First Meeting of the Expert Group on Heavy Metals under the Convention on LRTAP / WGSR,

1. International Working Groups on Critical Limits and Transfer Functions for Heavy Metals Calculation and Mapping of Critical Loads of Heavy Metals (Pb, Cd, Hg) in Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems • Status June 2002: Results of the first European mapping exercise (CCE/EMEP MSC-East) RIVM Report 259101011, see www.rivm.nl/cce • Status December 2002: Expert Meeting, 2 – 4 December 2002, in Berlin, Minutes see www.icp.mapping.org Gudrun Schütze OEKO-DATA First Meeting of the Expert Group on Heavy Metals under the Convention on LRTAP / WGSR, 20 – 21 March 2003, Geneva

2. International Working Groups on Critical Limits and Transfer Functions for Heavy Metals Critical Limits: Mike Ashmore, University of Bradford, West Yorkshire (UK) Wim de Vries, ALTERRA Wageningen (NL) Régis Farret, INERIS, Verneuil en Halatte (F) Gudrun Schuetze, OEKO-DATA Strausberg (D) (organiser) David Spurgeon, CEH, Huntingdon (UK) and other contributors Transfer functions: Bert Jan Groenenberg, ALTERRA, Wageningen (NL) (organiser) Tatiana Pampura, Russ. Academy of Science, Inst. Pushchino (RU) Paul Roemkens, ALTERRA, Wageningen (NL) Edward Tipping, CEH, Cumbria, (UK) and other contributors Mercury Limits and Models have been provided also by: Markus Meili (SE) Harald Sverdrup (SE) First Meeting of the Expert Group on Heavy Metals under the Convention on LRTAP / WGSR, 20 – 21 March 2003, Geneva

3. International Working Groups on Critical Limits and Transfer Functions for Heavy Metals Flowchart for the Critical Loads approach: Select a receptor Determine the critical limit Select a computation method Collect input data Calculate the critical load Compare with the actual load First Meeting of the Expert Group on Heavy Metals under the Convention on LRTAP / WGSR, 20 – 21 March 2003, Geneva

4. International Working Groups on Critical Limits and Transfer Functions for Heavy Metals Receptors and critical limits Status June 2002: Direct ecotoxicological effects of Pb and Cd Terrestrial (forest, natural, agricultural ecosystems): Receptor Pathway Pb Cd Soil micro-organisms total metal concentration 8 0.8 Plants in soil solution [µg l-1] Soil fauna (invertebrates) reactive metal content in 30 0.9 soil [mg kg-1] Aquatic (freshwater ecosystems): Receptor Pathway Pb Cd Algae total dissolved 11 0.3 Crustacea metal concentrations [µg l-1] Fish First Meeting of the Expert Group on Heavy Metals under the Convention on LRTAP / WGSR, 20 – 21 March 2003, Geneva

5. International Working Groups on Critical Limits and Transfer Functions for Heavy Metals Transfer functions are needed to transform metal contents/concentrations related to different extraction methods, e.g. best description of most effects – free ion activity effects data (waters) – total dissolved concentration effects data (soil) – total content, added amounts metal leaching from soil – total concentration in soil solution available soil data – total content, aqua regia, reactive content Status June 2002: Terrestrial ecosystems: Set of transfer functions, based on data of the almost entire spectrum of soils from The Netherlands Aquatic ecosystems: Transfer functions to distinguish total concentration from total dissolved concentration (considering suspended particles) First Meeting of the Expert Group on Heavy Metals under the Convention on LRTAP / WGSR, 20 – 21 March 2003, Geneva

6. International Working Groups on Critical Limits and Transfer Functions for Heavy Metals Computation methods (Cd and Pb): Critical load models, based on critical limits Steady state mass balance models Stand-still model, based on present metal contents/concentrations First Meeting of the Expert Group on Heavy Metals under the Convention on LRTAP / WGSR, 20 – 21 March 2003, Geneva

7. International Working Groups on Critical Limits and Transfer Functions for Heavy Metals Status June 2002 – Pb and Cd: Critical Limits, Transfer functions, Computation methods, How to gather input data Limitations Results of preliminary European mapping: Critical loads (Do not quote!) Emissions / total deposition Exceedance (Do not quote!) Recommendations for work Guidance for the calculation of critical coads for cadmium and lead in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (De Vries et al. 2001) CCE / EMEP MSC-E: Preliminary modelling and mapping of critical loads for cadmium and lead in Europe (Hettelingh et al. 2002) First Meeting of the Expert Group on Heavy Metals under the Convention on LRTAP / WGSR, 20 – 21 March 2003, Geneva

