3. Uniform limit value for air quality: Bring down PM2.5 everywhere below a AQ limit value Gap closure concept: Reduce PM2.5 levels everywhere by same percentage Maximize total health benefits in Europe for a given European budget constraint, disregarding the location of the benefit Three concepts for target setting for PM health effects

4. Option 1: Uniform limit value on air quality EMEP/RAINS quantify: –Primary anthropogenic PM –Secondary inorganic aerosols (including water) EMEP/RAINS miss: –Mineral and Sea-salt from natural sources –Primary organic matter from natural sources –Secondary organic aerosols from natural and anthropogenic sources RAINS + City-Delta address urban background, but not hot spots in street canyons Thus, model can only explain part of observed PM

5. Uniform limit value on air quality Ambition levels explored Bring annual mean PM2.5 in urban background below –19 / 17 / 16.5 / 16 / 15.5 / 15 μg/m 3 This level includes the fraction modelled by RAINS + assumption on mineral (1/2/3 μg/m 3 ) It does not include unknown contributions of primary natural organic matter + secondary organic aerosols To relate this value to potential hot-spot AQ limit value, add ~ 5 μg/m 3 ? No targets for harbor cities considered for this round of analysis (mistake in dispersion calculations)

6. Costs of the limit value scenarios [billion €/year]

7. Option 2: Gap closure Reduce modelled PM2.5 everywhere by the same percentage For these round of calculations: –Explore the range between the impacts from CLE and MTFR including Euro-V/VI 25% / 40% / 50% / 60% / 70% / 75% reductions analyzed With and without Euro-V/VI

8. Effect indicator MTFR from EU25 excluding EURO5/6 Baseline 2020 (Current legislation) MTFR from EU25 MTFR from EU-25 + shipping MTFR from Europe + shipping No-effect level (critical load/level) Zero exposure Base year exposure (2000/1990) Gap concept used for NEC NEC 2010 Definition of “gap closure” used NEC 2010 ceilings and NEC 2020 ceilings Range of exploratory ambition levels 100% 0% 50%

9. Costs of the “gap closure” scenarios [billion €/yr]

10. Option 3: Maximize total European health benefits for a given budget Dual optimization problem: Instead of –Minimize total European costs for achieving place-specific environmental targets: optimize for: –Maximize total European health benefits (i.e., gains in life expectancy) for a given budget. No consideration of the place/country where the improvement occurs. Maximal cost-effectiveness, equity needs to be explored Illustrative analysis with pseudo-life expectancy data (calculations include population younger than 30 years) No difference of whether Euro-V/VI is taken or not, but a final analysis should include Euro-V/VI (with cost data) in the optimization

11. Emission control costs vs. years of life lost Illustrative calculations [billion €/yr]

12. Cost-effectiveness of the target setting approaches Emission control costs [billion €/yr] vs. YOLL