CLRTP PMEG

1
CLRTP PMEG

• Third meeting, 13 14 March 2006, Dessau

2
Review of first meeting
3
CLRTP particulate matter expert group

• Objective
• Improved technical understanding of the abatement
  options and the technical possibilities to reduce
  concentrations of particulate matter under the
  Convention

4
Scope

• The work of the group is scientific and technical
• The conclusions and recommendations will be
  important for helping policy makers with future
  decisions on emissions controls
• Chaired by UK and Germany

5
First meeting

• May 2005, Berlin
• Main discussion items
• sources contributing to the transboundary
  transport of particulate matter (PM)
• assessing future changes in PM emissions and
  concentrations, as related to existing protocols
  to the Convention and other instruments
• technical and non-technical measures available
  for further reduction of PM levels and
• adequate strategy to address PM under the
  Convention.

6
Key points, conclusions and recommendations

• Key points
• noted the strengthened evidence showing links
  between relative risk of mortality and levels of
  PM2.5, while noting PM10 is not innocuous
• no evidence for a threshold of effects at the
  population level and
• recognized that even in 2010 there will be
  significant mortality associated with PM levels
  and there was a need for further policy action.

7
Key points, conclusions and recommendations

• models show transboundary character of not only
  secondary PM2.5 but also primary PM2.5 and to a
  lesser extent PM10.
• potential to reduce further both primary and
  secondary PM. Abatement measures should address
  both. While the focus should be to reduce PM2.5,
  the coarse fraction should not be ignored
• potential for further emissions reductions but
  there is a big difference in this potential
  between EU countries and EECCA countries.
  Specific strategies may need to be developed for
  EECCA countries

8
Key points, conclusions and recommendations

• even with current legislation, in 2020 there
  still will be potential for applying readily
  available low cost measures to reduce emissions
  other measures though technically feasible could
  only be applied at high cost and
• in addition to technical measures there is
  potential to explore the use of non-technical
  measures.

9
Work plan 2006Item a

• Assess the degree of control of pollutants
  contributing to the formation of PM already
  provided by existing protocols to the Convention
  and submit a draft report to the Working Group on
  Strategies and Review at its thirty-eighth
  session in 2006 (United Kingdom/Co-Chair and
  Netherlands)

10
Work plan 2006Item b

• Review current work under the Convention on PM,
  taking also into account the latest results of
  the forthcoming Thematic Strategy on Air
  Pollution of the European Community and similar
  strategies of other Parties and submit a draft
  report to the Working Group on Strategies and
  Review at its thirty-eighth session in 2006
  (United Kingdom/Co-Chair, European Commission,
  United States and Netherlands)

11
Work plan 2006Item c

• Using, inter alia, the results of the EMEP model,
  prepare supporting information for the third
  meeting of Expert Group for reviewing the
  characteristics of PM as a transboundary
  pollutant, e.g. contribution to ambient
  concentrations from national, regional and
  hemispheric sources, and consider the
  implications of choosing different particle size
  fractions (Co-Chairs to liaise with MSC-W)

12
Work plan 2006Item d (revised)

• Consider, inter alia, the work of CIAM, MSC-W and
  CCC on scientific evidence and technical
  requirements to reduce exposure to primary and
  secondary PM. Develop, where possible, further
  technical and non-technical measures to assist
  parties to reduce PM emissions and exposure and
  to prepare supporting information for the third
  meeting of Expert Group (Germany/Co-Chair to
  liaise with CIAM)

13
Input and exchanges with other groups/organisation
s

• Task b
• EU Commission
• Tasks b d
• TF integrated assessment modelling/CIAM
• Task c
• TF measurements and modelling
• Tasks c d
• Meteorological Synthesising Centre West
• TF emission inventories projections
• Task d
• Chemical Coordinating Centre

14
Meetings 2006

• Third meeting
• Dessau 13 14 March 2006
• Report to WGSR, September 2006
• Fourth meeting?
• London, late 2006

15
Scope of 2nd meeting

• Workshop plenty of time for discussion
• Consider key questions
• Start to think about possible options for
  incorporating control of PM emissions and
  exposure into CLRTAP
• Lay the foundations for report to WGSR in
  September 2006
• No formal co-chairs report

16
KEY QUESTIONS
17
Transboundary PM characterisation

1. To what extent is PM a transboundary pollutant?
2. Is PM a hemispheric pollutant?
3. Which components of PM have a significant
   transboundary element?
4.  What are the important emissions sources of
   transboundary PM?

