This document discusses the long term policy and future vision for the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP). It notes the convention's past successes in reducing emissions and depositions through protocols like the 1985 Sulphur Protocol. The document outlines CLRTAP's long term strategy, which includes priorities like increasing participation from Eastern European and Central Asian countries, better compliance, addressing air quality and climate change co-benefits, and potentially expanding to cover additional pollutants like methane in the future. It also discusses the potential for increased global cooperation and governance on air quality issues.

1. 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

2. • Past successes
• The Long Term Strategy for CLRTAP
• A Future Vision – personal views
2

3. CONVENTION ON LONG-RANGE
TRANSBOUNDARY AIR POLLUTION
51 Parties in Europe, North America and Central Asia
3

4. 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)

5. CLRTAP has reduced
emissions.........

6. .......and will continue to reduce
depositions as the Gothenburg
Protocol improves on the early Oslo
Protocol
0
20
40
60
80
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Oslo
Oslo
Gothenburg
Gothenburg
Nitrogen
Sulphur
Data: NILU
µeq/l
Average deposition for 7 stations in southern Norway

7. Three Protocols revised
• POPs 2009
• ‘Gothenburg’ 2012
• Heavy Metals 2012
7

8. Revised Gothenburg Protocol
EU 2020 % reductions on 2005 base
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
SO2 NOx VOCs NH3 PM2.5
8

9. 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. 10
Increasing emission reductions
Increased
participation
UNECE Domain
1st to 2nd gen.
GP 2 ?
GP3 ?
Methane?
BC?
Outreach – Global Governance?

11. 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

12. 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. 13
Source: CLRTAP TFHTAP

14. 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. 15
Outreach and global co-operation/governance
on air quality?
CLRTAP
EU
UNEP
CONVENTIONS
IN ASIA, AFRICA,
SOUTH AMERICA
US –
CCAC

16. This will be discussed in the
Saltsjobaden Workshop in June
along with other strategic issues
Thank You!
16