EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 26.10.2022

SWD(2022) 545 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council

on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (recast)

{COM(2022) 542 final} - {SEC(2022) 542 final} - {SWD(2022) 345 final} - {SWD(2022) 542 final}

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

4.Population exposure

5.Health impacts

6.Ecosystem and other non-health impacts

7.Macro-economic impacts

Annex 6: Potential policy measures (or interventions)

1.Policy Measures in the Different Policy Options

2.Assessment of potential policy measures and their impacts

2.1Intervention area A: Regular review of EU air quality standards

2.2Intervention area B: Type of EU air quality standards

2.3Intervention area C: Actions when exceedances occur

2.4Intervention area D: Air Quality Plan Involvement

2.6Intervention area E: Enforcement tools

2.7Intervention area F: Information to the public

2.8Intervention area G: Assessment regimes

2.9Intervention area H: Number and typology of sampling points

2.10Intervention area I: Continuity of sampling points

2.11Intervention area J: Siting of sampling points

2.12Intervention area K: Data quality

2.13Intervention area L: Additional pollutants

2.14Intervention area M: Transboundary air pollution

2.15Intervention area N: Information in air quality plans

2.16Intervention area O: EU air quality standards for particulate matter (PM2.5)

2.17Intervention area P: EU air quality standards for particulate matter (PM10)

2.18Intervention area Q: EU air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide

2.19Intervention area R: EU air quality standards for ozone

2.20Intervention area S: EU air quality standards for sulphur dioxide

2.21Intervention area T: EU air quality standards for carbon monoxide

2.22Intervention area U: EU air quality standards for benzene

2.23Intervention area V: EU air quality standards for benzo(a)pyrene

2.24Intervention area W: EU air quality standards for lead

2.25Intervention area X: EU air quality standards for arsenic

2.26Intervention area Y: EU air quality standards for cadmium

2.27Intervention area Z: EU air quality standards for nickel

2.28Intervention area Ø: EU air quality standards for additional air pollutants

3.Policy Options

3.1Policy options to address environment / health shortcomings

3.2Policy options to address governance / enforcement shortcomings

3.3Policy options to address air quality monitoring / assessment shortcomings

3.4Policy options to address air quality information shortcomings

4.How do the options compare?

Maps for benzene – C6H6

Figure A5.19 - Benzene annual mean concentrations for baseline (Base) and MTFR for 2020, 2030 and 2050. Calculations are made on the EMEP 0.1o grid. For details (including on bias correction), please see the underpinning support study on the revision of the Ambient Air Quality Directives.

Base 2020

Base 2030                    MTFR 2030

Base 2050                    MTFR 2050

Maps for benzo(a)pyrene - BaP

Figure A5.20 - BaP annual mean concentrations for baseline (Base) and MTFR for 2020, 2030 and 2050. Calculations are made on the EMEP 0.1o grid. For details (including on bias correction), please see the underpinning support study on the revision of the Ambient Air Quality Directives.

Base 2020

Base 2030                    MTFR 2030

Base 2050                    MTFR 2050

4.Population exposure

In the next step of the analysis, the air pollutant concentrations have been translated into estimates for population exposure. The number of people exposed in the EU-27 above selected annual mean concentration ranges is presented for the pollutants PM2.5 and NO2. All Baseline, MTFR (or MFR) and optimised (OPT) scenarios are presented. The exposure calculations follow the same trends as seen for the station site calculations (results of which are included in the main SWD).

Figure A5.21– Number of people exposed above selected annual mean concentrations in the EU-27 for PM2.5 and NO2 

As in the station calculations, the optimised scenarios do not attain their goals, with the exception of the less ambitious optimisations of 20 and 15 µg/m3 with less than 80 thousand inhabitants exposed above 15 µg/m3. This is well within the uncertainty of the calculations. By 2050, all scenarios come close to attaining the WHO recommended NO2 concentration level of 10 µg/m3 but still with four to six million inhabitants exposed above this level.

Population exposure and source contributions

The results on population exposure are further broken down to show the split into the different sources of pollution at different levels of annual mean concentration. 1  The following points can be noted:

PM2.5 

·530 000 inhabitants are exposed to PM2.5 concentrations higher than 25 µg/m3 in 2020 and this is chiefly attributable to residential emissions of primary PM2.5;

·16 000 inhabitants are exposed to PM2.5 concentrations higher than 25 µg/m3 in 2030 but this number is well within the uncertainty of the methodology;

·In 2030, remaining high annual mean concentrations are mainly caused by residential emissions; 

·Where low annual mean concentrations prevail, the relative importance of secondary sources as well as natural sources increases; 

·In 2030, non-exhaust PM2.5 emissions from road transport become a significant source contribution in some cities, notably Nordic countries. Non-exhaust emissions remain unchanged for all scenarios;

·Local primary PM2.5 sources (i.e. all sources in lower case letters in figures below) that are emitted from within the ± 0.4o window, account for 22% of the total PM2.5 European exposure in 2020.

NO2

·In 2020, the major source of NOX contributing to NO2 concentrations for all exposure levels is local road traffic, i.e. emitted from within the ± 0.4o window;

·In 2030, road traffic contributes very little and the dominant source leading to exposures above 10 µg/m3 is shipping. There is a large degree of uncertainty in these local emission sources at ports.

BaP

·In 2020, the dominant source for BaP is residential heating, followed by some individual industrial emissions;

·In 2020, around 80 million inhabitants were exposed above the current EU limit value of 1 ng/m3. This was mostly in Poland and in Northern Italy. In 2030, this is reduced to 15 million;

·In 2030, residential heating remains the dominant source at concentration levels of up to 2 ng/m3, with industrial sources dominating above 2 ng/m3;

·With respect to industrial sources these exceedances are chiefly the result of one individual industrial plant in Northern Italy, Vicenza, and some lesser contributions in Spain and Poland. These emissions remain uncertain, both in present day and how they will evolve in the future.

The optimised calculations show similar results to the baseline scenario and MTFR scenarios but with a general reduction in concentrations from baseline scenario to MTFR.

5.Health impacts 

Results for attributable mortality (Tier 1)

The impact of the various scenarios on the total number of yearly attributable deaths in the EU-27 for the three pollutants under consideration (PM2.5, NO2, O3) is shown in the bar graphs in Figure A5.22 (total number of premature deaths) and Figure A5.23 (relative differences between the baseline and the scenarios). These charts and numbers refer to the health impact above the WHO air quality guideline concentration levels; all excess mortality caused by concentrations below these cut-offs is not taken into account.

For particulate matter, the relative impact of the policy scenarios depends on the nature of the scenario. In case the baseline concentrations are already close to the target concentrations of the scenarios (as e.g. for the 20 μg/m3 scenario in 2030 and the 15 μg/m3 in 2050), the health impact of the scenarios is rather limited (15% for the 20 μg/m3 scenario in 2030 and 8% for the 15 μg/m3 scenario in 2050). For all other scenarios, the health impact for the OPT scenarios is significant (at least 38% in 2030 and at least 46% in 2050), and in many cases the difference between the health impact of the policy scenarios and the MTFR scenario is rather limited. As an example, the difference in health impact between the 10 μg/m3 on the one hand, and the MTFR on the other hand is only 8% in 2030 and only 4% in 2050.

For nitrogen dioxide, the impact (relative to the baseline) for the policy scenarios depends on the year under consideration. For 2030, the 20 μg/m3 has only a limited impact (2%), while the impact gradually increases for the more stringent scenarios (12%, 16%, and 20% respectively for 15 μg/m3, 10 μg/m3 and 5 μg/m3). In 2050, the impact (relative to the baseline) of the 15 μg/m3 scenario is small (1%), while the impact for the other policy scenarios is very similar to the impact of the MTFR scenario (14% reduction for both the 10 μg/m3 and 5 μg/m3, compared to 16% for MTFR). Finally, for ozone, the impact of the policy scenarios is small, with especially only marginal reductions for the 20 μg/m3 and the 15 μg/m3 scenario.

The support studies in its annexes provides further geographical breakdown of the results reported here at aggregate EU-27 level, indicating a rather stable spatial pattern across scenarios.

