1 / 15

Use of EMEP results in ICP M&M assessments for the support of the GP-revision

Use of EMEP results in ICP M&M assessments for the support of the GP-revision. J-P Hettelingh , M Posch, J Slootweg ICP M&M - Coordination Centre for Effects (CCE), www.icpmapping.org hosted at RIVM. Collaboration between EMEP and WGE-CCE includes:.

gary-boyer
Download Presentation

Use of EMEP results in ICP M&M assessments for the support of the GP-revision

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. Use of EMEP results in ICP M&M assessments for the support of the GP-revision J-P Hettelingh, M Posch, J Slootweg ICP M&M - Coordination Centre for Effects (CCE), www.icpmapping.org hosted at RIVM

  2. Collaboration between EMEP and WGE-CCE includes: - emissions/depositions/concentrations from EMEP (CIAM; MSC-W) for assessments of acid and nutrient exceedances in support of the revison of the gothenburg protocol and NEC (TSAP) • emissions/depositions from EMEP (MSC-E) for assessments of Heavy metal exceedances in support of effect based information to the revision of the HM protocol • Historic emission/deposition assessments for the dynamic modelling of changes to soil chemistry and vegetation diversity • Scenario specific information on various air pollution compounds for WGE expost assessments • Information on exceedances, land cover and soil chemistry for use by EMEP • Report and paper contributions

  3. CCE Environmental Impact Assessment CCE Environmental Impact Assessment No No Damage Damage Dynamic Dynamic Exceedance Exceedance Exceed Exceed delay ? delay ? Modelling Modelling Yes Yes of computed of computed - - ance ance ? ? analysis analysis critical loads critical loads GAINS GAINS Scenario Scenario GAINS GAINS Yes Yes Deposition Deposition Yes Yes Report Report Emission Emission on nature on nature on on Uncertainty analysis: Ensemble Assessment of Impacts Uncertainty analysis: Ensemble Assessment of Impacts Scenario Scenario impacts impacts Yes Yes Yes Yes Exceedance Exceedance Yes Yes Exceed Exceed Impact on Impact on Dose Dose - - of empirical of empirical - - ance ance ? ? Species rich Species rich - - Response Response critical loads critical loads ness? ness? analysis analysis No No Structure of ICP M&M Impact assessment EMEP

  4. Illustrative analysis ofEffects of acidity and nutrient-N using most recent CIAM scenarios

  5. Using modelled critical loads for acidity and nutrient-N

  6. Exceedances (AAE) of Acidity Critical Loads and % area at risk in Europe, (EU27) and Natura2000 2000, 10%,(19%), 21% COB, 3%, (5%), 6% LOW*, 2%, (4%), 5% MID, 2%, (4%), 4% HIGH*, 2% (3%), 3% MFR, 1% (3%), 3%

  7. Exceedances (AAE) of Nutrient Critical Loads and % area at risk in Europe, (EU27) and Natura2000 2000, 52%, (74%), 71% COB, 34% (55%), 55% LOW*, 28%, (46%), 46% MFR, 22%, (38%), 37% MID, 26%, (43%), 44% HIGH*, 23%, (39%), 39%

  8. DYNAMIC MODELLING of Eutrophication: Violation of Nutrient 2050 Target Loads (compared with CLs) and % area not recovering before 2050 in Europe and (EU27) Target Loads CLs COB 35% (57%) 34% (55%) MID 27% (46%) 26% (43%)

  9. Using empirical critical loads

  10. Exceedances (AAE) of Empirical Critical Loads and % area at risk in Europe, (EU27) and Natura2000 2000, 23%, (40%), 48% COB, 10%,(18%), 24% LOW*, 6%, (11%), 14% MFR, 3% (6%), 8% MID, 5%, (9%), 12% HIGH*, 3%, (7%), 9%

  11. 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 9% of the area 2% of the area 1,2% of the area 1% of the area 0,7% of the area 0,6% of the area

  12. Assessment of the robustness of scenario impacts

  13. Likeliness of Exceedances (AAE) in Europe based on the “ensemble” of empirical and modelled CL(N) Exceedances: = unlikely = 50 - 50 = likely = very likely = virtually certain Explore the inclusion of alternative deposition assessments ?

  14. In addition, some areas are also at risk ofambient [NH3] that exceed critical levels NAT-2000 PRI-2000 MFR-2020 PRI-2030 Critical levels from Cape et al. 2008

  15. Some concluding observations Collaboration between EMEP and WGE-CCE: • Works very well, including … • science (FP7; publications; reports) for ground truthing of … • applications for the support of European air quality policies • Will review requirements to further implement the EB strategy calling for the broadening of the modelled system (change of climate and biodiversity; uncertainty)

More Related