Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air ... 2 FAIRMODE Final pos… · Review of:...
Transcript of Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air ... 2 FAIRMODE Final pos… · Review of:...
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality
Measurement, Air Quality Modelling,
Management Framework,
Assessment, and Public
Information; and Stakeholder
Consultation Support
Assessment of the FAIRMODE
Recommendations for the revision of the
current Air Quality Legislation
Final report
Client: European Commission, DG Environment
28th June 2013
Review of: Provisions for Air
Quality Measurement, Air Quality
Modelling, Management
Framework, Assessment, and
Public Information; and
Stakeholder Consultation Support
Assessment of the FAIRMODE Recommendations for
the revision of the current Air Quality Legislation
Client: European Commission, DG Environment
Authors:
Jørgen Brandt, Helge Rørdam Olesen, Mohammed
Hussen Alemu, Louise Martinsen, Berit Hasler and
Ole Hertel,
DCE - Danish Centre for Environment and Energy,
Aarhus University (AU), Denmark
Enda Hayes, Jo Barnes and Tim Chatterton.
UWE - University of the West of England, Bristol, UK
28th
June 2013
Table of Contents
i
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
List of Tables iii
List of Figures iv
1 Analysis of the FAIRMODE Recommendations 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Challenges in assessing the FAIRMODE recommendations 1
1.3 The European Air Quality Directive (Directive 2008/50/EC) 2
1.4 The FAIRMODE network 2
1.5 The FAIRMODE Recommendations 3
1.6 Material considered in the assessment 4
1.7 Analysis of each recommendation 4
1.7.1 On the use of models (F1) 4
1.7.2 Model quality objectives (F2) 4
1.7.3 Forum of EU AQ regulatory modelling (F3) 5
1.7.4 Quality assurance and consistency of emission inventories (F4) 5
2 Assessment of the FAIRMODE recommendations 7
2.1 The initial framing of the cost assessments 7
3 Defining the framework for the FAIRMODE cost assessment 12
3.1 Challenges in establishing a cost assessment of implementing the FAIRMODE
recommendations in the revised AQD 13
3.2 The bottom-up approach: Information Request for each option and sub-
recommendation 16
3.2.1 FAIRMODE Information Request for Each Option and Sub-Recommendations 16
3.2.2 Understanding the current baseline for modelling practise for your Member State.
17
3.2.3 Cost assessment of the individual FAIRMODE recommendations. 19
3.3 The top-down approach: expert estimates calibrated to each member state. 20
4 Cost Assessment 25
4.1 The bottom-up approach: Information request for each option and sub-
recommendation 25
4.1.1 Overview 25
4.1.2 Introduction to results 27
4.1.3 Discussion of selected results 28
4.2 The top-down approach: expert estimates calibrated to each member state. 41
4.3 FAIRMODE Consultation Survey of the top-down assessment 50
4.4 Combining the bottom-up with the top-down approach: estimating the cost for fulfilling
the minimum requirements 52
5 Summary and conclusions 54
References 57
ii
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Appendix A: The FAIRMODE Recommendations 58
Appendix B: Case studies for three countries 62
Belgium 62
Summary: Situation within the country and findings of interview 62
BASELINE 1: COMPETENCE BUILDING – ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE 62
BASELINE 2: COMPETENCE BUILDING – HIGH RESOLUTION EMISSION DATABASES
63
BASELINE 3: DEVELOPMENT OR ACQUISITION OF ATMOSPHERIC MODELS 63
BASELINE 4: COMPUTER FACILITIES FOR RUNNING HIGH RESOLUTION MODELS 63
BASELINE 5: OPERATIONAL / RUNNING COSTS 63
OPTION 1: ON THE USE OF MODELS FOR REGULATORY PURPOSE AND TO
SUPPORT AIR QUALITY POLICY 64
Croatia 65
Summary: Situation within the country and findings of interview 65
Hungary68
Summary: Situation within the country and findings of interview 68
Appendix C: Summary of open-ended responses – by issue 72
Appendix D: Bottom-up approach. Graphs for each of the 14 questions 84
Appendix E: FAIRMODE Consultation Survey of the top-down assessment 89
Appendix F: Table 2.1, enlarged 97
iii
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
List of Tables
Table 4.1: List of countries which responded. It is indicated whether any quantitative data are
supplied. 25
Table 4.2: Bottom-up approach. Total cost by baseline and recommendation. 28 Table 4.3: Degree of fulfillment of the minimum requirements (percent). 37
iv
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
List of Figures
Figure 4.1 Sum of current + required costs to fulfil the requirements indicated in the Baseline 1
question on Competence building – atmospheric science 29
Figure 4.2: Sum of current + required costs to fulfil the requirements indicated in the Baseline 2
question on Competence building – high resolution data bases. 31
Figure 4.3: Sum of current + required costs to fulfil recommendation 1a: FAIRMODE recommends
use of models for assessment of air quality levels to establish the extent of exceedances and
establish population exposure. 32
Figure 4.4: Sum of current + required costs to fulfil recommendation 2: Revise Model Quality
Objectives 33
Figure 4.5: Sum of current costs to fulfil the requirements for all 5 baseline questions 34
Figure 4.6: Sum of current + required costs to fulfil the requirements for all 5 baseline questions 34
Figure 4.7: Degree of fulfillment of the minimum requirements (percent). 38
Figure 4.8 Sum of current costs to fulfil all 9 recommendations 39
Figure 4.9 Sum of current + required costs to fulfil all 9 recommendations. 39
Figure 4.10: Top-down approach. The total estimated cost/year for the baseline (sum of baseline 1-
5) for each member state calibrated from expert estimates for Denmark with respect to the
minimum requirements for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations. 43
Figure 4.11: The total estimated cost/year for baseline 1 (modelling) for each member state
calibrated from expert estimates for Denmark with respect to the minimum requirements for fulfilling
the FAIRMODE recommendations. 44
Figure 4.12: The total estimated cost/year for the baseline 2 (emissions) for each member state
calibrated from expert estimates for Denmark with respect to the minimum requirements for fulfilling
the FAIRMODE recommendations. 44
Figure 4.13: The total estimated cost/year for the baseline 4 (computing) for each member state
calibrated from expert estimates for Denmark with respect to the minimum requirements for fulfilling
the FAIRMODE recommendations. 45
Figure 4.14: The total estimated cost/year for recommendation 1a (assessment exceedances and
population exposure) for each member state calibrated from expert estimates for Denmark with
respect to the minimum requirements for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations. 45
Figure 4.15: The total estimated cost/year for recommendation 1b (air pollution forecasting) for
each member state calibrated from expert estimates for Denmark with respect to the minimum
requirements for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations. 46
Figure 4.16: The total estimated cost/year for recommendation 1c (source allocation) for each
member state calibrated from expert estimates for Denmark with respect to the minimum
requirements for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations. 46
Figure 4.17: The total estimated cost/year for recommendation 1d (plans and measures to control
AQ exceedances) for each member state calibrated from expert estimates for Denmark with
respect to the minimum requirements for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations. 47
Figure 4.18: The total estimated cost/year for recommendation 1e (designing monitoring networks)
for each member state calibrated from expert estimates for Denmark with respect to the minimum
requirements for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations. 48
v
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Figure 4.19: The total estimated cost/year for recommendation 1f (number of fixed monitoring
stations) for each member state calibrated from expert estimates for Denmark with respect to the
minimum requirements for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations. 48
Figure 4.20: The total estimated cost/year for recommendation 2 (revision of the data quality
objective for modelling) for each member state calibrated from expert estimates for Denmark with
respect to the minimum requirements for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations. 49
Figure 4.21: The total estimated cost/year for recommendation 3 (competent authorities for
modeling activities are nominated by the Member states) for each member state calibrated from
expert estimates for Denmark with respect to the minimum requirements for fulfilling the
FAIRMODE recommendations. 49
Figure 4.22: The total estimated cost/year for recommendation 4 (investigate and improve the
compilation, consistency and quality assurance of emissions data) for each member state
calibrated from expert estimates for Denmark with respect to the minimum requirements for fulfilling
the FAIRMODE recommendations. 50
Figure 4.23: Estimated total additional cost/year for each member state for fulfilling the minimum
requirements, using the EU standard cost model. The total additional cost for all member states all
together is 1.4 mio. Euros/year. 53
1
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
1 Analysis of the FAIRMODE Recommendations
1.1 Introduction
The present report has been produced as a part of Special Agreement 4 under Framework Contract
ENV C3/2011/FRA/008 in response to the request from the European Commission, Directorate-
General Environment: Services to support the “Review of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution”, in
particular concerning the Review of: “Provision for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling,
Management Framework, Assessment, and Public information; and stakeholder Consultation
Support.”
The present report provides an assessment of the recommendations from FAIRMODE (The Forum
for Air quality Modelling in Europe), which is a joint response action of the European Environment
Agency (EEA) and the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC) (see also:
http://fairmode.ew.eea.europa.eu/). FAIRMODE’s aim is to bring together air quality modellers and
users in order to promote and support the harmonised use of models by EU member countries, with
emphasis on their application within the context of the European Air Quality Directive.
The aim of the presented work is to provide guidance for the European Commission with respect to
possible adaptation of the FAIRMODE recommendations in the revised Air Quality Guidelines that
are to be launched in 2014. In the following we will briefly outline the background for the
FAIRMODE recommendations
1.2 Challenges in assessing the FAIRMODE recommendations
In subsequent sections we analyse and assess the recommendations from FAIRMODE. However,
it should be recognized that the recommendations of FAIRMODE are formulated at a level that is
not yet specific enough to be directly transposed into statutory requirements. Also as a
consequence of the ongoing level of debate in the air quality management community and of the
lack of legally binding requirements in EU legislation, they are of a general nature in the sense that
there is a wide spectrum of possible ways to implement the recommendations. Therefore, an
assessment of the consequences of the recommendations can lead to several possible results,
depending on how the recommendations are interpreted. As an example, one recommendation
states that the text of the Directive should be clarified, whereas the question of how the text should
be clarified is open to discussions.
We have pursued an approach where we have chosen a certain interpretation for a full
implementation of the recommendations, while we acknowledge that other interpretations of the
recommendations can be made. Given these challenges, quantitative assessment of the
consequences of the recommendations is difficult and can give a range of outcomes. Nevertheless,
this assessment is based on the results of a survey within the member states, where we have
asked questions about the baseline within atmospheric modelling in each member state and an
assessment of additional cost for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations.
2
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
1.3 The European Air Quality Directive (Directive 2008/50/EC)
The European Air Quality Directive (Directive 2008/50/EC) was adopted by 21st May 2008
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:152:0001:0044:
EN:PDF). By this directive most of the existing legislation on air quality was merged into one single
directive (except for the fourth Daughter Directive) without changes to existing air quality directives:
Framework Directive 96/62/EC, 1-3 daughter Directives 1999/30/EC, 2000/69/EC, 2002/3/EC,
Decision on Exchange of Information 97/101/EC. The Directive 2008/50/EC included new air quality
objectives for PM2.5 including limit value and exposure related objectives in the form of exposure
concentration obligation and exposure reduction target. Furthermore it introduced the possibility to
discount natural sources of pollution when assessing compliance against limit values, and
possibility for time extensions for compliance with guidelines for PM2.5, NO2 and benzene.
1.4 The FAIRMODE network
The main aim of FAIRMODE is to promote the use of models in a harmonised way in the context of
the European Air Quality Directive. Emphasis is on the Air Quality Directive (AQD) requirements,
mainly on the promotion of good modelling practises and the interaction between authorities and
the modelling community at national and European levels.
The FAIRMODE focuses on 1) coordinating and gathering information from modellers and users
within Europe, 2) developing guidance and recommendations on air quality modelling for modellers,
users and the European Commission, 3) providing harmonised tools and methodologies for model
benchmarking and assessment, and 4) providing recommendations for scientific research in air
quality modelling.
Some important objectives of the Forum for Air Quality Modelling are
(http://fairmode.ew.eea.europa.eu/fol568175/objectives):
To establish tools and mechanisms for enhancing communication between modellers and
model users and provide a framework for exchange of experience at all levels of application.
This will include electronic interfaces, databases (such as MDS, COST728 Metadatabase, EEA
Data Centre) and tools as well as workshops, seminars and common activities.
To provide a centralised portal for information concerning the AQD, submission of compliance
data based on modelling, references and experiences of other users through case studies, and
will provide QA/QC methods for users and provide information support for these services.
To establish a common infrastructure based on best practice for reporting and storing the
information, results and maps in a standardised and harmonised manner to create an archive
for reference where tools, data and information will be readily available to authorities and
scientists of the member states.
To promote model validation and quality assurance of model results to identify limitations and
remove error factors, which implies the organisation of and participation in model validation and
intercomparison exercises at national or European level. Such exercises will be complementary
to other parallel activities. The JRC will take on a leading role in the coordination of such
actions, gaining from its experience in leading the "Eurodelta" and "CityDelta" intercomparison
exercises.
For this purpose the following Working Groups(WG) have been set up in FAIRMODE(see
http://fairmode.ew.eea.europa.eu/fol568175/work-groups) :
WG1 - Guidance on use of models(lead by EEA).
WG2 - Quality assurance of models (lead by JRC).
3
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Within the frame of WG1, a technical reference guide has been produced, which provides
suggestions and advice on best practices for the use of modelling for the purposes of the Air
Quality Directive (AQD).
The main aim of WG2 activities is to create a European Framework for Model Evaluation which will
include the development of widely accepted quality assurance procedures throughout Europe for
different models (regional, urban and local/hotspot) and for different purposes according to the
requirements of the AQD (air quality assessment scenario calculations and impact modelling,
forecast of exceedances and assessing contribution from natural sources and winter
sanding/salting).
For each of the main modelling purposes relating to air quality management mentioned in the AQD,
a Sub-Group (SG) was formed as follows:
SG1 - Combined use of monitoring and modelling
SG2 - Contribution of natural sources and source apportionment
SG3 - Urban emissions and projections
SG4 - Tools for benchmarking of air quality models
1.5 The FAIRMODE Recommendations
The FAIRMODE Recommendations have been created through a series of discussions in the
working groups of FAIRMODE. The full paper describing the recommendations is found in
Appendix A. In the latest version dated 12/10/2012 the list of recommendations have been reduced
to four overall recommendations, of which the first comprises 6 sub-recommendations. Previous
draft versions of the recommendations exist, and some comments from stakeholders refer to the
(different) numbering of recommendations used in a version from June (marked 6/8/2012).
The condensed set of the final recommendations is given in the following: The recommendations
are labelled F1 through F4.
F1. ON THE USE OF MODELS FOR REGULATORY PURPOSE AND TO SUPPORT AIR
QUALITY POLICY
Recommendation: FAIRMODE strongly recommends the use of models for the following
applications. The AQD text relating to these applications should be clarified:
Assessment of air quality levels to establish the extent of exceedances and establish population
exposure
Forecasting air quality levels for short term mitigation and public information and warnings
Source allocation to determine the origin of exceedances and to provide a knowledge basis for
planning strategies
Development and assessment of plans and measures to control AQ exceedances
In addition to these applications the use of models is strongly recommended for:
Designing monitoring networks when models are used in combination with monitoring
Determining the number of fixed monitoring sites that are required
F2. MODEL QUALITY OBJECTIVES
Recommendation: FAIRMODE recommends a revision of the data quality objective for modelling
F3. FORUM OF EU AQ REGULATORY MODELLING
Recommendation: FAIRMODE recommends that in parallel to what has already been established
for the monitoring of air quality, competent authorities for modeling activities are nominated by the
Member States(ref Article (3) and bullet d) quality assurance of modelling)
4
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
F4. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONSISTENCY OF EMISSION INVENTORIES
Recommendation: FAIRMODE recommends to investigate and improve the compilation,
consistency and quality assurance of emissions data suitable for AQ modeling under the directive.
1.6 Material considered in the assessment
The FAIRMODE recommendations are relatively short, and as noted in section 1.2 they
are open to several interpretations. In order to guide our interpretation, as a central
reference we have considered the Technical reference guide produced as an outcome of
FAIRMODE WG1 (EEA, 2011). The guide explains how the text of the Directive relates to
modelling.
1.7 Analysis of each recommendation
1.7.1 On the use of models (F1)
FAIRMODE ’strongly recommends’ the use of models for four major applications as well as in
relation to the design of monitoring networks. The background for the recommendation is that in the
current Directive text, the role of models is not clearly specified; in the case of the application
Development and assessment of plans and measures, they are not mentioned at all, even though
this activity can hardly take place without models.
However, there is a wide spectrum of possible ways to implement the recommendation of ‘strongly
recommending’ the use of models.
When interpreted in a narrow perspective the recommendations can be fulfilled by clarifying the text
of the Directive on specific points, and encouraging member states to make use of models.
However, the underlying agenda of FAIRMODE is much more far reaching. Models are a necessary
tool to identify appropriate measures for achieving policy objectives, and their use by competent
staff should be ensured and promoted. The FAIRMODE recommendations are interpreted in this
broad perspective as a proposal to initiate a multi-year process, which includes capacity building
and eventually leads to a situation where models are used in a qualified manner throughout the
member states.
1.7.2 Model quality objectives (F2)
FAIRMODE points to the fact that the quality requirements for modelling as specified in Annex I of
the Directive are ambiguous and open to interpretation. FAIRMODE does not have an immediate
remedy for the situation. Instead, it proposes a multi-year process: FAIRMODE is developing and
testing new data quality objectives for modelling for ambient air quality assessment, in collaboration
with the Member States. This is a technically complicated process, as many issues will have to be
considered. Different quality objectives will have to be defined for each substance. It should be
clearly recognized that model performance depends on many other factors than the quality of the
model itself. The performance is critically dependent on the challenge the model is exposed to.
Thus it depends on the complexity of the situation at hand in terms of chemistry, topography and
meteorology. Especially, model performance will vary with the quality of emission available
emission data. All such issues should be considered when defining model quality objectives.
The so-called DeltaTool is in focus as a possible basis for assessing model performance, but the
use of the tool cannot yet be considered mature. A commonly agreed set of parameters to be used
EU wide to assess model performance should be discussed and accepted amongst member states.
5
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Within FAIRMODE it is recognized that the common used of the tool should be further defined, and
this is a process which goes on.
The roadmap envisaged by FAIRMODE as regards model quality objectives is to further test and
develop procedures for model performance evaluation for the task of assessing current air quality
for a limited number of substances, and later extend the work of performance evaluation to other
substances as well as to the task of modelling future scenarios. The latter task requires that the
model responds dynamically to changes in the environmental situation, which is not necessary for
the task of simulating the current situation.
It should be recognized that the quality of model results not only depends on the quality of a model
as such, but also is highly dependent on the competence of modelers. Also, various models are fit
for various purposes, and modelers should be able to recognize the limitations of their models. A
skilled modeler is able to provide good foundation for decision making if the modeler knows the
limitations of the model applied. On the other hand an un-skilled modeler using the best model in
the community can provide a bad foundation for decision making, if the model is not used correct or
if the modeler is making misinterpretation of the model results. Therefore, it is equally important to
include guidance for competence building as for model quality. This makes the case for capacity
building.
1.7.3 Forum of EU AQ regulatory modelling (F3)
FAIRMODE proposes to act as a coordination forum for modelling and to support competent
authorities in a way somewhat similar to AQUILA. However, the situation for AQUILA and
FAIRMODE are not completely parallel, as there are differences between quality assurance with
monitoring and modelling. The focus is on activities as competence building, preparation of
guidance and inter-comparison exercises. Furthermore, the nature of the networks, where AQUILA
is made of accredited National Laboratories that do not have a parallel in the modelling community,
can also play a possibly relevant role.
1.7.4 Quality assurance and consistency of emission inventories (F4)
High resolution and high quality emission databases are essential for modelling. FAIRMODE
recognizes that there are many on-going activities on emission inventories, and it is not the
intention to duplicate any of these. FAIRMODE’s recommendations on emission inventories are not
specific, but are put forward in order to ensure that the needs of modellers are addressed when
compiling emission inventories.
7
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
2 Assessment of the FAIRMODE recommendations
2.1 The initial framing of the cost assessments
The initial framing of the cost assessment was carried out at a partner workshop at DCE,
AU, on October 26th 2012. The overall result can be seen in the following table (see also
Appendix F for an enlarged version).
Table 2.1 The initial framing of the cost assessment carried out at a partner workshop assessing
positive and negative impacts, qualitatively.
Definitions of the cost, burdens and benefits are:
Admin Cost and Admin Burden– these are split between the European Commission (EC) and
the Member States (MS).
AQDirect – will the measure directly lead to an improvement/change in air quality (e.g. new
restrictions on emissions).
AQIndirect – is there likely to be an indirect improvement in AQ
Information – will the recommendation result in better (higher resolution, more uniform and
comparable) information on air quality
Management – will the measure improve the ability of Commission and MS to better manage air
pollution, not just by better information, but better reporting etc. The focus should be on the day
to day operation of European Air Quality Management
Regulation – Will it allow the Commission to better regulate and enforce Limit Values and other
aspects of the Directives (e.g. through more robust and standardised reporting by MS).
Equity – will it impact on whether there is a ‘level playing field’ across all MS – this may mean
either applying the same standards across all MS, or accounting for regional differences.
Coherence – “the extent to which options are coherent with the overarching objectives of EU
policy, and the extent to which they are likely to limit trade-offs across the economic, social, and
environmental domain.” (from the Impact Assessment Guidelines) The key principles are
subsidiarity, proportionality and sustainable development.
Code Recommendation Sub-Option-FULL ECAdminCost ECAdminBurden MSAdminCost MSAdminBurden AQDirect AQIndirect Information Management Regulation Equity Coherence
1. Assessment of air quality levels to
establish the extent of exceedances and
establish population exposure
neutral - -- -- neutral ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ +
2. Forecasting air quality levels for short term
mitigation and public information and
warnings
Neutral neutral -- - + + ++ ++ + ++ +
3. Source allocation to determine the origin
of exceedances and to provide a knowledge
basis for planning strategies
neutral - -- -- ++ ++ ´++ ++ ++ ++ +
4. Development and assessment of plans and
measures to control AQ exceedancesneutral neutral Neutral Neutral ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ +
• Designing monitoring networks when
models are used in combination with
monitoring
neutral neutral ++ + neutral ++ + + Neutral ++ Neutral
• Determining the number of fixed
monitoring sites that are requiredneutral neutral ++ + neutral ++ + + Neutral ++ Neutral
F2 2. MODEL QUALITY OBJECTIVESFAIRMODE recommends a revision of the
data quality objective for modelling- - - - neutral + + + + ++ +
F33. FORUM OF EU AQ REGULATORY
MODELLING
FAIRMODE recommends that in parallel to
what has already been established for the
monitoring of air quality, competent
authorities for modeling activities are
nominated by the Member States(ref Article
(3) and bullet d) quality assurance of
modelling)
- - - - neutral + + ++ ++ ++ ++
F4
4. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND
CONSISTENCY OF EMISSION
INVENTORIES
FAIRMODE recommends to investigate and
improve the compilation, consistency and
quality assurance of emissions data suitable
for AQ modeling under the directive
- - -- -- neutral ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
Costs and Burdens Benefits
F1
1. ON THE USE OF MODELS FOR
REGULATORY PURPOSE AND TO
SUPPORT AIR QUALITY POLICY
8
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Positive and Negative impacts – Positive (+) indicates a beneficial change i.e. reduced costs or
burdens, and improved management, regulation AQ etc.
In the following, a summary of the discussions during the partner workshop is given for each of the
recommendations. The discussions relate to the results in the table above.
1. Assessment of air quality levels to establish the extent of exceedances and
establish population exposure
Admin Cost and Admin Burden: The use of models to the applications in 1, will give an increased
administrative burden to the EC, but a neutral administrative cost. The models will have the
capability to provide better information on exceedances and population exposure, but will also
increase the level of information, and therefore the reporting from the MS to the EC can increase,
increasing the burden. On the other hand, the better information will make it easier for the EC to
guide the MS and therefore the cost is estimated to be neutral. The administrative cost and burden
for the MS will increase, due to additional cost to modelling and reporting.
AQdirect and AQindirect: The recommendation will not directly lead to an improvement/change in
air quality, but it has a potential for a high indirect improvement in AQ if the information is used by
decision makers for management and regulation.
Information, management and regulation: Using models to provide mapping of the exceedances
and exposure will be a powerful tool for decision makers for management and regulation, and will
provide much better information.
