1. RAINS Review Review of the RAINS Integrated Assessment Model Contract with CAFE Dec 2003 - Sept 2004 Presentation 27 Sep 2004

2. RAINS Review Objective Review of how the RAINS framework uses scientific and economic understanding for the development of European air pollution 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. RAINS Review Fit for purpose Give advice to CAFE and CLRTAP Legitimacy - (acceptance from the scientific, technological, economic and policy communities) The model should be able to reflect a situation 10-15 years into the future

4. RAINS Review Timing The review is made during the development of the RAINS model Consequences –A good possibility to influence the process through advice –Limited possibility to examine the outcome of the model

5. RAINS Review 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) –other contacts and sources Outcome: Conclusions, short and long term recommendations

6. RAINS Review Scope Review all scientific aspects 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. RAINS Review Tasks:- to examine Model design –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. RAINS Review Tasks (cont.) Abatement technologies and costs –Problems arising due to 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. RAINS Review The review team Peringe Grennfelt –Sweden Mike Woodfield –UK Bertil Forsberg –Sweden Jan Willem Erisman –The Netherlands David Fowler –UK Janina Fudala –Poland Oystein Hov –Norway Terry Keating –USA Mihalis Lazarides –Greece Tomasz Zylics –Poland

10. RAINS Review Time plan Dec. 2003 - Sept. 2004 Two main meetings with IIASA –February 2003 –13-14 May Preliminary report Aug. 2004 –Available on CAFE’s webpage Final report Sept. 2004

11. RAINS Review General observations The model is today much more advanced compared to the model used for the Gothenburg Protocol and the NEC directive –Consequence: Reviews and experiences from earlier versions of limited value –Difficulties in the interpretation of the outcome of the Gothenburg Protocol and the NEC Directive RAINS is not a project – in practice it is a process by which a [model + a team of supporting experts] provides the international community with an iterative mechanism for defining and testing policy options

12. RAINS Review Assessment of model design Questions: –What are the limitations of the model structure and the implied system boundaries and to what extent may these restrict the validity of the conclusions and policy advice (general approach) –To what extent does the structure of each module provide a scientifically credible representation of the reality

13. RAINS Review Assessment of model design As a general approach: –RAINS is a reliable and scientifically defendable tool for policy advice –The modular structure gives a large degree of flexibility –EU and national sector emission control legislation has decreased the space for additional national measures under the NEC directive (CLRTAP protocol) –Cost of additional measures will be relatively high and country sensitive

14. RAINS Review Specific Aspects of the model Geographical scale –Going from 150 to 50 km grid resolution will be advantageous –Country-to-grid approach still the “best” solution –Increasing ozone background will demand for control measures outside the EMEP area –Marine emissions important and should be included –Outcome of the model dependent of geographical resolution

15. RAINS Review Specific Aspects of the model Scope of policy options: –Major effects are included. Some environmental and health effects not or only partly included. If these were included they would probably influence the strategy. In most cases the reason for exclusion is lack in scientific understanding. Model Design Recommendations: –Inclusion of marine emissions –Hemispheric pollution. –Urban modelling

16. RAINS Review Representation of reality The main environmental problems are included –health effects from particles and ozone, acidification, eutrophication, ozone effects to vegetation Each of the effects modules was analysed and number of recommendations have been made with respect to each of them.

17. RAINS Review Two important issues that need urgent action Climate change (policy and effects) Inter-annual variation in Source/Receptor relationships

18. RAINS Review Uncertainties should be handled in a more structured way Lack in scientific understanding Biases caused by simplifications, assumptions, setting of boundary conditions etc. Statistical uncertainties due to incompleteness in data collection and difficulties in describing the true situation Uncertainties in the socio-economic and technical development

19. RAINS Review Uncertainties - Lack in scientific understanding Scientific knowledge reviewed with respect to –General maturity –Mechanism and process understanding –Experimental evidence –Field observations –Source - receptor understanding

20. RAINS Review Uncertainties in Assumptions and Simplifications cause biases Many known assumptions and simplifications in the calculations for the Gothenburg protocol Some are taken on board in the approach for CAFE and CLRTAP revision (ecosystem specific dep., SO 2 - NH 3 interactions in dry dep. etc.) Could be analysed with respect to their influence on the output of the RAINS model. A number of assumptions and simplifications are identified in the review report.

21. RAINS Review Influence of biases on the model output Most of the identified biases underestimate the control needs to give an expected outcome in terms of health and environment protection. Recommendation on further analyses of the biases by other relevant bodies/organisations supplying data.

22. RAINS Review 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

23. RAINS Review Uncertainty management Statistical uncertainty is investigated by IIASA by error propagation methods Statistical uncertainty analysis and bias evaluation could be combined – possibly using scenario analysis

24. RAINS Review Uncertainties and Robustness Robustness includes a number of user confidence related aspects. We point to the importance of ensuring transparency when developing policies, particularly with regard to target setting and assumptions made.

25. RAINS Review Abatement technologies and costs Questions: –Is there a bias due to the use of a limited set of control measures? –Is the current means of assessment and verification adequate?

26. RAINS Review Abatement technologies and costs Historically, costs have been overestimated in RAINS Sensitivity analysis is needed, at country and sector level, to better understand the nature of this bias. Inclusion of non-technical measures would decrease costs for achieving a given target but may lead to greater uncertainty. The dialogue with Member States is very important

27. RAINS Review Communication with stakeholders The opportunities for stakeholder involvement in the development of RAINS are good and user interaction with the model is encouraged. Bi-lateral communication between IIASA and stakeholders functions well as a means of verifying input data quality. Data quality, however, is not guaranteed by data suppliers. Information related the model is good and improving. In addition excellent material was prepared for the review (available on IIASA’s web page)