Figure A5.22 – Number of yearly premature deaths in the EU-27 caused by the exposure to air pollution at levels above the WHO air quality guidelines for all scenarios for three pollutants (PM2.5, top-left, NO2, top-right, O3, bottom) based on the outcome of the modelling applied for this impact assessment 2

Figure A5.23 – Relative impact of the scenario on the number of yearly premature deaths in the EU-27 caused by the exposure to air pollution at levels above the WHO air quality guidelines for three pollutants (PM2.5, top-left; NO2, top-right; O3, bottom) based on the outcome of the modelling applied for this impact assessment  3

Results for attributable morbidity (Tier 2 and Tier 3)

Figure A5.24 provides an overview of the relative impact of the scenarios on the morbidity from the second (morbidity according to HRAPIE) and third tiers (additional health outcomes beyond HRAPIE: stroke, lung cancer and asthma in children). For all health outcomes, the results correspond qualitatively and quantitatively with those for the chronic mortality caused by PM2.5 exposure. The relative impact of the policy scenarios depends on the nature of the scenario. In case the baseline concentrations are already close to the target concentrations of the scenarios, the health impact of the scenarios is rather limited, in line with the results for mortality. For all other scenarios, the health impact for the policy scenarios is significant, and in many cases the difference between the health impact of the policy scenarios and the MTFR scenario is rather limited.

Figure A5.24 – Relative impact of the scenarios on the morbidity in the EU-27 caused by the exposure to air pollution at levels above the WHO air quality guidelines for 2030 (top) and 2050 (bottom) 4

Health impacts - summary results

From this analysis, several conclusion can be drawn regarding the health impacts of the scenarios:

·Under the baseline scenario, the mortality caused by exposure to PM2.5 and NO2 decreases significantly from 2015 to 2030. However, there would still be a considerable number of premature deaths each year observed in 2030, with tens of thousands of attributable deaths per year caused by the exposure to PM2.5 and thousands of deaths caused by the exposure to NO2:

oFor particulate matter, the baseline attributable mortality is larger in Eastern and Southern European countries, in comparison with the impact in most Northern and Western European countries (which is in line with the spatial pattern of the baseline emissions and the natural contribution).

oThe results for nitrogen dioxide reflect the nature of the nitrogen dioxide pollution: because concentration hotspots are mostly linked to important local shipping and traffic emissions, also the highest baseline mortality is observed at these locations.

·The measures taken under the MTFR scenario have a significant impact on the health impact caused by the exposure to particulate matter (reductions with more than 55% in 2030, and with approximately 50% in 2050). Despite these strong reductions, a significant health impact remains under the application of the MTFR scenario, with more than 20 000 yearly attributable deaths in 2030 and more than 10 000 yearly attributable deaths in 2050. The impact of the MTFR scenario is somewhat more limited for the mortality caused by nitrogen dioxide pollution (relative reductions of 29% (2030) and 16% (2050) scenario).

·The relative impact of the different policy scenarios depends on the nature of the scenario. In case the baseline concentrations are already close to the target concentrations of the scenarios (e.g. 20 μg/m3 scenario in 2030 and the 15 μg/m3 in 2050), the health impact of the scenarios is rather limited. For all other scenarios, the difference in health impact for the policy scenarios is similar to the health impact of the MTFR scenario:

oFor particulate matter, a strong regional difference in the impacts of the MTFR scenario is observed, as smaller relative impacts are observed in Southern Europe in comparison with other regions (due to the impact of the natural contribution and the minor reductions in shipping emissions).

oFor nitrogen dioxide, the highest reduction in attributable mortality is observed at the hotspots for which the emissions are reduced by the greatest margin;

·Results for morbidity show similar pattern to the results for mortality.

Economic valuation – benefits from reduced health impacts

In line with the valuation methods described in Annex 4, the costs of air pollution arising from impacts on human health and ecosystems were monetised. Comparing the costs estimated for the policy scenarios to the baseline scenario, yields a monetised estimate of the benefits associated with the reduced impacts observed in the policy scenarios. These benefits are summarised in chapter 6 of the main document, whereas Table A5.1 below presents the underlying results per scenario for health impacts. The annexes to the support study contain further detailed breakdown of estimates per health outcome and pollutant.

As can be seen from the results, there is a marked difference in the monetised human health benefits depending on the approach taken and on the scenario. Monetised benefits are smaller under the VOLY than VSL approach. The benefits increase, as expected, with the ambition of the scenario. The benefits reduce over time as more progress is made in the baseline, which erodes the additional benefit of further action under the mitigation scenarios.

Across all scenarios, mortality effects contribute the vast majority of the overall valued effects: the share of morbidity effects in the total valuation of human health benefits ranges from 1-6% across scenarios and years under the VSL approach, to 5-19% under the VOLY approach.

Table A5.1 – Costs and benefits (“Net” values) to society (valuation of health impacts – both mortality and morbidity, with approach to valuing mortality indicated in the first column) per year – central estimate (all values €bn 2015 prices, EU-27)

6.Ecosystem and other non-health impacts 

Results for ecosystem areas exceeding critical loads for acidification and eutrophication

The following table presents the monetised impacts of air pollution on ecosystems (incl. productive ones) as well as material damage (mainly built environment) under the baseline, policy and MTFR scenarios. The size of the damage in the baseline and scenarios reduces over time alongside further emissions reductions delivered through current policy. The monetised benefits increase with the ambition under each scenario, as further reduction in air pollutant emissions are delivered. The scenarios and MTFR can deliver substantial benefits for ecosystems and from reduced material damage, however the aggregate size of these benefits is still smaller than the human health benefits.

This section presents indicators on ecosystem impacts in terms of acidification and eutrophication from excess deposition of nitrogen (for acidification and eutrophication) and sulphur (for acidification). Results are calculated with the GAINS model using critical loads approved by the Air Convention in 2017.

Maps of ecosystem areas exceeding critical loads for acidification and eutrophication (percentages of area above critical load) from deposition of nitrogen and sulphur are shown in Figures A5.25 and A5.26 for the Baseline and MTFR scenarios and the years 2020, 2030 and 2050. Eutrophication is still a widespread problem in Europe, with an estimated 74% of all ecosystem areas exceeding critical loads. Despite improvements in 2030 and even further in 2050, still ~65% of ecosystem areas are expected to exceed critical loads for eutrophication in 2050 under the baseline scenario. Under the MTFR scenario, this is reduced to 48% in 2050. Acidification is much less of an issue, with 4.8% of ecosystem areas currently exceeding the critical loads, decreasing to 3.1% in 2030 and 2.4% in 2050 under the Baseline scenario (1.2% in 2050 under the MTFR scenario).

The support study includes tables that differentiate the impacts of the different scenarios in terms of area shares of different types of ecosystems where critical loads for eutrophication and acidification are exceeded by Member State.

Figure A5.25 – Shares of ecosystem area exceeding critical loads for eutrophication 

Baseline 2020

Baseline 2030                MTFR 2030

Baseline 2050                MTFR 2050

Figure A5.26 – Shares of ecosystem area exceeding critical loads for acidification

Baseline 2020

Baseline 2050                MTFR 2050

Baseline 2050                MTFR 2050

Economic valuation – benefits from reduced material damage and impacts on ecosystems

Table A5.2 presents the monetised impacts of air pollution on crops, productive forests and other ecosystems as well as material damage (mainly built environment) under the baseline, policy and MTFR scenarios. The size of the damage in the baseline and scenarios reduces over time alongside further emissions reductions delivered through current policy. The monetised benefits increase with the ambition under each scenario, as further reduction in air pollutant emissions are delivered. The scenarios and MTFR can deliver substantial benefits from reduced damage, however the absolute size of these benefits is several orders of magnitude smaller than the human health benefits.

7.Macro-economic impacts

Air pollution has detrimental welfare impacts by affecting health outcomes. In addition, related healthcare expenditures, crop yield losses in particular due to ozone, absence from work due to illness (including of dependent children) and lower productivity at work (presenteeism) can imply a drag on the economy. Improving air quality can therefore bring economic gains. However, air pollution control comes at a gross cost, as it requires costly investments and purchases of abatement equipment. A priori, it is unclear whether air pollution control policies therefore lead to net economic gains or losses, and how these are distributed across stakeholders.

