The Ozone Research Managers (ORM), the Science
Description: The Ozone Research Managers (ORM), the Science Assessment Panel (SAP), and the Conference to the Parties (COP) of the Vienna Convention Kenneth W. Jucks (NASA HQ; USA) Hector Estévez (Mexico) Co-Chairs, 11th ORM Meeting Greetings! Why do we
Related Topics
Download Presentation
"The Ozone Research Managers (ORM), the Science" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this website for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Presentation Transcript
slide1. The Ozone Research Managers (ORM), the Science Assessment Panel (SAP), and the Conference to the Parties (COP) of the Vienna Convention Kenneth W. Jucks (NASA HQ; USA)
Hector Estévez (Mexico)
Co-Chairs, 11th ORM Meeting<br>
slide2. Greetings! Why do we have an ORM?
How does it differ from the SAP?
How are the recommendations used by the COP?
Where does the special topic of the last meeting on monitoring ODSs stand?<br>
slide3. Why is the ORM held?
The ORM Recommendations on research topics are required under the Vienna Convention:
ORM Reports address research and monitoring needs in light of scientific understanding provided by the Assessments and do make specific recommendations regarding international actions for improved research coordination and networking.
The ORM Recommendations are NOT for enabling the Parties to evaluate control measures under the Montreal Protocol and are communication devices between the research community and decision makers.
The ORM Recommendations do NOT assess the State of the Science. That is the SAP’s job!<br>
slide4. How does it differ from the SAP?
The SAP reports are required under the Montreal Protocol, which came AFTER the establishment of, yet part of, the Vienna Convention:
Science Assessments enable the Parties to evaluate control measures under the Montreal Protocol and are communication devices between the research community and decision makers.
Assessments neither provide policy recommendations nor are they research planning documents. However, they provide input for both.
The SAP does NOT provide research recommendations for the near future. That is the ORM’s role!
However, the roles of the two bodies are tightly interconnected!<br>
slide5. How do the ORM recommendations get delivered and implemented?
The report is submitted writing to the COP parties.
A short recap of the recommendations is presented in person to the parties at the COP/MOP.
The recommendations are formally accepted.
Then, it is up to each party to do with the recommendations as each party sees fit.
And THAT is one of our challenges…to have to recommendations acted upon.
And<br>
slide6. Where does the topic on gaps in ODS monitoring stand now?
The Parties to the Montreal protocol requested of the Science Assessment Panel, in collaboration with the Ozone Research Managers, to present to them an assessment “To identify gaps in global coverage of atmospheric monitoring of controlled substances and to provide options on ways to enhance such monitoring as well as exploring options for informing the parties of preliminary information indicating unexpected emissions of controlled substances for the consideration of the Thirty-Second Meeting of Parties and the Twelfth Conference of Parties, in 2020.”
At the recent MOP, the parties requested a refinement of the costs for expanding the observational capacity of ODSs. This will be presented at this meeting.<br>
slide7. Why Both Bodies?
The ORM Reports and WMO-UNEP Scientific Assessments are required under the Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol respectively and have complementary but different purposes:
Science Assessments enable the Parties to evaluate control measures under the Montreal Protocol and are communication devices between the research community and decision makers.
Assessments neither provide policy recommendations nor are they research planning documents. However, they provide input for both.
ORM Reports, on the other hand, address research and monitoring needs in light of scientific understanding provided by the Assessments and do make specific recommendations regarding international actions for improved research coordination and networking.
Both panels have, within their mandates, some aspect of what is being requested by the parties!<br>
slide8. Recommendations from the 11th ORM! For the full report, see the posting on the meeting portal!<br>
slide9. Research Topics: Improve understanding of global emissions of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) and related gases
Better “bottom-up” estimates will assist “top-down” estimates that come from atmospheric measurements.
Short-lives species relative contributions to atmospheric Chlorine are increasing.
HFC emissions need further monitoring as well.
The coupling of climate change and ozone is emerging as an important area of further research.
In particular, understanding the changes in stratospheric transport has implications on numerous topics…more later.<br>
slide10. Research Topics (cont): The effects of Aviation, Rockets, and potential “climate intervention”.
All of these topics ultimately affect the amount of aerosols in the stratosphere.
We can include the contributions from volcanic activity and large wildfires as well.
Changing aerosols over time will have significant affects on the stratospheric circulation over time, in ways that are difficult to predict.<br>
slide11. Systematic Observations: Increase resources for long-term observing networks.
This includes, total Ozone, UV, in situ trace gases/ODSs, other key trace gases
Key regions where improved monitoring is needed have strong overlap with Article 5 countries (SE Asia, Himalayas, Africa, S. America)
Maintain the satellite limb-viewing observations of key trace gases that are currently due to end in ~5 years.
