Download `Air pollution in Europe at the start of 2013`, Ms

JMC speech at EEB event of 8th January 2013
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
EEB speech
Air pollution in Europe at the start of 2013
Tuesday 8 January 2013 – 10h00-12h00
Professor Jacqueline McGlade
Conference details
This speech will be part of the European Environmental Bureau’s day-long event “Clean air
everywhere – Blowing the winds of change into European air policy”. The event is being co-hosted
by the EEB and the ‘Soot Free for the Climate’ campaign.
JMcG will be speaking in the first panel of the day. There are two other panels that day. The morning
session will end at 12h00 and be followed by lunch and the awards for the ImaginAIR photo
competition
9h30 – 9h40 Welcome speech Jeremy Wates, EEB Secretary General
09:40 – 10:00 Keynote speech Janez Potočnik, EU Environment Commissioner
10:00 – 12:00 Panel 1: Cutting air pollution at the source as the most effective remedy to poor air
quality: What remains to be done in 2013
Chair Kathleen Van Brempt MEP
Introduction Prof. Jacqueline McGlade, Executive Director, EEA: ‘Air pollution in Europe at the start
of 2013’.
Delphine Batho, Environment Minister, France: ‘How can EU source policy help Member States to
clean up their air’.
Christer Agren, Director, Air Pollution and Climate Secretariat: ‘Cutting air pollution at the source:
what remains to be done’.
Discussion: All three speakers plus :
Holger Krahmer MEP (ALDE, DE) (tbc)
Satu Hassi MEP (Greens, FI)
Hartmut Bäumer, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (tbc)
Jos Dings, Director, Transport and Environment
12:00 – 13:00 Lunch and photo story award ceremony.
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
Page 1 of 6
JMC speech at EEB event of 8th January 2013
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
Introduction (slides 2)

Every day in Europe, human lives are being cut short by air pollution. Many of those lives
that are not cut short are diminished in other ways as the effects of chronic respiratory
disease make life miserable for millions. Children and older people – our most vulnerable
citizens – bear the brunt. To these direct health effects, we must add the damage inflicted
on our environment. Air pollution acidifies and eutrophies the ecosystems we rely on for
food and water, while also reducing crop yields and eroding biodiversity. (slide 2)

Air pollution imposes real and measurable costs on us and our economy. We must
remember that air quality legislation is first and foremost about protecting ourselves and the
most vulnerable in our society. (slide 2)

The 6th Environment Action Programme has defined a number of objectives for
improvements in air quality to be achieved by 2020 that target some of the worst effects of
air pollution. These objectives include: a reduction in the loss of life expectancy as a result of
exposure to particulate matter; a reduction in mortalities from exposure to ozone; a
reduction in excess acid deposition in our forests and freshwater areas; and a reduction in
the areas or ecosystems exposed to eutrophication. (slide 2)

Implementing these objectives requires information and a constantly updated knowledge
base. Without accurate and timely information on the state of air quality and emissions, we
will be unable to assess progress. At the EEA we work tirelessly to provide this data to assist
in the implementation process. (slide 2)

So where do we stand in terms of air quality in Europe? (slide 2)
Overview of the current state of European air quality (slides 3 & 4)

The EEA’s 2012 report on air quality shows that although there have been improvements in
air quality on certain pollutants, such as sulphur dioxide and benzene, other pollutants still
present a problem for Europe’s air quality. (slide 3)

The most worrisome of these pollutants is particulate matter. Direct emissions of particulate
matter fell by 14% in the EU in the past decade, and emissions of two of the precursor gases
that can form particulate matter fell by even more. However, there was a far smaller
decrease in emissions of ammonia, the third particulate matter precursor gas. As a result,
there was a very small downward trend in concentrations of particulate matter. We must
remember that emission reductions do not always produce a corresponding drop in
atmospheric concentrations, especially when a single critical emission ingredient, such as
ammonia, is not reduced at the same pace as the others. We know however that there are
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
Page 2 of 6
JMC speech at EEB event of 8th January 2013
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
options to address parts of the problem effectively and in a relatively easy way. For example,
we could easily tackle the release of particulate matter and carcinogenic substances
released from incomplete combustion, such as wood and waste burning. (slide 3)

Ozone is another case where emissions reductions do not appear to have resulted in
decreased concentrations. Emissions of ozone precursor gases have fallen considerably
between 2001 and 2010, but exposure to ozone has not fallen in Europe. 97% of the urban
population is exposed to ozone levels in excess of the WHO guideline. Because ozone
precursor gases can travel long distances, Europe is exposed to intercontinental transport of
gases emitted elsewhere, showing that air pollution is a local, regional and trans-boundary
problem. (slide 3)

