REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS THE SECOND CLEAN AIR OUTLOOK
Date: 2021-01-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU emission allowance, EU environmental policy, air quality, atmospheric pollutant, environmental cooperation, environmental impact, environmental protection, pollution control, prevention of pollution, reduction of gas emissions

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 8.1.2021  COM(2021) 3 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS THE SECOND CLEAN AIR OUTLOOK  
 
 
THE SECOND CLEAN AIR OUTLOOK 

1.  INTRODUCTION 

As mentioned in the European Green Deal1, creating a toxic-free environment requires more 
action to prevent pollution from being generated as well as measures to clean and remedy it. 
To protect Europe’s citizens and natural ecosystems, the EU needs to better monitor, report, 
prevent  and  remedy  pollution  in  the  air,  water,  soil  and  consumer  products.  This  will  also 
contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.  

The  EEA  ‘Air  quality  in  Europe  -  2020  report'  published  in  November  2020  shows  that, 
although  emissions  of  most  air  pollutants  have  declined  in  the  EU  in  recent  decades  (see 
figure  1),  air  pollution  continues  to  be  a  significant  problem.  Air  pollution  overall  is 
responsible for about 400 000 premature deaths in the EU every year and for about two-thirds 
of  ecosystem  area  in  the  EU  being  exposed  to  eutrophication2.  Air  pollution  also  entails 
considerable  economic  costs  by  inducing  increased  medical  expenses,  reduced  productivity, 
for example through lost working days, and reduced agricultural yields. 

The  EU  has  been  working  for  decades  to  improve  air  quality  by  controlling  emissions  of 
harmful  substances  into  the  atmosphere  and  by  integrating  environmental  protection 
requirements into transport, industry, energy, agriculture and the building sector. The aim is to 
reduce  air  pollution  to  levels  which  minimise  harmful  effects  on  human  health  and  the 
environment across the EU.  

The EU’s  approach to  improving air quality rests on three pillars. The first pillar comprises 
the  ambient  air  quality  standards  set  out  in  the  Ambient  Air  Quality  Directives  for  ground-
level  ozone,  particulate  matter,  nitrogen  oxides,  dangerous  heavy  metals  and  a  number  of 
other pollutants3. If the set limit values are exceeded, Member States are required to adopt air 
quality plans detailing measures to keep the exceedance period as short as possible.   

The  second  pillar  consists  of  national  emission  reduction  obligations  set  by  the  National 
Emission  reduction  Commitments  Directive  (NEC  Directive)4  for  the  most  important 
transboundary  air  pollutants:  sulphur  dioxides,  nitrogen  oxides,  ammonia,  non-methane 
volatile organic compounds and particulate matter. Member States had to develop national air 

1 COM (2019) 640 
2 European Environment Agency (EEA) Air Quality Report 2020: the EEA uses a slightly different methodology to the one 
used for this Clean Air Outlook to estimate numbers of premature deaths. The main differences are explained in Box 1. The 
impact of air pollution on ecosystems through eutrophication is estimated according to ‘critical load’. For more information, 
see also Section 4.3 below.  
3 Directives 2004/107/EC and 2008/50/EC. 
4 Directive (EU) 2016/2284 on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants (‘NEC Directive’). 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
pollution  control  programmes  (NAPCPs)  by  2019  presenting  the  measures  they  will  put  in 
place to comply with their emission reduction commitments.  

The third pillar comprises emission standards for key sources of pollution, from vehicle and 
ship  emissions  to  energy  and  industry.  These  standards  are  set  out  at  EU  level  in  dedicated 
legislation.  

This  second  edition  of  the  Clean  Air  Outlook  assesses  the  prospects  for  achieving  the 
objectives  of  the  NEC  Directive  for  2030  and  beyond,  bearing  in  mind  the  zero  pollution 
ambition  of  the  European  Green  Deal  and  the  objective  from  the  Clean  Air  Programme5  of 
halving the impact of air pollution on health by 2030 compared to 2005. This Second Clean 
Air Outlook updates the analysis and the conclusions of the first outlook published in 20186, 
taking into account the numerous developments resulting from the NEC Directive and other 
relevant legislation and policies. This edition also shows the impact of climate change policy 
on  attaining  these  objectives  and  notes  that  meeting  the  2030  climate  target  will  make  a 
decisive contribution to halving health impacts of air pollution by 2030. 

The  Second  Clean  Air  Outlook  complements  the  first  Commission  report  on  the 
implementation  of  the  NEC  Directive  published  in  June  20207,  by  providing  a  forward-
looking assessment of the likely evolution of air pollution and how distant this is likely to be 
from  the  2030  air  pollution  reduction  obligations.  The  findings  will  inform  the  upcoming 
2021 zero pollution action plan8, which aims to put the EU on a path towards zero pollution 
and a toxic-free environment, as announced in the European Green Deal9. Finally, this edition 
assesses  the  impact  of  air  pollution  on  ecosystems;  together  with  the  monitoring  of 
ecosystems  required  by  the  NEC  Directive,  this  will  provide  input  for  the  analysis 
underpinning  the  implementation  of  the  biodiversity  strategy10,  since  air  pollution  is  an 
important driver of biodiversity loss.  

The analysis undertaken for this Clean Air Outlook could not yet incorporate the impact on air 
pollutants from a projected slowdown in economic activity due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It 
should  be  noted  that  impacts  on  reduction  of  emissions  of  certain  pollutants  were  unequal 
during the lockdown periods and that overall emissions might return to previous levels when 
the economy recovers11. 

