|
|
|
| FAQ |
|
 |
 |
Frequently Asked Questions
- Basics
- Sources
- More details
- More compounds, sources, years
- Could you also provide time series emissions and gridded emissions of CO, NOx, NMVOC and SO2 for years prior to 1990?
- When will you update the emissions to a more recent year, e.g. 2000?
- Could you add new compounds to the database?
- Are you planning to add new compounds to the database?
- Could you also provide the emissions from natural sources, such as from volcanoes or lightning?
- Could you provide emissions of primary aerosols (particulate matter, dust, etc.)?
- Could you also provide emissions data with isotopic information?
- Could you provide emissions of pesticides and other Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)?
- Could you provide the emissions on a finer grid, e.g. 0.5 x 0.5 degree, a resolution often used in landuse models or regional atmospheric chemistry models?
- Could EDGAR, in addition to the annual emissions, also provide time profiles, e.g. for seasonality or diurnal variation?
|
Basics |
How are the source categories and regions defined?
A description of the sources and regions used in EDGAR 3 is
provided in the Definitions section of the documentation. The first
letter identifies the main source categories: B - Biofuel, combustion and production
F - Fossil fuel, combustion, production, and
handling/transmission
I - Industrial processes (i.e. non-combustion), including
solvent use.
L - Agriculture and Landuse
W - Waste handling For a more accurate description and definition the EDGAR source
categories have been related to the IPCC source categories 1 to 6
that have been defined for reporting of national greenhouse gas
inventories under the Climate Convention. The definitions of the
latter have been included in the documentation.
Please note that the regions in EDGAR 3 have been reordered; now
the OECD, Economies-In-Transition (EIT) and Less Developed
Countries (LDC) regions are grouped together, respectively. (These
three regional clusters are somewhat homogeneous with respect to
the development of the national statistical systems and the
emission factors for a number of source categories.) | | Top |  |
How should I cite EDGAR data in my publication?
We appreciate that you use EDGAR data as reference data set for
your scientific, policy or other applications. EDGAR data as
provided on the web site and through anonymous FTP may be freely
used, provided that you acknowledge the estimated uncertainties as
summarised in the uncertainty tables in the Uncertainty section of
the documentation, and that you include your publication the
following reference to the EDGAR data: source: EDGAR 3.x by RIVM/TNO (Olivier, J.G.J. and Berdowski,
J.J.M., 2001, Global emission sources and sinks. In: J. Berdowski,
R. Guicherit and B.J. Heij (eds.), The Climate System: 33-77.
Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers). For EDGAR V2.0 the proper citation is: EDGAR V2.0 by RIVM/TNO (Olivier, J.G.J., Bouwman, A.F.,
Berdowski, J.J.M., Veldt, C., Bloos, J.P.J., Visschedijk, A.J.H.,
Van der Maas, C.W.M. and P.Y.J. Zandveld, 1999, Sectoral emission
inventories of greenhouse gases for 1990 on a per country basis as
well as on 1o x 1o. Environmental Science & Policy, 2,
241-264).
In addition, as a small service in return to our efforts to
compile, document, release and update these datasets, we greatly
appreciate it, if you send us by snail mail, fax or email a copy of
your publication in which you refer to EDGAR data. This is also
appreciated for older publications, which refer to EDGAR 2
data.
Our mailing address is:
RIVM
EDGAR team
c/o Jeroen Peters
P.O. Box 1
NL-3720 BA Bilthoven
The Netherlands
Email: mailto:edgar-info@mnp.nl | | Top |  |
Could you provide graphs of gridded maps to include in my publication?
At the web site we provide per compound a GIF-file with a graph
of gridded total anthropogenic emissions for a specific year. You
may use this in publications, provided that you include a reference
to the EDGAR data as described above.
If you would require a higher resolution picture, please contact
us, since all grid maps are converted from originals in EPS
format. | | Top |  |
How about uncertainties in the EDGAR datasets?
