1 / 29

EMEP monitoring strategy - beyond 2009

EMEP's monitoring network needs to adapt to new requirements while maintaining long-term series for emission monitoring. This involves regular reviews, involvement of experts, and coordination by the Task Force on Measurements and Modelling. Achievements, status, and future needs are highlighted, emphasizing the importance of data quality, spatial coverage, and user-driven involvement. The strategy's fundamentals, site levels, and focus on new technologies and substances are outlined. Suggestions for improvements and sustaining supersites are discussed for continued monitoring in relation to climate change and local pollution.

ameliae
Download Presentation

EMEP monitoring strategy - beyond 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EMEP monitoring strategy - beyond 2009 Kjetil Tørseth, EMEP/CCC - NILU

  2. 32. The EMEP monitoring network must be dynamic and ready to adapt to new needs and requirements identified by EMEP and the Convention. At the same time, consistent long-term time series should be maintained to monitor emission reductions. This requires the strategy and its implementation to be regularly reviewed and, as appropriate, revised. The Task Force on Measurements and Modelling will coordinate reviews and facilitate the involvement of the EMEP centres and experts from the Parties in this process. The results of reviews and recommendations for revisions will be presented to the EMEP Steering Body

  3. What was new • Extended list of parameters to be measured and more formal requirements • Focus on extension wrt spatial coverage • ”Level” approach • ”Supersites” and the involvement of national research activities • Monitoring in relation to other frameworks • Future needs wrt to synergies of environmental issues and new technolgies

  4. Achievements • Important discussions and increased awareness • Many countries have revised their priorities. • Relationship with AQFD monitoring strengthened • Large improvements wrt aerosol supersites, little change wrt POPs... • Campaigns proven important • Increased interest of the scientific community • Significant improvements wrt spatial coverage • More information available

  5. Status 2006, incl intensive data Main ions in precip PM10 and/or PM2.5 TC, OC or OM 83 29 12 Heavy metals POP VOC 16 17 67

  6. Status level 1 • Improved for particulate matter, chemical speciation and spatial coverage • However: • Still need more sites to measure base cations • and more sites in east of Europe

  7. New EMEP sites in the EECCA region Support from: CAPACT http://www.unece.org/ie/capact Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs KZ: Borovoye UA: Danube delta (in kind) MD: Leovo GE: Abastumani AR: Amberd

  8. Status Level 2, supersites • Improved: EC/OC, dust ,Hg and N gas/part (partly intensive periode data) • However • Still need for more sites measuring EC/OC, dust and gas/part regularly • Need better spatial coverage especially of POPs and VOC

  9. ∑7PCB PCB from PAS 2006, ng/sample

  10. Fundamentals in the revised strategy; • Which parameters to measure and at which locations? • - there is a need to understand spatial and temporal trends in atmospheric composition, as well as understand source apportionment, chemical processing, biosphere-atmosphere exchange etc to support the topics addressed by EMEP. • LRTAP in relation to climate change • LRTAP in relation to local scale pollution • HTAP (Intercontinental transport of air pollutants) • LRTAP in relation to agricultural activities, imbalance in nutrient loads • ”natural” sources like forest fires, dust events etc. • New substances

  11. EMEP trademark; • Well documented data quality • Sites with large geographical representativeness • Comprehensive list of parameters • Long-term and conservative activity • User driven (buttop up), large scientific involvement • Significant ”voluntary commitment” • Combination of ”state-of-the-art” and ”simple-and-reliable” • Open data policy • Large and competent user community

  12. The role of “supersites” vs level 1 sites • Scientific involvement is essential to ensure development and improved quality • The total resources has been significantly extended from research funds • Additional parameters are added to the programme • More administrative complexity in relation to formal matters • How to sustain “supersites” beyond current research funding? • Level 1 sites are still the “core of EMEP” !

  13. EMEP monitoring in the years to come... • Synergieswrt climate change • large overlap in parameters of relevance • Joint infrastructures • EC-FP7 focus on research infrastructures (ESFRI etc.)

  14. EMEP monitoring in the years to come... • EMEP wrt GEO (GEOSS) • ”New” technologies: • Combination of data from multiple platforms (in-situ, satellite and ground remote sensing etc). • Data assimilation • Near-Real-Time data provision • GAS; GMES Atmospheric Service • Core service and fast track services • Additional capacities for atmospheric composition monitoring from satellites

  15. EMEP monitoring in the years to come... • Geographical coverage • Spatial distribution of sites across current EMEP domain • Supersites in EECCA • Mediterranean area • Hemispheric and global transport fluxes • Export/Import sites • Harmonisation of regional monitoring efforts • tracers • Regional vs. Local pollution issues • Harmonisation of monitoring efforts, and balanced use of resources

  16. Approach for the revision • Adjustments rather than major revision • Closely linked to revision of the EMEP strategy • Active involvement by the TFMM, HTAP and SB • Review of current strategy for identification of gaps (2008) • Consultations and harmonisation with other initiatives • New strategy finalised by SB in 2009.

