COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity grid Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (recast)
Date: 2022-10-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, air quality, environmental cooperation, environmental impact, environmental monitoring, environmental standard, pollution control, prevention of pollution, quality of the environment

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.10.2022  SWD(2022) 542 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity grid Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (recast) {COM(2022) 542 final} - {SEC(2022) 542 final} - {SWD(2022) 345 final} - {SWD(2022) 545 final}  
 
 
Subsidiarity Grid 

1.  Can the Union act? What is the legal basis and competence of the Unions’ intended action? 

1.1 Which article(s) of the Treaty are used to support the legislative proposal or policy initiative? 

The  legal  basis  for  the  EU  to  act  on  air  quality  lies  in  Articles  191  and  192  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), on the environment. These Articles empower the  EU to 
act  to  preserve,  protect,  and  improve  the  quality  of  the  environment,  protect  human  health  and 
promote measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems. 
The same legal basis underpins the current Ambient Air Quality Directives. Given that this is an area 
of  shared  competence  between  the  EU  and  the  Member  States,  EU  action  must  respect  the 
subsidiarity principle.  

1.2 Is the Union competence represented by this Treaty article exclusive, shared or supporting in 
nature? 

In the case of environment, the Union’s competence is shared. 

2.  Subsidiarity Principle: Why should the EU act? 

2.1 Does the proposal fulfil the procedural requirements of Protocol No. 21: 

-  Has there been a wide consultation before proposing the act? 
- 

Is there a detailed statement with qualitative and, where possible, quantitative indicators 
allowing an appraisal of whether the action can best be achieved at Union level? 

The impact assessment on the revision of the Ambient Air Quality Directives (Directive 2008/50/EC of 
the  European Parliament  and  of the  Council  on  ambient  air  quality and  cleaner  air  for  Europe  and 
2004/107/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to arsenic, cadmium, mercury, 
nickel and polycyclic  aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient air)  was subject to a thorough  stakeholder 
consultation process. This consultation aimed to collect supporting information, data, knowledge and 
views from a comprehensive range of stakeholders, to provide input for the different policy options 
for  revising  the  Ambient  Air  Quality  Directives,  and  to  help  assess  the  feasibility  of  implementing 
them.  

  The  open  public  consultation  ran  for  12  weeks,  as  an  online  questionnaire  with  13 
introductory  and  31  specific  questions,  hosted  on  the  EU  Survey  tool.  The  questionnaire 
included  issues  to  be  covered  in  the  impact  assessment,  and  gathered  initial  views  on  the 
ambition  level  and  potential  impacts  of  certain  options  for  revision  of  the  Ambient  Air 
Quality  Directives.  A  total  of  934  responses  were  received,  and  116  position  papers  were 
submitted.  Open  questions  received  between  11  and  406  individual  responses  –  124  on 
average. The responses came from 23 different Member States. 

  The  targeted  survey  was  published  on  EU  Survey  in  two  parts  (part  1  on  policy  area  1  [air 
quality  standards]  on  13  December  2021,  and  part  2  on  policy  areas  2  and  3  [governance; 
monitoring, modelling  and  air  quality  plans]  on  13  January  2022),  both with  a deadline  for 
contributions  of  11  February  2022.  The  targeted  survey  sought  in-depth  views  from 
organisations  with  an  interest  in  or  working  with  EU  rules  on  air  quality.  Accordingly,  the 
survey  was  sent  out  to  targeted  stakeholders,  including  relevant  authorities  at  different 
levels of governance, private sector organisations, academics and civil society organisations 
in  all  EU  Member  States.  Part  1  of  the  targeted  stakeholder  survey  received  in  total  139 

1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12016E/PRO/02&from=EN (viewed on 
14.10.2022) 

1 

 
 
                                                           
replies  from  24  Member  States.  Part  2  of  the  survey  received  93  replies  from  22  Member 
States. 

  The  first  stakeholder  meeting  took  place  on  23  September 2021  and  was  attended  by  315 
external  participants,  either  onsite  or  online,  from  27  Member  States.  The  aim  of  the  first 
stakeholder meeting was to gather views on shortcomings identified in the current Ambient 
Air Quality Directives, as well as on the ambition level for the revised legislation. 

