Annexes A-D

* Based on replies from 16 countries returning questionnaire plus information from Croatia,
Romania, Slovakia and Russia.

4. Inconsistencies

The questionnaire revealed inconsistencies in the way that CORINAIR is compiled. Half of countries submitted estimates of CO₂ emissions as the actual emissions from the exhaust, and half as ‘ultimate‘ CO₂ which assumes that all the carbon in the exhaust will eventually be converted to CO₂. Similarly, about half of countries included CO₂ emissions from biomass burning and half excluded them.

5. Verification

The most common sources of information for verifying CORINAIR were emissions estimates made using the national methodology and emission factors in the Default Emission Factor Handbook (Table 2). National energy statistics and emission estimates from point source operators were also used in many countries.

Table 2 Other Information used to Verify CORINAIR 90

6. CORINAIR Material and Software

CORINAIR and COPERT material (software and manuals/instructions) were rated as average, and additional information, check reports, progress meetings etc. as good. Although the use of English for all printed material caused few difficulties on average, 7 participants asked for material in an alternative language - French (3), German (2), Russian (1) and Portuguese (1).

The various aspects of the CORINAIR software were rated as average or good:

There were also a number of specific comments on individual aspects of the software’s usability (Table 3).

With regard to the overall design, there were several calls for a Windows-based application of the software - the system was not felt to be user friendly by today’s standards, and data entry in the current software was found to be very time consuming, with a lot of duplication (e.g. area sources, ratio and emission factors have to be filled in one by one, fuel emission factors for point sources have to be repeated many times). These aspects could be remedied by using spreadsheets for data entry. It was also felt that it was not easy to aggregate data and to produce summary tables, or e.g. to produce tables giving all the data on one particular point source, or one SNAP code. At least two countries had transferred data from CORINAIR files to their own database systems to allow them to produce tables, cross-check data, and edit results.

Table 3 Comments on Aspects of the CORINAIR and COPERT Software*

* Each of the comments in the Table were made by one expert only

One country felt that CORINAIR should allow more flexible input of data on point sources; it suggested point source data should be entered whatever the size of the source, and CORINAIR should then have the capability to select large point sources through a given selection criteria.

Other comments included:

• weighted emission factors have to be calculated ‘manually’ when specific emission factors are defined;
• it is not possible to define fuels and area sources everywhere;
• in EDIT, a unit for emission factors would be helpful; an opportunity to choose the fuel code would be helpful;
• in EMISSION, for sub-codes such as 0301XX, the main code (30100) is included in SUMMARY, so values are doubled;
• graphical representation of data would be useful;
• the software should make using a ‘bottom-up’ approach easier;
• it would be helpful if the software allowed the definition of new activity units.

6. Surrogate Definitions

Table 4 Surrogate Parameters provided for CORINAIR 90

7. COPERT

6 countries directly used COPERT, 2 used it to cross check data, and 8 did not use it all. Some countries expressed difficulty in obtaining data in the format required for inclusion in COPERT e.g. mileage per vehicle.

8. SNAP Codes

Suggestions for SNAP codes which should be subdivided, added, or aggregated or deleted are shown in Tables 5a, 5b and 5c. More general comments included:

Additions/completeness

• Some countries suggested that particular SNAP codes (02, 03.03, 04.03, 04.04, 04.05, 04.06, 06.03, 06.04) should include an ‘other’ category for completeness, and two countries suggested that every SNAP code should finish with an ‘other category’. Transparency could be maintained by attaching comments to such categories.
• Category 11, ‘Nature’ should be more comprehensive if it is to be used to compile a complete inventory of emissions of CO2 and other pollutants.

Areas for improved clarity/definitions

• One area causing concern to several countries was processes where emissions arise both from combustion and from the process itself and the material used in it (e.g. the pulp and paper industry, cement and glass production). It was suggested that each sub-code in 03.03 should be split to allow for emissions from combustion and for emissions from non-fuel materials which are combusted.
• It should be clearly specified how to assign consumption of fuel between subgroup 3.01 (industrial combustion in boilers, gas turbines and stationary engines), and subgroups 03.02/03.03 (process furnaces without contact/processes with contact) for economic sectors which have both types of activities.
• For some activities there should be a distinction between ‘immediate’ and ‘lagged’ emissions.
• SNAP codes should be accompanied by other nomenclatures such as

• NAPACT (ISIC, NACE...) economic-sectoral
• NAPTEC -techniques
• NAPCONT - control reduction technologies
• NAPFUE - fuels

• Thought should be given to SNAP codes where emissions might be considered to be non-anthropogenic - e.g. waste handling and combustion of black liquor in the pulp and paper industry .

Deletion/Aggregation

• One country suggested activities causing relatively low emissions (<0.1% of emission total) should be deleted. Another suggested that before deleting any codes, checking whether SNAP codes were empty because there is no activity or because of lack of data.

Table 6 shows reasons why it was not possible for countries to complete the CORINAIR database - either because the activity definition was unclear, or activity data or emission factors were unavailable. Some of the comments reflect ambiguities already mentioned above (e.g. the split between combustion and process dependent emissions in some industries); other problems are probably particular to one country. The main areas where several countries experienced problems were solvent use (06), other transport (08), and nature (011) .

In some countries, the mismatch between SNAP codes and categories used for socio-economic data had caused some problems in data collection for some sectors.

Table 5a SNAP codes to be Sub-divided

Table 5b Activities to be Added

Table 5c Activities to be Deleted or Aggregated