1. Impacts of air pollution on ecosystems, human health and materials under different Gothenburg Protocol scenarios
a LRTAP dataflow
A.C. Le Gall, S. Doytchinov, R. Fischer, M. Forsius, H. Harmens, J.-P. Hettelingh, A. Jenkins, M. Krzyzanowski, B. Kvæven, M. Lorenz, L. Lundin, G.E. Mills, F. Moldan, M. Posch, B.L. Skjelkvåle, J. Tidblad, R. F. Wright
All WGE’s ICPs and TF
and EMEP

2. How do the data flow between these groups?

3. WGE indicators analysis: Data needs
ICP modelling and mapping
ICP forests
ICP waters
ICP integrated monitoring
ICP vegetation
TF health
ICP materials
JEG dyn mod
Eutrophication
N, S Deposition
Ozone concentration
Meteorological data
Acidification
Ozone
Double head to each group brings in robstness of the structure, increase discussion between scientists.
Multi-pollutant

4. Projections/scenarios available
NAT 2000: Historic data (partly Eurostat)
NAT 2020: Assumed national emissions (reported from the countries)
PRI 2020 and 2030: Projections (mainly) by PRIMES – an emissions energy consumption model
MFR 2020 – Maximum feasible reduction plan – how much is possible to reduce with present day technology
Data as available in October 2010
The detailed description of the different scenarios is in CIAM report 1/2010 (Amann, M., Bertok, I., Cofala, J., Heyes, C., Klimont, Z., Rafaj, P., Schöpp, W., et Wagner, F. (2010). "Scope for further environmental improvements in 2020 beyond the baseline projections. ," Rep. No. CIAM Report 1/2010. IIASA, International institute for applied systems analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.)
The (mainly) and (partly) are due to the fact that these sources are for most countries in these scenarios or projections but not for all. They have been completed by other sources when necessary. It is too long to give all details in one slide.
The results here are those obtained by the different WGE ICPs and TFs with the data available in October Baselines scenarios have been modified since to become more precise. The absolute values of modelled results may therefore change slightly if different data are used as inputs. The overall trends will not change.
The present analysis is a preliminary study as the deposition values used for the modelling were issued from scenarios prepared in October It is the fruit of a robust collaboration between groups under EMEP and the Working Groups on Effects, responding to WGSR needs for information.
Since October 2010, following the WGSR requests, CIAM and the TF IAM have been recalculating baselines, MFR and intermediate scenarios. Once new scenarios are validated by the WGSR, the WGE propose to run again their models and to provide final estimations. It is expected that absolute values will change with the new calculations but that main trends will remain as described in this document.
Data provided by TF IAM / CIAM and MSCW

5. EMEP-WGE-WGSR data flow
TF measurement & modelling (MSCW, MSCE)
TF IAM
ICP modelling and mapping
ICP forests
ICP waters
ICP integrated monitoring
ICP vegetation
TF health
ICP materials
JEG dyn mod
EMEP
WGE
WGSR
Colour code

6. ICP IM: Decrease of impacts is expected at various sites
Eutrophication
ICP IM: Decrease of impacts is expected at various sites
The number of sites impacted decreases by about 20% in 2020 compared with baseline (70% with MFR)
The magnitude of the impact is reduced by about 40% with baseline in 2020 (80% with MFR)
Number of sites protected /not protected with respect to critical loads for eutrophication for terrestrial ecosystems
As for acidification: Number of sites impacted are decreasing, the level of impact is decreasing. Yet, the decrease is less important (% wise) than for acidification. Furthermore the magnitude of the impact is much larger than for acidification (107 compared to 1.5 eq/ha/an).
Average exceedance of the critical loads for eutrophication for terrestrial ecosystems

7. ICP M&M: modelling at european scale confirms sites previsions
Eutrophication
ICP M&M: modelling at european scale confirms sites previsions
CCE Status report
NAT2000
NAT2020
MFR2020
EU27
74%
61%
24%
All Europe
52%
38%
14%
333
179 35
185
102 18
Same trends in drops of magnitude and drop of areas at risk. However the difference of impacted areas between the baseline and the MTFR scenarios is greater than for acidification. The overall areas impacted by eutrophication still cover a significant proportion of EU and of EMEP domains.
Max Posch (CCE) has calculated that going up one ambition level would protect an extra 3% of the ecosystem areas (ie km² in EU 27).
% areas at risk of eutrophication
Accumulated Average Exceedance of critical loads for eutrophication

8. ICP Waters: dynamic modelling shows recovery… and its limits
Acidification
ICP Waters: dynamic modelling shows recovery… and its limits
Good match of modelled and monitoring data
Conclusion (with NAT2020):
ANC goes over ANC limit and levels off
Bad years, acidification may occur
NAT, PRI are equivalent as far as water acidification is concerned
The model results show that, whatever the projection and the scenario, water chemistry will recover only to levels below those of – ANC levels in 2050 are still close enough to ANC limit to drop below it on bad years (due to greater quantities of marine S for instance).
This slide may be removed to shorten the presentation. Thus the red blob on the top.
Highly sensitive sites will not recover even under MFR.
See presentation by Brit Lisa Skjelkvåle for further details