The third harmful pollutant we have failed to reduce sufficiently is nitrogen oxide. Nitrogen
oxide emissions have fallen by 26 % in the EU over the past ten years, but this reduction in
emissions has not translated into an improvement in the concentration levels of NO2. This
sluggish movement on NO2 has been primarily attributed to the increase in diesel vehicles
on European roads. While diesel vehicles are more fuel efficient, they emit a higher overall
amount of NO2 than regular vehicles. As a result, NO2 concentrations near traffic stations
have only fallen by 8 %, well below the 27 % reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions from
traffic. 7% of the EU urban population lives in areas where the EU limit value for NO2
concentrations was breached in 2010. (slide 4)

Transport is a particularly important contributor to Europe’s air pollution problem, especially
in cities. The EEA’s TERM Report 2012 highlighted a particular problem caused by the
discrepancy between the emissions of nitrogen oxides in test cycles and the emissions of
nitrogen oxide in real-world driving conditions. Tests performed by the JRC show that some
diesel vehicles exceed the nitrogen oxide emission limits by a factor of 2–4 in real world
driving. (slide 4)
Lessons for the knowledge base from the NEC Directive report
(slides 5-6)

Our monitoring of air emissions show that there is still a lot of work to do in terms of hitting
our agreed emissions targets. Over the past decade, the National Emissions Ceiling Directive
has formed the cornerstone of the EU’s air pollution policies. Late last year, the EEA
produced a report assessing progress under the NEC Directive. We know that 12 Member
States failed to keep their emissions below their agreed ceilings. (slide 5)

However, an even more interesting feature of the report is the extent to which it made use
of the improvements in science. Scientific knowledge developed significantly in the ten years
since the NEC Directive was agreed. For example, we know more now about the level of
emissions than we did in the year 2000. We also have improved models for dispersion of air
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
Page 3 of 6
JMC speech at EEB event of 8th January 2013
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
pollution and greater granularity of data. As a result, we were able to compile two different
assessments, one using the science available from a decade ago and one using the most upto-date science. (slide 5)

The results are striking. Using the old science, objectives on acidification loads appear to
have been met in many cases. However, using the most up-to-date science, these objectives
appear not to have been met in many cases. The ‘original’ science also indicated that areas
exposed to eutrophication were reduced by more than a third in the EU 15 over the past ten
years. However, applying the most recent science, the reduction is far smaller. (slide 5)

This twin track approach shows that earlier scientific knowledge in many cases
underestimated the extent of pollution loads. This is an excellent example of how
improvements in the knowledge base must be integrated into our understanding of
implementation processes. (slide 5)

Science is not static. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper said: “The growth of our
knowledge is the result of a process closely resembling what Darwin called 'natural
selection'; that is, the natural selection of hypotheses: our knowledge consists, at every
moment, of those hypotheses which have shown their (comparative) fitness by surviving so
far in their struggle for existence, a competitive struggle which eliminates those hypotheses
which are unfit”. This continuous struggle for better knowledge is at the very heart of
environmental science, making it a dynamic and constantly evolving discipline. We therefore
need a dynamic understanding of implementation to match the evolving nature of the
knowledge base upon which implementation is based. (slide 5)

In 2012, the Commission adopted a Communication on the implementation of
environmental policy, and the main thrust was picked up in the Commission proposal for a
7th Environment Action Plan. The Commission, too, is increasingly emphasising that
compliance promotion is not just a legal process but also requires a problem-solving
approach. It means working with countries to build capacity in the Member States,
mobilising skills and resources, and assessing and comparing the effectiveness of policy.
Improving implementation is about knowing what works and concentrating our resources on
what works. (slide 5)

We are updating our science base and our understanding of policy implementation. But we
must also keep updating our economics. The EEA has been at the forefront of this drive to
improve our economic understanding of the costs of air pollution. Our environmental
externalities report estimated that air pollution from the 10,000 largest polluting facilities in
Europe in 2009 cost citizens between € 102 and €169 billion in terms of damage to human
health and the environment. Half of the total damage cost (between € 51 and €85 billion)
was caused by just 191 facilities. On average, although these facilities are operating in full
accordance with EU legislation, they cost every European citizen between € 200 and €330 in
2009. These are real costs to our citizens and we must continue to integrate new
methodologies from economics to further our understanding of the costs of pollution. (slide
6)
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
Page 4 of 6
JMC speech at EEB event of 8th January 2013

