ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2011/10: 1. Recent results

1. ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2011/10: 1. Recent results 2. Effect-based indicators for the support of the protocol revision J-P Hettelingh, M Posch, J Slootweg ICP M&M - Coordination Centre for Effects (CCE), www.icpmapping.org hosted at RIVM

2. Recent results and updating of scientific and technical knoweldege

3. NFC submission to CCE call for data 2010/2011

4. Effect based indicators for the support of the Protocol RevisionScenarios of August 2011 for WGSR49(note that the /10 document, reports on effects of scenarios that were input to the WGSR48 of the spring 2010)

5. Scenarios (as of August 2011) Year: 2020, all based on PRIMES model Baseline: Current LEgislation (CLE) 3 ambition levels: Table: Summary of gap closure percentages for the impact indicators + Maximum Technically Feasible Reductions (MTFR)

6. Exceedances (AAE) of Acidity Critical Loads and % area at risk in Europe, (EU27) and Natura2000 2000, 12%,(20%), 23% CLE, 4%, (6%), 7% LOW*, 3%, (5%), 6% MID, 2%, (4%), 5% HIGH*, 2% (3%), 4% MTFR, 1% (3%), 3%

7. Exceedances (AAE) of Nutrient Critical Loads and % area at risk in Europe, (EU27) and Natura2000 2000, 54%, (75%), 72% CLE, 37% (59%), 58% LOW*, 31%, (50%), 50% MID, 29%, (48%), 48% HIGH*, 26%, (44%), 44% MFR, 22%, (38%), 38%

8. Expost analysis for WGSR49

9. DYNAMIC MODELLING of Eutrophication: Violation of Nutrient 2050 Target Loads (compared with CLs) and % area not recovering before 2050 in Europe (and EU27) Target Loads CLs CLE: 38% (61%) CLE: 37% (59%) MID: 30% (50%) MID: 29% (48%)

10. Exceedances (AAE) of Empirical Critical Loads and % area at risk in Europe, (EU27) and Natura2000 2000, 25%, (42%), 50% CLE, 11%,(21%), 28% LOW*, 7%, (14%), 18% MFR, 3% (6%), 8% MID, 6%, (12%), 15% HIGH*, 5%, (10%), 13%

11. Area at N-risk of a more than 5% “change in biodiversity”, i.e. of species richness [semi-natural grass lands; s-alpine scrub habitats], and similarity [coniferous boreal woodlands], together covering 53% of European natural area 3 % 2 % 10 % 1 % 1 % 0,6 %

12. Robustness analyses: Between WGSR48 and WGSR49 assessments Ensemble assessment of empirical and computed critical load exceedances Overlap of area at risk of N-deposition with additional pressure

13. (1) Differences of scenario effects betweenWGSR48 and WGSR49

14. (2) Likeliness of Exceedances (AAE) in Europe based on the “ensemble” of empirical and modelled CL(N) Exceedances: = unlikely = 50 - 50 = likely = very likely = virtually certain Explore the inclusion of alternative deposition assessments ?

15. (3) In addition, some areas are also at risk ofambient [NH3] that exceed critical levels NAT-2000 PRI-2000 MFR-2020 PRI-2030 Critical levels from Cape et al. 2008

16. Conclusions for inclusion in the report of this meeting in the UN languages: • ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2011/10 para 5: indicating the participation of parties to the Convention in the call for data 2010/2011 • ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2011/10 para 6: indicating the substance of the proposed call for data 2011/2012 as a first follow up to effect oriented elements of the LTS strategy of the Convention adopted by the EB28. • Computed effects of emission reduction scenarios for the revision of the Gothenburg protocol between WGSR47 and WGSR49 do not significantly vary. • The computed risk of nutrient nitrogen – under the so-called MID scenario - is widespread, affecting 29% of ecosystems in the EMEP domain, and 48% of natural areas both in the EU27 and Natura 2000 areas. • Deposition values, that are required for recovery before 2050, are exceeded under the MID scenario in 30% and 50% of ecosystems in the EMEP domain and the EU27 respectively. • Following the request from the EB to improve biological indicators, the change of plant species diversity has very tentatively been assessed for about half of the terrestrial European ecosystems. It turns oout that a significant change may occur to an estimation of up to about 10% of this area at deposition values around the 2000 level. The estimation is subject to a high uncertainty.