air science policy forum outcomes paper

Informal Meeting of EU Environment Ministers

22 – 23 April, 2013

Air Science Policy Forum: Outcomes Paper

15th April, 2013, Dublin Ireland

Session II

09:00 – 12:00, 22 April 2013

Dublin Castle, Dublin

1

Air Science Policy Forum: Outcomes Paper

15th April, 2013, Dublin Ireland

Executive Summary

There has been very impressive progress in reducing a range of emissions to air in Europe. This story

- and what it implies in terms of longer life expectancy, better health, reduced pain and suffering,

increased productivity, and reduced pressure on nature and build heritage – needs to be recognised.

It is one of the better environment success stories. But we have a lot more to do, both in improving

compliance with existing obligations, but also taking up opportunities to address new and emerging

health and other threats that were not previously identified. Also, sectors not previously addressed

by emission reduction strategies have become proportionately more significant and offer prospects

of improvement at relatively low cost - for example, residential emissions, non-road mobile

machinery, maritime and agriculture. There are opportunities to get air quality and climate benefits

with policies working in tandem, to deliver reductions in short lived climate pollutants (SLCPs)

including ozone, methane and black carbon. The benefits of cost effective actions exceed costs by a

large margin, but the wider benefits of improving air quality need more attention, especially the

impacts on productivity and competitiveness. The IT revolution can empower the citizen to become

more knowledgeable of the drivers, impacts and state of air pollution and thus owners of the

problem and drivers for solutions to be found. Capacity in Member States and cities is essential if

they are to ‘own’ and understand the problem, and find solutions that are simultaneously politically

viable and environmentally effective.

Introduction

A group of distinguished scientists who are specialists in understanding the causes of air pollution,

its impacts, the choices of abatement and their implications, was convened in Dublin on April 15th,

2013 at the Air Science Policy Forum. They each made short presentations as to what, in their view,

the best peer -reviewed science has to offer the policy process. The session finished with an audience

and panel discussion from which other ideas and conclusions emerged. Conscious of the fact that

Europe faces daunting economic and fiscal challenges, and that air policy must compete for

attention in a very difficult and constrained policy context, the scientists indicated their priority

areas for policy intervention. There was a high degree of consensus as to the key challenges and

opportunities. We have taken the liberty of integrating some of the ideas, but we have done our

best to stay true to the spirit and the essential outcomes of the Forum deliberations.

The key conclusions of this Forum are outlined in the Annex. The material is organised as follows:

each of ten propositions is followed by the evidence, and concludes with the implications for policy.

Where the text is associated with a particular presentation, the name of the presenter is included in

brackets.

2

Outline for Ministerial Debate

The debate will take place following introductory remarks by Minister Hogan and a short

presentation c.10 mins from Commissioner Potočnik on the main themes being considered by the

review of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution. This will be followed by a short presentation c.10

mins from the Facilitator, Prof. Frank J Convery, Director of the Earth Sciences Institute, University

College Dublin, who will outline the main outcomes of the Air Science Policy Forum, and their

relevance to the review of the Thematic Strategy. The Executive Director of the EEA, Jacqueline

McGlade, who also presented at the Forum, will then be invited to offer a view on the state of the

environment regarding air pollution and its main drivers and impacts in the EU today.

For the interactive debate which will then follow, and to assist the Facilitator and to ensure that all

of the key areas as identified during the Air Science Policy Forum are addressed, this Presidency

Outcomes Paper sets out 10 main questions which are elaborated upon in the Annex and which the

facilitator will address in his introduction.

Focal Questions

1. Progress has been made on air quality in Europe, yet certain compliance challenges remain.

How can we best address and progress from these legacy challenges e.g. NOX ceiling, NO2

limit values?

2. The scientific evidence is broad and compelling with regards to further action on air quality

in Europe but how best can we use and present this information to Europe’s citizens in a

manner which will secure public engagement and support for action?

3. There is broad scientific evidence for stricter emission ceilings, ambient air quality limits and

a broader pollutant base. In which of these areas is there support for progression?

4. The relevance of air pollutants at hemispheric and global scales and across thematic areas

(e.g. climate) merits broad international cooperation to achieve shared goals. To what

extent, and how, can Europe support action and coordination at these broader levels?

5. Major cities present a challenge and an opportunity given the level of activity that is

concentrated therein. How can the review of the Thematic Strategy best complement and

facilitate initiatives (technical and non-technical) that Ministers are considering in regards to

reducing air pollution exposure in their cities?

6. There are abatement options across all sectors, though historically progress and emission

reduction contributions from sectors have varied considerably and by pollutant. Nitrogen is

a highly important issue for future agreements, and agriculture is the key player in this

regard. How should the review address measures to realise nitrogen abatement potential

from this sector?

3

7. Air quality/pollution policy can carry high benefits at reasonably low cost. Conveying the

message of these benefits appropriately is important. How are ministers supporting further

research in regards to developing and communicating effective policy instruments?

