The workshop will be organized around a selected number of topics. Each topic will represent a key area for future collaboration and success of air pollution strategies. The topics are concentrated on themes of relevance for both science and policy.

Seven topics are presented below, based on the input from the Programme Committee. Details on the content and directions of the working groups will still be developed.

For additional comments and suggestions for presentations at the working group sessions please contact the working group leaders directly.

1. Air pollution and Climate, including the role of Short Lived Climate Pollutants

Currently there is a large focus on policy development and direct action to reduce emissions of SLCP within e.g. CLRTAP, Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) and the Arctic Council. Large research efforts are also made to better describe the direct and indirect interactions between air pollution and climate. The role of CLRTAP in developing this knowledge base as well as its role in the policy context needs to be discussed and reviewed.

Contact/chair persons: Bill Harnett, US EPA, ( and Øystein Hov, (oysteinh@met.noexternal link).

Further information and questions to be discussed, Working Group 1PDF (pdf, 36.5 kB)

Agenda Working Group 1PDF (pdf, 87.9 kB)

Report Working Group 1PDF (pdf, 71.7 kB)

2. Nitrogen - why is so little happening?

Excess nitrogen is considered one of the main global and regional environmental threats. Regional conventions as well as the European Union have so far had limited success in controlling the nitrogen emissions. Cost-effective control measures have been shown to exist, but either have not been applied or have proven less effective than expected.

Some modification of the above statement can be made with respect of different species of reactive nitrogen. The reduction of NOx combustion emissions, proving possible but quite difficult despite of the available technology, seems to have little effects on atmospheric concentration. NH3 emissions and nitrate leaching indicate positive effects on some selected areas, but hardly on a large scale. Likewise, N2O emissions (albeit based on calculated values rather than being shown in field data) present very little decrease, mostly due to implementation of industrial measures.

This working group will focus on how to further develop nitrogen management strategies, based on best practice examples. We will identify cases (sectors, countries) which actually indicate improvement, and attempt to investigate and discuss the reasons, why similar strategies would not have worked in different situation. Finally, we consider the effects potential external effects (climate change) may have on the relationship between N emission and notable effects. This will allow identifying pathways to proceed with the international policy processes and to clearly point out which areas require strengthening of the scientific knowledge.

Contact/chair persons: Wilfried Winiwarter, IIASA, ( and Jan Willem Erisman, Louis Bolk Institute, (

Further information and questions to be discussed, Working Group 2PDF (pdf, 32.5 kB)

Report Working Group 2PDF (pdf, 75 kB)

3. Effects-based international air pollution strategies

In the final negotiations of the review of the Gothenburg Protocol parties didn’t accept the effects based approach because of the economic circumstances. There is however still a large interest in keeping on with effects-based approaches in some form. A key issue for this working group is if it will be possible to include effects-based approaches in the future and how should such an approach look like?

In the review process of the Gothenburg Protocol the needs for Assessment Reports in order to update present knowledge and achievements but also to discuss further needs in order to meet the long term objectives of the Convention (or any other international agreements). The objective and content of such reports may be of crucial importance for our ability to use effects-based approaches and a further elaboration of this issue may be a suitable additional topic for this working group.

Contact/chair persons: Brit Lisa Skjelvåle, Niva, Norway, (; Max Posch, RIVM, Netherlands, (, Filip Moldan, IVL, Sweden, (

Further information and questions to be discussed, Working Group 3PDF (pdf, 53.7 kB)

Report Working Group 3PDF (pdf, 26.2 kB)

4. Future air pollution agreements – Going for global governance of the troposphere

The scale of air pollution is expanding. Many atmospheric pollutants are transported between continents and some air pollution problems are of hemispheric dimensions. The control of atmospheric pollutants is also sometimes global, e.g. emission standards for motor vehicles tend to be applied in similar ways in all larger economies. An important question in this connection is to what extent international conventions and initiatives can broaden the interest and open up for international agreements on a global scale. And to what extent can such an approach also act as vehicle for reducing the use of fossil fuels and thus the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Contact/Chair persons: Johan Kuylenstierna, Stockholm Environment Institute (; Terry Keating, US EPA (; Richard Mills, IUAPPA. (