5 COM (2013) 918  
6 COM (2018) 446 
7 COM (2020) 266  
8 See ‘Roadmap for an EU Action Plan Towards a Zero Pollution Ambition for air, water and soil’ 
(https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12588-EU-Action-Plan-Towards-a-Zero-Pollution-
Ambition-for-air-water-and-soil). 
9 The European Green Deal announced the overall objective to ‘protect, conserve and enhance the EU's natural capital, and 
protect the health and well-being of citizens from environment-related risks and impacts’. The Second Clean Air Outlook 
also provides input towards this objective.  
10 COM/2020/380  
11 See for instance OECD/European Union (2020), Health at a Glance: Europe 2020: State of Health in the EU Cycle, OECD 
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/82129230-en; European Environment Agency (EEA) Air Quality Report 2020 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.  STATE OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS AND AIR QUALITY AND PROGRESS TOWARDS 

COMPLIANCE 

2.1. CURRENT AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS AND AIR QUALITY SITUATION 

Since 2005 (the base year for emission reductions under the NEC Directive) and even before, 
emissions of air pollutants in the EU have decreased significantly thanks to EU and national 
legislation12. In fact, since 2000 the EU’s GDP has grown by about 30% while emissions of 
the main air pollutants have decreased by 10% to 70%, depending on the pollutant13. 

Figure 1: Development of EU-28 emissions, 2000-2018 (% of 2005 levels) (Source: EEA) 

This  decreasing trend needs to  be sustained through continued efforts,  particularly for those 
pollutants  that  have  shown  a  smaller  reduction.  For  instance,  ammonia  emissions  have 
plateaued since 2005 and even increased in recent years in some Member States. 

Despite this overall decrease in air pollutant emissions, in most Member States the quality of 
life  in  certain  hotspots  remains  impaired,  as  air  quality  standards  are  still  not  met.  The 
situation is  especially severe in  urban areas,  where a majority of Europeans live. Too many 
EU  citizens  are  still  exposed  to  concentrations  of  certain  air  pollutants  above  the  limit  or 
target values set in the Ambient Air Quality Directives, and even more of them are exposed to 
levels  above  those  recommended  by  the  World  Health  Organization  (WHO)  Air  Quality 
Guidelines. In 2018, about 4% of the EU-28’s urban population was exposed to PM2.5 levels 

12  See  EEA  NEC  Directive  emissions  data  viewer  1990-2018  (https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/necd-
directive-data-viewer-3). 
13 EEA Air Quality Report 2020. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
above  the  EU  annual  limit  value,  while  more  than  70%  was  exposed  to  concentrations 
exceeding the WHO Air Quality Guidelines values14. 

Air  pollution  is  still  the number  one  environmental  health  risk  in  the  EU15,  a  cause  of  both 
chronic and serious diseases such as asthma, cardiovascular problems and lung cancer16, and a 
major health and environmental concern for EU  citizens17. Groups of lower socio-economic 
status,  elderly,  children,  and  those  in  poor  health  tend  to  be  more  adversely  affected  by  air 
pollution than the general population18. 

2.2. PROGRESS TOWARDS COMPLIANCE  

While the national emission reduction commitments under the NEC Directive started to apply 
in 2020, the Commission NEC implementation report showed that almost all Member States 
need immediately and substantially to reduce emissions of at least some pollutants to comply 
with  their  obligations.  This  is  particularly  so  for  ammonia.  This  is  also  demonstrated  in  the 
analysis of the gap between the latest reported emissions (corresponding to the year 2018) and 
the level of emissions allowed by the NEC Directive for the period 2020-2919, which shows 
that many Member States need to reduce their emissions by up to 10% in less than 2 years20. 
For  PM2.5  and  NOx,  six21  and  five22  Member  States  respectively  will  need  to  reduce  their 
emissions by up to 30% or more.  

Member  States  will  have  to  increase  their  efforts  even  further  to  comply  with  the  more 
ambitious  emission  reduction  obligations  for  2030  under  the  NEC  Directive.  Compared  to 
their 2018 emission levels, five Member States23 will have to halve their PM2.5 emissions and 
1524  will  need  to  reduce  their  NOx  emissions  by  more  than  30%  compared  to  2018;  in 
addition,  respectively  15  and  13  Member  States  will  need  to  reduce  their  NMVOC25  and 

EEA 

National 

Emission 

14 EEA Air Quality Report 2020. 
15 ‘Healthy Environment, Healthy Lives’, EEA Report 21/2019. 
16 See for instance: OECD/European Union (2020), Health at a Glance: Europe 2020: State of Health in the EU Cycle, OECD 
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/82129230-en.  
17 European Commission (2017). Special Eurobarometer 468: ‘Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment’. 
18 ‘Unequal exposure and unequal impacts: social vulnerability to air pollution, noise and extreme temperatures in Europe’, 
EEA Report No 22/2018; ‘Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2019’ 
19 
(https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/national-emission-reduction-commitments-directive).  
20 10 Member States for ammonia (Austria, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Spain, Sweden), six 
for NOx (Denmark, France, Ireland, Latvia, Malta, Sweden), four for PM2.5 (Finland, Poland, Slovenia, Spain), four for 
NMVOC (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, Lithuania) and two for SO2  (Lithuania, Poland). 
21 Bułgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Hungary, Romania. 
22 Cyprus, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Romania. 
23 Cyprus, Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Romania. 
24 Austria, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Romania, 
Slovenia, Sweden. 
25 Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, 
Spain. 

Commitments 

reduction 

Directive 

reporting 

status 

2020 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
ammonia26 emissions by up to 30% or more. The Commission will closely monitor the next 
steps  of  the  NEC  Directive  implementation  and  will  continue  to  support  Member  States’ 
implementation efforts, but will also make use of its legal powers to ensure the legislation is 
enforced.  

When it comes to air quality, there have been significant improvements over the past decade, 
yet there are still major problems with exceedances of the EU’s air quality limit values under 
the Ambient Air Quality Directives. For 2019, 23 Member States reported exceedances above 
at  least  one  air  quality  standard,  for  at  least  one  pollutant,  in  at  least  one  location  –  this 
includes  17  Member  States  with  exceedances  of  EU  air  quality  standards  for  NO2,  14  with 
exceedances for PM10, four with exceedances for PM2.5 and one for SO2. 