These data are needed to monitoring changes in circulation mentioned in “Research Topics”
These data are also needed to maintain the Parties to the MP’s desire for timely reporting of potential changes in emissions.<br>
slide12. Systematic Observations (cont): Continue the development of low-cost sensors to enable better monitoring of the atmosphere, particularly in Article 5 countries.
Need to ensure compatibility with the established observing techniques ‘- Dobson, Brewer, ozone sondes.
These techniques will require capacity development as their operation and data processing are new.
Investigate how to use ground-based and balloon data to scientifically fill the gap in the satellite data record of key trace species like N2O, H2O, CH4, SF6 until a follow-on satellite can be deployed.<br>
slide13. Gaps in Coverage for monitoring ODS emissions: Endorse the “white paper” and forward it to the Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol parties for their consideration;
Note that the activities and methodologies outlined in the “white paper” provide a sound basis for addressing the gaps in monitoring of controlled substances;
Emphasize the importance of continued monitoring of controlled substances (i.e., ODSs and HFCs) and the need to address gaps for early detection of emissions and their sources;
Emphasize that filling in the gaps in monitoring is resource-intensive and considerable sustained funding would be required;
Note that a pilot project with European Commission funding will be undertaken by the Ozone Secretariat to implement some of the recommendations in the “white paper”, that the ORM is grateful to the European Union for such financing, and that additional resources would allow expansion of the initiative;
Recognize the importance of contributions from all global and regional controlled substance monitoring programmes, and strongly urge their sustained support with effective cross-programme sharing and integration, including for calibration standards, data accessibility, and emissions model development; and
Prioritize locating any new sites and the chemicals to be measured based on expectations derived from the work of TEAP, SAP, and other contributors as to where, what, and how much is likely to be emitted in the future.<br>
slide14. Data Archiving and Stewardship: Numerous recommendations regarding the encouragement of proper submission (to data centers) and documentation of data to fully take advantage of ALL the existing data.
There are several recommendations on how to cross reference/coordinate the different data centers so users can access data better.
Much of this coordination is best done by an international organization such as the WMO.
Efforts should be enhanced to digitize legacy data sets before they are lost forever.<br>
slide15. Capacity Building: The primary avenue for Capacity Building within the Ozone Research community is through the VCTF.
To date, the available resources within VCTF don’t make a dent in meeting the needs in this area. Without increased resources for the VCTF, progress will remain slow.
Intercomparison and training activities are fruitful, and should be expanded.
Collaboration between ozone officers and other bodies e.g. Met offices/Space agencies should be strengthened
Taking advantage of existing programs, for example: ARSET run by NASA, could be an effective way to increase capacity in Article 5 countries.
UNEP and WMO should consider facilitating fellowships (through the VCTF maybe) to better increase capacity.<br>
slide16. In the interest of time, let’s begin!!!<br>
Hector Estévez (Mexico)
Co-Chairs, 11th ORM Meeting<br>
slide2. Greetings! Why do we have an ORM?
How does it differ from the SAP?
How are the recommendations used by the COP?
Where does the special topic of the last meeting on monitoring ODSs stand?<br>
slide3. Why is the ORM held?
The ORM Recommendations on research topics are required under the Vienna Convention:
ORM Reports address research and monitoring needs in light of scientific understanding provided by the Assessments and do make specific recommendations regarding international actions for improved research coordination and networking.
The ORM Recommendations are NOT for enabling the Parties to evaluate control measures under the Montreal Protocol and are communication devices between the research community and decision makers.
The ORM Recommendations do NOT assess the State of the Science. That is the SAP’s job!<br>
slide4. How does it differ from the SAP?
The SAP reports are required under the Montreal Protocol, which came AFTER the establishment of, yet part of, the Vienna Convention:
Science Assessments enable the Parties to evaluate control measures under the Montreal Protocol and are communication devices between the research community and decision makers.
Assessments neither provide policy recommendations nor are they research planning documents. However, they provide input for both.
The SAP does NOT provide research recommendations for the near future. That is the ORM’s role!
However, the roles of the two bodies are tightly interconnected!<br>
slide5. How do the ORM recommendations get delivered and implemented?
The report is submitted writing to the COP parties.
A short recap of the recommendations is presented in person to the parties at the COP/MOP.
The recommendations are formally accepted.
Then, it is up to each party to do with the recommendations as each party sees fit.
And THAT is one of our challenges…to have to recommendations acted upon.
And<br>
slide6. Where does the topic on gaps in ODS monitoring stand now?
The Parties to the Montreal protocol requested of the Science Assessment Panel, in collaboration with the Ozone Research Managers, to present to them an assessment “To identify gaps in global coverage of atmospheric monitoring of controlled substances and to provide options on ways to enhance such monitoring as well as exploring options for informing the parties of preliminary information indicating unexpected emissions of controlled substances for the consideration of the Thirty-Second Meeting of Parties and the Twelfth Conference of Parties, in 2020.”
