Reproduced, with permission, from: Dutch National Research Program on Global Air Pollution and Climate Change (NRP). 1994. Report of International Review Meeting IMAGE 2.0. NRP Report 00-09.

IMAGE 2 Advisory Board Meeting

20-22 June 1994

Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Participants of Advisory Board Meeting:

Dr. Jos Bruggink
Energy Center Netherlands (ECN)
Petten, the Netherlands

Dr. Richard Richels
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
Palo Alto, California, USA

Dr. Rob Coppock
World Resources Institute (WRI)
Washington, D. C. , USA

Dr. Dennis Tirpak
US Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C., USA

Dr. Leen Hordijk
Agricultural University, Wageningen
Wageningen, the Netherlands

Dr. Aad van Ulden
Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute
(KNMI)
De Bilt, the Netherlands

Dr. Leo Meyer
Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning,
and Environment
The Hague, the Netherlands

Chairman of Meeting/Editor of Report:

Dr. Allen Solomon
US Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C., USA

Dr. Atiq Rahman
Bangladesh Center for Advanced Studies
Dhaka, Bangladesh

INTRODUCTION

The Board met to consider current progress, scientific quality, model usability, and future development of the IMAGE 2 model being generated at RIVM (see Appendix 1 for a detailed meeting agenda). The Board membership did not include expertise in all scientific aspects of the model (see Appendix 2 for listing of Board members and other participants). Hence, the evaluation focus is the model as a whole, rather than a concentration on individual components. The first day of the review consisted of talks by IMAGE 2 developers and discussion by board members on the current nature of the model structure and function and on progress in making model changes relevant to the January, l993 recommendations from the IMAGE Board (see Table 2 for listing of current progress in implementing the recommendations). The second day talks included review of model applications by the IMAGE 2 personnel participating in the meeting, and the third day was employed in discussions by the board itself, including at times the project director, Joe Alcamo.

The overall evaluation by the board was that the IMAGE 2 model is a unique and exceedingly important contribution to current international efforts at forming policy to mitigate effects of, and adapt to, the build up of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. It is unique in that, unlike any other assessment vehicle available today, IMAGE 2 provides a solution to the fundamental problem of predicting GHG concentrations in the atmosphere in the future, by combining knowledge of dynamics in, and relationships among (l) atmospheric chemistry and physics, (2) ocean biology, chemistry and physics, (3) terrestrial ecology, biophysics and biogeochemistry, (4) human population dynamics and demography, and (6) land and resource use, supply and demand in the industry, energy, and agriculture sectors.

The board noted that IMAGE 2 forms an exceedingly important contribution to assessing the impact on this world system generated by various proposed adaptive and mitigative actions, and by no action at all. Its value is being proven in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment Report (SAR), which is currently being written for publication in 1995. The SAR is subdivided into three portions, and each rely to some degree upon IMAGE 2 projections of future emissions, land cover and resource use to estimate potential impacts and to discuss feasible alternative actions. There simply is no other assessment vehicle capable of integrating the relationships alluded to above, and doing so on the global scale required for this assessment.

The Board agreed that one critical source of success in development of the IMAGE 2 model to date has been the close physical proximity of its developers to one another during model formulation. There simply is no substitute for daily, routine interaction among programmers and subject-matter experts who must depend on gleaning concepts and information from one another in generating their own portions of the integrated model. Anything which detracts from that interaction (isolating participants on different floors of the same building, or in different buildings on the same installation, or in different installations), artificially and unnecessarily increases the difficulty of attaining success in model development.

EVALUATION OF CURRENT PROGRESS

The Board had little critical advice to offer concerning current progress. Members uniformly agreed that the publication of "Image 2.0: Integrated Modeling of Global Climate Change" by Kluwer in April, l994, comprised a superb product and a fine demonstration of current progress. The value of this collection of papers from the peer-reviewed journal, Water Air and Soil Pollution, lies in its detailed documentation of the IMAGE model strategy components and results as projections of future global carbon dynamics, all in one location for reference by new users of the model or of its output. Model use and credibility will be greatly enhanced by this contribution. More generally, the board noted with satisfaction that all of the substantive advice provided at the review meeting of January, 1993 (see Table 1), had been accepted and implemented by the project team.

