long term policy under the clrtap: a personal view - martin williams

Long Term Policy under the CLRTAP -a personal view

Martin Williams Chair of the CLRTAP Executive Body

and King’s College, London

Air Science Policy Forum

Dublin 15 April 2013

• Past successes

• The Long Term Strategy for CLRTAP

• A Future Vision – personal views

2

CONVENTION ON LONG-RANGE

TRANSBOUNDARY AIR POLLUTION 51 Parties in Europe, North America and Central Asia

3

The Convention and its Protocols

•CLRTAP 1979

•‘First generation’ protocols:

-1985 Sulphur Protocol, 1988 NOx Protocol, 1991 VOC Protocol

•‘Second generation’ protocols:

-1994 Sulphur Protocol, 1999 Multi-pollutant Multi-effects ‘Gothenburg’ Protocol

•Protocols on Heavy Metals and POPs (both 1998)

CLRTAP has reduced

emissions.........

.......and will continue to reduce

depositions as the Gothenburg

Protocol improves on the early Oslo

Protocol

0

20

40

60

80

19

74

19

76

19

78

19

80

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

20

08

20

10

Oslo

Oslo

Gothenburg

Gothenburg

Nitrogen

Sulphur

Data: NILU

µeq/l

Average deposition for 7 stations in southern Norway

Three Protocols revised

• POPs 2009

• ‘Gothenburg’ 2012

• Heavy Metals 2012

7

Revised Gothenburg Protocol EU 2020 % reductions on 2005 base

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

SO2 NOx VOCs NH3 PM2.5

8

Long Term Strategy Priorities of CLRTAP

• Increased ratifications and participation(EECCA)

• Better compliance

• AQ & CC co-benefits

• Core strengths - ‘Gothenburg pollutants’

- Science and policy close links

- Realign work on POPs and HMs

• Outreach to rest of world

• Streamline structure

• Resolve multiple Protocols

• Resources (secretariat and other )

9

10

Increasing emission reductions

Increased participation

UNECE Domain

1st to 2nd gen.

GP 2 ?

GP3 ? Methane? BC?

Outreach – Global Governance?

Increased Ratifications

• Gothenburg Protocol has 25 ratifications

• All EU apart from Norway, Switzerland and the USA

• So effort needed to encourage EECCA/SEE

• Revised Protocol did this – watch this space for ratifications!

• Likewise Heavy Metals Protocol (33 ratifications, more non-EU)

• The EU has already played a key role in the Protocol revisions and can continue to encourage and support EECCA/SEE countries efforts

11

Air quality and climate change co-benefits

• First steps taken in GP2 • Parties to prioritise reductions of BC in achieving

PM2.5 ceilings • But Intercontinental transport of Ozone is already

an issue and will increasingly be so • Even without considering climate effects of ozone

there is still a case for hemispheric-scale strategies: – Health and crop damage at lower exposures – Diminishing returns from European and North

American emission reduction?

• This means Methane – NECD 2? GP 3?

12

13

Source: CLRTAP TFHTAP

Air quality and climate change co-benefits

• Aligning climate and air quality policies can lead to large reductions in the ‘Gothenburg’ pollutants

• How best to translate this into policy/action?

• Set indicative ceilings for 2030 and 2050

• Set Budgets for SO2, NOx, VOCs, PM2.5, NH3 for interim years to define a pathway to 2050

14

15

Outreach and global co-operation/governance on air quality?

CLRTAP

EU

UNEP CONVENTIONS

IN ASIA, AFRICA, SOUTH AMERICA

US – CCAC

This will be discussed in the Saltsjobaden Workshop in June

along with other strategic issues

Thank You!

16