Chair : Kim Oanh N. T. (G2) Fiona Marshall (G3) Rapporteur : Chemendra Sharma

1. Group Discussion Group 2: Risk Assessment Modelling and Mapping Group 3: Translating Science into Policy Chair: Kim Oanh N. T. (G2) Fiona Marshall (G3) Rapporteur: Chemendra Sharma Sept. 22, 2006

2. Q1: Can we use “standard” risk assessment methods for south Asia and southern Africa (e.g. dose-response relationships) • The ‘standard’ risk assessment methods can be used but require validation for South Asia & Southern Africa to assess the impacts of local conditions (e.g. crop variety, soil conditions, agriculture management practices,….)  Costly and time-consuming • Recommendation: select crops of priority in two regions for that info on dose- response available in Europe, N America and collate with the info in the regions (Wheat & Rice, soybean, legumes)  if large deviation then experiments for the regions are necessary

3. Q2: What ozone characterization index should be used in the regions (e.g. AOT40, SUM06, 7hr / 12hr means, ozone flux)? • AOT 40 is simple to calculate by models and may be the first choice at this stage. • SUM0 may be used to match with monitoring data by 2-week passive samplers • Where possible the relationship/correlation between AOT and SUM0 should be made to link to the AOT40 critical level • Flux approach should be considered in next step • 7 hr means is preferred but in the areas where the day is longer then longer averaging period should be applied.

4. Q2: What ozone characterization index should be used in the regions (e.g. AOT40, SUM06, 7hr / 12hr means, ozone flux)? (cont’d) • Ozone fluctuating within a year  may need to focus on max AOT40 over 3 consecutive months for potential impact assessment • If the crops are grown for whole year then running average AOT40 need to be calculated

5. Q3: What response parameters are most important in the regions (e.g. yield loss, visible injury, crop quality (e.g. protein content)? • Yield loss is most important parameter • Crop quality is on second priority ( Future Risk Assessment Maps can be prepared for Policy Makers)

6. Q4: What information do we require to perform provisional risk assessments and from where can this information be obtained? crop distribution data crop production statistics agricultural management information information describing crop growth periods Noted: all info is required

7. Q 5: What information is there concerning ozone concentrations (i.e. measured / observed & modelled (local, regional and global scales)? • Ozone monitoring is being done primarily in city areas at traffic inter-sections. • Largely ‘Rural Monitoring Stations’ are non-existent or very fragmented data • Available Data from other networks (like EANET, ABC etc.) can be used  recommendation: to have O3 monitors at the EANET, ABC sites • Model data are useful but uncertainties need to be assessed. Monitoring data are required for model evaluation

8. Q 6:Do dose-response relationships for ground level ozone specific to crop species and varieties that are grown in the regions exist? • Covered under Question 1 • Some data are available in Asia and Africa • Data need to be collated and assessed for the deviation from the dose-response relationships obtained in Europe/N America

9. Q 7:Does observational evidence of damage that could be used to evaluate provisional risk assessments exist? • Limited observational evidences exist which can be used but programme should focus on collecting more such evidences

10. Q 8:Should we focus on only ozone, what other pollutants are important in the regions and how can these be incorporated in future assessments? • O3 should be the selected pollutant at this stage due to its global dimension • Other pollutants: Depending upon the local circumstances in different countries, other pollutants like NOx, Fluoride etc. can also be included in future assessments (e.g. from brick kilns).

11. Q 9:How should we address the socio-economic impacts of ozone and other air pollutants on crops and food security? • Important Issue • Economic Costing of potential losses of agriculture productivity need to be estimated • Impacts of potential losses of agriculture productivity on the local/regional/national agriculture trade practices need to be evaluated • Methodology for impact assessment should be developed in consultation with ecologists, economists and relevant expertise

12. 10. How can we incorporate the influence of other environmental stresses into the risk assessments (e.g. climate change, Atmospheric Brown Cloud, drought stress, temperature stress)? • It is difficult to include all the variables in a single model but the information of other variables can provide boundary conditions for risk assessments • Issues related to local/regional priorities and different time-scales of various environmental stresses need to be considered

13. Q 11: Should we establish any correlations with CO2 and O3 ? • Not yet discussed

14. Group 3

15. Q 1: How should the capacity building role of the network best be realised (e.g. through the development and training in use of observational and experimental protocols)? • Capacity building both in terms of manpower and equipment is needed • Resource availability is key issue • Mutual exchange of expertise within network can significantly contribute • Training workshops are helpful in capacity building

16. Q 2: How can the network help realise the funding needs of air pollution effect practitioners working with the regions? • By providing support to participate in workshop • Help in establishing contacts with potential funding agencies

17. Q 3: How should APCEN link with other national, regional and non governmental organisations? • Through • MOUs • Invitation to participate in regional APCEN meetings • Visits to experimental sites • Dissemination of information

18. Q 4: Which organisations should be targeted (e.g. climate change bodies, crop research institutes (i.e. IRRI, CYMMIT, IFPRI) and government organisations) and how should relationships be established? • It is beneficial to establish contacts with these institutions and other CGIAR Institutions & universities as it would help in sharing resources and expertise available with such international organization (modeling & IPCC) • Individual countries should decide about target institution considering the local needs • Brain- storming sessions may be a good way to establish relationships

19. Q 5: How should devolution of ownership of the network to the regions be managed to ensure longevity and realisation of the network aims • Mechanism to be explored but international coordination is required • Different models for different countries should be examined (Governmental focal points/ researchers/NGOs) • Time frame is an important issue and financial support (seed money) should be continued during transition period (and after)

20. Q 5: How should devolution of ownership of the network to the regions be managed to ensure longevity and realisation of the network aims • Demonstration of success will be helpful in facilitation of local ownerships • Regional networks with revolving chairmanships could also be explored

21. Q 6: How should the information gathered by the network be communicated to policy makers, the public and other stakeholders? • Through - • Specifically designed workshops for Science – policy dialogues • Use of mass media (both print and electronic) • Scientific papers/reports

22. Q 7: How to generate funds for activities? • Using the contacts of individual members of network • Corporate financing

23. Q 8: The continued role of APCEN:- (linkages with RAPIDC Website) • Should an APCEN steering committee be established? - Yes • Should a dedicated APCEN website be established? - Yes • Should there be an “official” APCEN certificate for network members? - No • Should the APCEN database be available on the web to facilitate communication between members? - Results/ products and Meta Data should be uploaded