110 likes | 255 Views
Working Group 5 Nitrogen – integrated environmental policies. The Working Group. JW. Erisman, T. Spranger, MA. Sutton, M. Maione, S. Reis, H. Fagerli, HV. Anderson, L. Horvath, S. Amin-Hanjani, N. Hutchings, C. Akselsson.
E N D
The Working Group JW. Erisman, T. Spranger, MA. Sutton, M. Maione, S. Reis, H. Fagerli, HV. Anderson, L. Horvath, S. Amin-Hanjani, N. Hutchings, C. Akselsson. J.P. Hetteling, C. Stenby, HV., M. Havlikova, H. Harmens, Salim X., M. Maasikimets, K. Hicks, H. ApSimon
Why Nitrogen? • The godfather of environmental pollutants… • A bit hidden • Drives several environmental problems • Contributes to many other issues. • Nitrogen from many sources • Emphasizes the role of agriculture as source • Also the role of effects in agricultural areas • Nitrogen is not fully addressed in any Convention
An approach to address nitrogen • Established a framework to deal with N • Framework is driven by the effects Effects Indicators Nitrogen Budgets Emissions
Nitrogen and the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution • The multiple problems of nitrogen • Most are atmospheric, most are transboundary. • The Convention LRTAP is the right place. • What is currently missing from the Convention? • Need to consider nitrate in water more strongly (not just natural ecosystems) • Incorporate interactions with nitrous oxide
Short Term Goals & Implementation (<5 yr) • Tools are being developed already: • Emissions/Fluxes/Budgets GAINS/MITERRA/INTEGRATOR • Tools for effects indicator modelling, including biodiversity and climate change interaction • Develop a monitoring strategy for the framework • Not just air (e.g. EMEP monitoring) • Also better monitoring of effects (inc biomonitoring), monitoring of calculated N balances (e.g. N surplus) • Better stakeholder understanding • Dissemination, simplification • Guiding stakeholders to understand N effects
Long Term Goals (> 5 year) • Dealing with the scale problem • An integrated approach and tools to generalize the implications of scale at the regional level. • Strengthening the linkage of targets to effects • Need flexible solutions; can be hard to quantify as “national emissions” • Engage the agri-food chain more constructively (they are willing) – including “soft measures” • Need to set our targets as close as possible in relation to the target environmental effects (cf. WFD - good ecological status) • Implement an adequate monitoring strategy • Biodiversity impacts, N budgets, N efficiency etc. • Linking existing monitoring activities.
Organizational/Institutional Issues • CLRTAP should take the lead on integrated assessment towards sustainable N management: • provide a framework on integrated N • enhance integration and synergies between the existing bodies of the Convention relevant to the framework • draw from and link to other Conventions (UNECE Helsinki Convention on Waters, CBD, FCCC, UNECE Espoo Convention on Transboundary EIA): e.g. by establishing an (inter-)Convention WG • explore the possibilities of an integrated Nitrogen Protocol, possibly joint with other UNECE Conventions. • establish a stronger link with agricultural stakeholders (FAO, DG Agri, IFA, …) and effects related stakeholders. • utilize the knowledge, concepts, etc. developed within INI/NitroEurope IP/ACCENT/COST729/ESF-NinE etc.