At the recent MOP, the parties requested a refinement of the costs for expanding the observational capacity of ODSs. This will be presented at this meeting.<br>
slide7. Why Both Bodies?
The ORM Reports and WMO-UNEP Scientific Assessments are required under the Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol respectively and have complementary but different purposes:
Science Assessments enable the Parties to evaluate control measures under the Montreal Protocol and are communication devices between the research community and decision makers.
Assessments neither provide policy recommendations nor are they research planning documents. However, they provide input for both.
ORM Reports, on the other hand, address research and monitoring needs in light of scientific understanding provided by the Assessments and do make specific recommendations regarding international actions for improved research coordination and networking.
Both panels have, within their mandates, some aspect of what is being requested by the parties!<br>
slide8. Recommendations from the 11th ORM! For the full report, see the posting on the meeting portal!<br>
slide9. Research Topics: Improve understanding of global emissions of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) and related gases
Better “bottom-up” estimates will assist “top-down” estimates that come from atmospheric measurements.
Short-lives species relative contributions to atmospheric Chlorine are increasing.
HFC emissions need further monitoring as well.
The coupling of climate change and ozone is emerging as an important area of further research.
In particular, understanding the changes in stratospheric transport has implications on numerous topics…more later.<br>
slide10. Research Topics (cont): The effects of Aviation, Rockets, and potential “climate intervention”.
All of these topics ultimately affect the amount of aerosols in the stratosphere.
We can include the contributions from volcanic activity and large wildfires as well.
Changing aerosols over time will have significant affects on the stratospheric circulation over time, in ways that are difficult to predict.<br>
slide11. Systematic Observations: Increase resources for long-term observing networks.
This includes, total Ozone, UV, in situ trace gases/ODSs, other key trace gases
Key regions where improved monitoring is needed have strong overlap with Article 5 countries (SE Asia, Himalayas, Africa, S. America)
Maintain the satellite limb-viewing observations of key trace gases that are currently due to end in ~5 years.
These data are needed to monitoring changes in circulation mentioned in “Research Topics”
These data are also needed to maintain the Parties to the MP’s desire for timely reporting of potential changes in emissions.<br>
slide12. Systematic Observations (cont): Continue the development of low-cost sensors to enable better monitoring of the atmosphere, particularly in Article 5 countries.
Need to ensure compatibility with the established observing techniques ‘- Dobson, Brewer, ozone sondes.
These techniques will require capacity development as their operation and data processing are new.
Investigate how to use ground-based and balloon data to scientifically fill the gap in the satellite data record of key trace species like N2O, H2O, CH4, SF6 until a follow-on satellite can be deployed.<br>
slide13. Gaps in Coverage for monitoring ODS emissions: Endorse the “white paper” and forward it to the Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol parties for their consideration;
Note that the activities and methodologies outlined in the “white paper” provide a sound basis for addressing the gaps in monitoring of controlled substances;
Emphasize the importance of continued monitoring of controlled substances (i.e., ODSs and HFCs) and the need to address gaps for early detection of emissions and their sources;
Emphasize that filling in the gaps in monitoring is resource-intensive and considerable sustained funding would be required;
Note that a pilot project with European Commission funding will be undertaken by the Ozone Secretariat to implement some of the recommendations in the “white paper”, that the ORM is grateful to the European Union for such financing, and that additional resources would allow expansion of the initiative;
Recognize the importance of contributions from all global and regional controlled substance monitoring programmes, and strongly urge their sustained support with effective cross-programme sharing and integration, including for calibration standards, data accessibility, and emissions model development; and
Prioritize locating any new sites and the chemicals to be measured based on expectations derived from the work of TEAP, SAP, and other contributors as to where, what, and how much is likely to be emitted in the future.<br>
slide14. Data Archiving and Stewardship: Numerous recommendations regarding the encouragement of proper submission (to data centers) and documentation of data to fully take advantage of ALL the existing data.
There are several recommendations on how to cross reference/coordinate the different data centers so users can access data better.
Much of this coordination is best done by an international organization such as the WMO.
Efforts should be enhanced to digitize legacy data sets before they are lost forever.<br>
slide15. Capacity Building: The primary avenue for Capacity Building within the Ozone Research community is through the VCTF.
To date, the available resources within VCTF don’t make a dent in meeting the needs in this area. Without increased resources for the VCTF, progress will remain slow.
Intercomparison and training activities are fruitful, and should be expanded.
Collaboration between ozone officers and other bodies e.g. Met offices/Space agencies should be strengthened
Taking advantage of existing programs, for example: ARSET run by NASA, could be an effective way to increase capacity in Article 5 countries.
UNEP and WMO should consider facilitating fellowships (through the VCTF maybe) to better increase capacity.<br>
slide16. In the interest of time, let’s begin!!!<br>