Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Review of Council Directive 1999/30/EC relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air, with consideration of Council Directive 96/62/EC on ambient air quality assessment and management SEC(2004) 1713
Date: 2005-01-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air quality, anhydride, dangerous substance, lead, oxide, pollution control

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, le 04.01.2005 
COM(2004) 845 final 

. 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND 
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Review of Council Directive 1999/30/EC relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, 
nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air, 
with consideration of Council Directive 96/62/EC on ambient air quality assessment 
and management 

SEC(2004) 1713 

. 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Basic aspects of compliance with the Directive........................................................... 4 

Experience acquired in the application of the Directive .............................................. 5 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This report is required under the first air quality daughter Directive, which aims to limit 
sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead in ambient air. 

Council  Directive  1999/30/EC  relating  to  limit  values  for  sulphur  dioxide  (SO2),  nitrogen 
dioxide  (NO2)  and  oxides  of  nitrogen  (NOx),  particulate  matter  (PM10)  and  lead  in  ambient 
air1  (first  air  quality  "daughter"  Directive).  It  follows  the  approach  laid  down  in  Council 
Directive  96/62/EC  on  ambient  air  quality  assessment  and  management2  (Air  Quality 
Framework  Directive).  Article  10  of  the  Directive  requires  the  Commission  to  review  the 
Directive  and  report  on  its  implementation.  While  this  report  summarizes  the  essential 
information, more details are provided through a Commission staff paper3. 

This review is based on the most recent scientific understanding… 

The  review  in  general  takes  into  account  the  results  of  the  most  recent  scientific  research 
concerning the effects on human health and ecosystems of exposure to air pollutants regulated 
under  the  first  daughter  Directive.  However,  as  required  by  the  6th  Environmental  Action 
Programme4, the Commission will adopt a Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution by mid 2005 as 
an outcome of the Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) programme. This part of the review as well 
as any considerations concerning proposals for a possible revision of the Directive, including 
the limit values thereof, will be covered by the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution. 

…but focuses on experience to date and suggests planned amendments via Comitology 
procedure. 

Given that the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution will be published soon, this review report 
focuses on the experience in Member States in the application of the Directive. Since there are 
strong links between the first daughter Directive and the framework Directive on air quality, 
these are taken into account as appropriate 

1 
2 
3 

4 

OJ L 163, 29.06.1999, p. 41. 
OJ L 296, 21.11.1996, p. 55. 
Report  in  support  of  the  review  of  Council  Directive  1999/30/EC  relating  to  limit  values  for  sulphur 
dioxide,  nitrogen  dioxide  and  oxides  of  nitrogen,  particulate  matter  and  lead  in  ambient  air; 
SEC(2004) 1713: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/ambient.htm. 
OJ L 242, 10.9.2002, p. 1. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

BASIC ASPECTS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTIVE  

While the Directive has been in force for only three years… 

The Directive entered into force on 19 July 1999 and had to be transposed into national law 
within  two  years.  The  data  reported  by  EU  Member  States  to  the  Commission  covers  only 
2001 and 2002 and the overall experience acquired in the application of the Directive is short. 
However, compliance with the air quality legislation still should be improved (see table 1 in 
SEC(2004) 1713) 

…the first still rather limited experience from its application is positive. 

Despite  the  limited  experience  with  the  first  daughter  Directive,  it  is  already  clear  that  the 
concept of air quality legislation has been successful in terms of raising public and political 
awareness  of  remaining  air  quality  problems  and  promoting  effective  action  to  reduce  air 
pollution throughout the EU. There are three main reasons for this success:  

– 

– 

– 

Firstly, the requirement that up-to-date information on the ambient air quality must 
be made publicly available. This gives rise to increased awareness as evidenced by 
the complaints sent to the Commission and petitions sent to the European Parliament. 
In several cases, the complaints filed by European citizens or NGOs have led to the 
opening of infringement procedures.  

Secondly, the challenging nature of the air quality limit values themselves. This has 
resulted  in  local  and  national  authorities  taking  effective  action  to  reduce  air 
pollution.  

Thirdly, the fact that the limit values established in the daughter Directive also apply 
to the new Member States. While the citizens of new Member States reap the direct 
benefits  of  the  Directive,  Europe  as  a  whole  will  also  benefit  indirectly  because  of 
the transboundary character of air pollutants. 

However,  only  three  Member  States  have  submitted  plans  or  programmes  to  improve 
air quality. 

