Assessing the Impacts of the EU’s Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution Matti Vainio, Clean Air and Transport Unit European Commission, DG Environment Green Week Session 9: "Bright sky behind the clouds: Cleaner Air for Europe and the world" 1 June 2005

Caveats and Credits Thematic Strategy on air pollution is currently subject to the internal decision making procedures of the Commission. No guarantee that the there will be a strategy or that interim environmental objectives will be established as foreseen. This presentation does not focus on different measures Credits to AEAT, University of Leuven and IIASA and to the CAFE team of DG Environment The 6th Environmental Action Programme (Decision 1600/2002/EC) was adopted jointly by the Council and the European Parliament in July 2002. The 6EAP: Obliges the Commission to propose a thematic strategy on air pollution not later than in July 2005. States that the Thematic strategy shouyld be be coherent and take an integrated approach and ensure linkages through to other environmental areas such as climate change. “a thematic strategy to strengthen a coherent and integrated policy on air pollution to cover priorities for further actions, the review and updating where appropriate of air quality standards and national emission ceilings with a view to reach the long term objective of no-exceedence of critical loads and levels and the development of better systems for gathering information, modelling and forecasting” (Art 7 (f) of the 6EAP “Objectives and priority areas for action on environment and health and quality of life”) stipulates that the thematic strategy should achieve levels of air quality that do not give significant negative impact on human health and the environment. This is in line with the Treaty where the objective is to achieve a high degree of environmental protection. However, we do not know exactly how to define “significant” since this is ultimately a political judgement on what is acceptable. requires the Thematic Strategy to be published by July 2005. A critical load is, for a particular ecosystem, a level of pollution below which the ecosystem ought not to be at significant risk of harm. The 6EAP sets an objective of no exceedence of critical loads for acidification and eutrophication. Excess nitrogen inputs to a given ecosystem which are above the critical load may put the ecosystem at risk of eutrophication. This has implications for biodiversity as many plants succeed in nitrogen deficient environments such that if when there is excess nitrogen, plant communities may change in favour of more nitrophillic species.

Outline Main elements of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution Assessment of current policies (recap) Costs and benefits of the Strategy Macroeconomic effects Costs and benefits of reducing concentration of fine particulates Future challenges

Thematic Strategy is a response to 6th EAP: Objectives for Air Pollution ‘achieving levels of air quality that do not give rise to significant negative impacts on and risks to human health and the environment’; (Art 7.1. of 6th EAP) ‘no exceedence of critical loads and levels for acidification or eutrophication’ 1.1

CAFE programme to deliver the Thematic Strategy through: Scientific knowledge Independent health advice from WHO and SCHER Latest scientific knowledge of ecosystem effects from Convention of Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution Assessment of the effect of current policies Integrated Assessment Modelling (IAM) Cost-effective solutions for multi-pollutant/multi-effects (human health and environment) Cost-Benefit Analysis Peer-reviewed methodology General Equilibrium Model Analysis Stakeholder involvement and consultation Over 100 stakeholder meetings and over 10.000 responses in Internet based consultation The Three Pillars of the CAFE Programme: The best, most recent and independent health assessment of air pollutants from the World Health Organisation. They have conducted a systematic review of air quality guidelines to underpin the CAFE Programme. The RAINS integrated assessment model (Regional Air pollution Information & Simulation) has been extensively improved: Updated energy baselines and emissions after extensive consultation with Member States Updated abatement costs and potentials now used in the model again following consultation with MS, industry stakeholders and experts in the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) The RAINS model was independently peer-reviewed with respect to its use as a policy analysis tool An extensive cost-benefit analysis will be undertaken as part of the preparation of the Thematic Strategy. The methodology has been published and peer-reviewed by independent experts in the field. 1.2

Assessment of the effect of current policies up to 2020 Particulate matter and ozone Still over 2.5 million life years lost every year lost in 2020 Equals premature mortality of almost 300 000 Europeans Over 200 million “restricted activity days” Monetary value of health damage alone estimated between 200 and 600 billion euros per annum Ammonia & ozone which will cause Acidification of ecosystems in Central and Northern parts of the EU (lakes and forest will suffer from acid rain) Eutrophication on a wide scale across the EU Wide-spread vegetation damage (ozone) (resulting inter alia in reduced agricultural production) By nitrogen oxides (NOx) Biodiversity, ecosystems, soils and marine environment suffer 2.1

Problems remain Example: Reduced life expectancy because of particulate matter in 2020 Loss in average statistical life expectancy due to identified anthropogenic PM2.5 Calculations for 1997 meteorology (Provisional estimates) 2.2

Example: Problem of too much nitrogen deposited to nature in 2020 No EU policies have yet addressed this. Percentage of ecosystems area with nitrogen deposition above critical loads using grid-average deposition. Calculation for 1997 meteorology 2.3

Air Pollution Strategy Package contains: Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution Communication Proposal revision of Air Quality Framework and three Daughter Directives plus Exchange of Information Decision Better regulation initiative for co-decision Addresses implementation problems and health effects of PM2.5 Impact assessment of the Thematic Strategy and revised Air quality directive Staff working paper 3.1

Recall: Emission control costs of the CAFE policy scenarios Billion Euros/year 40 30 20 10 Case "A" Case "B" Case "C" Max. technical reductions Road sources SO2 NOx NH3 VOC PM 3.2

Recall: Distribution of costs [€/person/year] 3.3 *) excluding costs for road sources