Equity and Coherence: A clarification of the AQD text where it is mandatory to use models to
establish the extent of exceedances and establish population exposure will have a very positive
impact on equity giving the same standards across all MS, and it will give the possibility to account
for regional differences. It will also have a positive impact on coherence with respect to the
overarching objectives of EU policy and trade-offs. A full assessment of AQ using both model
results and measurements will provide a much better foundation for decision making across the
economic, social, and environmental domain.
2. Forecasting air quality levels for short term mitigation and public information
and warnings
Admin Cost and Admin Burden: The use of models to the applications in 2, will give an neutral
administrative burden and cost to the EC. For the MS, which have not already established an
operational forecast system, the recommendation can lead to a significantly increased
administrative cost in establishing the forecast systems, but a neutral to a small increased burden
after the forecast system has been established.
AQdirect and AQ indirect: Operational air quality forecasts will have the potential to result in both
a direct improvement in air quality, since the information can lead to a change in the populations
transport behaviour, and an indirect improvement if the information is used by decision makers for
day-to-day management and long-term regulation. It can also increase the population’s
comprehension of the air quality situation and increase the pressure on decision makers to act.
Information, management and regulation: Using models for forecasting will be a powerful tool for
decision makers for the day-to-day management and will also have the potential to have a positive
9
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
impact on the regulation of emission sectors, since forecasts can be used to explain the possible
reasons for any exceedances of limit values due. It will provide much better information both to the
public and to decision makers.
Equity and Coherence: A clarification of the AQD text where it is mandatory to use models for
forecasting will have a very positive impact on equity, since MS will have similar and comparable
information on a day-to-day basis. It will also have a positive impact on coherence with respect to
the overarching objectives of EU policy and trade-offs. Forecasting AQ using model will provide a
much better foundation for decision making across the economic, social, and environmental
domain.
3. Source allocation to determine the origin of exceedances and to provide a
knowledge basis for planning strategies
Admin Cost and Admin Burden: The use of models to source allocations, will give an increased
administrative burden to the EC, but a neutral administrative cost. The models will have the
capability to provide direct answers to decision makers, but also more information and therefore the
reporting from the MS to the EC can increase, increasing the burden. On the other hand, a better
knowledge basis for planning strategies will make it easier for the EC to guide the MS and therefore
the cost is estimated to be neutral. The administrative cost and burden for the MS will increase, due
to additional cost to modelling and reporting.
AQdirect and AQindirect: Source allocation to determine the origin of exceedances and to provide
a knowledge basis for planning strategies will have a potential for a strong both direct and indirect
positive improvement in AQ.
Information, management and regulation: Using models for source allocation will be a powerful
tool for decision makers for the day-to-day management and on the regulation of emission sectors.
It will provide much better information both to the public and to decision makers, and will make it
easier for decision makers to obtain acceptance in the population for regulation of specific emission
sectors.
Equity and Coherence: A clarification of the AQD text where it is mandatory to use models for
source allocation will have a very positive impact on equity, since MS will have similar and
comparable foundation for management and regulation. It will also have a strong positive impact on
coherence with respect to the overarching objectives of EU policy and trade-offs. Source allocation
using model will provide a much better foundation for decision making across the economic, social,
and environmental domain.
4. Development and assessment of plans and measures to control AQ
exceedances
Admin Cost and Admin Burden: The use of models to the development and assessment of plans
and measures to control AQ exceedances, will give a neutral administrative burden and cost – both
to the EC and MS. The same work has to be carried out as before, but on a much better foundation
and on a much higher degree of information.
AQdirect and AQindirect: The use of models will have a strong positive impact on both the direct
and indirect improvement of air quality.
10
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Information, management and regulation: Using models to the development and assessment of
plans and measures will have a strong positive impact on taking the right decisions – both on short-
and long-term. It will provide much better information both to the public and to decision makers, and
will make it easier for decision makers to obtain acceptance in the population for regulation of
specific emission sectors.
Equity and Coherence: A clarification of the AQD text where it is mandatory to use models for the
development and assessment of plans and measures to control AQ exceedances,will have a very
positive impact on equity, since MS will have similar and comparable foundation for management
and regulation. It will also have a strong positive impact on coherence with respect to the
overarching objectives of EU policy and trade-offs. Using model will provide a much better
foundation for decision making across the economic, social, and environmental domain.
Designing monitoring networks when models are used in combination with monitoring
Determining the number of fixed monitoring sites that are required
Admin Cost and Admin Burden: The use of models to design monitoring networks when models
are used in combination with monitoring and use models for determining the number of fixed
monitoring sites that are required has a neutral impact on the EC cost and burden. However, it has
a potential for significant positive impacts on the MS administrative cost and burden, since there is
a great potential for reducing the number of measurement stations and at the same time increasing
the information level to the MS’s when models are used in combination with monitoring. However,
there is also a risk, that more fixed monitoring sites are needed and therefore increasing the cost.
AQdirect and AQindirect: The use of models will have a neutral direct impact on AQ direct but a
strong positive impact on indirect improvement of air quality, due to more and more precise
combined monitoring data, which will give a better basis for decision making.
Information, management and regulation: Using models and monitoring combined for integrated
monitoring, will have a strong positive impact on taking the right decisions – both on short- and
long-term. It will provide much better information both to the public and to decision makers of the
state of the environment based on combined monitoring data, and will make it easier for decision
makers to obtain acceptance in the population for initiating plans and measures. However, if
combined data will only be used for designing the network and determine the number of fixed
stations, it will have a neutral impact on regulation.
Equity and Coherence: Designing networks using models will have a strong positive impact on
equity, since every MS will have the same tools for addressing monitoring and AQ challenges. It will
also have a neutral impact on coherence with respect to the overarching objectives of EU policy
and trade-offs.
FAIRMODE recommends a revision of the data quality objective for modelling
Admin Cost and Admin Burden: The revision of the data quality objective for modelling will
induce an increased cost and burden for both the EC and MS.
AQdirect and AQindirect: A revision of the da quality objective for modelling will have a neutral
impact on AQ directly, but has a potential to have a strong positive indirect impact on AQ, due to
improved models and therefore improved foundation for decision making.
11
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Information, management and regulation: A revision of the data quality objective for
modellingwill have the potential for improved models and therefore also improved information,
management and regulation.
Equity and Coherence: A strong positive impact on equity is foreseen, since equal data quality
objectives applicable for all MS’s will increase equity. It will also have a positive impact on
coherence. Using models with known quality objectives will provide a much better foundation for
decision making across the economic, social, and environmental domain.
3. FORUM OF EU AQ REGULATORY MODELLING
Recommendation: FAIRMODE recommends that in parallel to what has already been established
for the monitoring of air quality, competent authorities for modeling activities are nominated by the
Member States(ref Article (3) and bullet d) quality assurance of modelling)
4. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONSISTENCY OF EMISSION INVENTORIES
Recommendation: FAIRMODE recommends to investigate and improve the compilation,
consistency and quality assurance of emissions data suitable for AQ modeling under the directive
General conclusions from the discussions
Admin Cost and Admin Burden: The administrative cost and burden for the EC is believed to be
small or neutral. The administrative cost and burden will in general be significant for the MS,
depending on whether the MS already are using models or not. There is a considerable difference
between the cost and burden for MS’s that already are using models or have national model groups
that are available and the MS’s which have no history in using models. However, once the
modelling groups are established, the burden and costs are equal throughout the MS’s. The main
challenge is not in developing the models, since there are many high quality and available models
in Europe that can be achieved. The main cost and challenge lies within the competence building in
the MS’s that not already have national expertise in the field. On the other hand, there is a potential
for saving costs on the monitoring networks, when models are used together with measurements in
integrated monitoring.
Equity: there can be a negative impact on equity due to differences in models used in the different
MS. The differences in models must be dealt with in the quality assurance or minimum standards
that the models should fulfil. However, just the fact that models are used in all MS for better
assessments, forecasting, management and regulation of AQ has a very strong positive impact on
equity.
12
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
3 Defining the framework for the FAIRMODE cost assessment
In the following, the framework for the cost assessment is defined. The methodology for the cost
assessment is given in Hasler et al., (2013).
First of all, the cost assessment is based on the assignment in which it is assumed that the
FAIRMODE recommendations and the use of models are made mandatory in the directives. It is
important to recognize that this is a working assumption for analytical purposes and not equivalent
to the background of the FAIRMODE recommendations as they are formulated at present, but this
is a necessary condition and assumption in order to carry out a cost assessment. If there is not a
mandatory requirement for the use of models, this is similar to the present situation in the present
AQD. The question to be answered is: what would be the resource implications if the MS enacted
the recommendations emerging from the FAIRMODE forum?
The overall purpose of the cost assessment is that requirements within the member states are
assessed with respect to cost, resources and burden implications for each of the recommendations.
However, all the FAIRMODE recommendations require first of all the establishment of modelling
expertise, models and emission databases. It can be very difficult to distinguish the cost of one
recommendation from another and from the baseline costs, since they are all interconnected and all
require the same basic expertise and databases. Therefore, an assessment of cost and burden is
primarily made of the basic requirement (the baseline) for a member state authority, which does not
already use models as a part of decision making support. On top of that, the cost assessment is
made for the individual recommendations, when possible.
When issuing the member state information request (described below), it was not anticipated that
all member states would actually respond. Firstly, the survey itself was rather complicated, requiring
experts and managing staff in the field to respond. Secondly, the response period was rather short,
but necessary due to the tight time schedule. Therefore, an additional approach was also taken. A
top-down approach was initiated, where the baseline was established for Denmark as the reference
country and the results for Denmark was calibrated to all the member states with respect to salary
levels in each member states.
The cost analysis is therefore based on both the bottom-up approach represented by the output of
the information request from the member states and the top-down approach where expert
estimates for Denmark are calibrated to each member state.
In order to fulfil the FAIRMODE recommendations, the following activities and resources are
needed to establish the necessary capabilities:
1. Competence building in the area of atmospheric science with focus on atmospheric modelling
and air quality modelling at regional, urban background and urban street scales.
2. Competence building in the area of high resolution emission databases
3. The atmospheric models have to be acquired/developed – both on regional scale and on urban
background and urban street scales.
4. Computer facilities for running high-resolution models
5. Operational cost, including overhead
In overall terms, the key questions for the cost assessment are as follows:
13
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Is there a need for additional staff, or staff time?
Is there a need for staff capacity development?
Is there a need for additional equipment?
Is there a need for new data generation/compilation?
Is there a requirement for additional reporting?
3.1 Challenges in establishing a cost assessment of implementing the FAIRMODE
recommendations in the revised AQD
The fundamental challenge of implementing the FAIRMODE recommendation into the revised
directive is that the recommendations are not presently in a form where they can be included
directly in the directive. They are recommendations and not precisely defined mandatory obligations
or measures. The recommendations could never point out what is needed in every member state
and could only generically address the issue. Even with a more specific approach it would be left to
member states to interpret what is needed and Interpretations of the recommendations could not be
eliminated. The listing of the fundamental needs to start from scratch a modelling activity is a good
approach on which every other state can build on depending on what is there and what is not. It
cannot be demanded to recommendations specifications which are out of their scopes and of the
legislation. Recommendations are not implementation rules. It should be emphasized that the focus
of this assessment is not a critical analysis of the recommendation but rather the resources
required to implement them.
Therefore any cost assessment will be based on individual interpretations of what is needed to fulfill
the recommendations in each member state. The assignment in this work was to ask the member
states for the cost related to implementing the full FAIRMODE recommendations.
The main uncertainties related to a cost estimate of the present formulation of the
recommendations are:
It is not mentioned in the recommendations at what scales models should be applied. E.g., are
the member stated required to run both regional models, urban background models, and urban
street models, in order to take into account the contributions from all these scales or can less do
The minimum requirements for chemical species included in the models are not mentioned –
e.g. is it required to model the full range of secondary organic aerosols, some harmful VOCs,
ultrafine particles and even particle number concentrations in the cities, or is it sufficient to
model ozone, nitrogen-dioxides, and some secondary inorganic aerosols?
The required quality, resolution, number of species and SNAP category sub-level of the
emission data are not addressed
The required quality of the model results at different scales is not mentioned.
In this work, we have assumed that state-of-the-art atmospheric modelling is a requirement. This
means that all scales (regional, urban background, urban street) should be covered and that the
chemical species presently included in state-of-the-art modelling are required, but not more than
that. We have also assumed that emission databases with a 1 km x 1 km resolution are needed.
They should at least be divided into the ten overall SNAP categories, and preferable some sub-
level categories as well (e.g. sub-division of SNAP category 8 – other mobile sources, or 2, non-
industrial combustion), while others are more well defined in the main SNAP (e.g. SNAP category
1, the major power plants).
We also assumed that atmospheric modelling at all scales (regional, urban background and urban
street) is a requirement, since it is not possible to take into account the effect of non-linear
14
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
atmospheric chemistry in e.g. cities, if the boundary conditions are not well described. We assumed
that member states need to run all scales to be able to e.g. produce assessments at all scales
within the countries – both in rural and urban areas. Furthermore, it is not obvious whether the
assessment of point sources should also be included in the requirements when producing e.g.
assessments and source allocations.
It is, of course, mentioned in the FAIRMODE recommendations that quality objectives should be
formulated for both models and emissions, but the resources needed to develop the models or
emission databases are very dependent on the quality required. E.g., is it required that all modeled
concentrations should compare with measurements at a +/- 30% level? And is that a requirement
for annual values or hourly values and at all scales, or should the requirements for the urban street
scale be different from the others, e.g. +/- 10%?
Likewise, in order to set up a precise baseline for how large a modeling group is needed in each
member state, it is necessary to make a interpretation as to the minimum-level scope of modelling
activities that would meet the recommendations. Are only a few persons needed to run regional
models to cover the basic chemical species and run them at a resolution, which can be decided by
the individual member state? – or is a very large modeling group needed, in order to be able to
model full mass closure of particle mass, where e.g. the speciation of the particles are fully
understood?
These questions call for an interpretation. Therefore, the minimum requirements must be defined
for building up a modeling group in countries, which presently do not apply modeling.
Discussions at the partner workshop in Denmark estimated the “baseline” to include 2 senior
scientists to cover regional modeling, 2 senior scientists to cover urban background and urban
street modeling and 1 junior staff member to run operational forecasts and take care of equipment,
e.g. Linux computers etc. Furthermore, it was estimated that one additional senior staff member is
needed to make gridded emissions at high resolution. All the member states already have the
obligation to report emissions at the national level and gridded emissions at a 50 km x 50 km
resolution every 5 years, according to the Conventions. Therefore, it was decided that just one
additional staff member is needed to produce high-resolution gridded emission data bases.
In this basic modeling group, we have not included a person to do point source calculations, since
this matter has not previously been a part of the EU directives. On the other hand, one can argue,
that the FAIRMODE recommendations are of such general nature that this kind of models and
calculations should also be included.
The number of senior scientists is also estimated from the fact that several persons are needed in
order to further develop the models or to ensure a living research environment. Additionally, it can
be argued that in order to ensure a living research environment, a PhD program is also needed with
at least one active PhD student at all time. The task of air pollution assessment or source allocation
is tightly linked with research, since there are still many open questions in this research area, e.g.
obtaining mass closure for particles for assessing concentration levels of PM2.5. On the other hand,
it is impossible to require in an AQD that member states all have a living research environment in
order to ensure high quality decision support.
If a member state already has a larger modeling group including all skills and scales, one could
argue, that the added cost would include one person dedicated at fulfilling the FAIRMODE
recommendations and one person dedicated at making high resolution gridded emissions, based
on what is already reported according to present obligations
15
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
In other member states which do not have a modeling community already, the main challenge is the
competence building with respect to atmospheric modeling, and the challenge of producing
emission inventories with a sufficiently high resolution and quality.
After many discussions we concluded, however, that the necessary minimum costs are actually the
same for all member states no matter their current level of development within atmospheric
modelling. Hence, in MS where the required modeling group is already in place, implementing the
recommendations will still be associated with costs due to the fact that the resources demanded for
implementation of FAIRMODE will be drawn from other uses. It is only a question of timing – i.e. the
time when the modelling groups in each country are ready to fulfill the recommendations. The main
challenge in all member states is an issue of competences. For all countries, the minimum
requirements are the competences of scientists at the senior level within the following four areas:
1. Regional scale modelling
2. Urban background modelling
3. Urban street modelling
4. High-resolution emissions
As the competences of one scientist seldom cover all aspects at the same time, the minimum
number of staff members needed is the same as the number of overall competences needed,
namely four. Furthermore, as the FAIRMODE recommendations do not specify e.g. the number of
assessments on an annual basis or the number of reports needed to make source allocations, the
required number of staff members has been set to this minimum. Therefore, we assume in the
following that the baseline cost for all member states are the cost of the above competences, as
well as equipment (in this case computers), operational expenses (as travelling) and overhead cost
to cover housing, management and secretaries, etc.
All the modelling groups need models. Well established modelling groups already have state-of-the-
art models, used on an operational basis as well as a part of the research goals in the groups. It is
of vital importance that the scientists have participated in the development of the models they use,
since only in this way, the scientists are aware of the models’ limitations and strengths. Therefore, it
does not make sense to introduce a community model that all modelling groups are required to use.
The key question is not the quality of the model but of the modeler using the model for obtaining
high quality decision support.
For countries not already including modelling groups, the key question is the competence building.
We have not included a cost assessment of acquiring the models, since it is possible to acquire
state-of-the-art models for free. For example, establishing a new modelling group would require
engagement of PhD students in all three modelling scales. These PhD students would be able to
work abroad as a part of their study visiting one of the well-established modelling groups in Europe
and they will be able to bring home the models they have been working on as part of their PhD
study. Models can also be acquired for free on the internet and therefore, we have set the cost for
models to zero.
When running atmospheric models, meteorological data are needed. In the following we assume
that meteorological data are freely available from the national weather services in each member
state. This is not always the case.
In the following the methodology and assumptions for the cost analysis based on both the bottom-
up approach and the top-down approach are discussed. Chapter 4 presents results.
16
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
3.2 The bottom-up approach: Information Request for each option and sub-
recommendation
In the period December 2012 - January 2013 an information request was established and sent to
the member states as a basis for the bottom-up approach. In Hasler et al., (2013), the common
setup of the member state information requests for FAIRMODE, AQUILA and SEG is described.
The specific information request formulation for FAIRMODE is reproduced in the subsequent
section.
The following pages until Section 3.3 is a reproduction of the main material in the information
request: the introduction presenting the background, and the main content of the questions posed.
The detailed questions on cost categories etc. are not reproduced here.
The information request required a slight reduction in the volume of the background text provided in
the FAIRMODE recommendations. However, a link to the full document was included, so those not
acquainted with the recommendations could read the full document. The information request had
the following content:
3.2.1 FAIRMODE Information Request for Each Option and Sub-Recommendations
This Information Request concerns a cost assessment of the recommendations from FAIRMODE
(The Forum for Air quality Modelling in Europe), which is a joint response action of the the
European Environment Agency (EEA) and the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC)
(see also: http://fairmode.ew.eea.europa.eu/). Its aim is to bring together air quality modellers and
users in order to promote and support the harmonised use of air quality (AQ) models by EU
member countries, with emphasis on their application to the European Air Quality Directive.
FAIRMODE has formulated a set of recommendations, which we ask you to assess in the following.
In overall terms, FAIRMODE strongly recommends the use of models for:
1. assessment of air quality levels to establish the extent of exceedances and establish population
exposure,
2. forecasting air quality levels for short term mitigation and public information and warnings,
3. source allocation to determine the origin of exceedances and to provide a knowledge basis for
planning strategies,
4. development and assessment of plans and measures to control AQ exceedances,
5. designing monitoring networks when models are used in combination with monitoring, and
6. determining the number of fixed monitoring sites that are required
Besides the above items, FAIRMODE recommends
1. a revision of the data quality objective for modelling.
2. that competent authorities for modelling activities are nominated by the Member States.
FAIRMODE will act as coordination forum for modelling, and
3. to investigate and improve the compilation, consistency and quality assurance of emissions
data suitable for AQ modelling under the directive.
For each Member State (MS) to meet the recommendations made by FAIRMODE, the MS needs to
fulfil a minimum standard within atmospheric modelling activities at all scales (regional, urban
background and urban street) as well as the possibility to assess strong point sources.
17
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Furthermore, appropriate emission databases have to be developed and maintained and the
competent authority set up by the MS within modelling and emissions have to be operational in the
sense that they can support decision making within a sufficiently short time scale. In that sense the
competent authority for modelling and emissions need resources both for competence building,
model development, and building emission databases and for being able to respond operationally
within a short time frame to requests from decision makers within the MS.
Since, some MS already have competent authorities for modelling and emissions and some does
not, there will be large differences between the MS with respect to how much is required and the
need for building up the appropriate competences. We envisage that for many MS there will be two
phases in the process:
1. a build-up phase, where the competences within modelling and emissions are educated (e.g.
via PhD degrees in modelling or emissions including mobility exchange to already existing
modelling groups in Europe) as well as building up the necessary infrastructure (office and
computer facilities as well as collaboration agreements with universities and international
collaboration with respect to further education and research. As some MS already have the
appropriate competences, the build-up phase is not necessarily relevant for them.
2. an operational phase, where the competent authorities within modelling and emissions are
responsive with respect to the decision support e.g. for the MS EPA’s and operational in fulfilling
the FAIRMODE recommendations.
The following questionnaire is divided into the two phases listed above.
Firstly an assessment of the build-up phase for understanding the current baseline for your
member state, and
Secondly an assessments of the operational phase for compliance with the individual
FAIRMODE recommendations.
3.2.2 Understanding the current baseline for modelling practise for your Member State.
The first part of the questionnaire concerns an assessment of the build-up phase for understanding
the current baseline for your member state
As a working hypothesis for the minimum set of standards to be met by the MS e.g. concerning
quality and resolution of models, quality and resolution of emission data, as well as response times
for supporting decision making, we are in the following suggesting a set of minimum requirements
for a competent authority for modelling and emissions. This set of minimum requirements should be
interpreted as the minimum resources needed for developing and maintaining AQ models and
emission databases. We envisage that the following is needed to build up to meet the FAIRMODE
recommendations for building up competences, and modelling/emission groups within each MS
Description of issue: Competence building in the area of atmospheric science with focus on
atmospheric modelling and air quality modelling. Further development of models at regional,
urban background and street scale as well as strong point sources for national use. The
estimated minimum resources needed:
- Additional staff or staff time: 3-5 full time senior staff within atmospheric modelling
- Staff capacity development: PhD education of 3-5 persons within atmospheric modelling,
including mobility exchange to established modelling groups in Europe
- Additional equipment: 3-5 normal PCs
Does your Member State current conform to the standards or practices specified in the
minimum requirements listed above?
18
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Description of issue: Competence building in the area of building high resolution emission
databases within the ten major emission categories (SNAP categories). The minimum
resources needed:
- Additional staff or staff time: 3-5 senior + 2 junior staff (including one database expert and
one GIS expert) full time staff
- Staff capacity development: education in e.g. geography, databases, GIS
- Additional equipment: 5-7 state-of-the-art PCs. Database software, GIS software.
- New data generation/compilation: Generation of national databases for the ten major SNAP
categories, e.g. traffic, power sector, agriculture, industry, etc.
- Additional reporting: Annual reporting of emissions
Does your Member State current conform to the standards or practices specified in the minimum
requirements listed above?
Description of issue: Further development or acquisition of atmospheric models – both on
regional scale, urban background and urban street scales as well as a model capable of
handling strong point sources.. The minimum resources needed:
- Additional software: Models can be downloaded freely, or acquired for a smaller amount.
Alternatively, existing models have to be further developed in 1) to comply with the
FAIRMODE recommendations.
- Additional staff or staff time: 1 junior staff for technical implementation and maintenance of
models and computer facility.
- Additional data needed: high-resolution meteorological data with 1-hour time resolution as
input to AQ models e.g. provided by the national met office.
- Additional reporting: Annual reporting including annual evaluation of models
Does your Member State current conform to the standards or practices specified in the minimum
requirements listed above?
Description of issue: Computer facilities for running high-resolution models. The resources
needed:
- Additional equipment: 2-4 powerful 8-48 core computers, depending on required model
resolution.
- Running costs: housing, power and cooling for the computers
Does your Member State current conform to the standards or practices specified in the minimum
requirements listed above?
Description of issue: Operational/running costs: The resources needed:
- Additional administration: 1 half time economic officer, 1 half time staff leader
- Accommodation: Office space for 10-15 personnel
- Other: Travelling, mobility for scientists for longer periods (up to 6 months), attendance to
conferences.
- Operational costs for maintaining readiness for the staff’s ability for decision making support
- Running costs for maintaining an operational forecast system.