As  of  1  December  2020,  a  total  of  31  infringement  cases  against  18  Member  States  are 
ongoing  for  exceedances  of  PM10,  PM2.5,  NO2  or  SO2  concentration  levels  or  flawed 
monitoring.  Ten  of  these  cases  have  been  referred  to  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European 
Union, of which five cases have received a ruling. In its Communication on ‘Cleaner Air For 
All’ in May 2018, the Commission underlined the importance of continued enforcement27. 

2.3. FOLLOW-UP TO THE FITNESS CHECK OF THE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DIRECTIVES  

In  November  2019,  the  Commission  published  the  results  of  a  fitness  check  of  the  two  EU 
Ambient  Air  Quality  Directives28.  It  concluded  that,  even  though  EU  air  quality  standards 
have  been  instrumental  in  driving  a  downward  trend  in  exceedances  and  exposure  of  the 
population to exceedances, the remaining gap to achieve air quality standards is too wide in 
certain cases. It further concluded that for several pollutants the current air quality standards 
are  not  as  ambitious  as  the  WHO  recommendations29,  especially  for  fine  particulate  matter 
(PM2.5).  Subsequently,  the  European  Green  Deal  announced  that  the  Commission  will  draw 
on  the  lessons  learnt  from  the  fitness  check  and  will  notably  propose  to  revise  air  quality 
standards to align them more closely with the WHO recommendations. The Commission will 
also propose to strengthen provisions on monitoring, modelling and air quality plans to help 
local authorities achieve cleaner air30. 

26 Austria, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, 
Spain. 
27 COM (2018) 330 final 
28 SWD (2019) 427 final 
29 The WHO Guidelines are currently being reviewed and the Commission is following this closely. 
30 For more information, see: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12677-Revision-of-EU-
Ambient-Air-Quality-legislation 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
3.  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEC DIRECTIVE AND SUPPORTIVE EU LEGISLATION 

3.1. CHANGES IN LEGISLATION CONTRIBUTING TO CLEAN AIR 

Several changes to policy and legislation have occurred since the First Clean Air Outlook was 
published.  In  particular,  the  level  of  ambition  in  fighting  climate  change  increased  with  the 
entry into force of higher objectives in December 201831. One of the conclusions of the First 
Clean Air Outlook, according to which synergies between air and climate policies make the 
achievement of the objectives of both policies easier, applies even more so now. However, to 
actually see these benefits materialise, legislation has to be implemented in a timely manner. 
Additional EU legislation limiting air pollutants at their source has also been adopted, such as 
Euro 6 standards for diesel vehicles. 

Furthermore,  in  April  2019  Member  States  had  to  submit  their  NAPCPs  for  the  first  time, 
describing  the  policies  and  measures  they  intend  to  put  in  place  to  fulfil  their  emission 
reduction commitments under the NEC Directive. The modelling framework underpinning the 
analysis  in  this  Clean  Air  Outlook  incorporates  these  policies  and  measures  as  much  as 
possible;  however,  their  level  of  detail  varies  greatly  between  Member  States,  and  in  some 
cases prevents their inclusion in the quantitative analysis32. 

The  increased  climate  ambition  towards  reducing  greenhouse  gases  by  55%  by  203033 
presented by the Commission in 2020, which is still subject to interinstitutional negotiations, 
is not part of the baseline in the analysis for the Second Clean Air Outlook but is reflected as a 
policy scenario. 

3.2. PROSPECTS  FOR  ACHIEVING  THE  EMISSION  REDUCTION  COMMITMENTS  IN  THE  NEC 

DIRECTIVE FOR 2030 AND BEYOND 

Member States committed in December 2018 to climate and energy targets for 203034, which 
require  appropriate  policies  and  measures  to  be  put  in  place.  With  those  measures  and  the 
application of existing legislation tackling air pollution at its source, the reductions in all air 
pollutant emissions  required by the NEC  Directive across the EU would be fulfilled for the 
period  from  2030  onwards,  except  for  ammonia.  This  hides,  however,  differences  between 
Member States in achieving their national commitments.    

31  In  December  2018,  the  Energy  Efficiency  Directive  (EU)  2018/2002  and  the  recast Renewable  Energy  Directive 
2018/2001/EU both entered into force, respectively setting EU 2030 targets of at least 32.5% for energy efficiency (compared 
to projections of expected energy use in 2030) and at least 32% for renewable energy; these targets were part of the climate 
scenario  in  the  First  Clean  Air  Outlook  and  are  now  part  of  the  baseline  in  the  Second  Clean  Air  Outlook,  which  also 
therefore includes a reduction of greenhouse gases of about 40% in 2030 compare to 2005. 
32 For details, see IIASA report: “Support to the development of the Second Clean Air Outlook”: 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/clean_air/outlook.htm 
33 COM/2020/562 final 
34 See footnote 24. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The SO2 reduction commitment for 2030 would be achieved by all Member States but one35 if 
all existing legislation is fully implemented. The measures announced in the NAPCPs would 
facilitate this achievement. For NOx, PM2.5 and NMVOC, two Member States36 would fail to 
fulfil  their  obligations  even  with  the  measures  announced  in  their  NAPCPs  and  would 
therefore  need  to  introduce  further  measures.  There  would  be  a  major  issue  with  ammonia, 
where existing legislation would be insufficient to reach the 2030 reduction commitments for 
22 Member States37. Even though Member States have announced in their NAPCPs that they 
would  put  in  place  additional  measures  to  reduce  ammonia  emissions,  those  would  still  be 
insufficient for 15 Member States38 to achieve their 2030 commitments on ammonia.  

