Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (COM(2005) 447 final — 2005/0183 COD)
Date: 2006-05-17
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: air quality, environmental policy, health policy, prevention of pollution, public awareness campaign, quality of the environment

C 195/84

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.8.2006

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe

(COM(2005) 447 final — 2005/0183 COD)

(2006/C 195/22)

On 2 December 2005 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on this subject, adopted its opinion on 26 April 2006. The rapporteur was
Mr Buffetaut.

At its 427th plenary session, held on 17 and 18 May 2006 (meeting of 17 May), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 72 votes to five with nine abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

2. Introduction

The EESC can only endorse the overarching objectives
1.1
of the thematic strategy on air pollution and the proposed
directive, which is its legislative expression.

As regards the thematic strategy, which cannot be
1.2
looked at in isolation from the legislative proposal, as is clearly
indicated in section 4.1.1 of the strategy:

— the Committee fully endorses the desire to mainstream air

quality objectives into other Community policies;

— urges the Commission to review the energy scenarios gener-
ated by the PRIMES model, which seem to contain inac-
curacies, which will probably have the effect of altering the
baseline scenario for the Clean Air for Europe (CAFE)
programme.

1.3

As regards the proposed directive:

— fully supports the intention of simplifying, clarifying and

codifying air quality legislation;

— endorses the intention of ensuring effective implementation

by Member States of existing legislative provisions;

— proposes that the dates set for complying with the obliga-
tions laid down in the directive be postponed from 2010 to
2015 for the concentration caps for PM2.5 and from 2015
to 2020 for the reduction in human exposure in view of
the time required for the successful completion of the legis-
lative process and the establishment of measuring stations
in the Member States, and the cost of the necessary invest-
ment;

— believes that, before fixing binding ceilings, it would have
been useful to provide for a transition period during which
Member States would have been required to move towards
‘target’ concentration values;

The thematic strategy and the proposed directive are
2.1
part of the Sixth Environment Action Programme (6th EAP
published on 10 September 2002 (1)) and the 2001 Clean Air
for Europe (CAFE) programme. The 6th EAP set the ambitious
objective of ‘achieving levels of air quality that do not give rise
to significant negative impacts on and risks to human health
and the environment’.

Section 4.1.1 of the strategy states that ‘A legislative proposal is
attached to this Strategy …’. It is therefore clear that the two
texts are linked and that in order to take a position on the
proposed directive it
is necessary to examine the strategy,
which, in a way, constitutes a general framework and defines
the Commission's strategic objectives with regard to air quality.

2.2 A thematic strategy

2.2.1
The proposed thematic strategy establishes interim
objectives for air pollution. It recommends that existing legisla-
tion be modernised, with a greater focus on the most harmful
pollutants, and that more be done to incorporate environ-
mental concerns into other policies and programmes.

However, despite the progress made in reducing emis-
2.2.2
sions of the main air pollutants, even with the full implementa-
tion of existing laws it will not be possible to resolve all envir-
onmental and health problems by 2020 unless further action is
taken.

2.2.3

The Commission therefore proposes the following:

— the streamlining of existing provisions and the merging of
the 1996 Framework Directive, the First, Second and Third
Daughter Directives
(1999, 2000 and 2003) and the
1997 Decision on the exchange of information. The Fourth
Daughter Directive of 2004 would be incorporated at a
later stage through codification;

— requests that natural fine particulate matter be excluded

from the scope of the directive.

(1) OJ L 242 of 10.9.2002.

18.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/85

— the introduction of new standards for

fine particulate

matter (PM2.5) in the air;

dardised measurement techniques and common criteria for the
number and location of measuring stations be used for the
assessment of ambient air quality.

— the revision of the 2002 National Emission Ceilings Direc-

tive (NECD).

These measures are designed to meet the need to simplify and
clarify legislation and thus promote better application.

2.2.4
The other strand of the strategy consists of better
mainstreaming of air quality concerns into other EU policies:
energy; small combustion plants;
inland, air and maritime
transport; agriculture; and structural funds.

2.2.5
incorporated in the final evaluation of the 6th EAP.

The strategy will be reviewed in 2010 and the results

3. Proposal for a Directive on ambient air and cleaner air

for Europe

The proposal seeks to establish a practical legal frame-
instruments

3.1
work for the strategy by merging the five legal
mentioned above into a single directive.

