering Group
18 – 20 February 2004, Tsukuba, Japannd*Absentees**Steering Group members***Observers
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
ARGENTINA
Mr Dario GOMEZ
Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica (CNEA)
Avda. General Paz 1499
B1650KNA – San Martín
Tel : (54 11) 6772 7130
Fax : (54 11) 6772 7130
dgomez@cnea.gov.ar

Dr Sonia Maria Manso VIEIRA
Diretoria de Planejamento e Gestao
Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnologicas (IPT)
Cidade Universitaria
CEP 05508-901, Sao Paulo, SP
Tel : (55 11) 3767 4488 / 3872 6525
Fax : (55 11) 3767 4030
soniav@ipt.br / soniammv@terra.com.br

AUSTRALIA
Mr Ian GALBALLYCSIRO Atmospheric Research
Private Bag No.1, Aspendale
Victoria. 3195
Tel : (61 3) 9239 4684
Fax : (61 3) 9239 4444
ian.galbally@csiro.au

CHINA
Ms Li XU
National Climate Center
China Meteorological Administration
Zhongguancun Nandajie 46#
Beijing 100081
Tel : (86 10) 6840 8578
Fax : (86 10) 6218 0679
xuli@cma.gov.cn

BELGIUMDr / Prof Pascal BOECKX *Ghent University
Coupure 653
B-9000 Gent
Tel : (32 9) 264 6000
Fax : (32 9) 264 6230
pascal.boeckx@ugent.be

Dr Xiaoquan ZHANG
Institute of Forest Ecology and Environment
Chinese Academy of Forestry
Wan Shou Shan
Beijing 100091
Tel : (86 10) 6288 9512
Fax : (86 10) 6288 8840
xiaoquan@forestry.ac.cn

BRAZILDr Branca AMERICANO *, **Ministry of Science and Technology of Brazil
Praia do Flamengo 200 sala 2401
22210-901 Rio de Janeiro
Tel : (55 21) 25550307
Fax : (55 21) 25550306
branca@finep.gov.br

CUBA
Dr Carlos Manuel LOPEZ CABRERA
Atmospheric Chemistry and Pollution Center
Institute of Meteorology
Loma de Casablanca, Regla, Ciudad de La Habana
CP 11700 Habana 17
Tel : (537) 867 0711
Fax : (537) 338 010
cmlopezca@yahoo.com

Dr Magda Aparecida LIMA
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária
Embrapa Medio Ambiente
Rodovia SP 340, Km 127,5 Caixa Postal 69
CEP: 13820-000 Jaguariuna, Sao Paulo - SP
Tel : (55 19) 3867 8745
Fax : (55 19) 3867 8740
magda@cnpma.embrapa.br
magli62@aol.com

CZECH REPUBLICDr Pavel FOTT
Czech Hydrometeorological institute (CHMI)
Na Šabatce 17, CZ-143 06 Prague 4
Tel : (420 2) 4403 2456
Fax : (420 2) 4403 2415 / 4403 2468
fott@chmi.cz
1