Based  on  2001  data  it  was  clear  that  eleven  Member  States  should  have  submitted  plans  or 
programmes to the Commission by end of 2003 on how to improve air quality of PM10 and 
NO2 for their citizens. However, by July 2004, only Belgium and the UK had submitted their 
plans. In addition, Sweden had submitted a plan even though this was not legally required on 
the basis of their 2001 data. The Commission was concerned about this non-compliance with 
the first daughter Directive. Therefore, in 2004 it started infringement procedures against ten 
Member  States  for  not  submitting  plans  or  programmes  on  time,  or  because  the  plans 
submitted were incomplete. 

The  Directive  aims  to  achieve  a  high  level  of  protection  for  human  health  and 
ecosystems… 

The first daughter Directive aims at attaining a high level of protection with regard to human 
health and the environment – thereby contributing to the protection of two fundamental rights 
recognised by the EU Charter of rights that has been embedded in the draft EU Constitution. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
… by setting air quality limit values,… 

Whereas  the  Framework  Directive  lays  down  general  provisions  for  the  assessment  and 
management of air quality, detailed arrangements for specific air pollutants are defined in the 
daughter Directives, including limit or target values. The first daughter Directive defines limit 
values  to  protect  human  health  and  the  environment,  which  Member  States  must  meet  by  a 
specified attainment date (see table 2 in SEC(2004) 1713). 

The attainment dates are 2005 for SO2, lead and PM10, and 2010 for NO2. The Directive also 
defines  limit  values  for  SO2  and  NOx  to  protect  ecosystems  and  vegetation  which  have 
already been in force since 19 July 2001. 

… by defining a decreasing “margin of tolerance” (MoT), by obliging Member States to 
draw up plans or programmes and by requiring them to provide information. 

If the concentration of air pollutants in a certain zone is above the limit value plus a defined 
‘MoT’,  Member  States  have  to  draw  up  plans  or  programmes  to  demonstrate  by  which 
measures  they  are  going  to  achieve  the  limit  values  by  the  attainment  date.  The  MoT 
decreases annualy and becomes zero by the attainment date.  

The air quality framework and daughter Directives require Member States to assess air quality 
throughout their territory, including specifications regarding the monitoring network, the use 
of  models  and  the  quality  assurance  and  quality  control  of  air  quality  data.  The  Directives 
give detailed requirements for reporting information to the public and to the Commission. 

3. 

EXPERIENCE ACQUIRED IN THE APPLICATION OF THE DIRECTIVE  

The  approach  of  using  a  framework  and  daughter  Directives  has  advantages  and 
disadvantages. 

The framework and first daughter Directives strike a balance between (i) the harmonisation of 
the  assessment  and  management  of  air  quality  across  the  EU  Member  States  and  (ii)  the 
subsidiarity principle allowing local and national flexibility in implementation. Legislation in 
the  form  of  a  framework  and  related  daughter  Directives  has  certain  advantages:  pollutant-
independent provisions are laid down only once, ensuring consistency. But this approach has 
also  certain  drawbacks:  when  the  framework  Directive  was  prepared  all  of  its  practical 
implications could not be foreseen.  

Air quality assessment zones have been established and are unlikely to change. 

The  framework  Directive  requires  air  quality  to  be  characterised  in  certain  zones  and 
agglomerations. It leaves a high degree of flexibility in defining these zones, leading to rather 
large differences between Member States. These zones correspond mainly with administrative 
borders rather than to patterns of ambient air quality. The ‘zone concept’ is not felt to offer 
any  major  new  advantages  for  air  quality  management  in  Member  States.  However,  the 
Member States, including the new ones, have now designated their zones and arranged their 
assessment  strategies  accordingly.  Since  they  have  not  indicated  major  problems  with  their 
network design, the Commission is not considering changing of the zone concept.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
While tighter air quality limit values are recognised as important and useful… 

The new limit values introduced by the first daughter Directive are considerably tighter than 
those  in  earlier  years.  These  new  values  are  generally  recognised  as  important  and  useful 
instruments  for  improving  air  quality  where  it  is  poor.  The  limit  values,  combined  with  the 
need  to  inform  the  public,  have  led  to  an  increased  public  and  political  awareness  of  air 
quality problems.  

…further clarification and guidance on the application of limit values will be part of the 
Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution. 

