ANNEX 2: REVIEW OF THE GOTHENBURG PROTOCOL
Draft outline of a TFIAM report
As discussed with the UNECE secretariat, TFIAM will prepare a background review
document, that will support the 18 pages WGSR main review document to be prepared by
the UNECE secretariat. The TFIAM document can contain tables, graphs and maps and
will be published in English only. The document could be 50-75 pages. Input to the
WGSR-report is requested by November 2006 (1st draft) and June 2007 (final draft).
I INTRODUCTION
Background information about the review, its methodology and results.
Key messages: Remind the principles behind the multi pollutant-multi effect approach
and mention criteria for target setting like cost-effectiveness, equity among parties and
the long term protection of health & ecosystems. Remind that work under the LRTAPConvention is supported by an extensive network of scientists, that the Protocol was
based on available scientific knowledge in the late nineties and that the review has to
consider new scientific insights. Also mention developments in the extension of the
geographical scope of the Convention.
Background info needed: scheme of multi-pollutant - multi effects relationships (CIAM).
Map of the Northern Hemisphere indicating the current and future geographical scope of
the protocol, as well as the countries for which some form of co-operation and data
exchange exists (e.g. China, Japan).
Remaining questions: If the review leads to the conclusion that a revision of the
obligations under the protocol is needed, is available science then sufficient enough to
support such a revision? What should be the geographical scope of the models used for a
protocol revision?
II EMISSIONS, CONCENTRATION AND DEPOSITION LEVELS
Description of the latest information on ambient concentrations and depositions of
sulphur and nitrogen compounds and of photochemical pollution and the latest emission
levels. Include trends in primary and secondary PM2.5 & PM10.
Contributions from: Task Force on Monitoring and Modelling, Task Force on Emission
Inventories and Projections, MSC-West, CCC
Key messages: the good news is that emissions decrease, but concentrations &
depositions remain high in hotspot areas (of traffic, energy use & cattle). Ship emissions
are expected to increase. The new atmospheric model has been reviewed is regarded as fit
for purpose. The model allows a more realistic description of deposition on forests and
Draft outline TFIAM review report on the Gothenburg protocol - 12 May 2006
1
natural areas - deposition are now higher than calculated with the model used for the
preparation of the protocol. Hemispheric background of ozone has increased and will
possibly further increase (partly due to rising global methane emissions).
Background info needed: Summary of the EMEP model review. EMEP Status reports;
summary of the EMEP Assessment report; explanation of emission trends: what sectors
have decreased their emissions most; what environmental policy measures had significant
effects; to what extend structural & economic changes influenced emission developments
(input from EEA/CIAM).
Remaining questions:
III EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH, NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS, MATERIALS
AND CROPS
Description of the current status of the monitored effects of sulphur and nitrogen
compounds and photochemical pollution on human health, natural ecosystems, materials
and crops, including trends in exposure to PM2.5 & PM10 and related health risk, as
well as observable trends in ecosystem changes .
Contributing bodies: WG Effects, ICP Task Forces and Programme Centres, TF Health,
EG Particulate Matter
Key messages: the positive news is that ecosystem protection to acidification improves,
but that nitrogen is still a widespread problem. For ozone, a new exposure indicator is
used to assess the impact on human health. Exposure to PM and Ozone reduces, but with
current legislation exposure will still create substantial health risks by 2020. In some
parts of Europe ecosystem recovery could be speeded up with more than 25 years by
additional emission reductions of ..%. In other areas additional emission reductions of ..%
could prevent further depletion of the soil buffering capacity and ecosystem effects to
occur.
Background info needed: WGE-trendreport + summary; exceedance maps (2000, 2010,
2020, differences old model/new model); health damage maps (CIAM); model results
with dynamic models & ozone-fluxmodels.
Remaining questions: what are the consequences of the inclusion of health risks due to
long term exposure to particles? What are the consequences of using a different
indicators for ozone effects on health and the environment? What are the consequences of
changes in critical loads compared to 1999 and the use of dynamic ecosystem & ozoneflux-modelling?
IV NATIONAL EMISSION CEILINGS
Draft outline TFIAM review report on the Gothenburg protocol - 12 May 2006
2
Revised information on calculated and internationally optimized allocations of emission
reductions for States within the geographical scope of EMEP, using integrated
assessment models, including atmospheric transport models. This section should provide
an answer to whether the emission ceilings in annex II of the Protocol are adequate or
need to be revised.
Contributing bodies: MSC-W, CIAM
Key messages: with current legislation a number of parties will fulfill the Gothenburg
obligations or go even beyond1. Some others will need additional policies. The costs of
the current policies are ..% of GDP. The likelihood of meeting the (implicit) Gothenburg
ambitions for endpoints is x%. According to new scientific findings the envisaged
emission reductions under the Gothenburg protocol are less effective in approaching the
ultimate goal than previously thought. Optimizations (for 2010/2015?) based on the
current methodology aiming at (more or less) the same ambition levels for endpoints as
the Gothenburg Protocol would lead to stricter emission requirements for several
countries.
Background info needed: identify emission reductions with CLE for 2010/2020. Compare
with Gothenburg/NEC-obligations. Identify the effects of methodological changes in
emissions calculation (eg. new emission factors, new sources included). Compare new
optimizations for 2015/2020 with Gothenburg/NEC-obligations. Perform likelihood
calculation with RAINS.
