Air quality review – status quo and future developments

1. Air quality review – status quo and future developments Daniela Buzica – Widlowski on behalf of Industrial Emissions, Air quality and Noise Unit DG Environment , European Commission

2. What We Have • The International Air Quality Policy Framework • The UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) and its Protocols (EMEP, Gothenburg, …) • The knowledge base (EMEP, WGE, …) • … • The EU Air Quality Policy Framework • The 2005 Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution • The National Emission Ceilings Directive • The Ambient Air Quality Directives • National and Local Air Pollution Abatement Measures • …

3. What We Got Downward trends in (estimated) emissions not fully matched by (measured) air quality improvements: PM, NO2, 03 Significant compliance issues (AAQD, NECD) despite additional time granted in 2008: PM10, NO2, … Almost one third of Europe's city dwellers are exposed to excessive concentrations of airborne particulate matter. Contribution of transport (road and off-road), small scale combustion installations (including domestic heating), and agriculture continue to be particularly significant (notably for urban air pollution).

4. What We Got • Threat to biodiversity from excess nitrogen input (Natura 2000 areas) • Nitrogen input will continue to threaten biodiversity at about two thirds (350,000 km2) of these nature protection zones in the baseline case. • MTFR measures could provide protection to another 100,000 km2 after 2020 • An incomplete assessment, as not all countries have reported critical load data for Natura2000 areas 2010 2020 CLE % of unprotected ecosystems area 2030 MCE Source: IIASA 2012

5. Why We Got There Insufficient / ineffective national/local measures Too little too late (often until approaching TEN deadlines), Too much paper, not enough practice, Costs and other barriers (incl. background and competence issues) … Insufficient / ineffective EU source legislation Road Transport (Real World Emissions,…) Non-Road Mobile Machinery (incl. rail and inland vessels) Small scale combustions (incl. domestic heating) Agriculture … Insufficient / ineffective international action UNECE CLRTAP and Protocols (NEC, ELVs, …) IMO Marpol Annex VI (maritime shipping) …

6. What We Did Recently • College Debate (early 2011) • Problems acknowledged and all policy areas re-engaged • Renewed implementation impetus • Calling for comprehensive review to (re)address the problem (2013) • Continued EU Measures to address and resolve non-compliance • PM10 and NO2 Time Extension Notifications and Decisions • Revision of UNECE CLRTAP Gothenburg Protocol • Strengthened PM10 enforcement strategies

7. What We Did Recently (cont) • Amending the Sulphur Content of (Marine) Fuels Directive (IMO) • Implementing decisions (Euro-6, IED, Ecodesign, …) • Ongoing revisions of Directives and Regulations (NRMM, …) • Gain better insights in local air quality management challenges and opportunities (ENV-EEA Urban air quality pilot project) • (Re)assessing and renewing support instruments (Life, Cohesion, …) • Other (Cars 2020, LCRM, RERM, 7EAP, …)

8. Stakeholder AQ Expert Group • A Stakeholder Expert Group has been established as a centrepiece of the consultation process • Around 100 experts are participating from: • EU Member States • third countries • international organisations • industry and environment stakeholders • EU bodies/COM services • Presentations and documents from the meetings of the Stakeholder Expert Group are publicly available through a dedicated CIRCA library

9. 5th SEG meeting 3 April 2013 • Results of the online public consultation on the main options for the review • Scenario analyses • Emission and environmental impact projections in the period up to 2030 and 2050 • Cost-effective emission reduction scenarios for the period up to 2030 • Cost – benefit analysis and socio-economic impacts • Cost-benefit analysis • Socio-economic impacts of possible future pollution control policies • Scope for further emission reductions from key sectors • Cost-effective reduction by key sectors • Shipping report (final draft) • Medium-scale combustion • New scientific evidence on air pollution and health

10. The Analytical Toolbox • AQUILA – network of National Reference Laboratories • recommendation to the review • FAIRMODE – forum of modellers – recommendation • for the review • Technical Contracts (DG ENV) • Other Platforms • "Group of 4" Joint Work Programme (EEA, JRC, CLIMA, RTD) • UNECE knowledge centres • ... • WHO Grant agreement • DG R&I Research Review

11. Public Consultation • the Commission launched the second public consultation at the end of 2012 on policy options • A consultation document reviewed key issues • Two questionnaires: longer version for stakeholders and experts; shorter version (selected questions) for general public • Initial results at the 5th SEG….

12. Public Consultation • General public: 1934 responses • Experts and stakeholders: 371 responses • Individuals (experts): 142 • Business (associations and enterprises): 114 • Government (national, regional and local): 42 • NGOs: 61 • Research: 3 • Other: 9 • General public survey: responses received from 25 MS • Expert/stakeholder survey: responses received from 21 MS