  17. Initiatives “dataflow” • National systems (Prevair, luftkvalitet.info....) • EEA; ozone and PM web • DG Env; HTAP, others? • DG Ent (Space); GEMS, GMES GAS, MACC, GNU, ... • DG Res (GCE); GEOMON, ACCENT,... • FP7 Capacities; IMECC, EUSAAR, GENESI-DR (ICT)… • APREORI, others ? • ESA; Envisat CDB, Promote, GAS... • CLRTAP/EMEP; EMEP strategy • WMO/GAW; IGACO/GAW strategy • COST ES0602, Chemical Weather forecasting…

  18. GEOSS xxx xxx xxx xxx GEMS GAW-WDCs external Others EMEP internal User interface GEOMON data centre Observations performed through GEOMON • GHGs • AGAGE, • ESRL • CarboEurope • IMECC • Soge • -Eurohydros • -Others • Reactive Gases • EMEP, • AirBase (AQFD, EIONET) • NitroEurope • Others… • Aerosols • EMEP, • EUSAAR • AirBase (AQFD, EIONET) • EARLINET ASOS • AERONET • Others • Ozone/UV • NDACC • WOUDC • WRC • BSRN • others

  19. Virtual access Users Funding QAQC Formats Deadlines Restrictions Secondary reporting (other obligations or voluntary contributions (WDCs etc)) Reporting to the organisation from where monitoring obligations arise Sites and nationalorganisations

  20. What is so special with atmospheric composition observations • Data originate from a large number of data originators (many not IT-experts) • Mixture of operational and scientific activites • IPR and compliance issues – openness vs restrictions • Quality and representativity is highly variable • Often significant efforts are required in generate data • Large number of parameters reported • Complex data formats to accommodate meta data provision • Different frameworks have different standards • Same data ends in different databases (duplicates, snapshots etc) • Funding situation may encourage data restrictions • Data reporting is a result of either encouragement or force

  21. What is so special with atmospheric composition observations (cont.) • High cost of single data values; - O3 by monitor ~ 1 € - SO4 by filterpack ~100 € - POPs ~ 600 € - Aerosol lidar profile ~2000€ - Research aircraft …. One dataset of 30 year duration -> 1 mill. € Ebas hosts more than 15000 datasets !

  22. Some definitions • Near Real Time (NRT), data available within ~3 hours delay • Rapid delivery (RD), data available within weeks to months (< ~3 months)

  23. EMEP public EMEP data flow timeline Limited availability National db To CCC/AirBase AQ – online services Jan Dec June Oct Apr Sep Annual submission of about 4500 datasets (one parameter at one site), more than 100 data originators. ~2 persons on full time to import data (including interactions with DO’s for revisions, adding meta info, etc)

  24. Important considerations: • Considers both NRT and RD data delivery • Focus is to address the needs of the Convention; understand and improve the description of LRTAP • Facilitate the access of data to EMEP users • No focus on providing ”public awareness” • Other initiatives partly overlaps with the EMEP initiative • EMEP initiative is ”process oriented”

  25. Harmonised data reporting: EMEP/GAW • EMEP -> WDCA data flow arrangement (CREATE/EUSAAR)(WDCPC) • GEOMON One-stop shop (Data management committee) • Review of WDCGG data flow WMO WDCGG: CO2, CO, CH4, N2O,..., O3, SO2, VOCs, Hosted by the JMA, 297 sites, 109 are European -> 91 locations 45 sites are “active” (data reported from site after 2002) 40 of these sites are EMEP “active” Many of the WDCGG parameters are likely to be included in new MS The EMEP CCC has offered to act as an official node for data reporting to the WMO-GAW WDCGG

  26. The end !

  27. Response by SB members or monitoring agencies is shown on map Only positive feedback ! Also support from several ”Supersites” (not shown on map) Support expressed also by DG ENV MSC-W ECMWF Lotos

  28. Example offormalized routines for data flow for reporting to CLRTAP and AQFD Data sharing agreements WMO WDCA WMO WDCGG WMO WDPC ”GEOSS” ”EBAS” – Ref.lab, QAQC, CTM, , IAM, AQM AMAP OSPAR COMISSION OECD-LRTAP HELCOM Sites operated for compliance, subject to QAQC by NFPs and NRLs Harmonisation related to monitoring strategies, methodologies, data flow and assessment Airbase,(AQFD, EIONET) 1980 1970 1990 2000

  29. Why an EMEP NRT-initiative? • EMEP sites provide essential information related to regional scale pollution events • EMEP sites have a well documented spatial representativeness and offer high quality data • EMEP sites offer a wide suite of chemical and physical parameters relevant for process understanding, many can now be provided with shorter time delay. • Many EMEP sites are acting as supersites (EMEP/GAW) and includes advanced instrumentation which has a potential to support research applications including satellite RS cal/val • EMEP sites have a large scientific community involved (TFMM, HTAP others), many requesting data at an earlier stage than currently provided • EMEP is the funding framework for a large fraction of the rural monitoring capacity in Europe • EMEP can develop its monitoring strategy to include additional parameters to be measured by on-line methodologies • EMEP is a GEOSS member and should be one ”system among other systems of systems….” • EMEP has a well established ”open data policy” • EMEP has well established data infrastructures (also applied in relevant initiatives elsewhere) • EMEP Parties and others have indicated a strong support

More Related