SCIENTIFIC QUALITY

The Board was quite impressed by the scientific quality of the current version of IMAGE 2. The IMAGE 2 team has been able to balance competing needs for a model which is simple enough to allow anomalous or surprising results to be traced to their origins within the model, while being comprehensive enough to allow assessment of simultaneous impacts of interactions between human populations and the biospheric system. The abstraction of processes at about the same phenomenological scale (if not the same spatial scale) throughout the model was particularly striking and may be largely responsible for the remarkably seamless functioning of the model.

In that regard, the Board suggests that the IMAGE 2 staff expend efforts on adequate reality checks before implementing and applying the display of spatial distributions of modelled features. The board noted that individuals who know nothing about the model. but have some concept (correct or incorrect) of local geography, may negatively judge model validity in the absence of data describing actual distributions. If such estimates are to be displayed in spatially explicit graphics, then the demonstrator must present carefully researched known distributions, and discuss the reasons for anomalies (either real or perceived), before viewers take the opportunity to judge the entire model on this basis. The suggestion by IMAGE 2 staff that the reality checks can be performed best by regional applications of the IMAGE model in conjunction with centers of excellence (discussed later in this section) is a logical, though partial, solution to the potential difficulty. There is no substitute, however, for identifying and obtaining verification data sets before model development takes place, if only to ensure comparability between modeled and measured data.

The challenge for maintaining and increasing scientific quality in IMAGE 2 is to focus model development and application on those areas where the combination of scale and process are most appropriate, and to eschew the temptation to develop or apply the model in peripheral areas in which it will be poorly suited or invalid. Board members agreed that the greatest strength of the IMAGE 2 model was in its capability to dynamically portray feedbacks and links among components of the global environmental and human system, which are normally examined separately. Hence, one board member suggested its most appropriate applications are "as a tool for scientific analysis of the feedbacks and linkages, rather than in policy decison making." Another expressed the view that "its strength is in estimating global GHG emissions, not in assessing impacts, or doing cost-benefit analysis, or the like." A third stated that "Because its strength is in integration of potential long-run consequences of human actions in energy and land cover, ..., the model lacks the detailed economic information for the design of short-run and especially, economics-oriented, policies."

Given that the model developments and applications do indeed focus on these strengths, board members point out that a considerable amount of planning and implementation should be expended on enhancing the visibility of IMAGE 2, particularly of its scientific credibility. Although the board was well satisfied with the model's validity, it is not clear that others who must use the model are aware that it really is this good! It must gain acceptability within both the policy and scientific communities from model improvements which give it scientific credibility and from (appropriate) policy-relevant products. It appears likely that IMAGE 2 will be alone as an integrated assessment vehicle for some time; hence, the model output will receive singular, close and critical attention which can compromise its value if users discover that applications are inappropriate to model capabilies.

Board members agree with IMAGE developers that one means to enhance the reputation of IMAGE is to expand current efforts to engage in cooperation with regional research groups elsewhere. Where these groups can "nest" regional models of human activities and land cover within IMAGE, and can verify features of those regional models with regional observations, the resultant models can be used in turn to verify the more general results of IMAGE model runs in the same regions. In this case, the selection of only the most competent and prestigious regional modeling groups with whom to collaborate would provide a double advantage to the IMAGE group in that it would assure the most valid model tests and would best publicize the model virtues. The IMAGE leadership should insure that these and the other groups with which the IMAGE team cooperates to add model capabilities (e.g., simulation of economic flows), generate and distribute peer-reviewed publications on their intermediate models and cooperative products as a minimal requirement for collaboration.

MODEL USABILITY

The Board interprets this category of questions to apply to the kinds of applications which are most and least appropriate to model strengths. In light of the views expressed by others regarding IMAGE credibility, selection of these applications is of particular concern. This section provides the Board's recommendations on what those applications could most advantageously be while the following section on "Future Model Developments" concentrates upon the model activities which must be undertaken to implement these applications.

