1. 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 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

2. Next steps in NEC development (1)
Revision of the EMEP/Corinair Guidebook
Costs: 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.

3. Next steps in NEC development (2)
29 september 2006
Oct – Nov Round 1 model runs
Jan – March Round 2 model runs
April – May Finalisation technical
and legal work
June Proposal into ISC
July 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.

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

5. 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
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.

6. Co-decision procedure by Council and European Parliament
First guess of the time frame:
First reading and Common Position
Start late (Slovenia)
Finish early 2008 (Portugal)
If no first reading agreement 2nd reading
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.