13. Public Consultation • Member States with the highest shares of responses (by respondent category):

14. How We Go About It • Baseline (up to 2030 – 2050) • June 2012 –Draft TSAP baseline (including first MS comments) presented to SEG • July – November 2012 - bilateral consultations with MS experts on GAINS emission calculations (but not on energy scenarios!) • End 2012 – Updated baseline, with consultations of DG-ENER/PRIMES with MS energy experts • April 2013 – presentation at the 5th SEG of the latest results • Scope for additional reduction (up to 2030) • Maximum Technically Feasible Reduction and Maximum Control Efforts Scenario up to 2030 • Sectorial analysis (road transport, agriculture, small-scale combustion, shipping, non-road mobile machinery) • Comparison of NEC assumptions in 2000 with actual developments, reasons for differences • Other • Compliance with air quality limit values (downscaling methodology) • Technical and scientific review (AQUILA, FAIRMODE, WHO…) • Governance issues (local/national/EU/international)

15. Objectives of the impact assessment • Objective 1: To ensure compliance with present air quality policies and coherence with the revised Gothenburg Protocol as soon as possible • Objective 2: To define interim objectives for further reduction in the exposure of citizens and ecosystems to air pollution beyond 2020 • Objective 3: To identify the optimal combination of measures to achieve the interim objectives

16. The organisation of the impact assessment • Magnitude of the air quality health and ecosystem problems in Europe • Current and projected concentrations/depositions – EEA, IIASA • Update of concentration-response relationships – WHO • Ecosystem response relationships – EMEP/WGE, CCE • Health and environmental outcomes – IIASA, CCE • Prospects for compliance with current standards • Prospects for 2020, 2025, 2030 – IIASA • Implications of modifying limit values • Adjustments needed • Simplification and focus (gaps (e.g. ecosystems), rationalisation, health relevance) • Ambition – IIASA (costs and benefits (including climate change implications), timescales, measures) • Flexibility (nature of standards, derogations) – ENV contracts

17. The organisation of the impact assessment • Small scale combustion • Options to control emissions from plants < 50 MW are being considered further under review clause Art. 72 IED • product standard approach cf. Ecodesign Directive • Agricultural emissions • clear indication of benefits of reducing NH3 emissions from this sector, but largest impact from the spreading of manure – to be investigated further

18. Cost analysis of FAIRMODE recommendations • Review of: Provision for Air Quality Measurement, Air Quality Modelling, Management Framework, Assessment, and Public Information; and Stakeholder Consultation Support service contract • ECORYS consortium – FAIRMODE was the responsibility of Danish Center for Energy and Environment, Aarhus University, Denmark and University of the West of England, Bristol, UK • The real challenges of implementing the FAIRMODE recommendation into the revised directive are that the recommendations are not presently in a form where they can be included directly in the directive. • any cost assessment will be based on individual interpretations of what is needed to fulfill the recommendations in each member state.

19. Cost analysis of FAIRMODE recommendations • The cost assessment is based on the assumption that the FAIRMODE recommendations and the use of models are made mandatory in the directives. • 2 methodologies of estimating the cost: • bottom up approach and • top – down approach

20. Cost analysis of FAIRMODE recommendations Bottom - up approach: • Based on results from an information request to the member states carried out in December 2012- January 2013, combined with in depth case studies carried out for Belgium, Croatia and Hungary. • 17 countries replied to the information request • for each question a much smaller number of member states provided quantitative data, which could be used for the cost assessment. • the information request has provided much valuable qualitative information

21. Cost analysis of FAIRMODE recommendations Top – down approach: • Based on expert estimates for Denmark calibrated/scaled to all other member states + Croatia based on the EU standard cost model. • As base for the cost assessment a set of minimum requirements were defined, concerning establishment of modelling and emission capacities and competences as well as computing facilities in the member states

22. Cost analysis of FAIRMODE recommendations Results: • From the top-down approach, it was found that the estimated total cost of implementing the FAIRMODE recommendation from scratch in the whole EU is an annual cost of 4.5 mio. Euros. • Since several member states already to some extent fulfil the set of recommendations, the contractor further found that the additional cost compared to the present situation is 1.4 mio. Euros.

23. Cost analysis of FAIRMODE recommendations • These estimates rely on the specified setup of minimum requirements, and they represent the cost only to achieve the minimum requirements. • The bottom-up results from the information request show that some countries have a much a larger modelling activity than prescribed by the minimum requirements, and consequently they spend a much larger sum on their total modelling activity.

24. Tentative Calendar of Events for 2013 « The Year of Air » • IRL Presidency - Informal Environment Ministerial meeting in Dublin: high-level discussion on key policy options for the air review, preceded by preparatory Scientific Conference on Air Pollution 15 April • Green Week (4-7 June) • EEA Air Status report launch 3rd week Sept • Adoption of TSAP review package autumn 2013 • High Level UNECE event Geneva in Autumn (Russia, EECCA)

25. Questions FAIRMODE • We would welcome FAIRMODE's comments on the reporting requirements for modelling (for the time being the experience is limited, coming only from UK deliveries). • If anyone (besides the reporting authority) wants to seriously test the reporting of their modelled data according to the data model and schemata, then the EEA can give them permission to deliver their data to CDR and they can share thereby their experience.

26. For the FAIRMODE future • Closer links to policy would be useful, bringing together the different communities (researchers, public authorities) as appropriate • An example is the IPR guidance; FAIRMODE has produced a number of good guidance documents but increasing the relevance to the reporting of modelling could be useful • Also calculation of uncertainty – we encourage you to continue working on DQO to guide MS

27. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/review_air_policy.htm Thank you!