Overall,  Member  States  must  fully  implement  all  existing  legislation  and  the  measures  that 
they have announced as soon as possible. For the 15 Member States for which the ammonia 
commitment  will  pose  problems  even  if  they  introduce  the  measures  planned  in  their 
NAPCPs, further measures need to be developed as a matter of urgency. This is also required 
by  the  NEC  Directive  if  a  Member  State  is  projected  to  miss  one  of  its  emission  reduction 
commitments.  

The modelling exercise under this Clean Air Outlook has identified the most cost-effective air 
pollution  control  measures  that  would  allow  all  Member  States  to  fulfil  their  commitments 
under  the  NEC  Directive,  even  without  taking  into  account  possible  synergies  with  climate 
measures. For SO2, PM2.5 and NOx, they mostly relate to measures in industrial processes and 
industrial combustion. To reduce NMVOC, the large majority of the cost-efficient measures 
would  tackle  emissions  from  the  burning  of  biomass  for  domestic  heating  and,  to  a  lesser 
extent, from the use of solvents. The measures that would cut ammonia emissions in the most 
cost-efficient  manner  all  relate  to  agriculture  and  are,  to  a  large  extent,  related  to  animal 
feeding practices, manure management and use of fertilisers39.  

4.  PROSPECTS FOR ATTAINING LONG-TERM OBJECTIVES 

In relation to the aim of halving the impacts of air pollution on health by 2030 compared to 
2005,  the  First  Clean  Air  Outlook  concluded  that  this  impact  (expressed  in  number  of 
premature deaths due to air pollution) would indeed be reduced by more than 50% by 2030 if 
Member States implemented all the legislation adopted between 2014 and 2017 to reduce air 
pollutant emissions; this analysis also took into account the effects of measures able to tackle 
multiple  pollutants  simultaneously.  However,  the  First  Clean  Air  Outlook  was  less  positive 
about  impacts  on  ecosystems,  as  none  of  the  new  measures  put  in  place  between  2014  and 
2017  addressed  ammonia  emissions  from  agriculture,  the  primary  source  of  air  pollution 
affecting ecosystems40. 

35 Slovenia. 
36 Czechia and Luxembourg for NOx; Germany and the Netherlands for PM2.5; Ireland and Luxembourg for NMVOC. 
37 All Member States but Greece, Malta, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Slovenia.   
38 Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, 
Portugal, Romania, Sweden.    
39 See IIASA report for more details. 
40 Ammonia is also a precursor to secondary PM2.5, which is detrimental to health. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The  methodology  used  for  the  Second  Clean  Air  Outlook  takes  into  account  policy  and 
legislative developments since 2018 (on  EU climate policy and additional pollution control) 
and information (such as better emission inventories, and a better understanding of the impact 
of emissions on health and their economic value) that were not included in the First Clean Air 
Outlook41.  As  a  consequence,  it  is  not  possible  to  make  a  direct  comparison  between  the 
results  of  the  two  Outlook  reports.  However,  it  is  still  useful  to  assess  the  latest  results  in 
achieving the objectives of the clean air programme and inferring the progress that has been 
made on that basis. 

4.1. POLLUTANT BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION 

If  Member  Sates  implemented  all  existing  sectoral  legislation  regulating  air  pollution  and 
measures needed to reach the 2030 climate and energy targets as agreed in December 2018, 
air  pollutant  emissions  would  be  reduced  sufficiently  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  NEC 
Directive  at  EU  level  in  2030  for  all  pollutants  except  ammonia.  In  addition,  no  air  quality 
management zone would exceed 25 microgram/m3 of PM2.5 in background concentration42; in 
2019, there were 14 such zones in four Member States.  

The  number  of  zones  for  which  computed  background  concentration  levels  of  PM2.5  would 
comply with the current WHO Guidelines value of 10 µg/m³ is expected to increase from 41% 
of  all  zones  in  2015  to  90%  in  2030,  again  assuming  all  existing  legislation  is  fully 
implemented. If all technically feasible air pollution control measures were put in place, this 
proportion  would  increase  to  98%.  The  most  ambitious  situation  in  terms  of  both  air  and 
climate policies (involving lifestyle changes to  mitigate climate change and the introduction 
of  all  technically  possible  measures  to  mitigate  air  pollution)  would  bring  the  background 
concentrations in all zones below the current WHO Guidelines value in 2050.  

This  trend  can  also  be  seen  in  the  evolving  exposure  of  the  EU  population  to  air  pollution. 
The  proportion  of  the  EU  population  living  in  areas  with  background  PM2.5  concentration 
below  the  WHO  Guidelines  value  of  10  µg/m³  would  more  than  double  between  2015  and 
2030  if  all  adopted  clean  air  and  climate  laws  were  implemented  (figure  2).  However,  this 
would  still  leave  12%  of  the  EU  population  in  2030  exposed  to  levels  of  fine  particulate 
matter above the WHO Guidelines value. With the most ambitious clean air policy (with all 
technically  feasible mitigation  measures  in  place),  this  share  would  be  reduced  to  4%.  This 
remaining  share  is  due  to  air  pollution  originating  from  outside  the  EU  (neighbouring 
countries  and  international  shipping)  and  of  natural  origin.  However,  these  positive  trends 
only  relate  to  background  concentration  and  do  not  include  possible  pollution  hotspots, 
including  those  where  pollution  is  above  the  WHO’s  recommended  values,  that  would  still 
need to be addressed. 

41 See IIASA report for details  
42  25  microgram/m3  corresponds  to  the  Ambient  Air  Quality  Directive  limit  value,  which  refers  to  overall  concentration, 
while results presented here refer only to background concentration and do not include emissions in local hotspots.  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 2: Distribution of population exposure to PM2.5 for key scenarios, EU-27 (Source: 
IIASA) 

Note: MTFR stands for ‘Maximum Technically Feasible air pollution Reduction measures’. 