Stakeholders  have  indicated  that  it  would  be  useful  to  receive  further  clarification  on  the 
application of the limit values, with respect to population exposure. Similarly they have asked 
about the applicability of limit values to protect vegetation and ecosystems. The Commission 
has  launched  a  contract  to  gather  information  on  “health  relevant  ambient  air  quality 
measurement”. Depending on the results of this contract, the monitoring requirements in the 
first daughter Directive might be modified.  

The ‘MoT’ and special provisions are considered useful and will not be changed. 

Member States have generally appreciated the concept of the MoT5 as a useful provision to 
focus measures to improve air quality in the most polluted areas. Thus, working towards the 
attainment date, provided the air quality in a Member State is below the limit value plus the 
MoT, it does not have to overreact and prepare air quality plans or programmes. 

The first daughter Directive has a provision to account for the contribution of natural sources 
for concentrations of SO2. It also has a provision for PM10 to account for the contribution of 
natural  events,  and  re-suspension  of  particulates  because  of  the  winter  sanding  of  roads. 
Member  States  have  found  these  provisions  are  useful  in  these  specific  cases.  However, 
extending the provisions to other circumstances would create a possible regulatory loophole. 
Therefore,  the  Commission  is  not  considering  changing  or  extending  the  existing  special 
provisions.  

While continuous action to improve air quality needs to focus on PM10 and NO2… 

The  Member  States  have  reported  that  they  comply  well  with  the  limit  values  for  SO2  and 
lead  in  ambient  air,  with  some  exceptions.  However,  the  situation  is  different  for  PM10  and 
NO2  since  concentrations  of  these  pollutants  at  many  monitoring  stations  exceed  the  limit 
value plus margin of tolerance.  

…the Commission is also evaluating the effectiveness of short term measures. 

Article  7(3)  of  the  Framework  Directive  requires  measures  to  be  taken  in  the  short  term  if 
there  is  a  risk  of  limit  values  and  alert  thresholds  being  exceeded.  For  limit  values  the 
obligation for short term measures applies only after they are in force. Some Member States 
have  expressed  doubts  about  the  environmental  effectiveness  of  these  short-term  measures. 

5 

The margin of tolerance is a defined percentage of the limit value by which this value may be exceeded 
prior to the attainment date. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  Commission  is  currently  evaluating  experiences  with  such  measures.  The  conclusions 
will be taken into account in the preparation of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution. 

Member States have adapted their air quality measurement networks fairly well…  

It  is  difficult  to  prescribe  in  detail  how  measurement networks should be designed, because 
distributions of sources and air pollution levels vary widely throughout Europe. All Member 
States have, to varying degrees, adapted their measurement networks to the requirements of 
the first daughter Directive. This has helped the harmonisation process.  

...but  further  technical  improvements  are  called  for,  and  will  be  adopted  by  the 
Commission through Comitology procedure. 

Certain  parts  of  the  first  daughter  Directive  need  to  be  adapted  to  reflect  scientific  and 
technical  progress.  the  Commission  aims  to  adapt  the  directive  via  a  regulatory  committee 
according to Article 12 of the Framework Directive.  

The Commission intends to adopt adaptations to: 

•  ensure a sufficient number of rural background stations, 

•  ensure a substantial proportion of different station types, such as traffic-related stations and 

urban background stations, 

•  limit  the  distance  from  the  road  where  PM10  monitoring  is  undertaken  at  traffic  related 

monitoring stations, 

•  improve the conditions for applying random sampling, 

•  ensure the uniform use of statistical terms (accuracy/uncertainty) and 

•  update  Annex  IX  –  which  describes  the  reference  measurement  methods  –  taking  into 
account  the  technical  development  and  including  the  provisions  on  how  to  demonstrate 
equivalence of non-reference methods. 

Even if the Commission has provided guidance on measuring particulate matter, further 
harmonisation and research are needed. 

Working  groups  have  assisted  the  Commission  in  preparing  two  guidance  documents  about 
measurement methods for particulate matter in 20026 and 20047. These documents addressed 
the issue of equivalence of commonly used automatic measurement methods with the manual 
reference  measurement  method.  Despite  the  substantial  efforts  which  have  been  made  in 
many  Member  States,  there  is  still  a  large  demand  to  demonstrate  equivalence  of  non-
reference  methods  for  PM  measurements  and  to  harmonise  these  measurements  throughout 
the European Union. The Commission hosts the network of European Air Quality Reference 

6 

7 

Guidance to Member States on PM10 monitoring and inter-comparisons with the reference method; 
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/pdf/finalwgreporten.pdf 
Demonstration of equivalence of ambient air monitoring methods, (final draft); 
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/cafe/pdf/equivalence_report_final.pdf 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Laboratories  (AQUILA)  and  intends  to  use  this  network  to  work  closely  with  the  Member 
States to further strengthen harmonisation in this particular field. 