1. Policy development support.

The IMAGE 2 model is most appropriately applied to informing international climate change negotiating bodies of the implications of current interrelated trends in population change, natural resource use, land use, energy use, and changing climate and atmospheric chemistry. The model currently is being used in all three Working Groups of the IPCC 1995 SAR as mentioned in the Introduction, above. In Working Group I, the IMAGE model is one of only a few models used to back calculate the emissions required to stabilize CO₂ in the atmosphere. Scenarios from IMAGE are being used in Working Group II to illustrate cross-impacts of various mitigation measures and to provide various data used in the evaluation of forestry impacts and forest mitigation options. Working Group III uses emission scenarios from IMAGE to assess the uncertainty of future emission estimates. For some emission categories (e.g., non-C0₂ gases from land use), IMAGE is one of very few models that provide future estimates. It is a tribute to the value IPCC places on IMAGE, as well as to the quality of IMAGE development personnel, that two IMAGE Project Members are Convening Lead Authors and two others are Principal Lead Authors of IPCC l995 SAR chapters.

The next significant international policy forum for which IMAGE may be used is the Conference of Parties (COP). This set of negotiations is an exceedingly important one for setting international protocols, and one to which IMAGE output should be very relevant. The negotiations for the initial COP meeting in Berlin in 1995 will have probably excluded the potential use of any IMAGE output produced after the present time. The board notes that for entry into the decision-making process, the model results must be available to negotiators at least one year in advance of such meetings. For a role in the final outcome (rather than the current stage) of COP deliberations, the IMAGE team should be aiming for relevant model results during 1996-1997, that is, approximately one year before the COP is most likely to make decisions on a future protocol.

The IMAGE functions designed to support these policy negotiations should be focussed upon the implications to the terrestrial biosphere and atmospheric chemistry of current trends and of mitigation strategies, with greatest concentration at the global-scale and on the cross-linkages among the several sectors IMAGE simulates. The IMAGE development team points out that in addition, the model can be used to explore certain global-scale risk questions raised by Article 2 of the Climate Convention. This is because of IMAGE's unique integration of emissions calculations based on simulations of the controlling processes found in the atmosphere, oceans and terrestrial biosphere. The board suggests that the IMAGE team should realize that there will be scientific limits to the risk assessments that the model can perform. For example, assessments of ecosystem risks cannot be performed by the model because it does not take into account the important, fine-scale terrestrial ecosystem processes which produce ecosystem responses to environmental change. Assessments of impacts of sea-level rise on local agricultural success cannot be performed because the model contains spatial scales too coarse to accurately estimate the implications of these centimeter-scale processes. The board notes that IMAGE is not alone in being unable to approach these assessments; there are no other models capable of both geographic fine scales and global coverage to perform either of these kinds of assessments.

CURRENT MODEL DEVELOPMENTS

Given the need to focus upon the most appropriate model tests, improvements and applications, and the negative consequences for failure to do so, the Board makes the following recommendations on how best to select these activities. These items involve research under way, selected from among recommendations of the IMAGE 2 review Meeting of January, 1993 (Table 1, below). Those items currently under way which are not mentioned below were judged by Board Members to be of lesser priority.

1. The most important new capability to develop for IMAGE 2 in the near term is the ability of the model to follow economic flows. The work currently in progress to couple World Scan to IMAGE 2 should be given highest priority in terms of budget and personnel. In addition, the model linkages should be designed to allow replacement of World Scan with alternative global economy models at a later stage. The organization of a workshop on macro-economic linkages appears to be essential. Peer-reviewed publications are the required product of the IMAGE and World Scan coupling work. Of slightly lesser importance is the addition of cryosphere and sea-level submodels.

2. The most important near-term modification to current model capability involves the proposed adjustments to the terrestrial carbon cycle in terms of routines to simulate forest product supply and demand, and to calculate effects of economic forces on agriculture. The latter in particular may require an additional workshop of experts to generate credible consensus regarding the most logical approach to agricultural simulation.

These processes are most likely to change the global carbon storage and emission characteristics in significant amounts. Almost equally important to terrestrial carbon cycle estimates are the addition of the dynamics of nitrogen and of SO₂ emission simulations.

