1 / 23

Setting Aspirational targets in 2050: Should policy adopt a DPSI or ISPD approach ?

Protection of ecosystems: Aspirational targets for acidification and nitrogen Jean-Paul Hettelingh, Max Posch, Jaap Slootweg Coordination Centre for Effects 1 (CCE) www.pbl.nl/cce.

zayit
Download Presentation

Setting Aspirational targets in 2050: Should policy adopt a DPSI or ISPD approach ?

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. Protection of ecosystems:Aspirational targets for acidification and nitrogenJean-Paul Hettelingh, Max Posch, Jaap SlootwegCoordination Centre for Effects1 (CCE)www.pbl.nl/cce 1The CCE develops effect-based modelling methodologies and databases for the assessment of environmental effects in Integrated Assessment Models (RAINS;GAINS) under the Convention on LRTAP with its network of National Focal Centres, and for the European Commission under the LIFE III project EC4MACS (LIFE06 PREP/A/06)

  2. Setting Aspirational targets in 2050:Should policy adopt a DPSI or ISPD approach ? • Aspirational (Economic/Energy/Societal) Drivers, • Aspirational Pressures/Emissions • Aspirational State/nature management • Aspirational public health and/or Aspirational Environmental Impact targets (for sustaining biodiversity and ecosystem functions for human well being) DPSI ISPD

  3. Setting Aspirational targets in 2050:Aspirational Drivers do not imply aspirational impact targets • Aspirational (Economic/Energy/Societal) Drivers, • Aspirational Pressures/Emissions • Aspirational State/nature management • Aspirational public health and/or Aspirational Environmental Impact targets (for sustaining biodiversity and ecosystem functions for human well being) DPSI ? ISPD

  4. Setting Aspirational targets in 2050:European Policy: “no exceedance of critical load and levels” • Aspirational (Economic/Energy/Societal) Drivers, • Aspirational Pressures/Emissions • Aspirational State/nature management • Aspirational public health and/or Aspirational Environmental Impact targets(for sustaining biodiversity and ecosystem functions for human well being) DPSI ISPD

  5. Critical loads for European natural areas The critical load is based on the precautionary principle: • …It is a measure for sustainability, providing a deposition threshold below which adverse effects on specified sensitive elements do not occur according to present knowledge (Nilsson and Grennfelt, 1988) • …Its endpoint is change of biodiversity …however, emphasis is on geo-chemical indicators and recently , tentatively, including species diversity… • …When it is exceeded, it is not a matter of whether, but rather when damage will occur !

  6. 2008 Critical Load Database(illustrating 5 percentile maps, i.e. protecting 95% of ecosystems) Acidification Eutrophication Note: The CCE European Background database is used to model and map critical loads for countries that did not submit data. Source:CCE Status Report 2008

  7. Aspirational impact targets in 2050: focus on existing nature conservation areas or its importance for human well-being e.g • Focus on ‘protection’, i.e. Natura 2000 areas • Special Protection Areas (SPA), Birds Directive applies • Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Habitats Directive applies • Focus on ‘Ecosystem Services’ (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment) • …

  8. Exceedance of N-critical loads in Natura 2000 forests in 2000, 2010 and 2020 2010 Current Policy 2000 2020 Current Policy 2020 Maximum Feasible N emission reduction

  9. Tentative plant species diversity in N2k-forests 2000 2010 Current Policy 2020 Current Policy 2020 Maximum Feasible N emission reduction Source: European CL database, CCE 2008

  10. Consequences of Ecosystem Change for Human Well-being Source: Millenium Ecosyst. Assessment http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.359.aspx.ppt#8

  11. (2) Aspirational impact targets in 2050: focus on the LRTAP impacts and bio-geochemical processes • No exceedance of critical loads in 2050 ? This might still violate the underlying criterion (e.g. of buffer capacity) of natural systems by 2050… • …No exceedance of critical loads and non violation of the underlying criterion in 2050? find depositions as of e.g. 2020 such that recovery of European ecosystems is obtained in 2050; These depositions are called target loads. • Target loads are smaller than critical loads !

  12. Delay times: First critical load (non-) exceedance, then (non-) risk to geochemistry and finally (non-) risk to biodiversity

  13. Critical (CL) and target loads (TL) of acidity Target loads Critical loads

  14. Exceedance acidity crit.loads Violation acidity target loads 8 % area violated (AAE >0) 7 % area exceeded (AAE > 0)

  15. Critical (CL) and target loads (TL) of eutrophication Target loads Critical loads

  16. Exc. of CL eutrophication Violation TLeutrophication 49 % area violated (AAE >0) 48 % area exceeded (AAE > 0)

  17. (3) Aspirational impact targets in 2050: focus on robustness, e.g. on interacting impacts of different policy fields) • Between effect-based policy fields: Impacts of nitrogen on climate change, WFD, HD, BD… • Between driver-based policies affecting overlapping receptors: Impacts of climate/energy policies on e.g. N-impacts …but also • Between biodiversity relevant indicators…

  18. Overlapping receptors in Climate vrs. Air policies ? A recent study by the EEA indicates that 10-50% of plant species in European countries is likely to disappear by 2100 from their current location, in southeast and southwest Europe in particular. (Source: EEA (2008) “Impacts of Europe’s changing climate 2008 indicator based assessment”)

  19. Interacting biodiversity relevant indicators: Aspirational “Radars”

  20. Between biodiversity relevant indicators: Aspirational “Radars” Sustainable

  21. Example of sustainable “radars” of indicators that are relevant to nature in the Netherlands. 1990 2000 2010 2020 1980

  22. Conclusions and Recommendations • Aspirational impact target should be the basis for developing policies regarding drivers and abatement measures; these are likely to then become aspirational as well ! • Aspirational impact targets should include the following considerations: • Protect biodiversity as well as ecosystem services for human well being (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment); • Apply the European critical load approach and dynamic modelling to identify target loads for recovery in a target year: target loads are smaller than critical loads ! • Increase robustness of N effect-based policies, e.g by assessing interactions between (a) pollution-related policies (N-directive, Habitat-D, Birds-D, Water Framework D), (b) receptor-related policies (climate change, CBD), (c) effect and biodiversity indicators.

  23. Info and contacts CCE is programme centre of the ICP M&M under the LRTAP Convention: • www.icpmapping.org • www.pbl.nl/cce • jean-paul.hettelingh@pbl.nl CCE is a partner in the European Consortium for Modelling Air pollution and Climate Strategies (EC4MACS): • www.ec4macs.eu/home/index.html • amann@iiasa.ac.at

More Related