RAINS Review

Review of the RAINS Integrated Assessment Model

Contract with CAFE

Dec 2003 - Sept 2004

Presentation 27 Sep 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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., 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.

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

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

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.

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

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)