Review of the RAINS Integrated Assessment Model

1
Review of the RAINS Integrated Assessment Model

• Contract with CAFE
• Dec 2003 - Sept 2004

2
Objective

• Review of how the RAINS framework uses scientific
  and economic understanding for the development of
  European air pollution policies

3
Timing

• The review was 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

4
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)

5
Tasks- to examine

• Model design
• Scientific credible representation of reality
• Limitations in the model structure
• Uncertainties
• How is RAINS addressing uncertainties?
• Robustness for policy advice
• Biases in the outcome of the model

6
Tasks (cont.)

• Abatement technologies and costs
• Problems arising due to limitations to only
  technical measures
• Verification of costs.
• Communication
• Quality assurance in input data
• Involvement of stakeholders
• Transparency in model and results

7
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

8
General observations

• The model is today much more advanced compared to
  the model used for the Gothenburg Protocol and
  the NEC directive
• Consequences
• Reviews and experiences from earlier versions of
  limited value
• Difficulties in the interpretation of the outcome
  of the Gothenburg Protocol and the NEC Directive

9
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

10
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
  

11
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 needs to be considered.
• Urban modelling needs further development

12
Representation of reality

• Effects are handled in responsible and defendable
  way.
• Each of the effects modules was analysed and
  number of recommendations have been made with
  respect to each of them.

13
Two important issues that need urgent action

• Climate change (policy and effects)
• Inter-annual variation in Source/Receptor
  relationships

14
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

15
Uncertainties - Lack in scientific understanding

• Scientific knowledge reviewed with respect to
• General maturity
• Mechanism and process understanding
• Experimental evidence
• Field observations
• Source - receptor understanding

16
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., SO2
  - NH3 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.

17
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 (EMEP, ICPs, WHO etc.).

18
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

19
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.

20
Abatement technologies and costs

• Historically, costs have been overestimated in
  RAINS
• 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

21
Communication with stakeholders

• The opportunities for stakeholder involvement in
  the development of RAINS are good.
• 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 IIASAs web
  page)

22
Thanks for your attention