contribution from msc-w to the review of the gothenburg protocol – reports 2006

Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no

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

TFIAM, Rome, 16-18th May, 2006

H. Fagerli & L. Tarrason


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



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


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








• What are the main uncertainties in the emission estimates of the gaseous components? SOx, NOx, NH3, VOC, CO?



Relative 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 Ox S from shipping to deposition of S








• What are the main uncertainties in the emission estimates of the gaseous components? Sox, NOx, NH3, VOC, CO?



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



Acidification and eutrophication

Meteorologisk Institutt met.no

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 Institutt met.no

Influence of different factors for changes in risk estimates

GB estimates Updated emissions and CL 50km CL

Eulerian grid average dep. Eulerian ecosys. Dep.


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


73.034.777.735.1ecosystem specific dep.

59.228.564.929.2grid average deposition

Unified Model & 2004 CLs

49.023.156.024.52004 critical loads

54.424.660.726.01998 critical loads

Lagrangian model

EU25EuropeEU25Europe

20102000

% eco-area with CL-nutrient nitrogen exceeded in 2000 and 2010

Proposed approach: Percentage recovery


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



Changes in the ozone indicators

Rcl AOT40 forest,2000 Rcl AFst1.6 forest,2000


Review of the Gothenburg ProtocolDraft outline of the 2006 EMEP Report 1CHAPTER 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


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?



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?


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?

contribution from msc-w to the review of the gothenburg protocol – reports 2006

Documents