1 / 22

Science-policy interaction Experiences from ASTA, NEPAP and other activities

Science-policy interaction Experiences from ASTA, NEPAP and other activities. Peringe Grennfelt 28 October 2004 ACCENT. International and National Abatement Strategies for Transboundary Air Pollution. Mistra research programme Phase 1 1999-2002 Phase 2 2003-2006.

benard
Download Presentation

Science-policy interaction Experiences from ASTA, NEPAP and other activities

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. Science-policy interactionExperiences from ASTA, NEPAP and other activities Peringe Grennfelt 28 October 2004 ACCENT

  2. International and National Abatement Strategies for Transboundary Air Pollution Mistra research programme Phase 1 1999-2002 Phase 2 2003-2006

  3. Science and policy closely related throughout the history of regional air pollution…

  4. Highlights in Acid rain and transboundary air pollution history Science Policy The first alarm Odén 1967 Sweden’s case study 1970 Discovery OECD projekt 72-77: “Acid rain is a transboundary problem” Convention on Long-range Transboundary. Air Pollution 1980 Soil acidification verified Consensus First Sulphur Protocol Introduction of critical loads Cost-efficient strategies 1990 Second Sulphur Protocol Multipollutant integrated assessm. model Gothenburg Protocol 2000 Dynamic modelling of effects EU NEC Directive Implementation EU CAFE Proposal Health effects from particles CLRTAP revision

  5. Relations between science and policy for new and mature environmental problems Basic science Policy New environmental problems Basic science Compartment models, Synthesis Integrated assessment models Policy Mature environmental problems

  6. Objectives of ASTA • The aim of ASTA is • to direct research towards crucial issues for the success of renegotiations of CLRTAP and the development of EU policies • to direct research to areas of importance for Sweden • support the policy process through consensus-forming among scientists and with policymakers within ASTA research areas

  7. Example on how ASTA activities supported CLRTAP Convention

  8. How are we supporting the agenda • Support to the development of the CLRTAP and CAFEagenda • Workshop at Saltsjöbaden April 2000 • Workshop on the review of the strategies for EU and CLRTAP Oct. 2004 • The introduction of dynamic aspects for acidification • Conference in Copenhagen Nov. 1999 • Organisation of specific workshops and expert meetings • Five meetings on dynamic modelling 2000-2004 • Validation of emission inventories, Göteborg Oct. 2002. • New concept for ozone effects. Göteborg Nov. 2002 • Health effects from particles. Stockholm Oct 2003 • Deposition of base cations Nov 2003

  9. Acidification • Will damaged ecosystems recover? • Finalisation of the Gårdsjön roof experiment • Development and application of dynamic models for • applications in critical loads (expert meetings) • assessment of recovery times due to ´various control scenarios • assessment of forest management policies

  10. http://asta.ivl.se

  11. NEPAPNetwork for the support of European Policies on Air Pollution An EU-funded project under FP5 Accompanying measures

  12. Main Objective To provide the European Commission – in particular CAFE – with scientific analyses and assessments

  13. Basic facts • Duration 24 months Dec. 2002 - Nov. 2004 (prolonged to May 2005) • Close collaboration with DG Research and CAFE • Follow the CAFE process • Make use of scientific research in Europe, in particular EU funded projects • Resources for answering questions from CAFE

  14. Principal participants • Dick Derwent, UK • Jan Willem Erisman, ECN, NL • David Fowler, IEH, UK • Peringe Grennfelt, IVL, SE • Øystein Hov, met.no, NO • Mihalis Lazarides, TUC, GR • Joakim Langner, SMHI, SE

  15. Six workpackages: 1. Overall assessment 2. Impact from sources outside Europe 3. Non-linearities 4. Nitrogen - deposition and effects 5. Characterisation of particles 6. Uncertainties in source - receptor relationships

  16. Opportunity for CAFE? • NEPAP offers an opportunity for CAFE to broaden the range of science input to the process • The NEPAP consortium can provide independent review of the CAFE work

  17. Time plan • 1st meeting with DG Research and CAFE 28-29 Jan 2003 • WP3 and 4: 26-27 May • 2nd meeting with DG Research and CAFÉ: 16-17 June • WP2 and 6: 23-24 June (together with EMEP MSC-W experts • WP5: Oct 2003 and Sep 2004 • NEPAP meeting: 5-6 Nov 2003. Yearly report. EMEP review • RAINS review: Spring 2004 • 3rd NEPAP meeting with DG Research and CAFE, June • Ambio papers. Sep 2004 • Assessment and policy workshop Göteborg 25-27 Oct. 2004. • Expert meeting with CAFE on measurements. Jan 2005 • 4th NEPAP meeting with DG Research and CAFE. Feb 2005.

  18. CAFE and CLRTAP activities to which NEPAP contributes • EMEP model development and review (EMEP) • Target setting and RAINS model procedures • Review of the RAINS model (CAFE contract with a participation of NEPAP) • EMEP Assessment report (EMEP) • New concepts for critical loads and levels (WGE and CLRTAP)

  19. Some experiences from ASTA and NEPAP…

  20. Some experiences • The process as important as the outcome. • Transparency and participation often crucial • Timing. Windows of opportunity. • Visualize experiments and results if possible • Timing. Windows of opportunity. • It takes time. Credibility is mostly only achieved through long term relations.

  21. Some experiences • Common concepts. Critical loads helped bridging the distance between science and policy. Concepts do not need to mean the same for scientists and policymakers. • National proposals are often suspected to be put forward in own interests. Better to use others as proposers (Nordic Council of Ministers, international workshops). • Generally we do not see any problems to keep the scientific quality in policy directed research (peer review).

  22. HIGH Importance to policy LOW HIGH LOW Scientific understanding Scientific understanding and importance for policy for some concepts within transboundary air pollution Fish deaths ”Waldsterben” Transboundary transport Critical loads Recovery? Effects to material (corrosion)

More Related