|
| News | Policy initiatives | Acidification & Eutrophication | Air quality | Climate Change| Publications | Events | Links | The Secretariat |
 |
|
|
Special section: After twenty years A chronicle of events with facts and views on developments over the past two decades. Articles published in Acid News No. 3 and 4, 2000, marking the Secretariat’s twentieth anniversary.
Past and future Now we are into a new century. During the last ten or fifteen years the idea that something must be done to save the environment has sunk into people’s consciousness in most parts of the industrialized world. In Europe and North America at least air pollution has become a general subject of conversation. Although what most immediately comes to mind in this connection is probably car exhausts and bad urban air, people are also starting to become aware of the damaging effects, for instance, of ozone at ground level. This was not so in the summer of 1980, when four Swedish environmentalist groups got together to work out a way of spreading information about air pollution in general and the resulting acidification in particular – the latter, then, twenty years ago, being practically unheard of, at any rate outside Norway, Sweden, and Canada. Although some thirty countries had indeed, already in 1979, signed a convention for dealing with cross-border airborne pollution, it was clear that few of them realized the extent of the problem and were prepared to act. It was only in Scandinavia that it was generally agreed that acidification could only be solved by reducing the emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides to the air all over northern and central Europe. In Europe, Norway and Sweden took the lead in trying to persuade the West Germans and the British in particular to restrict their emissions. In North America the Canadians did the same vis-à-vis the United States. In May 1981 the four Swedish environmentalist associations sent out an invitation to their counterparts elsewhere to join them in a European Conference on Acid Rain in Göteborg. The two main aims there were to provide information generally about acidification, and to consider ways in which environmentalists could cooperate to bring about a reduction of harmful emissions. One outcome of this conference was the formation of the Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain in January of the following year, and the start of Acid News. It was a number of events during a few years at the end of the seventies and the beginning of the eighties that really laid the foundation for the work of improving air quality that is now going on. It may therefore be worth considering in retrospect: What was the state of knowledge at that time, and what was known or merely surmised. What sort of forecasts had been made of the trend, for instance, of emissions. What was activating political moves, then and later. What were environmentalists expectations then, and how have they altered over the years. Most interesting of course will be to see what advances have been in the course of these twenty years. But it will also be important to try and determine why some activities and measures have been more successful than others. There are still government officials, scientists, environmental journalists, and environmentalists who have been engaged all the time. Others may have changed their main occupations, yet still continue to maintain a concern for air quality. It is their collective impressions that we want to recall in Acid News – hence the special section in this issue chronicling the course of events and giving personal views on developments over the past two decades. We hope that these items will in their way give answers to the questions listed above, and so lead to more effective ways of attacking the problems of air pollution and acidification. We intend to continue along this line in coming issues of Acid News, and invite contributions from all readers. We shall also be glad to hear what impressions they may have got from the special section. Christer Ågren Great improvements, but more needed The text refers to a series of maps that can be seen in pdf format only. The situation as regards acid depositions over Europe has been improving markedly – as can be seen from the maps on this spread showing how the area where depositions were exceeding the critical loads for acidification has gradually changed since 1980. The difference between 1980 and 1995 is remarkable. During these fifteen years the area where the critical load was being exceeded has shrunk by 75 per cent, from 174 to 45 million hectares. The situation could be still further improved if all the countries that signed the Gothenburg Protocol last year should really fulfill their commitments. The area where the critical loads are being exceeded should then come down to no more than 10 per cent of what it was in 1980. The proportion of ecosystem area in Europe where the load was being exceeded, which was 30 per cent of the total in 1980, was 8 per cent in 1995. By 2010 it could be 2.5 per cent. It is not only the total area that is shrinking, but also the extent to which the critical loads are being exceeded – as can be seen from the shading on the maps, which has become steadily lighter. This heartening development is of course a result of the reduced emissions of acidifying substances – shown both by the figures over each map and the bar charts opposite. The greatest difference has been in the emissions of sulphur, which have dropped by 53 per cent since 1980. Included in the calculation are emissions from ships plying in international trade, which are assumed to have remained unchanged, and from most of the Turkish land area, where they have definitely increased. If these items were omitted, the reduction from 1980 to 1998 would be 65 per cent. The emissions of nitrogen oxides and ammonia have also declined since 1980, by 15 and 25 per cent respectively. For nitrogen oxides they peaked in 1990, but have since fallen off by 21 per cent. The map for 2010 is based on the depositions that seemed likely for that year – on the assumption that most of the countries that signed the Gothenburg Protocol will have stuck to their pledges (see AN 1/00). Even if everything should turn out as hoped and expected by 2010, a lot will still remain to be done if the goals for environmental quality that have been agreed both within the EU and under the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution are to be attained. These are that no ecosystem anywhere in Europe shall be exposed to acidic depositions that are in excess of the critical loads. That would mean a map entirely devoid of shading. It should be held in mind that the maps and figures show the change in areas where critical loads for acidification have been exceeded. They give no information as to the state of the environment in each square at any period. In fact soil and water have become