Next steps in the preparation Eduard Dame DG Environment C5 Conference on Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections for 2020 Next steps in the preparation of the NEC Directive Particulate Matter- What is it? Small droplets or solid material suspended in air. It can be made up from many different chemical constituents depending upon the source of the particles and how it has been formed. The photograph above shows a particle interacting with a human cell. Particles can be classified according to their size and how they are formed. Primary particles are emitted directly into the atmosphere from processes such as the combustion of fuels such as diesel or coal. Secondary particles are formed in the atmosphere via chemical reactions of gases such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ammonia and volatile hydrocarbons. The two most common size fractions are PM2.5 (”Fine fraction” and PM10. These refer to all particles with a diameter less than 2.5 microns (millionths of a metre) and 10 microns respectively. The particles in the size range 2.5 to 10 microns are referred to as the “coarse fraction”. Some 350.000 Europeans are estimated to die now due to particulate matter. This is significant. As a public health problem air pollution is estimated to be similar in size to car accidents or cigarette smoking. However, there is a difference. You can choose to take a car or smoke a cigarette but you cannot stop breathing. Eduard Dame DG Environment C5

Next steps in NEC development (1) Revision of the EMEP/Corinair Guidebook Costs: 500.000 Euro Compatible with the UNFCCC Guidelines Text + emission factor database To be adopted by EB of CLTRAP by December 2008 To be adopted by Council (comitology) Reporting The Structure of the reporting obligations will be changes so as to permit greater update by Committee procedure. Once the INSPIRE directive is finally adopted, the plan would be to update the air quality reporting provisions so as to be consistent with INSPIRE. This will reduce the administrative burden on Member States by permitting simpler electronic reporting. Existing Limit values The WHO did not propose any changes to the existing air quality guidelines in its Systematic Review and so the Commission has not proposed any changes to existing limit values. Those for PM10 have been retained (as opposed to being replaced by the new provisions for PM2.5) as the WHO advised that there was a health risk associated with the coarse fraction (PM10 - PM2.5). PM2.5 It is clear that there is a significant health risk associated with PM2.5. It is also clear that there is as yet no known safe threshold for exposure but that there appears to be a linear relationship between exposure and risk. In addition, The latest health information comes from studies based in the USA and that are no large scale epidemiological studies in Europe on which to draw upon. As such, the Commission has proposed that a concentration cap be introduced which would limit unduly high risks for the population. This is not a limit value in the classical sense in that it will not offer a high degree of protection for the population. However, legally speaking it would operate in an analogous manner to that of a limit value. In addition the new directive would require substantial monitoring of ambient PM2.5 concentrations. Such monitoring would form the basis for a new reduction target for reducing the annual average urban background concentration of PM2.5 (average across the whole territory of a Member State). This target is 20% to be attained by 2020 based upon the average level measured in 2008, 2009 and 2010. The exposure reduction target and the concentration cap are complementary and should be seen together. If the “cap” is set a too stringent a level then there will be no point in having the exposure reduction approach. This is because Member States will be forced to take measures in “hot spots” where measures may be costly and benefit a limited number of people. The exposure reduction approach is based upon a national average PM2.5 concentration and allows a Member State to take the most cost-effective measures wherever they be so long as the national reduction target is attained. This additional flexibility is complemented by the concentration cap which ensures that no citizen is exposed to unduly high risk.

Next steps in NEC development (2) 29 september 2006 Oct – Nov 2006 - Round 1 model runs Jan – March 2007 - Round 2 model runs April – May 2007 - Finalisation technical and legal work June 2007 - Proposal into ISC July 2007 - Adoption Timing may depend on the progress made in related proposals (e.g. Euro 6, Euro VI, IPPC etc.) Reporting The Structure of the reporting obligations will be changes so as to permit greater update by Committee procedure. Once the INSPIRE directive is finally adopted, the plan would be to update the air quality reporting provisions so as to be consistent with INSPIRE. This will reduce the administrative burden on Member States by permitting simpler electronic reporting. Existing Limit values The WHO did not propose any changes to the existing air quality guidelines in its Systematic Review and so the Commission has not proposed any changes to existing limit values. Those for PM10 have been retained (as opposed to being replaced by the new provisions for PM2.5) as the WHO advised that there was a health risk associated with the coarse fraction (PM10 - PM2.5). PM2.5 It is clear that there is a significant health risk associated with PM2.5. It is also clear that there is as yet no known safe threshold for exposure but that there appears to be a linear relationship between exposure and risk. In addition, The latest health information comes from studies based in the USA and that are no large scale epidemiological studies in Europe on which to draw upon. As such, the Commission has proposed that a concentration cap be introduced which would limit unduly high risks for the population. This is not a limit value in the classical sense in that it will not offer a high degree of protection for the population. However, legally speaking it would operate in an analogous manner to that of a limit value. In addition the new directive would require substantial monitoring of ambient PM2.5 concentrations. Such monitoring would form the basis for a new reduction target for reducing the annual average urban background concentration of PM2.5 (average across the whole territory of a Member State). This target is 20% to be attained by 2020 based upon the average level measured in 2008, 2009 and 2010. The exposure reduction target and the concentration cap are complementary and should be seen together. If the “cap” is set a too stringent a level then there will be no point in having the exposure reduction approach. This is because Member States will be forced to take measures in “hot spots” where measures may be costly and benefit a limited number of people. The exposure reduction approach is based upon a national average PM2.5 concentration and allows a Member State to take the most cost-effective measures wherever they be so long as the national reduction target is attained. This additional flexibility is complemented by the concentration cap which ensures that no citizen is exposed to unduly high risk.

