Contribution from MSC-W to the review of the Gothenburg protocol – Reports 2006

1. Contribution from MSC-W to the review of the Gothenburg protocol – Reports 2006 TFIAM, Rome, 16-18th May, 2006 H. Fagerli & L. Tarrason

2. Review of the Gothenburg ProtocolDraft outline of the 2006 EMEP Report 1 • Emissions 1990, 2000, 2004 • Projections for 2010 - Emissions ceilings, CIAM (need clarification) • Acidification and eutrophication • Photo-oxidants • Particulate matter • WILL TARGETS BE MET IN 2010 ? Recommendations from available scientific knowledge PROGRESS TOWARDS ACHIEVING THE OBJECTIVE OF THE PROTOCOL Analysis for 1990, 2000, 2004 and Projections to 2010

3. Review of the Gothenburg ProtocolDraft outline of the 2006 EMEP Report 1 CHAPTER 1 : EMISSION TRENDS FROM 1990, 2000, 2004 • What are the main trends for emission since 1990? • What are the sectors with the largest emission reductions ? What sectors with less/no reductions, e.g. ship emissions, off-road traffic • Are there significant differences in the trends between countries ? • Are there significant differences in the trends between emission expert estimates and the officially reported trends ? • What are the main uncertainties in the emission estimates of the gaseous components? SOx, NOx, NH3, VOC, CO? Authors: MSC-W, CCC, CIAM

4. How far are we from reaching the Gothenburg emission ceilings? Green: Target reached already Red: Target not reached * Countries that have ratified the Gothenburg protocol

5. Review of the Gothenburg ProtocolDraft outline of the 2006 EMEP Report 1 CHAPTER 1 : EMISSION TRENDS FROM 1990, 2000, 2004 • What are the main trends for emission since 1990? • What are the sectors with the largest emission reductions ? What sectors with less/no reductions, e.g. ship emissions, off-road traffic • Are there significant differences in the trends between countries ? • Are there significant differences in the trends between emission expert estimates and the officially reported trends ? • What are the main uncertainties in the emission estimates of the gaseous components? SOx, NOx, NH3, VOC, CO? Authors: MSC-W, CCC, CIAM

6. Relative importance of ship emissions Contribution of Ox S from shipping to deposition of S

7. Review of the Gothenburg ProtocolDraft outline of the 2006 EMEP Report 1 CHAPTER 1 : EMISSION TRENDS FROM 1990, 2000, 2004 • What are the main trends for emission since 1990? • What are the sectors with the largest emission reductions ? What sectors with less/no reductions, e.g. ship emissions, off-road traffic • Are there significant differences in the trends between countries ? • Are there significant differences in the trends between emission expert estimates and the officially reported trends ? • What are the main uncertainties in the emission estimates of the gaseous components? Sox, NOx, NH3, VOC, CO? Authors: MSC-W, CCC, CIAM

8. Review of the Gothenburg ProtocolDraft outline of the 2006 EMEP Report 1 CHAPTER 3 : ACIDIFICATION AND EUTROPHICATION • Trends in concentrations and depositions of N and S since 1990? • Assessment report, earlier reports, publications • Analysis of deposition trends per country for 1990, 2000, 2004 and 2010 (maps and histograms) • How large been the main improvements in acidification and eutrophication since 1990 ? • Analysis of exceedances to critical loads per country for 1990, 2000, 2004 and 2010 (maps and histograms) • Evaluation of exceedances to critical loads by ecosystem (1990, 2000, 2004 and 2010) • Will we meet the goals of the Gothenburg protocol by 2010 ? • The new atmospheric model leads to more deposition on forests and natural areas than thought during the preparation of the protocol. Analysis of differences in the projections for 2010 due to inclusion of model calculations with the ecosystem specific approach Authors: MSC-W, CCC, CCE

