Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on ambient air quality assessment and management

(95/C 110/03)

On 9 September 1994 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 130s of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 31 January 1995. The Rapporteur was Mr Boisserée.

At its 323rd Plenary Session (meeting of 22 February 1995), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion by a majority with two abstentions.

1. Subject and structure of the draft Directive

1.1. The Commission is submitting a framework Directive, based on Article 130s of the EC Treaty, laying a basis for combatting atmospheric pollution in the EU Member States. The draft restricts itself to establishing air quality objectives (often also referred to in environmental law as ground-level concentration limit values).

The twofold strategy for combatting atmospheric pollution, namely:

- reducing polluting emissions at source and

- limiting ground-level concentrations as a basis for cleaning-up operations and, where necessary, for emergency measures

will not be changed by the new Directive, but will, rather, be complemented by a comprehensive European programme, and improved.

1.2. The proposed rules are structured as a framework Directive:

- The quality objectives for individual pollutants are to be established via individual Council Decisions in accordance with a timetable laid down in the Directive; in connection with these Council Decisions cost/benefit criteria will be established with regard to the measures implementing the individual quality objectives and the monitoring efforts.

- The Member States are to translate the quality objectives into practical measures within the deadlines set by the Directive.

- Measuring and monitoring procedures are to be standardized at European level, in each case in conjunction with the laying down of quality objectives for the individual pollutants.

- Finally, the draft contains rules on the provision of information to the public and comprehensive reporting requirements for the Member States.

The programme may be gradually extended or adapted on the basis of experience with quality objectives and the results of atmospheric pollution monitoring. The air quality objectives contained in the new Directive will replace the existing ground-level concentration limit values.

2. General comments

2.1. The Committee endorses the thrust of the draft Directive and the proposed rules, subject to the following proposed changes. It feels that the dangers and potential damage of atmospheric pollution make the issue and implementation of this Directive a matter of urgency.

2.2. The Committee notes that the Commission draft takes account of the conditions for European environment protection law 'after Maastricht':

- The prevention of distortions of competition within the European Union;

- Taking into account of the principle of subsidiarity;

- The guaranteeing of the highest possible level of environmental protection.

2.3. The Committee is pleased to note that the draft Directive provides for a programme for the adoption of air quality objectives at European level. The Committee has called for a programme of this kind, most recently in its Opinion on the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (COM(93) 423) () (see Opinion CES 572/94 of 27 April 1994, point 4.9) ().

2.4. The Committee asks that the need for the various reports provided for in the draft Directive, and the regularity with which they are to be produced, be re-examined, to prevent unnecessary administrative work.

3. Cross-border atmospheric pollution

3.1. The Committee fails to find any reference in the draft Directive to the treatment of the problems of cross-border atmospheric pollution. This applies particularly to cross-border atmospheric pollution within the European Union; where bilateral or multilateral agreements exist on arbitration procedures, they should be applied in relation to the implementation of the draft Directive too. The Union's bodies should also work for the conclusion of such agreements.

3.2. The same applies to the relationship with non-EU countries. The maintenance of air quality objectives in the Union can be achieved via individual national measures only to a limited extent, if atmospheric pollution is 'imported' from across the frontier. The situation in Central and Eastern Europe deserves particularly close attention in this respect. The Commission should press for bilateral or multilateral agreements with these countries.

4. The individual provisions of the draft

4.1.

Article 1

The first indent should read

'designed to limit or prevent harmful effects to human health and to the environment as a whole'.

This would make it clearer that priority is given to human health.

4.2.

Article 3

It might be appropriate for the information referred to in Article 3 to be exchanged between Member States as well as communicated to the Commission. It would also be right to require the Member States to make such communications public, subject to the relevant European and national laws.

4.3.

Article 4

4.3.1. The extent to which the programme for the establishment of quality objectives provided for in the framework Directive is compatible with the existing European ground-level concentration limits and the progress achieved in reducing concentrations of individual pollutants needs particular study. The ESC should urge that the new rules to be adopted under the Directive not merely attain the same level as the existing rules, but also take into account the further development of scientific knowledge and experience ().