The characteristics of the EDGAR structure (see Q. on difference
with official national inventories) determine the quality of the
individual inventories in relation to the user's application. At
national total sectoral level and at grid level, the EDGAR approach
guarantees that the source categories are defined identical across
countries and that the emission levels for these various source
categories are consistent across countries and are comparable
within and between regions. However, it is acknowledged that (a)
international statistics may differ from national statistics, in
particular for small countries and small activity data; (b) the
emission factors may be less detailed and less accurate and used to
compile official national inventories, and (c) grid maps used for
allocating national totals for a source category to the grid will
be different from the maps used at national level. This introduces
uncertainties at global, regional, national and grid level. An
indication of the uncertainties in the EDGAR global and regional
emission estimates is summarised in the uncertainty tables in the
Uncertainty section of the documentation. The uncertainties at
country level may be similar, or in specific cases higher than the
estimates provided in these tables. | | Top |  |
Why are the EDGAR data different from official national inventories?
The EDGAR set of inventories were compiled from the perspective of
providing good quality reference estimates of anthropogenic
emission sources per source category, based on scientifically sound
input data. This was done be using (a) international statistics as
activity data, since these are comparable between countries in
definition and units, (b) emission factors from the scientific
literature, also common across countries when judged comparable,
and (c) grid maps for allocating sectoral emissions of a country to
a grid, in principle common per sector, thus achieving spatial
consistency across compounds and years. This is also a key
difference with some of the GEIA inventories, which focus on the
best spatially explicit emission inventory for a specific compound
and a specific year. We acknowledge that our approach has
limitations too, e.g. EDGAR estimates will differ more or less from
official national emissions, both at national total sectoral level
and at grid level, but this approach was required to arrive at
emissions for various source categories, which are defined
identical across countries and regions. Nevertheless, because of
its internal consistency as mentioned above, we think that this
dataset is by its nature a good one for many reference purposes,
e.g. as input for global or regional atmospheric models or scenario
models or other policy analysis. Therefore we call the present
EDGAR national estimates 'reference datasets'. Indications of the
uncertainty in the global and regional emission estimates have been
summarised in the uncertainty tables in the Uncertainty section of
the documentation. The uncertainties in the EDGAR estimates at
country level may be similar, or in specific cases higher than the
estimates provided in these tables. | | Top |  |
What is the difference between EDGAR inventories and GEIA inventories?
Originally, GEIA inventories for a particular compound were by
definition the ones developed or endorsed by the corresponding GEIA
Study Group, as to guarantee that certain quality criteria are met.
For some compounds, e.g. N2O, NH3, NMVOC and CO, the EDGAR
inventories were adopted as the official GEIA inventory. However,
recently GEIA has broadened its scope and included the concept of
alternative datasets per compound or source category that may be
referred to or provided at the GEIA website or its subsidiary
sites. Thus, the EDGAR inventories for various compounds have
either the status of the GEIA inventory for that specific compound,
or are qualified as alternative GEIA dataset. | | Top |  |
What to do when I find caveats in the datasets that are not described in the EDGAR documentation?
In all cases that you identify emission estimates in the EDGAR
inventories that you think are clearly incorrect or are way outside
the expected uncertainty range, e.g. in comparison with recent,
more accurate estimates, or from analysis with atmospheric models,
we appreciate you letting us know. This is important information
for us, and possibly for other users as well. We may include it in
the list of known caveats or use it in future improvements of the
datasets. | | Top |  |
Could you provide a more detailed breakdown of the NMVOC Compound Groups?
Yes, some compound groups include a number of halogenated
substances. In fact, 'Non-Methane Volatile Organic Compounds' is
not very well defined; different guidelines (EMEP-CORINAIR, AP-42,
IPCC) may use somewhat different definitions. | | Top |  |
Are halocarbons included in the NMVOC Compound Groups?
Yes, some compound groups include a number of halogenated
substances. In fact, 'Non-Methane Volatile Organic Compounds' is
not very well defined; different guidelines (EMEP-CORINAIR, AP-42,
IPCC) may use somewhat different definitions. | | Top |  |
Could you provide the number of mole of emissions of the NMVOC Compound Groups equivalent to the emissions you provide in mass units?
At the GEIA site with NMVOC Compound Group emissions we provide in
a help file for each compound group the average number of mole per
gramme of emissions. | | Top |  |
Why do you use the gridded population map compiled by Li?
At present, there are several gridded population map around,
like the 1ox1o maps from Harvard/Logan, NASA-GISS, two maps at
10'x10' NGCIA, and the GEIA map on 1ox1o by Li. We use the Li map
since it is the only map available at 1x1 which has the following
qualifications:
- a uniform spatial quality for all countries - in contrast with
the NGCIA maps, which are based on sub-national census data that
have in many cases a very high spatial resolution, but also include
several countries - e.g. the Russian Federation - of which the
smallest units are much larger then a 1ox1o grid cell;
- a detailed rural population distribution due to the inclusion
of small towns to the size of 10,000 inhabitants and compiled
for a recent year - in contrast with the NASA-GISS and
Harvard/Logan maps, which were compiled for an older year and using
less details for the rural area;
- it locates population in the proper grid cell - whereas allows
taking account of border cells, which include areas of more than
one country/sea area.
