Slide 1ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2011/10:
2. Effect-based indicators for the support of the protocol revision
J-P Hettelingh, M Posch, J Slootweg
ICP M&M - Coordination Centre for Effects (CCE),
www.icpmapping.org hosted at RIVM
NFC submission to CCE call for data 2010/2011
CCE presentation to EMEP, WGSR and WGE, September 2011
Effect based indicators for the support of the Protocol Revision
Scenarios of August 2011 for WGSR49
(note that the /10 document, reports on effects of scenarios that were input to the WGSR48
of the spring 2010)
Scenarios (as of August 2011)
Year: 2020, all based on PRIMES model
Baseline: Current LEgislation (CLE)
Table: Summary of gap closure percentages for the impact indicators
+ Maximum Technically Feasible Reductions (MTFR)
Scen
Health-PM
Acidification
Eutrophication
Ozone
HIGH
75%
75%
75%
75%
High*
75%
75%
75%
50%
MID
50%
50%
60%
40%
Low*
25%
25%
50%
25%
LOW
25%
25%
25%
25%
Exceedances (AAE) of Acidity Critical Loads
and % area at risk in Europe, (EU27) and Natura2000
CLE, 4%, (6%), 7%
MID, 2%, (4%), 5%
HIGH*, 2% (3%), 4%
MTFR, 1% (3%), 3%
LOW*, 3%, (5%), 6%
2000, 12%,(20%), 23%
CLE, 37% (59%), 58%
MID, 29%, (48%), 48%
HIGH*, 26%, (44%), 44%
MFR, 22%, (38%), 38%
LOW*, 31%, (50%), 50%
2000, 54%, (75%), 72%
and % area at risk in Europe, (EU27) and Natura2000
CCE presentation to EMEP, WGSR and WGE, September 2011
Expost analysis for WGSR49
Target Loads CLs
and % area not recovering before 2050 in Europe (and EU27)
CLE:
CLE, 11%,(21%), 28%
MID, 6%, (12%), 15%
HIGH*, 5%, (10%), 13%
MFR, 3% (6%), 8%
LOW*, 7%, (14%), 18%
2000, 25%, (42%), 50%
and % area at risk in Europe, (EU27) and Natura2000
CCE presentation to EMEP, WGSR and WGE, September 2011
Area at N-risk of a more than 5% “change in biodiversity”,
i.e. of species richness [semi-natural grass lands; s-alpine scrub habitats], and similarity [coniferous boreal woodlands],
together covering 53% of European natural area
10 %
3 %
2 %
1 %
1 %
0,6 %
Robustness analyses:
Ensemble assessment of empirical and computed critical load exceedances
Overlap of area at risk of N-deposition with additional pressure
CCE presentation to EMEP, WGSR and WGE, September 2011
(1) Differences of scenario effects between
WGSR48 and WGSR49
(2) Likeliness of Exceedances (AAE) in Europe
based on the “ensemble” of empirical and modelled CL(N)
Explore the inclusion of alternative deposition assessments ?
= unlikely
(3) In addition, some areas are also at risk of
ambient [NH3] that exceed critical levels
NAT-2000
PRI-2000
PRI-2030
MFR-2020
CCE presentation to EMEP, WGSR and WGE, September 2011
Conclusions for inclusion in the report of this meeting in the UN languages:
ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2011/10 para 5: indicating the participation of parties to the Convention in the call for data 2010/2011
ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2011/10 para 6: indicating the substance of the proposed call for data 2011/2012 as a first follow up to effect oriented elements of the LTS strategy of the Convention adopted by the EB28.
Computed effects of emission reduction scenarios for the revision of the Gothenburg protocol between WGSR47 and WGSR49 do not significantly vary.
The computed risk of nutrient nitrogen – under the so-called MID scenario - is widespread, affecting 29% of ecosystems in the EMEP domain, and 48% of natural areas both in the EU27 and Natura 2000 areas.
Deposition values, that are required for recovery before 2050, are exceeded under the MID scenario in 30% and 50% of ecosystems in the EMEP domain and the EU27 respectively.
Following the request from the EB to improve biological indicators, the change of plant species diversity has very tentatively been assessed for about half of the terrestrial European ecosystems. It turns oout that a significant change may occur to an estimation of up to about 10% of this area at deposition values around the 2000 level. The estimation is subject to a high uncertainty.
% AREA AT RISK