Download Presentation

London Calling
Key messages from the 13th IUAPPA
World Clean Air Congress
Richard Mills
Secretary General, NSCA
Director General, IUAPPA
Scope
• Context: key conclusions from the Congress
• Challenges for the further development of the
Air Quality Framework in Europe
• Meeting air quality targets in cities: reviewing
the measures and needs
Context: Old, New and Emerging
Issues
• Air quality is improving, but not fast enough:
 In August 2003, up to 40% of 2045 additional
“heat wave” deaths in the UK were due to poor air
quality (Stedman et al). Many more in mainland
Europe.
 Was 2003 exceptional, or a sign of things to
come?
 Some evidence suggests that 2003 was more
consistent with weather patterns than previous
wet summers.
Context: Old, New and Emerging
Issues
• Health impacts: support for impacts at lower
concentrations
 WHO reports for CAFE:
• Clear health benefits of “going further”, esp. for PM and
Ozone
• NO2 cannot be discounted and needs more research
• NO2 show linear relationship with ultra fine particle
number (Ayers)
 Particle toxicity:
• Traffic generated particles significantly more toxic than
general particle load (Schwartz)
• Some urban particles have a higher oxidative capacity
(I.e. more damaging) than ROFA (Kelly)
Context: Old, New and Emerging
Issues
• Integrated assessment: climate change and
air quality should be moved closer together
 Joel Schwartz – increased “dieselisation” on
climate grounds could prove a “public health
disaster”
 IIASA’s GAINS model work shows significant cost
savings (-ve in some scenarios) when climate
change and air pollution controls are combined
 Need to ensure that CAFE and the NECD reforms
don’t become separated:
• Revision of current ceilings
• Inclusion of particles and other pollutants
Developing the Air Quality
Framework
• Current system has two dominant features:
 Based on limit values;
 Focused on hotspots.
• Two questions:
 Is the system effective in delivering the best
overall health and environmental outcomes for
available resources?
 Is the system robust – will changes be needed to
ensure it can survive and develop?
The Limit Value System: Emerging
Issues
• Limit values the essential basis for any
realistic system, but changes will be needed
to keep the system relevant and effective:




When are limit values appropriate?
Everyone pays, but few benefit?
The conflicting sides of equity
The needs of regulation
The Limit Value System: Emerging
Issues
• When are limit values appropriate as a control
tool:
 Situation: widespread non-compliance (i.e. when
Framework Directive was developed)
• Standards act as a spur to additional national and
international regulation
• Actions to meet standard should benefit society as a
whole
 Situation: widespread compliance (i.e. now)
• Ensure that groups are not exposed to risks considered
significant
• Actions tend to benefit few people
• Little action on exposure below the value
The Limit Value System: Emerging
Issues
• Everyone pays, but few benefit?
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Population exposure above 20 µg
Population exposure from below 20 µg
The Limit Value System: Emerging
Issues
• Equity: conflicting arguments
 Is it fair to leave some exposed to levels of
pollution above the limit values while the overall
exposure is reduced?
 Is it fair that the majority who live in areas below
the limit values receive no additional benefit from
reductions while they wait for the few more
polluted areas to “catch up”?
The Limit Value System: Emerging
Issues
• Criteria for good regulation:
 Equity (distribution of costs and benefits across
stakeholders)
 Efficiency
 Robustness
• Does the current system deliver this?
• Can other systems deliver this?
Some Possible Ways Forward
• Explore supplementary/alternative approaches:
 Gap closure
 Unified risk analysis
 Others?
• Change the compliance test?
 Highly undesirable
 Scrutiny of plans and programmes is the key
• Start review/research process for medium term
change
 System change before thematic strategy clearly impractical…
 …but Commission and Member States must start looking
now at how system will evolve in medium term
Clean Air For Europe: Reducing the
Compliance Gap
• Current situation in cities:
 Common problems (particles, NO2) and common
sources (traffic)
 Many good measures already being pursued…
 …but unlikely to meet limit values
Clean Air For Europe: Reducing the
Compliance Gap
• Some current options – Transport
 Congestion charging: demand management can
work but charging needs to cover wider areas
(London)
 Low emission zones: issues of timing and
implementation (Gothenburg)
 “Intelligent Transport” (Rome)
Clean Air For Europe: Reducing the
Compliance Gap
• Some current options – land use planning and
industry
 Zoning and dispersal of industry – new
approaches
 Planning framework – “material consideration”
 Land use planning agreements (Greenwich)
Clean Air For Europe: Reducing the
Compliance Gap
• Needs now:
 Strong political leadership at local, national and European
level (California)
 Stronger action by member states, particularly incentivising
the uptake of new Euro Standards (IV and V)
 Empowerment by member states to take actions locally,
making tools available
 Integration of local actions and data into national and
international plans
 Information exchange
 Euro standards which reflect urban conditions (doubts about
Euro III performance)
Summary
• Air Quality in Europe needs to refocus on
delivering:
 The best standard of health protection for all
 A robust system for the long term
 Political, technical and financial support for cities
to achieve clean air locally
 full integration vertically (local, national
international) and horizontally (climate change,
economic policy, other policy areas)