Report of the 2nd Meeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering Group (EFDB)Dr Tinus PULLES **DOMINICAN REPUBLICMr Luis R. MEIJA *TNO-MEP
Ave. 27 de Febrero, Esquina Tiradente,
P.O.Box 342
Plaza Merengue Suite 202, Ensanche Naco
7300 AH Apeldoorn
Santo Domingo
Tel : (31 55) 549 3762
Tel : (563) 5197/688-5832
Fax : (31 55 )549 3252
Fax :m.p.j.pulles@mep.tno.nl
simapro2@codetel.net.do
luis_mejia2@hotmail.com
NEW ZEALAND
Dr Keith LASSEYNational Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research
FINLAND
Ms Kristina SAARINEN
P.O. Box 14-901
Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)
Kilbirnie, Wellington
P.O.Box 140
Tel : (64 4) 386 0583
FIN - 00251 Helsinki
Fax : (64 4) 386 2153
Tel : (358 9) 4030 0456
k.lassey@niwa.co.nz
Fax : (358 9) 4030 0491
kristina.saarinen@environment.fi
QATAR
Dr Azhari F. M. AHMED
Qatar Petroleum
GERMANYMr Michael STROGIES
P.O. BOX 47, Doha
Federal Environmental Agency
Tel : (974) 440 2634
Bismarckplatz 1
Fax : (974) 440 2865 / 440 2585
14193 Berlin
ahmed@qp.com.qa
Tel : (49 30) 8903 2088
Fax : (49 30) 8903 2282
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
michael.strogies@uba.de
Dr Anna A. ROMANOVSKAYA
Institute of Global Climate and Ecology (IGCE)
20-B Glebovskaya str.
GHANA
Mr William Kojo AGYEMANG-BONSU
Moscow 107258
Environmental Protection Agency
Tel : (7 095) 169 2198
P. O. Box M326
Fax : (7 095) 160 0831
Accra
an_roman@mail.ru /Aromanovskaya@gmx.net
Tel : (233 21) 664697/8
Fax : (233 21) 662690
Dr Michael GYTARSKY
Wbonsu@epaghana.org
Institute of Global Climate and Ecology (IGCE)
agyemang_bonsu@yahoo.co.uk
20-B Glebovskaya str.
Moscow 107258
Tel : (7 095) 169 2198
JAPAN
Dr Hideaki NAKANE
Fax : (7 095) 160 0831
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Office of JAPANMike.Gytarsky@g23.relcom.ru
Center for Global Environmental Research
National Institute for Environmental Studies
SLOVAKIA
16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba
Dr Katarina MARECKOVA **Ibaraki 305-8506
Ministry of Environment
Tel : (81 29) 850 2491
Osuskeho 32, 851 03 Bratislava
Fax : (81 29) 850 2920
Tel :nakane@nies.go.jp
Fax :kmareckova@rec.org / kama26@chello.sk
NETHERLANDSDr Jos OLIVIER
SUDAN
RIVM/MNPMr Nagmeldin Goutbi ELHASSAN
P.O.Box 1
Higher Council for Environment & Natural Resources
NL-3720 BA, Bilthoven
Gama Avenue, P.O.Box 10488, Khartoum
Tel : (31 30) 274 3035
Tel : (249 11) 784 279
Fax : (31 30) 274 4464
Fax : (249 11) 787 617
jos.olivier@rivm.nl
goutbi@yahoo.com
2

Report of the 2nd Meeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering Group (EFDB)Mr Tim SIMMONSSWEDEN
Associate Prof Leif KLEMEDTSSON ***Avonlog Limited(In replace of Prof. Lindroth)
49 Headley Chase, Brentwood
Botanical Insititute, Goteborg University
Essex CM14 5DH
Carl Skottbersgata 22B
Tel : (44 1277) 222 125
SE-405 30, Goteborg
Fax :Tel : (46 31) 773 2632
tim@avonlog.net
Fax : (46 31) 773 2626
Leif.Klemedtsson@botinst.gu.se
US
Mr Joe MANGINO **Prof Anders LINDROTH *US Environmental Protection Agency
Lunds universitet
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. (MC 6202J)
Sölvegatan 13
Washington, DC 20460
223 62 Lund
Tel : (1 202) 343 9481
Tel : (46 46) 2220474
Fax : (1 202) 343 2208
Fax : (46 46) 2224011
mangino.joseph@epa.gov
anders.lindroth@natgeo.lu.se
Ms Elizabeth SCHEEHLE
US Environmental Protection Agency
UK
Dr Robert GREGORY *1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. (6202J)
Golder Associates (UK) Ltd
Washington, DC 20460
Attenborough House
Tel : (1 202) 343 9758
Browns Lane Business ParkFax : (1 202) 343 2208
Stanton on the Wolds
Scheehle.Elizabeth@epa.gov
Nottinghamshire NG12 5BN
Tel : (44 115) 937 1111
Fax : (44 115) 937 1100
rgregory@golder.com

UNFCCCMs Rocio LICHTE ***UNFCCC Secretariat
P.O. Box 260 124, D-53153, Bonn
Germany
Tel : (49 228) 815 1619
Fax : (49 228) 815 1999
rlichte@unfccc.int

IPCC NGGIP TFBCO-CHAIRSBRAZILDr Thelma KRUG **Instituto Interamericano de Pesquisas Sobre Mudancas
GlobaisInstituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais
Avenida dos Astronautas 1758
Jardim da Granja
12297-010 Sao Jose dos Campos, SP
Tel : (55 12) 3945 6895
Fax : (55 12) 3941 4410
thelma@dir.iai.int

JAPAN
Mr Taka HIRAISHI **c/o Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Miura
Kanagawa 240-0115
Tel: (81 46) 855 3750
Fax : (81 46) 855 3808
hiraishi@iges.or.jp

3

Report of the 2nd Meeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering Group (EFDB)
IPCC-NGGIP TSU

Dr Riitta PIPATTI **c/o Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Miura,
Kanagawa 240-0115, Japan
Tel: (81 46) 855 3750
Fax : (81 46) 855 3808
pipatti@iges.or.jp

Ms Kyoko MIWA
c/o Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Miura,
Kanagawa 240-0115, Japan
Tel: (81 46) 855 3750
Fax : (81 46) 855 3808
miwa@iges.or.jp