Does your Member State current conform to the standards or practices specified in the minimum
requirements listed above?
19
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
3.2.3 Cost assessment of the individual FAIRMODE recommendations.
The second part of the questionnaire concerns a cost assessment of the individual FAIRMODE
recommendations.
We here assume that you already went through the build-up phase explained in the previous
section, in the sense that a competent authority for modelling and emissions exists in your member
state. Therefore, the cost assessment here should be carried out on the basis that your member
state already comply with the minimum requirements for building up the modelling and emission
capacities in phase one.
We would like to know according to your judgement, to which extent your member state already
comply with the specific recommendations and what additional staff, competence building,
equipment, facilities, operating/maintenance cost, new data generation, reporting and
administration are needed to conform to the standards or practices specified in the specific
recommendations.
Option 1: ON THE USE OF MODELS FOR REGULATORY PURPOSE AND TO SUPPORT AIR
QUALITY POLICY
Description of issue: Models are widely used for the investigation and assessment of ambient air
quality at various spatial and temporal scales. In situ monitoring data is by its nature only a small
sample of the spatial distribution of air pollutant concentrations. Air pollution models can be used to
provide an assessment in areas where monitoring data are not available and thus, in combination
with monitoring data, provide a more complete assessment of the current air quality situation.
Models can also be essential for the development and assessment of the effectiveness of air quality
plans including measures to improve air quality. One of the major advantages of models is their
potential to provide detailed spatial distributions of air pollutant concentrations. This means they
can be applied for area-wide exposure assessments for human health and for the environment. An
application of models allows a much broader assessment of the extent of exceedances of air quality
environmental objectives and can also provide information required for improved measurement
network design. Furthermore, models can be used for short term forecasting of air quality as well as
emission scenarios for management and regulation of sources.
Recommendation 1(a): Use AQ models for assessment of air quality levels to establish the extent
of exceedances and establish population exposure
Recommendation 1(b): Use AQ models for forecasting air quality levels for short term mitigation
and public information and warnings
Recommendation 1(c): Use AQ models for source allocation to determine the origin of
exceedances and to provide a knowledge basis for planning strategies
Recommendation 1(d): Use AQ models for development and assessment of plans and measures
to control AQ exceedances
Recommendation 1(e): Use AQ models for designing monitoring networks when models are used
in combination with monitoring
Recommendation 1(f): Use AQ models for determining the number of fixed monitoring sites that
are required
20
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Option 2: MODEL QUALITY OBJECTIVES (MQO)
Description of issue: Data quality objective for modelling (MQO) are mentioned in the 2008 Air
Quality Directive, Annex I, but the wording of the text remains ambiguous and open to
interpretation. FAIRMODE is proposing to develop new data quality objectives for modelling for
ambient air quality assessment, in collaboration with the Member States. This type of objectives is
expected to be useful as basis to investigate MQO for the other model applications. Furthermore,
FAIRMODE proposes that subsequent the work of FAIRMODE the European Commission initiates
a process for the preparation of a Guidance document on the revision of model quality objectives
for assessment.
Recommendation 2(a): FAIRMODE recommends a revision of the data quality objective for
modelling.
Option 3: FORUM OF EU AQ REGULATORY MODELLING
Description of issue: FAIRMODE recommends that in parallel to what has already been
established for the monitoring of air quality, competent authorities for modelling activities are
nominated by the Member States. FAIRMODE will act as coordination forum for modelling and
support the competent authorities in activities that are recognised as very relevant for the for model
applications listed in Recommendation #1 and within an extended list of supporting motivations,
including model evaluation, combine use of model and monitoring data, source apportionment
modelling, and monitoring station characterisation.
Recommendation 3(a): FAIRMODE recommends that in parallel to what has already been
established for the monitoring of air quality, competent authorities for modelling activities are
nominated by the Member States (ref Article (3) and bullet d) quality assurance of modelling)
Option 4: QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONSISTENCY OF EMISSION INVENTORIES
Description of issue: Air quality emissions inventories (EIs) have been compiled at European level
for regulatory purposes and also to support air quality modelling applications for the assessment
and improvement of air quality. Emission information is essential in support for AQ planning under
the AQ directive because it provides the link between responsible emission sources, their relative
shares and abatement potentials. FAIRMODE proposes that 1) Emissions are not mentioned in the
AQD and the need to work to increase the quality of emission inputs needs to be introduced in the
revised text. 2) Promote guidance initiatives for the compilations of emission data for AQ models
under the directive, and 3) Support competence building initiatives to secure the consistency of
detailed bottom-up emission inventories with those compiled for regulatory purposes at local,
national and European scale.
Recommendation 4(a): FAIRMODE recommends to investigate and improve the compilation,
consistency and quality assurance of emissions data suitable for AQ modelling under the directive.
3.3 The top-down approach: expert estimates calibrated to each member state.
As argued in section 3.1, the basic requirement for all member states to fulfil the FAIRMODE
recommendations is the competences of four different staff member. Furthermore, we have
concluded that by virtue of this basic group, the staff is able to fulfil the recommendations to a
certain extent, depending on the amount of assessment or reporting needed. For countries already
having well-established modelling groups, it is our experience in Denmark that the four persons can
easily be occupied by the work suggested in the FAIRMODE recommendations and therefore the
additional cost equals the cost of the baseline. For member states, which do not already have a
21
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
modelling group, but have to build it up from scratch, the requirements are the same. If the
expertise is not available already in the member state, at least a four year period is needed for
starting up the modelling group, engaging and finishing at least three PhD students covering the
three different modelling scales. After this four year period, it is assumed that these modelling
groups are operational and able to fulfil the FAIRMODE recommendations to the same extent as
the well-established modelling groups.
The top-down approach is based on experiences in Denmark, which includes a well-established
modelling group with a long history. The modelling group includes around 10 senior scientists,
working with research, development and application of models at regional, urban background and
urban street scales as well as point sources for regulation. Furthermore, the group includes typical
up to around 5 PhD students working with special challenges and scientific questions related to air
pollution modelling at all scales. The modelling group has a long expertise in decision support to the
Danish authorities, including ministries, the Danish EPA and municipalities, as well as private
industries and international authorities. Besides that, Denmark has an emission group of around 10
staff members, working primarily with fulfilling the obligations of conventions with respect to climate
and air pollution. Some of this staff is working on high-resolution emission data bases at a
resolution of 1 km x 1 km in Denmark, which is used as input to the models and supporting the
decision support. These two groups are both a part of Department of Environmental Science
(ENVS), Aarhus University (AU). Furthermore, ENVS are responsible for the Danish monitoring
programme related to air pollution, which generates a living research environment where
monitoring, atmospheric modelling, research, education and decision support to authorities and
private industries go hand in hand.
In the following we define the cost assessment for the baseline for Denmark, which is used to
calibrate all other member states in the top-down approach, while applying different tariffs within the
individual countries. As mentioned, we assume that at least four people with four different
competences are needed to fulfil the FAIRMODE recommendations. The cost estimates are given
in Table 3.1.
22
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Table 3.1 The annual baseline cost in Denmark for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations, assuming
three senior scientists in atmospheric modelling and one senior staff working on high-resolution
emissions.
Cost category Modelling part
[Euros]
Emission part
[Euros]
Comment
Senior staff 239200 79733 4 persons in total1
Junior staff Support is included in OH
Equipment, PC's 4500 1500 4 normal PC’s, lifetime 3 years2
Licenses 2000 1000 Databases, compilers, GIS and
visualisation software3
Computer servers 30000 3 servers, life time 3 years4
Operational expenses, travelling 4500 1500 4 travels annually5
Training, competence building 2000 667 Basic training, courses6
Sum 282200 84400
OH, administration 70550 21100 25% Overhead (OH)7
Total Euros (annually) 458250
Typical tariffs for staff members at research institutes in Denmark are assumed in this baseline. An
overhead of 25% is assumed according to the EU standard cost model. In Denmark, however, an
overhead rate of 116% is used. All figures in Euros. Extended comments to the individual costs are
given below.
1 The general assumption is that in order to fulfill the FAIRMODE recommendations, 3 additional modelling senior scientists and
1 emission senior staff member are needed. It is assumed that all atmospheric models can be obtained for free - if they are
not already available. The cost is given without overhead, which is added in the bottom of the table. 2 One normal PC per staff member. One PC has the cost of around 1500 Euros and has a life time of around three years
3 Licenses are needed for software for the PCs and computer servers - GIS software, database software, Fortran and C
compilers, visualization tools for visualizing model results 4 At least 3 fast computer servers for model calculations are needed. One server is needed for making operational forecasts and
2 servers are needed for assessment and source allocation modelling, etc. The price for one server has been estimated to
10000 euros, for which a powerful server can be acquired, including at least 48 cores. 5 Travelling is assumed for participating in meetings related to FAIRMODE. The cost is estimated to 1500 Euros per travel, 4
travels in total per year. This cost does not include participation in conferences, etc. but does only cover participation in
FAIRMODE meeting for e.g. quality objectives and the modelling forum. 6 Annual cost for training of staff member - at ENVS we have a budget of around 667 euros per staff member per year on
average. 7 An overhead of 25% is assumed according to the EU cost model. The overhead is assumed to cover housing, management,
secretary, etc. The assumed overhead of 25% is considerably lower than the overhead of 116% normally used in
Denmark.
23
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Table 3.2: The baseline cost in Table 3.1 distributed across the 5 baseline categories (B1-B5) as defined
in the information request, see section 3.3
Modelling Emissions Models Computing OH
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5
Equipment 4500 1500
30000
Facilities
45825
Operation 4500 1500
Maintenance
Data Generation
Data Compilation 2000 1000
Reporting
Administration
45825
Additional Staff Costs 239200 79733 0
Staff Capacity Development 2000 667
SUM 252200 84400 0 30000 91650
Total of the above 458250
In Table 3.3 the figures in Table 3.1 and 3.2 are attempted distributed over the individual
FAIRMODE recommendations (options). In this context it is extremely important to note that the
costs listed in Tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 cannot be added; hence, the tables basically display three
different ways of distributing the same total costs across more specific activities. The distribution
within recommendations 1a-1f is subject to uncertainty, since it is very difficult to distinguish the
cost in the individual recommendations from each other. All the options require the above
mentioned competences, and computers. The distribution is chosen according to experiences in
Denmark for solving the different tasks within the recommendations 1a-1f. The working hours in
recommendation 2 are estimated time used for participating in defining data quality objective for
modelling (MQO). The recommendation 3 and 4 includes travelling to meetings with respect to the
FAIRMODE forum and for quality assurance and consistency of emission inventories. Computers
and software licenses are distributed evenly over recommendation 1, except for recommendation
1b, which requires one computer server allocated full time for producing operational air pollution
forecasts. All staff cost are given in hours - all other numbers in Euros. The number of hours
includes 4 people full time in total, assuming 1300 working hours per year. Overhead cost is not
included in this table.
24
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Table 3.3 The baseline cost in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 distributed in the FAIRMODE recommendations
(options). There is no overhead cost in this table - all figures are without OH, which should be added
Option 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 2 3 4
Equipment (Euros) 5200 10000 5200 5200 5200 5200
Facilities
Operation (Euros) 4500 1500
Maintenance
Data Generation
Data Compila-tion
(Euros)
500 500 500 500 500 500
Reporting
Administration
Additional Staff Costs
(hours)
600 500 1300 1300 500 300 200 300 200
Staff Capacity
Development (Euros)
444 444 444 444 444 444
Man-years 0.46 0.38 1.00 1.00 0.38 0.23 0.15 0.23 0.15
In all tables 3.1-3.3 above, the numbers add up to the same totals. We assume that the baseline
cost equals the additional cost for implementing FAIRMODE recommendations in all countries as
explained in the previous sections.
We assumed that facilities, maintenance and administration is a part of the overhead cost, which is
not added in table 3.3, since the calibration with other member states are made without overhead.
We assume that reporting is a part of the overall staff cost. There are no clear requirements given
by FAIRMODE on reporting.
No specific cost is assigned to data generation, since generation of data is covered by computer
cost and staff cost.
It is also assumed that meteorological forecast data and analysed data can be obtained freely e.g.
from national weather services.
All the cost for recommendations 1a-1f should be added as one option, since it is very difficult to
distinguish the cost under the individual sub-options - they are all connected.
We assume that the total requirements are equal to all countries - no matter whether they already
have an operational modelling expertise or not. It is a matter of timing - if the recommendations are
made mandatory, the countries, which do not already have operational modelling expertise, will
have to use the same resources to build up the expertise - e.g. over a 4 year period, but with the
same cost per year. The cost for training PhD student equals the cost of a senior scientist, when
the administrative cost to the university and cost to supervising, travelling, etc. are included.
25
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
4 Cost Assessment
In this chapter, results from the cost assessment are described, based on both the bottom-up and
top-down approaches. The bottom-up approach is based on data from the information request to
the member states carried out in December 2012 - January 2013. Results from the top-down
approach are based on expert estimates of minimum requirements for implementing the capability
and competences for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations. This expert estimate is adjusted
according to the EU standard cost model and subsequently calibrated to all member states with
respect to salary levels in the individual member states.
4.1 The bottom-up approach: Information request for each option and sub-
recommendation
4.1.1 Overview
There were responses to the information request concerning FAIRMODE from 17 countries. The
questions concerning quantitative cost estimates were filled in to some extent by 12 countries. No
countries except Denmark provided costs for all of the items. Table 4.1 provides a brief overview,
while Table 4.2 provides some further detail.
Table 4.1: List of countries which responded. It is indicated whether any quantitative data are supplied.
Country Quantitative data
Austria y
Belgium y
Croatia y
Czech Republic y
Denmark y
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary y
Ireland y
Italy y
Lithuania y
Netherlands y
Poland
Romania y
Sweden
UK
26
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Table 4.2 Overview of responses to the information request
27
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Overall, the results of the information request supply the following information
Some indications of costs for fulfilling the baseline requirements and for the recommendations.
However, the raw numbers which can be extracted from the questionnaires cannot be taken at
face value. This is discussed in more detail in subsequent sections.
Much useful qualitative, textual information.
Information as to which extent the countries fulfil the stipulated minimum requirements.
As a supplement to the information request case studies were conducted for three countries. For
these countries phone interviews were carried out in order to substantiate the information given in
the information request and to learn in greater detail what has motivated the responses. The
countries selected for the case study were Belgium, Croatia and Hungary. The information derived
from the case studies is used in the subsequent discussion. Summaries of the information obtained
in each case study are reproduced in Appendix B.
4.1.2 Introduction to results
The structure of the questions in the information request was as follows:
5 questions concerning the baseline requirements. The general question was: Does your
Member State currently conform to the standards or practices specified in the minimum
requirements listed above? Respondents were asked to clarify their response (thus providing
qualitative information) and to supply quantitative information on
- Current costs
- Change in costs in order to fulfil minimum requirements.
9 questions concerning the FAIRMODE recommendations (recommendations 1a-1f, 2, 3 and 4).
The general question was: Does your Member State currently conform to the standards or
practices specified in the recommendation listed above? Respondents were asked to clarify
their response (providing qualitative information) and to supply quantitative information on
- Current costs
- Change in costs in order to fulfill the recommendation.
In the process of analysing the incoming data, three items were generated for each question:
A graph representing the costs that can be derived from the responses.
A compilation of notes to interpret the values
A summary of the textual response to the question (“Please clarify your response”).
The graph is produced in accordance with the framework set up in Hasler et al. (2013).
Specifically, this implies that when the respondent has indicated labour costs in terms of staff time
the costs are calculated according to tariffs, whereas when a quantification is provided in monetary
terms (e.g. payment to a company for an outsourced service), the cost enters directly into the
graph.
The compilation of interpretative notes is necessary in order to understand what the graphs include.
E.g., if a respondent leaves a field intended for a cost blank, this will appear in the graph the same
way as a cost of zero. The notes serve to indicate whether zero should be interpreted as zero or as
missing. Also, a quantitative estimate may be partially filled in, so the apparent cost is an
incomplete representation of the total costs. Such interpretative notes have been assigned to each
question and each country, and were used in the analyses. The overview given in the next section
is a simplified version of the interpretative notes.
Examples of the items described above are presented in the following discussion, while a complete
collection of graphs and summary of textual responses can be found in appendices.
28
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Table 4.3 below shows a summary of all costs that were reported in the responses to the
information requests.
Table 4.3: Bottom-up approach. Total cost by baseline and recommendation.
4.1.3 Discussion of selected results
Subsequently, results are presented for some selected questions. The presentation has the form of
graphs with accompanying notes. In appendices there is similar information for all questions.
Appendix D presents graphs for all questions, while Appendix C presents summaries of textual
responses to each question.
The questions selected for discussion here are:
Baseline 1: Competence building – atmospheric science
Baseline 2: Competence building – high resolution emission data bases
Recommendation 1a: FAIRMODE recommends use of models for assessment of air quality
levels to establish the extent of exceedances and establish population exposure
Recommendation 2: Revise Model Quality Objectives
In addition, the results of groups of questions are presented in graphical form and accompanied by
notes. The following groups are considered:
Current costs pertaining to the sum of all 5 baseline questions
Total costs (current + required) pertaining to the sum of all 5 baseline questions
Current costs pertaining to the sum of all 9 recommendations
Total costs (current + required) pertaining to the sum of all 9 recommendations
Baseline 1: Competence building – atmospheric science
Baseline Cost Costs for the different options
MS Baseline 1 Baseline 2 Baseline 3 Baseline 4 Baseline 5 option1a option1b option1c option1d option1e option1f option2 option3 option 4 total cost
Denmark 188476 63159 0 11016 0 30288 27478 62295 62295 25715 16571 9145 18217 10645 525300
Belgium 815000 1325000 1285,22998 74000 1035000 0 0 0 0 3250285
Bulgaria 0
Czech Republic 518959 241773 95155 95284 83769 7638 27756 15821 989 0 353 0 0 1087498
Germany 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estonia 0
Ireland 254422 9460 263883
Greece 0
Spain 0
France 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Italy 5080000 1640000 1315000 1000000 2480000 220000 165000 210000 300000 255000 140000 30000 115000 12950000
Cyprus 0
Latvia 0
Lithuania 11636 7130 0 0 2200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20966
Luxembourg 0
Hungary 66422 138336 31957 14284 16421 53854 7486 5816 48615 0 0 11111 11111 0 405415
Malta 0
Netherlands 0 0 0 0 0 2810000 130000 0 0 0 0 1025000 3965000
Austria 441908 325527 3856 40352 0 16947 0 110161 0 0 938750
Poland 0
Portugal 0
Romania 75011 13064 25520 0 113595
Slovenia 0
Slovakia 0
Finland 0 0 0 0 0
Sw eden 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57117 0 57117
United Kingdom 0
Croatia 364291 632043 30106 1007478 216728 179951 133495 18952 57029 9000 9000 9000 0 2667073EU+1 7741113 4447980 1486566 2231438 3872270 3303930 352622 267885 489089 334715 280924 169256 116445 1150645 26244879
29
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Figure 4.1 Sum of current + required costs to fulfil the requirements indicated in the Baseline 1
question on Competence building – atmospheric science
For Baseline question 1 the quantitative information from Denmark, Czech Republic, Ireland, Italy
and Croatia can be considered complete, although it should be recognized that any such
information cannot be more than uncertain estimates.
For other countries which have supplied quantitative information some costs elements are missing.
For instance Belgium has an administrative structure with an interregional environmental agency
plus 3 regional agencies. Costs are estimated for current costs, but concerning costs to reach the
required baseline it is indicate that the information is incomplete: “Some of the regions indicated a
change in costs to conform to the baseline 1 standard but no further details of the costs could be
provided at the moment.”
The cost for Italy is strikingly high (5 million Euros). These are current costs, and Italy has no need
for additional costs in order to comply with the baseline requirements. The figure is accompanied by
the following clarification: “ENEA (National Agency) supports Ministry of the Environment in
developing and maintaining the Integrated Atmospheric Pollution National Model. ENEA has team
on atmospheric research with about 15 staff researchers, research fellowship and temporary
researcher. They regularly attend to international group (including Fairmode) and have links with
foreign research groups.”
Several countries state that they fulfil the requirements, but do not provide cost estimates for this
question. This is the case for Finland, France, Netherlands, Germany, Romania and UK.
The textual clarifications to the baseline 1 question are quite informative concerning the situation in
the countries. They are reproduced below. A complete collection of responses for all questions can
be found in Appendix C.
BASELINE 1: COMPETENCE BUILDING – ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE
Does your Member State currently conform to the standards or practices specified in the minimum
requirements listed above? Please clarify your response
Austria No. At the Austrian EPA there is currently no staff dedicated to modelling issues as there are no legal
requirements.
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
Total cost of baseline 1 - bottom-up approach
Total baseline costs
Capacity development
Additional staff
Reporting and administration
Data generation and compilation
Operation and maintenance
Equipment and facilities
30
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Belgium This competence building is available at the different regional environment administrations and the Belgian
interregional Environment Agency. Subcontractors (like e.g. the Flemish Institute for Technological
Research) are also playing an important role in air quality modelling in Belgium. Some of the Regions
indicate that competence in atmospheric modelling and air quality modelling will be further developed, but
additional efforts have to be made to achieve the specified minimum requirements. The following
calculation is an estimation of the existing annual costs of baseline 1. Some of the regions indicated a
change in costs to conform to the baseline 1 standard but no further details of the costs could be provided
at the moment.
Croatia Our member state conform to the specified standards when whole country is taken into the consideration
and expert employed in different institutions are accounted. However, a team of at least 5 scientists
working in the field of atmospheric modelling should be developed in one institute that will be able to work
together and develop competence in atmospheric modelling to provide data for reporting on national level,
planning and other MS obligations toward EU.
Finland Finland meets the requirements. There is a Air Quality modelling group that develops the atmospheric and
air quality models for different scales (local, urban, regional, global..) (~20 Research Scientists and PhD
students) in FMI. In addition, there is Air Quality expert service group that offers dispersion modeling
services for various customers (Cities, industry etc..) in Finland and abroad.
France yes definitively. At the national level a team of 12 people (more than half of them being senior scientists) is
entirely devoted to air pollution modelling research and expertise. This team belongs to INERIS and
participates to the national reference laboratory for air quality (LCSQA). It works for the Ministry in charge
of the Environment. At the local level, associations in charge of air quality monitoring develop skill and
competences in air pollution modelling as well. A staff of about 30 local experts works can be mobilized.
Note that INERIS develops research projects in the fields of AQ modelling and hosts a number of PHD
students. On the material point of view, it benefits from high performance computing resources.
Germany Practice in Germany is contracting consultants in most of the cases. Answers rely on assuming that
presumption made for this questionnaire is proper.
Hungary Not yet, there is only 1 full-time senior staff within atmospheric modelling, working with only one 10-year
old PC. Because of serious restrictions in the budget, there is no possibility to employ any more staff
persons and to purchase new computers at the moment.
Ireland No. Currently there is no capacity available for modelling. 2013 will see a full time fellowship devoted to
developing the specified criteria in CAFÉ with regard to modelling components of the Directive
Italy Yes, it does. ENEA (National Agency) support Ministry of the Environment in developing and maintaining
the Integrated Atmospheric Pollution National Model. ENEA has team on atmospheric research with about
15 staff researchers, research fellowship and temporary researcher. They regularly attend to international
group (including Fairmode) and have links with foreign research group
Netherlands Yes, the NL spends more than the 3-5 full time persons for atmospheric modelling under 1). Dutch
research institutes and Universities together employ a number of PhD in atmospheric modelling but not
specifically for national use. Since NL already uses modelling for reporting AQ data, we do not fill out the
baseline sheets for building capacity but only the sheets on maintenance of the modelling in sheets under
Options.
Poland It is not known on what basis was estimated the above minimum requirements. Each Member State has its
own approach to the problem of human resources. For example in CIEP (Chief Inspectorate of
Environmental Protection) modelling issues are carried out on behalf of the CIEP by external institutions.
One full-time employee of the doctoral title (responsible for modeling) is currently employed in CIEP.
Romania YES
Sweden Yes, the Swedish Meteorological & Hydrological Institute (SMHI) have significant competence with regard
to atmospheric & air quality modelling. This far exceeds the estimated minimum resources above. Other
institutes and consultants also have a good degree of competence in air quality modelling.
UK Modelling is already used for compliance reporting (alongside measurement data for assessment of extent
of exceedance), short term forecasting, source allocation, development of plans and measures, network
design and establishment of monitoring requirements. Its not clear how this data gathering exercise is
relevant to the FAIRMODE recommendations or the review of the Directive or where the estimates have
been produced from.
