Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution

1. Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution Task Force on Integrated Assessment Modelling 31st and 32nd meeting 8-9 December 2005, Gothenburg, Sweden 17-19 May, Rome, Italy UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

2. Review of the Gothenburg protocol • Prepare for the revision of the protocol

3. 1. Review: what has changed? • New Eulerian dispersion model • Ecosystem dependent deposition rates • Sensitivity of ecosystems, ozone flux approach • Health effects of particles and ozone • Emission estimates • New (national) projections, time horizon 2020 • Effects of existing control options (cycle bypassing) • Increased potential of cost-effective measures due to linkages with climate policy, non-technical local measures and measures for ships

4. Preliminary conclusion TFIAM32 Emissions of SO2, NOx, NH3 and VOC declined Current policy efforts are no-regret, but… The Gothenburg Protocol is not sufficient to meet the original ambitions regarding the long term protection of ecosystems and health

5. 2000 2010 GP Europe EU25 Europe EU25 Lagrangian Model 1998 critical loads 26 61 25 54 2004 critical loads 25 56 23 49 Unified Model & 2004 CLs grid average deposition 29 65 29 59 ecosystem specific dep. Updated emissions & meteo variability 35 50 78 75 35 48 73 65 % Unprotected Ecosystem-area (nitrogen) - % Meteorologisk Instituttmet.no

6. Factors changing ecosystem risk estimates Goth Protocol Updated CL 50 * 50 km Exceedance of CLnut in 2010 Eulerian model Ecosyst. spec. dep. Meteorologisk Instituttmet.no

7. Trends in unprotected ecosystem area (%) Meteorologisk Instituttmet.no

8. GP knowledge:days with ozone above 60 ppb  Problem for Northwestern & central Europe 2010 1990 1990

9. Current knowledge: SOMO35 [ppb.days]  problem in Southern Europe 2000 2010 2020 Sum Of Mean Ozone values over 35 ppb in rural areas

10. Effect of hemispheric ozone increases the challenge No increase Expected increase Meteorologisk Instituttmet.no

11. Increasing importance of ship emissions Contribution of SOx from shipping to deposition of S Meteorologisk Instituttmet.no

12. Emission factors cars higher than expected

13. 175% 150% 125% 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 GDP Primary energy use CO2 SO2 NOx VOC NH3 PM2.5 With CLE emissions significantly decrease, with the exception of NH3 and CO2[EU25, Primes projection]

14. Remaining problem areas in 2020Eutrophication remains wide scale problem Health+vegetation - ozone Vegetation – N dep Forests – acid dep Semi-natural – acid dep Freshwater – acid dep Health - PM

15. 2004 - Distance to Target NOx Preliminary data ! Meteorologisk Institutt met.no

16. To do list • Improve & update national emissions projections • Non EU-countries • What control measures are envisaged and when? (TFEIP) • Write TFIAM background document to the official review report Same structure, including figures & 4 additional items: • Add para. on policy development in EU to TFIAM-document • Describe the quality of models used based on reviews • Explore new knowledge on damage to materials • Discuss costs and benefits of Gothenburg Protocol ?

17. 2. Preparations for revision of the Protocol • Modelling particulate matter • Local air pollution modelling (TFMM) • Update MFR, including emerging technologies & non-technical measures • Inclusion of GHG abatement measures  GAINS • Options for target setting & robustness of strategies

18. National inventory RAINS estimate Towards robust strategies: uncertainty analysis RAINS emission estimates vs. national inventories, 2000 SO2 NOx VOC NH3

19. National inventory RAINS estimate Uncertainties for PM are much larger! RAINS emission estimates vs.national inventories, 2000 PM10 PM2.5

20. NTMs have advantages, they: can have a significant and rapid effect on emissions do not assume speculative technological development often do not have negative environmental side effects can have low or net negative direct costs NTMs have disadvantages, they: require visible changes in behaviour that will generally be resisted by consumers, whereas most technical emission control measures (catalytic converters, loft insulation) are virtually invisible to the consumer TMs, if based on standards, have a fairly predictable easily calculated effect on future emissions. NTMs are more uncertain. have indirect costs that are difficult to quantify Workshop on Non-Technical Measures

21. Non-Technical measures in the transport sector

22. MFR including non-technical measures:emissions of nitrogen oxides (Mark Barrett- Senco)

23. CO2 mitigation options in GAINS • Power plants • Fuels shift to natural gas and renewables • Co-generation • Carbon capture and storage • Transport • Hybrid cars • Alternative fuels (biofuels, hydrogen) • Industry • End-use savings (including CHP) • Fuel shifts • Domestic • Insulation • Solar, biomass • Fuel shift to natural gas • Savings for appliances and lighting

24. 15% CO2 reduction by 2020 will also reduce air pollution

25. Principles for target setting (TFIAM 31) • Long term objective is achieving critical loads & no-effect levels • An effect-based approach has to achieve actual environmental improvements in a cost-effective way taking into account the distribution of costs and benefits among parties • The appropriate scaling of the ‘gap’ is a policy choice • For CAFE, scaling the gap between 2000 and no-effect levelswas found problematic: • No evidence for no-effect thresholds for health impacts • Limited scope for improvements in (clean) countries at the margin of the EU prevent measures at highly polluted places. • As a pragmatic interim approach, CAFE scaled the gap between the impact indicators calculated for Baseline 2020 and MTFR, • while working on extension of MFR with GAINS-measures and introducing dynamic effects modelling for priority setting.

26. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% UK Italy Malta Spain Latvia Ireland France Poland Austria Cyprus Greece Finland Estonia Sweden Belgium Portugal Hungary Slovakia Slovenia Denmark Lithuania Germany Czech Rep. Netherlands Luxembourg Residu MTFR CLE Max. gap closure Target setting: uniform % reduction shows limited scope for overall reduction of PM-effects PM-exposure in 2020 (2000 = 100%)

27. Meetings • 30-31 October 2006 (Thessaloniki): TFEIP/TFIAM Workshop on Emission Projections • 16-17 November (Laxenburg): TFIAM/TFMM Workshop on Urban Air Pollution Modelling • 14-15 November (Laxenburg): Drafting group TFIAM review report (Informal) • 2-4 May 2007 (Prague) TFIAM 33 (finalize review report) • ?? Tutorial session on GAINS-model (Informal)