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
Using the most recent information that has now been reported under the European
Pollutant Release and Transfer Register, E-PRTR, we will update our analysis of the external
costs of air pollution this Spring. (slide 6)
The Air Pilot project (slide 7)

The developing knowledge base is presenting ever more clear data on the state of air
pollution and air quality. But the knowledge base is not the only part of our efforts that is
improving. Our understanding of what it takes to achieve successful implementation is also
improving. (slide 7)

One of the ways in which we are strengthening our knowledge about implementation is by
means of collaborative processes where good practice is shared between Member States
such as in the Air Pilot project, jointly implemented by staff from DG Environment and EEA
with invaluable input from across our network. The impetus for the Air Pilot came from
Commissioner Potočnik in June 2011. Mindful of the fact that air quality has
disproportionate effects on urban populations, the EEA together with DG Environment
began looking at how Member States and cities can best be supported in implementing air
quality legislation. (slide 7)

We took the Commissioner’s vision of a common information base, formed of networked
organisations each contributing their unique competencies. And then we began to
implement this vision with our partners. (slide 7)

The Air Pilot includes eight cities: Berlin, Dublin, Madrid, Malmö, Milan, Ploiesti, Prague, and
Vienna. These cities have agreed to share their experiences in five ‘workstream’ areas:
emission inventories; modelling; monitoring networks; trends and management practices;
and, public information. Four more cities have since joined: Paris, Vilnius, Plovdiv and
Antwerp. (slide 7)

Representatives from the Pilot cities have met on several occasions with the EEA and the
Commission to discuss progress on the work streams and to share good practice. These
discussions have highlighted the wide variety of measures being taken to improve air quality,
as well as differences in the intensity and scope of policies enacted. However, they have also
highlighted many commonalities across this diverse group of cities. For example, a common
theme among all the cities is the problems they face in terms of assessing air quality and
attributing air quality to different sources of air pollution. Due to limited assessment
capabilities, it is difficult for many cities to link the anti-pollution measures they take to
trends in air quality concentrations. (slide 7)

The Air Pilot shows the importance of having a dynamic understanding of implementation,
that encompasses not only enforcement, but also capacity building and policy learning in the
Member States. (slide 7)
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
Page 5 of 6
JMC speech at EEB event of 8th January 2013

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
It adds an invaluable ‘bottom up’ insight into the practicalities of improving air quality. It will
add a granular, local-level element to assist the more synoptic review of air quality
legislation this year. (slide 7)
Conclusion (slide 7)

The review of air quality legislation in 2013 offers a tremendous opportunity. I have argued
for the importance of strengthening implementation of our air policy. But we should also be
conscious that improved implementation of air quality legislation will not only have an
impact on air quality. It will also have spill-over effects into the field of climate change
mitigation. Some of the gases that damage health and ecosystems are also greenhouse
gases and come from many of the same sources, such as transport, industrial facilities and
power generation. Reducing emissions to improve air quality can have co-benefits on the
climate. (slide 7)

Equally, EU policies on climate change are also a significant force for the improvement of air
quality in Europe. Policies that reduce emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 may also
have considerable ancillary benefits, reducing emissions of sulphur dioxides, nitrogen oxides
and particulate matter. (slide 7)

This link between climate change mitigation and air quality is particularly evident in the case
of some of the short-lived climate pollutants or SLCPs such as methane and soot, a problem
rightly being highlighted by the ‘Soot Free for the Climate’ campaign. These pollutants have
an intense effect on climate change in the short term, but they also have a pronounced
negative effect on air quality. (slide 7)

The EEA addresses the link between air and climate change in a particular work package on
the atmosphere. Under this work package, we will soon release an analysis looking at air
pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from ships. We are also in the early days of a
discussion with Eurocontrol, an international organisation leading on air traffic management
in Europe that may lead to similar work on air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from
that sector, too. (slide 7)

Air quality, human health, and climate change are all connected. These connections are in
many ways a daunting challenge as it requires responding to complex problems in an
interconnected way. But it is also an incredible opportunity to help address and alleviate
some of the most pressing problems our society and environment faces. The prize for
getting it right is nothing less than the health and well-being of our people and the sustained
flourishing of our environment. It is a prize worth fighting for and one that I look forward to
helping you all achieve. Thank you. (slide 7)
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
Page 6 of 6