so acidified that it will take decades, and in some cases centuries, before they are fully restored. The biological diversity will also need time to recover, depending among other things on the ability of species to recolonize. Per Elvingson Sources: The figures for emissions come from Analysis of UNECE/EMEP Emission Data. MSC-W Status Report 2000. EMEP, Oslo, 2000. The maps are by courtesy of Max Posch of the Coordinating Center for Effects, RIVM, The Netherlands. First a blank denial, then acknowledgment As one of the worst culprits in respect of acidic emissions, the UK called for some kind of action. For me, it all started with Ronald Reagan ... I knew he was capable of making inane comments, such as "All pollution is caused by trees," but when I read in 1982 that he had banned a Canadian Government film about the environment, I was truly amazed. The nattily named Downwind: the Acid Rain Story was produced by Environment Canada and shipped south to specialized cinemas. The US State Department took one look at it and classified it as propaganda produced by a foreign state. Everyone who watched it had to give in their name and address at the cinema foyer. Word of these unusual restrictions quickly spread, and the film became a sell-out. There were queues round the block. I had to see a copy of this film... The UN office in London gave me a contact address – the Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain. I wrote to it, and got a copy of the film (which was really, intensely boring) together with a suggestion that I should attend a hearing of the European Parliament in Brussels the next month. The European Parliament meeting was fantastic. Here were all these European countries, hopping mad about acid rain, and pointing the finger at one or two really big polluters. One of them was my country, the UK. Listening to the condescending tones of the UK representative describing air pollution as unproven, a hypothesis, and not Britain’s fault anyway, was an eye-opener. This was a really big story. Britain at the time was a very strange country. The government was advised by civil servants who took their information from the Central Electricity Generating Board. The biggest polluter in Western Europe was being advised by the country’s biggest polluter. The government took the line that acid rain had been invented by suspect foreigners, that it wasn’t Britain’s fault anyway, and as it didn’t affect the UK it wasn’t really a problem. Back home after Brussels, I contacted the UK environmental organisations to find out what they were doing. Friends of the Earth were interested, but preoccupied by a big pesticides campaign. Greenpeace was very interested, and asked me to produce a briefing paper for the basis of a campaign. They had their campaign meeting, but being in the middle of a big reorganization, were not too keen on a land-based campaign, and regretfully turned me down. But still fired up, I sent the campaign document to Pluto Press, and asked them if they would like a book on the subject. They rang back saying they would. After that, things accelerated. I wanted to do something about acid rain. The first step was to prove that acid rain was affecting the UK. Together with Andy Kerr of Friends of the Earth (Scotland) and the Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain I arranged the first survey of tree damage in the UK. A German forest scientist, Joachim Pune, whom we sent around the UK with a photographer, found abundant forest damage and we started publicizing it. Meanwhile, the big environmental organizations were getting involved. At the time, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth were very hostile to each other. But their campaigning was overlapping, and they were taking public attention away from each other, so I started chairing a "non-coalition" of the main groups – Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Socialist Environment and Resources Association, and World Wildlife Fund – in an attempt to coordinate publicity and campaign operations. The campaign started to work. We met Robin Cook (now Foreign Secretary) who was very sympathetic. Three MPs carried a dead tree to the House of Commons, and various others started to talk about acid rain in Parliament. The media naturally got very interested. One of the big problems was the prostitute nature of science. As I toured round the various conferences, I learned there were two types of science: one which attempts to solve a scientific problem, and another forming a part of a polluters’ PR drive. The Central Electricity Generating Board was particularly good at generating clouds of confusion at scientific conferences. After a while, when the car industry had also become implicated, the car manufacturers managed to add their own brand of scientific cover-up. But the Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain was very helpful in this respect, too. They had a fantastic bank of scientific detail. For every smokescreen produced by the polluters, the Secretariat had a pile of scientific papers to refute it. What changed things in the UK was public pressure. Margaret Thatcher obviously knew little and cared less about the environment, and neither did her government. But all through the 1980s the sense of environmental catastrophe increased. The British public felt there was something really wrong, and for the first time the environment became an issue in the opinion polls. At the end of the decade, 15 per cent of the electorate voted for the Green Party in the European elections. That feeling has to some extent receded, but still the political parties are careful to talk about environmental protection. Acidic emissions have dropped – yes, mainly because of the death of the coal-mining industry and a switch to gas-firing in power stations – but nevertheless they have dropped. I feel that we were instrumental in the 1980s in changing the nature of the political debate. Before, British politicians didn’t care about the environment and were not afraid to say so. Now, they still don’t care about it, but pretend they do. This is certainly progress. Politicians react to pressure. As a result of the acid rain campaign in the 1980s, among other things, they became very sensitive to the environment. At the moment, environment doesn’t feature very highly in the opinion polls, but it will surely come back. Steve Elsworth Former acid rain campaigner for Greenpeace. Improvements in the midst of turmoil Since 1992 growth in the economy has been practically continuous, but emissions are increasing. The fall of the Communist system in Poland came after a very difficult period in the country’s history. Early in 1980 there had been a severe economic and social crisis. The emergence of Solidarity in August of that year and the activities of the free trade unions during the next few months were evidence of a determination to bring about change coming up against