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)