BACKGROUND DOCUMENT 2
Review of the Gothenburg Protocol
Draft outline for a technical report of the Task Force on Integrated Assessment Modelling
As discussed with the UNECE secretariat, TFIAM will prepare a background review document, that will support the 18 pages WGSRmain review document to be prepared by the UNECE secretariat. The TFIAM document can contain tables, graphs and mapsand will be published in English only. The document could be 50-75 pages. Input to the WGSR-report is requested by November 2006 (1st draft) and June 2007 (final draft).
I INTRODUCTION
Background information about the review, its methodology and results.
Key messages: Remind the goal of the protocol: the multi pollutant-multi effect approach to stepwise achieve critical loads and levels required for the long term protection of health & ecosystems. Remind the criteria for target setting used: cost-effectiveness and equal environmental improvements (gap-closure approach), backed by a set of common emission limit values. Remind that work under the LRTAP-Convention is supported by an extensive network of scientists, that the Protocol was based on available scientific knowledge in the late nineties and that the review has to consider new scientific insights. Also mention developments in the extension of the geographical scope of the Convention (EECCA-involvement), the enlargement of the EU, additional policies by the EU (under the air quality directive and other relevant directives) and efforts by the US and Canada.
Background info needed: scheme of multi-pollutant - multi effects relationships (CIAM). Map of the Northern Hemisphere indicating the current and future geographical scope of the protocol, as well as the countries for which some form of co-operation and data exchange exists (e.g. China, Japan).
Remaining questions: How to deal with uncertainties? Is available science sufficient enough to support a revision ot the protocol?
II EMISSIONS, CONCENTRATION AND DEPOSITION LEVELS
Description of the latest information on ambient concentrations and depositions of sulphur and nitrogen compounds and of photochemical pollution and the latest emission levels.Include trends in primary and secondary PM2.5 & PM10.
Contributions from: Task Force on Monitoring and Modelling, Task Force on Emission Inventories and Projections, MSC-West, CCC
Key messages: the good news is that emissions decrease, but concentrations & depositions remain high in hotspot areas (of traffic, energy use & cattle). Ship emissions are expected to increase. The new atmospheric model has been reviewed is regarded as fit for purpose. The model allows for a more realisticdescription of deposition on forests and natural areas. Depositionsare now higher than calculated with the model used for the preparation of the protocol. Hemispheric background of ozone has increasedand will possibly further increase (partly due to rising global methane emissions).
Background info needed: Summary of the EMEP model review. EMEP Status reports; summary of the EMEP Assessment report; explanation of emission trends: what sectors have decreased their emissions most; what environmental policy measures had significant effects; to what extend structural & economic changes influenced emission developments (input from EEA/CIAM).
Remaining questions:
What are the uncertainties on future changes in meteorology and the boundary conditions of the model? How to relate regional background concentrations to the local population exposure to Ozone and NO2 and (secondary) PM?
III EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH, NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS, MATERIALS
AND CROPS
Description of the current status of the monitored effects of sulphur and nitrogen compounds and photochemical pollution on human health, natural ecosystems, materials and crops, including trends in exposure to PM2.5 & PM10 and related health risk, as well as observable trends in ecosystem changes .
Contributing bodies: WG Effects, ICP Task Forces and Programme Centres, TF Health, EG Particulate Matter
Key messages: the positive news is that ecosystem protection to acidification improves, but that nitrogen is still a widespread problem. For ozone, new exposure indicatorsare used to assess the impact on human health and vegetation. Exposure to PM and Ozone reduces, but with current legislation exposure still substantial health risks will occur by 2020. Due to new insights in the dynamical behavior of ecosystems and the effects of ozone to vegetation, risks of continued exceedances of critical loads and levels can now be better assessed and prioritized than in 1999.
Background info needed: WGE-trendreport + summary; exceedance maps (1990, 2000, 2010, 2020, differences old model/new model); health damage maps (CIAM); assess risks of continued exceedances with dynamic model & ozone-fluxmodel. Compare results for AOT60 and SOMO35.
Remaining questions: what are the consequences of the inclusion of health risks due to long term exposure to (secondary) particles? What are the consequences of using the flux approach to estimate ozone effectsfor vegetation?What is the relation between calculated population exposure and the real life exposure to in/outdoor air pollutants? What is the damage to materials?
IV NATIONAL EMISSION CEILINGS
Revised information on calculated and internationally optimized allocations of emission reductions for States within the geographical scope of EMEP, using integrated assessment models, including atmospheric transport models. This section should provide an answer to the question whether the emission ceilings in annex II of the Protocol are adequate.
Contributing bodies: MSC-W, CIAM
Key messages: with current legislation a number of parties will fulfill the Gothenburg obligations or go even beyond[1]. Some others will need additional policies. The effectiveness of the Protocol is less than expected in 1999. According to new scientific findings the envisaged emission reductions under the Gothenburg protocol are less effective in approaching the ultimate goal than previously thought. [A cost-optimal solution based on the current methodology aiming at (more or less) the same ambition level as the Gothenburg Protocol would lead different emission requirements for several countries.]
Background info needed: identify emission reductions with CLE for 2010/2020. Compare with Gothenburg/NEC-obligations. Identify the effects of methodological changes in emissions calculation (eg. new emission factors, new sources included). [Compare emission reductions with an optimizationfor 2015/2020 with comparable Gothenburg/NEC-ambitions.]