a political system that was unable to cope with it. After December 1981, when martial law was established, the paths of rulers and ruled diverged completely. The decade ended with round-table talks and the setting up of the first non-communist government in Poland since before the war. Together with the socio-economic changes that followed, this meant a great many upheavals in just ten years. The attitude to environmental protection had begun to change even in the eighties. The Communist authorities realized they could use it for propaganda without having any real intention of solving the problems. They produced a variety of programs, passed an Environmental Protection and Management Act together with a wide-ranging scheme for the conservation of nature and the landscape, and even made international commitments. The environmental legislation was hardly enforced, and in a country with a planned economy, economic instruments were of no use. No financial, organizational or technical resources were made available, and there was no public participation. Nevertheless, with the arrival of Solidarity and martial law there came an impetus to doing something about the environment. Some isolated groups had already been trying to act locally, at least to the extent of recording environmental degradation and what it would mean for human health. The first independent environmentalist organization in Central and Eastern Europe, the Polish Ecological Club (PKE) was started in September 1980, and until it was suppressed under martial law succeeded in setting many activities going and issued a number of publications. Together these groups were able to start creating a proper basis for the assessment of environmental quality in Poland and their expertise came to be used in the round-table talks. Under the Communist regime the Polish economy had been highly ineffective. Natural resources, and particularly energy, were wasted. Energy consumption per unit of production or service was several times higher than in the West. The economy was dominated by heavy industry and the generation of power from coal. Small-scale farming had however preserved the fragmented nature of the landscape, with much higher biodiversity than in Western Europe. Transportation, underdeveloped and ineffective, was moreover environmentally harmless. The environment was a mosaic. Although seventeen risk sites have been identified – amounting to 11 per cent of Poland’s land area, and inhabited by 35 per cent of its citizens – the vegetation was natural or semi-natural in 40 per cent of the country. Outside the risk areas, river quality and forest degradation posed serious problems. Moreover Poland was a leading source of air pollution, emitting more SO2, NOx, and CO2 than any other country. The hopes raised in 1980 by the change in the political system were mingled with misgivings as to the future. Under the influence of Solidarity the new government did indeed assure that the environmental promises of the Round-table Protocol would be fulfilled. At this time, too, there arose a multitude of environmental organizations with a variety of programs, environmental issues came strongly to the fore, and it ended with a very significant document, the National Environmental Policy, adopted 1991. The enormous change that is now taking place in Poland has also had a darker side – with a drastic deterioration of the living standard of many households and high unemployment. But on the other hand Western consumer patterns have also made their appearance in Poland. Car ownership has risen enormously, unprecedented amounts of waste are showing up, the cultural and natural aspects of large cities are deteriorating. The severe economic recession brought on by the change of system was soon corrected, and growth has been practically continuous since 1992. The introduction of market mechanisms has caused those in manufacturing and service industries to calculate real costs and seek every possible means of making savings. This has been particularly the case in the private sector. These factors, combined with tough competition in export markets, have resulted in reductions both in the use of natural resources and the emissions of pollutants. The beneficial effects of the changeover have however been offset to some extent by various measures that have ignored the intentions of the National Environmental Policy. Examples are transportation, where a program for motorway construction has been carried out to the detriment of the railways and public modes generally, and an energy policy that has favoured the coal-mining industry and the operators of large power plants, without giving support either to renewables or energy saving. There were nevertheless some positive developments, one being the setting up of a reasonably efficient system for financing environmental protection, particularly through end-of-pipe measures. Special funds play a key role in this scheme, and 95 per cent of investment in environmental protection is taken from domestic sources. Among the arrangements that were either improved or started may be mentioned, besides the environmental funds (national, provincial, county, and local), the State Inspectorate for Environmental Protection, the EcoFund (using remission of part of the country’s foreign debt to provide the means for environmental investment), the Bank for Environmental Protection, and the Environmental Impact Assessment Commission. Although partly due to a downswing in the economy following the changeover, results can be seen in decreased emissions of pollutants, mostly to the air. The simplest means for accomplishing this are however becoming exhausted, so that emissions of CO2 and NOx are again on the increase (those of CO2 by a third between 1991 and 1997). During this extended transition. period, environmental concerns have unfortunately become of lesser political importance. They figure little in the elections, when they are either ignored or treated superficially by the chief parties. In the immediate future, environmental issues in Poland will be affected primarily by economic, legal and institutional integration with the European Union, as well as by the effects of globalization. Given the country’s internal and external challenges, it will be difficult for Poland to balance the need for socio-economic progress against the principle of sustainable development. It will require an enormous mobilization of government, economic, and social forces. Despite the requirement of Article 5 in the Polish constitution, there is as yet no political will to do anything, public support is lacking, and the environmental lobby is weak. Private corporations consider it hardly an important part of their business. Andrzej Kassenberg Former board member of PKE, director of Institute for Sustainable Development , Warsaw, Poland. The decisive role of research
