Review of International Cooperative Programmes - Joint Meeting Recommendations

1. Item 5: “Review of the International Cooperative Programmes of the Working Group on Effects” (ECE/EB.AIR/2013/2) Walter Seidling, Marco Ferretti • Joint Meeting Extended Bureaux WGE / EMEP20-24 March 2017 Item 5 I General points II Recommendations for all ICPs III Remarks specific for ICP Forests IV Reviewers recommend for ICP Forests

2. I General points • a) Further develop an effect based approach. OK, a permanent task! • b) Simplification and streamlining. Good idea, however, as ICP Forests has evolved over 30 years a number of bodies and committees with its own dynamics. It is not an easy task and counterproductive measures should be avoided while benefits from partly self-organized groups should be used. • c) Data collected are unique and important even outside CLRTAP. Yes, as the considerable number of external and internal applications for data use show; changes in data policy (e.g. licensing under Creative Commons) is a tenuous task, as long as countries are considered to be the data owners. Data policy is also discussed under specifications given by the EU INSPIRE directive Joint Extended Bureaux meeting EMEP/WGE, 20-24/03/2017

3. Number of data requests per year at PCC of ICP Forests * data not complete Joint Extended Bureaux meeting EMEP/WGE, 20-24/03/2017

4. I General points • d) Long-term monitoring is an important part of the work, however, it must be underpinned by scientific research on dose-response, CL and damage evaluation. Full agreement, however, funding is always an issue for respective modelling approaches and should also be issue for internal evaluations • e) Results should be published in scientific literature and disseminated to the public by reports (incl. WGE reports and reports of ICPs). Ok, WGE Joint Trends Report was a good example, but see point “g” • f) Nationally funded activities should continue and multiple uses of outputs is kept to be beneficial. Ok, national and not to forget EU funding is seen as essential (e.g. NECD)! Joint Extended Bureaux meeting EMEP/WGE, 20-24/03/2017

5. I General points • g) Purpose of annual reports is mainly seen to satisfy funders, but not necessary for the convention. ‘Technical Report’ and ‘Executive Reports’ both are seen as such reports satisfying national funders. ICP Forests is trying to substitute ‘Executive Reports’ by ‘Thematic Briefs’ to cover interests of national funders. ‘Technical Reports’ are carefully restructured in order to reflect the whole work of ICP Forests. • h) Convention needs “well founded messages [of] the highest scientific quality“. Scientific Publications are the backbone of the ICP Forests work. Highlights for annual WGE reporting are directly derived from recent outstanding papers. • i) Lack of downward (WGE -> ICPs) and horizontal (e.g. ICP <-> ICP) communication is stated. WGE matters are communicated at the Task Force of ICP Forests and to other bodies (e.g. at joint Expert Panel Meeting at next week). Contributions at TFMs of other ICPs is good practice (e.g. ICP V., IM, M&M) Joint Extended Bureaux meeting EMEP/WGE, 20-24/03/2017

6. II Recommendations for all ICPs • a) Funding was discussed in detail by representatives of hosting countries at an informal meeting at Berlin (Centres (PCCs), Ministries); co-funding is still seen as an important source esp. for „horizon scanning“. Ok, EU funding is also well considered by ICP Forests (e.g. NECD). • b) Increased need for tailored reports (combined efforts). ICP Forests supports reports like the Trends Report of WGE • c) Several ICPs investigate much in annual progress reports; this is seen less important; efforts should be made to produce thematic reports. Interest of national funders must be satisfied (see above), however, ICP Forests supports common bi- and multilateral initiatives as far as possible (resources allow) within given structures. Joint Extended Bureaux meeting EMEP/WGE, 20-24/03/2017

7. II Recommendations for all ICPs • d) Parties and NFSs should engage more thematically e.g. during the WGE sessions. If possible within the organizational frame given • e) Activity Scope of ICPs different: - e.g. ICP Forests monitoring-oriented, - e.g. ICP Modelling and Mapping modelling/scenario-oriented. Data collected at forest sites is a strength of ICP Forests and even useful for model calibration, however, modelling should become more prominent in the future (as far as resources allow); integration is to promote. • f) Generally a need for tailored reports is seen. OK, see above • g) Exchange of data between the ICPs by a portal approach and a common data standard in order to foster more integrative work. Institutional restrictions prevent easy implementation, like it was indented by JesperBak, Filip Moldan, and me. Joint Extended Bureaux meeting EMEP/WGE, 20-24/03/2017

8. II Recommendations for all ICPs • h) Publications needed: • Brochures for policymakers and public, • Synthesis papers in scientificjournals, • Scientific papers to provide ”scientific legitimacy“ to the Convention. agreement by (PCC of) ICP Forests, however Techn. Reports needed for national funders have also to be issued (see above). • i) More integrative work questions current structure and timetable of task force meetings. Complex within-structures of ICP Forests have to be regarded. Conferences organized back-to-back with TFMs are seen as a solution. Work questions may act as bridges between task forces. • j) Mandatory financial mechanism within the Convention repeatedly discussed, but rejected. Some countries are still supporting ICP Forests via UN Trust Fond by ear-marked and non-earmarked contributions. Joint Extended Bureaux meeting EMEP/WGE, 20-24/03/2017

9. III Remarks specific for ICP Forests • a) Biggest ICP; its focus is on monitoring (Level I, Level II) with a wide geographical scope. ok, however, Intensive Monitoring more confined to central/northern Europe • b) Studies on N, O3, HM, S as causes, and effects on soils, tree nutrition, forest health, forest growth. ok, not to forget ecosystem-oriented approach especially in Level II. • c) It is less clear, whether it is a “forest monitoring programme” or an “air pollution impacts monitoring programme”. As relationships in forests have to be seen in multiple contexts only ecosystem-related approaches are successful in the end. • d) There is unique data to support modelling approaches and to disentangle air pollution and climate effects. fine Joint Extended Bureaux meeting EMEP/WGE, 20-24/03/2017

10. III Remarks specific for ICP Forests • e) Little interaction with other ICPs is seen. PCC is doing its best to improve the situation in the last years Joint Extended Bureaux meeting EMEP/WGE, 20-24/03/2017

11. IV Reviewers recommend for ICP Forests • a) streamline the Programme and focus on air pollution issues, we support this opinion, however, in view of decreasing budgets I would advocate for a consolidation of the programme, but not loosing the ecosystem approach on a substantial number of sites; air pollution issues cannot be tackled in isolated approaches • b) asses and coordinate deposition monitoring (in relation to EMEP), A joint project between ICP Forests and MSC/West is underway (3rd report in January) • c) assess, whether Level I monitoring is – to what extent – still relevant for air pollution impact assessment, with respect to member countries we have to keep this activity; Level I activities (crown, soil, foliar) have to be seen in both contexts: air pollution and climate change Joint Extended Bureaux meeting EMEP/WGE, 20-24/03/2017

12. IV Reviewers recommend for ICP Forests • d) possibly include ICP Integrated Monitoring, at the moment a joint project with a smaller group from ICP IM was started and ICP IM is always present at our TFMs (other way round only ones in 2015) • e) co-operate with ICP Vegetation with respect to ozone impacts (including carbon sequestration). Good contacts have been established, but of course, more is always possible. Joint Extended Bureaux meeting EMEP/WGE, 20-24/03/2017