  The second stakeholder meeting on 4 April 2022 was attended by 257 external participants, 
either  onsite  or  online,  from  23  Member  States.  The  aim  of  the  meeting  was  to  collect 
feedback from stakeholders for the completion of the impact assessment. 

  Targeted  interviews  were  conducted  to  complement  the  other  consultation  activities,  in 
particular  with  representatives  of  regional  and  national  public  authorities,  civil  society  & 
NGOs,  and  academia  &  research.  The  main  purpose of  the  interviews  was  to  fill  remaining 
information  gaps  identified  from  the  evaluation  of  the  targeted  stakeholder  survey. 
Consequently, the  interviews  focused on policy area 2, notably on the feasibility, means of 
implementation and impacts of the various options considered. 
In  addition,  the  impact  assessment  took  into  account:  30  ad  hoc  contributions  (position 
papers,  scientific  studies  and  other  documents)  received  from  25  different  stakeholders; 
discussions at the third EU Clean Air Forum on 18 and 19 November 2021; feedback on the 
inception impact assessment from 63 stakeholders from 12 Member States; and the Fit for 
Future Platform opinion on the ambient air quality legislation. 

 

The Commission requested a Eurobarometer survey to inform the revision of the Ambient Air Quality 
Directives  and  to  provide  an  indicative  comparison  to  parts  of  previous  surveys,  notably  the  2019 
Special Eurobarometer 497 on Attitudes of Europeans towards Air Quality.  

The  Special  Eurobarometer  survey  was  conducted  between  21  March  and  20  April  2022.  26 509 
respondents from different social and demographic groups were interviewed in their mother tongue, 
on  behalf  of  the  European  Commission.  Citizens  were  asked  a  set  of  questions,  including  whether 
they feel that air quality improved or deteriorated in their country in recent years, whether they have 
heard of EU air quality standards, and if they think the standards should be strengthened. 

The  explanatory  memorandum  and  the  impact  assessment  (chapter  3)  contain  a  section  on  the 
principle  of  subsidiarity,  including  qualitative  and  references  to  quantitative  indicators  (also  see 
section 2.2 below). 

2.2 Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the 

Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the conformity with the 
principle of subsidiarity? 

Both the explanatory memorandum and the accompanying impact assessment contain an adequate 
justification regarding the conformity with the principle of subsidiarity. 
The objectives of this initiative cannot be sufficiently achieved at Member State level alone. This is 
due, firstly, to the transboundary nature of air pollution: atmospheric modelling and measurements 
of  air  pollution  demonstrate  beyond  doubt  that  the  pollution  emitted  in  one  Member  State 
contributes  to  measured  pollution  in  other  Member  States2  and  that  collective  action  is  both 
necessary and more cost effective.  

2   See, for instance, the JRC Urban PM2.5 Atlas that analyses the sources of fine particulate matter pollution in 

150 cities in the EU 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Secondly,  the  TFEU  requires  policies  aiming  for  a  high  level  of  protection,  taking  into  account  the 
diversity  of  situations  across  the  EU.3  The  existing  Ambient  Air  Quality  Directives  established 
minimum air quality standards throughout the EU but leave the choice of measures to the Member 
States, so that they can adjust these measures to specific national, regional and local circumstances. 
This principle is maintained in the proposed Directive, which would merge the two existing Ambient 
Air Quality Directives into one. 
Thirdly, fairness and equality must be ensured as regards the economic implications of air pollution 
control measures and the ambient  air quality experienced by people across the  EU.  Therefore, the 
nature and scale of the problem requires that air quality be addressed at EU level. 

2.3 Based on the answers to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be 

achieved sufficiently by the Member States acting alone (necessity for EU action)? 

The objectives of the proposed action cannot be achieved sufficiently by the Member States acting 
alone.  

(a)  Are there significant/appreciable transnational/cross-border aspects to the problems being 

tackled? Have these been quantified? 

