BC emissions inventories
Action 2.5: Promote further harmonisation of black carbon emissions reporting formats
Action 2.5: Promote further harmonisation of black carbon emissions reporting formatsComparable reporting of source-sector level of emissions is important for monitoring emissions in different countries.
Between the Air Convention, AC and EU NECD, reporting of black carbon is to a large extent harmonised. The reporting templates (i.e. the spreadsheets containing the national totals and source-sector level emissions) of the Air Convention and EU NECD are identical, and AC recommends the use of the same reporting template. However, to date the US (under the UNECE) and Russia (under the AC Framework) have reported black carbon emissions using different source sector splits at a more aggregated level.
Under the Air Convention, not all Parties are obliged to use the current NFR (Nomenclature For Reporting) reporting format. In fact, only the EMEP countries are obliged to use this reporting template, while non-EMEP countries – the US and Canada – are encouraged (but not obliged) to do so (Guidelines for Reporting Emissions and Projections Data under the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution[1]). Starting from 2020, Canada does use the NFR reporting format for reporting of its air pollutant emissions including BC. The US on the other hand reports only its national total air pollution emissions in the reporting template, with source-sector level black carbon emissions reported at a different and aggregated level in a separate document.
Recent discussions with representatives of the US Environmental Protection Agency indicate that the US are working on a cross-walk system between their inventory system and the NFR sector-split of the Air Convention. Progress on harmonization has indeed been achieved, as illustrated by the last national report of the US to the Arctic Council, in which BC emissions were provided at the aggregate GNFR sector level[2].
Recommendations for the reporting of black carbon under the AC framework are somewhat brief, and the EGBCM of the Arctic Council may wish to examine whether the black carbon reporting guidelines set out in the AC Framework for Action on Enhanced Black Carbon and Methane Emissions Reductions could be refined or elaborated. Given the framework’s existing reliance on parallel reporting of its Members (and the European Observers) under the Air Convention, the EGBCM may explore the possibility of more explicit reporting recommendations that, for example, encourage its Members and Observers to submit their summary reports to the AC secretariat, while the full emissions inventory data would be submitted using the Air Convention reporting templates. Such an action could be explored in collaboration with CEIP and EMEP, as well as AMAP, given the potential prospect that these emissions data from the Arctic Council’s non-UNECE Observer countries would need to centrally archived. If considered beneficial and receives support from the respective institutions of the Air Convention (EMEP Steering Body, the Executive Body) the action could be explored and further developed into a recommendation by the EGBCM through the 2-year iterative process to enhance implementation (the process that allows the EGBCM to continuously assess the implementation of and progress under the AC Framework.
Indeed, the preliminary action described above is consistent with the EGBCM’s 2017 recommendations to the AC Member and Observer countries to follow the Air Convention guidelines, or comparable methodology, when developing black carbon inventories and projections. Collaboration with EMEP centres and Task Forces of the Air Convention has been identified by the EGBCM as an opportunity to propagate best practices for black carbon inventories, and reciprocally, cooperation with the Arctic Council is explicitly mentioned in the Convention’s Long-term strategy for 2020-2030 as something that should be built upon to leverage synergies in respective implementation work. Indeed, FICAP (see also component 2.2c) could offer new opportunities for cooperation here.