The  CAFE  Working  Group  on  Particulate  Matter  has  proposed  to  develop  a  limit  value  for 
8.  However,  larger  particles,  characterised  by  PM10,  are  also  harmful.  Thus,  while  the 
PM2.5
major attention is paid to the small size fraction of particulate matter, PM10 monitoring should 
be  continued  to  a  certain  extent.  The  Commission  will,  when  considering  a  revision  of  the 
framework and daughter Directives, propose an appropriate share of monitoring sites for both 
PM  fractions.  The  Commission  recommends  that  additional  investigations  concerning  other 
PM  characteristics  such  as  PM1.0,  particulate  number  concentration  and  the  chemical 
speciation of particulate matter should be undertaken in Member States. 

Extensive  research  efforts  have  been  made  through  the  European  Union  5th  Framework 
Programme  for  Research  to  study  the  pathways  of  atmospheric  particles  and  their  impacts 
both on human health and on the environment9. Funding in these items is continued through 
the 6th Framework Programme for Research 

While no change in the provisions on air quality modelling is suggested for now... 

The  air  quality  Directives  allow  for  the  use  of  models  for  the  assessment  of  air  quality. 
Models may be used to complement or even replace measurements if the concentration level 
is  sufficiently  below  the  limit  value.  There  are  no  further  explicit  provisions  on  the  use  of 
models  for  analysing  the  causes  of  air  pollution  or  for  calculating  prognoses,  but  in  current 
practice models have a prominent role in this kind of analysis. 

The  Commission  has  surveyed  and  analysed  the  current  practice  of  computer  modelling  in 
Member States in the context of the first daughter Directive. 

...the Commission will follow up this issue. 

While  the  survey  mentioned  above  provided  some  insight  into  the  current  use  of  models  in 
Member States and acceding countries, it did not provide sufficient evidence to allow a more 
detailed  definition  of  data  quality  requirements  for  modelling  compared  to  the  existing 
provisions in the Directive. Consequently the Commission is not proposing to amend the data 
quality objectives for the use of models at this stage. However, the Commission expects this 
issue  to  become  increasingly  important  and  will  keep  it  under  review,  taking  into  account 
recent activities in individual Member States.  

Reporting through electronic means has become more and more routine… 

The  Commission  has  developed  a  common  format  for  reporting  the  results  of  annual  air 
quality assessment, and adopted this questionnaire as a Commission Decision in 2001, which 
was updated in 2004 (2004/461/EC)10. Member States now fill in this questionnaire annually 
and  send  the  data  in  an  electronic  file  provided  by  the  Commission.  Data  already  required 
under the Council Decision establishing a reciprocal exchange of information and data from 

8 

9 
10 

Second Position Paper on Particulate Matter; 
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/cafe/working_groups/wg_particulate_matter.htm 
CLEAR Project (Cluster of European Air Quality Research), for latest results: http://www.nilu.no/clear 
OJ L 156, 30.4.2004, p. 78. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
networks  and  individual  stations  measuring  ambient  air  pollution  in  Member  States  (EoI, 
97/101/EC)11 are not included in the annual questionnaire.  

…but  there  are  considerable  delays,  and  a  need  for  further  harmonisation  and 
streamlining.  

Member  States  in  general  comply  with  their  reporting  requirements  fairly  well.  However, 
there are often delays up to several months after the deadline. For instance, in 2003 only 9 out 
of 15 Member States reported on time. 

The annual data reporting on compliance with the first daughter Directive is considered to be 
very useful for developing an overview of the air quality in the Union. This view is shared by 
the  Commission,  the  Member  States  themselves  as  well  as  stakeholders  and  the  general 
public. 

One problem relating to reporting is that the Member States do not have a legal obligation to 
report some of the data necessary for a more comprehensive evaluation. As it would be in the 
general interest to report such data, the Commission intends to suggest that reporting of such 
data be made a formal requirement. 

11 

OJ L 35, 5.2.1997, p. 14. 

EN 

9 

   EN