31
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Baseline 2: Competence building – high resolution emission data bases
Figure 4.2: Sum of current + required costs to fulfil the requirements indicated in the Baseline 2
question on Competence building – high resolution data bases.
The responses to the Baseline 2 question should be interpreted with care, because the competence
addressed in the questionnaire concerns high resolution emission data bases for modelling,
whereas countries already have an obligation to produce national inventories (low resolution data).
It can be difficult to distinguish between the two types of costs. Thus, only two countries – Denmark
and Austria – have delivered numbers which specifically represent the costs of producing high
resolution databases.
For the countries with the highest costs the situation is as follows:
Belgium has included some costs pertaining to producing national databases, but on the other hand
the indicated costs are incomplete, because some regions do not have the ability to produce high
resolution databases and could not provide a cost estimate.
For Italy, it is not quite clear to which extent high-resolution activities are included. The clarification
reads: “Though the National inventory is provided by ISPRA, ENEA performs many activities in
order to prepare the national inventory (annual on a county base) for feeding the atmospheric
pollution national model (hourly grid base inventory, speciation, etc)”
For Croatia, much work is required in order to comply with the requirement, because much
statistical information will have to be collected more or less from scratch. This can be contrasted
with the situation in a country like Denmark, where plenty of statistical information is readily
available and can be used for preparation of high resolution emission inventories.
The following countries have indicated that they currently possess capability to produce high
resolution emission databases: Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, Sweden
(and presumably Finland and UK).
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
1800000Total cost of baseline 2 - bottom-up approach
Total baseline costs
Capacity development
Additional staff
Reporting and administration
Data generation and compilation
Operation and maintenance
Equipment and facilities
32
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Recommendation 1a: FAIRMODE recommends use of models for assessment of air quality levels
to establish the extent of exceedances and establish population exposure
Figure 4.3: Sum of current + required costs to fulfil recommendation 1a: FAIRMODE recommends use
of models for assessment of air quality levels to establish the extent of exceedances and establish
population exposure.
As mentioned elsewhere in the report, a basic difficulty is that the FAIRMODE recommendations
have not been sufficiently developed within a policy context to determine how they can be
implemented. For this reason, quantitative data on the recommendations are scarce, and the
estimates depend on the respondent’s interpretation of them.
In the case of recommendation 1a, The Netherlands indicate a current cost of almost 3 million
Euros. The accompanying clarification reads: “The Netherlands reports AQ data on the bases of
measurements and modelling. The Netherlands uses AQ models for scenarios studies and
effectiveness of measures. The Netherlands has an operational (short term) AQ forecasting
system. Considering costs for the Assessment and planning of AQ levels: this is a rather complex
system with many partners. We have the feeling that the cost items asked here would require a
major operation to get costs of every organization for these items. Instead we tried to make
estimates and sort of fitted it into your items. So this is a very crude estimation.”
Thus, the costs reported by the Netherlands refer to the full costs of a very well developed system –
whereas the costs for a country like Denmark refer to maintenance of the capability to produce a
limited number of assessments.
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000Total cost of option 1a - bottom-up approach
Total baseline costs
Capacity development
Additional staff
Reporting and administration
Data generation and compilation
Operation and maintenance
Equipment and facilities
33
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Recommendation 2: Revise Model Quality Objectives
Figure 4.4: Sum of current + required costs to fulfil recommendation 2: Revise Model Quality
Objectives
FAIRMODE’s recommendation of revising the Model Quality Objectives is not meant as a request
for an immediate revision of the Directive, but requests a process where Fairmode works on
developing new data quality objectives, whereupon the Commission is requested to initiate a
process for developing a guidance document.
Only four countries indicate a cost associated with the recommendation of revising the Model
Quality Objectives, but many have comments (which can be found in Appendix C). The UK states:
“This work is currently in progress and is not sufficiently developed for an assessment to be made
of the possible cost associated with new data quality objectives.” Italy indicates a cost of 140000
Euro, and clarifies: “At the present fully involved in Fairmode activities. MQO are tested
continuously.”
There are several positive comments on developing new MQO (“We support and are involved with
the work that FAIRMODE is undertaking...” – UK and others), while Austria is very sceptical: “We
do not recommend to change the MQO. The implementation of new, stricter MQO (DELTA-tool in
its current version) will certainly increase time and effort in respect to modelling in Austria due to the
complex topography a lot. Additional costs can't be estimated, as it is not clear whether state-of-
the-art models are even able to provide results meeting the new MQO.”
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000Total cost of option 2 - bottom-up approach
Total baseline costs
Capacity development
Additional staff
Reporting and administration
Data generation and compilation
Operation and maintenance
Equipment and facilities
34
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Costs pertaining to the sum of all 5 baseline questions
Figure 4.5: Sum of current costs to fulfil the requirements for all 5 baseline questions
Figure 4.6: Sum of current + required costs to fulfil the requirements for all 5 baseline
questions
Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6 above are two related graphs. They both refer to the sum of baseline costs:
One displays current costs, and the other displays current plus required costs.
35
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
The graphs give to some extent an overview of the degree, to which the various countries fulfil the
baseline requirements. The two graphs resemble each other, but they differ somewhat, as the latter
includes required costs in order to fulfil the baseline requirements.
The following notes give – country by country – an overview of the situation in the country and of
how the cost estimates should be interpreted. Only countries which provide cost estimates are dealt
with here.
In summary, baseline costs for the following 5 countries can be regarded completely represented:
Croatia, Austria, Italy, Czech Republic and Denmark.
Croatia
The graph gives representation of all costs. Current activity on modelling is limited. Build-
up of high resolution emission database is estimated to be very resource demanding
because it starts from scratch.
Romania
Costs are only filled in for a few baseline activities, so the graph is very incomplete.
Austria
Graph can be taken at face value. Austria has currently no modelling activity. The
respondent has filled costs guided by the stipulated requirements, but without details
such as travelling.
Hungary
Very limited current activity (one person). Level of activity has been reduced due to the
crisis.
The graph represents current costs, whereas it does not include necessary costs to
conform to minimum requirements.
Lithuania
Has some modelling capacity, but does not fulfil the requirements. The main need is extra
staff, especially for emission inventories.
Italy
Italy fulfills the minimum requirements. ENEA has a staff on 15 working with modelling,
which is reflected in the graph. Italy has the largest indicated cost of almost 12 million
Euro.
Ireland
Has no modelling activity at present. Costs are only estimated for Baseline 1, so the
graph does not give a complete view of costs.
Czech Republic
In the Czech Republic CHMI has modelling competences, but does not quite meet the
stipulated minimum requirements. The graph represents all costs associated to meet the
minimum requirements, both current and necessary additions.
Belgium
36
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
There is an interregional environmental agency and three regional agencies. The
modelling capacity varies between regions. The baseline costs reflect modelling activities
within the agencies and an outsourced contract for one region.
Denmark
The graph reflects all costs associated to the minimum requirements.
The concept: Degree of fulfilment
Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6 resemble each other, but they differ somewhat, as the latter includes
required costs in order to fulfil the baseline requirements.
For each country, the ratio between current costs and total costs should in theory be an indication
of the “degree of fulfilment” – in other words, it expresses to what extent the country possesses the
required minimum competences as specified in the baseline questions. However, the ratio can only
be interpreted in this way if costs are properly filled in for all questions. This is not always the case,
so the computed ratio should in general not be taken at face value.
Nevertheless, the concept of “degree of fulfilment” can be useful. Table 4.4 indicates the degree of
fulfilment assessed by three methods.
Firstly, the degree of fulfilment can be computed directly as a raw value based on the numbers
underlying the graphs.
Secondly, the estimate can be refined by taking into account all of the additional qualitative
information which is represented in the responses to the information request.
Thirdly, it is possible to produce an expert estimate of the potential for fulfilling the requirements.
This can be done even for countries which have not responded to the information request. Such an
estimate must be based on various available information (participation in Fairmode, participation in
conferences, scientific production within the field, web searches for relevant terms etc.). It is the
best option available for filling the data gaps in a study like the present.
We have produced such expert estimates for the countries which have not responded to the
information request. In doing this it has been necessary to make the simplifying assumption that
administrative barriers are disregarded. The method considers the estimated capacity in a country,
regardless of whether the capacity lies within a central unit or is present locally.
Thus, if a country has an active modelling group, which has the capability to perform modelling at
all scales, we have assigned a high degree of fulfillment potential to the country, while disregarding
that there may be administrative barriers to apply this expertise within all regions of the country.
In order to obtain comparable values for countries which responded to the information request and
those which did not, we have reconsidered the “Refined estimates” that were produced for
responding countries. We have revised the estimate, using the principle of disregarding
administrative barriers which was applied in the third method (expert estimate). This makes a
difference for a country like Belgium, where the required competences are present within the
country, but not within all regions of the country.
In summary, this yields a maximum of three estimates for the “degree of fulfillment” for each
country:
IR Raw (based on raw values from the information request)
37
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
IR Refined (based on both values and qualitative information from the information request)
Expert estimate (includes countries which did not deliver information)
The three estimates are presented in Table 4.4 and Figure 4.7.
Table 4.4: Degree of fulfilment of the minimum requirements (percent)
Country Quantitative data IR raw IR refined Expert estimate
Austria Yes 0 10 30
Belgium Yes 100 80 100
Bulgaria No response
30
Croatia Yes 57 50 50
Cyprus No response
10
Czech Rep Yes 76 60 60
Denmark Yes 100 100 100
Estonia No response
40
Finland
100 100
France
100 100
Germany
100 100
Greece No response
100
Hungary Yes 37 20 20
Ireland Yes 0 0 0
Italy Yes 100 100 100
Latvia No response
40
Lithuania Yes 12 30 30
Luxembourg No response
20
Malta No response
10
Netherlands Yes 0 100 100
Poland
60
Portugal No response
70
Romania Yes 0 70 70
Slovakia No response
30
Slovenia No response
50
Spain No response
100
Sweden
0 100 100
UK
100 100
38
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Figure 4.7: Degree of fulfillment of the minimum requirements (percent).
The graph gives an indication of the various countries’ capacity to fulfil the baseline requirements. It
should be understood that the graph shows minimum requirements. Fulfilment of these
requirements does not ensure that there is capacity to perform modelling assessments for every
corner of a country.
Costs pertaining to the sum of all 9 recommendations
0 20 40 60 80 100
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Rep
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembo…
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
UK
IR raw
IR refined
Expert estimate
39
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Figure 4.8 Sum of current costs to fulfil all 9 recommendations
Total costs (current + required) pertaining to the sum of all 9 recommendations
Figure 4.9 Sum of current + required costs to fulfil all 9 recommendations.
Figure 4.8 and Figure 4.9 above are related. They both refer to the sum of costs for
recommendations: One displays current costs, and the other displays current plus required costs.
Many countries consider the implementation of one or more of the recommendations to be included
in the baseline costs. Other countries find that it is not possible to assess the costs of
recommendations. For these reasons a graphical representation of costs of recommendations is
missing for most countries.
40
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
The following notes give – country by country – an overview of the situation concerning the
recommendations in the country and of how the cost estimates should be interpreted. Only
countries which provide cost estimates are dealt with here.
In summary, no country except Denmark has indicated costs for all recommendations. The costs of
the recommendations appear very diverse, reflecting that there is not a unified interpretation of how
the recommendations could be implemented.
Croatia
Current activity on modelling is limited. Croatia has indicated costs for some recommendations,
while costs for others are indicated as unknown.
Sweden
The only cost specified is for Recommendation 3 concerning administration of National Reference
Laboratory
Austria
Under the assumption that the baseline is present (which it is currently not), Austria considers many
recommendations cost-neutral. Additional costs are specified for forecasting (1b) and assessment
of plans (1d).
For Recommendation 2 (revised MQO) it is noted that costs are unknown and may be high.
Netherlands
The Netherlands fulfill basic requirements. They carry out reporting to the Commission based on
measurements and modelling. Reporting is a complex system with many partners; an estimate of
the current costs is made (recommendation 1a). An estimate for forecasting (recommendation 1b)
and emission inventory quality assurance (recommendation 4) is made, whereas costs for
recommendations 1c, 1d, 1e and 1f are considered to be part of recommendation 1a. Estimates for
recommendations 2 and 3 (MQO and FAIRMODE cannot be made).
Hungary
Very limited current activity (one person). Level of activity has been reduced due to the crisis.
The graph represents current costs for a few recommendations where work is ongoing. It does not
include necessary costs to fulfil the Fairmode recommendations.
Lithuania
Has indicated that all recommendations are fulfilled, but without any specifications. Neither costs
nor additional costs are indicated. The responses should probably not be taken at face value.
Italy
Italy has specified costs for all recommendations except for forecasting (1b) and some expected
additional costs for quality assurance of emission inventories (recommendation 4).
Ireland
Has no modelling activity at present. Costs are only estimated for forecasts (recommendation 1b).
Czech Republic
41
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
In the Czech Republic CHMI has modelling competences, but does not quite meet the stipulated
minimum requirements. The graph does not give a complete picture of costs, as it includes only
some costs for some recommendations.
Belgium
Has various current activity which is specified in wording. However, it is indicated that an estimation
of costs is not feasible at the moment.
Denmark
The graph reflects all costs for all recommendations, assuming that the required resources for
fulfilling the recommendations correspond to the minimum requirements.
4.2 The top-down approach: expert estimates calibrated to each member state.
Results from the top-down approach are based on expert estimates, based on Danish experiences
of the minimum requirements for implementing the capability and competences for fulfilling the
FAIRMODE recommendations. The baseline was established for Denmark as the reference country
and the results for Denmark were calibrated to all the member states with respect to salary levels in
each member states.
It should be emphasized that the cost estimates do not include the cost of actually carrying out all
kind of work (e.g. reports including assessments and source allocation) in individual member states,
which can be attributed to the FAIRMODE recommendations, since the amount of assessment,
decision support or management reporting is not clearly defined in the recommendations.
Therefore, the cost assessment only includes an investigation of the cost associated with the
capability of fulfilling the recommendations.
We concluded in chapter 3, that the basic requirement for all member states to fulfil the FAIRMODE
recommendations, are the competences of four different staff members. Furthermore, we
concluded that having this basic group, the staff is able to fulfil the recommendations to a certain
extent, depending on the amount of assessment or reporting needed.
For countries already having well-established modelling groups, it is our experience in Denmark
that the four persons can easily be occupied by the work suggested in the FAIRMODE
recommendations and therefore the additional cost equals the cost of the baseline. For member
states, which do not already have a modelling group, but have to build it up from scratch, the same
requirements are needed. If the expertise is not available already in the member state, at least a
four year period is needed for starting up the modelling group, engaging and finishing at least three
PhD students covering the three scales. After this four year period, it is assumed that these
modelling groups are operational to fulfil the FAIRMODE recommendations to the same extent as
the well-established modelling groups.
A point that deserves to be kept in mind is raised in a comment from the UK provided in the
consultation survey carried out in March 2013 (see section 4.3): “Costs have been assumed to be
the same in all MS (in terms of staff time). This is unlikely to be the case. Costs are likely to be
higher in MS with more complex air quality situations or more exceedances. The costs will also be
crucially dependent on the organisational structure of the MS. In some MS air quality assessment
and management is carried out by regional authorities and in such cases the total cost for the MS
may be many times higher.”
42
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
The calibration could be further scaled e.g. with respect to population in each country, since a large
country with numerous big cities, probably needs to carry out more assessments or source
allocation studies, than smaller countries. However, since FAIRMODE is generally formulated,
there would be an arbitrary interpretation concerning the number of assessment and projects, and
therefore we have not presently calibrated with respect to population. Furthermore, it is also our
experience that smaller member states with well-established modelling communities, can perform a
much larger number of e.g. decision support reports with respect to air quality, compared to larger
member states, where the tradition in using model results for decision making is less pronounced.
In Figure 4.10 - Figure 4.22, the results from the top-down approach are provided. As already
explained the expert estimate for Denmark is adjusted according to the EU standard cost model
and then calibrated to all member states with respect to salary levels in the individual member
states. An overhead of 25% on salaries is assumed according to the EU standard cost model. The
cost is given for the total cost for baseline, which in this approach equals the total cost of the
options, for each baseline case (1-5) as well as for the individual FAIRMODE recommendations.
The cost for baseline 3, acquiring models, is set to zero, since it is assumed that models can be
acquired for free. Likewise, the cost for baseline 5, the total overhead cost, is zero, since it is
included in the salaries in baseline, 1 and 2.
The total estimated cost in Figure 4.10 - Figure 4.22 includes staff and staff capacity development
costs, equipment, operational cost for travelling and software, and 25% of overhead on the salaries.
In Figure 4.10, the total estimated cost for the baseline (sum of baseline 1-5) for each member state
calibrated from expert estimates for Denmark with respect to the minimum requirements for fulfilling
the FAIRMODE recommendations is given. The differences in the total cost between the member
states are due to differences in levels of salaries according to the EU standard cost model. The
total cost for all countries for implementing the minimum requirements is 4.5 mio. Euros/year
In Figure 4.11 and Figure 4.12, the total estimated cost for baseline 1 (modelling) and baseline 2
(emissions) for each member state is shown. The total estimated cost of modelling includes the
cost of three modellers covering the different scales (long-range, urban background and urban
street) and staff capacity development costs, equipment, operational cost for travelling and
software, and 25% of overhead on the salaries. The total cost for all countries for implementing the
minimum requirements for modelling is 3.1 mio. Euros/year and for the emissions 1.0 mio.
Euros/year.
The total estimated cost for the baseline 4 (computing) for each member state is shown in Figure
4.13. The total estimated cost includes equipment, only and is equal for all countries. The total cost
for computing in all countries is 1.3 mio. Euros/year.
In Figure 4.14 - Figure 4.22, similar figures are displayed for the individual FAIRMODE
recommendations. The basis for the distribution of cost between the recommendations is given in
Table 3.3, assuming the minimum requirement approach.
Figure 4.14 - Figure 4.19 provides the results for recommendation 1, including the use of models for
assessment exceedances and population exposure, forecasting, souirce allocation, plans and
measures to control AQ exceedances, Designing monitoring networks, and using models to
determine the number of fixed monitoring. The total cost for all countries for implementing the
FAIRMODE recommendation 1 is estimated to 3.8 mio. Euros/year.
43
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
In Figure 4.20, the estimated cost for revision of the data quality objective for modelling
(recommendation 2) is shown. The estimated cost includes staff and staff capacity development
costs, and 25% of overhead on the salaries. The total cost for all countries for implementing the
FAIRMODE recommendation 2 is estimated to 0.15 mio. Euros/year. The assumption for this
recommendation is the staff time of 200 hours per year.
Figure 4.21, shows the total estimated cost for recommendation 3, competent authorities for
modelling activities are nominated by the Member states, for each member state calibrated from
expert estimates for Denmark with respect to the minimum requirements for fulfilling the
FAIRMODE recommendations. The total estimated cost includes staff and staff capacity
development costs, 25% of overhead on the salaries, and travelling. The total cost for all countries
for implementing the FAIRMODE recommendation 3 is estimated to 0.35 mio. Euros/year. The
assumption for this recommendation is the staff time of 300 hours and 3 travels per year – one for
each of the modelling staff members.
Finally Figure 4.22 shows the total estimated cost for recommendation 4; investigate and improve
the compilation, consistency and quality assurance of emissions data, for each member state. The
total estimated cost includes staff and staff capacity development costs, 25% of overhead on the
salaries, and travelling. The total cost for all countries for implementing the FAIRMODE
recommendation 4 is estimated to 0.2 mio. Euros/year. The assumption for this recommendation is
the staff time of 200 hours and 1 travel per year for the emission staff member.
Adding the cost for all the recommendations, we reach a total cost of 4.5 mio. Euros/year as was
the case for the baseline. The distribution of the baseline costs between the recommendations and
sub-recommendations has been made by an expert assessment. However, it can be very difficult to
distinguish the cost of the individual recommendations from each other, since they are all
interconnected, and supplement each other.
Figure 4.10: Top-down approach. The total estimated cost/year for the baseline (sum of baseline 1-5) for
each member state calibrated from expert estimates for Denmark with respect to the minimum
requirements for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations.
44
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
The total estimated cost includes staff and staff capacity development costs, equipment,
operational cost for travelling and software, and 25% of overhead on the salaries.
Figure 4.11: The total estimated cost/year for baseline 1 (modelling) for each member state calibrated
from expert estimates for Denmark with respect to the minimum requirements for fulfilling the
FAIRMODE recommendations.
The total estimated cost includes staff and staff capacity development costs, equipment,
operational cost for travelling and software, and 25% of overhead on the salaries.
Figure 4.12: The total estimated cost/year for the baseline 2 (emissions) for each member state
calibrated from expert estimates for Denmark with respect to the minimum requirements for fulfilling the
FAIRMODE recommendations.
45
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
The total estimated cost includes staff and staff capacity development costs, equipment,
operational cost for travelling and software, and 25% of overhead on the salaries.
Figure 4.13: The total estimated cost/year for the baseline 4 (computing) for each member state
calibrated from expert estimates for Denmark with respect to the minimum requirements for fulfilling the
FAIRMODE recommendations.
The total estimated cost includes equipment, only.
Figure 4.14: The total estimated cost/year for recommendation 1a (assessment exceedances and
population exposure) for each member state calibrated from expert estimates for Denmark with respect
to the minimum requirements for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations.
46
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
The total estimated cost includes staff and staff capacity development costs, equipment,
operational cost for travelling and software, and 25% of overhead on the salaries.
Figure 4.15: The total estimated cost/year for recommendation 1b (air pollution forecasting) for each
member state calibrated from expert estimates for Denmark with respect to the minimum requirements
for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations.
The total estimated cost includes staff and staff capacity development costs, equipment,
operational cost for travelling and software, and 25% of overhead on the salaries.
Figure 4.16: The total estimated cost/year for recommendation 1c (source allocation) for each member
state calibrated from expert estimates for Denmark with respect to the minimum requirements for
fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations.
47
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
The total estimated cost includes staff and staff capacity development costs, equipment,
operational cost for travelling and software, and 25% of overhead on the salaries.
Figure 4.17: The total estimated cost/year for recommendation 1d (plans and measures to control AQ
exceedances) for each member state calibrated from expert estimates for Denmark with respect to the
minimum requirements for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations.
The total estimated cost includes staff and staff capacity development costs, equipment,
operational cost for travelling and software, and 25% of overhead on the salaries.
48
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Figure 4.18: The total estimated cost/year for recommendation 1e (designing monitoring networks) for
each member state calibrated from expert estimates for Denmark with respect to the minimum
requirements for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations.
The total estimated cost includes staff and staff capacity development costs, equipment,
operational cost for travelling and software, and 25% of overhead on the salaries.
Figure 4.19: The total estimated cost/year for recommendation 1f (number of fixed monitoring stations)
for each member state calibrated from expert estimates for Denmark with respect to the minimum
requirements for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations.
The total estimated cost includes staff and staff capacity development costs, equipment,
operational cost for travelling and software, and 25% of overhead on the salaries.
49
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Figure 4.20: The total estimated cost/year for recommendation 2 (revision of the data quality objective
for modelling) for each member state calibrated from expert estimates for Denmark with respect to the
minimum requirements for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations.
The total estimated cost includes staff and staff capacity development costs, and 25% of overhead
on the salaries.
Figure 4.21: The total estimated cost/year for recommendation 3 (competent authorities for modeling
activities are nominated by the Member states) for each member state calibrated from expert estimates
for Denmark with respect to the minimum requirements for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations.
50
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
The total estimated cost includes staff and staff capacity development costs, 25% of overhead on
the salaries, and travelling.
Figure 4.22: The total estimated cost/year for recommendation 4 (investigate and improve the
compilation, consistency and quality assurance of emissions data) for each member state calibrated
from expert estimates for Denmark with respect to the minimum requirements for fulfilling the
FAIRMODE recommendations.
The total estimated cost includes staff and staff capacity development costs, 25% of overhead on
the salaries, and travelling.
4.3 FAIRMODE Consultation Survey of the top-down assessment
In appendix E, the questionnaire and results from the consultation survey on the top-down
approach, conducted in March 2013 are provided. The idea of the consultation survey was to verify
the assumptions of the minimum requirements for building up the capacity and competences
needed for being able to fulfill the FAIRMODE recommendations. For all questions, the member
states were asked to assess the estimated level of cost on a relative scale and to make comment.
The countries, which replied to the consultation survey, were: Belgium, Croatia, The Czech
Republic, Ireland, Latvia and the UK. The following includes a summary of the answers and
comments from the survey. The full answers can be seen in appendix E.