4.2. HEALTH IMPACTS  

Premature  deaths  due  to  PM2.5  are  projected  to  decrease  by  about  55%  between  2005  and 
2030 if all policies that Member States have already agreed to are fully implemented43; this 
would imply a fall of 28% in the estimated number of these premature deaths between 2020 
and 2030. The measures announced in  the NAPCPs would accelerate this decrease between 
2020 and 2030,  achieving  a 31% reduction.  If maximal  air pollution control measures were 
put in place44, premature deaths would drop by 44% between 2020 and 2030. However, this 
would  still  leave  more  than  130  000  premature  deaths  per  year  in  the  EU  due  to  PM2.5 
pollution alone.  

43 To preserve consistency with previous calculations for such change, these calculations are performed keeping population 
constant  at  its  2010  level.  However,  this  is  not  done  when  estimating  the  economic  and  health  benefits,  which  uses 
projections of future population data for Member States for better accuracy.  
44 Maximum technically feasible scenario. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Looking  at  the  issue  from  the  perspective  of  the  number  of  years  of  life  lost  due  to  PM2.5 
pollution, the overall picture remains the same (see figure 3).  Beyond important  co-benefits 
from  climate  measures,  significant  benefits  are  also  expected  from  additional  clean  air 
measures.  

Figure 3: Years of life lost due to exposure to PM2.5 in the EU-27 (Source: IIASA)45 

Implementing  the  policies  and  measures  announced  by  Member  States  in  their  NAPCPs 
generates costs estimated at about EUR 1.4 billion per year in the EU (for measures presented 
with  enough  detail  in  the  NAPCPs  and  to  which  a  cost  could  therefore  be  attributed). 
However,  the  increased  health  benefits  (both  in  terms  of  reduced  mortality  and  morbidity) 
exceed  the  increased  costs  in  all  of  the  cases  that  have  been  analysed  (see  Section  4.4  for 
more  details  on  the  economic  impacts).  The  health  benefits  brought  by  the  NAPCP 
measures46 amount to between EUR 8 billion and EUR 43 billion per year for the EU47; there 
is thus an overall gain for society in putting these measures in place.  

45 “CAO2 baseline” corresponds to the implementation of all legislation adopted until 2018; “Potential cuts from additional 
climate measures” correspond to the situation with the lowest air pollutant emissions among the long term climate scenarios 
reaching  a  decarbonized  economy  by  2050;  “Potential  cuts  from  additional  air  pollution  controls”  corresponds  to  the 
maximum technically feasible air pollutant emission reductions (MTFR). 
46 Again, with the caveat that not all measures could be modelled due to lack of details in some NAPCPs. 
47 The range is due to the various valuation methods and the extent of the health impacts that were included. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Box 1: Methodology for assessing and valuing the impact of air pollution on health  

This  analysis  draws  on  research  into  the  impact  of  air  pollution  on  health  by  the  WHO 
(Health  Risks  of  Air  Pollution  In  Europe  -  HRAPIE).  These  are  conservative  estimates, 
since findings from new epidemiological literature have become available since HRAPIE 
was published (in 2013), showing the effects of a wider range of health impacts caused by 
air  pollution  (wider  effects  of  ultra-fine  particles  for  instance).  The  methodology used to 
assess health impacts in this report differs to some extent from the one used by the EEA; 
this primarily concerns the granularity of the underlying air quality data and the level at 
which concentrations of pollutants start to have an impact on health. In terms of putting a 
value on health impacts, the data used here have been  updated since the First Clean Air 
Outlook as regards  the  year in  which prices are expressed  (2015, instead of  2005 in  the 
First Clean Air Outlook). This analysis also provides a more up-to-date valuation of life, 
life  years  lost  and  morbidity,  using  OECD  and  other  sources.  Therefore,  the  numbers 
presented  here  cannot  be  directly  compared  to  those  reported  by  the  EEA,  nor  to  those 
presented in the First Clean Air Outlook, for all these methodological reasons. However, 
the numbers provide useful orders of magnitude and are informative when comparing the 
various situations using the same methodology. 

For full information on the methodology, see IIASA report. 

4.3. ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS 

The recent improvements in terms of the impact of air pollution on ecosystems48 are projected 
to continue in the future in all scenarios. However, in spite of these positive developments, the 
situation  is  still  worrying,  as  levels  of  nitrogen  deposits  remain  significantly  above  critical 
loads49 and threaten biodiversity, especially in Natura 2000 areas. With all adopted legislation 
implemented, Natura 2000 areas that exceed critical loads for eutrophication would decrease 
by  8%  between  2020  and  2030;  with  all  measures  announced  by  Member  States  in  their 
NAPCPs  also  implemented,  the  reduction  would  be  15%.  However,  this  would  still  leave 
more  than  half  (58%)  of  the  Natura  2000  areas  under  the  threat  of  eutrophication.  If  all 
technically feasible air pollution control measures were put in place, this proportion would fall 
to 46% in 2030, which shows the considerable potential for improvement (see figure 4). 

Air pollution impacts all ecosystems, including agricultural crops and forests, and they would 
all  benefit  greatly  from  reduced  air  pollution,  through  reduction  of  eutrophication, 

48 Only terrestrial ecosystems are included in this analysis due to the model features. 
49 This term describes the ecosystem’s ability to absorb eutrophying nitrogen pollutants (or acidifying pollutants, in the case 
of  acidification)  deposited  from  the  atmosphere  without  causing  negative  effects  to  the  natural  environment  (EEA,  Air 
Quality Report 2020). 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
acidification  and  excess  ozone  flux.  For  all  these  threats,  the  combination  of  clean  air  and 
energy and climate measures would provide the largest benefits in 2050.   