8. Technical innovation and new data sources will revolutionise our capacity to monitor and

respond to air pollution challenges. How can we best accelerate the exploitation of emerging

technical developments?

9. National capacity to engage with the relevant modelling and monitoring is vital to informed

progression and management of EU air quality ambitions. How are Ministers committing to

the necessary levels of sustained capacity in their country?

10. Exposure reduction targets are perhaps the most effective way of delivering air quality

benefits, particularly in area below the existing limit values. However, is the challenge of

data and enforcement currently too great to move the main focus from the existing ‘limit

value’ approach to an exposure reduction target approach ?

4

ANNEX Summary of Proceedings from the Air Science-Policy Forum

Professor Frank J Convery University College, Dublin ([email protected])

Dr. Andrew Kelly, EnvEcon Ltd. ([email protected])

1. Progress has been made in reducing a range of emissions to air.

Evidence

Broken link between emissions and GDP

Source: Presentation of EC

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Air Pollution (NOx,SOx,NMVOCs, PM10, NH3)

EU GDP

Index (1990 = 100)

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

5

Further reductions are feasible under a variety of analysed scenarios

Source: Presentation of IIASA

And progress continues [EEA]

Year Number of Member states above ceiling limits

2010 12

2011 8

Points for consideration

1. This is a European success story - hundreds of thousands of lives saved, pain and suffering

reduced for millions, large increases in productivity as a result of dramatically reducing the

stresses of poor health associated with days lost from work, plant and animal life protected

or restored, deterioration of crops and buildings arrested, and beauty of landscape and city

scape recovered.

Possible model: The US has documented the huge net benefits that the Clean Air Act has

produced - The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020, USEPA, March

2011. [Arden Pope]

2. Possible Case Study: the EU limit values for smoke helped to drive the banning of the

marketing, sale and distribution of bituminous coal in Dublin in 1990, with consequent

dramatic improvement in ambient air quality, and associated improvements in health

(reduced deaths and sickness) and enhanced attractiveness of the city for business, foreign

direct investment and tourism [ Luke Clancy]

6

2. But major gaps, challenges and opportunities remain

Evidence

Two major sources – Arden Pope (Brigham Young University) and Marie-Eve Héroux (World Health

Organisation – WHO) - (both focussed only on health impacts)

[Arden Pope]

No serious peer reviewed journal challenges the link between poor health and air pollution

‘By early 1990s several studies suggested that even moderate levels of air pollution could

contribute to significant health effects’. Getting rid of ‘killer smogs’ is not enough

Short term changes in air pollution exposure are associated with deaths, hospitalisation,

school and work absences, heart disease etc.

Longer term air pollution exposure linked to even substantially larger effects

‘On average, the greater the reduction in air pollution, the greater the increase in life

expectancy.’

Adjusted relative risk of dying almost linearly [directly?] associated with air pollution.

[Marie-Eve Héroux, WHO]

‘Provides scientific arguments for the decisive actions to improve air quality and reduce the

burden of disease associated with air pollution in Europe’

Particulate Matter (PM): PM2.5 damage is linear – no clear threshold – several new negative

health outcomes (atherosclerosis, adverse birth outcomes, childhood respiratory,

neurodevelopment and cognitive function). Action on short and longer term limit values well

supported

Ozone: Mortality (those predisposed). Asthma, lung function

NO2: ‘reasonable to infer that NO2 has some direct effects’ (hospital admissions, mortality,

respiratory symptoms at or below EU Limit Values)

Furthermore, A lot of the European population continues to be exposed to concentrations above

the already legislated standards [Markus Amann]

Pollutant % of EU population exposed to exceeding EU quality standard

% of EU population exposed to exceeding WHO quality guidelines

PM10 21 81

NO2 7 7

O3 17 97

7


1. The quality of life and health outcomes of Europeans will be improved if we continue to

improve air quality. And this improvement continues even as quality reaches relatively high

standards.

2. European productivity and competitiveness depends in part on having a mentally healthy

and physically robust population, and this performance can be significantly improved if we

continue to improve the quality of the air we all breathe.

3. Our nature and its life support systems will be diminished unless we continue to improve our

air. Zones of cities and countries that are recognised as relatively pristine will (other things

being equal) have a competitive advantage in attracting investment, visitors and students.

4. We need to paint this picture of what Europe’s citizens will gain if EU policy makers and

politicians introduce policies to keep improving the air they breathe.

3. There are important mutual benefits of improving air quality, and this applies in particular to

climate change. [It is recognised that there are also some trade-offs]

Evidence

Emission reductions of methane (CH4) which promotes production of O3 (ozone) is very

important in the context of addressing the ozone challenge, whilst also being a greenhouse

gas adding to global warming.

The Climate and Clean Air Coalition was launched Feb 2012. Focus on reducing short lived

climate pollutants (black carbon, methane, tropospheric ozone, short lived HFCs) –

protecting health and crops , slowing global warming.