Question 1: Do you think that the estimate for minimum requirements for the personal resources
and competences needed for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations in your country is
adequate?
The answers range from 3 times too low to 25% too high.
51
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Belgium answered 100 % too low. They estimated that a staff size of 22.5 + supplementary staff will
be needed to comply with the recommendations.
Croatia answered 50% too low due to high resolution emissions and the development and
application of models for urban scale still need to be built up. Croatia furthermore commented that
the proposed number of scientists is acceptable if such modelling system is already at operative
level. However in countries where this is a task to go at least two more scientists are needed.
The Czech Republic answered 25% too low, partly due to the assumption that meteorological
modelling has not been included, partly because forecast operation also requires separate time.
Ireland estimated the minimum requirements to be 25% too high. Latvia estimated 100% too low,
but states that 3 staff member is necessary.
The UK states that the estimate is too low by at least a factor of 3. The UK is currently using air
quality models to support compliance assessment, source apportionment, baseline projections,
development if air quality plans and review of air monitoring networks, so they have a good
understanding of the costs.
Question 2: Do you think that the estimate given for minimum PC requirements for the direct
operational costs (excluding overhead) needed for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations in
your country is adequate?
The answers range from 100% too low to acceptable, depending of the number of staff
members needed. All agree, not surprisingly, that 1 PC per person is adequate.
Question 3: Do you think that the estimate given for minimum server requirements for the direct
operational costs (excluding overhead) needed for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations in
your country is adequate?
The answers range from a factor 4 too low (Belgium) to acceptable (all other countries).
Question 4: Do you think that the estimate given for minimum license requirements for the direct
operational costs (excluding overhead) needed for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations in
your country is adequate?
The answers range from far too low, by a factor of ten (UK), to acceptable.
The answers indicated quite big differences between the countries, which replied in the consultation
survey, concerning the total cost for licenses, especially depending on what kind of GIS software is
used (from freeware to costly software). Furthermore, it is mentioned that models are not always
free as well as meteorological data.
Question 5: Do you think that the estimate given for minimum travel requirements for the direct
operational costs (excluding overhead) needed for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations in
your country is adequate?
The answers range from acceptable to 50% too high.
52
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Question 6: Do you think that the estimate given for minimum training requirements for the direct
operational costs (excluding overhead) needed for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations in
your country is adequate?
The answers range from 100% too low (Ireland) to acceptable. Ireland replied that the training costs
associated with models are high. They also tend to be in one location in Europe (eg calpuff, aermod
training), so traveling costs and subsistence have to be considered. Others consider the cost of
training one person for a 4-days training course. In the assumption in the top-down approach, the
number we have applied is an average over the years, meaning that not all staff members will have
training courses every year.
Additional comments from the member states:
The Czech Republic: The competence building phase will be important because I perceive there
to be a current lack of availability of such staff with the required AQ modelling-specific experience.
In other words, the right people might (do) currently exist but not all in the one institute and not
having a role dedicated to AQ modelling for European regulatory purposes.
UK: Costs have been assumed to be the same in all MS (in terms of staff time). This is unlikely to
be the case. Costs are likely to be higher in MS with more complex air quality situations or more
exceedances. The costs will also be crucially dependent on the organisational structure of the MS.
In some MS air quality assessment and management is carried out by regional authorities and in
such cases the total cost for the MS may be many times higher.
Conclusions from the consultation survey
All in all, the results from the consultation survey clearly display the very different interpretation in
each member state of the minimum requirements for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations.
There is a clear tendency for member states which already operate large modelling capacities to
assess the necessary cost as corresponding to the present size of the modelling groups. On the
other hand, the member states actually assessed the present demand and needs for modelling
capacities in the individual countries, including the present level of assessments, reporting and
decision support, which are all activities that are related to the FIARMODE recommendations.
As an overall conclusion, the member states which indicate much larger costs already operate large
modelling groups that are used for the tasks described in the FAIRMODE recommendations.
Therefore, the larger costs are not additional costs. The countries that do not already have
operational modelling capacities, indicated that the minimum requirement of 4 staff member and the
related equipment and travelling was acceptable for starting up modelling capacities and
competences in their respective countries.
4.4 Combining the bottom-up with the top-down approach: estimating the cost for
fulfilling the minimum requirements
In section 4.3, the total estimated cost for fulfilling the minimum requirements for each member
state was given. The total cost for all member states were estimated to 4.5 mio. Euros.
Furthermore, we have on basis of the bottom-up approach and our own expert assessment
estimated the present level of fulfillment of the minimum requirements for all the member states –
e.g. Denmark already fulfills the minimum requirement for competences available, so the additional
cost in Denmark is zero.
53
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
From this we can calculate the additional cost for each member state for fulfilling the FAIRMODE
recommendations by:
Additional cost in country = 1 - (present level of fulfillment [0:1]) x total cost of the baseline (1-5) for
each country,
The result is the graph below. The total additional total cost in is estimated to 1.4 mio. Euros. The
relatively low number compared to the total baseline cost for all member states of 4.5 mio Euros, is
due to the fact that within many of the relatively high salary countries in the north western part of
Europe (e.g. Denmark, Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Sweden, UK), larger
modelling groups are already established, and for these countries there is no additional cost. For
many of the countries, where full modelling capabilities are not present, the salaries are relatively
low, and therefore the total additional cost for implementing the FAIRMODE recommendations is
also relatively low (1.4 mio. Euros, assuming the EU standard cost model)..
Figure 4.23: Estimated total additional cost/year for each member state for fulfilling the minimum
requirements, using the EU standard cost model. The total additional cost for all member states all
together is 1.4 mio. Euros/year.
54
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
5 Summary and conclusions
The work described in the present report had as its aim to produce a cost assessment of the
FAIRMODE recommendations. It has been a fundamental challenge throughout the work that the
FAIRMODE recommendation are not presently in a form where they can be included in a directive.
They are “soft” recommendations, which are open to a wide range of interpretations. Therefore, this
entire work represents an attempt to quantify costs despite this basic difficulty. The cost estimates
have only been possible by defining sets of assumptions concerning implementation of the
recommendations, as specified in the text of the report. This should be kept in mind in any use of
the cost estimates.
The cost assessment of the FAIRMODE recommendations has been carried out by using two
methodologies: One takes a bottom-up approach, and the other a top-down approach. It should be
emphasised that the baseline for the bottom-up approach did not equal the baseline for the top-
down approach. The first baseline applied to the information request in the bottom-up approach, a
typical research environment was defined with 3-5 staff members both in the field of atmospheric
modelling as well as within the development of emission databases. This lead to a total staff of 6-10
people, which is typical for an active and living research group. Furthermore, in the information
request the replies from the member states typically reflected their current situation. The second
baseline was used in the top-down approach and consisted of minimum requirements of 4 staff
members. The baseline was reduced in the top-down approach, due to considerations of the very
general nature of the FAIRMODE recommendations, where it is difficult to argue whether a member
state should have a certain number of staff member to fulfil the recommendations, since the amount
of e.g. assessments and reporting as well as scales, chemical species and quality of model results
was not defined in FAIRMODE. We argued that due to the general nature of the recommendations,
we could only assess the cost of the minimum requirements for building up modelling capacity and
competences in each member state. Therefore the total cost assessments of the bottom-up
approach and the top-down approach cannot be directly compared.
The bottom-up approach is based on results from an information request to the member states
carried out in December 2012- January 2013, combined with in depth case studies carried out for
Belgium, Croatia and Hungary. 17 countries replied to the information request. However, for each
question a much smaller number of member states provided quantitative data, which could be used
for the cost assessment. On the other hand, the information request has provided much valuable
qualitative information.
The top-down approach was based on expert estimates for Denmark calibrated/scaled to all other
member states + Croatia based on the EU standard cost model. As base for the cost assessment a
set of minimum requirements were defined, concerning establishment of modelling and emission
capacities and competences as well as computing facilities in the member states. The overall cost
of the minimum requirements with respect to staff time and computing, etc. was assumed to be the
same in all member states, no matter whether the member states already had well-established
modelling communities or not. The fulfilment of the FAIRMODE recommendations is a question of
timing, since the member states with well-established modelling communities already fulfil the
FAIRMODE recommendations, while the member states, which do not possess modelling
capacities, can build up a modelling group of limited size over a period of four years, by educating
PhDs within long-range transport modelling, urban background modelling, urban street modelling as
well as building up competences with emissions.
55
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
A main outcome of the top-down approach is the costs for each country to fulfil a minimum set of
modelling competences, irrespective of whether the state already possesses these competences.
With this approach, the variation between countries is entirely due to varying tariffs for wages.
Furthermore, results from the top-down approach can be combined with results derived from the
bottom-up approach. The bottom-up approach provides information for an expert estimate as to
which degree each member state already fulfils the FAIRMODE recommendations. When such an
estimate is combined with cost estimates from the top-down approach, it results in estimates of
additional cost (compared to now) for implementing the recommendations in the EU.
From the top-down approach, it was found that the estimated total cost of implementing the
FAIRMODE recommendation from scratch in the whole EU is an annual cost of 4.5 mio. Euros.
However, since several member states already to some extent fulfil the set of recommendations,
we further found that the additional cost compared to the present situation is 1.4 mio. Euros. Very
importantly, these estimates rely on the specified setup of minimum requirements, and they
represent the cost only to achieve the minimum requirements. The bottom-up results from the
information request show that some countries have a much a larger modelling activity than
prescribed by the minimum requirements, and consequently they spend a much larger sum on their
total modelling activity.
It should also be noted that the figures above assume the EU standard cost model. The salary level
and the overhead rate in this cost model are relatively low.
The basic challenge of assessing the FAIRMODE recommendations with respect to cost, is that
they are very general in nature and softly formulated. They are open to many different
interpretations, as it is apparent from the responses from the different member states. Some
indications of costs in various countries can be obtained from the questionnaires, but the numbers
cannot always be compared directly.
The cost assessment in this report provides an estimate of present cost in some member states
from the bottom-up approach as well as the total and additional cost for each member state based
on the top-down approach. A more valid cost assessment can only be made by translating the
softly formulated FAIRMODE recommendations into specific requirements, specifying amount of
reporting, modelling scales, model types, species to be modelled, required accuracy of results, etc.
A main challenge in implementing the FAIRMODE recommendations is the establishment of high-
resolution and high-quality emission data. All countries already report emissions with a 50 km x 50
km grid resolution every 5 years and national emissions every year, which can be further detailed.
However, there are large differences between countries as to which level of detail is available in
current registrations of sources/emission sectors.
A difficulty in assessing cost is due to the fact that the administrative organization within a country
can take various forms – one model is to have a central unit with expertise, another is to have
regional units, where each unit is assumed to have access to expertise. The cost in a specific
country will depend on the way this is organized.
The present study is focussing on costs only, but benefits should not be left out of sight. It is very
difficult to carry out an assessment of the benefits resulting from taking the right decisions regarding
air quality in Europe. From measurements in monitoring programme, the magnitude of the problem
can be assessed. However, the strengths of using models are their ability to provide understanding
of measurements, and to provide the best foundation for decision making. The potential for
56
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
improving health and welfare in Europe is considerable and the potential cost, found in this work,
for making the use of models mandatory is relatively very small.
57
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
References
EEA 2011. The application of models under the European Union’s Aior Quality Directive: A
technical reference guide. EEA Technical report No. 10/2011. 72 pp.
Hasler, B., L. Martinsen, M. Hussen Alemu, J. Brandt, H. R. Olesen, O. Hertel, A. Massling, C.
Nordström, E. Hayes, J. Barnes and T. Chatterton, Review of: Provision for Air Quality
Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment, and Public
Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support – Cost Assessment Methodology of the
AQUILA, FAIRMODE and SEG Recommendations from, pp. 22. Client: DG Environment, March,
2013
58
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Appendix A: The FAIRMODE Recommendations
Ispra 12/10/2012
1. ON THE USE OF MODELS FOR REGULATORY PURPOSE AND TO SUPPORT AIR QUALITY POLICY Issue:
Despite models being a widely used and essential tool for air quality assessment, very few member
states report modelled data as part of the compliance assessment under the Air Quality Directive
(AQD). There are many advantages to using and reporting modelled data which are not being
realised. The AQD text on the application of models is not sufficiently clear and requires revision.
Background Information
Models are widely used for the investigation and assessment of ambient air quality at various
spatial and temporal scales. In situ monitoring data is by its nature only a small sample of the
spatial distribution of air pollutant concentrations. Models can be used to provide an assessment in
areas where monitoring data are not available and thus, in combination with monitoring data,
provide a more complete assessment of the current air quality situation. Models are also essential
for the development and assessment of the effectiveness of air quality plans including measures to
improve air quality. One of the major advantages of models is their potential to provide detailed
spatial distributions of air pollutant concentrations. This means they can be applied for area-wide
exposure assessments for human health and for the environment. An application of models allows
a much broader assessment of the extent of exceedences air quality environmental objectives and
can also provide information required for improved measurement network design.
Currently the text of the AQD indicates that models may be used as ‘supplementary data‘ in assessment and
that models may be used to assess the level of exposure, but their role further to this is poorly defined. Text
such as ‘The results of modelling and/or indicative measurement shall be taken into account for the assessment
of air quality with respect to the limit values’ does not clarify what role the models will play in the assessment.
Indeed, models are not named at all as the major tool for developing and assessing plans and measures to
mitigate air pollution, nor are they referred to in regard to short term forecasting. Their use in source
apportionment is also not indicated within the AQD.
Recommendation
FAIRMODE strongly recommends the use of models for the following applications. The AQD text
relating to these applications should be clarified:
Assessment of air quality levels to establish the extent of exceedances and establish population
exposure
Forecasting air quality levels for short term mitigation and public information and warnings
Source allocation to determine the origin of exceedances and to provide a knowledge basis for
planning strategies
Development and assessment of plans and measures to control AQ exceedances
59
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
In addition to these applications the use of models is strongly recommended for:
Designing monitoring networks when models are used in combination with monitoring
Determining the number of fixed monitoring sites that are required
Proposed action: In all articles of the Air Quality Directives (AQD) where the four above-mentioned
applications are mentioned the use of models should be strongly recommended. FAIRMODE will
provide a list of respective AQD and Commission Implementation Decision (CID) articles.
2. MODEL QUALITY OBJECTIVES
Motivation: Data quality objective for modelling (MQO) are mentioned in the 2008 Air Quality
Directive, Annex I, but the wording of the text remains ambiguous and open to interpretation. The
FAIRMODE report ‘The application of models under the European Union’s Air Quality Directive – A
Technical Reference Guide’ reviewed different interpretations and recommended the use of the
relative directive error (RDE) indicator to provide a quantitative estimate of the model uncertainty.
Despite these recommendations, the current AQD MQO retains some limitations which are inherent
to their formulation. In addition the quality objectives are only valid for assessment applications, not
for planning.
Recommendation: FAIRMODE recommends a revision of the data quality objective for modelling
Proposed action:
Fairmode is developing new data quality objectives for modelling for ambient air quality
assessment, in collaboration with the Member States . This type of objectives are expected to
be useful as basis to investigate MQO for the other model applications
We propose that subsequent the work of Fairmode the European Commission initiates a
process for the preparation of a Guidance document on the revision of model quality objectives
for assessment
3. FORUM OF EU AQ REGULATORY MODELLING
Motivation: Air quality modeling in support to air quality policies in the EU context requires a
constant level of communication and competence building among the various competent
authorities. The organization of periodic model evaluation activities are required in order to assure
harmonized practices and to guarantee comparable quality levels across Member States.
Recommendation: FAIRMODE recommends that in parallel to what has already been established
for the monitoring of air quality, competent authorities for modeling activities are nominated by the
Member States(ref Article (3) and bullet d) quality assurance of modelling)
Proposed action: Fairmode will act as coordination forum for modelling and support the competent
authorities in activities that are recognised as very relevant for the for model applications listed in
Recommendation #1 and that are presented here with an extended list of supporting motivations.
Namely:
Model evaluation: model evaluation has to be a continuing activity. In the case of a community
of models and model users joint model evaluation activities have demonstrated to be very
important in speeding up the harmonization of the practices, identification and fixing of
problems, rapid improvement, transition to operational activities, competence building and
60
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
sharing. Fairmode can offer the right framework for testing the newly developed MQO and
promoting joint model evaluation activities on common case studies.
Coordinated action: model evaluation activities, competence building and sharing.
Combine use of model and monitoring data: Methodologies and techniques have been
developed and tested to combine model results and monitoring data in order to provide
improved assessment and predictions skills. that take in to account the experimental evidence
and complement it with model results. Those developments have shown very promising results
at various spatial and temporal scales. For the AQD application addressing assessments
(Application 1) the most powerful tool for providing complete spatial coverage of the air quality
situation, whilst still retaining the quality of fixed monitoring data, is the combined use of models
and monitoring. The preamble text of the AQD refers to this: ‘Information’ from fixed
measurements may be supplemented by modelling techniques and/or indicative measurements
to enable point data to be interpreted in terms of geographical distribution of concentrations’.
Coordinated action: inventory of ongoing activities, inter-comparison of methods, competence
building, preparation of guides.
Source apportionment modeling: There is an increasing need to demonstrate whether and to
what extent exceedances of limit values can be attributed to natural sources, human practices
(road salting and sanding), and transboundary pollution. In the context of the preparation and
implementation of air quality plans and short-term action plans, there is also a need to identify
and quantify the contribution of the main pollution sources in order to efficiently design
abatement measures and assess their effectiveness.
Coordinated action: inventory of ongoing activities, inter-comparison and evaluation of methods,
competence building, preparation of guides.
Monitoring station characterisation and meta data description for model applications and
support to optimisation of monitoring and network design: The location, characterization and
representativeness of a measurement station in a monitoring network is of fundamental
relevance for the evaluation of model results (see point 3.) and when using network output as
model input data. It is well recognized that current station classification and characterization is
not harmonized across the EU with some consequences for data interpretation and use.
Coordinated action: inventory of ongoing activities, competence building, preparation of guides.
4. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONSISTENCY OF EMISSION INVENTORIES
Motivation: Air quality emissions inventories (EIs) have been compiled at European level for
regulatory purposes and also to support air quality modelling applications for the assessment and
improvement of air quality. Emission information is essential in support for AQ planning under the
AQ directive because it provides the link between responsible emission sources, their relative
shares and abatement potentials. Current emission inventories are constructed at different scales
(regional, national, city/urban) but these EIs are often not consistent and may cause discrepancies
in impact assessments at the different scales. The present compilation methods do not always
allow relating emission sources with their abatement potential. More detailed emission inventory
compilation methods and better systems for QA/QC of emission information need to be
implemented to support AQ planning and account for the identified discrepancies in the different
scales.
61
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Recommendation: FAIRMODE recommends to investigate and improve the compilation,
consistency and quality assurance of emissions data suitable for AQ modeling under the directive
Proposed action:
Emissions are not mentioned in the AQD and the need to work to increase the quality of
emission inputs needs to be introduced in the revised text.
Promote guidance initiatives for the compilations of emission data for AQ models under the
directive
Support competence building initiatives to secure the consistency of detailed bottom-up
emission inventories with those compiled for regulatory purposes at local, national and
European scale
62
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Appendix B: Case studies for three countries
This appendix presents information from three countries, where in addition to the information
request phone interviews were carried out with the person(s) who had filled in the questionnaire.
The interviews were based on the questionnaire. They were carried out in order to substantiate the
information given in the information request and to learn in greater detail what motivated the
responses.
For each country there is a short section summarising the situation within the country and findings
from the interview, followed by sections with details, combining the information from the information
request and the interview.
The countries chosen for the case study were
Belgium
Croatia
Hungary.
These were among the countries which had provided the most detailed quantitative information to
the information request, and thus it was very relevant to learn about the background for the
responses and possible pitfalls in interpretation of the indicated values.
Belgium
Summary: Situation within the country and findings of interview
There are three regions in Belgium, so there are several regional environmental agencies in
addition to the interregional agency IRCEL (respondent). The modelling capacity varies between
the regions, and is best developed in Flanders, where much of the expertise lies within one
contractor (VITO). The Baseline costs of over 3 milllion Euro reflect the activities within the
agencies and the contract sum for Flanders. Some regions indicate that additional efforts are
required in order to reach the minimum requirements, but have not made specifications of this.
Concerning the recommendations, some are partly fulfilled at present. Thus, many air quality
assessments regarding exceedances are available, and forecasting (recommendation 1b) is
applied. The response in the questionnaire indicates that these recommendations are cost-neutral.
The reasoning is that based on current work it is possible to report model based assessments,
although it is not done. For many other recommendations an often repeated comment is: “An
estimation of the costs to conform to this standard is not feasible at the moment.”
Several matters lie behind this statement: the requirements are not clearly specified; a baseline
capacity is not established in all regions; an estimate requires estimates from several regions who
have not delivered them.
BASELINE 1: COMPETENCE BUILDING – ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE
This competence building is available at the different regional environment administrations and the
Belgian interregional Environment Agency. Subcontractors (like e.g. the Flemish Institute for
Technological Research) are also playing an important role in air quality modelling in Belgium.
Some of the Regions indicate that competence in atmospheric modelling and air quality modelling
63
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
will be further developed, but additional efforts have to be made to achieve the specified minimum
requirements. The following calculation is an estimation of the existing annual costs of baseline 1.
Some of the regions indicated a change in costs to conform to the baseline 1 standard but no
further details of the costs could be provided at the moment.
Supplementary information from interview:
The interregional agency IRCEL coordinates and performs national tasks. The costs reflect that
there are 3 regions: Wallonia, Brussels and Flanders, each with a regional environmental agency.
The Flemish Institute VITO is contractor (around 2 persons financed by subcontract). There is an
estimate of 6 additional persons working with modelling: 2 within IRCEL and the remaining within
the administrative environmental agencies in Belgium. Modelling capacity best developed in
Flanders.
BASELINE 2: COMPETENCE BUILDING – HIGH RESOLUTION EMISSION DATABASES
This competence building is available at the different regional environment administrations and the
Belgian interregional Environment Agency. Subcontractors (like e.g. the Flemish Institute for
Technological Research) are also playing an important role in air quality modelling in Belgium.
Some of the Regions indicate that competence in geographic resolution emission databases is
developed, but will be further developed, but additional efforts have to be made to achieve the
specified minimum requirements. The following calculation is an estimation of the existing annual
costs of baseline 2. Some of the regions indicated a change in costs to conform to the baseline 2
standard but no further details of the costs could be provided at the moment.
Supplementary information from interview:
There is a well-equipped team in Flanders. Costs are based on 10 people in Flanders, 2 in Wallonia
region, 1 in Brussels, ¼ in IRCEL. These emission inventories are not made for modelling, but for
reporting. Achieving the baseline is not cost-neutral (checkmark in questionnaire is set incorrectly),
as some of the regions indicated a change in costs.
BASELINE 3: DEVELOPMENT OR ACQUISITION OF ATMOSPHERIC MODELS
Belgium does not have a junior staff for technical implementation and maintenance of models and
computer facilities to make the models FAIRMODE compliant. Some of the regions developed
appropriate atmospheric models operating with meteorological data (from the national
meteorological institute) with a spatial resolution of 1x1 km and a temporal resolution of 3 hours.
Supplementary information from interview:
One additional person presumably needed at IRCEL to run models.
BASELINE 4: COMPUTER FACILITIES FOR RUNNING HIGH RESOLUTION MODELS
Yes, considered that these facilities are not only present within the Belgian interregional
Environment Agency but also in the Regions and subcontractors.
Supplementary information from interview:
The sum for equipment is based on 13 PC’s (1000 Euros each) and 15 servers (7000 Euros each).
BASELINE 5: OPERATIONAL / RUNNING COSTS
Yes, we can provide the indicative cost made by the Belgian interregional Environment Agency and
not the operational/running cost for the regions or consultants. We cannot provide the different cost
categories but only one figure (1.235.000 euro).
64
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Supplementary information from interview:
Operational costs are estimated as 30% of the IRCEL budget. IRCEL has modelling as one of its
responsibilities. Actually this method gives some double counting, as 2 persons at IRCEL were also
counted under Baseline 1. Thus, 200000 Euro may be subtracted from the figure indicated.
OPTION 1: ON THE USE OF MODELS FOR REGULATORY PURPOSE AND TO SUPPORT AIR
QUALITY POLICY
Recommendation 1(a): Use AQ models for assessment of air quality lvels to establish the extent of
exceedances and establish population exposure
In Belgium deterministic models and/or intelligent interpolation techniques are used to calculate
population exposure and/or to evaluate measures. For the annual questionnaire concerning the
reporting of the air quality in the framework of the directive 2008/50/EC mainly measurements are
used. Some of the regions have developed models and algorithms in order to meet these
recommendations: modelling of pollutant concentrations and calculation of population exposure
with a spatial resolution of 1 km x 1km, modelling of emissions scenarios to manage source
legislation or to optimise air quality monitoring etc.
