PowerPoint-Präsentation

Transcription

Review of the Gothenburg Protocol

Link to potential PM control under CLRTAP:
–
Specifies control options for PM precursors
–
Could be extented to NEC for primary PM
–
However: Many sources of primary PM are
controlled by Protocol on Heavy Metals

Legal requirement for review to start no later
than one year after entry into force
Marion Wichmann-Fiebig
II 5 Abteilungsleiterin „Luft“
1
Review of the Gothenburg Protocol:
Timetable

WGSR through TF IAM to present a review report
(50 to 75 pages) to CLRTAP EB in December 2007

TF IAM to present first draft to WGSR
in April 2007

First drafting meeting with other Centres, TF and EG
November 15th 2006, Laxenburg
2
Objectives of the Review Report

Are the emissions ceilings and the other obligations
adequate for achieving the objectives of the
Protocol?

What progress has been made towards achieving the
objectives?

Assessment of the need to include PM in a future
instrument
3
Draft outline of the Review Report

Concentration and deposition levels

Effects on human health, natural ecosystems, materials and
crops

National emission ceilings

Emission limit values

The role of hemispheric transport

Relation to climate change issues

Particulate matter (contribution tbd at this meeting)

North America

Progress towards achieving the objectives
4
Coordination with work on PM

Common baseline and MFTR-scenarios to be used

IIASA will differentiate contribution from primary and
secondary PM 2.5 to total concentration

data available for EU by end of 2006,
for non-EU within EMEP area by spring 2007

abatement measures and costs will be available from
the RAINS database

no optimisation runs to take place in the course of the
review
5
Consequences on Report of PM EG

Concentrations in 2020 according to
baseline
–
–
Quantitative information for full EMEP area will be
available only in Spring 2007
Preliminary information on contribution from
primary and secondary PM available from
EMEP and CAFE reports
(to be added after para 26)
6

Primary PM
–
Abatement potential related to emissions as analysed in
IIASA study
(cmp. para 27 to 40)
–
Costs in RAINS database to be summarised by IIASA
(extend para 42)
–
Preliminary information on abatement potential related to
concentrations available from EMEP model runs and CAFE
(to be added after para 40)
–
Quantification for full EMEP area only in Spring 2007
7

Secondary PM
–
–
Quantification of abatement potential for full EMEP
area only in spring 2007
(extend para 41: potential of tighter NECs and
ELV for precursors beyond Gothenburg to reduce
secondary PM)
costs cannot be directely compared to primary
emissions as benefits exists for other effects,
e.g. eutrophication
(how to incorporate?)
8
Foreseen discussion of
the draft Report at this meeting

No discussion of para 1 to 20, i.e.
–
Mandate
–
Objectives
–
Characteristics of PM
–
Transboundary character of PM
–
Health impacts of PM
–
State of emission inventories
9

Agree on contents of
–

with a view to additional information to come from the
Gothenburg review process and the timing of a final
draft
Discuss how to deal with
–

Key sectors contributing (para 21 to 26)
abatement costs for precursor emissions
(to be added to para 42)
Discuss what information to incorporate
on North America
10

Discuss
–
–
–
–
The potential for further abatement
(para 27 to 41 and additional information to come
from Gothenburg review)
Potential options how to address PM
(para 44 to 60)
Conclusions
(para 61 to 70 and potential additional conclusions)
Potential Annexes, e.g. more in-depth discussion of
additional sectors, non-technical measures …
11
Contribution of the PM EG to the
Gothenburg Review Report

Evidence on
–
–





on health impacts of PM
transboundary character of PM
Current and future concentration of primary and
secondary PM
Abatement potential of prim. and sec. PM
Uncertainty of emission data
Any revision of NECs and ELVs on PM precursors
should consider health impacts from PM exposure
No prejudice how to control primary PM under CLRTAP
(e.g. HM Protocol)
12
PM Assessment Report by TFMM

Initiative of TFMM endorsed by EMEP SB

Aim of the Report
–
Describe the contribution made by long range
transboundary transport to PM levels within the
EMEP region
–
Contribute to the discussion on whether PM
models sufficiently reflect reality
13
PM Assessment Report - Outline

Part A. The EMEP-wide Assessement
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–

Are there significant differences in the PM climate across Europe?
To what extent is PM a transboundary problem?
How well do we understand the major PM components and their origins?
How important are natural PM sources?
To what extent do sources outside of Europe contribute to European PM?
How important is regional PM for urban PM levels?
How well can we link sources to observed PM levels with atmospheric
models?
How large are the uncertainties in PM measurements and model
predictions?
What improvements are required in PM monitoring, modelling and basic
scientific understanding for the assessment of health and climate impacts
of PM?
Part B. National Assessments
14
PM Assessment Report - Timetable

Workshop hosted by INERIS, Paris
November 29th to December 1st 2006
–
Compile a first draft of Part A
–
Review of national assessments

Review of first draft at TFMM, Spring 2007

Final draft to be presented to EMEP SB in
September 2007
15
Cost-effective control of
urban air pollution


Joint Workshop of TFMM and TF IAM
November 16th and 17th, Laxenburg, AT
Objective
–
update on the most recent findings from health impact studies
–
explore the connections between urban air quality and regional
scale pollution based on monitoring data and modelling
exercises
–
review methodological approaches for IAM to balance local
and Europe-wide emission control measures
16

PowerPoint-Präsentation

Transcription

Similar documents