3. The most important near-term enhancement of model credibility will be the comparison of model behavior with the 100-year historic scenario now under preparation by the IMAGE team. This set of iterative tests may well be definitive for many (but not all) linkages among model components and at least, should suggest important adjustments in model structure and function. In addition, the historic scenario itself will be a valuable commodity because integrated assessment models presented by other teams of scientists can also be tested against this "reality", thereby providing estimates of comparative (with IMAGE) model validity.

FUTURE MODEL DEVELOPMENTS

The following section lists future model objectives, tasks and related developments as presented to the Board by the Project Leader. The views of the committee members are appended in italics. Then, suggestions by Board members which are not among those discussed by the Project Leader are presented.

Summary of Strategic Plan for IMAGE Project 1995-97
As Presented to IMAGE Advisory Board Meeting, June, 1994

Objectives Tasks

1. POLICY-RELATED TASKS

1.1 Implement integrated scenarios as reference points for policy scenarios
1.1 Develop a set of integrated reference scenarios

1.2 Identify consequences of policies for DGM, Conference of Parties

* Some Board members wonder if JI and other hedging responses are beyond the valid capabilities of IMAGE 2; others expressed no opinion.

1.2 Develop a set of policy scenarios including: low risk, sustainable" scenarios; delayed response; hedging; joint implementation (JI).

1.3 Analyze consequences of Article 2 of the Climate Convention for DGM, IPCC, Conference of Parties.

* The Board cautions the IMAGE team that many components of a global risk assessment cannot be adequately described by the current version of IMAGE 2.

1.3 To meet the objective in the left column, two tasks are necessary:

Develop methodology of global risk assessment which is necessary for studying Article 2.
Develop scenarios having to do with Article 2.

1.4 Analyze the effectiveness and consequences of regional biofuel use as a mitigation option for DGM, IPCC, Conference of Parties.
1.4 To meet the objective in the left column, two tasks are necessary:

Improve methodology and data needed for analyzing biofuels in the model;
Develop biofuel scenarios

1.5 Analyze consequences of economic instruments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For DGM, IPCC, Conference of Parties.

* The Board strongly supports the foregoing objectives and first two tasks; Specialists among Board members strongly support the remaining three tasks, with others offering no opinion.

1.5 To meet the objective in the left column, the following tasks are necessary:

Continue linkage of IMAGE with Worldscan model of CPB.
Hold a workshop on linking global macro-economic models with integrated environmental models like IMAGE.
Develop information for non-CO₂ cost curves using IMAGE. Cooperate with an economics group to build non-CO₂ cost curves using this information. Add these cost curves to IMAGE.
Add CO₂ cost curves developed at other institutes to IMAGE.
Perform cost analyses of mitigation strategies.

1.6 Combined goals:

Induce policy makers and others to guide the applications of IMAGE.
Effectively communicate the results of other IMAGE applications to policy makers and users of the information.

1.6 Hold a series of "Dialogue Workshops" between the IMAGE model team and policy makers, researchers, and other users of IMAGE information.

* Board members strongly support this task, especially international workshops.

1.7 Summarize work performed by IMAGE team on cross-impacts and cross-linkages of strategies to mitigate climate change. Obtain peer-review of this work.
1.7 Publish a special issue of a scientific journal with several articles from the IMAGE team that describe cross-impacts of mitigation measures.

2. BASIC MODEL CREDIBILITY

2.1 Combined Goals:

Identify bounds of model.
Identify stability of model and submodels.
Identify priorities for model improvements.
Identify gaps in global change research.

* The Board strongly supports these objectives and tasks to demonstrate that IMAGE 2 strengths match variables of greatest concern in global change research.

2.1 To satisfy the combined goals in the left column:

Continue compiling 100 year database and testing the model against these data.
Perform extensive sensitivity analysis.
Conduct uncertainty analysis of model components and whole model system.

2.2 Combined Goals:

Improve model input data for various regions.
Build-up international constituency for the IMAGE model use in international negotiations.
Provide technical support for groups in other countries.

* Board members support the previous three objectives but some members question the value of regional studies in the context of all the tasks IMAGE wishes to support with its current resources.

