A study to the effectiveness of the HM & POP Protocols and costs of additional measures Phase II – Emission reduction and cost of a possible revision of the Protocols Hugo Denier van der Gon, Maarten van het Bolscher & Antoon Visschedijk TNO Built Environment and Geosciences Presented by: Johan Sliggers, Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment Report requests:

Contents - POP Summary Output Phase I Methodology Phase II - POP Selected measures and Costs Results Phase II - POP Conclusions (possibly) proposed substances Conclusions POP

Output of the project – Phase I - POP For 16 POPs of protocol + 8 substances (possibly) proposed to be added to POP protocol for European UNECE Member States. Emission inventory for 2000 (base year) Emission projections for 2010, 2015 and 2020 following two policy scenarios Current Legislation and Current Ratification of POP protocol (CRPOP) Current Legislation and Full Implementation of POP protocol (FIPOP) Quantify emission reduction due to implementation of the POP Protocol Indicative / preliminary list of possible measures to further reduce POP emissions In UNECE Europe.

Methodology-phase II POP 1.Starting point: POP emissions in 2020 assuming full implementation (FI) of the 1998 POP Protocol and estimated emissions of substances (possibly) proposed for addition to the POP Protocol 2.Key source analysis of remaining emissions upon FIPOP 3.Identify sources for a possible revision of the POP Protocol 4.Select source-specific measures and measures to address candidate substances – residential/domestic sources are not selected 5.Calculate emission reduction upon revision and quantify associated costs 6.Distribute emissions over grid to make emission maps for modelling – if relevant (only PCDD/F)

Relative contribution of source sectors to remaining POP emissions upon full implementation of the POP Protocol by all UNECE countries 2020 For each POP the emissions are dominated by 1-2 source sectors (contributions > 10% are highlighted). The important sectors differ by POP – asks for individual solutions. PAH not selected in phase II because emissions dominated by residential combustion HCH / Lindane

Proposed measures by substance for a possible revision of the POP protocol

Results POP PHASE II Avoided emission by country, by measure for 2020 Annual costs by country, by measure for 2020 Here aggregated results for UNECE-Europe are presented and put in perspective to 2000, 2010 and 2020 emissions with current ratification (CR) and/or full implementation (FI) of the POP Protocol Note; next to POP, 8 substances (possibly) proposed for addition are addressed (“candidate substances”). Two substances proposed for addition (OctaBDE & PFOS) are not / very limited addressed in the study.

POP / substance emissions with different scenarios - 1 CR = current ratification; FI = full implementation; AM = additional measures Proposed substances

POP / substance emissions with different scenarios - 2 CR = current ratification; FI = full implementation; AM = additional measures Note: due to a ban emissions FIPOP+AM may be zero (possibly) Proposed substances

Costs of a possible revision of the POP Protocol for emission of unintentional by-products by source category in UNECE-Europe.

PCDD/F emissions in UNECE Europe in 2000 and projected emissions in 2020 FIPOP and FIPOP+AM by source sector Major reduction PCDD/F through FIPOP Waste incineration as a source is effectively addressed Most important remaining source will be residential combustion

Emission of POP in UNECE Europe in 2020 before and after possible revision of the POP Protocol, and costs a)PCDD/F in kg Teq/yr Note: no additional measures proposed for PCB and PAHs

Conclusions POP Full implementation (all UNECE-Europe countries) of the protocol results in an important further reduction of HCB, PAHs and PCDD/F and will effectively address the still remaining PCB emissions. Possible revision of the POP protocol will Effectively address the remaining Lindane emission Further reduce PCDD/F and HCB (but less impact than FIPOP)

Recommendations POP Country Reporting lags behind other pollutants (SOx, NOx, HM) –Important improvements in the quality of the POP emission inventories can be made through more detailed country usage data (e.g., sales / usage data for product use) –Estimation methodologies often (too) simple and emission factor data (too) limited. After FIPOP further reductions for several POP (e.g. PAH) require measures in residential / domestic sector Further reduction from POPs already addressed in the 1998 POP Protocol is limited because FIPOP already reduced the majority of the emissions. A bigger impact appears possible by incorporating new substances in the Protocol and subsequently phase out the usage of these substances.

2020 UNECE Europe emission of substances (possibly) proposed for addition in 2020 before and after possible revision of the POP Protocol, and costs

Conclusions / recommendations (possibly) proposed substances Emissions are not affected by FIPOP, except for PCNs A single sector can be identified as prime target for reduction strategies, except for PCNs (mostly unintentional releases). Revision of the POP protocol involving inclusion of new substances and subsequent measures / ban to limit their emissions effectively limits the release to the environment Emission estimates are surrounded by large uncertainties, especially for substances that are released from in-use products (e.g. PCP) due to a lack of emission factors and/or poor knowledge of amount of products still in use and concentrations in those products. National data can significantly improve estimates of product use related emissions (E.g., sales data for endosulfan, dicofol)