Debate: Ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe
Date: TUESDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2023
Speaker: Virginijus Sinkevičius
Language: EN

First of all, I would like to stress again what I have said during my introduction. Proposed standards: they are both realistic and implementable and we assessed that we could not align, unfortunately, to WHO standards for 2030, but only setting a trajectory for revision close to 2028. But standards should apply as of 2030 and we cannot lose more time. Secondly, as regards the air pollution improving: so, yes, it’s true, and those graphs that were shown. But it’s still a long journey for us ahead. We have managed to improve air quality. From 1 000 000 premature citizen deaths to 300 000 premature citizen deaths per year. So it’s 300 000 citizens too many every year. And I think this is our direct responsibility to take responsible decisions to ensure that this number is minimised. As regards the funding, especially with the Member States that have the worst air quality, overall, EUR 147 billion will be available for clean air directly or indirectly in the current funding period for 2021 and 2027. And this can be used, for instance, for cleaner energy, sustainable transport or air quality monitoring. And it’s more than three times as much as what was available in the previous funding period. So to make sure we cover the needs across the Member States and sector, this involves a number of EU funding programmes and, of course, I hope that Member States will put a high priority and use those funds. Now, as regards unachievable solutions to knock out the Alps. You don’t need to knock out the Alps. It’s true, our impact assessment recognises that without significant and additional local effort, only 6% of monitoring stations would be at risk of not meeting the proposed air quality standards by 2030. One example is northern Italy, where specific meteorological and orographic circumstances lead to reduced dispersion and thus accumulation of air pollution and this is aggravated by elevated emission levels from residential heating, including biomass burning as well as agricultural emissions across the Po valley. So that is precisely why our proposal already provides for the possibility to postpone the attainment of deadlines in specific situations under specific conditions. Yet we should not hold back the ambition level across the whole European Union to cater for a limited number of exceptions – exceptions that always come at a price for those that are exposed to poor air quality and who are very often the most vulnerable groups of the population. Now, also, I hear the calls of those who said ‘Why are we not aligning fully to WHO guideline levels?’ – I truly wish to do so, but as I said, you know, we have to be bound by our impact assessment and put on the table the proposal that is realistic to implement across the Member States. With this proposal, we revise air quality standards in two steps. First of all, we set intermediate 2030 EU air quality standards more closely aligned with WHO recommendations, which fully take into account technical feasibility and socioeconomic considerations. We set a clear trajectory for reaching a zero pollution objective, fully aligned with science, at the latest by 2050 through a regular review mechanism. This will allow us to move to full alignment with WHO recommendations as soon as new technology and policy developments allow us. And the first review will already take place in 2028 to prepare the post 2030 framework. Honourable Members, dear colleagues, I truly count on your support for the overall approach of our proposal. It’s reassuring to hear from you, first of all, willingness to keep the ambition of our proposal. The Commission stands ready to assist you through the negotiations process. I think what’s extremely important to remember is that this debate shows that we agree on the core objective of protecting citizens. But there are different views in terms of timing and ambition. I can reassure you, and I hope I’ve managed to do that in my answers, that the Commission’s position is, first of all, to be realistic of what’s possible to implement in upcoming years. So let’s remember that tomorrow’s vote is not the end. The most important part, of course, is going to come in the trilogues. The Commission stands ready to assist you throughout the process. And let me now call on you to ensure that we set a clear path towards a productive and conclusive discussion in the trilogues. I’m sure this is an issue where all of us want to reach an agreement before the next European Parliament elections, and I truly hope that we can swiftly agree to further improve this directive in the interests, first of all, of our citizens, for our environment and for our economy.