Other members expressed concern regarding the appropriateness of IMAGE where the regional analyses will necessarily involve data and processes at finer scales than those comprising IMAGE.

2.2 To satisfy the combined goals in the left column:
Conduct regional studies in

South Asia --emphasis: sea level rise.
North America --emphasis: agriculture and boreal forests.
Latin America --emphasis: deforestation in the tropics.

3. CREDIBILITY OF ENERGY/ INDUSTRY SUBSYSTEM OF THE IMAGE MODEL

3.1 Improve credibility of future energy estimates.
3.1 To satisfy the objective in the left column:

Add fuel supply constraints.
Add global fuel trade.

3.2 Improve emission estimates and credibility of radiative forcing calculations.
3.2 To satisfy the objective in the left column:

Add CFC substitutes
Revise and improve non-CO₂ emission coefficients.

4. Category: CREDIBILITY OF THE TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT SUBSYSTEM OF THE IMAGE MODEL

4.1 Improve realism of land cover simulation and computations of fluxes of greenhouse gases between the biosphere and atmosphere for various policy and scientific applications.
4.1 To satisfy the objective on the left side of the column:

Improve Agricultural Demand model by adding: (i) simple equilibrium relation between supply and demand, (ii) global food trade, (iii) global timber demand/trade.

* Specialists in this field among Board members strongly supported the foregoing objective and tasks.

Improve estimation of potential vegetation by adding hydrology and irrigation.
Improve the Land Cover model by: (i) improving "steering mechanisms" of land cover change using information from IGBP, HDP, and elsewhere, (ii) adding dynamic changes in land degradation, (iii) performing regional case studies.

4.2 Improve the capability of the model to analyze strategies for least cost reductions of emissions by increasing the accuracy of the estimated non-CO₂ emissions from land use.

* Specialists in this field among Board members strongly support the objectives and tasks in 4.2 .

4.2 To satisfy the objective in the left column, improve the Land Use Emissions model by:

Improving the description of processes leading to emissions.
Improving emission coefficients.

4.3 Improve estimation of carbon flux between the biosphere and atmosphere so that IMAGE can be used more credibly for the following applications:

Impact of forestry on climate change;
Feasibility of plantations and other plans for carbon sequestration;
Analysis of feasibility of biofuel use;
Analysis of consequences of various joint implementation proposals.

4.3 To satisfy the objective in the left column, improve the Terrestrial Carbon model by:

Including the nitrogen cycle;
Including a description of forestry and the global wood cycle.

* Board members strongly support the objectives and tasks in 4.3

5. CREDIBILITY OF ATMOSPHERE AND OCEAN SUBSYSTEM OF THE IMAGE MODEL

5.1 Replace zonal 2-dimensional climate model with a global response pattern model derived from more detailed general circulation models of the atmosphere.
5.1 Implement Global Response Pattern based on GCM results. Implement for temperature and precipitation.

* Specialists in this field among Board members strongly support this objective and task

5.2 Combined goals:

Maintain the current balance in detail in the IMAGE model between the energy/industry subsystem, the terrestrial environment subsystem, and the atmosphere-ocean subsystem
Continue with sensitivity studies of the atmosphere and ocean

* The Board strongly supports these objectives and tasks.

5.2 To satisfy the objective in the left column take a "two-track" approach:

Maintain, but do not extend, the current two-dimensional atmosphere-ocean model in IMAGE. Eventually replace it with a simple three-dimensional atmosphere-ocean model being developed at KNMI.
Implement a Global Response Pattern model, as noted in point 5.1.

5.3 To improve the credibility of radiative forcing calculations.
5.3 Compute the regional variation of key greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol in the Atmospheric Chemistry model of IMAGE.

6. OTHER TASKS

6.1 To improve the usability of the model for staff at RIVM, for other researchers and users in the Netherlands, and for other researchers and users outside of the Netherlands.
6.1 Continue with Phase II of the construction of the User Support System (USS).

* The earlier IMAGE Board (January 1993) strongly supported development of the User Support System; the current Board suggests the IMAGE team carefully balance the funds needed to build the User Support System against funds needed to make substantive changes in the model, for example, those needed in order to maintain its credibility.

