BACKGROUND DOCUMENT 2
Review of the Gothenburg Protocol
Draft outline for a technical report of the Task Force on Integrated Assessment
Modelling
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 goal of the protocol: the multi pollutant-multi effect
approach to stepwise achieve critical loads and levels required for the long term
protection of health & ecosystems. Remind the criteria for target setting used: costeffectiveness and equal environmental improvements (gap-closure approach), backed by
a set of common emission limit values. Remind that work under the LRTAP-Convention
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 (EECCA-involvement), the enlargement of the EU, additional policies
by the EU (under the air quality directive and other relevant directives) and efforts by the
US and Canada.
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: How to deal with uncertainties? Is available science sufficient
enough to support a revision ot the protocol?
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
Draft outline technical report of TFIAM on the review of the Gothenburg protocol - 23 June 2006
1
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 for a more realistic description of deposition on forests
and natural areas. Depositions 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:
What are the uncertainties on future changes in meteorology and the boundary conditions
of the model? How to relate regional background concentrations to the local population
exposure to Ozone and NO2 and (secondary) PM?
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, new exposure indicators are
used to assess the impact on human health and vegetation. Exposure to PM and Ozone
reduces, but with current legislation exposure still substantial health risks will occur by
2020. Due to new insights in the dynamical behavior of ecosystems and the effects of
ozone to vegetation, risks of continued exceedances of critical loads and levels can now
be better assessed and prioritized than in 1999.
Background info needed: WGE-trendreport + summary; exceedance maps (1990, 2000,
2010, 2020, differences old model/new model); health damage maps (CIAM); assess
risks of continued exceedances with dynamic model & ozone-fluxmodel. Compare
results for AOT60 and SOMO35.
Draft outline technical report of TFIAM on the review of the Gothenburg protocol - 23 June 2006
2
Remaining questions: what are the consequences of the inclusion of health risks due to
long term exposure to (secondary) particles? What are the consequences of using the flux
approach to estimate ozone effects for vegetation? What is the relation between
calculated population exposure and the real life exposure to in/outdoor air pollutants?
What is the damage to materials?
IV NATIONAL EMISSION CEILINGS
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 the question whether the emission ceilings in annex II of the Protocol are
adequate.
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
effectiveness of the Protocol is less than expected in 1999. According to new scientific
findings the envisaged emission reductions under the Gothenburg protocol are less
effective in approaching the ultimate goal than previously thought. [A cost-optimal
solution based on the current methodology aiming at (more or less) the same ambition
level as the Gothenburg Protocol would lead different 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
emission reductions with an optimization for 2015/2020 with comparable
Gothenburg/NEC-ambitions.]
Remaining questions: To what extend did the protocol contribute to emission reductions,
as compared to other policy developments? How did 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? To what extend will other
policies (traffic, agriculture) lead to additional emission reductions, e.g. via local
measures (eg. speed limits, parking policy; specific agricultural measures in/around
natural ecosystems)?
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 technical report of TFIAM on the review of the Gothenburg protocol - 23 June 2006
3
V EMISSION LIMIT VALUES
Reassessments of the adequacy of the obligations is required by the Protocol. Assess
sufficiency of ELVs. Compare technical annexes with current views on best available
technologies ( IPPC-documents).
Contributing bodies: Expert Group on Techno-economic issues.
Key messages: Current ELVs in the Annex of the Protocol do not always represent BAT.
ELVs are for highly industrialized and populated countries not sufficient to meet the
emission ceilings obligations.
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 European-wide emission limit values?
Remaining questions: What was the effect of the ELVs in the Annexes (did they make
any difference)? 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)?
VI THE ROLE OF HEMISPERIC TRANSPORT
Describe rising European background levels.
Contributing bodies: TF on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution, Review by
US/Canada, JRC
Key messages: increased global concentration of ozone; input/output budgets for main
regions (North America; Europe; Asia); 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 SYNERGIES WITH OTHER POLICY AREAS
Describe relationship with climate policy, biodiversity policy, nitrate and water quality
policy, local air quality policy.
Draft outline technical report of TFIAM on the review of the Gothenburg protocol - 23 June 2006
4
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?
VIII PARTICULATE MATTER
Assessment of the need to include PM in the assessment of health risks. How costeffective are reductions of primary PM as compared to secondary particles? How to deal
with the uncertainties in PM in a policy process?
Contributing bodies: Expert Group on Particulate Matter, MSC-W, CIAM
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. 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; 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? Can local measures contribute cost-effectively to
reduce health effects? What about secondary organic aerosols?
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.
Draft outline technical report of TFIAM on the review of the Gothenburg protocol - 23 June 2006
5
Key meassage: see Background document 1
Background info needed: See chapter IV. Comparison with the long term goals
(prevention of significant negative effects to health and nature).
Remaining questions: what are the main uncertainties? Are the models fit enough to
support a revision of the protocol? Describe available modelling tools and refer to
scientific reviews of EMEP, RAINS, CL and the comparisons with national modelling
activities.
X CONCLUSIONS
Hypothetical: revision is needed to meet the ambitions of the protocol. Co-operation
across the Northern Hemisphere is needed. Primary PM-measures are cost-effective
measures to reduce health risks. The available modelling tools are fit to support the
policy process of a revision of the protocol.
Fourth draft - Rob Maas, 23 June 2006
Draft outline technical report of TFIAM on the review of the Gothenburg protocol - 23 June 2006
6