Consequent emission reductions up to 2020 (kilotonnes)   Baseline Ambition level in 2020 Emissions in 2000 emissions in 2020 Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C SO2 8735 2805 1704 1567 1462 NOx 11581 5500 4678 4297 4107 VOC 10661 5916 5230 4937 4771 NH3 3824 3686 2860 2598 2477 PM2.5 1749 964 746 709 683 3.4

Purpose of CBA Quantify and value impacts from air pollution Includes health - mortality and morbidity Includes effects on crops and materials expressed as an annualised economic benefit presented as low and high, reflect uncertainty in health valuation Effects on ecosystems only quantified Due to lack of values, cannot be aggregated Compare benefits to costs from RAINS Interested in the benefits – costs positive Or benefit/cost ratio is above 1 3.5

Benefits (low) above the Baseline in Euro per person/year 3.6

Benefits (low) above the Baseline in Euro per person/year 3.7

Benefits (low) above the Baseline in Euro per person/year 3.8

Costs €6-€40 bn, health benefits from €37-€56 to €120-€181 bn, and add ecosystem benefits… All costs per year.   Human health Natural environment (000 km2) Ambition level Cost of reduct-ion (€bn) Life Yrs Lost (mn) due to PM Moneti-sed health benefits (€bn) Ecosystem area exceeded acidification Ecosystem area exceeded eutrophicat-ion Forest area ex-ceeded ozone Fo-rests Semi-natural Fresh-water 2000 3.62 243 24 31 733 827 Baseline 2020 2.47 119 8 22 590 764 Scenario A 5.9 1.97 37 - 120 67 4 19 426 699 Scenario B 10.7 1.87 45 - 146 59 3 18 375 671 Scenario C 14.9 1.81 49 - 160 55 17 347 652 MTFR 39.7 1.72 56 - 181 36 1 11 193 381 3.9

Restricted Activity Days per person per year Example: Link with Lisbon Strategy -- Air pollution reduces productivity Restricted Activity Days per person per year 3.10

Incremental analysis tells that going beyond C doubtful From: Baseline Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C To: MTFR Costs €bn 5.9 10.7 14.9 39.7 Health benefits €bn 37.1 45.2 49.3 56.1 Net benefits €bn 31.2 34.5 34.4 16.4 Benefit/cost ratio 6.3 4.2 3.3 1.4 Incremental costs €bn 4.8 24.8 Incremental benefits €bn 8.2 4.1 6.8 3.4 -0.1 -18.0 1.7 1.0 0.3 3.11

Macroeconomic impacts: Effect on economy and social issues 4.1

Reducing population exposure to fine particulates

Why regulate PM2.5 How to ‘achieve levels of air quality that do not give rise to significant negative impacts on and risks to human health’ Advice from WHO and the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) 18 March 2005 Agree that PM2.5 has adverse health effects No safe lower threshold found Regulate also the coarse fraction of PM Due to uncertainties, gather further knowledge Waiting won’t take the problem away… 5.1

Concentration cap against unduly high risk New way to regulate PM2.5 Reduce average annual urban background concentration of PM2.5 in each Member State Concentration cap against unduly high risk Applies everywhere as a safeguard Not a limit value that gives high protection to human health No evidence to change existing limit and target values Monitor PM2.5 effectively Compliance monitoring Background monitoring (”EMEP level II”) ”Supersites” 5.2

Average urban background concentration Establish average annual urban background concentration (AAUBC) in 2008-2010 in a Member State Take 3 year running average of all cities to counter problems of meteorological years siting criteria as in PM10 urban background stations Establish starting point in µg/m3 Apply a decision rule Reduce 1.5% up to 2020 for each µg/m3 For example if AAUBC is 10 µg/m3 in 2008-2010 in a Member State the reduction requirement would be 15% 5.3

Benefits of reducing PM2.5 con-centrations much higher than costs Annual costs in 2020 5.4

Next steps Thematic Strategy due for adoption this summer will include proposal for revised air quality legislation for co-decision National Emissions Ceilings Directive revision work already started, proposal due 2006 Euro 5 closely linked with the Thematic Strategy in 2005 Euro 6 after Euro 5 has been adopted Other measures developed and proposed in 2006 6.1

Future challenges Hemispheric transport of air pollution Ship emissions and other non-traditional sources Links between greenhouse gases and air pollutants Scientific issues e.g. “aerosols” debate Policy issues Nitrogen cycle: Inter-linkages between NH3, CH4 and N2O in atmospheric chemistry and agricultural policies Cost-effectiveness of abatement options Size and chemical composition and health impacts of PM Enhanced collaborative research between air pollution and health experts 6.2

One future challenge: Hemis-pheric transport of air pollution NO2 vertical column density (VCD) between January 2003 and June 2004, SCIAMACHY, ESA's Envisat. Source: University of Heidelberg's Institute for Environmental Physics. 6.3

Maritime emissions becoming a major source in the EU (kilotonnes) Source: Impact Assessment of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution (2005) 6.4

Another challenge: Going beyond Kyoto Protocol would be beneficial for air pollution Emissions compared with 2000 60% 40% 20% 0% Sulphur dioxide Nitrogen oxides Particulate matter (2.5) MTFR-2020 "with climate measures" CLE-2020 "with climate measures" 6.5 Current legislation 2020 "Illustrative climate" MTFR 2020 "Illustrative climate"

Thank you!