For these reasons this map was selected as the default GEIA
population map for new inventories. Moreover, due to the more
detailed spatial resolution in the rural areas, the Li map is
better suited for splitting into urban and rural sub-maps. | | Top |  |
Why did you modify the Li map and use separate urban and rural population maps in EDGAR 3?
The reason for compiling these separate maps in EDGAR 3 is to
restrict industrial activities to the urban population areas, when
no source-specific map is available. Thereby we avoid that a
fraction of the emissions of these sources is also allocated to
distant, rural areas. Although that share would have been small
(say up to 10-20% in most cases) and distributed over many cells,
in absolute levels it may be a substantial amount thus increasing
the rural emissions significantly. This effect has now largely been
eliminated from the previous spatial distribution used e.g. in
EDGAR 2. | | Top |  |
 |
Sources |
Could you provide the international emissions from air transport?
Yes we do! Air transport emissions are calculated using the energy
statistics from International Energy Agency (IEA) as activity data
and they distinguish domestic and international air transport. So,
in principle we could take out the national part of the total
aircraft emissions of a country. However, in practice individual
countries use quite different national definitions to make this
distinction. Therefore it is not worthwhile to consider the
national emissions from air transport separately without knowing
details on the national definitions used. For more information on
the subject we refer to the IEA (e.g. the publication 'CO2 from
fuel combustion'). Global total emissions, calculated as sum of
emissions from total fuel use per country for air transport, were
allocated to gridded emissions at altitude bands of 1 km. The
lowest band, which stretches from 0 to 1 km altitude, is
approximately equivalent to the Landing and Take-Off (LTO)
emissions near airports. These emissions are considered as surface
emissions and are included in the maps for surface emissions. | | Top |  |
Could you provide the transport emissions separately for passenger and freight transport?
No, unfortunately we cannot. The transport emissions are calculated
using the energy statistics from the International Energy Agency
(IEA) as activity data and these only distinguish fuel types per
mode of transport. However, for road transport most emission
factors at country level for 1990 were compiled using specific
emission factors per type of vehicle and data for the shares of
these types in the country total for 1990. | | Top |  |
The gridded emissions from road transport show per country a constant ratio between compounds. Didn't you use different emission factors for urban, rural and highway driving?
Yes, per country we used for the emission factors of CO, NOx, and
NMVOC specific emission factors per type of vehicle and per part of
the driving cycle combined with estimates for the fuel consumption
in each sub-sector. These emission factors were aggregated to a
national average per fuel type (petrol, diesel, LPG) and then
applied to the energy statistics for road transport per fuel type.
Subsequently the national total emissions were distributed to grid
cells within each country using a population map. The former
aggregation of emission factors following by using the same maps
for allocating the gridded emissions causes the phenomenon
mentioned in the question. | | Top |  |
What causes the differences in agricultural waste burning emissions in EDGAR and IPCC reports and other literature?
At global level agricultural waste burning emissions are very
uncertain by their nature. Uncertainty comes into the equation e.g.
when estimating (a) the fraction of above-ground crop residues per
unit of net crop production (by crop type); (b) the fraction of
above-ground residue left on the field (by crop type) (i.e. not
removed e.g. with the crop or for use as biofuel); (d) the carbon
and nitrogen content in the crop residues (when emission factors
are expressed relative to CO2 and to the N content). In the
literature very different fractions of crop residues burned are
used. The recent estimates we used are lower than the older ones.
Moreover, in our analysis the crop residues used for energetic
purposes (i.e. as 'vegetal biofuel') are subtracted from the
amounts allocated to our source category 'Agricultural waste
burning'. | | Top |  |
What causes the differences in deforestation emissions in EDGAR and IPCC reports and other literature?