Long Term Policy under the CLRTAP, [Martin Williams]

Parties to prioritise black carbon reductions to achieve PM2.5 reduction


There was no agreement on the extent to which air quality policy should be formally linked with

climate policy. The proponent proposition is that defining a budgets pathway to 2050 for air

pollutants would mesh well with the 2030 and 2050 timeline now being addressed for climate policy.

The argument against is that there is need for immediate action on elements of air quality policy; the

evidence is clear, and we should act accordingly, in parallel with climate policy, but not beholden to

it.

There was unambiguous support for:

1. Recognising the reality that health and air quality are clearly linked, and that as two sides of

the same coin, they should be key features of the revised National Emission Ceilings (NEC)

2. Stricter ceilings/limits for SO2, NO2, ammonia and VOCs

3. New ceilings for PM 2.5, and perhaps black carbon and methane

4. Case for hemisphere strategies (including governance) – to control methane and ozone

8

4. Ozone ‘imports’ make the case for addressing this challenge across the northern hemisphere.

Evidence

Contribution of hemispheric (tropospheric) ozone to local concentrations [Frank Dentener, JRC]


1. Maintain and intensify the work of the Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution

– Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution

2. Build links to main emission regions and work towards a hemispheric solution

5. Cities should be given special attention as nodes for action

Evidence

[Rob Maas]

City Action Effects

Berlin Low emission zones Reduction in number of affected residents experiencing exceedance of limit value for PM10

London Congestion charge Population exposed to PM10 levels exceeding limit falls by 20.4% by 2012.

Rotterdam Speed limits Big emission reductions and air quality improvements.


1. Be realistic - Cities can only control ‘local’ emissions – regional and hemispheric imports are

givens

2. But they can make a difference - Focus on technical and (especially) non-technical measures

3. Managing proximity to roads is a particular city challenge in Europe - zoning

6. There are untapped opportunities in agriculture

Evidence

[Mark Sutton]

‘More efficient N use saves farmers money reducing nitrogen air pollution, while also being

needed to meet commitments for climate and water pollution.’

Biggest payoff to effort from ammonia mitigation – e.g. slurry spreading from splash plate to

trailing shoe

9

[Markus Amann]

Identification of future opportunities for cost effective emissions reductions - agriculture

share would increase from 2% (current) to 20% (future)

Sector % share (current legislation) % share - cost effective scenario

Domestic 32

Industry 9 21

Agriculture 2 20

solvents 14

Power sector 12 12

Road transport 55

Non road transport 10

88 99


1. Focus on the most cost effective opportunities – ammonia

2. Focus on large ‘industrial’ type farms in the first instance

3. Promote innovation that will reduce costs and enhance environmental performance

7. Keep addressing the economics – benefits, costs, incentives, innovation, policy instruments – of

air quality policy.

Evidence

[Ton Manders]

‘Air quality/pollution policies can carry high benefits and reasonably low costs’

OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050 – costs and benefits

The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020, USEPA, March 2011 (see also

earlier)

In addition to agriculture, shipping, and PM2.5 reduction seem to have particular

opportunities for low cost abatement.


1. The benefits of improved air quality are large, but there continue to be large ranges

[uncertainties?], especially as regards the benefits.

2. Work should continue to narrow these error margins

3. The role of better air in improving productivity needs more attention.

4. There has been much progress, but more work is needed on what policy instruments will

work, especially as new sources and sectors are addressed

10

8. Innovation, especially IT related, will revolutionise access to data, and potentially result in a

dramatic increase in ‘ownership’ of evidence and policy driving from the bottom up.

Evidence

[Daan Swart and ISPEX]

Simultaneously advancing monitoring, technology and citizen Science –– measure fine dust with

your smart phone at very low cost

Social media integration [Jacqueline McGlade)


1. An informed citizenry is an empowered and supportive citizenry

2. Draw lessons – costs, citizen engagement environmental credibility and effectiveness etc., of

the ISPEX project

3. Foster and enable the ‘big data’ revolution.

9. The right capacity at the right time and in the right place is a crucial ingredient of success

Evidence

Raised in panel discussion.


Each member state should have the modelling and other capacities necessary to engage with the EU

and wider regional and transnational efforts, so as to understand what’s happening, what are the

implications, and the choices. This will also improve buy-in at member state level, where they are

not depending exclusively on top down information and associated policy direction.

The case was made also for cities to have information and associated capacities that allow them to

‘own’ understand the issues and choices.

10. Exposure reduction as a key performance measure

Evidence

This was raised in discussion. The idea is that because the benefits of reduced air pollution are

enjoyed at all levels, not just in ‘hot spots’ with relatively high levels, it is important that EU

standards drive action at all levels and not just when levels are above legally enforceable limit

values. Exposure reduction targets are contained in the CAFÉ directive, but further strengthening

their role in the review could deliver further health benefits across the EU, particularly in areas

below the current limit values.

11


There was great interest and support for this idea from some quarters, but worry and concern in

others about moving away from the relatively straightforward limit value approach which is more

readily quantified and rooted in the existing policy framework

air science policy forum outcomes paper

Technology