Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament – Thematic Strategy on air pollution and on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe
Date: 2006-04-26
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: air quality, degree of pollution, environmental monitoring, environmental policy, environmental standard, pollution control measures, quality of the environment, urban centre

29.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/1

II

(Preparatory Acts)

COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

64ND PLENARY SESSION, HELD ON 26 AND 27 APRIL 2006

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission to the
Council and the European Parliament – Thematic Strategy on air pollution and on the Proposal for
a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on ambient air quality and cleaner air for
Europe

(2006/C 206/01)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Proposal
the Council on
Ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (COM(2005) 447 final – 2005/0183 (COD)) and the
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Thematic Strategy on
air pollution (COM(2005) 446 final);

the European Parliament and of

for a Directive of

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 21 September 2005, to consult it on the
proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Ambient air quality and
cleaner air for Europe, under Article 175 and the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing
the European Community;

Having regard to the decision of
Sustainable Development to draw up the opinion on the subject;

its president of 25 July 2005 to instruct

the Commission for

Having regard to its opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Towards
a thematic strategy on the urban environment (COM(2004) 60 final) ‑ CdR 93/2004 fin (1);

Having regard to its opinion of on the Communication from the Commission on The Clean Air For
Europe (CAFE) programme: Towards a Thematic Strategy for air quality (COM(2001) 245 final) –
CdR 203/2001 fin (2);

Having regard to the draft Opinion adopted by the Commission for Sustainable Development on
(rapporteur: Mr Jahn, District councillor, Hohenlohe district
27 February 2006 (CdR 45/2006 rev. 1)
council (DE/EPP));

Whereas:

1)

2)

Air pollution occurs primarily in conurbations, and cities therefore have a strong interest
expressing their views on the thematic strategy on air pollution submitted by the Commission.

in

The same applies to the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on
ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, particularly as the document proposes that the
standards used to measure and assess fine particulate pollution be revised.

(1) OJ C 43, 18.2.2005, p. 35.
(2) OJ C 107, 3.5.2002, p. 78.

C 206/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.8.2006

3)

Cities can, on the basis of
practicability and thus the success of clean-air policy.

their experience, make a significant contribution to improving the

adopted the following opinion at its 64th plenary session, held on 26 and 27 April 2006 (meeting
of 26 April)

1. The views of the Committee of the Regions

so that there is a realistic chance that these objectives can
be achieved in most cities,

The Committee of the Regions

1.1
agrees with the Commission that, despite the progress
referred to in the thematic strategy, gaseous or particulate air
pollution, which damages human health and the environment,
must be further reduced and, as clean air policy has both
a local and a cross-border dimension, this objective can be
achieved only by means of a joint effort; by all players at local,
regional, national and European level; notes that local autho-
rities are pursuing their own top priority – public health –
through town planning measures (separating residential and
industrial areas; introducing traffic guidance and traffic calming
measures; providing open spaces and green areas in housing
zones; taking account of microclimatic conditions to improve
the air circulation in housing zones);

1.2 welcomes the Commission document on the thematic
strategy on air pollution and the proposal
for a directive
for
they provide
published
a discussion of strategy and for updating objectives to take
account of the most recent research findings;

simultaneously,

a basis

as

1.3
notes that, from the point of view of cities, adjustments
are in particular needed to improve the practicability of mea-
sures to combat air pollution at local level;

points out that cities,

1.4
in their area of responsibility,
have to strike a balance between the most diverse functions
and must
limitations on their ability to
achieve individual, sectoral objectives;

therefore accept

— adequate support measures must be taken at European level
to facilitate effective implementation of the European Di-
rectives,

— the required European-level improvement in reduction tech-
nologies and the tightening of emissions standards for
vehicles (e.g. Euro VI for heavy goods vehicles) must ensue
in such a way that the air quality standards in the cities
can be achieved,

— European-wide measures, such as an immediate revision of
the NEC Directive (the Directive on National Emission
Ceilings), are required to combat
the extensive ambient
levels of particles, which contribute quite considerably to
the non-compliance with the limit in urban areas.