Large-scale biomass burning emissions are very uncertain by their
nature. Uncertainty comes into the equation e.g. when estimating
(a) the amount of hectares burned; (b) the density of above-ground
biomass per hectare; (c) the fraction of above-ground biomass
actually burned; (d) the carbon content in the aboveground biomass
(when emission factors are expressed relative to CO2). For reasons
of transparency we used the FAO publications with estimates of
average per cent of area annually deforested per decade ('70s;
'80s; first half of the '90s) combined with IPCC defaults for the
parameters (b) to (d). The total amount of biomass burned thus
calculated appears to be approximately at the same level as the
IPCC global total estimate for biomass burning (including biofuel
use). | | Top |  |
 |
More details |
Can I get the complete database with all details?
We are sorry, but we only publicly provide emissions data from the
EDGAR information systems at the standard source and region level
for selected years. In addition we provide this data per individual
country, although the associated uncertainty may be quite high in
these cases (up to 50%). For most scientific and policy
applications this level of detail should be sufficient. Providing
more details would generate more questions about definitions and
caveats in the dataset. | | Top |  |
Could you provide the emissions from fossil fuel combustion per fuel type?
In principle we could do this. However, at present we give no
priority to this, since it would also require documenting the
quality and caveats of the dataset at that level. We assume that
for most scientific and policy applications the present level of
detail is sufficient. | | Top |  |
Are there exceptions to this?
In individual cases, on a co-operation project basis, we may
provide data at a more detailed level or with other cross sections.
If you think we might have a strong interest in co-operating with
your group please let us know; we may take co-operation into
consideration… | | Top |  |
Could you provide the underlying activity with which the emissions have been calculated?
No, unfortunately we cannot. Often the activity data used were
based on international statistics from IEA, FAO, UN, USGS, AFEAS,
RAND or commercial firms compiling industry statistics. We are
sorry, but we cannot provide the activity data at country level
since the proprietary rights of this data are with the organisation
that compiled them. Users of the datasets are not allowed to
distribute the datasets as such to others. So, you will have to
contact these organisations to get or purchase this data. [However,
we may provide aggregated activity data, e.g. per EDGAR region, at
a later time.]
An exception is in the special case of co-operation projects, where
input data are shared, and the activity data as included in EDGAR
could be shared as well.
If you think we might have a strong interest in co-operating with
your group please let us know; we may take co-operation into
consideration… | | Top |  |
Could you provide the basic emission factors with which the emissions have been calculated?
We refer to the key publications on the EDGAR inventories, where
individual or aggregated emission factors for all sources have been
provided. The emission factors we used vary from rather aggregate
to very detailed. Therefore, providing all emission factors would
require defining also carefully for which source category and
activity unit they are defined. Also some of the factors, in
particular for CO, NOx, NMVOC and SO2, were derived using
confidential information. [However, in relation to the IPCC project
on the compilation of a comprehensive Emission factor Database we
may submit the emission factors used.] | | Top |  |
 |
More compounds, sources, years |
Could you also provide time series emissions and gridded emissions of CO, NOx, NMVOC and SO2 for years prior to 1990?
No, at present we cannot provide pre-1990 emissions for these
compounds. To estimate these emissions will require a careful
analysis of the trend over time in emission factors caused by the
implementation of emission control technology in sectors and in
many industrialised countries. Only in cases where we could assume
as first approximation that emission factors have remained constant
over the last decades (at the sub-source level used in EDGAR), we
have compiled inventories covering the period 1970-1995, i.e. for
the direct greenhouse gases.
However, based on the EDGAR V2.0 emissions for 1990 we have
compiled a 100-year set of gridded inventories with decadal
emissions for these compounds. This dataset is available from Frank
Dentener at JRC, Ispra (It.). | | Top |  |
When will you update the emissions to a more recent year, e.g. 2000?
Good question. This principally depends on the availability of
international statistics all covering more recent years. Since
making detailed updates of EDGAR is a laborious effort, based
on the interest in and capacity available by the EDGAR
consortium, updates at a detailed level will only been made every
five years or so.
However, in order to meet the demand from policy and scientific
users, the EDGAR consortium decided to initiate a new so-called
‘Fast Track’ action to (bi-)annually estimate and publish recent
global emissions at country and grid level based on readily
available trend data (recent national statistics for the standard
EDGAR categories and trends in reported national emissions when
available).
In addition, MNP annually compiles an estimate of the trend in
direct greenhouse gases (i.e. the six Kyoto Protocol compounds) per
major anthropogenic source category based on the global total
statistics for these categories and extrapolating (global total)
trends in emission factors where necessary. The same is done for
the global consumption and emissions of Ozone Depleting compounds
included in the Montreal Protocol and subsequent revisions. See the
links at the Greenhouse Gas entry page and the Ozone Depleting
Substance entry page in EDGAR 3.2. | | Top |  |
Could you add new compounds to the database?
