European Commission | Choose your language | Choisir une ...



Summary of stakeholder views FITNESS CHECK OF THE EU AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DIRECTIVESFIRST STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP Albert Borschette Congress Center, Room 0A18 June 2018 The meeting was opened and chaired by the Director of DG Quality of Life, DG Environment.KEYNOTE ADDRESSES The Head of Cabinet of Commissioner Vella: stressed the importance of ensuring clean air for our citizens, both from a health and economic perspective, pointing to continued exceedances of air quality (AQ) standards despite significant reductions in air pollutant emissions over the last decades. He stressed that technical solutions exist, and many legislative provisions and innovative support mechanisms (Environment Implementation Review, Clean air Dialogues, Clean Air Forum) have been put in place to help Member States address such exceedances. He further stressed that high real-world emissions from diesel vehicles cannot be used as an excuse of inaction over the last decade. He concluded by inviting stakeholders’ feedback onhow the Ambient Air Quality Directives (AAQD) have worked, so as to inform future Commission reflections on this policy.The Executive Director, European Environment Agency: stressed that AQ is one of the oldest areas where policy action was taken, and explained that low levels of exposure over long periods of time have greater health impacts than short exposure to peak levels. He provided an overview of the evolution of different air quality standards across the EU (PM, NO2, ozone). He highlighted the role of citizens, who want to be informed but also more and more directly involved in air quality actions (e.g. "Curieuze neuzen" project in BE which has 20.000 people involved). He concluded by highlighting three main challenges: agriculture, urban mobility and financing the shift towards improved sustainability.Issues raised by stakeholdersCalls for closer involvement of the Health Commissioner and DG SANTE in air quality policy making, and the need to also highlight the impacts of air pollution on mental health + vulnerable groups (elderly, children) + the costs of pollution to health systems and to public budgets (NGO representative)PM2.5 standards do not reflect the stringency of the policy's health objective (reduce health impacts) – insufficient links between PM10 and PM2.5 standards (expert from an EU municipality) Questioning of the need to be overly concerned with NO2 concentrations as we get further away from the road (citizen speaking in personal capacity)The Commission/EEA responded by pointing out that:All relevant services are consulted on various initiatives, and we work closely with many of them, including DG SANTE.Regulations are based on science, and it is normal that policy follows scienceIncreasing the distance from the emission sources (e.g. cars) by a few meters does not take the pollution risk away from people. SESSION 1: METHODS AND NETWORKSHead of Unit, Air and Climate, Joint Research Centre): introduction to the AAQDs provisions on AQ measurements (incl. the networks of monitoring stations). Presentation here.Issues raised by stakeholdersAdded value of the AAQDs recognised (NGO representative, expert from an Energy Agency from an EU municipality). Monitoring network is good in EU as opposed to Western Balkans. Provisions in modelling not very clear, models should have a stronger role in the future because they give a full picture. More guidance, clarity (e.g. on the links between modelling and measurements) could/should be provided. NGO representative, expert from an EU municipality)Representativeness of the monitoring network (NGO representative, expert from an Energy Agency from an EU municipality, expert from an EU municipality, expert from a EU region):Need to account for air quality at the periphery of citiesNeed for more granularity in the grid/AQ zones, avoid administrative boundaries for zone determination. The density of the monitoring network varies across Europe, with fewer stations in Eastern Europe. Need to expand monitoring as this is the basis for evaluating complianceAn expert from an EU MS found it difficult to rationalise the number of stations (which are maybe in higher numbers than required) without citizens questioning the reasons behind removing a station.Derogations (NGO representative, expert from an Energy Agency from an EU municipality):Sea-salt dispensation – example of UK where this seems to be a residual in their modelling systems, not necessarily measured effects. Meteorological conditions should be taken into account when measuring AQ at local level.Sensors present 2 main difficulties: 1) precision (need for increased numbers to give a correct picture) and 2) need to calibrate the models with the data collected via sensors. Current system of monitoring does not allow superposing different scales. (expert from an EU region). Low-costs sensors are not ready for regulatory purposes (NGO representative). The Water Framework Directives monitoring mechanisms should be looked at and inspiration drawn from it (expert from an EU MS) and additional synergies between air/water priorities sought.Health aspects (NGO representatives, citizen speaking in personal capacity, expert from an Environmental Institute from a EU MS, expert from an EU MS,)Questions were raised as to how exposure and associated impacts are assessed (inside homes, on the road, at work, etc.)Suggestions that it cannot be assumed that an exceedance on road level does immediately mean human exposure. Calls to focus on reducing average exposure of overall populations as opposed to just trying to reduce/eliminate exceedances. The latter is not always the most cost-effective.NO2 health effects – need for more guidance, a health indicator in the directive. WHO ongoing work for NO2 exposure (recall of WHO Air Quality Summit on 31 October -1 November 2018)Need for