8. The following pages are an extractfrom the presentationof J.-P. Hettelingh (Chair of CCE)to the WGSR in September 2002Please note that according to the agreements of the Meeting in Berlin, Dec. 2002, the Stand-still Loads (SSL) are not distinguished anymore within Critical Loads mapping, but can become part of a next stage, involving dynamic modelling

9. 11 countries submitted preliminary data • Bulgaria (CL and SSL) • Belarus (CL) • Czech Republic (CL and SSL) • Germany (CLs and SSL) • Italy (SSL based on a ‘semi-dynamic’ approach) • The Netherlands (CL and SSL) • Russia (CL) • Slovakia (CL and SSL) • Switzerland ( CL) • Ukraine (CL) • United Kingdom (CL and SSL)

10. 6 countries expressed need for further work • Austria • Belgium (Flanders) • Finland • France • Sweden • Norway

11. EMEP 50x50 grid cells with Critical Loads (CL) and Stand Still Loads (SSL) for cadmium, protecting 95% of the ecosystems CL cadmium SSL cadmium PRELIMINARY MAPS

12. EMEP 50x50 grid cells with Critical Loads (CL) and Stand Still Loads (SSL) for lead, protecting 95% of the ecosystems CL lead SSL lead PRELIMINARY MAPS

13. Average deposition minus critical critical loads for Cd and Pb in 2010

14. Deposition minus forest critical loads for Pb in 2010 Using average deposition Using conifer dependent deposition

15. International Working Groups on Critical Limits and Transfer Functions for Heavy Metals • 12th CCE Workshop and 18th Task Force on Modelling and Mapping: Selected recommendations for further work: • Review total metal inputs, • Identify, where the stand-still approach might be more appropriate • than an effects-based approach • Analyse uncertainties, inconsistencies (e.g. cross border) • Review critical limits and transfer functions including, as far as • possible, humus layers • Include human health aspects (and, as far as possible, food chains) • Explore effects based approaches for mercury First Meeting of the Expert Group on Heavy Metals under the Convention on LRTAP / WGSR, 20 – 21 March 2003, Geneva

16. International Working Groups on Critical Limits and Transfer Functions for Heavy Metals • Status December 2002 - Receptors, critical limits, transfer functions: • Pb/Cd/(Hg): Direct ecotoxicological effects of Pb and Cd • + Check indirect ecotoxicological effects (food chains) • + Check of human health effects (e.g. Cd in wheat, Hg in fish) • Current and future work to be finished by end of 2003: • Sophistication of critical limits related direct ecotoxicological effects • (relating effects to free metal ion activities) • Sophistication of critical limits for human health • (relating exposure limits to food quality criteria) • Fitting transfer functions (TF) to the broad spectrum of European soils, • TF for consideration of free metal ion activities First Meeting of the Expert Group on Heavy Metals under the Convention on LRTAP / WGSR, 20 – 21 March 2003, Geneva

17. Deposition Chemical Fertiliser model model model Annex III Critical Load approach for heavy metals – decision tree SMB methods Determine minimal critical limits Other anthro- pogenic inputs Release of heavy metals to atmosphere Geological Inputs (weathering) Critical Loads input estimation for heavy metals No consideration if natural input dominates [set high C.Load] Evaluation according to knowledge of the site (esp. Comparison of Natural C and Clim, ) Integrated Assessment, incl. dynamic methods Exceedance of Exceedance of Critical Load <= 0 Critical Load > 0 Future damage foreseen Present damage: yes OR no Present damage but recovery in progress OR No damage at present Critical Load approach : Emissions Emissions

18. Annex III Critical Load approach for heavy metals – decision tree Future damage foreseen Present damage: yes OR no Present damage but recovery in progress OR No damage at present Emissions Critical Load approach : Emissions

19. International Working Groups on Critical Limits and Transfer Functions for Heavy Metals Work plan 2003/4 to be confirmed by the Task Force on ICP M & M 2003: Finish work on critical limits and transfer functions (Pb, Cd, Hg), circulate results, draft chapter on HM of Mapping Manual; Conduct new national mapping exercises including Pb, Cd, Hg, circulate results, update the HM draft chapter of Mapping Manual; Methods to quantify non-atmospheric inputs are required 2004: Spring: Workshopon Critical Loads for Heavy Metals: Recommend(preliminarily) final methods, edit Manual chapter on HM to be proved by the Task Force on ICPModelling and Mapping and WGE Autumn: Call for data on CL of Pb, Cd (Hg?) Output: Critical load maps, related to ecotox. effects Critical load maps, related to human health effects 2005: First Meeting of the Expert Group on Heavy Metals under the Convention on LRTAP / WGSR, 20 – 21 March 2003, Geneva