Figure 4:  Area of terrestrial ecosystems (1 000 km2) where nitrogen deposits exceed the 
critical loads for eutrophication, EU-27 (Source: IIASA)50 

4.4.  ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

While air pollution directly damages human health and has a negative impact on agricultural 
crops, forest yields, ecosystems and buildings, it also has an indirect impact on the economy, 
e.g.  through  loss  of  working  days  due  to  poorer  health.  In  all  the  cases  that  have  been 
analysed, additional measures to reduce pollution always bring a net gain to society, with the 
benefits of cleaner air always overriding the costs of these measures. Figure 5 shows that the 
implementation of the NAPCP measures alone would deliver about EUR 7 billion per year in 
2030  of  additional  net  benefits51  to  the  EU.  If  all  the  measures  that  are  technically  possible 
were implemented, these net benefits could be about EUR 21 billion a year by 2030. Avoided 
mortality (estimated here through reduced PM2.5 impacts) is by far the most important benefit 
of  clean  air  measures,  followed  by  avoided  morbidity.  In  general,  the  health  benefits  are 
higher in the earlier years of implementation but remain steady after 2030, while the costs of 
the measures decrease after 2030. 

50 See footnote 47 for graph legend. 
51 Net benefits correspond to the benefits minus costs. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
More ambitious clean air and climate measures would increase the net benefits to society in 
all the cases analysed. If more ambitious climate policy were implemented (achieving climate 
neutrality in 2050), air pollution abatement measures would come at no cost compared to the 
baseline52. These induced cost savings, combined with market benefits of clean air measures, 
would boost EU GDP by 0.15% in 2050 in the most beneficial case. In such a case53, if recent 
empirical work on the productivity gains obtained through cleaner air54 is taken into account, 
GDP would even raise by up to 1.3% in 2050 compared to the baseline. 

Figure  5:  Change  in  net  benefits  of  clean  air  measures  under  various  air  and  climate 
policy  scenarios  compared  to  baseline,  in  EUR  billion  per  year  (EU-27),  based  on  a 
conservative valuation of all impacts55 (Source: JRC, in IIASA report) 

52 Note that the cost of climate change mitigation measures are not included in this graph. 
53 When all technically feasible air pollution abatement measures are implemented and climate change is kept below 1.5° C. 
54 Dechezleprêtre et al. (2019), The economic cost of air pollution: Evidence from Europe, OECD Economics Department 
Working Papers. 
55  Benefits  are  shown  above  the  x-axis,  costs  are  below.  ‘NAPCP’  represents  a  situation  where  all  measures  selected  for 
adoption  in  the  NAPCPs deliver  benefits  on  top of  already  agreed  policies;  ‘Baseline MTFR’  represents  a  situation  where 
Maximum  Technically  Feasible  air  pollution  Reduction  measures  deliver  benefits  on  top  of  already  agreed  policies; 
‘TECH+WAM’  represents  a  situation  where  NAPCP  measures  come  on  top  of  ambitious  climate  mitigation  based  on 
technological  options;  ‘LIFE+WAM’  represents  a  situation  where  NAPCP  measures  come  on  top  of  ambitious  climate 
mitigation  based  on  the  circular  economy;  ‘LIFE  MTFR’  represents  a  situation  where  Maximum  Technically  Feasible  air 
pollution Reduction measures deliver benefits on top of ambitious climate mitigation based on the circular economy. These 
various climate situations are described in more detail in Section 5.2. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
5.  INTERACTIONS WITH CLIMATE CHANGE AND CLIMATE POLICY 

5.1. PROSPECTS  FOR  EMISSIONS  OF  SHORT-LIVED  CLIMATE  FORCERS  (METHANE  AND  BLACK 

CARBON) 

Methane and black carbon contribute to both air pollution and global warming. Methane is not 
only a very powerful greenhouse gas but also an important precursor to ground-level ozone, 
which is very detrimental to health. Black carbon is a component of particulate matter but also 
a potent contributor to climate warming. 

With  currently  adopted  air,  climate  and  energy  objectives  and  legislation  (the  baseline),  the 
computed  methane  emissions  would  decrease  by  about  20%  between  2020  and  2050,  while 
only  very  small  benefits  would  be  brought  on  this  matter  by  the  measures  announced  by 
Member States in their NAPCPs. However, with the increased climate ambition proposed by 
the  Commission  in  202056,  the  decrease  would  reach  44%  over  the  same  period.  These 
reductions  do  not  factor  in  the  effect  of  the  actions  set  out  in  the  recently  adopted  methane 
strategy57, which would further reinforce this decreasing trend.  

For  black  carbon,  existing  policies  and,  to  a  much  lower  extent  the  ones  announced  in  the 
NAPCPs,  could  reduce  overall  EU  emissions  by  about  80%  between  2020  and  2050.  The 
largest reductions of black carbon would be achieved when air emissions control measures are 
combined  with  more  ambitious  climate  policies,  showing  how  synergies  can  be  achieved 
through the measures to tackle black carbon.  

5.2. CO-BENEFITS AND TRADE-OFFS BETWEEN POLICIES 

Several  climate scenarios have been analysed with regard to their effects on air pollution in 
the modelling work underpinning this Clean Air Outlook. Some of these scenarios are based 
on  the  cases  developed  for  the  Commission’s  ‘Long-term  strategic  vision  for  a  prosperous, 
modern,  competitive  and  climate  neutral  economy’58;  this  aims  to  achieve  a  carbon-neutral 
economy by 2050 through various routes, with one scenario relying on the circular economy 
and  lifestyle  changes59  and  another  relying  on  technological  solutions60.  A  further  scenario 
corresponds  to  the  new  proposal  for  a  55%  reduction  in  greenhouse  gases  by  203061.  This 
allows to identify the effects of various actions at EU level on air pollutant emissions for 2030 
and 2050.  