In the following the main scientific results and discussions forming the background for the convention in 1979 and for the signing of the Gothenburg Protocol in 1999 will be discussed, with focus mainly on the atmospheric deposition of acidifying substances. While other pollutants, such as photochemical oxidants, have probably been the subject of just as much research, the development of policy for attacking air pollution has nevertheless hinged on acidification. It was largely due to a Swedish scientist, Svante Odén, that acidification came, in 1967, to be recognized as an international problem in political circles. Odén showed that the precipitation was becoming acidified on a wide scale, and that the results could already be seen in Sweden’s lakes and streams. He laid the cause on the increasing emissions of air pollutants in Europe – a hypothesis that has since been confirmed in all important respects by later research. At first, however, his conclusions were met with scepticism. Air pollution was then regarded as a local problem for urban environments and industrial areas, which could be met by building high chimneys and so "diluting" the pollution by letting it out higher up in the air. Actually several decades previously there had been an unexplained death of fish in Norwegian rivers, the reduced numbers of salmon being particularly worrying. The phenomenon had also been observed in Swedish waters, and Odén’s findings provided the explanation. It became generally accepted that acidification was the cause. All those dead fish were taken as proof of what acidification could do, easily impressing both politicians and the public. In view of the first world conference on the environment that was to be held in Stockholm in 1972, some Swedish scientists made a case study of acidification. In their report they not only described the effects, but also the necessary measures for combating it, and what that would be likely to cost. Theirs was the first attempt at a synthesis and evaluation of the whole problem. They also described what could happen if acid emissions were permitted to go on increasing, and gave the possibilities of containment as well as demonstrating the connection between industrial trends in Europe generally and the adverse effects on health and materials and the natural environment. After the initial awakening to the problem, it had to be decided whether it really was of international scope. A project was consequently set going in 1971, under the auspices of the OECD, to make an inventory of the emissions of air pollutants, their concentrations in the atmosphere and depositions on land and water, and to develop a model for calculating their flows back and forth across borders and the way to apply it. Research had to be done to determine these movements and the connection between emissions and depositions. From the outcome presented in 1976 it was clearly evident that air pollutants were being carried across national borders, and that measures to deal with this problem would have to be instituted simultaneously by a number of countries if they were to be successful. The reliability of the research was often questioned during the seventies. Now and then there was a heated debate in several countries as to the causes and effects of acidification, which continued until well into the eighties. In Britain the main contender was the Central Electricity Generating Board, which held on to its sceptical attitude regarding the causes of acidification until the middle of the decade. After that it did however become generally accepted that there was a connection between the European emissions of sulphur and the acidification discovered in Scandinavia. A matter that was much debated from the very start was whether soil was becoming acidified or not. It was not until the middle of the eighties that evidence was produced to show that acidification of the soil had in fact been taking place since the beginning of the century as a result of atmospheric deposition. The first proof came from a study made in Sweden where the researchers had managed to reconstruct not only sampling plots but also the methods for testing and analysis that had been used in the 1920s. From this it emerged that the degree of acidification of forest soil in southern Sweden had markedly increased during the intervening fifty years. A main reason for the growing awareness that something would have to be done to check the emissions of sulphur and nitrogen oxides in Europe was the discovery of forest decline in the eighties – although opinion was strongly divided as to whether those emissions were the cause. The hypotheses that were put forth included everything from natural causes (climate change, insect attack, and what not) to damage arising from soil acidification and the direct effects of gaseous pollutants. Despite intensive research in the eighties, no clear explanation could be found, and the cause-effect connection is still largely unsolved. A number of ways in which air pollutants can affect the vitality of forest trees have nevertheless been proved. A concept that has now become prominent in the debate on acidification is that of critical load. It is not known who first minted the expression, but its international breakthrough came at a scientific workshop arranged by the Long-Range Transboundary Convention at Skokloster in Sweden in March 1988. Many scientists had been sceptical of the term, maintaining that it was impossible to determine the limits of what nature could withstand, that all additions of pollutant would give rise to stress in ecosystems, and that no one can define any clear point at which stress will be unacceptable. Many on the other hand saw the possibilities of using such an easily understood concept to provide a clear aim for action. In the end scientists became agreed on definitions and preliminary values for critical load, and widespread research was then started in Europe with this concept as a basis. Methods and models for determining critical load were subsequently worked out, and places where it was being exceeded in Europe marked out. The use of this concept made it possible to quantify the environmental goals at which measures had to be aimed. The long-term aim came to be to ensure that the pollutant fallout over all European ecosystems would be less than the critical load. The early eighties saw a revival of the analytic approach used in Sweden for the case study made for the UN environment conference in 1972. The instigator was the International Institute for a Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), which by developing its RAINS computer model was able to estimate the effects of various scenarios concerning energy and the control of emissions on ecosystems. The aim was to show the consequences in the way of cost and environmental improvement of various changes in the volume of emissions. Similar models were developed at Imperial College in London as well as at the York, England