relative indicators (such as average exposure) in addition to fixed standards, to ensure good AQ is maintained in zones where it is already good SESSION 2: INFORMATION AND DATAActing Head of Programme, Air and Climate Change, European Environment Agency: introduced the Directive's requirements on information gathering and reporting, with a focus on the IPR decision. Presentation here. Key messages were:Significant step-change in the usefulness of data reported with the current Directives; large opportunities for further usesOpportunity to reduce the amount of information reportedNeed to improve the timeliness of officially reported dataBenefit from non-official data – non-reported monitoring stations, Copernicus, citizen science (for informing local air modelling)Issues raised by stakeholders Earlier publication of data is important; overall important improvements achieved through the Directives (NGO representatives), high value of air quality data being publicly, openly and directly available to all citizens, without intermediaries or needs to request access to information (NGO representative). Room for improvement with: more proactive dissemination of information about pollution peaks (alerts), e.g. through media channels as opposed to posting information on a website only (NGO representative)more immediate information for the public on how to best behave during peak episodes – to protect their health and limit emissions immediately where possible (NGO representative)more commitment to short-term action plans (NGO representative)Coherence between data from different sources (e.g. Copernicus vs national level vs local level data) is missing (expert from an EU MS)IPR decision 2011/850/EU much improved coherence and effectiveness in reporting. Guidance on reporting air quality planning, however, is now outdated, and amount of information to be reported could be reduced to essential (expert from an EU municipality, expert from an Environmental Institute from a EU MS)Alert thresholds are not consistent across MSs, as there is no EU-wide mandatory threshold (expert from an Environment Agency from an EU MS)Urban observatories to better assess the effects of air quality measures, possibly a network of such observatories, and easier ways of sharing relevant data (Expert from an Institute from a non EU country,)Citizen science can raise awareness, but the level of precision of data collected is not always communicated properly (Expert from an Institute from a non EU country, expert from an Environment Institute from a EU MS).Interest in the NO2 measuring campaign ("Curieuze Neuzen") involving 20 000 households, as an example to providing additional data and increasing awareness On relevant limit values and indicators (expert from an Environment Institute from a EU MS, representatives from NGOs, experts from two EU municipalities)Several participants raised the usefulness of information/indicators on health impactsLevel of limit values drive concrete actionEU legislation has not reacted swiftly enough to evolving knowledge about pollutants and their effects, e.g. regarding PM1 and nanoparticles Agriculture is an important source of pollution in cities, but this can be difficult to communicate (experts from Environment Agencies or Institutes), and agricultural emissions cannot be tackled at local level (expert from a EU municipality)KEYNOTE ADDRESS: PERSPECTIVES ON COHERENCE ACROSS POLICIESThe Head of Cabinet of Commission Vice-President ?ef?ovi?: outlined the work of the 14 Commissioners on the energy-environment –climate change cluster, focusing on the main proposals of the Energy Package (energy efficiency, performance of building, electricity market, governance), to be shortly complemented with guidance on the elaboration of NAPCPs (required under Directive 2016/2284), including on ensuring coherence with energy and climate plans). He recalled the Coal Regions in transition initiative, to support such regions and facilitate exchange of best practices, and pointed out that air quality drives interest in this initiative on the ground in the concerned MSs. Not such a good example: renewable energy – only setting of targets. He also pointed to the low-emission mobility as another example of coherence policy making, with electro-mobility serving both the climate and air quality objectives, as well as industrial development (alternative fuels infrastructure, zero emission vehicles, etc.). He recognized and thanked cities for their support for EC action in improving AQ (incl. through the Global Covenant of Mayors) An expert in the Cabinet of Commissioner Bieńkowska: addressed the coherence between Commission policies on air quality and the specific provisions for regulating car emissions. The latter's main purpose is to avoid health impacts from cars. In addition, the diesel emission scandal was an issue of violation of internal market rules and competitiveness. Even before that, work started to update the emission tests, to better reflect reality. Under new RDE rules from September 2019: any car going into circulation must comply with these new tests. But the Commission cannot solve all problems, MSs need to enforce the rules. The Commission is pressuring MSs to recall non-compliant cars and recalled that MSs can act here and thus quickly and significantly reduce air pollutants. He stressed Commissioner's Bieńkowska conviction that electro-mobility is the future and that diesel technology has no future. He finally recalled the role that space technology – Copernicus - for observation of the Earth and the composition of its atmosphere can play in increasing knowledge about air pollution.Issues raised by stakeholdersParticipants discussed about the need to look at entire life-cycle of electric vehicles, in particular battery production, when assessing their merits (NGO representative)Emissions from existing vehicles and ships in use are not affected by standards for new vehicles and ships (expert from an EU