use of emep results in icp m&m assessments for the support of the gp-revision

EMEP-WGE, joint workshop, 5 September 2011

Use of EMEP results in ICP M&M assessments

for the support of the GP-revision

J-P Hettelingh, M Posch, J SlootwegICP M&M - Coordination Centre for Effects (CCE),

www.icpmapping.org hosted at RIVM


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


Structure of ICP M&M Impact assessment

GAINSEmissionScenario

Depositionon nature

Exceedanceof computed critical loads

Exceedanceof empirical critical loads

Exceed-ance ?

Exceed-ance ?

DynamicModellinganalysis

Dose-Responseanalysis

Damage delay ?

Impact onSpecies rich-

ness?

CCE Environmental Impact Assessment

Uncertainty analysis: Ensemble Assessment of Impacts

GAINSScenario Reportonimpacts

Yes

YesYes

Yes Yes

Yes

No

No


Depositionon nature



Exceed-ance ?

Exceed-ance ?



Damage delay ?


ness?




Yes

YesYes

Yes Yes

Yes

No

No

EMEP


Illustrative analysis ofEffects of

acidity and nutrient-N using most recent CIAM scenarios



Depositionon nature



Exceed-ance ?

Exceed-ance ?



Damage delay ?


ness?




Yes

YesYes

Yes Yes

Yes

No

No


Depositionon nature



Exceed-ance ?

Exceed-ance ?



Damage delay ?


ness?




Yes

YesYes

Yes Yes

Yes

No

No

Using modelled critical loads for acidity and nutrient-N


Exceedances (AAE) of Acidity Critical Loads and % area at risk in Europe, (EU27) and Natura2000

COB, 3%, (5%), 6%

MID, 2%, (4%), 4% HIGH*, 2% (3%), 3% MFR, 1% (3%), 3%

LOW*, 2%, (4%), 5%2000, 10%,(19%), 21%


COB, 34% (55%), 55%

MID, 26%, (43%), 44% HIGH*, 23%, (39%), 39% MFR, 22%, (38%), 37%

LOW*, 28%, (46%), 46%2000, 52%, (74%), 71%

Exceedances (AAE) of Nutrient Critical Loads and % area at risk in Europe, (EU27) and Natura2000


Target Loads CLs

COB35% (57%)

MID27% (46%)

DYNAMIC MODELLING of Eutrophication:Violation of Nutrient 2050 Target Loads (compared with CLs)and % area not recovering before 2050 in Europe and (EU27)

34% (55%)

26% (43%)



Depositionon nature



Exceed-ance ?

Exceed-ance ?



Damage delay ?


ness?




Yes

YesYes

Yes Yes

Yes

No

No


Depositionon nature



Exceed-ance ?

Exceed-ance ?



Damage delay ?


ness?




Yes

YesYes

Yes Yes

Yes

No

No

Using empirical critical loads


COB, 10%,(18%), 24%

MID, 5%, (9%), 12% HIGH*, 3%, (7%), 9% MFR, 3% (6%), 8%

LOW*, 6%, (11%), 14%2000, 23%, (40%), 48%

Exceedances (AAE) of Empirical Critical Loads and % area at risk in Europe, (EU27) and Natura2000


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



Depositionon nature



Exceed-ance ?

Exceed-ance ?



Damage delay ?


ness?




Yes

YesYes

Yes Yes

Yes

No

No


Depositionon nature



Exceed-ance ?

Exceed-ance ?



Damage delay ?


ness?




Yes

YesYes

Yes Yes

Yes

No

No

Assessment of the robustness of scenario impacts


Likeliness of Exceedances (AAE) in Europebased on the “ensemble” of empirical and modelled CL(N)

= unlikely

= 50 - 50

= likely

= very likely

= virtually

Exceedances:

certain

Explore the inclusion of alternative deposition assessments ?


In addition, some areas are also at risk ofambient [NH3] that exceed critical levels

NAT-2000 PRI-2000

PRI-2030MFR-2020

Critical levels from Cape et al. 2008


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)

use of emep results in icp m&m assessments for the support of the gp-revision

Documents