Air  pollutants  travel  across  borders  and  air  pollution  concentration  reductions  cannot  be 
sufficiently achieved by one Member State alone. Once air pollutants are emitted or formed 
in the atmosphere, they can be transported over thousands of kilometres. The scale of the 
issue  at  hand  requires  EU-wide  action  to  ensure  that  all  Member  States  take  measures  to 
reduce  the  risks  to  the  population  in  each  Member  State.  Even  though  the  impacts  of  air 
pollution  are  more  severe  close  to  the  emission  source,  the  effects  on  air  quality  are  not 
limited to the local level and cross-border pollution affects other Member States and causes 
health and environmental problems.  

(b)  Would national action or the absence of the EU level action conflict with core objectives of 

the Treaty4 or significantly damage the interests of other Member States? 

Minimum  air  quality  objectives  established  at  EU  level  ensure  that  citizens  in  all  Member 
States  experience  similar  air  quality  including  those  who  might  live  in  border  regions  and 
who  might  (in  the  absence  of  EU  standards)  experience  substantially  poorer  air  quality 
depending  on  the  choices  made  in  neighbouring  states.  EU  action  ensures  fairness  and 
effective  pursuit  of  the  Treaty  objective  to  achieve  a  high  level  of  human  health  and 
environmental protection. 

(c)  To what extent do Member States have the ability or possibility to enact appropriate 

measures? 

Member States have the ability or possibility to enact the most planning and implementing 
the  appropriate measures  to  ensure  compliance  with  air  quality  standards. Member  States 
can  therefore  choose  and  adapt  measures 
local 
circumstances.  

light  of  national,  regional  and 

in 

(d)  How does the problem and its causes (e.g. negative externalities, spill-over effects) vary 

across the national, regional and local levels of the EU? 

Improvements  in  air  quality  critically  depend  on  action  taken  to  address  the  sources  of  air 

3 Articles 191.2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) 
4 https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en (viewed on 14.10.2022) 

3 

 
 
                                                           
pollution,  and  typically  require  action  in  the  transport,  energy  (including  domestic  heating) 
and  agricultural  sectors  or  by  industry.  All  relevant  levels  of  governance,  including  EU, 
national,  regional  and  local  level  need to take  coherent  and  effective  actions.  Atmospheric 
modelling  shows  that  the  air  pollution  emitted  in  one  Member  State  also  contributes  to 
pollution in other Member States. In conclusion, the problem and its causes are  present  at 
local, regional, national and transnational level throughout the EU. 

(e)  Is the problem widespread across the EU or limited to a few Member States? 

While  action  to  reduce  the  impact  of  air  quality  has  been  taken,  resulting  in  a  reduced 
number and magnitude of exceedances, 17 Member States still report exceedances above EU 
limit  values  for  at  least  one  pollutant,  and  often  for  several  for  the  year  2021.  97%  of  the 
urban  population 
levels  of  air  pollution  above  WHO 
recommendations published in 2021.5 
While  the  magnitude  of  the  problem  differs  between  cities  and  Member  States,  even  low 
levels  air  pollution  are  associated  with  increased  mortality  due  to  cardiovascular  and 
respiratory diseases and lung cancer. 

is  exposed  to 

in  the  EU 

(f)  Are Member States overstretched in achieving the objectives of the planned measure? 

The Member States are well used to the existing framework for manging ambient air quality 
in their territory. The  Commission’s proposal aims to build on this longstanding experience 
based on lessons learned when evaluating the legislation. 

Overall,  the  impact  assessment  shows  that  benefits  for  society  far  outweigh  the  costs.  For 
instance, for policy option I-2 (‘closer alignment’ with the 2021 WHO Air Quality Guidelines 
by 2030) the benefit-to-cost ratio is expected to be slightly lower (between 7.5:1 and 21:1), 
with total gross benefits of EUR 42 billion to EUR 121 billion in 2030, compared to a total cost 
of EUR 5.7 billion a year in 2030 for mitigation measures and related administrative costs. 