Yes, in principle the structure of the EDGAR makes it rather easy
to add a new compound, provided that the source categories already
exist in EDGAR and that the emission factors for each source
category are known per country or regions for specific years (EDGAR
uses uniform emission factors per country). Then only a conversion
of the emission factors is necessary into units expressed as annual
emissions per unit of activity data currently used in EDGAR.
Subsequently, national, regional, global and 1x1 degree gridded
emissions can be calculated for any year in the period 1970-1995,
using interpolation and extrapolation of the emission
factors.
(If the sources are not yet included in the present system, in
addition the corresponding activity data per country for the
required period needs to be compiled and an appropriate grid map
needs to be selected of compiled.)
If you would like to expand the EDGAR system in this way, you are
invited to contact us. Maybe we can work out a co-operation. | | Top |  |
Are you planning to add new compounds to the database?
We anticipate to expand the EDGAR 3.2 datasets with Black Carbon
(BC) and Organic Carbon (OC) emissions. However, there will be a
rather large uncertainty involved, due to the limited number of
measurements and limited knowledge about the degree of diversity
within the sources.
In addition, we are considering to expand the TNO results for
Europe to a global anthropogenic inventory of PM10 and
PM2.5 emissions. | | Top |  |
Could you also provide the emissions from natural sources, such as from volcanoes or lightning?
The focus of the EDGAR system is on anthropogenic emission sources.
For global and gridded estimates of natural emissions we refer to
the GEIA/IGAC inventories, which provide natural emissions for
several compounds and many sources, including volcanoes, lightning,
soils and oceans. An exception are emissions from fossil fuel fires
(e.g. coal fires and uncontrolled oil fires), which will be added
to the EDGAR inventories [in preparation]. | | Top |  |
Could you provide emissions of primary aerosols (particulate matter, dust, etc.)?
Yes, in the second half of 2005 we will provide information on Black Carbon (BC) and Organic Carbon (OC) emissions cf. Bond et al. (2003) in the EDGAR information system. For other information please check out other websites, e.g. of GEIA/IGBP. The GEIA group that is compiling a set for all primary particles has not yet finished. Also, for Europe TNO has compiled a regional emissions database for PM10 and PM2.5, which is available online. See the TNO website or the CEPMEIP website. | | Top |  |
Could you also provide emissions data with isotopic information?
No, we have no information on this topic. For this type of
information please check out the other web sites, e.g. of IGAP/IGBP
or CDIAC. | | Top |  |
Could you provide emissions of pesticides and other Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)?
No, we have no information on this topic. For this type of
information please check out the other web sites, e.g. of
GEIA/IGAC. | | Top |  |
Could you provide the emissions on a finer grid, e.g. 0.5 x 0.5 degree, a resolution often used in landuse models or regional atmospheric chemistry models?
EDGAR, as does GEIA, aims at serving primarily the global
atmospheric models as well as policy analysis at regional or
country level. For global models the present resolution of 1x1
degree appears quite sufficient. However, within GEIA discussion
have started to improve on the treatment of borderline grid cells
in which more than one country of ocean is present. This will
improve the accuracy at the present 1x1 degree resolution.
In principle, in the future the EDGAR system could generate the
emissions at a higher resolution after a relatively small
modification of the software, provided that for all present grid
maps equivalents at the higher resolution are available
(population, animals, landuse, point sources, etc.). At present
this is not yet the case. However, one could also pose a counter
question: are the global models really sensitive to a finer
distribution? One should realise that the inherent uncertainty in
gridded emissions - also at 1x1 degree - is sometimes quite large,
in particular when using emission inventories as estimate for
specific episodes in time. | | Top |  |
Could EDGAR, in addition to the annual emissions, also provide time profiles, e.g. for seasonality or diurnal variation?
Providing time profiles for all sources at global level is a
comprehensive task, which is dealt with by GEIA groups as well. At
present we do not provide time profiles, other than the seasonality
illustrated in the RIVM/TNO-NOP report on EDGAR 3, so the user is
referred to datasets published in the literature, e.g. the Veldt
approximations, Hao for biomass burning, or Mueller for key
anthropogenic sources. | | Top |  |
 |
|
|