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

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

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

Emissions of SO 2, NO x, NH 3 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 Preliminary conclusion TFIAM32

73 65 % ecosystem specific dep. Updated emissions & meteo variability grid average deposition Unified Model & 2004 CLs critical loads critical loads Lagrangian Model EU25EuropeEU25Europe 2010 GP2000 Unprotected Ecosystem-area (nitrogen) - % Meteorologisk Institutt met.no

Factors changing ecosystem risk estimates Goth Protocol Updated CL 50 * 50 km Eulerian modelEcosyst. spec. dep. Exceedance of CL nut in 2010

Trends in unprotected ecosystem area (%) % GP Acidification EU EMEP Eutrophication EU EMEP Meteorologisk Institutt met.no

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

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

Effect of hemispheric ozone increases the challenge Meteorologisk Institutt met.no No increaseExpected increase

Increasing importance of ship emissions Contribution of SOx from shipping to deposition of S Meteorologisk Institutt met.no

Emission factors cars higher than expected

With CLE emissions significantly decrease, with the exception of NH 3 and CO 2 [EU25, Primes projection]

Remaining problem areas in 2020 Eutrophication remains wide scale problem Forests – acid dep Semi-natural – acid depFreshwater – acid depHealth - PM Health+vegetation - ozoneVegetation – N dep

Distance to Target NO x Meteorologisk Institutt met.no Preliminary data !

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 ?

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

Towards robust strategies: uncertainty analysis RAINS emission estimates vs. national inventories, 2000 SO 2 VOC NO x NH 3 National inventoryRAINS estimate

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

Workshop on Non-Technical Measures 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

Non-Technical measures in the transport sector

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

CO 2 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

15% CO 2 reduction by 2020 will also reduce air pollution

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 levels was 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.

Target setting: uniform % reduction shows limited scope for overall reduction of PM-effects PM-exposure in 2020 (2000 = 100%)

Meetings  October 2006 (Thessaloniki): TFEIP/TFIAM Workshop on Emission Projections  November (Laxenburg): TFIAM/TFMM Workshop on Urban Air Pollution Modelling November (Laxenburg): Drafting group TFIAM review report (Informal)  2-4 May 2007 (Prague) TFIAM 33 (finalize review report) ?? Tutorial session on GAINS-model (Informal)