To shed some light on these trade-offs, a macro-economic benefit-cost analysis was conducted by linking the GAINS model with the JRC-GEM-E3 model. This has been done in previous work, such as the First and Second Clean Air Outlook, and both models feature in a broader modelling toolbox e.g. in the assessment of the EU long-term climate strategy 6 . The key information that flows from GAINS to JRC-GEM-E3 is the abatement cost associated to further air pollution controls induced by more ambitious policy measures and targets. These costs serve as inputs into the JRC-GEM-E3 analysis (Figure A5.13). 

Figure A5.13 – Air pollution mitigation or adjustment costs (EU total) beyond the baseline, for different policy scenarios. Source: GAINS model, IIASA (support study).

The JRC-GEM-E3 model represents the whole economy and the interactions between key actors: firms, households and governments in the EU and in the rest of the world. End-of-pipe abatement costs from GAINS are treated as costly (intermediate) expenditures on abatement goods and services, and therefore generate additional demand for the sectors that deliver these goods and services. Furthermore, the model captures the potential loss in competitiveness of firms that need to incur abatement costs by reflecting price-driven international trade flows. For households, a loss of income or raised expenditure on abatement technologies implies that less means are available to purchase other goods. The economic modelling framework covers these interactions to provide an economy-wide picture of the implications of additional air pollution control costs.

On the benefit side, this analysis concentrates on productivity gains from clean air. The empirical basis stems from recent OECD work 7 that quantifies the causal impact of PM2.5 pollution on productivity in the EU for the period 2000-2015. More specifically, labour productivity gains are derived by combining the point estimate on the impact of PM2.5 on GDP per worker, with the changes (compared to the baseline) in population-weighted PM2.5 concentrations from the GAINS model. The corresponding changes in labour productivity are fed into the JRC-GEM-E3 model, where labour constitutes an input the production process of the various economic sectors.

The results are displayed in Table A5.3. The key insight is that all scenarios improve aggregate economic outcomes in the EU compared to a situation of unchanged policy. The most ambitious 5 μg/m3 scenarios imply larger gross costs, but these are more than compensated by productivity gains, as reflected by the positive impact on GDP and private consumption. With the exception of livestock-based agriculture, all sectors displayed raise output compared to the reference when productivity gains of clean air are accounted for.

A few caveats are important to take into consideration when interpreting these results. Here, we focus exclusively on productivity benefits from clean air. This implies that other ‘market’ benefits are not included, such as reduced healthcare expenditures and increased crop yields. Furthermore, additional ‘non-market’ benefits, such as ecosystem impacts and reductions in premature mortality or life years lost due to air pollution, are not included in the results displayed in the table below. While these benefits are not included in the economy-wide assessment in this section, they are discussed in other sections of this report. The JRC-GEM-E3 modelling results furthermore include outcomes on employment changes by sector. In these simulations, it was assumed that wage setting is flexible such that it can fully accommodate labour market adjustments. This implies that aggregate, national unemployment levels are driven by fundamental factors that are unaffected by clean air policy. In other words, this assumption implies that the results will not pick up any potential aggregate net job creation associated with increased GDP and output levels as shown, and the results may therefore be interpreted as conservative estimates.

The results displayed in Table A5.4 indicate two consistent findings across all scenarios and years. First, we observe a creation of jobs in industry, which relates directly to the production of equipment required to abate emissions and the associated investments. While industry also faces increased abatement costs, in terms of net effect on jobs this is more than offset by increased demand for abatement goods from all sectors (including households). Second, the agricultural sector experiences job losses compared to the reference, which relates to output losses (livestock sector) or a transition of workers into industry (crops sector). Overall, the magnitude of the employment changes is limited in relative terms such that they may be largely absorbed by ongoing labour market dynamics (entry into and exit from the labour market). One caveat worthwhile mentioning here is that the productivity benefits are applied uniformly across all sectors. A stronger empirical evidence base would help refining (the sector-specific elements of) the analysis, e.g. by differentiating productivity impacts of air pollution for vulnerable workers.

8.SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR IED IMPLEMENTATION

In order to quantify to the extent possible the impact of the proposal for a revised IED on air quality, a sensitivity analysis was conducted. Since it is not possible to precisely project the speed and scope of the IED implementation 9 , as this depends on the development and uptake of BAT across economic sectors, a series of assumptions was taken:

·For all non-agriculture sectors covered by the proposal for a revised IED, a 20% reduction in PM2.5, SO2, and NOx emissions in 2030 (additional to the reduction already foreseen in the baseline), reflecting the likely best-case scenario of the IED implementation and based on assumptions presented in the impact assessment underpinning the revision of the IED.

·For agriculture sectors covered by the proposal for a revised IED, country-specific and livestock category-specific NH3 reduction rates estimated with the GAINS model for the third Clean Air Outlook, assuming an entry into force of the proposal in 2027. Typically, this results in about 1% to 4% reduction of national NH3 emissions (about 2% for the EU27 as a whole) beyond the baseline used in this impact assessment.

The modelling approach followed the following steps:

·projection of the impact on country specific industrial emissions of PM2.5, SO2, NOx for the year 2030;

·projection of the impact on country specific NH3 emissions from agriculture for the year 2030; 

·these newly estimated emissions of all pollutants were used in the EMEP model simulations for 2030 to estimate PM2.5 and NO2 concentrations and station compliance and exposure.

The following table present the change in station concentrations from the 2030 Baseline to the 2030 IED sensitivity.

It should be noted that, due to the methodological limitations of any sensitivity analysis, these results cannot be used for drawing exact conclusion on impacts. They do however provide a useful indication of the impact of the revised IED implementation on pollution concentration, and show that these impacts are likely to be very small compared to the baseline used in the core of this impact. For more information, see the underpinning support study.

Annex 6: Potential policy measures (or interventions)

1.Policy Measures in the Different Policy Options

This impact assessment considers a total of 69 potential specific policy measures - these measures are based on WHO recommendations (including as published in 2021), as well as stakeholder feedback to the Inception Impact Assessment and preliminary expert consultations (with those responsible for air quality monitoring, modelling and planning).

2.Assessment of potential policy measures and their impacts

Assessment criteria and indicators

Each of the above indicator is scored for each specific potential policy measure in a qualitative manner, taking into account the quantitative assessment provided in Annex 3 and Annex 5 where possible. Note that for several indicators no extensive quantification has been possible, due to the lack of available data per specific potential policy measure. In these cases the assessment is based on expert judgement provided via the underpinning support study.

For a summary overview the scoring of the twelve indicators for each specific potential policy measure is presented via an overview table, as per the following logic. Note that indicator #6 features twice, i.e. under economic impact and under cost.

Note that indicator #12 on the administrative burden is based on the estimates presented in Annex 3. Combined additional annualised one-off and recurring administrative burden in the category of less than 10 000 Euro per year are marked ‘(-)’, between 10 000 and 100 000 Euro as ‘-‘, between 100 000 and 1 000 000 Euro as ‘--‘, and above 1 000 000 Euro as ‘---‘.

Stakeholder views

A targeted stakeholder survey asked for views on each potential specific policy intervention (see Annex 2 for details), and consulted with public authorities, civil society & NGOs, industry & businesses, and research & academia. The number of responses differed by policy are consulted upon.

For intervention areas A through N, in total 93 replies were received from:

·Public authorities (43);

·Civil society & NGOs (12);

·Industry & businesses (14);

·Research & academia (22).

For intervention areas O to Ø, in total 139 replies were received from:

·Public authorities (53);

·Civil society & NGOs (12);

·Industry & businesses (26);

·Research & academia (42).

Stakeholder views per potential specific policy intervention are summarised below.

2.1Intervention area A: Regular review of EU air quality standards 

A1    Introduce review of EU air quality standards triggered by scientific progress

Focus of measure: Introduce a mechanism for adjusting EU air quality standards upon publication of new scientific advice (including, but not limited to, the publication of new WHO Air Quality Guidelines).