branch of the Stockholm Environment Institute. These models were of great importance for the development of cost-effective strategies for action. The information they provided could be used for clearly defining the proposed measures and analyzing the effects of different strategies. In this way the most cost-effective ones could be chosen – in other words, those that would have the greatest effect at the least possible cost. The analyses made by RAINS served as a basis for the negotiations leading up to the sulphur protocol 1994. Models were subsequently developed to take in still more pollutants and still more effects in the run-up to the Convention’s Gothenburg Protocol and the proposed EU directive for national ceilings on emissions. What, then, of the future? Now that the pollutant fallout is diminishing and the recovery of the environment is becoming ever more evident, it may seem reasonable to ask whether there is really a need for more research. Bringing down the emissions of air pollutants will however not alone suffice to solve the problem. In many places acidification has so emptied the soil of neutralizing substances that it will take unknown decades before it has recovered. There is not even a probability of a natural return to the conditions existing before the onset of industrialism. It will therefore be a matter of urgency to find out what recovery will involve and how it can be hastened. For the concept of critical load, as hitherto defined and applied, the primary aim has been to protect ecosystems and human health from the effects of pollution. Should the aim instead be to attain a sustainable development, with ecosystems that can ensure both the provision of life’s necessities and a diversity of species, critical load will probably have to be differently defined. It must be remembered that there are other possible approaches, and that other measures may be found necessary, according to what is thought desirable for the ecosystem. Preparations are now being made to include particles in future strategies for the protection of health. During the next few years research will in fact be largely taken up with the development of strategies for dealing with this problem, which will be worked into a revision of the Gothenburg Protocol and the EU directive for national ceilings on emissions that can be expected within a few years. Limiting the concentrations of particles will not only affect direct emissions but also the emissions of gaseous pollutants that contribute to their formation in the air. These pollutants are already covered both in the protocol and the directive but the particle problem may bring further need for control. Research knows no frontiers. Findings that have been found acceptable in one country can usually be made applicable in another. The recent dropping off of research into the matter of transboundary air pollution has unfortunately brought a decline of the total available expertise, making it no longer possible to cover the same wide field. If anything like a complete view of the situation is to be obtained, research on an international scale will have to be re-intensified. Peringe Grennfelt Professor, scientific director, Swedish Environmental Research Institute. Convention producing results
As conventions go, even at twenty years the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) is a young convention. It has nevertheless already come to be regarded as a pioneering international instrument for the protection of the environment – paving the way for close cooperation between forty-six countries of the industrialized world for the solution of common environmental problems. Protocols arrived at under this convention are committing the signatories to take legally binding measures to deal with the chief air pollutants affecting health as well as the environment. Despite its regional character, the convention may well provide a model for attacking similar problems elsewhere, either regionally or on a world scale, as now in the case of persistent organic pollutants (POPs). It has in any case already produced results by way of reduced pollution: since 1980 the European emissions of sulphur to the air have for instance become more than halved. There was no certainty however of anything like this occurring when the convention was signed in 1979. Although there was already considerable scientific evidence that air pollutants were being borne over long distances, with serious effects on the environment, its coming about may have just as much been a result of high politics – since it was after the Helsinki conference in 1975 that the environment emerged as a suitable arena for cooperation across cold-war frontiers. When the first sulphur protocol, calling for a 30-per-cent reduction, was signed in 1985, it was not so much fresh scientific revelations that caused politicians to act, as the pressure of public opinion on the continent arising from the disclosure of forest decline in Germany. Proceeding to the year 1994, what was most striking about the second sulphur protocol, the negotiations for which were completed in that year, was the very little difference between the scenario presented by the researchers and the actual terms of the protocol. These developments are illustrative in several ways. Firstly, the forces driving developments have varied from time to time. While scientific knowledge has always been requisite, it has not always alone sufficed to get countries to agree to make binding commitments. Knowledge based on research has nevertheless tended to gain steadily increased importance as a basis for agreement. And while consideration for the environment has all along been the main issue, effects on health have come more and more to enter the picture. Secondly, the press and other media have been central in spreading information and arousing public opinion, so forcing politicians to act. In this respect the need has gradually altered, the first necessity having been to explain the essentials for making a start; now after eight protocols have been rowed home, covering all the most polluting substances, the need has to be made clear for an active follow-up. It is a matter not only of effective implementation of the existing protocols, but also of their re-negotiation and tightening of their requirements, bearing in mind not only the necessity of protecting the environment and health but also the socio-economic considerations, such as the cost-effectiveness of further measures. Two outstanding aspects of the convention have been its ability to provide innovative solutions and its innate dynamism. Both are the result of a close interplay between scientific work and policy making, as well as the introduction and use of the critical-loads approach. The decision taken in 1988 to make the concept of critical loads a pattern for policy making has turned out to have been highly prescient. The novelty has lain not least in