2. The Committee of the Regions’ recommendations

2.1 In relation to the thematic strategy

2.1.1
sees in the thematic strategy a useful reference docu-
ment for clean air policy-making, and argues that, with a view
the objectives and to practicability,
to the achievement of
modelling should be carried out not only on the basis of
epidemiological research findings and the full use of technolo-
gical means, but also on the basis of assumptions regarding
the practical applicability of the standards in an urban envir-
onment;

1.5
flexible
urges that European legislation provide for
solutions; considers that, in any measures that are taken, local
and regional authorities should be given the opportunity to
give priority to areas in which many people are exposed to an
excessively high concentration of air pollution (e.g. residential
areas);

2.1.2
therefore calls for the research effort under the re-
search Framework Programme to take account of the opportu-
nities and limitations of active clean air policy in an urban and
territorial context (for example by means of
local case and
feasibility studies) and therefore asks the Commission to
incorporate this dimension into the document;

1.6
stresses that, in relation to tackling air pollution, it is
essential for the prevention of emissions to take priority and
that the elimination of immissions must therefore be regarded
only as a stop-gap solution; points out in particular that:

— the environmental targets set and the existing instruments
to reduce emissions must be coordinated with each other

laments the fact that, in its view, the Commission has
2.1.3
the
so far not adequately involved any representatives of
local and regional authorities, which are the
associations of
in drawing up the
main protagonists of clean air policy,
thematic strategy, and considers it vital
that provision be
made for their involvement, inter alia as part of the Commis-
sion's structured dialogue with associations of regional and
local authorities;

29.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/3

sees at least the danger that the thematic strategy
2.1.4
will be influenced too much by the tendency of clean air
policy to focus on the elimination of immissions, and therefore
calls on the Commission to continue the thematic strategy and
to avoid an increase
to give priority to
in pollution,
a prevention policy and not a policy geared towards the
elimination of immissions;

2.1.5
notes that coordination with other sectoral policies,
is in some cases mentioned
which is in principle welcome,
simply as a declaration of intent, and therefore calls for further
clarification and definition in this area;

2.1.6
continue the thematic strategy in the following ways:·

the above reasons considers it necessary to

for

calls on the European Parliament and the Council to resist
arguments to the contrary and maintain:

— the proposal to exclude from the assessment of air quality
the effect on particulate suspension levels of road-sanding
in winter (Article 13(3)),

— the proposal to exclude from the assessment of air quality
that part of air pollution which derives
from natural
sources (Article 19); calls on the Commission to adopt
a clear guide or guidelines on the measurement of this type
of pollution,

— establishing an ambitious European policy to tackle the
problem at source in industry, energy, traffic and transport;

— and the proposal to allow exemptions from the require-
ments on account of particularly adverse (e.g. topographic)
conditions (Article 20(2)),

— drawing up a timetable for implementing this policy;

— coordination with other sectoral policies;

— completing and extending research on air quality manage-

ment practice.

Further clarification should be achieved through a discussion of
financial support for local and regional authorities, which bear
a major responsibility for implementing clean air policy;

recommends to the Commission and Member States
2.1.7
that a more active policy be undertaken to promote district
heating and the cogeneration of heat and electricity. This
would also help to prevent air pollution caused by burning
biomass in small-scale furnaces. Removing national barriers to
district heating, such as for example those caused by competi-
tion legislation,
to efforts to improve local air
quality. Ways of heating new homes and workplaces should
already be determined during the land-use planning stage. The
local level is frequently the best-placed to do this.

is essential

2.2 In relation to the proposal for a directive

2.2.1
notes that the updating of European law proposed by
the Commission is in line with the conditions of, and require-
ments for, practical clean air policy, and therefore asks the
bodies involved in the discussion at national and European
level to endorse this assessment and, above all, to support the
provisions aimed at greater flexibility and thus greater rele-
vance to practical application;

Exclusi on of c omponents of p ol lutant s a n d e xten-
sio n s o f d ea d li n es

2.2.2
making it possible to take account of

particularly welcomes the introduction of provisions
local conditions, and

as well as provide an option to postpone the Article 20
deadline to as much as ten years if
it was demonstrated
beforehand that all reasonable measures to reduce immissions
had been taken;

suggests that

the directive should make it

legally
2.2.3
possible for ‘tripartite arrangements’
(i.e. agreements reached
by the EU, the Member State concerned and one or more local
or regional authorities to implement integration measures in
the light of specific local conditions) to be adopted in areas
where unusual conditions (e.g. topography) in practice make it
impossible to comply with the provisions in the long term,
it was demonstrated beforehand that all reasonable
and if
measures to reduce emissions had been taken;