Remaining consultations 8-9 November 2006 CAFE Steering Group 18-19 December 2006 NEC-PI Working (tbc) CAFE Steering Group in 2007 12-14 March 2007 Saltsjöbaden III 21-22 March 2007 NEC-PI Working Group 23-24 May 2007 NEC-PI Working Group

Items NECPI meetings 18-19 December 2006 Model runs meeting the objectives of Air Strategy Model run consistent with Parliament’s resolution – Ambition level C Emission of transport, in particular ships and HDV-emissions (Euro 6) Optimal Control Areas Non technical measures 21-22 March 2006 Results of model runs of energy package and Post-2012 GHG emissions Results of runs for certain sensitivity cases Assessing 2006 National Programmes as an instrument Reporting obligations for emission inventories and projections 13- 14 May 2007 Optimazation outcome(s) Remaining items Reporting The Structure of the reporting obligations will be changes so as to permit greater update by Committee procedure. Once the INSPIRE directive is finally adopted, the plan would be to update the air quality reporting provisions so as to be consistent with INSPIRE. This will reduce the administrative burden on Member States by permitting simpler electronic reporting. Existing Limit values The WHO did not propose any changes to the existing air quality guidelines in its Systematic Review and so the Commission has not proposed any changes to existing limit values. Those for PM10 have been retained (as opposed to being replaced by the new provisions for PM2.5) as the WHO advised that there was a health risk associated with the coarse fraction (PM10 - PM2.5). PM2.5 It is clear that there is a significant health risk associated with PM2.5. It is also clear that there is as yet no known safe threshold for exposure but that there appears to be a linear relationship between exposure and risk. In addition, The latest health information comes from studies based in the USA and that are no large scale epidemiological studies in Europe on which to draw upon. As such, the Commission has proposed that a concentration cap be introduced which would limit unduly high risks for the population. This is not a limit value in the classical sense in that it will not offer a high degree of protection for the population. However, legally speaking it would operate in an analogous manner to that of a limit value. In addition the new directive would require substantial monitoring of ambient PM2.5 concentrations. Such monitoring would form the basis for a new reduction target for reducing the annual average urban background concentration of PM2.5 (average across the whole territory of a Member State). This target is 20% to be attained by 2020 based upon the average level measured in 2008, 2009 and 2010. The exposure reduction target and the concentration cap are complementary and should be seen together. If the “cap” is set a too stringent a level then there will be no point in having the exposure reduction approach. This is because Member States will be forced to take measures in “hot spots” where measures may be costly and benefit a limited number of people. The exposure reduction approach is based upon a national average PM2.5 concentration and allows a Member State to take the most cost-effective measures wherever they be so long as the national reduction target is attained. This additional flexibility is complemented by the concentration cap which ensures that no citizen is exposed to unduly high risk.

Co-decision procedure by Council and European Parliament First guess of the time frame: First reading and Common Position 2007-08 Start late 2007 (Slovenia) Finish early 2008 (Portugal) If no first reading agreement 2nd reading 2008-09 Start second reading late 2008 (France) Finish late 2008 / early 2009 Note Parliament and Commission change in mid 2009 Publication Official Journal in 2008 (or 2009) Entry into force 2009 (or 2010) Reporting The Structure of the reporting obligations will be changes so as to permit greater update by Committee procedure. Once the INSPIRE directive is finally adopted, the plan would be to update the air quality reporting provisions so as to be consistent with INSPIRE. This will reduce the administrative burden on Member States by permitting simpler electronic reporting. Existing Limit values The WHO did not propose any changes to the existing air quality guidelines in its Systematic Review and so the Commission has not proposed any changes to existing limit values. Those for PM10 have been retained (as opposed to being replaced by the new provisions for PM2.5) as the WHO advised that there was a health risk associated with the coarse fraction (PM10 - PM2.5). PM2.5 It is clear that there is a significant health risk associated with PM2.5. It is also clear that there is as yet no known safe threshold for exposure but that there appears to be a linear relationship between exposure and risk. In addition, The latest health information comes from studies based in the USA and that are no large scale epidemiological studies in Europe on which to draw upon. As such, the Commission has proposed that a concentration cap be introduced which would limit unduly high risks for the population. This is not a limit value in the classical sense in that it will not offer a high degree of protection for the population. However, legally speaking it would operate in an analogous manner to that of a limit value. In addition the new directive would require substantial monitoring of ambient PM2.5 concentrations. Such monitoring would form the basis for a new reduction target for reducing the annual average urban background concentration of PM2.5 (average across the whole territory of a Member State). This target is 20% to be attained by 2020 based upon the average level measured in 2008, 2009 and 2010. The exposure reduction target and the concentration cap are complementary and should be seen together. If the “cap” is set a too stringent a level then there will be no point in having the exposure reduction approach. This is because Member States will be forced to take measures in “hot spots” where measures may be costly and benefit a limited number of people. The exposure reduction approach is based upon a national average PM2.5 concentration and allows a Member State to take the most cost-effective measures wherever they be so long as the national reduction target is attained. This additional flexibility is complemented by the concentration cap which ensures that no citizen is exposed to unduly high risk.