1. European critical loads work by ICP Forests and ICP Modeling and Mapping Outline of presentation Background of Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) and ICP Forests Data management of ICP Forests Example of new results of ICP Forests: Spatial and temporal variation of pollutant concentrations in bulk deposition Introduction to ICP Modelling and Mapping (Spranger) Critical loads work: Hans-Dieter Nagel

2. Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) History: Acidification of Scandinavian lakes by sulphur depositions (1960)  Evidence of damage by air pollutants transported thousands of kilometers (mid 1970s)  Necessity of international cooperation  High level meeting under UNECE (Geneva 1979)  Signature of CLRTAP by 35 Parties

3. Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) Today 49 Parties: Principles of international cooperation for air pollution abatement Institutional framework bringing together science and policy Scientific cooperation and political negotiation CLRTAP was extended by protocols identifying obligations and measures to be taken by Parties

4. Protocols in force The 1985 Protocol on the Reduction of Sulphur Emissions or their Transboundary Fluxes by at least 30% (22 Parties) The 1988 Protocol concerning the Control of Nitrogen Oxides or their Transboundary Fluxes (28 Parties) The 1991 Protocol comcermimg the Control of Emission of Volatile Organic Compounds or their Transboundary Fluxes (21 Parties) The 1994 Protocol on Further Reduction of Sulphur Emissions (25 Parties)

5. Structure of CLRTAP

6. Mandate of ICP Forests 1.to monitor effects of natural and anthropogenic stress factors (in particular air pollution) on the condition and development of forests at the European-wide scale 2.to contribute to a better understanding of cause-effect relationships in forest ecosystem functioning in various parts of Europe. ICP Forests

7. Large-scale monitoring (Level I ●) Many plots European-wide systematic grid (16 x 16 km) 6 000 monitoring plots Low monitoring intensity Crown condition assessment (all plots) Soil survey (5 300 plots) Foliar survey (1 500 plots)

8. Intensive monitoring (Level II ● ) Fewer plots High monitoring intensity 866 intensive monitoring plots in important forest ecosystems High monitoring intensity 11 different surveys

9. Level II core surveys SurveyFrequencyNumber of plots Crown conditionAnnually866 Soil conditionEvery ten years865 Foliar conditionEvery two years855 Tree growthEvery five years859 ICP Forests

10. Further Level II surveys SurveyFrequencyNumber of plots Ambient air qualityContinuously133 Atmospheric depositionContinuously499 Soil solution chemistryContinuously243 Ground vegetationEvery five years730 Meteorological conditionContinuously202 PhenologyAccording to phenophases 59 ICP Forests

11. Data management Data flow within ICP Forests Level I and Level II plots National Focal Centre Programme Coordinating Centre Data checks Level I data bank (ORACLE) Level II data bank (end 2005) ICP Forests

12. Data management Data ownership Participating countries Free data access Parties to CLRTAP Authorization procedure for third parties Submission of project description and request for data to PCC Request by PCC to each country for release of data Submission of released data to third party, exclusively for the use for the described project ICP Forests

13. Example of Level I result: Crown condition Kriged trends in defoliation Scots pine (1994-1999)  Improvement  Deterioration

14. N-NO 3 (409 Level II plots) Volume weighted mean concentration [mg/l] 1996-2001 Highest concentrations in Poland East Germany Clear spatial pattern Example of Level II result: Bulk deposition

15. Comparison of N-NO 3 with S-SO 4 and N-NH 4 N-NO3: Slight decrease N-NH4: Higher concentration, unclear trend S-SO 4 : High concentration, clear decrease Example of Level II result: Bulk deposition trends ICP Forests

16. Critical loads long-term ecosystem capacity (steady state) defined for specific combinations of pollutants, effects, and receptors Acidification (N, S), eutrophication (N), HMs terrestrial and (non-marine) aquatic ecosystems based on chemical criteria linked to biological effects spatially variable, thus leading to regionally differentiated emission reduction needs used as sustainability indicators for policy guidance ICP M&M

17. National CL data/maps European CL data/maps compare European CL exceedance data/maps Optimized emission reduction scenarios National emission abatement costs EMEP deposition data/maps European emission data/maps EMEP Unified Model Nat´l Emission Ceilings Integrated Assessment Models ICP M&M

18. CL nut (N): Europe aggregated to 50*50 km² 2004 dataset – to be revised! ICP M&M

19. CL acid (Cl max (S)): Europe aggregated to 50*50 km² 2004 dataset – to be revised! ICP M&M

20. Exceedance of CL nut (N) in 2000 33% area exceeded (77% in EU25) ICP M&M

21. Exceedance of CL acid in 2000 11% area exceeded (23% in EU25) ICP M&M

22. Main results of CLRTAP negotiations Emission reductions 1990 - 2010: SO 2 - 60%; NO x - 40%; NH 3 - 17% Eutrophication of terrestrial ecosystems will remain a risk to biodiversity and other environmental targets in Europe Acidification has been slowed but not stopped through emission abatement; N r (especially NH 3 ) emissions more relevant than sulphur emissions Highest remaining exceedances dominated by NH 3 emissions from intensive animal husbandry ICP M&M

23. Participation of the USA in ICP Forests and ICP M & M The United States of America is Party to the CLRTAP Participating country of ICP Forests Not yet a participating country of ICP M & M ICP M&M ICP Forests

24. Participation of the USA in ICP Forests and ICP M & M The United States of America is invited to participate in 21st ICP M&M Task Force meeting and 15th CCE Workshop 25 – 29 April, Berlin, Germany Please contact till.spranger@uba.de for more information 21st ICP Forests Task Force meeting and 20 years ICP Forests anniversary celebration 23 – 26 May, Rome, Italy Invitations were sent to USDA and the NFC

25. Participation of the USA in ICP Forests and ICP M & M The United States of America is invited to have its Level II data managed as part of the ICP Forests data bank. This includes Plausibility checks of US data Storage of US data in the Level II data bank (ORACLE) Access to US data and all other ICP Forests data US data are being made available to the bodies under CLRTAP upon request, but will be submitted to third parties only by permission of the USA. ICP M&M ICP Forests

26. Websites UNECEwww.unece.org CLRTAPwww.unece.org/env/lrtap EMEPwww.emep.int WGEwww.unece.org/wge ICP Forestswww.icp-forests.org ICP M & Mwww.icpmapping.org ICP M&M ICP Forests