18
Primary PM emissions sources

1. Are primary PM emissions important in
   transboundary pollution?
2. Are PM emissions inventories robust?
3. What are the important uncertainties in PM
   emissions inventories?
4. How might PM emissions inventories be improved?
5. Are measurements and modelling robust enough to
   apportion imported and exported PM?

19
Mitigation of primary PM emissions

1. What are the key sources of primary PM emissions?
2. What abatement measures are currently used to
   mitigate primary emissions of ambient PM?
3. What measures are most suitable for EECCA
   countries?
4. What abatement measures are available to further
   reduce ambient concentrations of ambient PM in
   (a) EECCA and (b) other countries?

20
Conclusions of 2nd meeting

• PM has an important transboundary element. The
  extent depends on the region/country.
• Secondary PM2.5 and primary PM2.5 are important.
  PM10 to a lesser extent.
• There is potential to reduce further both primary
  and secondary PM. Abatement measures should
  address both. While the focus should be to
  reduce PM2.5, the coarse fraction should not be
  ignored
• There is a big difference in this potential
  between EU countries and EECCA countries.
  Specific strategies may need to be developed for
  EECCA countries

21
Conclusions

• There is enough evidence (based on emissions
  inventories and modelling) to identify key
  sources - which ones are important depends on the
  region
• EU
• Road transport and shipping
• Residential and smaller combustion plant
• Industrial processes and waste
• Agriculture
• EECCA
• All sectors, particularly production and
  non-industrial processes

22
Conclusions

• There is room for improvement beyond CLE for key
  emissions sectors
• Further reductions of primary PM emissions are a
  cost-effective means for improving ambient PM2.5

23
Conclusions

• Modelling and emissions inventories are uncertain
  and could be improved, but theyre robust enough
  to identify key sources
• Encourage all countries, particularly EECCA, to
  develop, improve and report primary PM emissions
  inventories
• requires capacity building
• Encourage Parties to support improvement and
  harmonization of emissions factors and activity
  data this may be through the work of TFEIP and
  its inventory reviews

24
Conclusions

• The options for controlling PM under the
  Convention will influence the level of certainty
  required for inventories and modelling
• Inventories and modelling should be fit for
  purpose, not necessarily technically ideal

25
Next steps

• For next meeting (Spring 2006)
• Draft report on tasks a and b by February 2006,
  for discussion (Netherlands to lead in
  coordination with IIASA)
• Virtual working groups to draft dossiers on key
  sectors (focus on primary PM)
• Abatement measures (including extent of
  implementation and potential for further
  implementation)
• Road transport and shipping (Germany to lead)
• Residential and smaller combustion plant (Sweden
  to lead with input from Austria and Switzerland)
• Industrial processes and waste (UK to lead with
  input from France and Germany)
• Agriculture (IIASA to lead)

26
Next steps

• For next meeting (Spring 2006)
• Co-chairs to draft
• Summary of conclusions to date and outline
  structure for report
• Technical input for policy instruments
• IIASA to provide summary of available cost
  information

27
Next steps

• For autumn 2006
• Virtual working groups to draft sections on key
  sectors (focus on primary PM)
• Quality and completeness of emissions data
• Contribution to ambient concentrations and
  potential exposure

28
Third meeting

• Key questions to the group
• Is there a significant potential to
  cost-effectively further reduce peoples exposure
  ambient concentrations of to PM beyond the
  basecase?
• If so, to what extent do existing instruments
  (e.g. IPPC, CLRTAP) mitigate ambient PM
  concentrations.
• How might existing instruments be modified, or
  new instruments developed to further reduce
  public exposure to PM?