Mr Leandro BUENDIA
c/o Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Miura,
Kanagawa 240-0115, Japan
Tel: (81 46) 855 3750
Fax : (81 46) 855 3808
lbuendia@iges.or.jp

Mr John LANE
c/o Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Miura,
Kanagawa 240-0115, Japan
Tel: (81 46) 855 3750
Fax : (81 46) 855 3808
lane@iges.or.jp

Dr Todd NGARA
c/o Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Miura,
Kanagawa 240-0115, Japan
Tel: (81 46) 855 3750
Fax : (81 46) 855 3808
ngara@iges.or.jp

Ms Olga GASSAN-ZADE
c/o Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Miura,
Kanagawa 240-0115, Japan
Tel: (81 46) 855 3750
Fax : (81 46) 855 3808
gassan-zade@iges.or.jp

Mr Kiyoto TANABE **c/o Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Miura,
Kanagawa 240-0115, Japan
Tel: (81 46) 855 3750
Fax : (81 46) 855 3808
tanabe@iges.or.jp

Ms Ayako HONGO
c/o Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Miura,
Kanagawa 240-0115, Japan
Tel: (81 46) 855 3750
Fax : (81 46) 855 3808
hongo@iges.or.jp

Dr Fabian WAGNER
c/o Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Miura,
Kanagawa 240-0115, Japan
Tel: (81 46) 855 3750
Fax : (81 46) 855 3808
wagner@iges.or.jp

4

Report of the 2nd Meeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering Group (EFDB)

Appendix 2: BOG session reports<Energy>
Issues to be reviewed based on experience in evaluation
1)
Time frame
Too early to say. The time presently allowed seems appropriate for the evaluation ofdifficult cases. Review later.
2)
TSU check
Demanding process which may create resource problems if and when significant
numbers of contributions are offered. It would be interesting to hear TSU’s
experiences and comments.
3)
Allocation of work to members
Too early to comments on demands for evaluation. Skills available seem adequate atpresent. No problems foreseen for the allocation procedure.
4)
Guidance on properties field
Comments so far are general and not related to experience of problems.
a) User confusion could be created by differing classification of a specificcharacteristic as parameter or property or primary sort value within and acrossthe different sectors.
b) Add to source category 1B, CO2 and to 1B2c (venting and flaring), N2O.
Note: change 1B3 to 1B2c.
c) 1A3; non-CO2 from mobile combustion - add ‘fuel economy’5)Consistent application of criteria
Too early to say. The qualities and checks proposed for each criterion seem wellchosen. Only time will reveal any inadequacies in the checks.
Other issues
1)
Involvement of original researchers/authors
Pragmatism dictates procedure. If the database receives a large number ofsubmissions from a secondary source only a light procedure examining the ‘outliers’
can be undertaken. Ideally, however, each individual data submission should be
examined at source level to ensure database quality and integrity.
2)
Criteria for evaluation of data from model
Already discussed in plenary. Energy group agrees that the coefficients in simple
emission equations are eligible as EDBF entries. Evaluation of models should not be
undertaken as part of the EDBF process. It should be borne in mind that the aim is tosupport the preparation of national annual inventories and simple summary factorsthat can help the process. Where these factors are derived from models there is an
outstanding problem whether such factors should be admitted without entering into

Page 1 of 9

their model derivation process. If not the potential work required for review may
increase significantly.
3)
Criteria for bulk imported data
See comments under item 1 above strengthened by requirement that bulk importshould be from an internationally recognised source.
Incentives to submit proposals
EB experts should take primary initiative in stimulating data submissions bycontacting main areas of activities and cooperating with them to forward data.
Include on main IPCC web site a small animated advert of EFDB.
Cooperation with other organisations
This should not be regarded as a priority area as some of the data may be common andthe quality control by the organisations is largely unknown. National inventory
reports are potentially useful provided that the sources are adequately referenced.
Comments on evaluation procedure
The evaluation procedure by the EB lies between data provision and data use. It adds
value to the EFDB and contributes to our saleability.
The present arrangement for consideration of ef submissions is cumbersome becauseof the limitations of the web site. The format limitations also cramp the flexible useof the text field in the web page. One cannot add tables or footnotes. The following
procedure is proposed as an alternative.
1. The nominated expert contacts the data provider to review and revise thesubmission. E-mail communications.
2. When satisfied with the submission the expert submits it to the remaining sector
experts for their opinions. This is effected through a ‘user group’ list in which posts
are maintained in a continuous sequence of related topics (threads) by the TSU. This
keeps the TSU informed. If there is further discussion between experts this is done
through the list. If the data provider must be consulted again the consultation will beoutside the list by e-mail and through the nominated expert as gateway.
3. If a decision is reached it is then posted by the SC on the web site with justification.
If decision cannot be reached the list discussions are transmitted to the EB Chairs fora finding.
This revised approach to evaluation may require amendment to the TOR.
It has also been suggested that the initial TSU cleaned data format be sent directly to
the SC asking for the name of the nominated expert and then on to that expert. It willthen be circulated to the sector experts at stage 2 above. This obviates the step of
posting it on the web site with the possibility that it will need to be amended or
removed as a result of the evaluation.