Description of measure: Appropriate mechanisms are needed to flexibly adapt to evolving science to protect human health. Article 32 of Directive 2008/50/EC and Article 8 of Directive 2004/107/EC provided grounds for once-off reviews on the basis of specific evidence (e.g. WHO Air Quality Guidelines or reduction potentials in Member States), but do not provide a mandate or obligation for regular reviews. Three possible intervention variants exist under this intervention to ensure that Ambient Air Quality Directives reflect latest scientific advice:

1.Introduce a binding schedule of reviews of scientific progress to be undertaken by the Commission - under this variant the Commission would undertake a periodic review of scientific progress related to air pollutants.

2.Introduce a mechanism for adjusting EU air quality standards upon publication of new WHO Air Quality Guidelines - under this variant the Commission would undertake a WHO Air Quality Guidelines related review of scientific progress related to air pollutants, with a view to presenting a proposal to amend the Directives to the European Parliament and the Council.

3.Introduce a mechanism for adjusting air quality standards based on (other) latest scientific advice - under this variant the Commission would undertake a review of new scientific knowledge of related to air pollutants, with a view to presenting a proposal to amend the Directives to the European Parliament and the Council.

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: Introduction of a mechanism that will provide a basis for the alignment of the Ambient Air Quality Directives with the latest scientific knowledge will directly contribute towards reductions in air quality concentrations. Meeting the direct objective of air quality reduction will subsequently indirectly protect EU population from harmful exposure to air pollution and indirectly benefit ecosystems. Direct costs estimated for this intervention are small administrative costs for the Commission.

A2    Introduce review of EU air quality standards triggered by technical progress

Focus of measure: Introduce a mechanism for adjusting EU air quality standards based on technical progress in air pollution reduction.

Description of measure: This intervention would introduce a mechanism for adjusting EU air quality standards based on technical progress in air pollution reduction. Accordingly, the Commission would undertake regular reviews of technical progress related to abatement techniques for air quality pollutants and the cost of implementing standards that are more stringent.

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: This measure introduces a mechanism for adjusting EU air quality standards based on technical progress in air pollution reduction. This intervention would formalise consideration of technological progress in the Ambient Air Quality Directive and could have a small positive indirect impact on improvements in air quality concentrations as advances in the technological knowledge might lead to revisions in the Ambient Air Quality Directive due to the enhanced technical feasibility of its implementation. However, the process would be driven by technology considerations, not health considerations, and therefore addresses the objective of protecting human health only to some extent. Direct costs estimated for this intervention are small administrative costs for the Commission.

A3    Introduce option to notify stricter standards by Member States

Focus of measure: Introduce a provision in the Ambient Air Quality Directives to allow for EU Member States to adopt more stringent standards in light of the new technical and scientific progress coupled with an obligation to notify the Commission.

Description of measure: The European Commission would introduce a requirement to ensure that EU Member States notify the Commission if they adopt more stringent standards within their jurisdiction in light of the new technical and scientific progress. EU Member States already have the possibility to adopt more stringent protective measures in accordance with Article 193 TFEU which must be notified to the Commission. The intervention would explicitly enshrine this possibility with regard to stricter air quality standards in secondary legislation and elaborate on the obligation to notify the European Commission with a view to collecting information on technical and scientific knowledge and national/local standards surpassing the EU standard and enabling information sharing across Member States.

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: This measure introduces a provision to allow EU Member States to adopt more stringent standards in light of the new technical and scientific progress coupled with an obligation to notify the Commission. This intervention has a potential to have a small indirect impact on reducing air pollution concentrations as it would contribute to sharing of information, including on scientific and technical data that can be used by the EU and other EU Member States. This intervention has been assessed under the assumption that it will enhance the Commission’s evidence base regarding Member State policy action at EU level. Direct costs estimated for this intervention are small administrative costs for EU Member State competent authorities. The benefit cost ratio of this measure is considered high as low administrative burden would lead to an improved knowledge base.

A4    Introduce a list of priority air pollutants

Focus of measure: Keep and periodically update a list of priority air pollutants with a view to monitoring air pollutants of emerging concern.

Description of measure: Directives 2004/107/EC and 2008/50/EC establish standards and objectives for a number of air pollutants, namely PM2.5, PM10, SO2, NO2, NOx, Pb, CO, C6H6, O3, As, Cd, Ni and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, to protect human health and the environment. This intervention would mandate the Commission to establish and periodically update a list of additional priority air pollutants with a view to monitoring air pollutants of emerging concern. Accordingly, the Commission would regularly update a “watch list” for emerging substances as part of the latest technical and scientific review and to demand their monitoring at Member State level. This measure would provide a first step for improving knowledge of and developing standards for air quality pollutants that are currently not covered in the Ambient Air Quality Directives. The Commission would be responsible for the watch list, but Member States would carry out the monitoring.

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: This measure aims to keep and periodically update a list of priority air pollutants with a view to monitoring air pollutants of emerging concern. This intervention is likely to have a small indirect impact on air quality as the monitoring of identified priority pollutants could eventually lead to regulating them in the Ambient Air Quality Directive. Black carbon (BC), Ultrafine particles (UFP), ammonia (NH3), PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), dioxins and PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) have been specifically highlighted as possible priority air pollutants. Direct costs estimated for this intervention are small administrative costs for the Commission. Additional burden would potentially be borne by the EU Member States if they were required (or voluntarily choose) to monitor priority emerging air pollutants, in particular if the content of the list changed frequently.

2.2Intervention area B: Type of EU air quality standards 

B1    Introduce additional short-term standards

Focus of measure: Establish short-term EU air quality standards (daily or hourly) for additional air pollutants that currently only have annual or seasonal standards e.g. PM2.5.

Description of measure: The Ambient Air Quality Directives sets short-term standards only for certain pollutants. There are cases where the WHO Air Quality Guidelines provide a recommendation for short-term exposure levels for additional pollutants. For example, for PM2.5 there is an EU annual limit value, but no 24-hour standard; for SO2 there are EU standards for 1-hour and 24-hour periods, but no 10-minute standard; for NO2 there is an EU standard for 1-hour exposure, but no 24-hour standard. This intervention explores the regulatory change needed to underpin the formulation of additional short-term standards for various pollutants for which currently only long-term standards (annual-mean) exist, or alternative short-term averaging periods, to achieve greater alignment with the latest WHO Air Quality Guidelines.

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: This is a facilitating measure. It goes hand-in-hand with (and the true impacts are determined by) the ambition of the standards set under other interventions (O2, P2, Q2, R2, S2 and T1). This intervention provides the facilitating legal basis for such standards to be set, and hence is an important component of a wider solution that could be effective in improving air quality and thereby improving health protection. As such this measure has only low direct costs, but the potential for high benefits. Stakeholders showed fairly strong support for this intervention, with 60% of respondents across all categories showing support at least to some extent.

B2    Introduce additional alert/information thresholds

Focus of measure: Define alert thresholds and information thresholds for all air pollutants as triggers for alerting the public and taking short-term action.

Description of measure: This intervention would establish alert thresholds and information thresholds for some or all air pollutants that currently do not have alert thresholds or information thresholds, as triggers for alerting the public and taking short-term action.

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: Alert and information thresholds provide a trigger for alerting the public and developing short term action. Short-term action is expected to benefit air quality indirectly to a small extent. Better information (on all relevant air pollutants) for the public would enable citizens, in particular vulnerable groups to take more targeted and effective personal measures to reduce their exposure to harmful air pollution, thereby having a direct small positive impact on human health. This intervention is expected to have small direct administrative costs for the Commission and competent authorities.

B3    Revise definition of average exposure standards

Focus of measure: Expand the application of the exposure reduction targets (relative reduction in exposure).

Description of measure: The Ambient Air Quality Directives include average exposure obligations among the current provisions to regulate PM2.5 concentrations. These complement the emission limit value for PM2.5 by targeting average concentration values across larger areas. Accordingly, the Ambient Air Quality Directives set national PM2.5 exposure reduction targets to protect human health (Article 15). The reduction target is a percentage reduction based on the initial concentration. To determine the initial concentration, an average exposure indicator is used (an average level determined on the basis of measurements at urban background locations throughout the territory of a Member State and which reflects population exposure). This intervention explores whether the formulation of the average exposure reduction targets and obligations should be changed. According to Article 15 of Directive 2008/50/EC, the distribution and the number of sampling points on which the average exposure indicator for PM2.5 is based should reflect the general population exposure adequately. Annex XIV to Directive 2008/50/EC specifies Average Exposure Indicators (AEI) for PM2.5. The AEI is currently measured at urban background stations, which might not always be reflective of the general population exposure. The following variants are explored:

1.Introduce an exposure reduction target at regional or local level (rather than at national level only).