2.2.4
justifies the proposal to allow arrangements of this
kind by the need to prevent legal uncertainty for local and
regional authorities while striving for a reduction in pollutants
which is achievable under the existing conditions, and points
that some scientists and
out
specialised authorities believe that the target values cannot be
achieved in practice, however great the efforts made;

in support of

this proposal

M e a s u r e m e n t an d a s s e s s m e n t of f i n e p a r t i c u l a te s

standards

the existing fine particulates

notes that the Directive sets three limit values and
2.2.5
for fine particulates. The Commission
one reduction target
supplements
(PM10)
with further air quality standards (PM2,5) which includes the
finest particles,
justifying this by reference to epidemiological
research findings (CAFE programme, World Health Organisa-
tion, practice in the USA and Japan), according to which the
finest particles are more dangerous because they can penetrate
the smallest bronchioles of
the lung and because relatively
high, long-term exposure to PM2,5 is more damaging to health
than occasional, very high exposure;

C 206/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.8.2006

thus notes that, under the proposal for a directive,
2.2.6
the existing PM10 limit values (in a given measurement area an
annual average of 40 μg/m3 must not be exceeded, or a 24-
hour limit value of 50 μg/m3 on more than 35 days in any
calendar year) are to be supplemented by further, PM2,5-based
values (annual concentration cap of 25 μg/m3 and a non-
binding target of reducing ambient levels of PM2,5 in urban
areas by 20% by 2020), and notes that a total of three limit
values and one reduction target are provided for fine particu-
lates;

2.2.7
fears that this welter of clean air policy provisions
regarding fine particulates reduction will create too many legal
and practical problems and therefore,
the
convincing research findings on the effects of fine particulates
referred to in the thematic strategy, calls for the measurement
and monitoring of fine particulate air pollution to be geared
exclusively to PM2,5 with a realistic limit value and a reduction
target;

in the light of

also points out in this connection that there is (in
2.2.8
the nature of things) a strong correlation between PM10 and
PM2,5 values (so that one measurement method can to a great
extent be substituted for the other), that it is therefore appro-
priate to use one measurement method only and that pre-
ference should logically be given to the air quality objectives
more relevant to clean air policy, namely PM2,5. The revision of
Directive 2004/107/EC should be taken into account, in order
that the metals covered therein be measured using PM2,5;
in
2.2.9
combination with a reduction target for fine particulates, for
the following reasons connected with urban health require-
ments and planning practice:
— reducing ambient

justifies the move to standards based on PM2,5,

levels throughout an urban area does
more to reduce health risks than eliminating peak values
at particularly exposed points within the urban area, which
are in any case often not residential areas;

— the current use of the daily limit value as the trigger for
measures focuses practical clean air policy on the elimina-
tion of immissions, whereas the introduction of a ceiling
on emissions will make it necessary to prevent emissions,
with the involvement of all relevant bodies and measures;

2.2.10
if PM10 quality objectives are after all retained, calls,
in the light of these considerations, for the daily limit value to

Brussels, 26 April 2006

be dropped and standards to be adopted which place the
emphasis of clean air policy, both locally and on a broader
geographical basis, on the elimination of emissions;

E s t a b l i s h m e n t of z o n e s

endorses the provision of Article 4 of the proposal
2.2.11
whereby zones will be established by the Member States;
in
designating such zones a broader approach should be taken
rather than an over-detailed one; calls in this connection for
measuring stations to be located in line with uniform criteria
in order to safeguard the comparability of measurements taken
across the EU (for existing measuring stations,
the findings
could, if necessary, be weighted to offset the impact of purely
local factors). Rules should be laid down for the geographical
and numerical distribution of measuring stations according to
uniform criteria, both at national and local level;

the measuring point

is concerned in this connection that measures that
2.2.12
- traffic
apply only to the vicinity of
diversion for instance - may lead to increased pollution in
other areas;
in the worst case this may even frustrate the
efforts of city authorities to reduce the accident risk and noise
traffic
and air pollution in residential areas by means of
the directive
in measures to cut air pollution,
restrictions;
should give priority to reducing the number of people that
are exposed to it;

S o l i d a r it y - b a se d f in a n c i n g

2.2.13
calls for financial support for those Member States
and local and regional authorities which carry the main burden
of clean air policy;

R e s e a rch e f for t,
l oc al a n d r eg io n al a u t hor i t i es

i nvo l v e m e n t o f

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of

2.2.14
notes with concern that scientific assessments of the
most successful and cost-effective clean air policy still differ,
and therefore calls for further research; study of the impact
and effectiveness of policy in relation to practical implementa-
tion must be stepped up;

urges that experts from associations representing the
2.2.15
interests of local and regional authorities be directly involved
in the drafting of clean air policy.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Michel DELEBARRE