Page 2 of 9

<Industrial Processes (and Solvent and Other Product Use)>
Issues to be reviewed based on experiences in evaluation
1) Time frame for each phase in the evaluation process
Limited experience so far, but time frame seems OK, if email is working OK andproviders provide in their initial submission the required information to the reviewer.
Latter could be made more likely by providing some extra guidance to providers inadvance. Notably by mentioning explicitly which information elements will bescreened (based on TOR, par. 3 + 7).
a) Type of measurement (and number) or type of model used; is detailed info in
the reference?
b) Are measurements/model validated e/o verified; is detailed info in thereference?
c) How is the annual factor determined?
d) Type of uncertainty assessment (e.g. who & how)?
e) Where is the factor presently used?
f) If the reference is not easily available or not in English, is more summary ofdetailed info provided?
2) TSU initial check
Example proved the usefulness in terms of correct allocation of information, cf.
guidance.
However, if a lot or often shifts or often specific shifts are necessary, it may mean thatthe logic of the property field examples is not the natural one and has to be modified(see 4). The EF in INF5 showed an example (pressure under Conditions?).
Important is that the Description field should be as clear and specific as possible.
Should the first item, before or next to Gas/IPCC category (not after the “Properties”).
- The Unit and Common unit should include the definition of the activity, bu
separated from the pick list (will make picklist much shorter).
- The present form does not ask for a unit for the confidence limit (% or kg/unit).
Should be checked now by TSU and included in software.
3) Allocation of work among Editorial Board members
Group filled the current gaps and added persons to some others; to be checked again
after meeting.
4) Guidance on “Properties” field
Modifications not yet needed. Since only TSU sees the initial submission and themodified version, the experience of the TSU staff member is key to the IPS group
discussion on this matter.
5) Consistent application of criteria
All group members posed same questions for the given example, so basicallyinterpreting the TOT in a similar way. These were all related to the issues mentioned
in TOR par. 3 to 7 (see list a-e under 1).

Page 3 of 9In order to be able to do this, the answers to questions a-e should be provided in datasubmitted.
E.g. a,b,c in summary form in the abstract; d in Other info on data quality and f either
in separate word document or in extended abstract. [This should be added to theprovider guidance].
So the ABSTRACT field should be extended to e.g. 20 lines.
Other issues relating to evaluation process
1) Involvement of original researchers/authors in the evaluation process
The data provider is responsible for correct interpretation; always requirement to
consult the original authors is unwanted barrier for data provider and evaluation
process. So only when it is felt necessary, one should ask or check this.
2) Procedure and criteria for evaluation of data extracted from emissions models
In IPS sector, there are models for emissions from F-gas usage, by countries (e.g.
USA) or industry organisations (e.g. GGEEC). Factors resulting from these models as
described in IPCC guidelines could be provided with a reference to web-address formore model info.
3) Procedure and criteria for bulk-imported data proposals from publications
No remarks
Incentives to submit data proposals
After 2nd bullet (presented in the discussion paper):•
You will be able to benefit from other factors submitted with similar
information, e.g. for checking the comparability with your own data; in order to do so,
the contribution of all is needed.
•
You will assist in including the best default factors available to date in official
reporting guidelines, thereby preventing that unrealistic figures will be used innational inventories and discussions with industrial subsectors.
•
Your industry contributes to global efforts for protecting the environment, by
making realistic assessments of the strength of the emission sources and their trend.
Submissions of secondary data compilations by non-authors
Encourage the data provider to provide as much as possible for primary references.
For IPS sources this will be mostly either accessible technical reports or scientificpapers. [This should be added to the provider guidance].
Extraction of data from emissions models for inclusion in EFDBFor IPS these should be primarily the factors identified in the IPCC guidelines andGood Practice.
Contact with potential data providers/Cooperation with the other organisations
In addition to the list made before:
United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO)
Page 4 of 9

