1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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 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

6. 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 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

7. 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

8. Example: Problem of too much nitrogen deposited to nature in 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

9. 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

10. 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

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

12. 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

13. 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

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

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

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

17. 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 67 4 19
426
699
Scenario B
10.7
1.87 59 3 18
375
671
Scenario C
14.9
1.81 55 17
347
652
MTFR
39.7
1.72 36 1 11
193
381
3.9

18. 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

19. 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

20. Macroeconomic impacts: Effect on economy and social issues
4.1

21. Reducing population exposure to fine particulates

22. 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

23. 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

24. Average urban background concentration
Establish average annual urban background concentration (AAUBC) in 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 in a Member State the reduction requirement would be 15%
5.3

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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

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

30. 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"

31. Thank you!