1 / 11

Review of RAINS model for CLRTAP and CAFE: Scientific scrutiny and potential improvements

This review assesses the RAINS model's scientific credibility, transparency, and fitness for purpose, addressing model design, treatment of uncertainties, abatement technologies and costs, and stakeholder communication. It aims to provide guidance for possible improvements and ensure the model's adequacy from scientific and economic perspectives.

goudreau
Download Presentation

Review of RAINS model for CLRTAP and CAFE: Scientific scrutiny and potential improvements

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 model CLRTAP, TFIAM 28th session Haarlem, 7-9 May 2003 Matti Vainio & Peter Wicks, European Commission, DG Environment, Air, Noise and Transport Unit

  2. Why review RAINS? • Crucial role in air quality policy for both CLRTAP and the European Community • Integrated assessment model for CAFE and Gothenburg review • Knowledge-based approach and political acceptance require scrutiny of models used • In late 2002 UNECE and CAFE Secretariat decided to carry out a review of RAINS and EMEP models. TFIAM and WGTSPA contributed to the draft terms of reference

  3. Objective of review • Assess adequacy of model from scientific and economic point of view • Provide guidance for possible improvement of RAINS • Ensure transparency, scientific credibility and fitness for purpose

  4. Main issues for review 1. Model design 2. Treatment of uncertainties 3. Abatement technologies and costs 4. Communication with stakeholders, policy-makers and public

  5. 1. Model design • Do the RAINS modules provide a scientifically credible representation of reality? • What are the main limitations? • What implications could these limitations have for policy for the purposes of the CAFE programme and CLRTAP?

  6. 2. Treatment of Uncertainty • Have the main uncertainties been adequately addressed? • Would an alternative formulation be better? • Any systematic bias (under- or over-estimate of measures required)?

  7. 3. Technologies and Costs • Does RAINS’ emphasis on end-of-pipe measures bias results (environmental or economic)? • Comparison of ex-ante and ex-post assessment of costs • What would be a good approach?

  8. 4. Communication • Control of input data • Involvement of users and stakeholders • Presentation of results • Transparency of model structure

  9. Timing, reporting and budget • Hope to sign contract during the summer • First findings to be presented within 6 months of signature • Final report due within 9 months of signature • DG ENV contribution: 100.000 euros

  10. Questions • Role of TFIAM in the review? • How to find the reviewers? • Are the review questions relevant? • What would be a good approach to review the cost functions of RAINS model? • Workshop? • Is the timing right?

  11. Further details • Peter.Wicks@cec.eu.int

More Related