The total administrative costs for public authorities are estimated to range from 75 to 106 
million Euro per year in 2030, increasing with the stringency of the scenario, with costs in the 
preferred scenario estimated at 78 million Euro per year. 

(g)  How do the views/preferred courses of action of national, regional and local authorities 

differ across the EU? 

The policy instrument of setting common air quality standards for air pollutants is recognised 
by national, regional and local authorities as a key legislation for reducing air pollution.  

During  the  stakeholder  consultation  national,  regional  and  local  authorities  views  and 
preferred  courses  have  been  gathered.  Representatives  from  public  authorities  largely 
consider that it is “not feasible, for the foreseeable future”  to achieve WHO recommended 
levels for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) of 5 µg/m³ (annual mean) or daily levels of 15 µg/m³. 
Some representatives think that the PM2.5 annual mean level should be set at 10 µg/m³ while 
other representatives favour an annual level of 15 µg/m³ for PM2.5. For the average exposure 
indicator target, respondents from public authorities do not agree on a preferred approach. 
On  PM10  levels,  the  representatives  largely  think  the  WHO  recommended  levels  are  not 
feasible  in  the  foreseeable  future,  and  they  mostly  favour  a  standard  of  20 µg/m³  or 
30 µg/m³  for  annual mean  levels of  PM10.  The majority within  this  group  is  in  favour  of  an 

5 EEA Air Quality in Europe (2020) & https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/percentage-of-urban-
population-in-13 

4 

 
 
 
                                                           
average  exposure  indicator  target  for  PM10  for  both  short  and  long  term.  For  NO2  levels, 
public  authorities  think  that  an  annual  mean  level  of  30  µg/m³  is  the  most  feasible  option 
and  that  the  WHO  recommended  levels  are  only  feasible  with  significant  effort.  The  large 
majority considers that NO2, PM2.5 and PM10 standards should apply throughout the territory 
of  the  EU,  and  that  the  type  of  standard  should  be  a  limit  value.  For  ozone  levels  the 
representatives  think  that  the  most  recent  WHO  recommendation  is  feasible,  without 
additional effort, and the majority is in favour of a level of 100 µg/m³. For all heavy metals 
this  stakeholder  group  thinks  that  the  most  recent  WHO  recommendations  are  feasible 
without  additional  effort.  For  benzo(a)pyrene,  stakeholders  do  not  think  that  the  WHO 
recommendations  are  feasible  for  the  foreseeable  future.  Public  authorities  expressed 
largely  positive  feedback  about  periodically  updating  a  list  of  air  pollutants  of  emerging 
concern,  establishing  additional  short-term  EU  standards  for  PM2.5,  expanding  exposure 
reduction  targets,  establishing  an  agreed  methodology  for  addressing  transboundary  air 
pollution,  and obliging  Member  States  to  provide  specific  health  information  to the  public. 
Policy  measures  that  public  authorities  tended to  disagree  with  were  the  introduction of  a 
mechanism  to  adjust  air  quality  standards  based  on  technical  progress,  of  an  obligation  to 
introduce short-term action plans for each pollutant and of a requirement for Member States 
to  harmonise  air  quality  plans.  Public  authorities  were  largely  in  favour  of  introducing 
standardised modelling quality objectives. Other policy measures that found strong support 
among public authorities were monitoring long-term trends via indicative measurements or 
modelling, establishing a protocol if a sampling point needs to be relocated, and measuring 
certain  emerging  air  pollutants  continuously.  Refining  the  minimum  information  for  air 
quality  plans  was  largely  welcomed,  too.  The  policy  measures  that  found  least  support  by 
this  stakeholder  group  were  the  simplification  of  definitions  of  monitoring  stations  and/or 
sampling  points,  and  a  change  of  the  minimum  number  of  sampling  points  per  air  quality 
zone. 

2.4 Based on the answer to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be 

better achieved at Union level by reason of scale or effects of that action (EU added value)? 

The objectives of the proposed action can be better achieved at Union level because of the scale and 
effects of that action.  

(a)  Are there clear benefits from EU level action?  