Session outline Working Group 4PDF (pdf, 35.2 kB)

Background note Working Group 4PDF (pdf, 102.5 kB)

Report Working Group 4PDF (pdf, 97.4 kB)

5. Air quality & health

That air pollutants cause negative effects to human health is today well known and new evidence on the adverse impacts are emerging. Yet current policies in the EU and US are not sufficient to meet the WHO standards to protect human health from negative effects caused by exposure to particulate matter and ozone. This working group will discuss the new evidence on health impacts from air pollutants and how exposure from key sectors like traffic and small scale combustion can be reduced in the short term as well as what is needed in the longer perspective. What is the link between and the best mix of local, regional and global scale action? How to design cost-effective policies to meet the needs?

Contact/Chair persons: Göran Pershagen, Karolinska Institutet (goran.pershagen@ki.seexternal link)

Further information and questions to be discussed, Working Group 5PDF (pdf, 48.2 kB)

Report Working Group 5PDF (pdf, 92 kB)

6. Persistent organic Pollutants and Heavy Metals

CLRTAP has provided a large contribution to the global understanding of emissions and environmental fate of heavy metals and POPs as well as to the development of emission reduction strategies and policy instruments. At the same time, contaminants are regulated and monitored in many other conventions such as Stockholm Convention on POPs and the recently agreed Minamata Convention on mercury. Chemicals are also regulated in a large number of EU directives, most of them with other focus than air emissions. Should CLRTAP continue to supply knowledge and experiences on air emissions, modelling and monitoring in cooperation with other conventions? Or should we be more proactive and develop a basis for more stringent regulations including new organic contaminants and metals?

Contact/Chair persons: John Munthe, IVL, (john.munthe@ivl.seexternal link), Katja Kraus Umweltbundesamt, Germany, ( and  Matthew MacLeod, Stockholm University, ( link)

Further information and questions to be discussed, Working Group 6PDF (pdf, 42 kB)

Report Working Group 6PDF (pdf, 83.1 kB)

7. Mid-term policies for Europe and its vicinity

In May 2012, with the agreement on a new Gothenburg protocol, the LRTAP Convention finalized a round of negotiations revising its three latest protocols, and a Long Term Strategy for the future work of the Convention has recently been adopted. This autumn the EU Commission is to launch a new Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution accompanied by a proposal for a new NEC Directive and possibly new source control legislation. This working group will discuss the important relation between the two arenas, and specifically what is needed in the EU legislative package in the light of the recent agreements under the CLRTAP and policies in nearby areas like climate change. What ambition level of the NECD is necessary? Which target year/years should be chosen? How to design specific source control where needed? And to promote acceptance and support in the decision making process?

Contact/chair persons: Scott Brockett, European Commission, (Scott.Brockett@ec.europa.euexternal link) and Andrew Kelly, APEnvEcon, (Andrew.Kelly@APEnvEcon.comexternal link)

Further information and questions to be discussed, Working Group 7PDF (pdf, 48.2 kB)

Summary prel. Working Group 7PDF (pdf, 454.4 kB)

Updated: 2013-08-26



ProgrammePDF (pdf, 2.1 MB)


Saltsjöbaden 1, 2000PDF (pdf, 529.4 kB)

Saltsjöbaden 2, 2004PDF (pdf, 3.2 MB)

Saltsjöbaden 3, 2007PDF (pdf, 495.2 kB)

Saltsjöbaden 4, 2009​PDF (pdf, 873.5 kB)

Saltsjöbaden V, 2013PDF (pdf, 1.7 MB)

The website is administrated by IVL Swedish Environmental Research Insitute Ltd | © IVL