50 likes | 156 Views
Status of the RAINS model development for the review of the Gothenburg Protocol. Markus Amann, CIAM. RAINS improvements since the Gothenburg Protocol. Source-receptor relationships from EMEP Eulerian model (50*50 km) For acid deposition, N deposition, ozone, PM2.5
E N D
Status of the RAINS model developmentfor the review of the Gothenburg Protocol Markus Amann, CIAM
RAINS improvements since the Gothenburg Protocol • Source-receptor relationships from EMEP Eulerian model (50*50 km) • For acid deposition, N deposition, ozone, PM2.5 • Ecosystem-specific deposition • Health impact assessment for ozone based on SOMO35 • Health impact assessment for PM, including differentiation for urban air quality (City-Delta) • Latest critical loads implemented, interface to dynamic models • Emission inventories, projections and control potentials for primary PM emissions • Inclusion of non-technical measures under development (GAINS)
Status of input data • For EU countries + Norway + Switzerland: • Emission inventories, • national energy/transport/agriculture projections (19 countries), • emission control potentials and costs validated (mainly for 2020 and 2015) • For other countries in the (old) EMEP domain • Data available, but not validated (consultations with Ukraine and Russia underway) • For other countries in the extended EMEP domain and North America: • Model not implemented
What can be done in 2006/2007? • “Baseline projection” of emissions and resulting air quality impacts • For “current national legislations”, ignoring Gothenburg ceilings and EU NECs • Based on national activity projections • For 2015 and 2020, indicative assessment for 2010 • Based on latest impact assessment methodologies • Draft projection in fall 2006 • Preliminary results presented to WGSR 9/2006 • Comments by Parties until end 2006 • Final projection in spring 2007 (for TFIAM)
What cannot be done in 2006/2007? • No (re-)optimization of emission ceilings in 2007 • For 2010 data not validated with Parties • For 2015 and 2020 policy debate about target setting necessary