municipality, expert from a EU region). Question about the relevance of NO2 measurements close to traffic (citizen speaking in personal capacity)The Commission clarified that:hardware retrofits are among the tools to tackle this issue, but clarified that this needs to be looked into at national level, including as an alternative to stricter urban vehicle access restrictions. it noted the remark regarding the relevance of measurement of NO2 close to traffic, but pointed out that members of the population are exposed to pollution there as well.the batteries initiative seeks to address life-cycle aspects of the batteries as a key element of electro-mobility.SESSION 3: STANDARDS AND AMBITION LEVELThe Head of Unit, Clean Air, DG Environment: introduced the Directives provisions on standards and the overall ambition level. Slides here.Issues raised by stakeholdersEnergy Union governance proposal could inspire air quality governance, while ensuring that local authorities retain sufficient flexibility to adapt measures. Measures should address heating and mobility, and issues around black carbon and nanoparticles be investigated further (a representative from a network of European cities)On limit and target values (representative from EU electric company, expert from an Energy Agency from an EU municipality, NGO representatives, expert from an EU region)Long-time non-compliance that is not addressed fast enough leads to investment uncertainty;Need to look at daily and annual limit value compliance together;Need for coherence between different systems of reference; Enforceable limit values are crucial and have driven progress.Regarding WHO guidelines (NGOs representatives), How could regional and local authorities be supported if they voluntarily commit to meeting WHO guidelines on PM10 and PM2.5 (expert from an EU region).Call for WHO guidelines to be updated in time for reflections about the future of the Air Quality Directives and suggestion to update HRAPIE and REVIHAAP exercises that were done for Clean Air Programme for Europe. A set of systemic reviews of scientific evidence should be finalised by early 2019.Call for right to clean air to be enshrined in EU law, citizens individually and an independent body representing them should have access to justice (NGO representative)Article 12 is sometimes interpreted as allowing for reduction of pollution at hotspots at the expense of other areas (expert from an EU municipality). SESSION 4: MEASURES AND PLANSAn Expert from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, NL & Coordinator of the Urban Agenda Partnership on Air Quality made a presentation on cities and urban pollution. Slides here. Information about the Urban Agenda Partnership on Air Quality here.Issues raised by stakeholdersAQ plans were critical to drive change towards meeting the AQ standards, as are the requirements to keep exceedances as short as possible.(NGO representative)Responsibility for such plans need better clarification (too much burden on city-level) as well as the delay for preparing the plans and increase public participation (NGO representative, expert from an EU municipality)). Currently plans are not required for zones where there is a risk of exceedance – this should be corrected (expert from an Environment Agency from a non EU country)Majority of action plans do not have a cost-effectiveness analysis (an expert from an EU University); At local level, it was felt that there are many low-cost measures available, cost-effectiveness should be considered when going beyond(expert from an Environmental Institute from a EU MS).Procedures for implementing local measures not always clear. For example, Low-Emission Zones enacted, but no definition of LEZ. Need to separate business interests from drawing AQ plans (expert from an Environment Agency from an EU country)Business opportunities in clean air: electro-mobility (representative from a EU sector association), energy efficiency and district heating (representative from EU service and utility EU company), but need of increased transparency of the regulatory framework and available funding upfront (representative from EU electric company). Need to avoid lock-in effects (e.g. biomass) (expert from an Environmental Institute from an EU MS)Role of customers in accepting low-emission solutions, difference in affordability of such solutions across Europe (representative from EU goods company). Calls for retrofit of older cars (expert from an EU municipality)Business-NGO cooperation can increase pressure towards compliance (representative from EU electric company)Need to avoid another emissions scandal (laboratory vs real world emissions under the eco-design directives) (NGO representative) The Chair wrapped- up the discussions by recalling two important dates in the Fitness Check process:31/7/2018: closing of the open public consultations15/1/2018; second stakeholder workshop, to present initial findings by the CommissionShe invited all interested stakeholders to communicate their views to the Commission.CONCLUDING REMARKSDaniel Calleja (Director General, DG Environment) recalled all citizens' right to the highest environmental standards, including clean air. Looking forward, he concluded with the following 4 main areas for further assessment:Do we have the right level of ambition? Different views. It is clear EU is not in line with WHO recommendations. Need to assess latest scientific evidence, look into EU’s performance;Collecting reliable data: what is the effect of the criterial for monitoring on the accuracy of collected data?; Information on AQ is essential, needs to be provided to the public (e.g. European Air Quality Index). Is there a need of harmonising alert levels and systems?;Plans to address exceedances need to properly account for the different levels of responsibility and the need for coherence of measures (EU, national, regional, local levels). ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download