1 / 22

Review of the RAINS Integrated Assessment Model

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

onofre
Télécharger la présentation

Review of the RAINS Integrated Assessment Model

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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 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 10-15 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 • 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 • 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. 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 The review team

  10. 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 (?)

  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

  12. 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

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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. Degree of scientific understanding

  17. 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).

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

  19. 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

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

More Related