6.2 Speed up the IMAGE model so that it can be used interactively for "screening" of policy scenarios.
6.2 Build a quick-turn around" screening version of IMAGE, using the Global Response Pattern model described in point 5.1 above.

6.3 Combined goals:

To take advantage of the unique description contained in IMAGE of global linkages and feedbacks.
To provide input to IGBP, HDP, IPCC, UNEP, and other scientific programs studying global change.

6.3 To meet the combined goals in the left column: Use the model for specific scientific studies of global dynamics, linkages and feedbacks as required by the objectives of the scientific programs in the left column.

2. Future developments suggested by IMAGE Advisory Panel

The members of the Board suggested several potential lines of work representing either increases in model capability, or potential applications of the model. These are listed below.

a. Model Capability Increases.

The development of a users group was discussed by several Board members, although the views were not uniform Some suggested that an IMAGE users group may be expensive in both time and finances and could detract from necessary development of the model itself. Others thought that a users group could support regional applications of the model, and could enhance model credibility both by regional simulations, and by exposing new groups of scientists to the IMAGE model. The development of an IMAGE Newsletter was proposed in this regard. Part of the ambivalence toward the subject registered among the Board members may be derived from confusion as to differences and similarities of proposed IMAGE users groups and IMAGE regional centers.

Two Board members suggested that at least the ocean submodel required no further development, with one pointing out that more sophisticated ocean models in use now make that in IMAGE appear somewhat inadequate. A solution may be an approach to ocean dynamics like that which the IMAGE staff is implementing as a global climate response pattern model.

The absolute limits to global growth, in terms of resource exaustion, need to be assessed and inserted as constraints within the IMAGE model. Fossil fuels, prime and less productive agricultural lands, certain hardwood species, and other resources currently are assumed to be in plentiful supply by IMAGE even after certain ones have been exausted in simulation runs. Alternatively, IMAGE simulations could reflect the fact that the price of these limited resources will increase as they become more scarce, reducing their use, and increasing the time during which they are available. In addition, the role of technology development in improving energy and food production efficiency is treated in a rudimentary fashion while there is no clear view on how techology development will redress or limit the problems of resource exaustion. Explicit assumptions on technology development and its consquences could be given a prominant role in the construction of IMAGE economic capabilities.

b. Potential Applications

The assessment of win-win solutions to emissions problems was uniformly supported. This approach examines political approaches which make both economic sense and reduce GHG emissions. It might be done for particular regions and technologies, such as enhanced use of natural gas, or tree plantations aimed primarily at soils damaged by overuse, or the like.

The model could be profitably applied to assessment of aggregate effects of individual country efforts at curtailing emissions, that is, to examining the effects on carbon cycle responses by plans aimed at ameliorating carbon concentrations. Similarly, assessments of global vulnerability as a function of individual national vulnerability studies, or the aggregate effect of national plans sumitted to INC, could be undertaken. This kind of assessment appears most appropriate to IMAGE model capabilities, and is included in several of the policy assessment activities proposed by the IMAGE team. However, the Board reminds IMAGE developers to avoid regional assessment activities which demand greater spatial or numerical accuracy than IMAGE handles.

FUTURE OF THE IMAGE ADVISORY PANEL

The IMAGE Advisory Board which met June 20 to 22 was assembled against severe time constraints and hence, a few logistical problems were encountered which may have been avoided in a more leisurely planning period. Yet, these problems may also have stimulated the Board members to think more critically and carefully about how the Board should function. The recommendations from these considerations follow.

1. R.I.V.M. Personnel: A specific secretary at R.I.V.M. could be assigned to the Board for maintenance of addresses, mailings of project documents, travel arrangements, and so on. The IMAGE Project Leader or his delegated representative at RIVM could serve as the local scientific coordinator to arrange logistics of meetings, provide advice and clarification on tasks the IMAGE Project most needs the Board to accomplish, and so on.

