1 / 26

European critical loads work by ICP Forests and ICP Modeling and Mapping Outline of presentation

European critical loads work by ICP Forests and ICP Modeling and Mapping Outline of presentation Background of Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) and ICP Forests Data management of ICP Forests

gurit
Download Presentation

European critical loads work by ICP Forests and ICP Modeling and Mapping Outline of presentation

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. European critical loads work by ICP Forests and ICP Modeling and Mapping Outline of presentation • Background of Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) and ICP Forests • Data management of ICP Forests • Example of new results of ICP Forests: Spatial and temporal variation of pollutant concentrations in bulk deposition • Introduction to ICP Modelling and Mapping (Spranger) • Critical loads work: Hans-Dieter Nagel

  2. Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) History: • Acidification of Scandinavian lakes by sulphur depositions (1960) Evidence of damage by air pollutants transported thousands of kilometers (mid 1970s) Necessity of international cooperation High level meeting under UNECE (Geneva 1979) Signature of CLRTAP by 35 Parties

  3. Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) Today 49 Parties: • Principles of international cooperation for air pollution abatement • Institutional framework bringing together science and policy • Scientific cooperation and political negotiation CLRTAP was extended by protocols identifying obligations and measures to be taken by Parties

  4. Protocols in force • The 1985 Protocol on the Reduction of Sulphur Emissions or their Transboundary Fluxes by at least 30% (22 Parties) • The 1988 Protocol concerning the Control of Nitrogen Oxides or their Transboundary Fluxes (28 Parties) • The 1991 Protocol comcermimg the Control of Emission of Volatile Organic Compounds or their Transboundary Fluxes (21 Parties) • The 1994 Protocol on Further Reduction of Sulphur Emissions (25 Parties)

  5. Structure of CLRTAP

  6. ICP Forests Mandate of ICP Forests • to monitor effects of natural and anthropogenic stress factors (in particular air pollution) on the condition and development of forests at the European-wide scale • to contribute to a better understanding of cause-effect relationships in forest ecosystem functioning in various parts of Europe.

  7. Large-scale monitoring • (Level I ●) • Many plots • European-wide systematic grid (16 x 16 km) • 6 000 monitoring plots • Low monitoring intensity • Crown condition assessment • (all plots) • Soil survey (5 300 plots) • Foliar survey (1 500 plots)

  8. Intensive monitoring • (Level II ● ) • Fewer plots • High monitoring intensity • 866 intensive monitoring plots • in important forest ecosystems • High monitoring intensity • 11 different surveys

  9. ICP Forests Level II core surveys

  10. ICP Forests Further Level II surveys

  11. ICP Forests Data management Data flow within ICP Forests

  12. ICP Forests • Data management • Data ownership • Participating countries • Free data access • Parties to CLRTAP • Authorization procedure for third parties • Submission of project description and request for data to PCC • Request by PCC to each country for release of data • Submission of released data to third party, • exclusively for the use for the described project

  13. Example of Level I result: • Crown condition • Kriged trends in defoliation • Scots pine (1994-1999) • Improvement • Deterioration

  14. Example of Level II result: Bulk deposition • N-NO3 (409 Level II plots) • Volume weighted • mean concentration [mg/l] • 1996-2001 • Highest concentrations in • Poland • East Germany • Clear spatial pattern

  15. ICP Forests Example of Level II result: Bulk deposition trends • Comparison of N-NO3 • with S-SO4 and N-NH4 • N-NO3: Slight decrease • N-NH4: Higher concentration, • unclear trend • S-SO4: High concentration, • clear decrease

  16. ICP M&M Critical loads • long-term ecosystem capacity (steady state) • defined for specific combinations of pollutants, effects, and receptors • Acidification (N, S), eutrophication (N), HMs • terrestrial and (non-marine) aquatic ecosystems • based on chemical criteria linked to biological effects • spatially variable, thus leading to regionally differentiated emission reduction needs • used as sustainability indicators for policy guidance

  17. EMEP deposition data/maps European CL data/maps compare European CL exceedance data/maps European emission data/maps EMEP Unified Model Integrated Assessment Models National emission abatement costs Nat´l Emission Ceilings ICP M&M National CL data/maps Optimized emission reduction scenarios

  18. ICP M&M CLnut(N): Europeaggregated to 50*50 km²2004 dataset – to be revised!

  19. ICP M&M CLacid (Clmax(S)): Europeaggregated to 50*50 km²2004 dataset – to be revised!

  20. ICP M&M Exceedance of CLnut(N)in 200033% area exceeded(77% in EU25)

  21. ICP M&M Exceedance of CLacidin 200011% area exceeded(23% in EU25)

  22. ICP M&M Main results of CLRTAP negotiations • Emission reductions 1990 - 2010: SO2 - 60%; NOx - 40%; NH3 - 17% • Eutrophication of terrestrial ecosystems will remain a risk to biodiversity and other environmental targets in Europe • Acidification has been slowed but not stopped through emission abatement; Nr (especially NH3) emissions more relevant than sulphur emissions • Highest remaining exceedances dominated by NH3 emissions from intensive animal husbandry

  23. ICP M&M ICP Forests Participation of the USA in ICP Forests and ICP M & M • The United States of America is • Party to the CLRTAP • Participating country of ICP Forests • Not yet a participating country of ICP M & M

  24. Participation of the USA in ICP Forests and ICP M & M The United States of America is invited to participate in 21st ICP M&M Task Force meeting and 15th CCE Workshop 25 – 29 April, Berlin, Germany Please contact till.spranger@uba.de for more information 21st ICP Forests Task Force meeting and 20 years ICP Forests anniversary celebration 23 – 26 May, Rome, Italy Invitations were sent to USDA and the NFC

  25. ICP M&M ICP Forests Participation of the USA in ICP Forests and ICP M & M • The United States of America is invited to have its Level II data managed as part of the ICP Forests data bank. This includes • Plausibility checks of US data • Storage of US data in the Level II data bank (ORACLE) • Access to US data and all other ICP Forests data • US data are being made available to the bodies under CLRTAP upon request, but will be submitted to third parties only by permission of the USA.

  26. ICP M&M ICP Forests Websites UNECE www.unece.org CLRTAP www.unece.org/env/lrtap EMEP www.emep.int WGE www.unece.org/wge ICP Forests www.icp-forests.org ICP M & M www.icpmapping.org

More Related