CLRTP PMEG

Third meeting, 13 & 14 March 2006, Dessau

Review of first meeting

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

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

First meetingMay 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.

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.

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;

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Input and exchanges with other groups/organisations 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

Meetings 2006 Third meeting

Dessau – 13 & 14 March 2006 Report to WGSR, September 2006 Fourth meeting?

London, late 2006

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

KEY QUESTIONS

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?

Primary PM emissions sources5. Are primary PM emissions important in

transboundary pollution?6. Are PM emissions inventories robust?7. What are the important uncertainties in PM

emissions inventories?8. How might PM emissions inventories be

improved?9. Are measurements and modelling robust

enough to apportion imported and exported PM?

Mitigation of primary PM emissions10. What are the key sources of primary PM

emissions?11. What abatement measures are currently used

to mitigate primary emissions of ambient PM?12. What measures are most suitable for EECCA

countries?13. What abatement measures are available to

further reduce ambient concentrations of ambient PM in (a) EECCA and (b) other countries?

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;

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

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

Conclusions Modelling and emissions inventories are

uncertain and could be improved, but they’re 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

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

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)

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

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

Third meetingKey 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?