Supplementary information from interview:
A lot of air quality assessments regarding exceedances are available at present, so the
recommendation can be said to be fulfilled. However, for reporting only measurements are used.
Belgium intends to use modelling for supplementary information.
The response in the questionnaire indicates that the option is cost-neutral. The reasoning is that
based on current work it is possible to report modelbased assesments, although it is not done.
Recommendation 1(b): Use AQ models for forecasting air quality levels for short term mitigation
and public information and warnings
In BE a number of air quality forecast models are used to inform the public and to trigger short term
emission reduction measures (e.g. speed limits on high ways during smog episodes).
Supplementary information from interview:
Indicated as cost-neutral because some forecasting is practised. Costs of model maintenance is
contained in the Baseline costs.
Recommendation 1(c): Use AQ models for source allocation to determine the origin of
exceedances and to provide a knowledge basis for planning strategies
Source allocation is mainly performed via consultancy assignments e.g. in the framework of time
extension demands, plans and programmes when limit values are exceeded. In some Regions
local monitoring campaigns (from 6 weeks to 6 months) are aimed to determine exposure and
origin of emissions for regulation strategies purposes. These programs are supported by
mineralogic/ chemical analysis of PM (scanning electron microscopy coupled to a spectrometer
energy dispersive analysis (EDX), and the overall analysis using the X-ray diffraction (XRD)).
Additional investments will have to be done. However an estimation of the costs to conform to these
standards is not feasible at the moment.
Recommendation 1(d): Use AQ models for development and assessment of plans and measures to
control AQ exceedances
In BE deterministic models are used to evaluate emission reduction measures and to develop plans
and programmes. Not every Region uses deterministic models to evaluate measures but
65
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
developments are ongoing. Additional investments will have to be done. However an estimation of
the costs to conform to this standard is not feasible at the moment.
Supplementary information from interview:
It is mainly the Flemish region, which has the capability to develop plans and measures. Therefore
the option is not considered cost-neutral.
Recommendation 1(e): Use AQ models for designing monitoring networks when models are used in
combination with monitoring
"The use of AQ models in combination with monitoring to design monitoring networks is not a
common practice in BE yet. The use of these techniques will generate a supplementary cost for BE,
however an estimation of these costs is not feasible at the moment.
Supplementary information from interview:
IRCEL is involved in a related activity, the LIFE project ATMOSYS, which aims at classification of
monitoring stations.
Recommendation 1(f): Use AQ models for determining the number of fixed monitoring sites that are
required
The use of AQ models to determine the number of fixed monitoring sites is not yet a common
practice in BE. The use of modelling for this purpose will generate a supplementary cost for BE,
however an estimation of these costs is not feasible at the moment.
OPTION 2: MODEL QUALITY OBJECTIVES (MQO)
"BE currently uses data quality objectives (validation statistics) and will continue to actively follow
up the activities within the FAIRMODE working group concerning the model quality objectives. In
some regions model uncertainty is calculated for interpolation and/or dispersion models and model
validation is done with supplementary measurements from mobile measurement campaigns.
Supplementary information from interview:
The option has been indicated as cost-neutral because there is an ongoing Fairmode activity, which
is covered by the baseline costs.
OPTION 3: FORUM OF EU AQ REGULATORY MODELLING
Yes, BE has nominated a competent authority for the FAIRMODE activities.
Supplementary information from interview:
The option has been indicated as cost-neutral because there is an ongoing Fairmode activity, which
is covered by the baseline costs.
OPTION 4: QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONSISTENCY OF EMISSION INVENTORIES
In BE work concerning the improvement of the emission inventories is ongoing. If supplementary
quality objectives have to be met in the framework of FAIRMODE this will generate an investment,
however an estimation of these costs is not feasible.
Croatia
Summary: Situation within the country and findings of interview
The existing core modelling group consists of only 2 persons, although there is more modelling
expertise in various institutions. However, a team of at least 5 scientists working in the field of
66
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
atmospheric modelling should be developed in one institute that will be able to work together and
develop competence in atmospheric modelling to provide data for reporting on national level,
planning and other MS obligations toward EU.
The resolution of the models currently applied in Croatia is 10 x 10 km. Emissions are not at that
level of detail, and local scale modelling leaves much to be desired. The respondent assumes that
high resolution databases will be entail much work, because data will have to be collected more or
less from scratch (whereas in some other countries there is much existing statistical material to
build on).
The figures for computer capacity in Croatia are large compared to the stipulated minimum
requirements. The investment of 370000 Euro for increased computer capacity mentioned for the
baseline 4 question should be distributed over 3-5 years. The very large number appears because
a multicore machine with certain parallel functionality is required in order to run existing code. The
number corresponds to the cost of existing (SGI) computers.
BASELINE 1: COMPETENCE BUILDING – ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE
Our member state conforms to the specified standards when whole country is taken into the
consideration and expert employed in different institutions are accounted. However, a team of at
least 5 scientists working in the field of atmospheric modelling should be developed in one institute
that will be able to work together and develop competence in atmospheric modelling to provide data
for reporting on national level, planning and other MS obligations toward EU.
Supplementary information from interview:
Establishing a baseline: It is confusing that the leading text says “Additional staff cost”. For this
reason costs of current staff – which is two persons was omitted. Add 100000 to 112000 (50000 per
person).
Cost category 5 and 6: The respondent wished to indicate that 5 FTE staff members were required,
and they would have to divide their time between work and competence building. Thus, there
should not be 1100 days + 1100 days. Instead, divide them into 770 days + 330 days.
BASELINE 2: COMPETENCE BUILDING – HIGH RESOLUTION EMISSION DATABASES
Emission data on 50x50 km horizontal resolution are being produced regularly. Emission inventory
on 10x10 km horizontal resolution is developed. Staff development, database software, GIS
software, new emission data generation is foreseen.
Supplementary information from interview:
The emission inventory is currently outsourced. The numbers under “Establishing.” is meant to
reflect this. It is necessary with a staff of 10 (but presumably outsourcing could be replaced by in-
house activity in that case) to build up things.
The respondent assumes that high resolution databases will be entail much work, because data will
have to be collected more or less from scratch (whereas in some other countries there is much
existing statistical material to build on).
The 5 + 3 persons in questions 5 and 6 should only appear only once in these.
67
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
BASELINE 3: DEVELOPMENT OR ACQUISITION OF ATMOSPHERIC MODELS
Air quality models for regional and urban scale are/can being used for assessment and reporting.
Our meteorological service provides appropriate meteorological data. Operational annual reporting
including model validation based on modelling is foreseen.
BASELINE 4: COMPUTER FACILITIES FOR RUNNING HIGH RESOLUTION MODELS
Currently we are using SGI computer with 54 core for all our model runs at Meteorological Service.
However their capacity is limited and the computer is used by different groups (weather forecasts,
climate etc.). Therefore in other to be able to produce modelled air quality data on operative basis
an upgrade or the purchase of new computers is needed.
Supplementary information from interview:
740000 for computers corresponds to the price of existing computers.
The investment 370000 for increased computer capacity should be distributed over 3-5 years. The
very large number appears because a multicore machine with certain parallel functionality is
required in order to run existing code.
BASELINE 5: OPERATIONAL / RUNNING COSTS
Administration costs are satisfying. Accommodation requests are not fulfilled while traveling and
mobility of scientist currently working in atmospheric modelling is covered additional resources for
new staff that needs to be employed to conform with the minimum number (5 scientists) need to be
assured. Operational costs for maintaining readiness for the staff's ability for decision making
support is not fulfilled. Costs for the operational forecast system are not covered.
OPTION 1: ON THE USE OF MODELS FOR REGULATORY PURPOSE AND TO SUPPORT AIR
QUALITY POLICY
Recommendation 1(a): Use AQ models for assessment of air quality levels to establish the extent
of exceedances and establish population exposure
Models are used for the air quality assessment to provide information on air quality levels in zones
that not covered with fixed measurements. The application of models in agglomerations is
envisaged and further development of emission inventories is needed. Models will be used for
annual air quality reporting regarding the assessment of exceedances and exposure as a
supplement to measurements.
Supplementary information from interview:
A 50 core processor is required for two months per year.
Category 4 for reporting: It is indicated that 1 person is required, but only 30 days. This should be
corrected, so that existing staff delivers 30 days, but additional staff has to be employed and use
130 days on reporting.
Recommendation 1(b): Use AQ models for forecasting air quality levels for short term mitigation
and public information and warnings
No, we are not providing air quality forecasts.
Supplementary information from interview:
In order to produce forecasts not only 10 days would be needed, but also resources from a new
person. Thus Cost category 2 should be 110 + 110 days, in total 220.
68
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Recommendation 1(c): Use AQ models for souce allocation to determine the origin of exceedances
and to provide a knowledge basis for planning strategies
Yes. The source allocation techniques (trajectories, models) have been used. However permanent
scientific development and application of new methods is needed. The increase in reporting
obligations is foreseen.
Recommendation 1(d): Use AQ models for development and assessment of plans and measures to
control AQ exceedances
Yes, we have used models for development of national plans eg. for ozone. Models need to be
constantly improved and further application of models if foreseen.
Recommendation 1(e): Use AQ models for designing monitoring networks when models are used in
combination with monitoring
Yes, we have used model results for assessment and design of compliance network. Further
applications are foreseen.
Recommendation 1(f): Use AQ models for determining the number of fixed monitoring sites that are
required
Yes, we have used models for development of national plans e.g. for ozone. Models need to be
constantly improved and further application of models if foreseen.
OPTION 2: MODEL QUALITY OBJECTIVES (MQO)
We are actively involved in the work of Fairmode regarding MQO and the revision of existing
objective in the Directive is needed.
Supplementary information from interview:
Costs are too difficult to quantify as long as it the necessary activities are undefined.
OPTION 3: FORUM OF EU AQ REGULATORY MODELLING
We do not have nominated competent authority for modelling and this Fairmode activity is fully
supported.
Supplementary information from interview:
Too difficult to quantify as long as it the necessary activities are undefined.
OPTION 4: QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONSISTENCY OF EMISSION INVENTORIES
(Questionnaire not filled in)
Supplementary information from interview:
The recommendation will possibly not induce any additional costs, once a baseline capacity
concerning emission inventories is established.
Any further quantification is difficult.
Hungary
Summary: Situation within the country and findings of interview
Hungary uses very few resources on modelling, and in recent years there has been a reduction in
staff. Nevertheless work on modelling is ongoing, which fulfils part of the stipulated baseline
69
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
activities and part of the recommendations. The Chimere model is used for forecasting. Such a
system has been set up so that it runs automatically.
The respondent would like to make use recommendations of FAIRMODE and participate in
Fairmode work. But costs such as registration fees at conferences in practice act as a barrier to
international cooperation. It would be appreciated if Fairmode would arrange training courses where
there is no registration fee, like it is the case for EMEP.
BASELINE 1: COMPETENCE BUILDING – ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE
Baseline requirements are not yet fulfilled, there is only 1 full-time senior staff within atmospheric
modelling, working with only one 10-year old PC. Because of serious restrictions in the budget,
there is no possibility to employ any more staff persons and to purchase new computers at the
moment.
Supplementary information from interview:
The numbers concerning current activities are essentially the respondent’s salary. There used to be
more staff involved in modelling, but it has been cut down. The respondent hopes for improvement
in the situation, but the current economic situation has forced the level of activity to be very low.
Forecasts are produced for Budapest with 2 km resolution. Work is ongoing to extend it to the entire
country. Available emission data are not sufficient for good results.
The forecast system is set up so that it runs automatically (Chimere).
BASELINE 2: COMPETENCE BUILDING – HIGH RESOLUTION EMISSION DATABASES
Currently, there is a staff of 3 for both GHG and CLRTP reporting in the Hungarian Met. Service.
However, transport emission modeling has been outsourced, and the compilation of the forestry
inventory is done by the relevant governmental institute. We have had no education in databases
and GIS, and generally self-education is the dominant form of capacity building. We're at the very
beginning of the process of building national databases.
Supplementary information from interview:
The sum indicated is for outsourced activities and in-house activities.
BASELINE 3: DEVELOPMENT OR ACQUISITION OF ATMOSPHERIC MODELS
Existing models under maintenance (which were downloaded freely) are: AERMOD, CHIMERE.
High resolution meteorological data are available (AQ modelling is done by the national met. office).
Supplementary information from interview:
Also the Flextra trajectory model is used.
BASELINE 4: COMPUTER FACILITIES FOR RUNNING HIGH RESOLUTION MODELS
There is only one 5-year old 2-core computer maintained (housing, power and cooling is OK).
Supplementary information from interview:
Chimere is run on Linux PC. Supercomputer available at met office. It is desirable with more
computer capacity.
BASELINE 5: OPERATIONAL / RUNNING COSTS
No administration, no economic officer, office space for 2 personnel, serious restrictions in
travelling, there are limited opportunities to attend conferences. An operational AQ forecast system
runs for Budapest in additional to the met. office forecasting tasks and costs.
70
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Supplementary information from interview:
It would be desirable with economic officer.
OPTION 1: ON THE USE OF MODELS FOR REGULATORY PURPOSE AND TO SUPPORT AIR
QUALITY POLICY
Recommendation 1(a): Use AQ models for assessment of air quality levels to establish the extent
of exceedances and establish population exposure
We do not use models for the investigation and assessment of ambient air quality.
Supplementary information from interview:
The key question is to ensure the baseline capacity. The activity recommended by FAIRMODE has
to be put on top of an adequate baseline activity, but as long as the baseline activity isn’t there it is
hardly possible to specify the required additional resources.
Recommendation 1(b): Use AQ models for forecasting air quality levels for short term mitigation
and public information and warnings
We use CHIMERE chemical transport model to forecast air quality levels for Budapest. In the future
we plan to use air quality model to evaluate the air quality levels in Hungary.
Supplementary information from interview:
The costs for current activities for Rec. 1b also constitute part of the activity indicated as Baseline 1
(part of the respondent’s time is used for forecasting).
Concerning scales, the forecasting is on a 2 x 2 km scale, not hotspot modelling.
Recommendation 1(c): Use AQ models for source allocation to determine the origin of
exceedances and to provide a knowledge basis for planning strategies
We use AERMOD model for regulatory purposes to assess the future effect of a new investment.
Supplementary information from interview:
The AERMOD activity possibly more properly could be classified as related to Planning (1d). In an
EMEP context there is some work on source allocation. The Flextra model is used.
Recommendation 1(d): UseAQ models for development and assessment of plans and measures to
control AQ exceedences
We use CHIMERE chemical transport modell to forecast air quality levels for Budapest.
Supplementary information from interview:
There are plans to use Chimere also for scenario studies. However, there are not resources to do
this presently. There may come a PhD student who could assist in such work.
Recommendation 1(e): Use AQ models for designing monitoring networks when models are used in
combination with monitoring
We do not have this type of modelling activity. We plan to do this.
Supplementary information from interview:
There has not been time to do such work until now, but the responded finds it very relevant.
Respondent suspects that stations in the monitoring network are not properly placed, and she has
plans to look into the matter.
71
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Recommendation 1(f): Use AQ models for determining the number of fixed monitoring sites that are
required
We have no activity in this field.
OPTION 2: MODEL QUALITY OBJECTIVES (MQO)
We have no activities on this field.
Supplementary information from interview:
Would like to use recommendations of FAIRMODE. Would appreciate that Fairmode would
arrange training courses where there is no registration fee, like it is the case for EMEP.
OPTION 3: FORUM OF EU AQ REGULATORY MODELLING
We are ready to take part.
Supplementary information from interview:
The meteorological institute is the obvious candidate to become national competent authority.
OPTION 4: QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONSISTENCY OF EMISSION INVENTORIES
This can be fulfilled by the costs mentioned in Option 3.
Supplementary information from interview:
Takes part in ongoing international activities on emission inventories, but would like to take part in
Fairmode activities also.
72
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Appendix C: Summary of open-ended responses – by issue
Member State BASELINE 1: COMPETENCE BUILDING – ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE
Does your Member State currently conform to the standards or practices specified in the minimum
requirements listed above? Please clarify your response
Austria No. At the Austrian EPA there is currently no staff dedicated to modelling issues as there are no legal
requirements.
Belgium This competence building is available at the different regional environment administrations and the
Belgian interregional Environment Agency. Subcontractors (like e.g. the Flemish Institute for
Technological Research) are also playing an important role in air quality modelling in Belgium. Some of
the Regions indicate that competence in atmospheric modelling and air quality modelling will be further
developed, but additional efforts have to be made to achieve the specified minimum requirements. The
following calculation is an estimation of the existing annual costs of baseline 1. Some of the regions
indicated a change in costs to conform to the baseline 1 standard but no further details of the costs could
be provided at the moment.
Croatia Our member state conform to the specified standards when whole country is taken into the consideration
and expert employed in different institutions are accounted. However a team of at least 5 scientists
working in the field of atmospheric modelling should be developed in one institute that will be able to work
together and develop competence in atmospheric modelling to provide data for reporting on national
level, planning and other MS obligations toward EU.
Finland Finland meets the requirements. There is a Air Quality modelling group that develops the atmospheric
and air quality models for different scales (local, urban, regional, global..) (~20 Research Scientists and
PhD students) in FMI. In addition, there is Air Quality expert service group that offers dispersion modeling
services for various customers (Cities, industry etc..) in Finland and abroad.
France yes definitively. At the national level a team of 12 people (more than half of them being senior scientists)
is entirely devoted to air pollution modelling research and expertise. This team belongs to INERIS and
participates to the national reference laboratory for air quality (LCSQA). It works for the Ministry in charge
of the Environment. At the local level, associations in charge of air quality monitorig develop skill and
competences in air pollution modelling as well. A staff of about 30 local experts works can be mobilised.
Note that INERIS develops research projects in the fields of AQ modelling and hosts a number of PHD
students. On the material point of view, it benefits from high performance computing resources.
Germany Practice in Germany is contracting consultants in most iof the cases. Answers rely on assuming that
presumption made for this questionnaire are proper.
Hungary Not yet, there is only 1 full-time senior staff within atmospheric modelling, working with only one 10-year
old PC. Because of serious restrictions in the budget, there is no possibility to employ any more staff
persons and to purchase new computers at the moment.
Ireland No. Currently there is no capacity available for modelling. 2013 will see a full time fellowship devoted to
developing the specified criteria in CAFÉ with regard to modelling components of the Directive
Italy Yes, it does. ENEA (National Agency) support Ministry of the Environment in developing and maintaining
the Integrated Atmospheric Pollution National Model. ENEA has team on atmospheric research with
about 15 staff researchers, research fellowship and temporary researcher. They regularly attend to
international group (including Fairmode) and have links with foreign research group
Netherlands Yes, the NL spends more than the 3-5 full time persons for atmospheric modelling under 1). Dutch
research institutes and Universities together employ a number of PhD in atmospheric modelling but not
specifically for national use. Since NL already uses modelling for reporting AQ data, we do not fill out the
baseline sheets for building capacity but only the sheets on maintenance of the modelling in sheets under
Options.
Poland It is not known on what basis was estimated the above. minimum requirements. Each Member State has
its own approach to the problem of human resources. For example in CIEP modelling issues are carried
out on behalf of the CIEP by external institutions. One full-time employee of the doctoral title (responsible
for modelling) is currently employed in CIEP.
Romania YES
Sweden Yes, the Swedish Meteorological & Hydrological Institute (SMHI) have significant competence with regard
to atmospheric & air quality modelling. This far exceeds the estimated minimum resources above. Other
institutes and consultants also have a good degree of competence in air quality modelling.
73
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Member State BASELINE 1: COMPETENCE BUILDING – ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE
UK Modelling is already used for compliance reporting (alongside measurement data for assessment of
extent of exceedance), short term forecasting, source allocation, development of plans and measures,
network design and establishment of monitoring requirements . Its not clear how this data gathering
exercise is relevant to the FAIRMODE recommendations or the review of the Directive or where the
estimates have been produced from.
Member State BASELINE 2: COMPETENCE BUILDING – HIGH RESOLUTION EMISSION DATABASES
Does your Member State currently conform to the standards or practices specified in the minimum
requirements listed above? Please clarify your response
Austria No. There is currently great expertise at the EPA in compiling emission trends for the whole of Austria (one
figure for each emission category and year) but there doesn't exist a high resolution emission data base
available as input for atmospheric modelling. Some of Austrian's provinces maintain such emission
inventories, but these do not cover the whole country and are not harmonised yet.
Belgium This competence building is available at the different regional environment administrations and the Belgian
interregional Environment Agency. Subcontractors (like e.g. the Flemish Institute for Technological
Research) are also playing an important role in air quality modelling in Belgium. Some of the Regions
indicate that competence in geographic resolution emission databases is developed, but will be further
developed, but additional efforts have to be made to achieve the specified minimum requirements. The
following calculation is an estimation of the existing annual costs of baseline 2. Some of the regions
indicated a change in costs to conform to the baseline 2 standard but no further details of the costs could
be provided at the moment.
Croatia Emission data on 50x50 km horizontal resolution are being produced regularly. Emission inventory on
10x10 km horizontal resolution is developed. Staff development, database software, GIS software, new
emission data generation is foreseen.
Finland NA (Not FMI'sd Responsibility) SYKE, TIlastokeskus
France France is committed in the implementation of a National Emission Inventory for air pollutants which
compiles emissions of more than 50 pollutants over the French territory with high temporal and spatial
resolutions (until 1 hour and 1km). This national inventory (INS) will be operational in 2013. The 26 local
organisations in charge of air quality monitoring developed local inventories for each French region with
very high spatio-temporal resolutions. Necessary human and material resources (similar or better than the
minimum requirements set in the baseline description) to maintain and develop these tools at both levels
are currently implemented. Annual reporting according to the CLRTAP requirements is under the
responsibility of the CITEPA, an organisation gathering more than 20 experts in the field of emission
inventories.
Germany Practice in Germany is contracting consultants in most iof the cases. Answers rely on assuming that
presumption made for this questionnaire are proper.
Hungary Currently, there is a staff of 3 for both GHG and CLRTP reporting in the Hungarian Met. Service. However,
transport emission modelling has been outsourced, and the compilation of the forestry inventory is done by
the relevant governmental institute. We have had no education in databases and GIS, and generally self-
education is the dominant form of capacity building. We're at the very beginning of the process of building
national databases.
Ireland We do not model ambient air quality currently. We have not built either a high resolution or low resolution
emission inventory for this specific purpose. Data regarding emissions are collated by our organisation, but
in my own opinion, it would be a volume of work to adapt this into a spatial emission inventory. We
currently do not have the resources available to us to complete such a task.
Italy Though the National inventory is provided by ISPRA, ENEA performs many activities in order to prepare
the national inventory (annual on a county base) for feeding the atmospheric pollution national model
(hourly grid base inventory, speciation, etc)
Netherlands Yes, the Netherlands has an integrated system including all the above resources. Option 4 shows all the
costs involved in (1) yearly generating the annual emission data on SNAP level and (2) allocating this data
on a 1*1 km grid.
Poland National reference centre of emission inventories is KASHUE/KOBIZE (The National Administration of the
Emissions Trading Scheme). Their data are partly used for the purposes of the national modelling. In
addition, the emission bases are carried out by provincial inspectorates of environmental protection -
regional level.
74
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Member State BASELINE 2: COMPETENCE BUILDING – HIGH RESOLUTION EMISSION DATABASES
Romania YES
Sweden Yes, SMHI have developed high resolution emission databases (although the quality & resolution differs
between emission categories). Some local authorities have also developed high resolution emission
databases.
UK Modelling is already used for compliance reporting (alongside measurement data for assessment of extent
of exceedance), short term forecasting, source allocation, development of plans and measures, network
design and establishment of monitoring requirements . Its not clear how this data gathering exercise is
relevant to the FAIRMODE recommendations or the review of the Directive.
Member State BASELINE 3: DEVELOPMENT OR ACQUISITION OF ATMOSPHERIC MODELS
Does your Member State currently conform to the standards or practices specified in the minimum
requirements listed above? Please clarify your response
Austria No. There is currently no dispersion model operated at the EPA.
Belgium Belgium does not have a junior staff for technical implementation and maintenance of models and
computer facilities to make the models FAIRMODE compliant. Some of the regions developed appropriate
atmospheric models operating with meteorological data (from the national meteorological institute) with a
spatial resolution of 1x1 km and a temporal resolution of 3 hours.