3.2
Chapter III on air quality management contains the
most important legislative changes. The Commission does not
propose to modify the existing air quality limit values but
rather to strengthen existing provisions so that Member States
will be obliged to prepare
and
programmes to remove non-compliance.

and implement plans

3.3
The other key change concerns fine particles (PM2.5),
which are more hazardous than larger ones. A new approach
to control PM2.5
the
existing controls on PM10.

is therefore required to complement

4. General comments

A) T h e ma ti c st r a te g y

The EESC endorses the general objectives of the
4.1
strategy and the proposed directive. However, although the
objectives are commendable, the real issues here are cost-
effectiveness, the feasibility of the proposed measures —
relatively straightforward in the case of point sources but
far more complicated in the case of diffuse sources — and
their real
impact, both economically and in terms of
improving air quality.

realities

The Commission estimates

4.2
that attaining these
objectives could cost approximately EUR 7.1 billion per
annum, which would be in addition to the amount already
spent on combating air pollution (approximately EUR 60
billion a year), but would deliver health benefits totalling
EUR 42 billion per annum. Thus the macroeconomic
impact would be broadly positive. However, day-to-day
economic
about microeconomic
concerns. The Commission nevertheless estimates that,
even if all available techniques were used, the benefits
would outweigh the costs. The difficulty here is that, while
it is relatively easy to estimate the costs, it is much harder
to assess the expected benefits; moreover the methods of
calculating the savings in public health expenditure do not
seem very clear. Nonetheless, the Commission stresses that
the cost of US regulation is higher than that which would
result from European regulation.

are more

3.4
The Commission proposes to establish a concentration
cap for PM2.5 in ambient air to prevent unduly high risks to the
population, to be attained by 2010. This would be coupled
with a non-binding target to reduce human exposure generally
to PM2.5 between 2010 and 2020 in each Member State.

4.3
The plan to simplify, clarify and codify legislation is
to be welcomed. The complexity and vagueness of some of
the legal provisions inevitably entails differences in applica-
tion, distortions of competition and the impossibility of
acquiring a true picture of air quality in Europe.

Chapter V requires Member States to ensure that the
3.5
public and organisations and associations with an interest in
the issue of ambient air quality are kept informed so as to
comply with the requirements of the Aarhus Convention. In
addition, Member States are, of course, required to provide the
Commission with all necessary information. To facilitate the
transmission of this information, the Commission proposes to
introduce a system of electronic reporting based on a shared
information system within the INSPIRE framework.

3.6
In order to ensure that the information collected is suffi-
ciently representative and comparable, it is proposed that stan-

Therefore the proposed legislative approach should

4.4
be supported.

4.5
However, it is to be regretted that the Commission
does not consider the role that local authorities and, not
least, towns and cities should play in the field of transport
(promotion of alternative modes of transport, public trans-
port, deflection of heavy traffic, etc.). In fact, local authori-
ties, especially municipalities, play a crucial role in the
practical
implementation of provisions adopted at Euro-
pean level, particularly as regards measures.

C 195/86

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.8.2006

4.6
In the same vein, it would be advisable to stress the
role which environmental NGOs, specialised bodies in the
health and social field and organised civil society more
widely can play in raising awareness of the issues at stake
for public health and health at work.

as

Finally,

regards protection of

4.7
ecosystems,
progress has already been made in relation to oxides of
nitrogen, sulphur dioxide and ammonia. Better application
and simplification of legislation should make it possible to
improve results still further.

view, inter alia, to improving the energy scenarios in connec-
tion with the revision of the Directive on National Emission
Ceilings, which is just starting.

5.1.4
now under way. The most important changes are as follows:

A major updating of the PRIMES energy scenarios is

— less market penetration by gas and a larger share for coal;

— a better balance between Member States in terms of electri-

city imports and exports;

B)

Pr op ose d di r e ct i ve

— a larger share for nuclear-generated electricity;

4.8
The desire to control the level of fine particles in
the air is understandable given their impact on human
health. However, fixing limit values came up against a
theoretical difficulty in that for some particles the WHO
was unable to establish a health protection threshold (2).
Moreover, major uncertainties
the
measurement of PM concentrations and the chemical
composition of particles that make PM harmful to health,
to a greater or lesser extent, which cannot be determined
with the techniques currently in use.

concerning

exist

4.9
This therefore raises the question as to whether it
might not have been better to establish ‘target’ values
instead of limit values. Moreover, the proposed deadline
(2010) seems rather short as the legislative procedure only
started at the end of 2005, which, given the slowness of
the legislative process, could mean that Member States
have very little time to comply.

5. Specific comments

5.1 The thematic strategy

The EESC welcomes the wide-ranging consultation of
5.1.1
stakeholders conducted by the European Commission and fully
endorses the desire to mainstream air quality objectives in
other Community policies. However, owing to time constraints,
the work was carried out with great haste and it was not
possible to perform all of
the necessary data checks. This
applies particularly to the strategic scenarios used.

The scenarios, which were generated by the PRIMES
5.1.2
model, contain a number of
inaccuracies regarding growth
forecasts, the penetration of gas in comparison with coal, and
the imbalance between imports and exports of electricity
between Member States.

In fact, recognising this, the European Commission
5.1.3
requested the
Institute of Applied Systems
Analysis (IIASA) to hold bilateral consultations with all the
Member States between April and September 2005 with a

International

(2) As regards human exposure to PM2.5 particles,

recently proposed a ceiling of 10 µg/m3.

the WHO has

— revised forecasts for fuel costs and economic growth.