2. Board Chair: The authority to whom the Board Chair is ultimately responsible, and the nature of those responsibilities, should be made explicit and formal. The authority, in turn, should be responsible for defining the specific questions which the Board should attempt to answer at each of its meetings. (It currently appears that the R.I.V.M authority is Dr. Rob Swart, Head, Global Change Department, which seems a reasonable choice.) Once the specific questions from the authority are in hand, the Board Chair could have the major responsibility to formulate an appropriate agenda for the Board Meetings. The agenda could be arranged in consultation with the both the R.I.V.M. authority and the local coordinator.

3. RIVM Responsibilities: The assigned Project personnel at R.I.V.M. should provide all members of the Board with Project publications as they become available, including reports of previous meetings, cooperative agreements made and proposals which have been funded since the last meeting, and with interim progress reports (e.g., every six months) which describe the variations from accepted plans, and the basis for the choices which have been made. These document distributions are being recommended to allow Board Members to keep up with Project development, rather than having to face a large stack of written material for hurried reading during travel to the meetings, or as late explanations of discussion topics, gleaned in the hotel after daily meetings.

4. Advisory Board Composition: The selection of members for the advisory board should be completed as soon as is feasible. In this regard, balance in covering relevant scientific disciplines should be a primary consideration. Ideally, the Board would include at least two members with appropriate scientific background for each of the three major model components.

Allen M. Solomon, Chair
June 1994 IMAGE Advisory Board Meeting

July 22, 1994

APPENDIX 1: IMAGE 2 Advisory Board Meeting Agenda, 20-22 June, 1994

Monday, 20 June

Session 1: Overview

08:45 - 09:15 Registration
09:15 - 09:30 Welcome and Announcements
Chairman of the Meeting
09:30 - 10:30 Introduction and Overview of IMAGE 2.0
Joseph Alcamo
10:30 - 10:50 Discussion of Overview
10:50 - 11:15

Session II: The Industry-Energy Subsystem of Models

11:15 - 11:45 Industrial Production Model and Energy Economy Model
Bert de Vries
11:45 - 12:15 Industrial Emissions Model and Energy Emissions Model
Johannes Bollen
12:15 - 12:45 Discussion of Industry/Energy Subsystem
12:45 - 14:00 Lunch

Session III: The Terrestrial Environment Subsystem of Models

14:00 - 14:15 Agricultural Demand Model
Gé Zuidema
14:15 - 14:45Terrestrial Vegetation Model and Terrestrial Carbon Model
Rik Leemans
14:45 - 15:15 Land Cover Model
Eric Kreileman
15:15 - 15:30 Land Use Emissions Model
Alex Bouwman
15:30 - 16:00 Discussion of Terrestrial Environment Subsystem
16:00 - 16:30 Pause

Session IV. The Atmosphere-Ocean Sub-System of Models

16:30 - 17:00 Atmospheric Composition Model and Zonal Climate Model
Maarten Krol
17:00 - 17:30 Ocean Biosphere Model and Ocean Climate Model
Olivier Klepper
17:30 - 18:00 Discussion of Atmosphere-Ocean Subsystem

Tuesday, 21 June

Session V. Model Applications

09:00 - 09:20 Introduction to Applications
Joseph Alcamo
09:20 - 09:40 Carbon Feedback Study
Rik Leemans
09:40 - 10:00 The Ocean Realignment Scenario
Maarten Krol
10:00 - 10:30 Pause
10:30 - 10:50 European Scenarios
Gé Zuidema
10:50 - 11:30 Other Policy-Related Applications
Joseph Alcamo
11:30 - 12:15 Discussion of Applications
12:15 - 13:30 Lunch
13:30 - 15:00 Planning the User Support System of IMAGE 2.1
Jos de Bruin
15:00 - 15:30 Pause
15:30 - 16:00 Future Plans of Project
16:00 - 18:00 General Discussion

Wednesday, 22 June

Session VI. Wrap-up

09:00 - 18:00 Closed and Open Discussions of Advisory Board and Drafting of Report

APPENDIX 2: Participants in IMAGE 2 Advisory Board Meeting, 20-22 June, 1994

1. Board Members

Jos Bruggink
ECN Beleidsstudies
Postbus 1
1755 ZG PETTEN
THE NETHERLANDS
tel. 31-2246-4321 fax 31-2246-3338