Croatia Air quality models for regional and urban scale are/can being used for assessment and reporting. Our
meteorological service provide appropriate meteorological data. Operational annual reporting including
model validation based on modelling is foreseen.
Finland Finland meets the requirements. There is a Air Quality modelling group that actively develops the
atmospheric and air quality models for different scales (local, urban, regional, global..) (~20 Research
Scientists and PhD students) in FMI.
France 1- the basic French model for regional air quality modelling, CHIMERE, developed by INERIS and the
national research centre is freely downloadable on the internet. Some local models used by the local
organisations can be acquired for a limited cost through partnership with research laboratories. Urban
models (like ADMS) are available through contracts with private companies. Cost for development and
maintenance is well framed for both operation and further development.
2- OK
3- OK. partnership with Meteo France is established. Meteo France recently developed a high resolution
model (2,5 km) which is now used for air quality
4- Reporting on the evaluation of air quality model: operational at the national level; at the local scale a
framing process is on-going under the coordination of the reference laboratory LCSQA to assess the
quality of models used by local organisations in charge of air quality monitoring
Germany Practice in Germany is contracting consultants in most iof the cases. Answers rely on assuming that
presumption made for this questionnaire are proper.
Hungary Existing models under maintenance (which were downloaded freely) are: AERMOD, CHIMERE. High
resolution meteorological data are available (AQ modelling is done by the national met. office).
Ireland I have already discussed this under baseline 1. Again I make the point regarding reporting of modelled
data to EEA. Will there be experts at that end to assess the models used by member states? I say this as it
was mentioned at the FAIRMODE meeting in Oslo a few years ago that modelled data will be dealt with
the same gravitas as monitored. Have there been any modelled exceedances of the limit values by
member states to date that have lead to cases been taken by the commission? I included a general rough
cost for license purchase, renewal and the purchase of model ready met data if required
Italy Yes it does. ENEA's team deals with all the requirements listed. High resolution met simulation with 1 hour
time resolution are produced directly starting from ECMWF analysis.
Netherlands Yes, The Netherlands already reports AQ data based on measurements and modelling.
Poland Modelling is carried out on behalf of the CIEP by external institutions.
Romania YES
Sweden Yes, there is a good range of atmospheric models available in Sweden, which are constantly under further
development.
75
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Member State BASELINE 3: DEVELOPMENT OR ACQUISITION OF ATMOSPHERIC MODELS
UK Modelling is already used for compliance reporting (alongside measurement data for assessment of extent
of exceedance), short term forecasting, source allocation, development of plans and measures, network
design and establishment of monitoring requirements . It is not the case that models can be downloaded
freely or acquired for a small amount to undertake regulatory reporting, this is misleading. Its not clear how
this data gathering exercise is relevant to the FAIRMODE recommendations or the review of the Directive.
Member State BASELINE 4: COMPUTER FACILITIES FOR RUNNING HIGH RESOLUTION MODELS
Does your Member State currently conform to the standards or practices specified in the minimum
requirements listed above? Please clarify your response
Austria No such Power-PCs are available at the EPA for the moment.
Belgium Yes, considered that this facilities are not only present within the Belgian interregional Environment Agency
but also in the Regions and subcontractors.
Croatia Curently we are using SGI computer with 54 core for all our model runs at Meteorological Service.
However their capacity is limited and the computer is used by different groups (weather forecasts, climate
etc.). Therefore in orther to be able to produce modelled air quality data on operative basis an upgrade or
the purchase of new computers is needed
Finland Finland meets the requirements. FMI has enough computing power inhouse (super computer capacities).
France INERIS benefits from high performance computing systems for its studies for the ministry of Ecology:
- the national air quality forecasting and mapping system, PREV'AIR, www.prevair.org, is hosted by a 256
core computer run in a fully operational 24h/7days mode
- an access to a national high performance system, the CCRT, which hosts one of the most powerful
computer in Europe
At the local scale the local organisations benefit from appropriate computational resources.
Germany Practice in Germany is contracting consultants in most iof the cases. Answers rely on assumming that
presumtion made for this questionnaiere are proper.
Hungary There is only one 5-year old 2-core computer maintained (housing, power and cooling is OK).
Ireland more or less answered this in baseline 1 (staffing numbers in terms of running models). Would require 1 8
- 48 core processor. Staff requirements outline in tab 1
Italy High resolution models run on theENEA- CRESCO high performance computing infrastructurei, a cluster
based on x86_64 architecture; the main system is the Portici Cluster (HPL test 17.1 TFlops). Estimated
costs only for atmospheric modelling activities
Netherlands Yes, The Netherlands already reports AQ data based on measurements and modelling.
Poland Modelling is carried out on behalf of the CIEP by external institutions.
Romania YES
Sweden Yes, SMHI have adequate resources in this regard.
UK Modelling is already used for compliance reporting (alongside measurement data for assessment of extent
of exceedance), short term forecasting, source allocation, development of plans and measures, network
design and establishment of monitoring requirements . Its not clear how this data gathering exercise is
relevant to the FAIRMODE recommendations or the review of the Directive.
Member State BASELINE 5: OPERATIONAL / RUNNING COSTS
Does your Member State currently conform to the standards or practices specified in the minimum
requirements listed above? Please clarify your response
Austria No not at all.
76
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Member State BASELINE 5: OPERATIONAL / RUNNING COSTS
Belgium Yes, we can provide the indicative cost made by the Belgian interregional Environment Agency and not
the operational/running cost for the regions or consultants. We cannot provide the different cost
categories but only one figure (1.235.000 euro).
Croatia Administration costs are satisfying. Accommodation requests are not fulfilled while traveling and mobility
of scientist currently working in atmospheric modelling is covered additional resources for new staff that
needs to be employed to conform with the minimum number (5 scientists) need to be assured.
Operational costs for maintaining readiness for the staff's ability for decision making support is not
fulfilled. Costs for the operational forecast system are not covered.
Finland Finland meets the requirements. FMI has 650 employees and about 20employees in administration.
France Ok for all issues
Germany Practice in Germany is contracting consultants in most of the cases. Answers rely on assuming that
presumption made for this questionnaire are proper.
Hungary No administration, no economic officer, office space for 2 personnel, serious restrictions in travelling,
there are limited opportunities to attend conferences. An operational AQ forecast system runs for
Budapest in additional to the met. office forecasting tasks and costs.
Ireland Again outlined in baseline 1
Italy Yes, see previous sheet
Netherlands Yes, The Netherlands already reports AQ data based on measurements and modelling and has an
operational forecast system.
Poland Modelling is carried out on behalf of the CIEP by external institutions.
Romania YES
Sweden Yes, SMHI have adequate resources in this regard.
UK Modelling is already used for compliance reporting (alongside measurement data for assessment of
extent of exceedance), short term forecasting, source allocation, development of plans and measures,
network design and establishment of monitoring requirements . Its not clear how this data gathering
exercise is relevant to the FAIRMODE recommendations or the review of the Directive. Many of these
aspects are arbitrary and irrelevant, especially if modelling is not done in house.
Member State Recommendation 1(a): Use AQ models for assessment of air quality levels to establish the extent
of exceedances and establish population exposure
Does your Member State currently conform to the standards or practices specified in the
recommendations listed above? Please clarify your response
Austria Supposing that an atmospheric modelling group exists at the EPA according to the minimum
requirements described in PART 1, we assume that such a group would handle the above mentioned
application.
Belgium In Belgium deterministic models and/or intelligent interpolation techniques are used to calculate
population exposure and/or to evaluate measures. For the annual questionnaire concerning the
reporting of the air quality in the framework of the directive 2008/50/EC mainly measurements are used.
Some of the regions have developed models and algorithms in order to meet these recommendations :
modelling of pollutant concentrations and calculation of population exposure with a spatial resolution of
1x1km, modelling of emissions scenarios to manage source legislation or to optimise air quality
monitoring etc.
Croatia Models are used for the air quality assessment to provide information on air quality levels in zones that
not covered with fixed measurements. The application of models in agglomerations is envisaged and
further development of emission inventories are needed. Models will be used for annual air quality
reporting regarding the assessment of exceedances and exposure as a supplement to measurements.
Finland Finland meets the requirements. Cities and municipalities are responsible of local air quality
assessments made by measurements and modelling. In many cases cities outsource that service for the
air quality experts (FMI or other consultants).
77
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Member State Recommendation 1(a): Use AQ models for assessment of air quality levels to establish the extent
of exceedances and establish population exposure
France The national air quality forecasting and mapping platform, PREV'AIR, allows to simulate background
concentrations over France with a 5 km resolution. It is sufficient and relevant to assess urban
background concentrations, but local exceedances near busy roads or industrial sites require other
means. To focus on the local scale, the local associations developed local modelling systems that are
operational as well. Exposure assessment and mapping tools are available and use together with in-situ
measurements from the automatic network and field campaigns. Therefore, geographical extension of
the exceedances and the number of inhabitants concerned, can be evaluated and reported according to
the air quality Directive.
Germany Without making AQ assessment by modelling mandatory with clear implementing provisions Germany
most probably will not follow this option.
Hungary We do not use models for the investigation and assessment of ambient air quality.
Ireland No. The baseline tabs address all these questions with the assumption that we would be developing our
modelling capacity with the requirements of CAFÉ in mind
Italy Yes, it does. The national model runs on a 4x4 km grid, provide hourly concentrations. finer resolution
models up to few meters of resolution ( fluid dynamics model) are applied as well.
Netherlands Yes, The Netherlands reports AQ data on the bases of measurements and modelling. The Netherlands
uses AQ models fo scenarios studies and effectiveness of measures. The Netherlands has an
operational (short term) AQ forecasting system. Considering costs for the Assessment and planning of
AQ levels: this is a rather complex system with many partners. We have the feeling that the cost items
asked here would require a major operation to get costs of every organisation for these items. Instead
we tried to make estimates and sort of fitted it into your items. So this is a very crude estimation.
Poland Yes, in order to support the annual air quality assessments, the modelling of tropospheric ozone is used
in the whole area of Poland, as well as for individual provinces. Such works are contracted on behalf of
CIEP by external institutions. In addition, 3 of 16 above. provincial inspectorates are implementing
modelling for air quality assessments for pollutants other than ozone.
Romania NO
Sweden Models are widely used to assess air quality in the larger towns and cities with the worst air quality
problems. Competencies and practice are, however, varied between authorites, but a number of highly
competent consultants are available for modelling studies. Modelling studies are also carried out on a
national level. Modelling results are, however, not currently being reported directly in accordance with
the Air Quality Directive's requirements.
UK Modelling is already used for the assessment of air quality levels to establish the extent of exceedances
and establish population exposure for compliance reporting according to decision 2004/461/EC
Member State Recommendation 1(b): Use AQ models for forecasting air quality levels for short term mitigation
and public information and warnings
Does your Member State currently conform to the standards or practices specified in the recommendation
listed above? Please clarify your response
Austria In order to perform such simulations extremely fast computers were needed, due to the high spatial
resolution required for those pollutants with short term limit values (e.g. NO2, SO2, PM10). Forecasting O3
is a different story and requires usually other types of models (CTM) covering the regional scale.
Belgium In BE a number of air quality forecast models are used to inform the public and to trigger short term
emission reduction measures (e.g. speed limits on high ways during smog episodes).
Croatia No, we are not providing air quality forecasts.
Finland Finland meets the requirements. Cities and municipalities are responsible of local air quality assessments
made by measurements and modelling. FMI offers AQ forecasting services for the biggest cities in Finland.
France Operational in France (see previous option with the implementation of the PREv'AIR system and local air
quality forecasting platforms). For information, partnerships with national and local TV chanels are
established to inform the general public of exceedances of limit values when air pollution episodes occur.
Moreover forecasting capacities of the PREv'AIR system are used to assess the effectiveness of short
terms action plans. In France a new regulation is about to be taken to implement short term action plans
when PM10 concentrations (daily means) exceed the 50 ug/m3 threshold over a given geographical area
for several days. The implementation of this provision is based on the results of forecasting systems.
Germany Germany's forecasting and information systems already fit with requirements.
78
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Member State Recommendation 1(b): Use AQ models for forecasting air quality levels for short term mitigation
and public information and warnings
Hungary We use CHIMERE chemical transport modell to forecast air quality levels for Budapest. In the future we
plan to use air quality model to evaluate the air quality levels in Hungary.
Ireland No. This requirement should be a first step on the road to full compliance with requirements. It could be
quickly achieved by most member states at a smaller cost than the other elements. Already there is an
ensemble of modelled data available through MACC / GMES outputs for each country. Freely available
met data and back tracjectory tools could also be incorporated.
Italy Models are used to assess the impact of sources (point, linear etc) on demand. costs not estimated
Netherlands Yes. See under option 1a.
Poland Task in progress in terms of tropospheric ozone.
Romania NO
Sweden Some local authorities forecast air quality levels for short term mitigation and public information. We are,
however, unsure of the exact methods used and their complexity.
UK Modelling is already used for forecasting air quality levels for public information and warnings
Member State Recommendation 1(c): Use AQ models for source allocation to determine the origin of
exceedances and to provide a knowledge basis for planning strategies
Does your Member State currently conform to the standards or practices specified in the
recommendation listed above? Please clarify your response
Austria Supposing that an atmospheric modelling group exists at the EPA according to the minimum
requirements described in PART 1, we assume that such a group would handle the above mentioned
application.
Belgium Source allocation is mainly performed via consultancy assignments e.g. in the framework of time
extension demands, plans and programmes when limit values are exceeded. In some Regions local
monitoring campaigns (frm 6 weeks to 6 months) are aimed to determine exposure and origin of
emissions for regulation strategies purposes. Theses programs are supported by mineralogic/chemical
analysis of PM (scanning electron microscopy coupled to a spectrometer energy dispersive analysis
(EDX), and the overall analysis using the X-ray diffraction (XRD)). Additional investments will have to be
done. However an estimation of the costs to conform to this standards is not feasible at the moment .
Croatia Yes. The source allocation techniques (trajectories, models) have been used. However permanent
scientific development and application of new methods is needed. The increase in reporting obligations
is foreseen.
.
Finland Not in operational use in FMI, only done in research projects
France Several field campaigns have been set up in French regions during the two last years to caracterise PM
episodes. Measurements of PM chemical composition and other parameters were available from these
campaigns and first investigations to allocate sources were done. Moreover when PM episodes occur a
specific network of chemical samplers is activated so that the composition of PM is analysed. Those
results are compared to simulations run with the chemistry-transport model CHIMERE to improve our
understanding of the source contributions. This is actually fundamental for planning control strategies.
Such a integrated system is running in France since 2008.
Germany Considerations according to option 1(c ) are already practice where necessary
Hungary We use AERMOD model for regulatory purposes to assess the future effect of a new investment.
Ireland would require development. This has been outlined previously, with estimate of time / staff requirements
given.
Italy source apportionment and origin of exceedances have been made for PM and NO2 over Italy. results
are documented in the communications to UE
Netherlands Yes. The modelling under Option 1a also gives information on the contribution of sources to the
concentration at a location. Costs are therefore integrated in Option 1a.
Poland We act in accordance with regulation of Minister of the Environment of 26 January 2010 on reference for
certain substances in ambient air (OJ No 16, 2010 item 87), where in annex No. 3. reference modelling
methodology of substances levels in the air are specified. In the case of applying for a permit/ license,
for the purpose of calculating the pollutants spread, a mathematical model, described in the above.
regulation has to be used.
79
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Member State Recommendation 1(c): Use AQ models for source allocation to determine the origin of
exceedances and to provide a knowledge basis for planning strategies
Romania YES, using outsourced services. It has been used but not at the national level. Will be extended as a
compulsory request for air quality plans development.
Sweden Models are used to differing extents by Local Authorities for this application, but the larger cities
generally conform to these standards. It is however, possible, that practice could be improved for this
application.
UK Modelling is already used for source allocation
Member State Recommendation 1(d): Use AQ models for development and assessment of plans and measures
to control AQ exceedences
Does your Member State currently conform to the standards or practices specified in the
recommendation listed above? Please clarify your response
Austria The development of air quality plans with the help of air quality models can be quite extensive. In Austria
hundreds of measures in cities and regions were to be evaluated. This work is currently done by experts
at the province level often supported by Universities.
Belgium In BE deterministic models are used to evaluate emission reduction measures and to develop plans and
programmes. Not every Region uses deterministic models to evaluate measures but developments are
ongoing. Additional investments will have to be done. However an estimation of the costs to conform to
this standards is not feasible at the moment.
Croatia Yes, we have used models for development of national plans eg. for ozone. Models need to be
constantly improved and further application of models if foreseen.
Finland Cities and municipalities are responsible of local air quality assessments made by measurements and
modelling. FMI offers dispersion modelling services for the cities.
France The CHIMERE model is run at the national scale by INERIS to assess the effectiveness of national and
sectoral control measures. At the local/urban scales local organisations run appropriate models to
evaluate additional local control measures. In fact both national and local measures are systematically
assessed by modelling systems.
Germany Is an essential part when setting up air quality plans
Hungary We use CHIMERE chemical transport model to forecast air quality levels for Budapest.
Ireland no.
Italy the effectiveness of national and regional measures has been assessed using both atmospheric
pollution model and GAINS Italy
Netherlands Yes. The calculations of the AQ levels over recent years and near future are made in the same
modelling system. So costs are integrated in Option 1a.
Poland Procedures for preparation and evaluation of the above. plans and activities are carried out in
accordance with the Regulation of Minister of the Environment (ME) of 26 January 2010 on the
reference of certain substances in the air (Journal of Laws 2010 No. 16, item. 87) and the Regulation of
ME of 11 September 2012 on air protection programs and short-term action plans (Journal of Laws of
2012, item. 1028). This regulation takes into account the obligations imposed by Directive 2008/50/EC.
Romania not yet, but it will be implemented as soon as possible
Sweden Models are used to differing extents by Local Authorities for this application, but the larger cities
generally conform to these standards. It is however, possible, that practice could be improved for this
application.
UK Modelling is already used for development and assessment of plans and measures to control AQ
exceedences
Member State Recommendation 1(e): Use AQ models for designing monitoring networks when models are used
in combination with monitoring
Does your Member State currently conform to the standards or practices specified in the
recommendation listed above? Please clarify your response
Austria Supposing that an atmospheric modelling group exists at the EPA according to the minimum
requirements described in PART 1, we assume that such a group would handle the above mentioned
application.
80
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Belgium The use of AQ models in combination with monitoring to design monitoring networks is not a common
practice in BE yet. The use of these techniques will generate a supplementary cost for BE, however an
estimation of these costs is not feasible at the moment.
Croatia Yes, we have used model results for assessment and design of complience network. Further
applications are foreseen.
Finland Cities and municipalities are responsible of local air quality assessments made by measurements and
modeling. FMI offers dispersion modeling services for the cities and municipalities.
France Use of models to design monitoring networks is not routinely practised in France. The number of stations
and their locations are defined by the local monitoring networks according to the Directive requirements
and national and local needs. Recent studies started to assess the adequacy of the network. They are
based on model results.
Germany Without making the design of monitoring networks in combination with modelling mandatory together
with clear implementing provisions Germany most probably will not follow this option.
Hungary We do not have this type of modelling activity. We plan to do this.
Ireland no. currently ambient air modelling is not done
Italy different model techniques, detailed emissions on grid, GIS elaborations are currently used for the best
siting and to determine the minimum number of stations of the national network for HM, Hg, POPs, HPA.
Netherlands Probably yes. The Netherlands uses models to get insight in the distribution of the AQ. According to that
distribution and a number of other criteria the monitoring sites are chosen. We see no specification in the
recommendation here (the text is still very generic) so we cannot fully answer this question. Considering
costs: running the model for designing networks and to fix the locations (option 1f) is a small activity
compared to the yearly workload under option 1a so we have not specified this further.
Poland The network of measuring stations are designed in accordance with the results of the five-year air
quality assessments, but also using the results of modelling.
Romania No
Sweden Most monitoring networks operated in Sweden have been established for many years. We are unsure of
the exact role models played in their development. With regard to development of new monitoring
networks, the use of models for this application is varied. Some local authorities do consider models, but
it seems that the majority do not. This is an area in which practice needs to be improved and guidance
from FAIRMODE would be very welcome.
UK Modelling is already used as an input for the specification of monitoring networks when models are used
in combination with monitoring
Member State Recommendation 1(f): Use AQ models for determining the number of fixed monitoring sites that
are required
Does your Member State currently conform to the standards or practices specified in the
recommendation listed above? Please clarify your response
Austria Supposing that an atmospheric modelling group exists at the EPA according to the minimum
requirements described in PART 1, we assume that such a group would handle the above mentioned
application.
Belgium The use of AQ models to determine the number of fixed monitoring sites is not yet a common practice in
BE. The use of modelling for this purpose will generate a supplementary cost for BE, however an
estimation of these costs is not feasible at the moment.
Croatia Yes, we have used models for development of national plans eg. for ozone. Models need to be
constantly improved and further application of models if foreseen.
Finland in Finland, the amount of fixed monitoring stations in various areas is determined by the amount of
population in the defined monitoring zone(according to the directive specifications about zones and
agglomerations).
France See answer for option e
Germany Without making option 1(f) mandatory together with clear implementing provisions Germany most
probably will not follow this option.
Hungary We have no activity in this field.
Ireland no. currently no ambient air quality modelling is completed
Italy see previous sheet
Netherlands Yes, see considerations under option 1e.
Poland The network of measuring stations are designed in accordance with the results of the five-year air
quality assessments, but also using the results of modelling.
81
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Member State Recommendation 1(f): Use AQ models for determining the number of fixed monitoring sites that
are required
Romania No
Sweden With the odd exception, only monitoring results are used to determine the number of fixed monitoring
sites required. Guidance from FAIRMODE on this application would be welcomed.
UK Modelling is already used as an input for determining the number of fixed monitoring sites that are
required
Member State OPTION 2: MODEL QUALITY OBJECTIVES (MQO)
Does your Member State currently conform to the standards or practices specified in the
recommendation listed above? Please clarify your response
Austria No. In our opinion, the current MQO of the Air Quality Directive aren't ambiguous, especially the existing
guidelines helped to clarify open questions. We do not recommend to change the MQO. The
implementation of new, stricter MQO (DELTA-tool in its current version) will certainly increase time and
effort in respect to modelling in Austria due to the complex topography a lot. Additional costs can't be
estimated, as it is not clear whether state-of-the-art models are even able to provide results meeting the
new MQO.
Belgium BE currently uses data quality objectives (validation statistics) and will continue to actively follow up the
activities within the FAIRMODE working group concerning the model quality objectives. In some regions
model uncertainty is calculated for interpolation and/or dispersion models and model validation is done
with supplementary measurements from mobile measurement campaigns.
Croatia We are actively involved in the work of Fairmode regarding MQO and the revision of existing objective in
the Directive is needed.
Finland FMI supports the idea of preparing the guidance document for the quality assurance for air quality
modelling . FMI is interested to participate also in future in the preparation of the QA document.
France The MQO mentioned in the 2008 AQD are not precise enough for operational use. Therefore we are in
favour of more stringent and framed quality objectives for model use. We follow carefully the
developments of the FAIRMODE methodology to assess model quality. The CHIMERE model has been
tested against the FAIRMODE criteria. In 2013, the same criteria will be used to assess the quality of the
local models used in France.
Germany Quality assurance is integral part when modelling.
Hungary We have no activities on this field.
Ireland no. Clarification is definitely required
Italy At the present fully involved in Fairmode activities. MQO are tested continuosly.
Netherlands Yes, The Netherlands conforms to the MQD as mentioned in the 2008 AQ directive. Considering the
revision of the MQA: it is not clear yet what criteria and what targets for those criteria will be. So it is not
possible to answer this question further.
Poland The modelling results in Poland meet the requirements of the Directive 2008/50/EC in terms of data
quality objectives. This recommendation is vague, lack of a detailed cost estimate, with undefined data
quality objectives for modelling.
Romania Yes
Sweden FAIRMODE's existing guidance on calculation of model quality objectives is currently used within
Sweden, although their use is varied and by no means standard. However, when compliance of model
results with the quality ojectives has been assessed, they have been shown to easily comply with the
requirements. More stringent MQO's are needed and this recommendation is strongly supported by
Sweden.
UK We support and are involved with the work that FAIRMODE is undertaking to propose new data quality
objectives for modelling. This work is currently in progress and is not sufficiently developed for an
assessment to be made of the possible cost associated with new data quality objectives. FAIRMODE is
not recommending revising the DQOs at this stage.
