Review of the RAINS Integrated Assessment Model Contract with CAFE Dec 2003 - Sept 2004

Objective Review of how the RAINS framework uses scientific and economic understanding for the development of air quality policies The outcome will be used to Ensure that the the model is fit for purpose, scientifically credible, robust and transparent Improve the modelling framework

Fit for purpose Give advice to CAFE and CLRTAP Legitimacy - is formed through acceptance on from the scientific, technological, economic and policy communities The model should be able to reflect a situation 10-15 years into the future

Timing The review is made during the development of the RAINS model Consequences No possibility to examine any outcome of the model However, a good possibility to influence the process through discussions and recommendations

Methodology An expert team of 10 persons covering the various aspects in the RAINS model Work independently of stakeholders and CAFE The review will be based on material compiled by IIASA and two meetings with the expert team (Feb and May) Outcome: Conclusions and short and long term recommendations

Scope Review all parts of the RAINS model except Atmospheric source-receptor relationships (EMEP review) Scientific information on health impact (WHO) Methods for mapping critical loads and levels (WGE)

Tasks (1) Model design Uncertainties Scientific credible representation of reality Limitations in the model structure Uncertainties How is RAINS addressing uncertainties? Is the model robust enough for policy advice Biases in the outcome of the model

Tasks (2) Abatement technologies and costs Communication Limitations to only technical measures Verification of costs. Ex-ante vs ex-post cost estimates Communication Quality assurance in input data Involvement of stakeholders Transparency in model and results

The review team Peringe Grennfelt Mike Woodfield Bertil Forsberg Sweden Mike Woodfield UK Bertil Forsberg Jan Willem Erisman The Netherlands David Fowler Janina Fudala Poland Oystein Hov Norway Terry Keating USA Mihalis Lazarides Greece Tomasz Zylics

Time plan Dec. 2003 - Sept. 2004 Two main meetings with IIASA February 2003 13-14 May Preliminary conclusions CAFE Steering Body 17-18 May Final report July 2004 (?)

General observations Excellent material prepared for the review (available on IIASA’s web page) The IIASA team has a very good insight in the scientific development of importance for the model The model is today a much more advanced model compared to the model used for the Gothenburg Protocol and the NEC directive

What do we expect from uncertainty analyses? Increase legitimacy Set the targets right Give the right priorities to sectors, countries etc Direct further research and data collection Give priorities to areas with high uncertainties Focus on issues that reduce uncertainties Improve models

Reliability and Uncertainties We suggest a structure for handling reliability and uncertainties consisting of four different types of uncertainties

Four main sources… Lack in scientific understanding Simplifications, assumptions setting of boundary conditions etc. that may cause biases Statistical uncertainties due to incompleteness in data collection and difficulties in describing the true situation Uncertainties in the socio-economic and technical development

Lack in scientific understanding Difficult, but the scientific knowledge could be reviewed with respect to General maturity Mechanism and process understanding Experimental evidence Field observations

Degree of scientific understanding

Assumptions and Simplifications Many known assumptions and simplifications when looking through the total model structure for the Gbg protocol Some are taken on board in the approach for CAFE and CLRTAP revision (ecosystem specific dep., SO2 - NH3 interactions in dry dep. etc.) Could be analysed with respect to their influence on the output of the RAINS model (primarily the overall achievements and the division of control measures between countries, sectors etc).

Statistical uncertainties Have been investigated by IIASA by error propagation methods Could be combined with analyses of biases

Uncertainties in socio-economic and technical development Should be handled through a suitable set of scenarios covering an enough wide range of energy, transportation and agricultural scenarios climate change control options technological possibilities

Comments and questions Peringe Grennfelt (grennfelt@ivl.se) Mike Woodfield (mike.woodfield@aeat.co.uk) or any of the team members