OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the Proposal for a Council Directive on ambient air quality assessment and management
Date: 1995-02-22
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: air quality, atmosphere, environmental policy, environmental protection, physical environment













EUR-Lex - 51995AC0185 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51995AC0185

OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the Proposal for a Council Directive on ambient air quality assessment and management  


Official Journal C 110 , 02/05/1995 P. 0005 





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 measureswill 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  1The 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  3It 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  44.3.1. 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  54.4.1. 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  74.5.1. 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  94.6.1. 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  104.7.1. 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  124.8.1. 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 I4.9.1. 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 Presidentof the Economic and Social CommitteeCarlos 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.