ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2011/10:
Download
1 / 16

ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2011/10: 1. Recent results - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 69 Views
  • Uploaded on

ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2011/10: 1. Recent results 2. Effect-based indicators for the support of the protocol revision. J-P Hettelingh , M Posch, J Slootweg ICP M&M - Coordination Centre for Effects (CCE), www.icpmapping.org hosted at RIVM.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2011/10: 1. Recent results' - ogden


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2011/10:

1. Recent results

2. Effect-based indicators for the support of the protocol revision

J-P Hettelingh, M Posch, J Slootweg

ICP M&M - Coordination Centre for Effects (CCE),

www.icpmapping.org hosted at RIVM




Effect based indicators for the support of the Protocol RevisionScenarios of August 2011 for WGSR49(note that the /10 document, reports on effects of scenarios that were input to the WGSR48 of the spring 2010)


Scenarios Revision (as of August 2011)

Year: 2020, all based on PRIMES model

Baseline: Current LEgislation (CLE)

3 ambition levels:

Table: Summary of gap closure percentages for the impact indicators

+ Maximum Technically Feasible Reductions (MTFR)


Exceedances (AAE) of RevisionAcidity Critical Loads

and % area at risk in Europe, (EU27) and Natura2000

2000, 12%,(20%), 23%

CLE, 4%, (6%), 7%

LOW*, 3%, (5%), 6%

MID, 2%, (4%), 5%

HIGH*, 2% (3%), 4%

MTFR, 1% (3%), 3%


Exceedances (AAE) of RevisionNutrient Critical Loads

and % area at risk in Europe, (EU27) and Natura2000

2000, 54%, (75%), 72%

CLE, 37% (59%), 58%

LOW*, 31%, (50%), 50%

MID, 29%, (48%), 48%

HIGH*, 26%, (44%), 44%

MFR, 22%, (38%), 38%



DYNAMIC MODELLING of Eutrophication: Revision

Violation of Nutrient 2050 Target Loads (compared with CLs)

and % area not recovering before 2050 in Europe (and EU27)

Target Loads CLs

CLE:

38% (61%)

CLE:

37% (59%)

MID:

30% (50%)

MID:

29% (48%)


Exceedances (AAE) of RevisionEmpirical Critical Loads

and % area at risk in Europe, (EU27) and Natura2000

2000, 25%, (42%), 50%

CLE, 11%,(21%), 28%

LOW*, 7%, (14%), 18%

MFR, 3% (6%), 8%

MID, 6%, (12%), 15%

HIGH*, 5%, (10%), 13%


Area at N-risk of a more than 5% “change in biodiversity”,

i.e. of species richness [semi-natural grass lands; s-alpine scrub habitats], and similarity [coniferous boreal woodlands],

together covering 53% of European natural area

3 %

2 %

10 %

1 %

1 %

0,6 %


Robustness analyses

Robustness analyses: biodiversity”,

Between WGSR48 and WGSR49 assessments

Ensemble assessment of empirical and computed critical load exceedances

Overlap of area at risk of N-deposition with additional pressure


1 differences of scenario effects between wgsr48 and wgsr49
(1) Differences of scenario effects between biodiversity”, WGSR48 and WGSR49


(2) Likeliness of Exceedances (AAE) in Europe biodiversity”,

based on the “ensemble” of empirical and modelled CL(N)

Exceedances:

= unlikely

= 50 - 50

= likely

= very likely

= virtually

certain

Explore the inclusion of alternative deposition assessments ?


3 in addition some areas are also at risk of ambient nh 3 that exceed critical levels
(3) In addition, some areas are biodiversity”, also at risk ofambient [NH3] that exceed critical levels

NAT-2000

PRI-2000

MFR-2020

PRI-2030

Critical levels from Cape et al. 2008


Conclusions for inclusion in the report of this meeting in the un languages
Conclusions for inclusion in the report of this meeting in the UN languages:

  • ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2011/10 para 5: indicating the participation of parties to the Convention in the call for data 2010/2011

  • ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2011/10 para 6: indicating the substance of the proposed call for data 2011/2012 as a first follow up to effect oriented elements of the LTS strategy of the Convention adopted by the EB28.

  • Computed effects of emission reduction scenarios for the revision of the Gothenburg protocol between WGSR47 and WGSR49 do not significantly vary.

  • The computed risk of nutrient nitrogen – under the so-called MID scenario - is widespread, affecting 29% of ecosystems in the EMEP domain, and 48% of natural areas both in the EU27 and Natura 2000 areas.

  • Deposition values, that are required for recovery before 2050, are exceeded under the MID scenario in 30% and 50% of ecosystems in the EMEP domain and the EU27 respectively.

  • Following the request from the EB to improve biological indicators, the change of plant species diversity has very tentatively been assessed for about half of the terrestrial European ecosystems. It turns oout that a significant change may occur to an estimation of up to about 10% of this area at deposition values around the 2000 level. The estimation is subject to a high uncertainty.


ad