9. ICP Vegetation: Ozone is of concern for food security
NAT2000
NAT2020
POD6 (mmol.m-²) = phytotoxic ozone dose
The magnitude of the impact will
be reduced
The areas (intensely) impacted are reduced
But the impact will still occur in a
large part of Europe
Note: irrigated, outdoor, 3.5 month (mid April to end July), NAT scenario
Note new text: full flux model used here allowing economic assessments to be conducted. Maps assume that wheat is irrigated when needed, accumulation period is 55 days covering the most sensitive growth stages, with the timing of this interval based on a latitude function accounting for the later growth periods as you move northwards. NAT scenario.
“Not scaled for production” means that the potential impact is calculated for each EMEP grid cell whether or not there is wheat production in that area. Scaling for production requires to compare this map to a map with the production. This task has now been carried out (next slide).
Ozone impact on wheat production
See presentation by Gina Mills for further details

10. More intense effects are expected in urban areas than shown on maps.
Multi-pollutant
ICP Materials: Effects on materials will decrease but will not disappear by 2020
NAT2000
NAT2020
MFR2020
Compliance of all indicators to the targets (acceptable soiling for all materials and acceptable corrosion for carbon steel, zinc and limestone) for the year 2020 calculated with the different projections and scenarios. Calculated on EMEP grid. Light grey: all targets met by 2020, dark grey: 2020 targets met by 2020, black: at least one target not met.
In urban areas, pollution is often greater than in their surroundings. These maps have been calculated at the scale of the EMEP grid (50 x 50km²), ie with urban areas levels of pollution “diluted” by rural areas levels. Yet, most of materials are in towns. Therefore, calculated impacts are lower than observed impacts. The maps provide the tendancies…
More intense effects are expected in urban areas than shown on maps.

11. EMEP-WGE-WGSR data flow
TF measurement & modelling (MSCW, MSCE)
ICP modelling and mapping
ICP forests
ICP waters
ICP integrated monitoring
ICP vegetation
TF health
ICP materials
JEG dyn mod
TF IAM
WGSR
EMEP
WGE
WGSR
Colour code

12. underestimated Overall conclusions
Similar observations from all groups and for all effects:
Area impacted decreases
Magnitude of impact decreases
Area still at risk in 2020
EMEP: 1 - 4%
EU 27: 2 – 7%
EMEP : 14 – 38 %
EN 27: 24 – 61 %
EMEP: Wheat: 82%
Tomatoes: 51%
0.1 – 0.3 %
Acidification
Eutrophication
These numbers show:
Acidification: Improvements are small because there are now only small areas at risk. This does not give any information on whether the areas at risk are of specific interest (for fish reproductions, specific rare ecosystems to be protected…)
Materials: These figures are based on areas where 2020 targets will be met. Improvements are small because even the NAT2000 scenario, most targets are met. However these values are underestimated because they are calculated with the pollutant concentrations as given by EMEP, on the 50x50km² whereas impacts on materials occurs mainly in urban areas where levels of pollution are higher.
Ozone: I do not have the value for the MTFR scenario.
Ozone and eutrophication: Areas at risk remain for both rather large. And both are caused, at least partly, by nitrogen.
Ozone
Multi-pollutant
underestimated

13. Conclusions to WGSR
Eutrophication
Monitored and modelled indicators indicate only limited improvements in eutrophication status. Reduction in N emissions remain insufficient to decrease areas of risk for eutrophication.
Ozone impacts on ecosystems, food security and human health will remain very important.
Effects of air pollution on materials and health probably underestimated in urban areas with present models.
Decrease in emissions of S and N, and thereby decrease in deposition, have led to reduced surface waters acidification and a start of biological recovery in many acid sensitive sites. Improvement will continue.
Ozone
Multi-pollutant
Baseline scenario already providing significant improvement to the condition of the environment. MTFR goes further but not enough to provide total protection against acidification for all ecosystems (esp. the most sensitive ecosystems)
Acidification

14. EMEP-WGE-WGSR data flow
TF hemispheric transports
TF measurement & modelling (MSCW, MSCE)
ICP modelling and mapping
ICP forests
ICP waters
ICP integrated monitoring
ICP vegetation
TF health
ICP materials
JEG dyn mod
TF inventories
TF IAM
EGTEI
NEBEI
TF HM
WGSR
TF POP
EMEP
WGE
WGSR
Colour code
TF RN

15. EMEP-WGE-WGSR data flow
TF hemispheric transports
TF measurement & modelling (MSCW, MSCE)
ICP waters
ICP modelling and mapping
ICP forests
ICP integrated monitoring
ICP vegetation
TF health
ICP materials
JEG dyn mod
TF inventories
TF IAM
EGTEI
NEBEI
TF HM
WGSR
TF POP
EMEP
WGE
WGSR
Colour code
TF RN

16. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION 
On behalf all my colleagues within the Working Group on Effects that have contributed to this analysis and to the results in this presentation
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