56 COM(2020) 562 final 
57 COM(2020) 663 final; examples of sectoral actions cover agriculture, energy, waste and waste water.  
58 COM(2018)773 final 
59  The  ‘1.5  LIFE’  scenario  achieves  the  1.5°C  ambition  through  a  more  circular  economy,  less  carbon-intensive  diets,  a 
sharing economy, etc.  
60 The ‘1.5 TECH’ scenario achieves the 1.5°C ambition through technological options. Remaining emissions that cannot be 
abated by 2050 are balanced by negative emissions through the deployment of bioenergy associated with carbon capture and 
storage and LULUCF sinks.  
61 COM(2020) 562 final 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                           
Figure 6 shows that, in the long term (2050), actions to fight climate change always help to 
reduce air pollutant emissions (the smallest contribution relates to PM2.5 – see Box 2 below 
for  some  possible  explanations).  The  climate  scenario  reflecting  a  move  towards  a  circular 
economy  and  lifestyle  change  is  the  one  that  contributes  most  to  reducing  air  pollutant 
emissions.  

Figure 6: Projections for emissions of the main air pollutants in the EU-27 under various 
scenarios  and  the  maximum  potential  reductions  provided  by  air  pollution  control 
measures and climate policies (Source: IIASA)62 

62 For legend, see footnote 47 

15 

050010001500200025003000kilotonsSO22030                                            2050010002000300040005000600070008000kilotonsNOx2030                                            205002004006008001000120014001600kilotonsPM2.52030                                            205001000200030004000kilotonsNH32030                                            20500100020003000400050006000kilotonsVOC2030                                            2050: maximum emissions allowed under the NEC Directive: level of emission reduction achieved With the Additional Measures announced in the NAPCP 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
As  shown  in  Section  4.4,  air  pollution  control  measures  are  more  costly  when  they  are 
introduced  in  isolation  than  when  they  are  implemented  together  with  climate  change 
mitigation measures. There are clearly measures that benefit both policies, and these need to 
be  promoted,  while  measures  leading  to  trade-offs  should  be  avoided.  Measures  to  increase 
the  share  of  non-combustible  renewables  in  energy  consumption,  to  improve  the  energy 
performance of buildings and promote more sustainable heating and cooling solutions and to 
boost  energy  efficiency  overall,  as  well  as  measures  in  support  of  clean  transport,  are 
particularly  beneficial.  On  the  other  hand,  measures  that  increase  bioenergy  use  in  devices 
without adequate emissions abatement technologies63 are detrimental to clean air and need to 
be avoided. 

Box 2: EEA analysis of the effects of increased renewable energy sources on air pollution 

The EEA has estimated the impact of gross final consumption of renewable energy sources 
on  air  pollutant  emissions  at  EU  level  and  in  Member  States.  The  situation  in  2017  is 
compared  to  a  hypothetical  situation  where  renewable  energy  consumption  would  have 
remained  at  its  2005  level.  Against  that  baseline,  the  EEA  concludes  that  the  additional 
consumption  of  renewable  energy  across  the  EU  led  to  a  decrease  of  SO2  and  NOx 
emissions by 6% and 1% respectively in 2017. In contrast, it led to an increase of PM2.5 
and NMVOC emissions of 13% and 4% respectively, which is estimated to have occurred 
in all Member States except one (Portugal). The EEA explains this relative increase by the 
increase  in  bioenergy  use  over  the  period  (the  use  of  which  has  actually  decreased 
considerably in Portugal since 2005). Since, in  most cases, biomass is used for domestic 
heating,  the  EEA  concludes  that  this  is  likely  to  have  led  to  increases  in  PM2.5 
concentrations. 

Source: EEA, Renewable energy in Europe 2019 - Recent growth and knock-on effects 
(https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-cme/products/etc-cme-reports/renewable-energy-
in-europe-2019-recent-growth-and-knock-on-effects). 

6.  TRANSBOUNDARY AND INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION 

The  analysis  undertaken  to  support  this  Clean  Air  Outlook  shows  that,  in  most  Member 
States,  a  significant  contribution  to  PM2.5  background  concentration  comes  from  other 
Member  States,  in  addition  to  already  significant  domestic  contributions.  This  reflects  the 
transboundary nature of air pollution, which justifies EU action in this field. It reinforces the 
idea  that  Member  States  all  need  to  reduce  their  air  pollutant  emissions  according  to  their 
obligations under the NEC Directive, so that their combined efforts  at national level deliver 
benefits to all. National cost-benefit analyses of clean air measures should take into account 
their positive spill-over effects in neighbouring countries.  

63 However, Commission Regulations on Eco-design requirements for solid fuel boilers and for solid fuel local space heaters 
set air pollution limits for biomass devices. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
In  addition,  the  analysis  shows  that  contributions  to  air  pollutant  background  concentration 
also come from non-EU countries, at varying levels depending on the geographical situation 
of the Member States. This underlines the need for the EU to take stronger action bilaterally 
(notably  in  the  context  of  accession  and  neighbourhood  policies64  but  also  by  building 
stronger  international  partnerships)  and  in  international  fora  such  as  the  UNECE  Air 
Convention65. Ratification and implementation  of the Air Convention by all  parties, notably 
by countries in the Eastern Neighbourhood that have not already done so, is a key priority. A 
major  step  towards  achieving  this  objective  is  the  ratification  by  all  Member  States  of  the 
amended Gothenburg Protocol to the Air Convention66, as well as the amended Heavy Metals 
and Persistent Organic Pollutants Protocols.  

However,  in  most  cases,  the  main  share  of  the  effort  to  reduce  air  pollutant  background 
concentration  would  come  from  each  Member  State’s  domestic  action  by  cutting  their  own 
emissions. This share is often higher in the largest Member States, where at least half of the 
effort  has  to  come  from  reducing  domestic  emissions.  Smaller  and  more  isolated  Member 
States  can  benefit  to  a  larger  extent  from  respectively  reductions  in  neighbouring  countries 
and in international shipping (especially in the case of islands)67.  