Headquarters
Vienna International Centre
P.O. Box 300
A-1400 Vienna
Austria
Environmental Management
Mr. C. Gürkök, ext. 4575;
C.Gurkok@unido.org
Greenhouse Gases Emissions Estimating Consortium (GGEEC)
at http://www.ggeec.org
Non-sector-specific organisations:OECD PRTR Task Force
UNEP
Materials/tools for promotion
For potential providers, in addition to the leaflet:example of spreadsheet to be filled (present min-batch + single-batch invertical form)
short explanation what info is expected in each field, among which theproperty field
the list of criteria/questions that the data submitted will be checked in theevaluation (notably the items a to f mentioned above).
This should be made available all at 1 specific webpage, that we can refer to when
promoting the EFDB, as the present internet software is too broadly designed forsimple data providers (too many features, needed for factor EFDB evaluation en EF
info seekers).
It could be considered making 3 separate but similar spreadsheets, to give more
sector-specific help on the properties to be filled and the units to be used.

<Agriculture>1)
Annex review – List of Properties- information on extrapolation-e.g., should daily EF go into database?
-reaffirm or clarify importance and need for measurement details, in addition to theparameter information-major review of usage information:-extrapolation or interpolation to annual factors- representativeness (size and other choices for sampling)- caveats of usage
Page 5 of 9

2)
List of reviewer expertise-reviewing of secondary data (how current, author accessible?, confidence in usage)
3)
Example of review process-units: drop-down menus should match Guidelines units-categorization: e.g., cattle subcategories should match any refinements that result
from Guidelines revisions.
-review tracking: when changes are made, how does reviewer check orginal orsubsequent submissions.
-need field for ‘Uncertainty reference”
4)
Issue Paper No. 5 (Time Frame)- need more experience
5)
Issue Paper No.4 (Allocation of work)- Possibly requires more expertise in some area (animal types, feeds, etc)
6)
Guidance on “properties” field- See above.
7)
Consistent application of review criteria- Helped by review examples – key elements<Land-Use Change and Forestry>
Evaluation of new data proposals
1) Time frames:• Not so much experience gained (the process is still under way);• TSU checks generally fit in the previously agreed schedule.
2) TSU initial checks:• Checks should be more routine and simplified;• To make first judgment where the proposal should go;• Separate references provided based on objectives.
3) Allocation of work among EFDB EB members:• Need to control the process of submission and review to ensure that the
timeframes are kept (notify all members on new submission and allocation of
responsibilities);• Inform on the progress achieved so far;4) Guidance on "Properties" field:• Some cells should be more clearly explained, notation keys should be used;• "Others" could be removed;• Introduce "Help" option and "drop down list" for more explanation of appropriate
fields;• If the reference material is not in English, provide the abstract (no more than 400
words) for more detailed description of methodology, ecosystem type, underlying
assumptions and data, statistics and etc.);
Page 6 of 9

5) Other issues related to evaluation process:• Involvement of original researches and authors is good. It is relevant to extractionof parameters from emission models;• Involvement of experts from regions/IPCC to overcome language problems andcontribute for more objective and robust review;• Request on additional expertise in Grassland/tundra; temperate and wet tropicalforests;• Support TSU proposal on "Bulk Import"
Population/promotion data to the EFDB
1) Popularization of the EFDB:• EFDB EB members to participate in different meetings and make presentations;• TSU to develop distribution kit and training package on EFDB, sets of slides andtransparences on relevant issues;• Apply to UNFCCC Roster of Experts, UNDP-GEF, UNEP and other international
programs;• Introduce training package to different courses and programs;2) Promotion data to EFDB:• Simplify submission format - skip "Other" fields from manual (these may berequested later, if necessary);• Prepare a format for hard copy submission (use electronic format as the basis, but
expand appropriate cells to allow for typing and indicate mandatory fields);• Shorten amount of information that need to be filled in.
IPCC LULUCF GPG in IPCC EFDB
1) EFDB structure:• Based on demands of data providers and users, need to have the interface thatallows the user to access both 1996 IPCC Revised Guidelines and IPCC LULUCF
GPG;• When the data are submitted the provider should indicate where it should go(1996 Revised Guidelines or IPCC LULUCF GPG);• For the terms of consistency, old data tables should be retained in the EFDB. The
footnote should be provided to indicate that the table have been updated;• Initial properties and terminology (identified at the First EFDB Meeting) are
attributed to 1996 IPCC Revised Guidelines. These should be supplemented withnew terms and parameters from the IPCC LULUCF GPG.
2) Optional proposals on how the changes could be implemented:• The changes proposed are of technical issue;• The EFDB parameters from the 1996 IPCC Revised Guidelines should be retained
and updated wherever necessary (see bullet 3 in EFDB structure). New parametersfrom the IPCC LULUCF GPG should be added to those in the EFDB;• The mapping back table in the IPCC LULUCF GPG should be used as the basis
for developing the new structure and re-consideration of properties andterminology;