enabling the development of procedures making it possible to arrive at projections and scenarios that are sufficiently robust to provide the basis for future international agreements. Besides its purpose of reducing the effects of air pollution, the critical loads approach aims at finding a cost-effective distribution of emission reductions between the participating countries. Innovation also comes in here, both in respect of the development of computer models and the formulation of the protocols. Policy making can be said to be circumscribed by the availability of scientific knowledge, but the possibility of using scientific knowledge to the outmost will depend to a great extent on the maintenance of close contacts between the scientific experts and the policy makers. With its form for cooperating and negotiation defined, the convention provides an effective framework for such interaction, while also allowing for national initiatives. Since development has been steadily towards more complicated and more sophisticated protocols, this cooperation between scientists and policy makers has become ever more necessary for the success of the negotiating procedure. Scientists have come to know better where research is needed, and policy makers to understand how much science can tell them, and how attainable the results will be. Continuous contacts among individuals on both sides have led to a feeling of great mutual respect, which in turn has brought dynamism to the development of new protocols. Research has consequently given marked impetus to the convention proceedings, as well as securing the necessary political support. The 1999 Protocol to abate acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone has marked a new phase in the work under the convention, the focus now tending to be on re-negotiation and/or extension of the scope of existing protocols and ensuring of their implementation. Efforts to draw political attention have at the same time increased as well as demands for funding to maintain the network of science that has given the convention its particular strength. But there are now fresh challenges to be faced, one being the need to adapt to a Europe that is no longer divided into East and West, and to a European Union that will gain in importance through the gradual inclusion of ever more countries, and have its own programs for dealing with air pollution. A high degree of harmonization in various respects, both political and technical, will be to the advantage of all parties. Another challenge will come from the increasing globalization of the problem of air pollution – the realization that it is not simply regional. It will not be from pure altruism, either, if we share with other regions the knowledge and experience gained during twenty years of combating air pollution in the ECE region, which includes not only Europe but also North America. An exciting task for a lively twenty-year old. Jan Thompson Chairman of the Executive Body of the Convention. 1967 Writing in the country’s leading daily, Dagens Nyheter, the Swedish scientist Svante Odén reported a gradual increase in the acidity of the precipitation over Europe since the 1950s, with consequent damage to soil and water ecosystems. The following November the Swedish minister of industry took up the matter at a meeting of the OECD, calling for greater attention to the danger of the increasing emissions to the air of sulphur and other pollutants. 1972 At the first world environment conference of the United Nations, Sweden presents a report on acidification, in which it laid emphasis on the transborder nature of the problem. Few countries were however willing to admit that their emissions could be causing environmental damage elsewhere. 1977 Publication of the results of an OECD study that had been set going in 1972, confirming that sulphur pollution was a cross-border problem. The OECD project later evolved into the Cooperative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of Long-Range Transmissions of Air Pollutants in Europe (better known as EMEP). 1979 In November the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution was signed by more than thirty countries as well as the EC. 1980 Four Swedish environmentalist organizations start a cooperative project for international dissemination of information on air pollution and acidification. The outcome was the establishment of the Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain in January 1982. 1980 also saw the conclusion of an eight-year research project in Norway. It confirmed that there had been an increase in the acidity of the precipitation and that there was a connection between acidification and reduced fish stocks. 1981 Reports begin to appear in the West German press of a marked increase in damage to forest trees, which could be attributed to air pollution. 1981 A cost-benefit study made by the OECD shows that the economic gains of halving West European emissions of sulphur over a period of ten years could be worth as much as six times the costs. 1982 At the Stockholm Conference on Acidification of the Environment scientists laid down that if acidification of the surface waters in sensitive areas was to be avoided, the annual depositions of sulphur should be less than 3-5 kg per hectare. Afterwards West Germany, which had been strongly opposed to any international action, surprised a meeting of environment ministers by urging that all countries should attack air pollution at its sources. 1983 The first International Acid Rain Week took place in April, accompanied by a series of awareness-raising activities carried out by environmentalist organizations in several European countries. 1983 Following ratification by twenty-four countries, the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution came into force in March of this year. At the first meeting of the Executive Body Sweden, Norway, and Finland joined in proposing that countries should have reduced their emissions of SO2 by at least 30 per cent by 1993. Five other countries – Austria, Canada, Denmark, Switzerland, and West Germany – gave their support to the proposal. 1983 A proposal for a new directive aimed at reducing emissions of SO2, NOx and dust from large combustion plants – evidently influenced by West German legislation earlier in the year – is put forward by the European Commission. 1984 Ten countries, now including France, meeting in Ottawa in March, commit themselves to reducing their emissions of SO2 by at least 30 per cent by 1993. A June meeting of ministers in Munich saw the membership of this 30-per-cent club grow to eighteen. 1985 Environment ministers of EC countries agree on new emission standards for cars, to be introduced in stages over three years, and start in 1988. 1985 By signing the first protocol for reducing emissions under the LRTAP Convention, twenty-one countries commit themselves to reducing their emissions of sulphur dioxide by at least 30 per cent from 1980 to 1993. 