Convention on Longrange Transboundary Air Pollution

1
Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air
Pollution

• The use of Emission Projections in
• Integrated Assessments
• Rob Maas, Chair Task Force Integrated Assessment
  Modelling
• TFEIP/TFIAM Workshop on Emission Projections

UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE
2
Sensitivity of ecosystems (5 percentile)
Critical load deposition that does not lead to
chemical changes in the soil
http//www.rivm.nl/cce
3
Sensitivity of ecosystems (5 percentile)
Source receptor relations
4
Emission projections (source EMEP/MSC-W)
NH3
VOC
5
Cost differences due to differences in economic
structure
Costs
emissions
6
RAINShttp//www.iiasa.ac.at/rains
Economic activities
Measures options
Targets
All data reviewed by the parties !
NH4 deposition
NH3 emission
Agriculture
NH3 policy
SO2 emission
Energy
S deposition
Exceedance CL acidification
SO2 policy
Exceedance CL Nitrogen
NOx emission
NOy deposition
NOx policy
Exceedance CL ozone
O3 production
Transport
NOx/VOC
VOC emission
industry
VOC policy
O3 exposure humans
Secondary aerosols
Primary PM concentration
PM policy
Primary PM emission
PM exposure humans
Other
Costs
Damage ??
7
Model results emission ceilings per country
No flat rate reductions but environmental
improvement at lowest costs
Ceilings depend on projected contribution to the
problem and potential for low cost measures
8
Geneva Convention on Long Range Transboundary
Air Pollution Working group on strategies and
review
9
Winners en losers
Protocol ? costs
? benefits ratio in mln EURO
in 2010 G5/2 G5/2 G5/2
Belgium 200 700 200 400 1,0
0,6 Netherlands 160 640 400 600
2,5 0,9 UK 320 360 800
800 2,5 2,2 Germany 520 1050 1400
2300 2,7 2,2 France 90 850
700 2000 7,8 2,4 Italy 80 340
1000 2200 12,5 6,5
Bron AEA Technology
10
Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air
Pollution

• Emission Projections, why to improve?

UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE
11
Why better projections?

• Science Awareness
• (Expected) Compliance
• Negotiations

12
Why better projections?

• Science Awareness
• - best practice new findings
• (Expected) Compliance
• - monitor efforts agreed distance to target
• Negotiations
• - include strategic considerations (eg. Phase
  out of nuclear Lisbon Strategy)

13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
Lessons learned

• Improvement of data quality during the process
• For Integrated assessments one emission figure is
  not sufficient what control measures are
  envisaged and when?
• National emission scenarios have become available
  for almost all EU-countries
• Some differences still exist with RAINS/GAINS
• Improvements would require a more detailled
  approach and additonal work would probably not be
  in proportion.
• Data quality is sufficient for the revision of
  NEC and Gothenburg Protocol
• But .. Some political choices have to be made!

16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
Question 1

• Do we expect countries to take into account in
  their projections developments (or strategies) in
  other policy areas such as climate/energy,
  transport, agriculture, water and nature?
• How to ensure that countries deliver
  projections for air pollutants that are
  consistent with GHG-projections?

22
Question 2

• How can we take into account known biases in
  our current emission factors or effectiveness of
  measures? Eg. we know that Euro-3 cars pollute
  more in real life than the emission factors we
  derive from testing, but we do not know exactly
  how much

23
Question 3

• What type of policy scenarios are required
  national projections with only policies in place
  (current legislation) or national projections
  with policies in pipeline (or even implementation
  plans to comply with the emission ceilings) ?

24
Question 4

• Do we want countries to submit their most
  likely future projection for economic activities,
  or to submit an implementation plan which would
  meet the emission ceilings projection agreed,
  even when growth of economic activities would be
  on the high side of the uncertainty margin?