RIVM report xxxxxx xxx

RIVM report 773301 001 / NRP report 410200 051 page 17 of 142
9DOLGDWLRQRI('*$59 XQFHUWDLQW\DQDO\VLV
,QWURGXFWLRQ
Validation is used here in the meaning of comparing own estimates with those of others either
alternative bottom-up emission estimates or top-down emission estimates based on ‘reverse’
calculations with models calibrated to observed atmospheric concentrations. Therefore, validation
provides insight in the degree in which EDGAR data comply with and differ from major alternative
inventories or budgets, all with different status and background. It flags the characteristic differences
of the EDGAR inventories and possible errors or departures from commonly used emission figures.
Thus, the conclusions from a validation exercise will assist:
1) users in providing a summary with key differences with other inventory data sets;
2) developers in identifying areas for checking and possible improvements, or when proven to be
OK, of clear departures from often used emission estimates. The latter information is, obviously,
also of importance to data users.
In addition, the latter results were also very useful for prioritising efforts for improvement of 1990
emissions data in the new EDGAR 3.0. Only when significant improvements are expected, emission
factors for 1990 have been updated in Version 3.0.
In general validation has been done on aggregated sectoral levels, focussing on main source
categories which have more or less the same definition as used in other datasets. Because of large
differences in source definitions, more detailed comparisons are often not useful. Besides differences
in source definitions, also differences in reference years have to be taken into account when
comparing inventories. Comparing the spatial characteristics of gridded inventories is a relatively new
activity for emission inventories. Here we apply methods recently used at RIVM for comparison of
spatial patterns of other datasets.
9DOLGDWLRQRI('*$59
When EDGAR 2.0 was completed in the previous NOP-MLK project, validation had been done only
to a limited extent (Olivier HW DO., 1996; 1999). Within the follow-up project a number of more
detailed validation activities have been executed of different types. At national total and/or sectoral
level comparisons were made with European inventories compiled within the CORINAIR framework,
with GEIA inventories (if available), and to national greenhouse gas inventories submitted to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In addition, validation of the spatial
distribution of the gridded inventory was possible by comparison with independently developed
gridded inventories of GEIA (only if available). Furthermore, the EDGAR 2.0 inventories have been
used by various modelers, which also provides a validation of the gridded inventories, since these will
provide feedback if they come across unlikely values based on their model experience or knowledge
of alternative datasets.
&RPSDULVRQZLWKRWKHUUHJLRQDOVHFWRUDOHPLVVLRQHVWLPDWHV
Most inventories were validated by comparing total JOREDO estimates per source with other published
estimates. This was done, for instance with the CO 2 ,CH 4 and N 2 O inventories, which were compared
with IPCC sector totals (Olivier HWDO., 1999a). The inventories of CO, NO x , NMVOC and SO 2 were
also compared that way (Olivier HWDO., 1996). In addition, PRUHGHWDLOHGVHFWRUDO inventories of NO x
and SO 2 were also compared for a number of regions in Europe and Asia; NMVOC only for European