2.Broaden the “average exposure indicator” metric to include locations other than urban background (e.g. rural background locations).

3.Establish requirements for Member States to adopt air quality plans to meet exposure concentration obligations.

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: This intervention may improve the way that the average general population exposure reduction is monitored and addressed. The average exposure indicator is currently measured in urban background stations, which might not always be reflective of general population exposure. As a result, this measure is likely to provide better targeting of general air pollution exposure reduction measures, thereby contributing to further protection of public health from harmful air pollution and reducing the air quality cost to society. It could also improve the effectiveness of implementing mitigation measures. Direct costs estimated with this intervention are small administrative costs for the Commission and Member States. 

B4    Introduce guidance on addressing exceedances

Focus of measure: Provide guidance on the provisions concerning types of EU air quality standards and on the action to be taken in case of exceedance of different types of standards

Description of measure: This intervention would include guidance on how to respond to exceedances in terms of suitable air pollution response measures in case of exceedances, and on types of plans to be used. It would aim to enable clearer coordination with the development and implementation of short-term action plans under Article 24 of Directive 2008/50/EC and air quality plans under Article 23 Directive 2008/50/EC by clarifying the information to be provided in short-term action plans and ensure the requirements under short-term air quality plans do not overlap with the requirements for air quality plans set in Annex XV to the Directive 2008/50/EC.

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: While varying circumstances across different EU member states are a challenge for developing effective guidelines, guidance could overall contribute towards better targeting of air pollution action, thereby contributing towards either more cost-effective response to exceedances or reducing the air quality cost on society by further protecting the general population from harmful air pollution. It is difficult to estimate indirect compliance and potential mitigation costs. Direct costs estimated with this intervention are small administrative costs for the Commission.

B5    Introduce limit values for additional air pollutants

Focus of measure: Establish limit values for additional air pollutants (i.e. for air pollutants currently subject to target values).

Description of measure: The Fitness Check of the Ambient Air Quality Directives found that limit values have been more effective in facilitating downward trends than other types of air quality standards, such as target values. This intervention explores the establishment of limit values for additional air pollutants (i.e. for air pollutants currently subject to target values).

Intervention options for additional limit values include:

1.Establish limit values also for air pollutants that tend to depend on transboundary precursors and /or annual variations in meteorology (e.g. as is the case for ozone);

2.Establish limit values also for air pollutants that tend to correspond to specific point source emissions (e.g. as is the case for most heavy metals);

3.Establish limit values also for air pollutants that tend to correspond to emissions from specific widespread practices (e.g. as is the case for most poly-aromatic hydrocarbons).

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: Limit values have proved most effective in reducing air pollutant concentrations. Introduction of limit values for all pollutants, where these would prove feasible, would strengthen the Ambient Air Quality Directive. Direct costs estimated with this intervention are medium administrative costs for the Commission, associated with the review of the Ambient Air Quality Directive as well as additional monitoring needs (which would depend on the selection of pollutants for which limit values would be defined). One reason for setting target values rather than limit values is to take account of the specific formation mechanisms, for example in the case of ozone (also due to a strong role of transboundary sources and annual variations in meteorology for this air pollutant). 

2.3Intervention area C: Actions when exceedances occur

C1    Revise obligations for measures triggered by exceedances of air quality standards

Focus of measure: Further specify the obligations to take measures to keep exceedance periods as short as possible.

Description of measure: This intervention would maintain the obligation to set out “appropriate measures, so that the exceedance period can be kept as short as possible” while further specifying the ‘type of measures’ that competent authorities must take to ensure that exceedance periods can be kept as short as possible. The type of measures to consider will depend on the type of pollutant, the source of pollution, and other factors. To this purpose the revised Ambient Air Quality Directives would contain a checklist of relevant abatement measures that competent authorities can consider and select from. The measures set out currently in section B of Annex XV could be updated and applied to air quality plans. Competent authorities would have to demonstrate that they have considered all relevant measures in the checklist of measures and if they decided not to implement a relevant measure, this should be justified (unlike currently, where air quality plans are not required to include reasoning behind the measures adopted). This means that this intervention would provide for a systematic assessment of measures and strengthen the information requirements that competent authorities need to make available in air quality plans. This intervention would build on requirements of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC linked to exceedances of limit or target values. It could be extended to the Exposure Concentration Obligation (ECO) and Average Exposure Indicator (AEI), should the revision lead to establishing requirements in case of not complying with those standards. The rationale behind this intervention is that air quality plans have often proven ineffective due to inadequate or not sufficiently ambitious measures to reduce air pollution to achieve compliance.

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: This measure would specify the ‘type of measures’ that competent authorities must take to ensure that exceedance periods can be kept as short as possible. Since authorities would be provided with a long-list of measures to select from, this would lead to a systematic approach to developing an air quality plan and reduce time to explore potential measures. The intervention holds the potential to result in more effective measures which in turn can bring positive benefits in terms of air quality and related impacts, depends however also on funds for implementation of measures and properly trained staff on the side of competent authorities. The fact that the type of measures to be included in air quality plans is further defined does not guarantee these measures will be taken. The success of this intervention relies on the capability (knowledge, skills, competences) of competent authorities in charge of designing air quality plans to develop effective plans. This intervention will not result in any additional relevant direct costs for competent authorities as the obligation to develop air quality plans already exists.

C2    Revise/clarify the term ‘as short as possible’

Focus of measure: Reformulate the term “as short as possible” including a defined time period.

Description of measure: This measure would entail amending the text of Article 23 of Directive 2008/50/EC to define the specific time period within which competent authorities must bring emissions down below the exceedance threshold. This would replace the current wording “as short as possible”. This current provision is open to interpretation and therefore risks that exceedances remain systematic and persistent. In practice, since air quality plans must be prepared within two years from the exceedance at the latest, measures are often implemented only after three years at the earliest. Thus, the purpose of this intervention is to prompt competent authorities to take measures to reduce air pollution to a safe level in a timely manner. Where measures are implemented slowly, this intervention could contribute to ensuring that action is taken faster and that there is no room for different interpretations of what ‘as soon as possible’ means, as also voiced in the targeted stakeholder survey.

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: Specifying a clear time period within which air quality standards have to be respected holds the potential to result in faster action which in turn can bring indirect positive benefits in terms of air quality and related impacts. Introducing a fixed timeframe will provide a maximum time span within which results have to be achieved, improving the speed of response rates in many cases. However, as there is no one-size-fits-all timeframe, there is a risk that a fixed timeframe will slow down action in some cases where compliance could be achieved before the end of the fixed term. There may also be effective long-term measures that cannot be fully implemented within the given timeframe. A fixed timeframe may also weaken previous interpretations of the term ‘as short as possible’ by the courts.

C3    Revise short-term action plans and air quality plans

Focus of measure: Require a clearer coordination between short-term action plans and air quality plans.

Description of measure: This intervention consists of requiring clear coordination between the development and implementation of short-term action plans (under Article 24 of Directive 2008/50/EC) and air quality plans (under Article 23 and in Annex XV to Directive 2008/50/EC). It should be noted that this intervention is particularly relevant for Member States in which alert thresholds are exceeded but could apply to any Member State where there is a risk of exceeding limit or target values.

Coordination between short term action plans and air quality plans is not a requirement in the current Directive. As a result, not all Member States coordinate these. Since short term action plans and air quality plans may be under the responsibility of authorities at different levels (for example, the former may be under the responsibility of local authorities, while the latter of regional authorities), coordination may require additional efforts.

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.     

Summary: Coordination between short term action plans and air quality plans would lead to synergies among actions and avoid inefficiencies or inconsistencies. Small administrative costs may be incurred for Member State competent authorities related to coordination activities which are expected to be more than off-set by efficiency gains. According to several respondents to the targeted stakeholder survey, the revised Directive could require that short term action plans are included in air quality plans. Also, to facilitate this linkage between the two types of plans, the Ambient Air Quality Directives should include the minimum content that short-term action plans should contain.

