1. Review of the RAINS Integrated Assessment Model
Contract with CAFE
Dec Sept 2004

2. 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

3. 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 years into the future

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

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

11. 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

13. 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

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

15. 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

16. 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

17. Degree of scientific understanding

18. 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).

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

20. 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

21. Comments and questions
Peringe Grennfelt
Mike Woodfield or
any of the team members