Page 7 of 9•Both re-structuring and supplementing properties and terms could be done inparallel References to 1996 Revised Guidelines and IPCC LULUCF GPG should
be included in the User Manual.
• Involve Colleagues from Agricultural Component of the EFDB for morecompetent consideration of the parameters to be provided.
LIST OF PARAMETERS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE EFDB
Source: IPCC LULUCF GPG
Default data tables come from
Chapter 3

Annex 3.A.1

Appendices

Table 3.2.1

Table 3A.1.2

Table 3a.1.1

Table 3.2.2

Table 3A.1.3

Table 3a.1.2

Table 3.2.3

Table 3A.1.4

Table 3a.1.3

Table 3.2.4

Table 3A.1.5

Table 3a.2.1

Table 3.2.5

Table 3A.1.6

Table 3a.3.2

Table 3.3.1

Table 3A.1.7

Table 3a.3.3

Table 3.3.2

Table 3A.1.8

Table 3a.3.4

Table 3.3.3

Table 3A.1.9

Table 3a.3.5

Table 3.3.4

Table 3A.1.10

Table 3a.4.1

Table 3.3.5

Table 3A.1.11

Table 3.3.6

Table 3A.1.12

Table 3.3.7

Table 3A.1.13

Table 3.3.8

Table 3A.1.14

Table 3.3.9

Table 3A.1.15

Table 3.4.2

Table 3A.1.16

Table 3.4.3
Table 3.4.4
Table 3.4.5
Table 3.4.6
Table 3.4.8
Table 3.4.9
Table 3.4.10
Table 3.5.2<Waste>•••Need one more member for Waste Incineration
Detailed suggestions for improving the properties field“Encourage” contact between data provider and original author (particularly
useful in developing countries where researchers and people who know the
Page 8 of 9

•
•
•
•

guidelines may be distinct; an involvement of the original author may not be
required, but could be taken into account during the evaluation)
Interface on CD-ROM is better than on Web
Issue of unit: e.g. emissions per unit of “product” : need clarification how to deal
with this.
Facilitate input:
o In the input form create direct hyperlink to relevant part of theguidance on property fields (Appendix) etc.
Promotion suggestions;o Fact sheet should be put on main EFDB web siteo Translate factsheet and PPT into other languages (Spanish: will bedone by Carlos)
o People to contact: E. Scheele: Worldbank; always cc: to TSU and othersectoral EB members---ooo---Page 9 of 9

Report of the 2nd Meeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering Group (EFDB)

Appendix 3:
Background Discussion on Extracting Data from Emissions
Models for Inclusion in EFDB
1.

BackgroundSome of the more the advanced inventory systems rely on emission models to prepare
estimates for a source category. Emission models have the benefit of developing more
representative emissions estimates (both spatially and temporally) than simplified
Emission Factor * Activity Data approach. Typically the models have a number ofvariables as inputs that affect the emissions estimate. Some of the Tier 2 approaches
in the IPCC Guidelines can be constructed along an emission model structure (forexample, enteric fermentation).
There is a tendency for inventory methods to move towards emission models, since
single sample-based EFs tend to be static, not representative of a variety of conditions,and become outdated. As the EFDB evolves, it may become important to look at how
to incorporate information from these models into the EFDB. The 2000 India meetingon the development of the EFDB considered including such data, and reported asfollows:
Another issue is the inclusion or exclusion of expert systems or mathematical models
that can be used to calculate emission factors as a function of various parameters.
Advantages of inclusion:•

A better match of emission factors to local circumstances would be allowed.

•

Emission factor information would be available in one software package, comparedto the situation where internet links to the modeling software would be required.
This is an important consideration in developing a database that would ensure direct
and simple access to data.

Disadvantages:•

It is technically complicated to build a mathematical model into a database.

•It requires extra person-time to fully understand the mathematical models and toinclude them in the database.

•Stand-alone modelling software will offer more modelling features. These features
will be absent in the EF database.

However, it should be noted that including complex and detailed models in a database ofemission factors would lie beyond the scope of such a database.