C4    Introduce additional short-term action plans

Focus of measure: Introduce an obligation for effective short-term action plans for each pollutant to prevent / tackle air pollution events.

Description of measure: This intervention consists of introducing in the revised Ambient Air Quality Directives the obligation to adopt effective short-term action plans for all pollutants to prevent and tackle pollution events.

Directive 2008/50/EC requires that action plans are drawn up indicating the measures to be taken in the short term “where there is a risk of an exceedance of one or more alert thresholds” (in order to reduce the risk of the duration of such an exceedance). However, alert thresholds as defined in Annex XII of Directive 2008/50/EC only exist for NO2, SO2 and O3, and therefore short-term action plans are not required for other pollutants such as PM10. 10  

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: An obligation for effective short-term action plans for each pollutant would prompt further action to bring emissions and concentrations down compared to the current situation, thus expected to benefit air quality and protect in particular sensitive groups from immediate health risks. Additional administrative burden is expected from this intervention as it imposes new requirements to Member State competent authorities. Risks linked to this intervention have to do with time-lag and separation of source from pollution. Short-term action plans may be effective only to a limited extent where pollution episodes cannot be influenced by local measures or in case of secondary pollutants for which it is not straight forward to identify immediate measures.

C5    Introduce a requirement to update air quality plans

Focus of measure: Mandate regular updates of air quality plans.

Description of measure: This measure would introduce an obligation for competent authorities to update air quality plans at regular intervals to keep exceedance periods as short as possible. Specific frequency of the update would take into account the administrative burden such updates entail. Based on feedback received from the Targeted Stakeholder Survey, updating air quality plans every three years is seen as reasonable by stakeholders. 11  This measure is intended to enhance effectiveness of air quality plans by ensuring the relevance of air quality plans and associated measures in a changing air quality context for a specific location (i.e. to ensure that measures in air quality plans address new challenges for air quality). It would be important to define the scope of updates. Feedback from regional authorities received in response to the Targeted Stakeholder Survey note that:

·updates should not necessarily require an update of all underpinning data/studies on emissions/sources and of scenario model runs but evaluate the effectiveness of the implemented measures and consider whether more measures are needed;

·new measures to tackle emerging exceedances could be adopted within existing plans, without having to draft a new plan;

·updates should contain an evaluation of measures included in previous plans, and, if relevant, a motivation why these have not been taken or have not achieved the envisaged effects.

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: Requiring regular updates of air quality plans would increase the effectiveness of plans and thus have an ‘indirect’ positive effect on air quality. Mitigation costs and administrative burden are expected to directly impact Member State competent authorities responsible for the updating of air quality plans and implementation of measures. A risk identified for this measure relates to the fact that the process of drafting air quality plans tends to be long.

2.4Intervention area D: Air Quality Plan Involvement

D1    Revise requirements to involve stakeholders

Focus of measure: Establish a requirement for Member States to involve specific actors in air quality plan development and to specify coordination arrangements for the development and implementation of air quality plans.

Description of measure: This measure would require Member States to involve all relevant actors in the drafting of air quality plans and coordinate better with these. Actors may include national/regional/local competent authorities, sectoral representatives from polluting industries, research institutes, civil society and local citizens. To this purpose, the revised Ambient Air Quality Directives should include the following concerning the preparation of air quality plans (1) a requirement for consulting and involving government authorities at various levels, and (2) a new ‘public participation’ clause for the development of air quality plans. The revised Directive should specify which aspects of the planning process should be open to public consultation and what this should involve. The problem that this measure is trying to address is that since there are no requirements on how to allocate roles and responsibilities in air quality plans, cooperation between government authorities at various levels is not a given. This can lead to insufficient action being taken by public authorities or to a mismatch of action, and therefore to air quality plans and measures being insufficient, inefficient and/or ineffective. In addition, while air quality remains a top environmental concern for EU citizens, citizens are not systematically consulted in the development of air quality plans.

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: This measure seeks to improve the involvement of all relevant actors in the design and implementation of air quality plans. This may be done by possibly adding a requirement for consulting and involving government authorities at various levels, and by introducing a new ’public participation’ clause for the development of air quality plans. 

D2    Introduce a ‘one zone, one plan’ requirement

Focus of measure: Introduce a requirement for Member States to harmonise air quality plans and air quality zones (and require a ‘one zone, one plan’ approach).

Description of measure: This measure would further define the requirements for drawing air quality plans in Article 23 of the Directive 2008/50/EC to require that one zone has to fully overlap with one plan (and hence avoiding zones with multiple plans and plans for multiple zones). This measure aims to increase the effectiveness of the Ambient Air Quality Directives by tackling the current mismatch between the zones of air quality monitoring and air quality plans.

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: This measure aims to increase the effectiveness of the Ambient Air Quality Directives by tackling the current mismatch between the zones of air quality monitoring and air quality plans. However, the benefits and added value of this intervention are unclear while it would generate some costs (and considerable administrative burden). Overall it is unclear what the added value of this intervention would be and a global approach does not seem helpful as air quality plans and air quality zones are very specific to local conditions. Arguments against this intervention in the Targeted Stakeholder Survey revolve around changes that would be needed in terms of governance / responsibilities as well as around additional administrative burden that the intervention would lead to.

2.5

2.6Intervention area E: Enforcement tools

E1    Introduce minimum levels for financial penalties

Focus of measure: Introduce minimum levels for financial penalties decided at national level.

Description of measure: This measure aims to expand the current provisions on penalties in the Ambient Air Quality Directives (Article 30 of Directive 2008/50/EC and Article 9 of Directive 2004/107/EC) to specify the magnitude of the financial penalties to be paid. In cases of failure to comply with air quality standards by establishing a minimum level for such. These penalties would be directed to competent authorities as well as industry or other private entities and should lead to penalties or sanctions that are high enough to be effective and dissuasive. The number of continued exceedance situations can be seen as an indication that Member State penalties are not sufficiently effective, proportionate nor dissuasive, with the effect that the legislation has not been adequately implemented. Further, currently financial sanctions differ from Member State to Member State leading to leading to discrepancies in terms of level of penalties and their application across the EU. While penalties are to be laid down by Member States, there is potential for more clearly framing the use and scope of penalties in the Ambient Air Quality Directives following the examples of other EU legislation.

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: Effective minimum penalty levels should discourage competent authorities and industry or other private entities from breaching provisions of the Directives or measures adopted pursuant to the Directives, thus indirectly benefiting air quality, ecosystems and health. If effective, it would lead to competent authorities and industry implementing more measures to avoid breaches (and therefore avoid the high fines). This would indirectly generate additional costs for these actors, though related to achieving compliance. The additional administrative burden of clarifying levels of financial penalties is low and would facilitate their implementation. The risks for implementation have to do with determining penalty levels applicable across the EU and, more indirectly, with difficulties with enforcement of breaches. 

E2    Introduce right to health damage compensation

Focus of measure: Introduce an explicit provision that provides a right to compensation for damage to health caused by air pollution. 

Description of measure: This measure would introduce an explicit provision within the Ambient Air Quality Directives on the right to compensation for damage to health caused by breaches of the Ambient Air Quality Directives. The principle of state liability allows for individuals to seek compensation under certain conditions for harm suffered as a result of Member State non-compliance with EU law. 12  Such a provision would clarify and facilitate compensation for harm suffer to health from air pollution. The reason for this measure is that while there is overwhelming epidemiologic evidence on the negative health impacts of air pollution on the population, exceedances still take place (albeit the frequency, extent and magnitude of these have generaly improved since 2008) and damages linked to these are not always addressed sufficiently.

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.    

Summary: This measure would work as an incentive for competent authorities and industry/business to implement more effective measures, which in turn would benefit air quality, health and ecosystems. This measure, if implemented, would require competent authorities and/or industry (polluters) to pay compensation to those who have suffered damage to health from air pollution and would therefore carry mitigation costs for those who are held accountable for breaches of air quality standards. It would also carry administrative burden for competent authorities and/or industry (polluters) as they would need to put in place and manage the compensation scheme and deal with a potentially increasing number in lawsuits by citizens / civil society, though only in case of continued non-compliance. Implementation challenges include the difficulty to prove the causal link between pollution and long-term health effects and the question of accountability (who is held responsible).