1986 A report published by the Nordic Council in April set down critical loads for sulphur and nitrogen based on scientific evidence. It also gave a definition of critical load. 1986 Basing their claims on the Nordic Council’s report, various European environmentalist organizations put forward a call for the reduction of SO2 and NOx emissions by at least 90 and 75 per cent, adding that the emissions of ammonia and VOCs would also have to be considerably cut down. 1986 On a visit to Norway, the British prime minister Margaret Thatcher announces that her government intended to take steps to reduce emissions of SO2. 1988 In a further protocol to the Convention, twenty-six countries agree not to let their emissions of nitrogen oxides exceed 1987 levels after 1994. Also the critical-load concept is adopted by the Convention, thus making it basic to the development of future protocols. 1988 After five years of negotiation, in November the environment ministers of the European Community adopt a directive for limiting the emissions of SO2 and NOx from large combustion plants, known as the LCP directive. 1989 In June the EU environment ministers decide to set stricter requirements for cars. This meant that from 1993 all new petrol-engined cars would have to be equipped with catalytic converters. 1989-1990 The turmoil occasioned by political change in Central and Eastern Europe brought a marked lessening of industrial output and a lower consumption of energy, with a consequent reduction of the emissions of air pollutants. 1990 Legislation on emissions passed in West Germany in 1983 has resulted in almost 200 desulphurization plants coming into operation at power stations with a total electric capacity of 38,000 MW. Further, power stations with a capacity of more than 30,000 MW have been equipped for selective catalytic reduction (SCR) of their NOx emissions. 1991 Twenty-one countries sign the VOC protocol to the LRTAP Convention, most of them with the aim of reducing their emissions by at least 30 per cent between 1988 and 1999. 1992 The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted in May. Although it involves no binding commitments, industrialized countries promised to aim at keeping their emissions of CO2 after 2000 within their 1990 levels. 1993 In its Fifth Environmental Action Program, the European Community laid down that the long-term objective for acidification was that there should never be any exceeding of the critical loads. 1994 The second sulphur protocol to the LRTAP Convention, signed by twenty-six countries, was the first to use the critical loads approach. Setting separate ceilings for each country, it was expected to bring an overall reduction of 42 per cent in the European emissions of SO2 by 2000, and 51 per cent by 2010, as from 1980 levels. 1995 The EU Council of Environment Ministers decide to develop a Union-wide acidification strategy with the eventual aim of ensuring that there should be no exceeding of the critical loads. 1996 Completion of the first installation for flue-gas desulphurization (FGD) at a British coal-fired power plant. This is cutting the emissions from one of Europe’s largest coal-fired plants (Drax, 4000 MW) from around 300,000 tons of sulphur dioxide per year to something between 20,000 and 30,000 tons. 1996 The EU Commission proposes new exhaust and fuel standards for road vehicles. The proposals are the outcome of several years of collaboration between the Commission, the oil industry, and vehicle manufacturers under the Auto-Oil program. The new standards were adopted by the Council in 1998-99. 1997 Revised guidelines for air quality are issued by the World Health Organization. These guidelines have subsequently been crucial to the setting of limit values in EU directives for air quality. 1997 The Kyoto protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is expected to bring about a 5.2-per-cent reduction in industrialized countries’ emissions of greenhouse gases between 1990 and 2008-2012, is signed by 160 countries. 1998 The EU Commission presents a proposal for revision of the 1988 directive on the emissions of SO2, NOx and dust from large combustion plants. 1999 A new EU directive limiting the sulphur content of gas oil to 0.1 per cent (from 2008) and that of heavy fuel oil to 1.0 per cent (from 2003) is adopted. 1999 In June the EU Commission put forward a proposal for a new directive, adapted to its acidification and ozone strategies, setting binding ceilings for the emissions of SO2, NOx, VOCs, and ammonia from each country, to be achieved by 2010. 1999 At Göteborg, Sweden, in December, twenty-seven countries signed the Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-Level Ozone, which sets national emission ceilings for 2010 for the four chief air pollutants. This is expected to bring down overall European emissions of sulphur dioxide by 63 per cent, those of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds by 40 per cent, and of ammonia by 17 per cent, all from 1990 levels. As the Secretariat’s 20th anniversary was approaching, we asked some of the recipients if they would care to tell us how they rated the usefulness of our publications and activities generally. Their replies have been more than generous, and here we give a selection of excerpts.
"Pressure did much to change opinion on emission control" As an environmental scientist and adviser working in the UK power industry, I can say that from the start the activities of the Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain, and particularly its newsletter, has had a considerable influence on UK emissions policy. Acid News was, and is, a potent mixture of factual content and ngo propaganda, acceptable because the two are usually easy to distinguish. My colleagues and I found the factual content useful in formulating policy advice, but the propaganda has been useful as well, in that it could be used to show our managers the depth of feeling on acid rain. Moreover, UK environmental ngos have clearly been picking up the Secretariat’s arguments as expressed in Acid News, and using them to influence British politicians. With early issues of Acid News carrying calls for action and pictures of demonstrations in front of our headquarters building, there was little doubt that we were under siege, and that this pressure did much to change opinion on emission control both within the industry and in government. Later, Acid News became a useful source of information on environmental concerns in Eastern Europe, and even Turkey, at a time when such information was otherwise hard to obtain. And the Secretariat performs a useful role in representing environmentalist opinion in official European negotiating fora such as clrtap and the European Commission – more effectively than the corresponding industry bodies. Richard Skeffington Professor, University of Reading, United Kingdom.
