1 / 22

Toxiques sans frontiers:

Toxiques sans frontiers:. European coastal contamination from the sky by metal and organic substances Kevin Barrett Norwegian Institute for Air Research Center for Ecological Economics Postboks 100, NO-2027-Kjeller, Norway Kevin.barrett@nilu.no. Contaminant transport to coastal waters.

spiro
Download Presentation

Toxiques sans frontiers:

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. Toxiques sans frontiers: European coastal contamination from the sky by metal and organic substances Kevin Barrett Norwegian Institute for Air Research Center for Ecological Economics Postboks 100, NO-2027-Kjeller, Norway Kevin.barrett@nilu.no

  2. Contaminant transport to coastal waters 1: Rivers 2: Direct Discharge 3: Groundwater 4: Atmosphere

  3. How big are atmospheric sources compared to rivers? Just some examples: 1. Results of Eloise 2. Results from OSPAR

  4. Atmospheric pathways of contaminants: from land to seaExamples from ELOISE (1): POPCYCLING-BALTIC project supply of lindane to the Baltic (low solubility/restricted freshwater pathways) (Breivik & Wania, 2002)

  5. Atmospheric pathways of contaminants: from land to seaExamples from ELOISE (2): TOROS project supplies ofmetals to the SW Mediterranean: a major mining region (very high freshwater loads)

  6. Atmospheric pathways of contaminants: from land to seaExample from OSPAR: Percentages of nitrogen entering OSPAR waters via atmosphere: • Reduced nitrogen : 32% • Oxidised nitrogen : 37% NHx: very soluble, predominantly freshwater source NOx: soluble, important atmospheric discharge

  7. Supply of anthropogenic contaminants from the sky is frequently substantial.

  8. Where does it come from?Can we target sources?

  9. Source regions for contaminants: an example for nitrogen The actual ’50%’ source region ....and 40%+ of anthropogenic nitrogen entering the Baltic comes from the skies...... The Baltic Airshed for N The Baltic Watershed S.Larssen: EIONET-WS-May-01.ppt Slide 9

  10. Source regions – airsheds – can be large.-) component-specific-) receptor is also large scale -) definition may be geographical, sectoral, etc.-) management scale defined by physical and political features. Often BIG. EU?

  11. So what are our current objectives, and how well are we achieving them?

  12. 1: Emission ControlOSPAR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES STRATEGY The Hazardous Substances Strategy sets the objective of preventing pollution of the maritime area........... .........making every endeavour to move towards the target of the cessation of discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substances by the year 2020.

  13. European Marine Strategy ”....to progressively reduce discharges, emissions and losses of substances hazardous to the marine environment...” Van de Wetering, 15/11/04

  14. 2: Environmental Quality ” The (OSPAR)Hazardous Substances Strategy sets the objective of preventing pollution of the maritime area ..... the ultimate aim of achieving concentrations in the marine environment near background values for naturally occurring substances and close to zero for man-made synthetic substances.”

  15. European Environment Agency Factsheets

  16. ....and for air inputs...??? Draft, January 30, 2004 Indicator Fact Sheet AP16 January 2004 Atmospheric deposition of heavy metals (cadmium, lead, mercury) and persistent organic pollutants (POPs – lindane, PCB7) to coastal and marine waters, 1990-2002 Why? Because (in part) the information available for such policy statements is not there.

  17. Cadmium deposited to coastal waters1995-2001 • Issues: • Coverage • Mediterranean, Arctic Sea, Black Sea, Atlantic coast • Quality • e.g. Netherlands-Belgium-UK % change in precipitation

  18. Reporting to OSPAR, autumn 2004information due September Iceland 2 stations Norway 1 station Sweden 2 stations Denmark 2 stations Netherlands 2 stations Belgium nothing yet France 0 stations UK nothing yet Ireland 2 stations Spain 1 station Portugal 3 stations Deadline two weeks from now

  19. no. mnths PCB's 28 31 52 101 105 118 138 153 156 180 ng/l ???? 10 1.431 2.142 2.169 1.978 1.978 1.648 ???? 12 0.074 0.068 0.029 0.010 0.009 0.009 0.015 0.017 0.004 0.012 ng/m2 ???? 10 2728 4084 4136 3772 3772 3142 ???? 12 45.6 41.7 17.7 6.4 5.7 5.6 9.0 10.2 2.4 7.4 ......and qualityAnnual mean precipitation weighted concentrations/depositions of PCB’s: Year 2000 Factor of 100 – 1000 !!!! Values underlined were all BDL (flag 781)

  20. From science to implementation:We know broadly the situation, but noone appears interested.......How do we get such messages across???

  21. Summary • Pollutants from the air frequently exceed or equal those from rivers • Source regions are transboundary ”..implementation without neighbours will fail...” Rotterdam Stakeholders Conference 10-12/11/04 • Receptor region is not local scale • The scales of cause and effect do not match either other pollutant routes, or each other – how to identify your stakeholder groups etc. • If we identify desirable objectives, can we assess their achievement – ’review and adjustment of monitoring’. • Getting the message across......

  22. To finish on a positive note.... Depositions to coastal waters from the air, 1990-2002

More Related