Remaining questions: How do changes in the baseline affect cost effectiveness and the
distribution of the burden among parties? What are the consequences for the principle of
equity among parties? Can we say something on the costs of CLE? Do we want to say
something? To what extend are additional local measures (eg. speed limits, parking
policy; specific agricultural measures in/around natural ecosystems) more cost-effective
than additional EU-wide measures?
V EMISSION LIMIT VALUES
Reassessments of the adequacy of the obligations is required by the Protocol. Assess
sufficiency of ELVs. Indicate emerging technologies. Notice uncertainties in
implementation (possible delays, differences between theoretical and practical
efficiencies)
Contributing bodies: Expert Group on Techno-economic issues.
1
How to deal with the additional requirements for EU-countries under the NEC-directive? It seems most
practical to not only to evaluate the Gothenburg requirements, but in a table also express the differences
between Gothenburg-protocol and NEC.
Draft outline TFIAM review report on the Gothenburg protocol - 12 May 2006
3
Key messages: Current ELVs in the Annex of the Protocol do not necessarily represent
BAT. ELVs are (in)sufficient to meet targets in hotspot areas (cities and intensive
farming areas).
Background info needed: RAINS-calculation of emission and deposition/exposure
impacts of ELVs - especially Euro-5/6, LCP-directive, etc. What part of the total
CLE/MFR are covered by EU-wide emission limit values?
Remaining questions: What was the effect of the ELVs in the Annexes (did they make
any difference?)? Which sectors have the highest potentials for additional reduction
(beyond CLE)? How to deal with uncertainties like inadequacy of test cycle emissions for
real life situations (actual road emissions being significantly higher than during test
cycles)? Who dares to quantify costs and effects of emerging technologies?
VI THE ROLE OF HEMISPERIC TRANSPORT
Contributing bodies: TF on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution, Review by
US/Canada
Key messages: increased global concentration of ozone; input/output budgets for main
regions (North America; Europe); only modest contribution of North American & Asian
emission to PM-concentrations in Europe. Global CLE and MFR-reductions of methane,
CO, NOx, PM, SO2 could reduce background concentrations by x% and y% respectively.
Background info needed: Hemispheric transport calculations & model comparisons;
review document by US/Canada.
Remaining questions: what are the uncertainties? What are the political consequences?
VII RELATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUES
Contributing bodies: CIAM
Key messages: Close links concerning sources, abatement and atmospheric transport and
chemistry; synergistic and antagonistic effects; increased cost-effectiveness of emission
reduction & larger MFR-abatement potential. Greenhouse gas measures are cost-effective
measures to reduce air pollution.
Background info needed: GAINS-calculations
Remaining questions: A number of behavioral changes are not incorporated (how to
assess the costs & policies for more cycling, wearing a pullover or eating less meat?).
What about antagonistic effects of certain measures like biofuels?
Draft outline TFIAM review report on the Gothenburg protocol - 12 May 2006
4
VIII PARTICULATE MATTER
Assessment of the need to include PM in a future instrument. How cost effective are
reductions on primary PM? How to deal with the uncertainties in PM in a policy
process?
Contributing bodies: Expert Group on Particulate Matter
Key messages: PM-exposure is causing significant health effects and is in many parties
dominated by transboundary air pollution. Nevertheless in urban areas concentrations can
be 4-5 ug/m3 higher than in rural locations and local measures can contribute costeffective to reduce health effects. Data on emissions & concentrations of PM are more
uncertain than for other pollutants under the Protocol. For some sectors (eg traffic tail
pipe) emission data are more certain than for other sectors (eg residential wood burning).
Focus on PM2.5 seems to cover most of the anthropogenic emission sources, but health
effects of the coarse fraction cannot be ruled out. PM-measures for combustion sources in
urban areas and especially vehicles seem to be no regret. Health effects of specific
species of PM will not be available soon (2008 or probably later). It seems justified to use
PM mass as indicator to assess the health effects.
Background info needed: PM-Status Reports; PM-report by Expert Group on PM.
Remaining questions: How to deal with gaps in the PM-emission database in the coming
year? What are the uncertainties & inconsistencies in PM-monitoring data? How to deal
with uncertainties in rural wood burning? Will there be sufficient information &
consensus on urban levels of PM & Ozone? What about secondary organic aerosols?
Sensitivity analysis on the cross Atlantic contribution.
IX PROGRESS TOWARDS ACHIEVING THE OBJECTIVE OF THE PROTOCOL
Assessment of the progress towards achieving the objective of the Protocol. This section
should provide an answer to the question whether the Protocol obligations, if fully
implemented, would lead to the desired results, in view of the latest scientific knowledge.
Background info needed: See chapter IV. RAINS-estimates of the (optimized) emission
requirements to meet the original ambitions for endpoints of the Gothenburg protocol.
Comparison with the long term goals (prevent significant negative effects to health and
nature).
Remaining questions: uncertainty analysis needed?
Draft outline TFIAM review report on the Gothenburg protocol - 12 May 2006
5
X CONCLUSIONS
Hypothetical: revision is needed to meet the original (implicit) ambitions of the protocol.
Extension of the geographical scope is needed. Co-operation across the Northern
Hemisphere is needed. Primary PM-measures are cost-effective measures to reduce
health risks.
Remaining questions: different approach could apply for different areas, eg. costoptimized emission requirements within the traditional EMEP-region and ELV’s for
EECCA-countries.
Third draft - Rob Maas, 12 May 2006
Draft outline TFIAM review report on the Gothenburg protocol - 12 May 2006
6