E3    Introduce a fund to be fed by penalties paid

Focus of measure: Set up a fund to be fed by the payment of penalties which can be used to compensate material damage or finance air quality measures.

Description of measure: This measure consists of setting up a “clean air fund” to be fed by the payment of penalties when the rules established by the Ambient Air Quality Directives, or possibly other rules addressing air pollution, are infringed. It would be used to compensate victims of air pollution as well as to finance air quality measures. The fund could be established either at EU-level (an EU-wide fund) or at national level (with each Member State having their own fund).

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: A dedicated fund would make available funding for compensation for health damage suffered and facilitate access to funding of the implementation of mitigation measures (leading to measures being more readily implemented). However, it could also lead to competent authorities using the fund to finance measures that they would implement in any case, without leading to ‘more’ (i.e. additional) measures being implemented, which is a risk the governance of the fund would have to address. Setting up and administering such a fund will generate additional burden. Risks for implementation include a potential conflict of interest in the case the authority that has to pay also administers the fund and alignment with national budgetary rules. The organisation of the fund could provide safeguards to avoid that the budget from which the penalty is paid into the fund is not the one benefiting from it.

E4    Introduce an explicit ‘access to justice’ provision

Focus of measure: Introduce an explicit provision in the Ambient Air Quality Directives that grants the public concerned ‘access to justice’.

Description of measure: This measure introduces a new explicit provision on ‘access to justice’ in the Ambient Air Quality Directives. The Fitness Check of the Ambient Air Quality Directives found that enforcement action by civil society actors in front of national courts has proven to be important to accelerate downward trends for air pollution. This has been confirmed by the Inception Impact Assessment, which notes that “the effectiveness of legal enforcement action by civil society is linked to the functioning of access to justice at national level”. 13 However, studies have shown that rules on access to justice rules vary widely between Member States and that there exist still significant hurdles to effective access to justice at national level. 14  

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: There is a gap in the Ambient Air Quality Directives with regard to ‘access to justice’ and including such a provision in the legislation would be a coherent step, in line with other environmental Directives, 15 Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Aarhus Convention 16 and the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU. 17 Public judicial enforcement of the obligations under the Ambient Air Quality Directives has so far already lead to multiple national rulings (in several Member States) mandating national authorities to take action to improve air quality. Introducing an explicit provision would enable such action by citizens that are currently unable to do so because of strict national procedural requirements. 18 In turn, this would indirectly benefit air quality and human health as a whole. Additional administrative costs for Member States (probably central / national government) and industry may occur as an increase in lawsuits may be expected; this would largely depend on whether national authorities have already taken the necessary measures to comply with the Aarhus Convention and the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the EU. The implementation of the intervention carries risks in terms of capacity for Member States to deal with additional legal claims.

2.7Intervention area F: Information to the public 

F1    Revise provisions related to up-to-date data

Focus of measure: Introduce more specific requirements to ensure regular reporting of up–to–date data / information (instead of allowing Member States to report data as available).

Description of measure: This intervention aims to tackle the problem that the general public is not always sufficiently informed regarding current air quality, and the problem that public information on air quality in Member States is not always timely. In addition, NGO stakeholders have consistently raised the issue that the current discretion given to Member States to determine when and how they provide information is sometimes leading to Member States reporting only on days on which air quality is good.

The intervention explores further specifying Article 27 of the Directive 2008/50 by introducing regular reporting requirements to ensure up-to-date data and that information is made available to the public, specifying:

·the timeframe for reporting;

·the data/information to be reported;

·obligation to display such information / data on air quality on screens in key points of cities and towns.

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: Up-to-date data and information on air quality would allow citizens to make decisions that may impact on their health, such as deciding not to participate in outdoor leisure activities or opting for a cleaner transport route. Hence there is a benefit in ensuring consistent access for citizens across Member States to real-time, appropriate information, which is publicly accessible. Having such information / data would be particularly important for vulnerable groups. The benefits of the intervention are indirect while its costs are negligible but administrative burden will increase slightly for Member States. There are risks around the accuracy of real-time information.

F2    Introduce requirement to provide air quality health data

Focus of measure: Require Member States to provide specific health / and health protection information to public as soon as exceedances occur.

Description of measure: This intervention would require Member States to provide information to the public as soon as exceedances of alert thresholds occur. The issue that this intervention is trying to solve is that currently when alerts are made public, it is often too late to protect the health of the population because pollution peaks often do not last long. A standardised approach to providing information about the negative health effects in a simple, understandable form may prove useful for considering under this intervention.

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: Information on health (protection) would allow citizens to make decisions that may impact on their health such as deciding not to exercise outdoors or opting for a cleaner transport route. Ensuring that information is provided to allow citizens to take timely action would increase the effectiveness of information provided, whilst the costs are considered negligible since relevant information and the systems to provide it are already in place.

F3    Introduce use of specific communication channels

Focus of measure: Mandate specific communication channels with citizens, including user-friendly tools for public access to air quality and health risks information.

Description of measure: This intervention would mandate the use of specific user-friendly communication channels to reach out to citizens (for example, smartphone apps, social media, text messages, forecasts on television (similar to weather forecasts)) so that citizens have access to air quality data and information related to health risks. The issue this intervention is trying to solve is that citizens do not always know where to access (reliable) air quality information and that governments do not know how to best provide information. Tools and the quantity and quality of information provided to citizens varies between Member States.

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: Obliging competent authorities to use a set of information channels would lead to a better, and consistently informed public with indirect benefits on health, however given the case care has to be taken on which channels to define for use. The cost of developing (in particular where these are not currently in place) specific, high-tech channels may be more costly, which may divert resources from other, more productive, means.

F4    Introduce requirements for harmonised air quality index 

Focus of measure: Require Member States to use harmonised air quality index bands.

Description of measure: This intervention consists of including a provision in the Directive 2008/50 to require Member States to use harmonised air quality index bands, namely those used in the European Air Quality Index. This way a one-size-fits-all where everyone adopts the same index is avoided, acknowledging that different countries and regions have their own characteristics which make different pollutants relevant. The problem that this intervention is aiming to solve is the current absence of a common metric used for publicised air quality indices. At the moment Member States (and even regions within in some cases) have different air quality indices whose bands and thresholds differ from the European Air Quality Index provided by the European Environmental Agency. This often means that the same data is presented in different ways in different locations. Although there is no consensus on whether and how air quality indices can be harmonised, what is known (from the study “Strengthening of air quality monitoring, modelling and plans under the Ambient Air Quality Directives") is that there is not much support for all Member States adopting the European Air Quality Index. As such adopting the bands alone seems the most feasible compromise which has obtained wide support in the stakeholder consultation activities.

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: Consistency in the information provided to citizens will aid clarity and uniformity in the opportunity provided to all EU citizens to take action to reduce their exposure with indirect benefits for health. However, there are concerns that the European Air Quality Index is not effective (e.g. around its ability to represent multi-pollutant effects), and that complete harmonisation may restrict the ability of Member States to tailor advice and information to the specific situation in each Member State. The intervention will increase administrative burden for competent authorities (regional or national) as it will require these to adapt their index bands.

2.8Intervention area G: Assessment regimes 

G1    Revise rules related to indicative sampling points

Focus of measure: Allow / continue to allow the use of indicative monitoring to substitute fixed monitoring as part of air quality assessment.

Description of measure: The use of indicative monitoring could substitute fixed monitoring stations in the air quality assessment process. However, the minimum number of fixed monitoring stations are still required to assess main temporal and spatial trends. Possibilities under which circumstances indicative measurements could substitute fixed monitoring include:

(1)Where there is a need to measure air quality but it is not possible to place a fixed monitoring station that meets the requirements of the Directive;

(2)Where the combination of different measurements (e.g. via data fusion) allows reaching data quality objectives

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: When used to supplement fixed monitoring (not substitute), such as in places where it is not possible to place a fixed monitoring station that meets the requirements of the Directive, additional indicative monitoring contributes to a better overall understanding of the air quality assessment process since additional sampling data is at hand. This contributes to an overall improved air quality assessment process with indirect benefits to air quality, health and ecosystems. However, the substitution of fixed monitoring stations by lower quality indicative monitoring devices is seen by many stakeholders as a major risk to degrade an important pillar in air quality management. The network of National Air Quality Reference Laboratories (AQUILA), supports making the use of indicative measurements mandatory in areas where the upper assessment threshold is exceeded, supplementing fixed measurements. They should also be used for model validation. 19 Administrative burden is dependent on implementation: where used to supplement fixed monitoring, there would be an increase in costs and administrative burden, whereas substitution of fixed monitoring stations by indicative monitoring would result in cost savings.