"Influenced the processes"
Jean-Guy Bartaire Electricité de France (EDF).
"Always objective"
Jan Fransen The Netherlands Society for Nature and Environment.
"Served robust arguments" Over most of its existence I have had the privilege of closely following the work of the Secretariat. My impression is that it has played a significant role, over the years, in raising the awareness of the acidification problem in Europe. The Secretariat’s flagship, Acid News, with its very informative contents on various aspects of the acid rain problem, has served both NGOs and government representatives with robust arguments for international action to reduce emissions of acidifying substances. Many of the articles in Acid News have helped me in my role as chairman of protocol negotiations concerning acid rain under the LRTAP Convention. Lars Björkbom Former chairman of the Working Group on Strategies under the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution.
"Providing leadership"
G. Steve Hart Director, Transboundary Air Issues Branch, Environment Canada.
"Accurate and interesting" When I look back over the copies of Acid News, ever since the start of publication, I am struck by the succinct way in which it has charted the progress of acid deposition abatement in Europe. It has been accurate as well as interesting. Acid News has been part of the mechanism of providing the impetus needed to ensure momentum being maintained. It has encouraged the backsliders, chided the reluctant spirits, and praised the bold souls who have consistently pioneered the cause. Acid News has managed all of this without compromising science in the identification of policy and the advocacy of environmental progress. Michael J. Chadwick Former director of the Stockholm Environment Institute, United Kingdom.
"Great source of information"
Tim Brown Deputy Secretary (Policy & Development), National Society for Clean Air (NSCA), United Kingdom.
"Highlights subjects" Acid News is a highly informative paper, and I find myself reading most of the articles. Not only do I like the accounts it gives of the ongoing policy processes and negotiations in international bodies, but also the fact that it highlights subjects which countries try to hide in the closet, such as the emissions from ships. Maximilian Posch RIVM/CCE, The Netherlands.
"Very useful message"
Pavel Jilek Deputy Director of the Air Protection Division, Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic.
"Substantial contribution"
Firstly, the effect on the current results (LRTAP, EU, national strategies and policies) that your small team has had in nurturing and moving collective action on acidification and other relevant environmental issues is remarkable. Secondly, the substantial contribution of your publications to the research process, to technical explanation and discussion as well as to the political debate of the science and art in effects-based abatement strategies. Thirdly (and most importantly), the balanced tone and attitude, positive, serious, well documented, biting, and respectful. Ramon Guardans CIEMAT. Advisor to the Spanish Ministry of Environment, Vice Chairman of the clrtap Working Group on Effects.
… explains it well
Johan Sliggers Coordinator of acidification policy, Ministry of the Environment, Netherlands.
… broad view valuable
Dusan Hrcek Director, Hydrometeorological Institute, Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning, Slovenia.
… support vital
Ferenc Joo National Secretary, Hungarian Traffic Club.
… believed accurate
Prudencio Perera Director for Environment Quality and Natural Resources, Environment Directorate, EU Commission.
… relevant, saves time Allow me first to say that I particularly appreciate receiving Acid News regularly. This newsletter provides a lot of relevant information and actually helps me to save time by offering this "collection" of news items. I have found that over the years Acid News has provided particularly important information from Eastern Europe, for instance on existing large power plants, and also on the available technologies for reducing emissions. Harald Dovland Deputy Director General, Ministry of the Environment, Norway.
… correct, easily digestible In the lengthy process towards agreements on the abatement of acid rain I always found particular strength, as secretary to the Executive Body of the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution, in the well-founded and balanced contributions of the Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain, and I am convinced that progress in the negotiations was facilitated by its inputs, which I perceived as correct and easily digestible. The Secretariat proved to be a competent awareness-raising actor that provided solid knowledge to the policy-oriented negotiators at their numerous meetings and to the scientific experts. Lars Nordberg Former Secretary to the Executive Body of the CLRTAP, Sweden.
… helps on policy process I would underline the utility of your activities in the policy process and the capability to help the decision process by providing a different perspective to environmental problems to all interested actors. I wish to recognize the positive and useful work of the Secretariat. In particular I would underline the utility of the information provided by Acid News, both from the point of view of ability to influence and put pressure on policy makers in respect of relevant issues. The informational and other activities of the Secretariat helped on the European policy process and surely influenced the attitude of many countries. Giovanni Vialetto ENEA, Air Pollution Section. Advisor to the Ministry of Environment, Italy. Published 18 December 2000. |
|