4.3.2. Differentiated quality objectives should be laid down ():

4.3.2.1. Geographical differentiation:

- quality objectives for industrial areas, conurbations, rural areas, to be defined by the Member States;

- special quality objectives for 'clean air areas'.

4.3.2.2. Differentiation of quality objectives for individual pollutants in terms of 1) the protection of human health and 2) the environment as a whole and more stringent deadlines for the achievement of air quality objectives with respect to carcinogens.

4.3.2.3. The dropping of European-level quality objectives for air pollutants which are of purely regional or local significance.

4.3.3. The possibility of taking measuring techniques to account when laying down quality objectives should be considered; in addition reference should be made to European or ISO standards.

4.3.4. The ESC also expects to be involved in laying down the quality objectives (and thus in replacing the existing rules).

4.3.5. Article 4(2) should be expanded as follows:

'The measurements should be located with consideration for the highest concentrations to which the population is exposed, and also for the duration of such concentrations and the peculiarities of the pollutant in question. The need for measurements should also be differentiated by pollutant.'

4.4.

Article 5

4.4.1. Article 5(2) of the draft is illogical: establishing which areas have poor or improving air quality requires measurement. Initial measurements should therefore also be required outside the areas listed in Article 5(2). Subsequent measurements could then be restricted. But in these areas too measurements should be taken, at least from time to time, to establish whether air quality has changed or worsened here.

4.4.2. As for Article 5(3), the Committee thinks that the results of the measurements should be checked for their representativeness. The locations for measurements should also be changed if necessary.

4.4.3. In implementing Article 5(5) particular importance should be attached to recording periodically occurring peak values. The possibility of requiring continuous measurement should be considered therefore. The necessary equipment is available for almost all pollutants.

4.5.

Article 7

4.5.1. The Member States should be empowered and required to work for an improvement in air quality even where no Community limit values as yet exist. Such measures could be based on WHO values. The Committee called for similar arrangements in its Opinion on the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (see point 2.3 of this Opinion).

4.5.2. In Article 7(3)(b) the draft restricts itself to requiring that plans and programmes for the implementation of quality objectives be made available to the public. Participation in the drawing up of these programmes and in the implementation of the air quality objectives in the Member States should be of particular interest to the public.

4.6.

Article 9

4.6.1. The Commission merely requires that it be notified with regard to areas with 'good air quality'. In addition, the Member States should be required to consider whether the priority objectives for 'clear air areas' should be applied to these areas (see also comments in point 4.3.2.1).

4.7.

Article 10

4.7.1. The draft merely requires that the public be informed if alert thresholds are exceeded. This would presumably take the form of a warning to refrain from certain activities. Temporary emergency measures to reduce emissions based on the laws of the Member States are just as important, however.

4.8.

Article 12

4.8.1. The Committee proposes that, in addition to the advisory committee of official representatives of the Member States, a 'committee of experts' be set up. The importance of the preparation of rules on air quality objectives for individual pollutants shifts the focus of the need for advice to the Decisions to be adopted after the entry into force of the framework Directive. Therefore, experts should be brought in from the various social and economic areas (including environmental groups). With a view to the role of these experts in the implementation of the Directive, it would be appropriate for the Directive to define the function and membership of this 'committee of experts' - unless these experts were to be brought into the advisory committee.

4.9.

Annex I

4.9.1. The Committee suggests that carbon monoxide and benzene be included in the list for action in the short-term (31 December 1996) [i.e. moved from Annex 1(2) to 1(1)].

4.9.2. The list of air pollutants should be re-examined to establish whether some substances are of purely local significance, making it possible to drop European-level quality objectives (see point 4.3.2 of this Opinion), and whether, on the other hand, additional substances should be included as being of significance for the European Union as a whole (e.g. ammonia, diesel soot, biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins and furans).

Done at Brussels, 22 February 1995.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() OJ No C 311, 17. 11. 1993.

() OJ No C 195, 18. 7. 1994.

() Reference is made to the third and sixteenth recitals of the draft Directive.

() See Explanatory Memorandum to draft, p. 15.