110 likes | 186 Views
Activities of ICP M&M 2009 - 2010 and Results of the 26 th Task Force meeting. Anne Christine Le Gall Ineris. anne-christine.le-gall@ineris.fr. M&M activities in 2009/2010 (WGE Work plan).
E N D
Activities of ICP M&M2009 - 2010andResults of the 26th Task Force meeting Anne Christine Le Gall Ineris anne-christine.le-gall@ineris.fr
M&M activities in 2009/2010(WGE Work plan) (a) Progress report on indicators linking air pollution and multiple effects, in ex-post integrated assessment (b) Report on the call for data for the dynamic modelling of vegetation change; (c) Report on the revision of methods and data to derive empirical critical loads, and workshop in collaboration between the CCE, Germany and Switzerland; (d) 26th meeting of the Programme Task Force and 20th workshop of the Coordination Centre for Effects, 19-23 April 2010, Paris. 24th Task Force meeting in Stockholm, 14/15 May 2009 See documents /3, /10, /14, TF minutes, CCE presentations at this meeting and CCE Status Report
25th Task Force meeting • Back-to-back with CCE WS: 19-21 April 2010, Paris • 18 participants from 6 countries (Cz, F, D, NL, UK, USA), WEG, ICPV.
26th Task Force meeting ... Discussed the following points • General • Long term strategy • Gothenburg Protocol revision (Input to the revised protocol and annex 1) • Cooperation with other groups under and outside the Convention • ICP M&M collaboration with USA • Strengthen collaboration with Habitat Directive community • Update of the ICP M&M mapping manual on ozone flux calculations and critical levels • Heavy metals • Effects of HM emissions relevant to HM protocol revision • Four scenarios analysed in collaboration with TNO and MSC E • Conclusions presented at the 47th WGSR
26th Task Force meeting ... Also discussed the following points • Modeling and biodiversity • Ex-post analysis • Preliminary results of call for data 2009 • 11 countries responded • Development of VSD+ linked with vegetation modules • Run on 56 sites • Training workshop • Proposal for a new call for data in 2010/2011 • Increase resolution of CLd in line with new resolution of EMEP • Apply new empirical CLd at national level • Collaborate with Habitat Directive leads • Continue woron VSD+ and Vegegation modelling
Next: Workplan for 2010/2011 (1/2) • Report on the revision of the critical loads database (following call for data) to: • Include updated empirical critical loads, as revised by the national focal centres (NFCs), in the CCE database and use in the ex-post assessment; • Request and aggregate data from the NFCs in the new EMEP grid systems fordeposition models; • Complement results for NFCs on site-specific dynamic modelling of vegetation changes, including updated version of the extended very simple dynamic model (VSD+) and increased number of sites; • Ensure harmonization of data compatibility, processes and synergies between the NFCs and experts working with the EU Habitat Directive;
Workplan for 2010/2011 (2/2) • Development and implementation of modelling and mapping methodologies in ex post integrated assessment modelling in support to Gothenburg protocol revision • Using the update of empirical critical loads and levels and dose-response functions in scenario assessments of regional changes of plant species diversity; • The twenty-seventh meeting of the Programme Task Force and the twenty-first CCE workshop, to be held from 18 to 22 April 2011 in Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
www.icpmapping.org www.mnp.nl/cce
N exceedance is still widespread N CLd exceedances (all ecosystems) 2000 2020 2030 Draft BL scen.spring 2010 All ecosystems
Impacts of nitrogen on terrestrial ecosystems • Significant changes of plants species • Exceedances of empirical critical loads • Target loads, damage delay time, recovery delay time • N CLd exceedances on Natura 2000 sites • Likelihood of expected impacts
Biodiversity, N and others Biodiversity changes are driven • By air pollution including N inputs • By climate change • By land use change • For discussion: • Environmental target setting in support of Gothenborg protocol should: • not aim at restoration to initial conditions • aim at sustainable structures and functions of ecosystems