82
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Member State OPTION 3: FORUM OF EU AQ REGULATORY MODELLING
Does your Member State currently conform to the standards or practices specified in the recommendation
listed above? Please clarify your response
Austria No.
Belgium Yes, BE has nominated a competent authority for the FAIRMODE activities.
Croatia We do not have nominated competent authority for modelling and this Fairmode activity is fully supported.
Finland The idea of independent competent authority is good idea in order to ensure the quality of modeling made
by different players (FMI, consultants).
France The competent authority nominated for metrological issues (linked with AQUILA) is the Central Laboratory
for air quality monitoring to which belongs INERIS. Experts from the LCSQA (and INERIS) will be
nominated for air quality modelling issues as well.
Germany Answer depends on the concrete requirements. An estimate is not possible currently.
Hungary We are ready to take part.
Ireland no air quality modelling completed. There definitely is a need for clarification for both member states and
FAIRMODE members.
Italy ENEA researchers have been appointed by Ministry of Environment to partecipate in Fairmode groups,
moreover a national forum for air quality modellers follows the international debate
Netherlands RIVM will act as the Competent authority for modelling. Since we already do so we do not think it will cost
much extra. However, this depends on the activities and questions asked by FAIRMODE. There are no
specifications in this recommendation further so it is not clear to us where to conform to.
Poland The recommendation is not an obligation included in EU law, therefore, it is not carried out by Poland. The
inability to assess the cost without the prior presentation of a range of concrete proposals for action. the
body is the lack of such information in the poll. Inability to assess the costs without presenting detailed
proposals for the scope of activities of above. body – there is no such an information in this form.
Romania Yes
Sweden Sweden has already established a NRL for air quality modelling at SMHI. It was, however, only established
in 2012 and does not yet fully conform to all points in the list of supporting motivations.
UK We do not think that there will be any costs associated with this recommenation. Not possible to determine
a baseline.
Member State OPTION 4: QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONSISTENCY OF EMISSION INVENTORIES
Does your Member State currently conform to the standards or practices specified in the
recommendation listed above? Please clarify your response
Austria Supposing that an atmospheric modelling group exists at the EPA according to the minimum
requirements described in PART 1, we assume that such a group would handle the above mentioned
requirement.
Belgium In BE work concerning the improvement of the emission inventories is ongoing. If supplementary quality
objectives have to be met in the framework of FAIRMODE this will generate an investment, however an
estimation of these costs is not feasible
Croatia
Finland NA, Syke, tilastokeskus
France A national working group has been created in France to define the basic rules and methodologies that
should be used to develop local and national emission inventories. Common databases are used to this
end. In France each administrative region is covered by a high resolved emission inventory and France
is defined with the national emission inventory, so-called INS.
Quality assurance plans are required for local and national inventories and audits will started in 2013.
Germany This effort is undertaken contiguously. As long as specification of requirements is open we assume
status quo.
Hungary This can be fulfilled by the costs mentioned in Option 3.
Ireland No . This is a fair recommendation. The same set of criteria need to be set for the models themselves
also. As stated earlier, an expert on that particluar modelling system is needed on the EEA side of the
fence ( similar to AQUILA, and the intercomparision excerises that are carried out annually)
Italy ENEA harmonize national emissions with regional ones in order to check consistency of top-down and
bottom-up approaches
Netherlands Yes, The Netherlands has a competent authority that makes emission inventories (at 1x1 km scale),
reviews the emissions and reports them to international bodies. More detailed emission data (on street
83
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
level) are available via municipalities. These emissions are also used for the AQ assessments.
Poland Appropriate action is taken by the CIEP to refine the emission data for modelling.
Romania YES
Sweden There is a significant amount of work carried out within Sweden regarding the compilation and quality
assurance of emissions data suitable for AQ modelling. We are very supportive of this recommendation
and are keen to partake in this work.
UK This recommendation provides a general statement of intent which is pragmatic. However it is not
possible to assess the implications on costs of this recommendation.
84
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Appendix D: Bottom-up approach. Graphs for each of the 14 questions
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000 Total cost of baseline 1 - bottom-up approach
Total baseline costs
Capacity development
Additional staff
Reporting and administration
Data generation and compilation
Operation and maintenance
Equipment and facilities
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
1800000Total cost of baseline 2 - bottom-up approach
Total baseline costs
Capacity development
Additional staff
Reporting and administration
Data generation and compilation
Operation and maintenance
Equipment and facilities
85
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000 Total cost of baseline 3 - bottom-up approach
Total baseline costs
Capacity development
Additional staff
Reporting and administration
Data generation and compilation
Operation and maintenance
Equipment and facilities
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000Total cost of baseline 4 - bottom-up approach
Total baseline costs
Capacity development
Additional staff
Reporting and administration
Data generation and compilation
Operation and maintenance
Equipment and facilities
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000Total cost of baseline 5 - bottom-up approach
Total baseline costs
Capacity development
Additional staff
Reporting and administration
Data generation and compilation
Operation and maintenance
Equipment and facilities
86
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000Total cost of option 1a - bottom-up approach
Total baseline costs
Capacity development
Additional staff
Reporting and administration
Data generation and compilation
Operation and maintenance
Equipment and facilities
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000Total cost of option 1b - bottom-up approach
Total baseline costs
Capacity development
Additional staff
Reporting and administration
Data generation and compilation
Operation and maintenance
Equipment and facilities
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000 Total cost of option 1c - bottom-up approach
Total baseline costs
Capacity development
Additional staff
Reporting and administration
Data generation and compilation
Operation and maintenance
Equipment and facilities
87
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000Total cost of option 1d - bottom-up approach
Total baseline costs
Capacity development
Additional staff
Reporting and administration
Data generation and compilation
Operation and maintenance
Equipment and facilities
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000Total cost of option 1e - bottom-up approach
Total baseline costs
Capacity development
Additional staff
Reporting and administration
Data generation and compilation
Operation and maintenance
Equipment and facilities
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
Total cost of option 1f - bottom-up approach
Total baseline costs
Capacity development
Additional staff
Reporting and administration
Data generation and compilation
Operation and maintenance
Equipment and facilities
88
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000Total cost of option 2 - bottom-up approach
Total baseline costs
Capacity development
Additional staff
Reporting and administration
Data generation and compilation
Operation and maintenance
Equipment and facilities
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000Total cost of option 3 - bottom-up approach
Total baseline costs
Capacity development
Additional staff
Reporting and administration
Data generation and compilation
Operation and maintenance
Equipment and facilities
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
Total cost of option 4 - bottom-up approach
Total baseline costs
Capacity development
Additional staff
Reporting and administration
Data generation and compilation
Operation and maintenance
Equipment and facilities
89
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Appendix E: FAIRMODE Consultation Survey of the top-down assessment
In this appendix, the results from the consultation survey on the top-down approach, conducted in
March 2013 are provided. The idea of the consultation survey was to verify the assumptions of the
minimum requirements for building up the capacity and competences needed for being able to fulfill
the FAIRMODE recommendations. For all questions, the member states were asked to assess the
estimated level of cost and to make a comment as follows:
Please chose a category and comment as appropriate
Categories Comment
100% too high
75% too high
50% too high
25% too high
Acceptable
25% too low
50% too low
75% too low
100% too low
Background
In November 2012, you received an Information Request asking for possible costs and resources
required for your Member State should the FAIRMODE recommendations be implemented. Thank
you to everyone who took the time to respond to this request. We have analysed the data received
and estimated the individual costs and resources across all Member States.
As a supplement to the results from the previous Information Request, we have made an alternative
assessment, using a top-down approach, where all countries are calibrated against an expert
estimate of the minimum requirements necessary for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations.
We would like to provide you with the opportunity to review our findings to date and comment on
the validity of the results.
The following short consultation survey should take 15 minutes to complete.
We appreciate your participation in this consultation.
Introductory Questions
Question: What are your roles / responsibilities in your Member State?
Belgium
The Belgian Interregional Environment Agency (IRCEL-CELINE)
The telemetric air quality monitoring network in Belgium was initiated in 1979 and managed by the
federal Institute for Hygiene and Epidemiology (IHE). Following the transformation of Belgium into a
federal state with 3 regions, it was decided to split the network into 3 parts which were transferred
to the Flemish, the Brussels Capital and the Walloon Region in 1993.
It was decided to organize an interregional cooperation on a permanent basis through an official
cooperation agreement between the Regions (May 18, 1994).
90
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
This involves collaboration on the management of the monitoring networks and enforcing a
common scientific basis for collecting, processing and reporting air quality data.
The Belgian Interregional Environment Agency (IRCEL-CELINE) was the organisation created to
meet these goals.
Among other tasks, the agency runs :
an interregional calibration laboratory enforcing comparability of quality assurance and control
between the regional networks concerning air quality measurements.
an interregional air quality database where data from the regional networks are collected,
validated and processed into reports and studies.
an interregional data processing centre (IDPC) where air quality data collected in the regional
networks are acquired “real-time” , evaluated and used to predict and to inform the public during
these events. These real-time data are also published online: www.irceline.be.
air quality models used for air quality forecast, air quality assessment and scenario-analyses.
IRCEL-CELINE informs the regional, the federal authorities and the public on and during episodes
of enhanced air pollution (SMOG episodes), e.g.. informing or alerting the public when the ozone
EU information/alert thresholds of 180/240 µg/m3 are exceeded, activating the “SMOG90” measure
(speed limits on highways) during wintersmog episodes.
IRCEL-CELINE compiles the transmissions of all Belgian air quality and emission data to
international platforms such as EEA, WHO, OECD, EU, UNFCCC, EMEP-CLRTAP, EUROSTAT,
European commission, …
Staff members of IRCEL-CELINE are national experts in different European Air Quality expert
groups (e.g. the Air Quality Committee, FAIRMODE, AQUILA, EMEP TFMM, …).
IRCEL-CELINE is also the National Focal Point (NFP) for the European Environmental Agency
Croatia
I am leading the unit responsible for air quality research that includes the production of air quality
assessment reports and studies based on measurements and modelling data that are necessary for
regular air quality reporting in our country. Development of air quality modelling systems that would
be used for air quality management at national and local level is an important part of our work.
The Czech Republic
Relating to the work of FAIRMODE, one of the CHMI's responsibilities is to function as the
reference authority for modelling air pollution and evaluating air quality for European regulatory
purposes for the Czech Republic.
Ireland
Competent Authority with regard to the implementation of CAFÉ Directive and 4th
Daughter
Directive
Latvia
Latvian, Environment, geology and meteorology centre – authority responsible for Ambient Air
Quality Assessment in Latvia
UK
Competent Authority
91
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Introduction to the FAIRMODE Options Analysis
This project is assessing the possible costs and resources for your Member State in case of a
possible implementation of the recommendations from FAIRMODE (The Forum for Air quality
Modelling in Europe). FAIRMODE is a joint response action of the European Environment Agency
(EEA) and the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC) (see also:
http://fairmode.ew.eea.europa.eu/).
The FAIRMODE recommendations propose the use of models for air quality assessments,
forecasting, source allocations, monitoring network optimization, amongst others. Furthermore, it is
recommended to revise the data quality objective for modeling, to establish a FAIRMODE forum for
competent authorities for modeling, and to improve the quality of emission data.
However, the recommendations are in their nature not very specific. Especially, the
recommendations do not address the requirements for modeling scale (regional, urban background,
urban street), number of chemical species or quality or resolution of models or emissions.
As air pollution covers all scales, we have therefore assumed in the expert estimate of required
resources that atmospheric modelling at all scales (regional, urban background and urban street) is
necessary, since it is not possible to take into account the effect of non-linear atmospheric
chemistry in e.g. cities, if the boundary conditions are not well described. As a basis for the expert
estimate, we have assumed that Member States need to run models at all scales to be able to e.g.
carry out assessments at all scales within the countries – both in rural and urban areas.
In the following sections we ask you to consider our assessment of the following: 1) Minimum
Personnel Resources, 2) Direct Operational Costs
Minimum Personnel Resources
The minimum requirements for any country is considered to be the competences of at least one full
time scientist or staff member at the senior level within the following four areas:
Task Minimum Resource Required
1 Regional Scale Modelling 1 modelling senior scientist
2 Urban Background Modelling 1 modelling senior scientist
3 Urban Street Modelling 1 modelling senior scientist
4 High-resolution emissions 1 emission senior staff member
It is assumed that a staff of this size – possibly counting more physical persons, and possibly after
a multi-year period of building up competences – are working almost entirely with modelling tasks
associated with the EU Ambient Air Quality Directive and the FAIRMODE recommendations. It is
irrelevant who pays the staff (government, regional agencies or local authorities or any other).
Question 1: Do you think that the estimate given above for minimum requirements for the personal
resources and competences needed for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations in your country
is adequate?
Belgium
100 % too low since we estimated for the 5 baselines for the build-up phase (in the first
questionnaire) that a staff size of 22.5 was already needed. To comply with the recommendations
we also indicated that supplementary staff will be needed.
92
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Croatia
50% too low. In our country high resolution emissions and the development and application of
models for urban scale still need to be built up.
The proposed number of scientists is acceptable if such modelling system is already at operative
level.
However in countries where this is a task to go at least two more scientists are needed.
The Czech Republic
25% too low. At first glance I would say yes. But one observation is that meteorological modelling
has not been included. And forecast operation might also require separate time. Therefore I have
said 25% too low.
I agree that a staff of such size might involve more physical persons.
I also think that in some circumstances, emission work would require more than 1 person's time,
but that it might be accommodated by the time from the other modelling tasks.
Ireland
25% too high. Initially, in Year 1 we would anticipate that the above resources would be a starting
point. Of course when you have never put such an extensive modelling project into operation
previously, only time will tell. From year 2 onwards, we would expect that 3 persons
would be a reasonable estimate.
Latvia
100% too low. Latvia work with Regional scale Modelling (Swedish company Opsis model
ENVIMAN). To get the job done we require 3 people as minimum.
UK
This estimate is too low by at least a factor of 3. The UK is currently using air quality models to
support compliance assessment, source apportionment, baseline projections, development if air
quality plans and review of air monitoring networks, so we have a good understanding of the costs.
Too low by more than 100%.
93
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Direct Operational Costs
There will be direct operational costs, which are estimated as follows:
Resource Description Cost Description Total Estimated Annual Cost
One normal PC per staff member 4 PC x €1,500 / 3 years
€2,000 per year
Three computing servers for forecasting
and model calculations
3 servers x €10,000 / 3 years €10,000 per year
Licenses are needed for software for the
PCs and computer servers - GIS
software, database software, Fortran
and C compilers, visualization tools for
visualizing model results
€3,000 per year €3,000 per year
Travelling for participating in meetings
related to FAIRMODE and emission
quality
4 trips x €1,500 per trip €6,000 per year
Annual cost for training of staff member €667 per staff member on average €2,668 per year
Total Annual Direct Operational Costs €23,668 per year
This gives a total annual direct operational cost of €23,668 per year. Indirect operational costs as
e.g. administration, management, housing, etc. is not included here but assumed covered by
overhead.
Question 1: PC Requirements
Do you think that the estimate given for minimum PC requirements for the direct operational costs
(excluding overhead) needed for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations in your country is
adequate?
Resource Description Cost Description Total Estimated Annual Cost
One normal PC per staff member 4 PC x €1,500 / 3 years
€2,000 per year
Belgium
100% too low, since our staff estimates are much higher.
Croatia
50% too low. In accordance to the previous comment 2 more PC are needed, e.g. 3,000 per year
would be acceptable.
The Czech Republic
1 PC per person is adequate.
Ireland
Acceptable. One off purchase. Shouldn’t impact hugely
Latvia
Costs per PC Acceptable.
UK
Acceptable
Question 2: Server Requirements
Do you think that the estimate given for minimum server requirements for the direct operational
costs (excluding overhead) needed for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations in your country is
adequate?
94
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Resource Description Cost Description Total Estimated Annual Cost
Three computing servers for forecasting
and model calculations
3 servers x €10,000 / 3 years €10,000 per year
Belgium
We accounted for 12 servers (each 7.000 euro) instead of 3 servers.
Croatia
This is acceptable.
The Czech Republic
Acceptable. I would say that 2 (larger) servers is the bare minimum. But it depends on the servers –
disk space, computing cores etc. And I'm not sure what 10k EUR buys these days.
3 servers allows one to run a forecast, a met model, and aq scenarios separately and therefore is
more convenient and makes running simulations easier. 3 would be acceptable.
Ireland
Acceptable. Again, the server is a once off purchase.
Latvia
3 servers are operated constantly. Offered rate per server Acceptable.
UK
Acceptable.
Question 3: License Requirements
Do you think that the estimate given for minimum license requirements for the direct operational
costs (excluding overhead) needed for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations in your country is
adequate?
Resource Description Cost Description Total Estimated Annual Cost
Licenses are needed for software for the
PCs and computer servers - GIS
software, database software, Fortran
and C compilers, visualization tools for
visualizing model results
€3,000 per year €3,000 per year
Belgium
75% too low since licenses for GIS-software, computational software, etc. seems to be more
expensive then 3.000 euros a year.
Croatia
75% too low. GIS software that is compulsory tool for visualization of modelling results first needs to
be acquired and the price for the accomplishment of baseline is somewhat higher. Depending on
different software versions the price might be up to 30.000, Eur.
Licensing for compilers seems underestimated (e.g. one license for PGI Fortran for Linux
workstation is about 440 Eur and for 6 PCs it would be annual cost of 2625 Euro). Furthermore,
visualization tools and database software also might be at the range of 2,000 Eur per year.
If the price of GIS acquisition is not taken into account the estimated annual cost is approximately
75% too low.
95
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
The Czech Republic
Acceptable. These software items are necessary.
Ireland
Acceptable
Latvia
At the moment no new license costs are planned. If new licenses needed proposed costs are 100%
too low.
UK
Far too low, probably by more than a factor of 10. GIS costs are high, not all GIS systems are free,
similarly the air dispersion models that we use are also commercial software. Met data is also not
free.
Question 4: Travel Requirements
Do you think that the estimate given for minimum travel requirements for the direct operational
costs (excluding overhead) needed for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations in your country is
adequate?
Resource Description Cost Description Total Estimated Annual Cost
Travelling for participating in meetings
related to FAIRMODE and emission
quality
4 trips x €1,500 per trip €6,000 per year
Belgium
Seems acceptable.
Croatia
This estimate is acceptable.
The Czech Republic
Acceptable. Cost per trip seems reasonable.
Ireland
50% too high. I think 1500 per person to cover travel and subsistence at a 2 day meeting in a
centralized European location is way too high
Latvia
Acceptable
UK
Acceptable
Question 5: Training Requirements
Do you think that the estimate given for minimum training requirements for the direct operational
costs (excluding overhead) needed for fulfilling the FAIRMODE recommendations in your country is
adequate?
Resource Description Cost Description Total Estimated Annual Cost
Annual cost for training of staff member €667 per staff member on average €2,668 per year
96
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Belgium
The cost per staff seems acceptable, although in our estimates we have much more than only 4
staff members.
Croatia
50% too low. Since the high resolution modeling system needs to be established more training at
the beginning of the process is required. This includes the cooperation with the developed
modelling groups in EU and the mobility component needs to be taken into account.
Minimum estimate for this component would be around 1000€ per person and 6 persons are
proposed as a minimum for our country leading to the total estimated annual cost of 6000 Euro.
The Czech Republic
50% too low. We recently sent a colleague to Reading for 4 days of training. Total cost was about
1000 EUR. The cost of the actual training was free, so that number includes travel and
accommodation etc. only. Therefore I would say the estimate is too low.
Ireland
100% too low. In my own experience the training costs associated with models are high. They also
tend to be in one location in Europe ( eg calpuff, aermod training), so traveling costs and
subsistence have to be considered.
Latvia
Acceptable
UK
Acceptable
The Czech Republic
The competence building phase will be important because I perceive there to be a current lack of
availability of such staff with the required aq modelling-specific experience. In other words, the right
people might (do) currently exist but not all in the one institute and not having a role dedicated to aq
modelling for European regulatory purposes.
UK
Costs have been assumed to be the same in all MS (in terms of staff time). This is unlikely to be the
case. Costs are likely to be higher in MS with more complex air quality situations or more
exceedances. The costs will also be crucially dependent on the organisational structure of the MS.
In some MS air quality assessment and management is carried out by regional authorities and in
such cases the total cost for the MS may be many times higher.
Thank You
Many thanks for completing this consultation.
If you have any additional comments then please provide them here
97
Review of: Provisions for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment,
and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support
Appendix F: Table 2.1, enlarged
Co
deRe
com
men
datio
nSu
b-O
ptio
n-FU
LLEC
Adm
inCo
stEC
Adm
inBu
rden
MSA
dmin
Cost
MSA
dmin
Burd
enAQ
Dire
ctAQ
Indi
rect
Info
rmat
ion
Man
agem
ent
Regu
latio
nEq
uity
Cohe
renc
e
1. A
sses
smen
t of a
ir qu
ality
leve
ls to
esta
blis
h th
e ex
tent
of e
xcee
danc
es a
nd
esta
blis
h po
pula
tion
expo
sure
neut
ral
---
--ne
utra
l++
++++
++++
+
2. F
orec
astin
g ai
r qua
lity
leve
ls fo
r sho
rt te
rm
miti
gatio
n an
d pu
blic
info
rmat
ion
and
war
ning
s
Neu
tral
neut
ral
---
++
++++
+++
+
3. S
ourc
e al
loca
tion
to d
eter
min
e th
e or
igin
of e
xcee
danc
es a
nd to
pro
vide
a k
now
ledg
e
basi
s for
pla
nnin
g st
rate
gies
neut
ral
---
--++
++´+
+++
++++
+
4. D
evel
opm
ent a
nd a
sses
smen
t of p
lans
and
mea
sure
s to
cont
rol A
Q e
xcee
danc
esne
utra
lne
utra
lN
eutr
alN
eutr
al++
++++
++++
+++
•D
esig
ning
mon
itori
ngne
twor
ksw
hen
mod
els
are
used
inco
mbi
natio
nw
ith
mon
itori
ng
neut
ral
neut
ral
+++
neut
ral
+++
+N
eutr
al++
Neu
tral
• De
term
inin
g th
e nu
mbe
r of f
ixed
mon
itorin
g si
tes t
hat a
re re
quire
dne
utra
lne
utra
l++
+ne
utra
l++
++
Neu
tral
++N
eutr
al
F22.
MO
DEL Q
UALI
TY O
BJEC
TIVE
SFA
IRM
ODE
reco
mm
ends
are
visi
onof
the
data
qua
lity
obje
ctiv
e fo
r mod
ellin
g-
--
-ne
utra
l+
++
+++
+
F33.
FO
RUM
OF
EU A
Q R
EGUL
ATO
RY
MO
DELL
ING
FAIR
MO
DEre
com
men
dsth
atin
para
llel
to
wha
tha
sal
read
ybe
enes
tabl
ishe
dfo
rth
e
mon
itorin
gof
air
qual
ity,
com
pete
nt
auth
oriti
esfo
rm
odel
ing
activ
ities
are
nom
inat
edby
the
Mem
ber
Stat
es(r
efAr
ticle
(3)
and
bulle
td)
qual
ityas
sura
nce
of
mod
ellin
g)
--
--
neut
ral
++
++++
++++
F4
4. Q
UALI
TY A
SSUR
ANCE
AN
D
CON
SIST
ENCY
OF
EMIS
SIO
N
INVE
NTO
RIES
FAIR
MO
DE re
com
men
ds to
inve
stig
ate
and
impr
ove
the
com
pila
tion,
cons
iste
ncy
and
qual
ity a
ssur
ance
of e
mis
sion
s dat
a su
itabl
e
for A
Q m
odel
ing
unde
r the
dire
ctiv
e
--
----
neut
ral
++++
++++
++++
Cost
s and
Bur
dens
Bene
fits
F1
1. O
N T
HE U
SE O
F M
ODE
LS F
OR
REGU
LATO
RY P
URPO
SE A
ND
TO
SUPP
ORT
AIR
QUA
LITY
PO
LICY
Sound analysis, inspiring ideas
BELGIUM – BULGARIA – HUNGARY – INDIA – THE NETHERLANDS – POLAND – RUSSIAN FEDERATION – SOUTH AFRICA – SPAIN – TURKEY – UNITED KINGDOM
P.O. Box 4175
3006 AD Rotterdam
The Netherlands
Watermanweg 44
3067 GG Rotterdam
The Netherlands
T +31 (0)10 453 88 00
F +31 (0)10 453 07 68
W www.ecorys.nl