Air pollution is a transboundary problem requiring collective action across Member States for 
cost-effective  mitigation.  Ambient  air  quality  standards  are  one  component  of  the  Union’s 
overall  strategy  to  combat  air  pollution  that  also  includes  national  air  pollutant  emissions 
commitments  and  various  source-based  emissions  controls.  Together  these  deliver 
protection  across  the  EU  for  all  citizens  in  an  efficient  manner.  The  EU  monitoring  system 
provides  comparable  high-quality  data.  Itis  also  increasingly  being  used  by  third  countries, 
thereby also promoting an international level-playing field. 

(b)  Are there economies of scale? Can the objectives be met more efficiently at EU level (larger 

benefits per unit cost)? Will the functioning of the internal market be improved? 

The substantial cross-border contribution to air pollution means that collective pan-
European action is required if air quality is to be improved in the most economically efficient 
manner.  All Member States are committed to make environmental information available to 
their citizens and the EU’s system for monitoring and reporting enables this to be completed 
in a timely and efficient manner. 

5 

 
 
 
(c)  What are the benefits in replacing different national policies and rules with a more 

homogenous policy approach? 

By  prescribing  minimum  standards  for  air  quality,  the  proposed  Directive  will  continue  to 
impose the same air quality objectives to all Member States with the freedom to go further. 
In this way, it will continue to help create a level playing field between the Member States 
and  contribute  to  the  reduction  of  transboundary  air  pollution  by  addressing  pollution 
sources  that  usually  have  both  local  and  transboundary  impact.  The  current  Ambient  Air 
Quality Directives have contributed to the decrease of concentrations of most air pollutants 
over the past decade.  

(d)  Do the benefits of EU-level action outweigh the loss of competence of the Member States 
and the local and regional authorities (beyond the costs and benefits of acting at national, 
regional and local levels)? 

Action at EU-level is necessary to further reduce air pollution cost-effectively, with a view to 
reducing negative impacts on health and environment across the Union.  

(e)  Will there be improved legal clarity for those having to implement the legislation? 

Yes,  the  proposal  contains  multiple  improvements  and  clarifications  of  the  current  legal 
provisions,  and  merges  requirements  of  the  existing  two  Directives 
into  one.  The 
corresponding  changes  aim  to  improve  overall  EU  legislation  for  clean  air,  building  on  the 
lessons  learnt  from  the  2019  evaluation  (‘fitness  check’)  of  the  Ambient  Air  Quality 
Directives. 

3.  Proportionality: How the EU should act 

3.1  Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the 

Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the proportionality of the 
proposal and a statement allowing appraisal of the compliance of the proposal with the 
principle of proportionality? 

The principle of proportionality requires EU action to be  limited in its content and form to what is 
necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties it intends to implement. It is important to match 
the  nature  and  intensity  of  a  given  measure  to  the  identified  problem.  The  principle  of 
proportionality is considered throughout the impact assessment and is addressed in particular when 
comparing the different policy options and presenting a preferred package of options. 

3.2 Based on the answers to the questions below and information available from any impact 
assessment, the explanatory memorandum or other sources, is the proposed action an 
appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives? 

The proposed action constitutes an appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives. 

(a)  Is the initiative limited to those aspects that Member States cannot achieve satisfactorily on 

their own, and where the Union can do better? 

The initiative is limited to those aspects that Member States cannot achieve satisfactorily on 
their  own,  and  where  the  Union  can  do  better.  The  objectives  of  this  initiative  cannot  be 
sufficiently achieved at Member State level alone. This is due, mainly to the transboundary 
nature  of  air  pollution:  atmospheric  modelling  and  measurements  of  air  pollution 
demonstrate  beyond doubt  that the  pollution emitted in one Member State contributes to 

6 

 
 
measured pollution in other Member States. 

(b)  Is the form of Union action (choice of instrument) justified, as simple as possible, and 

coherent with the satisfactory achievement of, and ensuring compliance with the objectives 
pursued (e.g. choice between regulation, (framework) directive, recommendation, or 
alternative regulatory methods such as co-legislation, etc.)? 