7.  CONCLUSION 

This report demonstrates that, if all legislation adopted up to 2018 delivered its  full benefits 
and  if  Member  States  implemented  the  measures  announced  in  their  NAPCPs,  the  EU  as  a 
whole  would  achieve  the  reductions  of  air  pollutant  emissions  that  correspond  to  the 
obligations under the NEC Directive for 2030. For all pollutants except ammonia, this would 
even  be  achieved  with  some  margin68.  However,  there  are  wide  differences  across  Member 
States  and  the  report  makes  it  clear  that  this  remains  a  distant  prospect,  as  most  Member 
States still need to make a significant  effort to fulfil their obligations for 2020-29 under the 
NEC Directive (although these obligations are less stringent than the 2030 ones).  

The  report  makes  a  strong  case  for  Member  States  to  continue,  intensify  and  broaden  their 
efforts,  and  to  implement  measures  to  cut  air  pollution  and  greenhouse  gases  in  a  mutually 
supportive  way;  the  priorities  and  actions  announced  in  the  European  Green  Deal  and  the 
opportunities provided in the long-term budget for 2021-2027 and NextGenerationEU69 will 
help  deliver  such  synergies.  Initiatives  such  as  the  Renovation  Wave70,  more  stringent  air 
pollutant  emission  standards  for  vehicles71,  the  revision  of  the  Industrial  Emissions 

64 Particularly by encouraging enlargement countries to step up their transposition and implementation of EU legislation and 
countries which have signed agreements with the EU to align their laws more closely with those of the EU. 
65 UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transport of Air Pollution (https://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/welcome.html.html). 
66 As amended in 2012. 
67 Results for all Member States available in IIASA report. 
68 For ammonia, the NAPCP measures would be just sufficient to achieve, for the EU as a whole, the emissions reduction 
corresponding to the NEC Directive commitments. 
69 https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/recovery-plan-europe_en 
70 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficient-buildings/renovation-wave_en 
71 Such as the Proposal for more stringent air pollutant emissions standards for combustion-engine vehicles announced in the 
European Green Deal. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Directive72  and  all  actions  that  contribute  to  a  climate  neutral  and  resource-decoupled 
economy by 2050 will help  to  mainstream  the reduction of air pollution in all sectors. New 
initiatives  such  as  Europe’s  Beating  Cancer  Plan73  and  the  EU4Health  programme74  will 
provide the opportunity to better address the links between environment and health. The new 
financial instruments supporting NextGenerationEU, together with the cohesion policy funds, 
will support national, regional and local efforts to deliver cleaner air.  

The  new  Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP),  still  subject  to  interinstitutional  negotiations, 
will also have a crucial role to play in incentivising Member States to reduce air pollution in 
the agricultural sector.  

Ammonia emissions from agriculture remain an outstanding issue in all the cases analysed in 
this report, and the additional measures announced by Member States in their NAPCPs need 
to be implemented without delay to reduce these emissions, and even more measures need to 
be introduced in many Member States. More than 90% of ammonia emissions in the EU come 
from agriculture, notably from livestock farming and from the storage and use of organic and 
inorganic fertilisers. The new CAP needs to play its part in supporting and contributing to the 
reduction of air pollution and Member States must harness the new opportunities provided by 
e.g.  the  proposed  eco-schemes  in  the  national  strategic  plans  and  the  proposed  strategic 
objectives  (including  management  of  natural  resources  such  as  air  and  water).  A  CAP  with 
strong environmental and climate ambitions should be pursued in order to reflect the priorities 
under the European Green Deal, in line with the farm to fork and biodiversity strategies75.  

In  parallel,  the  Commission  will  continue  to  help  Member  States  by  developing  more 
guidance  and  technical  support  for  farmers  and  national  institutions  on  how  to  implement 
well-known and cost-effective measures to  reduce air pollution and by exploring innovative 
ways  to  reduce  air  pollutant  emissions  in  agriculture.  This  should  be  done  in  an  integrated 
way,  taking  into  account  pollution  to  air,  water  and  soil,  as  well  as  climate  impacts,  in  line 
with  what  will  be  endeavoured  for  all  sectors  through  the  European  Green  Deal’s  zero 
pollution ambition. 

All  the  above  measures  will  nevertheless  not  be  sufficient  to  eliminate  all  the  effects  of  air 
pollution, and worrying  levels of pollution concentration in cities will remain, as well as air 
pollution-related  threats  to  ecosystems,  including  protected  ones.  Even  though  pollution 
concentration  levels  could  come  much  closer  to  the  current  WHO  Air  Quality  Guidelines 
values if there is full implementation of agreed climate and energy policies and of the clean 
air  measures  announced  by  Member  States  in  their  NAPCPs,  there  will  continue  to  be 
premature  deaths  in  the  EU  due  to  air  pollution.  As  even  relatively  low  levels  of  pollution 
exposure are harmful, there is a need to reinforce efforts at all levels to reduce air pollution. In 
addition  to  strengthening  domestic  measures,  stronger  international  and  inter-regional 
cooperation  is  also  needed;  particularly  through  the  Air  Convention  but  also  beyond  that, 
including promoting and supporting implementation of the UNEA resolution on reduction of 

72 See Inception Impact Assessment (https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12306-EU-
rules-on-industrial-emissions-revision). 
73 https://ec.europa.eu/health/non_communicable_diseases/cancer_en 
74 https://ec.europa.eu/health/funding/eu4health_en 
75 COM/2020/381 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
air pollution at a global level76. This also underlines the need to continue working on reducing 
emissions of air pollutant precursors, particularly methane (methane is an important precursor 
to ground-level ozone, which is harmful to human health and the environment). The methane 
strategy has announced that the review of the NEC Directive (due by 2025) will explore the 
possible inclusion of methane among its regulated pollutants.  

This  Second  Clean  Air  Outlook  and  its  supporting  analysis  provide  elements  for  a  more 
informed  implementation  of  the  NEC  Directive  by  Member  States.  It  will  be  updated  in 
around 2 years with the publication of the Third Clean Air Outlook, as part of the wider zero 
pollution activities.  

76 United Nations Environment Assembly Resolution 3/8. 

19