Remaining questions: To what extend did the protocol contribute to emission reductions, as compared to other policy developments? How did changes in the baseline affect cost effectiveness and the distribution of the burden among parties? What are the consequences for the principle of equity among parties? To what extend will other policies (traffic, agriculture) lead to additional emission reductions, e.g. via local measures (eg. speed limits, parking policy; specific agricultural measures in/around natural ecosystems)?
V EMISSION LIMIT VALUES
Reassessments of the adequacy of the obligations is required by the Protocol.Assess sufficiency of ELVs. Compare technical annexes with current views on best available technologies ( IPPC-documents).
Contributing bodies: Expert Group on Techno-economic issues.
Key messages: Current ELVs in the Annex of the Protocol do not always represent BAT.ELVs are for highly industrialized and populated countries not sufficient to meet the emission ceilings obligations.
Background info needed: RAINS-calculation of emission and deposition/exposure impacts of ELVs - especially Euro-5/6, LCP-directive, etc.What part of the total CLE/MFR are covered by European-wide emission limit values?
Remaining questions: What was the effect of the ELVs in the Annexes (did they make any difference)? How to deal with uncertainties like inadequacy of test cycle emissions for real life situations (actual road emissions being significantly higher than during test cycles)?
VI THE ROLE OF HEMISPERIC TRANSPORT
Describe rising European background levels.
Contributing bodies: TF on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution, Review by US/Canada, JRC
Key messages: increased global concentration of ozone; input/output budgets for main regions (North America; Europe; Asia); only modest contribution of North American & Asian emission to PM-concentrations in Europe. Global CLE and MFR-reductions of methane, CO, NOx, PM, SO2 could reduce background concentrations by x% and y% respectively.
Background info needed: Hemispheric transport calculations & model comparisons;reviewdocument by US/Canada.
Remaining questions: what are the uncertainties? What are the political consequences?
VII SYNERGIES WITH OTHER POLICY AREAS
Describe relationship with climate policy, biodiversity policy, nitrate and water quality policy, local air quality policy.
Contributing bodies: CIAM
Key messages: Close links concerning sources, abatement and atmospheric transport and chemistry; synergistic and antagonistic effects; increased cost-effectiveness of emission reduction & larger MFR-abatement potential. Greenhouse gas measures are cost-effective measures to reduce air pollution.
Background info needed: GAINS-calculations
Remaining questions: A number of behavioral changes are not incorporated (how to assess the costs & policies for more cycling, wearing a pullover or eating less meat?). What about antagonistic effects of certain measures like biofuels?
VIII PARTICULATE MATTER
Assessment of the need to include PM in the assessment of health risks. How cost-effective are reductions of primary PM as compared to secondary particles? How to deal with the uncertainties in PM in a policy process?
Contributing bodies: Expert Group on Particulate Matter, MSC-W, CIAM
Key messages: PM-exposure is causing significant health effects and is in many parties dominated by transboundary air pollution. Nevertheless in urban areas concentrations can be 4-5 ug/m3 higher than in rural locations. Data on emissions & concentrations of PM are more uncertain than for other pollutants under the Protocol. For some sectors (eg traffic tail pipe) emission data are more certain than for other sectors (eg residential wood burning). Focus on PM2.5 seems to cover most of the anthropogenic emission sources, but health effects of the coarse fraction cannot be ruled out. PM-measures for combustion sources in urban areas and especially vehicles seem to be no regret. Health effects of specific species of PM will not be available soon (2008 or probably later). It seems justified to use PM mass as indicator to assess the health effects.
Background info needed: PM-Status Reports; report by Expert Group on PM.
Remaining questions: How to deal with gaps in the PM-emission database in the coming year? What are the uncertainties & inconsistencies in PM-monitoring data? How to deal with uncertainties in rural wood burning? Will there be sufficient information & consensus on urban levels of PM?Can local measures contribute cost-effectively to reduce health effects? What about secondary organic aerosols?
IX PROGRESS TOWARDS ACHIEVING THE OBJECTIVE OF THE PROTOCOL
Assessment of the progress towards achieving the objective of the Protocol. This section should provide an answer to the question whether the Protocol obligations, if fully implemented, would lead to the desired results, in view of the latest scientific knowledge.
Key meassage: see Background document 1
Background info needed: See chapter IV. Comparison with the long term goals (prevention of significant negative effects to health and nature).
Remaining questions: what are the main uncertainties? Are the models fit enough to support a revision of the protocol? Describe available modelling tools and refer to scientific reviews of EMEP, RAINS, CL and the comparisons with national modelling activities.
X CONCLUSIONS
Hypothetical: revision is needed to meet the ambitions of the protocol. Co-operation across the Northern Hemisphere is needed. Primary PM-measures are cost-effective measures to reduce health risks. The available modelling tools are fit to support the policy process of a revision of the protocol.
Fourth draft - Rob Maas, 23 June2006
1
Draft outline technical report of TFIAM on the review of the Gothenburg protocol - 23 June 2006
[1] How to deal with the additional requirements for EU-countries under the NEC-directive? It seems most practical to not only to evaluate the Gothenburg requirements, but in a table also express the differences between Gothenburg-protocol and NEC.