2.
Issues to be considered in regard to utilizing emission
model data in EFDB
1) Are there intermediate outputs available that are useful and in a form suitable forsubmission to the EFDB?
 Is there an emission factor or similar type parameter?
 What temporal and spatial scale is the output available for?
Page 1 of 2 Would the factor/parameter have value beyond the national or regional
conditions?
 Is the output dependent on very specific activity data or inputs not available toother users?
 Is the format of the output suitable for mapping to database (e.g., table offactors)
 Is the background data for model sufficiently documented to allow
preparation of data submittal?
2) If there are not output data readily available, can such data be extracted from themodel?
 Same questions as (1) but also, how to prepare and process the output data.
3) Is the model complexity such that the only appropriate way to utilize it is throughdirect implementation (i.e., link to the emission model itself)?
 Is the model available to other users?
 Is there a common platform and user’s guide to use the model?
 Has the model been validated?
 Can the model be adopted for use by other users?
 How can model be linked to EFDB? (e.g., link from website, listing ofcontacts for models, etc.)
 Are there other mechanisms besides EFDB to connect users to the model?
 Should there be a review process for such models? What kind of review?
Some of these issues ( 1) and 2)) may require significant efforts both for EFDB
designing and for EFDB use, and the central question will be how to make it happen.
Issues of 3) could be as simple as facilitating contact between model developer andend-user, and letting it go from there. In these cases, this may be something best
accomplished outside the EFDB.
---ooo---Page 2 of 2

Report of the 2nd Meeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering Group (EFDB)

Appendix 4:
A possible approach to evaluation of data from otherdatabase
In case a data provider offers to contribute data in bulk from an existing database,it may be difficult for the EFDB Editorial Board to evaluate each and every data
record one by one according to the criteria defined in the TOR (robustness,
applicability, and documentation).
One possible approach for the Editorial Board to take would be as follows.
(1) Ask the data provider for as much and detailed information as possible on thecriteria, rules, or principles that were applied in developing their database. Incase the Editorial Board has found a serious defect(s) in their criteria etc thatwould undermine the robustness of the EFDB, those data proposals cannot be
accepted. Otherwise, proceed to the next step.
(2) Request the data provider to restructure the information fields laid out in their
original database. (This may not be too difficult if the data set is prepared in
the form of Excel or Access file. If it is not easy, then a solution has to besought on a case-by-case basis.)(3) Carry out sampling checks - pick up some sample data from the data set andapply the normal evaluation procedure to check the robustness, applicability
and documentation. In case the Editorial Board has found some problems, aconsultation must be held between the data provider and the Editorial Board
to seek a solution.
(4) After confirming that the sampling checks have detected no serious problems,
the data set will be accepted in bulk.
One of the difficulties is how to ensure that the data meet "applicability"
requirements, in other words how to ensure that the necessary information is
given in the "properties" fields in each data record.
---ooo---Page 1 of 1

Report of the 2nd Meeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering Group (EFDB)

Appendix 5:
Comments collected by TSU on the Emission Factor Database#

Subject

1

Structure oftheDatabase

VersionWeb and
CD-ROM

Item

Comment

Proposal

IPCC
Sectors

Already the GPG-LULUCF has introduced a structure that issomewhat different from the source categories of the 1996
IPCC Guidelines. The revision of these Guidelines will further
change the structure, and users may want to have information
available and searchable according to the new structure.

Restructuring the database (maincategories) should be considered

Data Input

2

Input
FormatWeb:
Submission
form

FormatThere is not enough default space in the following boxes:- Equation- Data quality reference- Abstract in English- Worksheet Number (in case of GPG-LULUCF)

Increase the space for these fields

The end of these some references could not be written thus
leading to insufficient information.

3

Input
FormatWeb:
Submission
form

Field: “IPCC
Worksheet”

This may not be required for very special values that are usedin Tier 2 or Tier 3.

-1-

Add “if applicable” in the title of the fieldReport of the 2nd Meeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering Group (EFDB)

#

4

5

6

7

Subject

Input
FormatVersionWeb:
Submission
form

Input
FormatWeb:
Submission
form

Input
FormatWeb:
Submission
form

Input
FormatWeb:
Submission
form

Item

Comment

Unit

Data providers must correctly specify the unit(s) when theysubmit new data. Currently, the EFDB provides a single dropdown list of possible units, but this is not always useful.
A single drop-down list system can neither be comprehensive
nor perfect nor efficient, because units are normallycombinations of various elements and there can be an infinite
number of such combinations.
Currently, data providers can type in, define and register new
units as they like when they cannot find appropriate units inthe existing drop-down list. Thus, the drop-down list isdesigned to evolve to include new units, but the resulting long
list may not be useful at all. It is necessary to explore betterways for data providers to specify correct units easily without
any confusion.

Uncertainties

At present uncertainties should be given as upper and lower
limits of the confidence interval. It should be clear that theseshould be values, not percentages. (Values are more usefulfor the actual user, percentages need to be transformed,
which is another source of error).

The form could be expanded to allow theuser to enter uncertainties as either
percentages of the mean, or as values forthe confidence limits, or both. The
description of the underlying distributionfunction should be in the immediateproximity to these fields.