Richard Richels
Elsectric Power Research Institute
3412 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, California
USA
tel. 1-415-855-2602 fax 1-415-855-2954

Rob Coppock
WRI
1709 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
USA
tel. 202-662-2517
fax. 202-628-0878

Allen Solomon
US EPA ERL-C
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
USA
tel. 1-503-754-4772
fax 1-503-754-4799

Leen Hordijk
Center for Environment and Climate Studies
Agricultural University
P.O. Box 9101
6700 HB Wageningen
THE NETHERLANDS
tel. 31-8370-84919 fax 31-8370-84839

Dennis Tirpak
US EPA
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington D.C., 20460
USA
tel. 1-202-3822685
fax 1-202-3825605

Leo Meyer
Ministry of Housing
Physical Planning and Environment
Climatic Change Department
Code 640, P.O. Box 30945
2500 GX Den Haag
THE NETHERLANDS
tel. 31 -30-339-4407 fax 31-30-339-1310

Aad van Ulden
KNMI
Postbus 201
3730 GK De Bilt
THE NETHERLANDS
tel. 31-30-206911
fax 31-30-210407

Atiq Rahman
Bangladesh Centre for Adv. Studies
620 Road 10 A (New)Dhanmondi
GPO Box 3971
Dhaka 1205
BANGLADESH
tel. 880-2-315793 fax 880-2-863379

2. Image Project Participants

Joe Alcamo
RIVM
Environmental Forecasting Bureau
P.O. Box 1
3720 BA Bilthoven
THE NETHERLANDS
tel. 31-30-743704 (secr.) fax 31 -30-50740

Kees Klein Goldewijk
RIVM
Environmental Forecasting Bureau
P.O. Box 1
3720 BA Bilthoven
THE NETHERLANDS
tel. 31-30-743833 fax 31 -30-250740

Coos Battjes
RIVM
Environmental Forecasting Bureau
P.O. Box 1
3720 BA Bilthoven
THE NETHERLANDS
tel. 31-30-743915 fax 31-30-250740

Olivier Klepper
RIVM/CWM
P.O. Box 1
3720 BA Bilthoven
THE NETHERLANDS
tel. 31-30-743817 fax 31-30-250740

Johannes Bollen
RIVM
Environmental Forecasting Bureau
P.O. Box 1
3720 BA Bilthoven
THE NETHERLANDS
tel. 31-30-743610 fax 31-30-250740

Erik Kreileman
RIVM
Environmental Forecasting Bureau
P.O. Box 1
3720 BA Bilthoven
THE NETHERLANDS
tel. 31-30-743554 fax 31-30-250740

Lex Bouwman
RIVM/LAE
P.O. Box 1
3720 BA Bilthoven
THE NETHERLANDS
tel. 31-30-743635 fax 31-30-293651

Maarten Krol
RIVM
Environmental Forecasting Bureau
P.O. Box 1
3720 BA Bilthoven
THE NETHERLANDS
tel. 31-30-743835 fax 31-30-250740

Jos de Bruin
RIVM/ISC
P.O. Box 1
3720 BA Bilthoven
THE NETHERLANDS
tel. 31-30-743092 (secr.) fax 31-30-282316

Rik Leemans
RIVM
Environmental Forecasting Bureau
P.O. Box 1
3720 BA Bilthoven
THE NETHERLANDS
tel. 31-30-743377 fax 31-30-250740

Bronno de Haan
RIVM/CWM
P.O. Box 1
3720 BA Bilthoven
THE NETHERLANDS
tel. 31-30-743080 fax 31-30-250740

Sander Toet
RIVM
Environmental Forecasting Bureau
P.O. Box 1
3720 BA Bilthoven
THE NETHERLANDS
tel. 31-30-744036 fax 31-30-250740

Bert de Vries
RIVM
Environmental Forecasting Bureau
P.O. Box 1
3720 BA Bilthoven
THE NETHERLANDS
tel. 31-30-743533 fax 31-30-250740

Gé Zuidema
RIVM
Environmental Forecasting Bureau
P.O. Box 1
3720 BA Bilthoven
THE NETHERLANDS
tel. 31-30-743554 fax 31-30-250740