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
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 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
Preliminary conclusion TFIAM32
73
65 %
35
48
78
75
35
50
ecosystem specific dep.
Updated emissions & meteo variability
59296529grid average deposition
Unified Model & 2004 CLs
492356252004 critical loads
54256126 1998 critical loads
Lagrangian Model
EU25EuropeEU25Europe
2010 GP2000
Unprotected Ecosystem-area (nitrogen) - %
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no
Factors changing ecosystem risk estimates
Goth Protocol Updated CL 50 * 50 km
Eulerian model Ecosyst. spec. dep.
Exceedance
of CLnut
in 2010
Trends in unprotected ecosystem area (%)
% 1990 1995 2000 2004 2010GP
Acidification
EU25 39 27 23 15 16
EMEP 41 19 15 10 11
Eutrophication
EU25 81 74 75 66 64
EMEP 66 54 50 47 48
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no
GP knowledge: days with ozone above 60 ppb Problem for Northwestern & central Europe
1990
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
0.0
0.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
100.0
U nit: %
1990 2010
Current knowledge: SOMO35 [ppb.days] problem in Southern Europe
2000 2010 2020
Sum Of Mean Ozone values over 35 ppb in rural areas
Effect of hemispheric ozone increases the challenge
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no
No increase Expected increase
Increasing importance of ship emissions
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2010
IIASA
2020
IIASA
% s
hip
s e
mis
sio
ns
to
lan
d
ba
se
d e
mis
sio
ns
SO2
NO2
Contribution of SOx from shipping to deposition of S Meteorologisk Institutt met.no
Emission factors cars higher than expected
Artemis, diesel, NOx
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135
Average Speed [km/h]
[g/k
m]
Euro I
Euro II
Euro III
Euro IV
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
175%
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
GDP Primary energy use
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
175%
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
GDP Primary energy use CO2
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
175%
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
GDP Primary energy use CO2 SO2
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
175%
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
GDP Primary energy use CO2 SO2 NOx
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
175%
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
GDP Primary energy use CO2 SO2 NOx VOC
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
175%
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
GDP Primary energy use CO2 SO2 NOx VOC PM2.5
With CLE emissions significantly decrease,
with the exception of NH3 and CO2 [EU25, Primes projection]
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
175%
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
GDP Primary energy use CO2SO2 NOx VOCNH3 PM2.5
Remaining problem areas in 2020 Eutrophication remains wide scale problem
Forests – acid dep
Semi-natural – acid dep Freshwater – acid dep Health - PM
Health+vegetation - ozone Vegetation – N dep
2004 - Distance to Target NOx
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
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
Aus
tria
Bel
gium
Den
mar
k
Fin
land
Fra
nce
Ger
man
y
Gre
ece
Irel
and
Italy
Luxe
mbo
urg
Net
herla
nds
Por
tuga
l
Spa
in
Sw
eden UK
Tot
al E
U-1
5
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep.
Est
onia
Hun
gary
Latv
ia
Lith
uani
a
Mal
ta
Pol
and
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
veni
a
Tot
al N
MS
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
Aus
tria
Bel
gium
Den
mar
k
Fin
land
Fra
nce
Ger
man
y
Gre
ece
Irel
and
Italy
Luxe
mbo
urg
Net
herla
nds
Por
tuga
l
Spa
in
Sw
eden UK
Tot
al E
U-1
5
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep.
Est
onia
Hun
gary
Latv
ia
Lith
uani
a
Mal
ta
Pol
and
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
veni
a
Tot
al N
MS
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
Aus
tria
Bel
gium
Den
mar
k
Fin
land
Fra
nce
Ger
man
y
Gre
ece
Irel
and
Italy
Luxe
mbo
urg
Net
herla
nds
Por
tuga
l
Spa
in
Sw
eden UK
Tot
al E
U-1
5
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep.
Est
onia
Hun
gary
Latv
ia
Lith
uani
a
Mal
ta
Pol
and
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
veni
a
Tot
al N
MS
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
Aus
tria
Bel
gium
Den
mar
k
Fin
land
Fra
nce
Ger
man
y
Gre
ece
Irel
and
Italy
Luxe
mbo
urg
Net
herla
nds
Por
tuga
l
Spa
in
Sw
eden UK
Tot
al E
U-1
5
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep.
Est
onia
Hun
gary
Latv
ia
Lith
uani
a
Mal
ta
Pol
and
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
veni
a
Tot
al N
MS
Towards robust strategies: uncertainty analysis RAINS emission estimates vs. national inventories, 2000
SO2
VOC
NOx
NH3
National inventory RAINS estimate
PM10
Uncertainties for PM are much larger! RAINS emission estimates vs.national inventories, 2000
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
175%
Austr
ia
Belg
ium
De
nm
ark
Fin
lan
d
Fra
nce
Ge
rma
ny
Gre
ece
Ire
lan
d
Ita
ly
Lu
xe
mb
ou
rg
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Port
ug
al
Spa
in
Sw
ed
en
UK
To
tal E
U-1
5
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch
Re
p.
Esto
nia
Hu
ng
ary
La
tvia
Lith
ua
nia
Ma
lta
Pola
nd
Slo
va
kia
Slo
ve
nia
To
tal N
MS 0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
175%
Austr
ia
Belg
ium
De
nm
ark
Fin
lan
d
Fra
nce
Germ
any
Gre
ece
Ire
land
Italy
Luxem
bo
urg
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Port
ug
al
Spa
in
Sw
ede
n
UK
To
tal E
U-1
5
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch
Re
p.
Esto
nia
Hu
nga
ry
Latv
ia
Lith
ua
nia
Ma
lta
Pola
nd
Slo
va
kia
Slo
ve
nia
To
tal N
MSPM2.5
National inventory RAINS 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)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
kt
Fue:Ext
Fue:Pro
Ele:Gen
Ele:Pum
Ele:Tra
Hea:Pub
Hea:Aut
Tra(int):Sea:Int
Tra(int):Air: In
Tra(nat):Other i
Tra(nat):Air: Do
Tra(nat):Rail
Tra(nat):Road: F
Tra(nat):Road: P
Res:Res
Ser:Ser
Oth:oth
Ind:Agr
Ind:Lig
Ind:Met
Ind:Che
Ind:Iro
GBR: TechBeh: Air : NOx
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
-40%
-35%
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
CO2 CH4 N2O SO2 NOx PM2.5Premat.deaths
-8000
-6000
-4000
-2000
0
EU-25
15% CO2 reduction by 2020 will also reduce air pollution
-40%
-35%
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
CO2 CH4 N2O SO2 NOx PM2.5Premat.deaths
-8000
-6000
-4000
-2000
0
EU-25
-40%
-35%
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
CO2 CH4 N2O SO2 NOx PM2.5Premat.deaths
-8000
-6000
-4000
-2000
0
EU-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.
Target setting: uniform % reduction shows limited scope for overall reduction of PM-effects
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Aus
tria
Bel
gium
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep.
Den
mar
k
Est
onia
Fin
land
Fra
nce
Ger
man
y
Gre
ece
Hun
gary
Irel
and
Italy
Latv
ia
Lith
uani
a
Luxe
mbo
urg
Mal
ta
Net
herla
nds
Pol
and
Por
tuga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
veni
a
Spa
in
Sw
eden UK
Residu MTFR CLE Max. gap closure
PM-exposure in 2020 (2000 = 100%)
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)