FAIRMODE 4th Plenary, Norrkjoping Sweden WG1 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION The role of modelling and FAIRMODE in the Directive review WG1 activity/discussion FAIRMODE Forum for air quality modelling in Europe Bruce Rolstad Denby Anke Luekewille Leonor Tarrason FAIRMODE 4th Plenary, Norrkjoping Sweden June 2011

Activities of WG1 Development and publication of Guidance documents Reference guide (EEA TR) NO2 guidance (ETC/ACM TR) PM guidance in (2011-2012) Maintain contact within the FAIRMODE community Maintain contact with EIONET and GMES Maintenance of web page Dissemination: conferences, meetings, web FAIRMODE contribution to the Directive review

Activities to come Continued improve accessibility of the web Review the Model Documentation System and relevance to FAIRMODE and the Directive Completion NO2 guidance and start of PM guidance Continue the review process Develop a short ’case for modelling’ in regard to the Directive review Finalise the survey document

Selected topics discussed Can the Directive text be clarified in regard to modelling? There is room for improvement but changes are likely to be limitted. To what extend can the Directive QO be revised? Somewhere between ‘not at all’ to ‘minimally’ Can/should modelling be mandatory? FAIRMODE should present the case for the use of models clearly and actively.

Selected topics discussed How to motivate the optimal use of models and monitoring? By presenting the advantages How can FAIRMODE improve the implementation? Through standardised QO results (delta tool) Clarify the role of FAIRMODE in regard to the Directive Presented by Joachim, to be discussed later

Comments and points from the floor on the QO The current QO, though not crystal clear, is usable due to its flexibility of use. There are mixed levels of satisfaction with the current QO All present find that their models adhere to the current Directive QO General consensus that ‘scientifically’ the QO is not adequate The ’spirit’ of the directive should be retained, but this is difficult to quantify

When should modelling be used in the Directive? The case for modelling Should be used for planning When exceedances are monitored then models should be used to determine the extent Should be used to identify hotspots to improve network design Should be used for forecasting Should be used in combination with monitoring for source apportionment and assessment Should be used to assess population exposure

How can FAIRMODE proceed to improve the Directive QO? The Directive QO is intended to be both clear and flexible. Is it? Are there some basic changes which will increase current clarity and preserve flexibility? FAIRMODE should continue maturing the benchmarking and QO development, irrespective of Directive QO.