During the last decade the issue of integrated assessment has received
attention both in the scientific literature and in the negotiation of
international air pollution agreements. More than often this literatu
re does not differentiate between the integrated assessment as a proce
ss and the development and use of models as a roof for calculating the
potentials of various scenarios. This paper describes the difference
between the process and the toot, and illustrates this using the negot
iations leading to the Second Sulfur Protocol (June 1994, Oslo). The s
ituation in Europe (with a highly visible interaction between science
and policy) will be compared with the United States (where new legisla
tion was passed before the integrated assessment was finished). Furthe
r, the role of integrated assessment models in these negotiations will
be discussed with special attention for the interaction between model
builders and model users. Lessons from the recent European experience
will be drawn. These include lessons for future protocols on acidific
ation, and combined ozone/acidification/eutrophication protocols. Thes
e lessons will deal with the scale of the problem, the scope of the in
tegrated assessment models, the development of models in parallel with
scientific development and the various modes of interaction with the
policy community.