9. Acidification and eutrophication • New estimates of risk for ecosystem damage are about a factor of 3 higher for eutrophication (30-50% higher for acidification) than estimates made at the time of the negotiations under the Gothenburg protocol and the NEC Directive • This increase in risk calculations is the result of a series of individual improvements and updates: • Emission data updates • Available critical load data • Use of chemical transport model for deposition estimate • Use of land-cover specific depositions instead of averaged grid depositions Meteorologisk Instituttmet.no

10. Influence of different factors for changes in risk estimates GB estimates Updated emissions and CL 50km CL Eulerian ecosys. Dep. Eulerian grid average dep. Meteorologisk Instituttmet.no

11. 2006 COMMON REPORTS CCC & MSC-W • EMEP report 1/2006 Review of the Gothenburg Protocol • EMEP report 4/2006 Status of current understanding of PM • Note on hemispheric transport • Evaluation of the hemispheric EMEP model • Comparison with UiOs CTM2 model • First calculations of intercontinental SR MSC-W notes • Note 1/2006 Emission review for 2004 • Note 2/2006 Country reports for 2004

12. 2000 2010 Europe EU25 Europe EU25 Lagrangian model 1998 critical loads 26.0 60.7 24.6 54.4 2004 critical loads 24.5 56.0 23.1 49.0 Unified Model & 2004 CLs grid average deposition 29.2 64.9 28.5 59.2 ecosystem specific dep. 35.1 77.7 34.7 73.0 % eco-area with CL-nutrient nitrogen exceeded in 2000 and 2010 Proposed approach: Percentage recovery

13. Review of the Gothenburg ProtocolDraft outline of the 2006 EMEP Report 1 CHAPTER 4 : PHOTO-OXIDANTS • What are the trends for ozone concentrations since 1990? • Analysis of ozone impact on ecosystems for 1990, 2000, 2004 and 2010 (maps and histograms) AOT40 versus flux based approach • Analysis of differences in the projections for 2010 due to inclusion of model calculations of flux approaches • Will we meet the objectives of the Gothenburg protocol by 2010 ? • Ozone impacts on health for 1990, 200, 2004 and 2010. Will we meet the objectives of the Gothenburg protocol by 2010 ? AOT60 versus SOMO35 Authors: MSC-W, CCC

14. Changes in the ozone indicators Rcl AFst1.6 forest,2000 Rcl AOT40 forest,2000

15. Review of the Gothenburg ProtocolDraft outline of the 2006 EMEP Report 1 CHAPTER 5: PARTICULATE MATTER (short summary of PM report) • How large is the PM transboundary contribution ? • What are the main sources of PM transboundary contribution – per sector? • Should we include also variability analysis /trend study for 2000, 2004 and 2010? • To what extent should we use AIRBASE and urban PM sites in this analysis ? Authors: MSC-W, CCC

16. PM • UNCERTAINTIES • Sensitivity analysis on the influence of natural sources of PM (source by source) • Sensitivity analysis on PM primary emissions • Where are the main uncertainties on primary sources of PM ? Data on emissions & concentrations of PM are more uncertain than for other pollutants under the Protocol. For some sectors (eg traffic) emission data are more certain then for other sectors (eg residential wood burning). • Sensitivity analysis on emissions and spatial distribution of residential wood burning. • Sensitivity analysis on secondary organic aerosols. • What are the uncertainties & inconsistencies in PM-monitoring data?

17. Review of the Gothenburg ProtocolDraft outline of the 2006 EMEP Report 1 CHAPTER 6: WILL TARGETS BE MET IN 2010 ? Recommendations from available scientific knowledge • Will emission ceilings be met? • Will the objectives with respect to exceedances be met, for • CL of acidity • CL of nutrient nitrogen • Critical levels for O3 • What are the main uncertainties of the assessment? • Is available science robust enough to support a revision of the Gothenburg protocol?

18. Questions to TFIAM • Is the proposed outline what is expected from the EMEP reports? • Does TFIAM agree with the proposed way of measuring compliance with objectives in the Gothenburg protocol? (% change in indicators) • Are there any missing questions that need to be addressed by MSC-W?