G2    Introduce requirements for AQ modelling

Focus of measure: Make the use of air quality modelling mandatory as part of air quality assessment (in some circumstances).

Description of measure: Modelling techniques can provide valuable information to supplement fixed measurements. Observations from fixed stations are limited to the sampling locations itself whereas modelling systems most often provide air quality maps with a full spatial coverage that can be used to derive specific indicators. Modelling can also help to disentangle the origin of the observed concentrations (source apportionment, long range transport) or extrapolate into the future (short term forecasts, future projections). Several variants exist for this intervention – related to the possible use of air quality modelling:

(1)For short term air quality forecasting (up to a few days ahead);

(2)For assessment of air quality for compliance checking purposes;

(3)For air quality near real time mapping and informing the public;

(4)For evaluation of monitoring network design;

(5)For estimation of population exposure and exceedance situation indicators;

(6)For source apportionment estimations;

(7)For assessment of long-range air pollutant transport;

(8)For future projections in support of air quality management and planning;

(9)As alternative to fixed monitoring (when placing such monitoring in line with the Directive is not possible).

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: Air quality modelling improves air quality monitoring and assessment, thus allowing for a better understanding of air quality concentrations, supporting a more effective and more targeted air quality management. The administrative burden may increase for competent authorities (to meet the reporting requirement). The increase is likely to depend on the current modelling capability and practices within each Member State. There are risks for implementation linked to technical capacity and potential lack of modelling guidance and/ or lack of resources for training and capacity building. There is also a risk that Member States may view the introduction of a mandatory requirement of modelling as a reason to reduce their monitoring network. There is strong support across all stakeholder types for the mandatory use of modelling for most of the nine use case variants in at least some instances. Some respondents, however, explained further that modelling should be (strongly) recommended in most of these use cases but only made mandatory for all Member States in one case, i.e. for future projections in support of air quality management and planning. The option of introducing requirements for the use of modelling for compliance checking purposes was the least favoured option among public authorities. The Forum for Air Quality Modelling (FAIRMODE) recommends the use of modelling for assessment purposes, forecasting and public information purposes, source apportionment and planning purposes, making it mandatory for air quality planning, exposure calculations, and short-term forecast. 20

G3    Revise rules for regular review of AQ assessment

Focus of measure: Require a regular review of the assessment regime following clear criteria defined in the Directive.

Description of measure: Regular review of the assessment regime is expected to ensure that the assessment techniques for air quality evolve with scientific advancements and knowledge. It also allows for improved and increased evidence on air quality including the use of models and more efficient monitoring networks. This would require the amendment of existing articles and Annex II point B to include set criteria. In addition, the interval at which a review should be done was queried with the options of every ten, five, three or one year(s).

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: This intervention would require Member States to follow set criteria in their reviews of their assessment regime which rely on monitoring and/or modelling data. This would provide a more harmonised review of air quality assessment across Europe leading to a more transparent and coherent view of air quality status for wider public access. All Member States have ready access to fixed term monitoring, and most have modelling capability, so our expert view is that the costs for this intervention are insignificant. Administrative burden may be significant if the period for review is annual (stakeholder respondents favored the retention of five year reviews).

2.9Intervention area H: Number and typology of sampling points 

H1    Revise minimum number of sampling points

Focus of measure: Change the minimum number of sampling points that are required per air quality zone.

Description of measure: The minimum number of sampling points per air quality zone for each pollutant should be revised with latest scientific knowledge. Possibilities to which extent would the below specific interventions address the above identified shortcomings include:

(1)Increase the minimum number of sampling points for all pollutants and all zones;

(2)Increase the minimum number of sampling points for some pollutants;

(3)Increase the minimum number of sampling points for some zones;

(4)Decrease the minimum number of sampling points for all pollutants and all zones;

(5)Decrease the minimum number of sampling points for some pollutants;

(6)Decrease the minimum number of sampling points for some zones;

(7)Require a minimum of 2 sampling points per zone per pollutant (i.e. to monitor both hotspots and background concentration levels);

(8)Establish a minimum number in the vicinity of point sources in view of emission densities;

(9)Establish a minimum number of sampling points for measuring pollution hotspots specifically;

(10)Establish a minimum number of sampling points for measuring population exposure.

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: Changing the minimum number of sampling points required has potential for an increase or decrease in monitoring for the assessment of air quality (a reduction in the minimum number of monitoring stations would be detrimental to air quality, public health, ecosystems and costs to society but lessen administrative burden, while an increase in the minimum number of stations would have a positive impact on air quality, health and ecosystem but increase administrative burden). Costs arising from an increased number of stations would be incurred from greater laboratory analysis, and the additional staff needed for servicing and maintenance and data management. There is little/no support from stakeholders for any decrease in the minimum number of sampling points, while an increase of monitoring stations was favored for at least some pollutants and with a minimum to measure population exposure. The network of National Air Quality Reference Laboratories also favors an increase of sampling points and suggests as well the removal of the possibility to reduce the number of sampling points if fixed measurements are supplemented with indicative measurements. 21 While additional monitoring is associated with high costs, many Member States report monitoring above the current required number of sampling locations, and therefore in practice, an increase in monitoring required is overall beneficial.

H2    Simplify combined PM10/PM2.5 monitoring

Focus of measure: The minimum number of sampling points for measuring PM10 and PM2.5 will be considered independently from each other.

Description of measure: This intervention de-couples of the current minimum number of sampling points for PM10 and PM2.5, which should be set independently and cannot substitute one another.

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: This intervention de-couples the current minimum number of sampling points for PM10 and PM2.5, which should be set independently and cannot substitute one another. PM2.5 is a key pollutant for public health risk assessment. Given its important impacts on mortality and morbidity, it is essential for it to be considered and assessed independently from PM10. Clarifying and giving more focus on the assessment of this pollutant in the revised Ambient Air Quality Directive would bring benefit to driving action in areas of exceedance to improve public health protection. Many Member States have already increased their sampling of PM2.5 so in practice this intervention is unlikely to involve large costs, though for those Member States who monitor at minimum levels only, costs may be significant as those for new monitoring samplers are often high and comes with on-going maintenance costs. Public Authorities report no real increase in administrative burden to monitor PM10 and PM2.5 separately. There is a time lag associated with this intervention (to establish the new sites) and this may risk air quality in the short term. Additional staff is needed to support sampler operation and data management.

H3    Simplify the definitions of sampling points types

Focus of measure: Simplify the definitions of types of monitoring station and/or sampling point locations - and only differentiate for them to distinguish between hotspots or background concentrations.

Description of measure: Currently station classification includes a number of categories such as urban, suburban, rural, industrial, roadside etc. station classification could be simplified to identify sites as hotspots or background locations.

Stakeholder views: A targeted survey provided feedback on ‘to which extent would this specific intervention address the identified (related) shortcomings’.

Summary: Currently station classification includes a number of categories such as urban, suburban, rural, industrial, traffic, background. Station classification could be simplified to identify sites only as hotspots or background locations. This may enable identifying a key source of pollution currently missing in the classification which is that due to residential combustion. As this intervention is a desk task to reclassify the current sites it is unlikely to have any real impact on administrative burden. To be effectively implemented, this intervention would require guidance. However, a more simplified classification risks loss of clarity and misunderstanding on the site differences and the main sources of pollution. The full reporting of site meta data under the IPR 22 and e-reporting by all Member States and clarification of terms further in the Ambient Air Quality Directive could greatly help to address this shortcoming.

2.10Intervention area I: Continuity of sampling points 

I1    Introduce obligations to maintain sampling points