Yes,  the  choice  of  instrument  is  justified  as  simple  as  possible,  and  coherent  with  the 
satisfactory  achievement  of,  and  ensuring  compliance  with  the  objectives  pursued.  The 
proposed instrument remains a Directive that sets EU-wide air quality standards and defines 
common  requirements  on  air  quality  assessment  but  leaves  the  choice  of  measures  to 
achieve air quality standards to the Member States. This gives Member States the possibility 
to adapt measures to national, regional and local circumstances. 

(c)  Does the Union action leave as much scope for national decision as possible while achieving 
satisfactorily the objectives set? (e.g. is it possible to limit the European action to minimum 
standards or use a less stringent policy instrument or approach?) 

The Union is leaving the choice of measures for compliance to the Member States, who can 
adjust these measures to different national, regional and local circumstances, i.e. taking into 
account the diversity and specificity of situations across the EU.  

(d)  Does the initiative create financial or administrative cost for the Union, national 

governments, regional or local authorities, economic operators or citizens? Are these costs 
commensurate with the objective to be achieved? 

The total administrative costs are estimated to range from 75 to 106 million Euro per year in 
2030,  increasing  with  the  stringency  of  the  scenario,  with  costs  in  the  preferred  scenario 
estimated at 78 million Euro per year.  

Overall,  the  main  benefits  are  expected  to  come  in  the  form  of  reduced  mortality  and 
morbidity, reduced healthcare expenditure, reduced ozone-related crop yield losses, reduced 
absence from work due to illness and increased productivity at work. The impact assessment 
shows that benefits for society far outweigh the costs. Policy option I-3 (‘partial alignment’ 
with  the  2021  WHO  Air  Quality  Guidelines  by  2030)  has  the  highest  benefit-to-cost  ratio 
(between 10:1 and 28:1).  

Most air quality sampling points in the EU might be expected to meet the corresponding air 
quality  standards  with  little  additional  effort.  The  net  benefits  amount  to  more  than 
29 billion  EUR.  For  policy  option  I-2  (‘closer  alignment’  with  the  2021  WHO  Air  Quality 
Guidelines by 2030) the benefit-to-cost ratio is expected to be slightly lower (between 7.5:1 
and 21:1), with total gross benefits of EUR 42 billion to EUR 121 billion in 2030, compared to 
a  total  cost  of  EUR  5.7  billion  a  year  in  2030  for  mitigation  measures  and  related 
administrative  costs.  Some  6%  of  sampling  points  would  not  be  expected  to  meet  the 
corresponding air quality standards without additional effort at local level (or may need time 
extensions or exceptions).  

The net benefits amount to more than 36 billion EUR, i.e. 25% more than policy option I-3. 
Under policy option I-1 (‘full alignment’ with the 2021 WHO Air Quality Guidelines by 2030) 
the benefit-to-cost ratio also remains significantly positive (between 6:1 and 18:1). However, 
71%  of  sampling  points  would  not  be  expected  to  meet  the  corresponding  air  quality 
standards without additional effort at local level (and in many of these instances would not 
be  able  to  meet  these  standards  at  all  with  technical  feasible  reductions  only).  The  net 
benefits amount to more than 38 billion EUR, i.e. 5% more than policy option I-2. The annual 

7 

 
 
costs and benefits have been calculated for 2030 as a central estimate, since this is the year 
in  which  the  majority  of  new  air  quality  standards would  need  to  be  achieved for  the first 
time. Costs would already arise in preceding years to ensure the new standards were met in 
2030, but after 2030 they are likely to decrease as one-off investments necessary to achieve 
the targets will have been made already. 

(e)  While respecting the Union law, have special circumstances applying in individual Member 

States been taken into account? 

The Union is leaving the choice of measures for compliance to the Member States, who can 
adjust these measures to different national, regional and local circumstances, i.e. taking into 
account the diversity and specificity of situations across the EU. The proposed Directive also 
contains  provisions  on  time  extensions,  enabling  under  certain  conditions  the  taking  into 
account of special circumstances applying in individual Member States, while respecting the 
Union law.  

8