Format

The Distribution shape would perhaps be nice to describe
more in details, e.g. gamma distribution - there is now nospace to add thisInclude more detailed options in the dropdown list.
Or
Add a free text space to enable data
providers to give detailed explanation.

Data providers cannot fill in only the measurement/calculation
year.
Sometimes only the year is known, not the month and day.

Enable data providers to specify only theyear (i.e. to leave month and day fields
blank).
Or
Delete the fields for month and day (Alldata providers are required to specify theyear only.)

FormatProposal-2-

One option could be to use multiple dropdown lists, though this is not astraightforward procedure.
Another option would be simply to give up
using any drop-down list, and to urge data
providers to type in the adequate unit eachtime they input their data. This option
would enable us to remove thecumbersome list

Report of the 2nd Meeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering Group (EFDB)#

8

Subject

Input
FormatVersionWeb:
Submission
form

Item

Interface

Comment

Proposal

It would be nice to have the option to save the filled-in table tobeused in the next submissions (like e.g. on the webservice
when you are paying your bills through the internet) –sometimes most of the data only needs to be changed slightly- this would save a lot of time!

Option 1: Mini-batch import can be used
for this purpose. (The MBI file can be usedeven for submission of only one data.)
Option 2: Make amendments to enable
data providers to copy an existing data
record to a new submission form so thatdata providers can save time to type in thesame information repeatedly. (In this case,
all they have to do is only to change theinformation where necessary.)

Processing Data Proposals

9

Checking
andprocessing
submitted
EFs

10

Checking
andprocessing
submitted
EFs

11

Checking
andprocessing
submitted
EFs

Web

Notification

For the TSU it would be helpful if they could be notified
automatically by email if new data are proposed or
submissions have been modified.

Provide email notification service

Web

Searchingdata

To check the list of pending request in the section “Editorial
Board – List of pending request”, for a very long list of data togo through (currently 10 records per screen), it would help if
the function “go to end of record” can be added.

Add function or choice “go to end ofrecord”

Web

Searchingdata

In the same section as above, after selecting “EF detail” toview the information, and then by clicking “back to Editorial
Board”, it would be user-friendly if the selected EF ishighlighted.

-3-

To highlight the selected “EF detail”

Report of the 2nd Meeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering Group (EFDB)#

Subject

Version

Item

Comment

Proposal

The Step-approach is quite clumsy. For illustration of whatkind of data is stored in there, but any serious user will find it
extremely tiring to work with it. The CD-ROM version of theinterface is much more natural for inventory compilers.

Use the same interface for the Web as for
the CD-ROM

Searching Data: User-friendliness

12

Userfriendliness

WebInterface/
Searching
DataFirst, currently the database does not contain vast amounts ofdata, so some of what follows does not pose serious problems
yet. However, once the database seriously starts to grow theissues become more pressing.

13

Userfriendliness/
SearchFunction/
Structure oftheDatabase

If the search feature has little structure there is a danger that
there are too many hits, and the user will spend a lot of time
finding a value in the "hits", but if the search feature has toomuch structure, distinct by related information may not befound.
Web and
CD-ROM

Searchingdata
efficiently

The Full-text search is in general a useful feature, but there
should be other ways of searching as well. The Filter function(Page 14 of the User Manual) is already useful and exporting
to Excel is an option, but users may not be very familiar withthis way of searching.
On a more fundamental note, it is not clear how regionallyapplicable factors can be found efficiently, in particular oncethe database is populated more extensively. However,regional information can be very diverse, and it is doubtful
whether any useful search options can be implemented (thinkof discontinuities and overlaps, e.g. Soviet Union, FSU,
Russia etc. and incommensurabilities in resolution, such as
North America, Western Europe, ROW - vs - detailed country--4-

To offer free full-text search (Web) andcategory-specific search (CD-ROM) option
could be a way forward. This would allow
the user to combine these two methods
intelligently and appropriately for their
purposes.
Other search option should be considered.
The structure of the database could bereconsidered, in particular whether or how
regional information could or should be
provided and searched for.

Report of the 2nd Meeting of Editorial Board and Meeting of Steering Group (EFDB)#

Subject

Version

Item

Comment

Proposal

specific information).
As the contents of the database changes (increases) more
specific information will be added. The usefulness of theemission factors and hence of the database will depend on theinformation provided, and to be able to search for and findrelevant information will be key. Ideally the structure of thedatabase reflects the type of information that helps identifying
factors that are most appropriate for the user.
14

Userfriendliness

CD-ROM

Interface:
SearchingInitially it is not obvious what one needs to do for searching avalue.

-5-

Given some instructions on the initial page