Therefore

5.1.5
should be
revised, which would have the effect of altering the CAFE base-
line scenario and hence the stated target levels.

the CAFE energy scenarios

In addition,

5.1.6
it would be advisable to ensure consis-
tency between this strategy and other EU policies. For example,
although domestic wood combustion results in the emission of
PM2.5 particles, the Commission encourages the use of wood as
an alternative energy source, which would require the imple-
mentation of flue gas cleaning techniques. Coal can be cited as
another example.

5.1.7
That said, the thematic strategy has the merit that it
takes into account sectors that are often neglected, such as agri-
culture and shipping. It is nonetheless surprising that it does
not address the question of air transport with regard to emis-
sions during take-off and landing. However, formidable political
difficulties are likely to arise in implementing the strategy: for
instance, cutting emissions of SO2 and NOx from ships will
require long and arduous international negotiations. Moreover,
the difficulties in achieving target levels in some sectors (e.g.
nitrogen and ammonia emissions in agriculture) should not
lead to added pressure on sources that are easier to identify
such as industrial sites.

5.2 The proposed directive

5.2.1
The EESC supports the simplification of the existing
provisions and the merger of the 1996 Framework Directive
with the First, Second and Third Daughter Directives and the
Decision on the exchange of information. A plethora of dispa-
rate laws undermines their effective application and the replace-
ment of five separate pieces of legislation by a single directive
is a useful initiative.

5.2.2
The Committee also endorses the plan to use standar-
dised measurement techniques and common criteria for the
number and location of measuring stations (Chapter II).
It
notes, however,
that some local authorities are concerned
about the cost of installing these measurement systems.

18.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/87

5.2.3
Similarly, the EESC supports the European Commis-
sion's proposal not to modify the existing air quality limit
values but to strengthen existing provisions so that Member
States will be obliged to prepare and implement plans and
programmes to remove non-compliances (Article 13). Effective
application of existing standards is a top priority which should
bring major benefits in terms of air quality and protection of
human health.

The EESC would stress that

the
5.2.4
proposal
is the introduction of a ceiling for fine particles
matter (PM2.5) in the air, to be attained by 2010, coupled with
a number of non-binding targets to reduce human exposure to
fine particles between 2010 and 2020 (-20 %).

the key point of

rather

target values be set
than concentration caps. The
proposed standards would require an enormous effort from
Member States and/or local authorities to set up measuring
stations, which would take time and necessitate major invest-
ment. PM10 are well measured and measurable and, moreover,
tend to be deposited quickly. These measurement results should
nonetheless be evaluated and assessed to establish whether they
can be complied with in the Member States. PM2.5 are extre-
mely difficult to measure and very volatile. Thus they are easily
transported in the atmosphere and are transboundary pollu-
tants.
for
there are natural
example sea salt, which it would be logical not to take into
account.

fine particulates,

In addition,

5.2.5
The Committee would point out that available data on
fine particles and their effects are limited and uncertain. The
WHO itself acknowledges that it is impossible to establish a
threshold for health protection and the Scientific
relevant
Committee on Health and Environmental Risk acknowledges
that there is, at present, a lack of knowledge on fine particles
and their effects on health in the long term.

The EESC considers it better initially to establish target
5.2.6
values
the
than a concentration cap. Otherwise,
rather
Committee fears that the deadlines set by the Commission will
be too tight insofar as the legislative procedure did not start
until the end of 2005. Thus there would be a likelihood that
Member States would have only very little time to comply,
especially as some of them do not even meet the existing stan-
dards, in part because they have delayed implementing them.
The Committee also points out that it is difficult for smaller
Member States to comply with concentration caps, as they are
at a disadvantage given the smaller area over which air pollu-
tion is distributed. The Committee therefore proposes that

Furthermore,

5.2.7
the measurement of PM2.5 is still not
harmonised in Europe. The First Daughter Directive recom-
mends the use of a gravimetric reference method for the
measurement of PM. As this is a long and complicated method,
the directive also allows the use of alternative measurement
methods, on condition that they are really equivalent to those
published by the Commission. In practice, these methods show
a systematic deviation from the reference method and Member
States use different correction coefficients or even no coefficient
at all. One can question whether it is reasonable to adopt
legally binding limit values in such a short time span in the
light of these uncertainties in measurement methods.

Finally, the EESC notes that the cost-effectiveness of
5.2.8
the proposed measures is hard to assess inasmuch as that for
some measures its difficult to estimate the public health bene-
fits with any precision. There is therefore a danger that the
marginal cost of the proposed measures will be high but that
the real benefit they deliver is small, raising the question of
expediency in making resource allocation decisions.

Brussels, 17 May 2006

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND