Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air'
10. 7. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 214/1 II (Preparatory Acts) ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air’ (1) (98/C 214/01) On 12 December 1997 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 130s of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal. The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 31 March 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Boisserée. At its 354th plenary session (meeting of 29 April 1998), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 104 votes in favour and two votes against, with three abstentions. 1. Introduction The fifth Environment Action Programme, 1. 1. adopted by the Council on 1 February 1993, provides for Community legislation on measures to combat air pollution, including air quality limits and their monitoring. The response to this was Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management (2) (the Air Quality Frame- work Directive). Article 4 of this Directive calls on the Commission to propose limit values and alert thresholds for certain air pollutants. The Commission has fulfilled this mandate by 1. 2. submitting a draft directive on limit values for: — sulphur dioxide; — oxides of nitrogen; — particulate matter; — lead. (1) OJ C 9, 14. 1. 1998, p. 6. (2) OJ L 296, 21. 11. 1996. 1. 3. Similar proposals covering the other air pol- lutants referred to in the Framework Directive 96/62/EC are expected in the near future. 2. Gist of the Commission proposal 2. 1. The draft directive amends existing Community legislation on air quality limit values and alert thresholds for SO2, NOx, particulate matter and lead. The proposed provisions are supported by scien- 2. 2. tific and technical findings concerning — the effects of all these pollutants on human health; — the effects on vegetation of SO2 and NOx. The limit values proposed by the Commission are based on the internationally agreed 1996 guide values of the World Health Organization (WHO) which, in turn, are based on an assessment of the effects of pollutants on human health. The WHO has not established any guide values in the case of particulate matter; it merely demonstrates the relationship between exposure and effect, and this has been taken into account in the Commission proposal. C 214/2 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 7. 98 All in all, the Commission wishes to achieve a high level of protection. The proposed limit values are to be met by 2005 2. 3. or 2010. The table in point 2. 6 of this opinion shows the individual limit values in comparison to the current regulations. working groups, which included representatives from the Member States, industry and environmental organ- izations. An independent team of consultants drew up a cost/bene- fit study to determine what additional action would be needed in order to meet proposed limit values and to estimate the cost of such action using cost effective solutions. This is set against the benefits likely to accrue if the limit values were met. 2. 4. The Commission’s proposed limit values for each type of pollutant were drawn up on the basis of consultations and expert opinions from four different 2. 5. Lastly, the proposal contains rules concerning the method of measurement and the structure of monitoring networks. 2. 6. Table showing limit values for SO2, NOx, particulate matter and lead in the air Limit value type Reference time Current limit value Proposed new limit value and timetable Comments SO2 — human health 1 hour — 24 hours 250-350 íg/m3, (not to be exceeded more than 7 times per year) 350 íg/m3 (not to be exceeded for more than 24 hours per year) 125 íg/m3 (not to be exceeded for more than 3 days per year) both from 1. 1. 2005 SO2 — vegetation (Ecosystems) Annual average — 20 íg/m3 2 years after the directive comes into force NO2 — human health 1 hour 200 íg/m3 (not to be exceeded for more than 175 hours per year) 200 íg/m3 (not to be exceeded for more than 8 hours per year) If the new limit value could be exceeded for 175 hours as before, this would be roughly to 100 íg/m3. equivalent Annual average — NOx (NO + NO2 = NOx) vegetation Annual average — 40 íg/m3 both from 1. 1. 2010 30 íg/m3, NOx (NO + NO2) 2 years after the directive comes into force Particulate matter (PM10) human health Stage 1 from 2005 24 hours as No comparison pos- sible, a different method of measurement has been used so far Annual average — Particulate matter (PM10) human health Stage 2 from 2010 24 hours as No comparison pos- sible, a different method of measurement has been used so far Annual average — Lead — human health Annual average 2 íg/m3 (not 50 íg/m3 exceeded for more than 25 days per year) to be These are uniform limit values for all particulate matter of up to 10 ím in size. 30íg/m3 both from 1. 1. 2005 (not 50 íg/m3 exceeded for more than 7 days per year) to be These are uniform limit values for all particulate matter of up to 10 ím in size. 20 íg/m3 both from 1. 1. 2010 0,5 íg/m3 from 1. 1. 2005 10. 7. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 214/3 3. General comments The ESC agrees in principle with the proposed 3. 1. directive, subject to the following observations. 3. 1. 1. The Commission proposal is to be seen as part of the overall approach on the environment (and particularly clean air policy) in which limit values for environmental quality (air quality) and emission reductions complement one another. This ‘twin strategy’ has been favourably received by the ESC on a number of occasions (e. g. opinion on the IPPC directive) (1). 3. 1. 2. The Commission proposal should also be seen in conjunction with other measures to improve the quality of the environment, such as the Community strategy to combat acidification (2). 3. 2. The procedure used in preparing the scientific and technical groundwork for the Commission proposal is to be welcomed. The use of working groups made up of experts from all interested parties proved to be very successful. This procedure could also serve as a model for the drafting of similar Community provisions, with the experts and NGOs involved varying according to the object of the provisions. 3. 3. The cost-benefit analysis presented in the Com- mission’s explanatory memorandum is not yet satisfac- tory. In particular, the definition and assessment of the benefits (i. e. damage prevention or damage reduction to be achieved from observing the limit values) is incomplete: — only part of the damage to human health attributable to air pollution is taken into account. The evaluation of damage to human health in monetary terms is also problematic; — material damage (e. g. corrosion) is not quantified in all cases even though relatively good data are available; — on the subject of ecosystems, only damage to vegetation is accounted for although ‘ecosystems’ are mentioned in connection with the limit values. There are no data or evaluation criteria for recording damage to the ecosystem as a whole; — lastly, there is no consideration given to deterioration in ‘the quality of life’ (including any deterioration caused by nuisance or annoyance), although it is difficult to produce quantifying data on this point. According to the Commission study, the benefits of implementing the proposed directive are expected to (1) Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on integrated pollution prevention and control: OJ C 195, 18. 7. 1994. (2) Commission Communication of 12. 3. 1997 — COM(97) 88 final. Cf. also ESC opinion of 1. 10. 1997 — OJ C 355, 21. 11. 1997. outweigh the costs. This is true even bearing in mind that it was impossible to make a complete evaluation of the costs involved in implementing the proposed measures; the same applies to a far greater degree to the establishment and evaluation of the benefits to be achieved. In this connection, the ESC would reiterate the view expressed on previous occasions [cf. opinions on the 4th and 5th environmental action programmes (3)], namely that the tools for drawing up comprehensible cost-benefit analyses on which a consensus can be reached are not yet available. The ESC has repeatedly called for appropriate evaluation methods to be drawn up [most recently in its opinion on the review of the 5th action programme (4)]. 3. 4. The ESC feels it is impossible to expect 100 % certainty in the technical justification for decisions on environment policy. In cases of doubt recourse should be had to the environment policy principles enshrined in the EC Treaty, especially the high level of protection and the precautionary principle advocated in Article 130r (2) [cf. the ESC opinion on the review of the 5th action programme (4)]. 3. 5. The said Treaty provisions refer to Community- level regulations. The powers of the Member States to introduce more stringent protective measures under Article 130t of the EC Treaty can be no substitute for adequate precautionary and protective measures at Community level, especially since air pollution knows no national boundaries. It is therefore essential to lay down Community-level limit values in the directive, in accordance with Article 130r(2) of the EC Treaty, which ensure a high level of protection. 3. 6. The ESC welcomes the fact that Article 1 of the draft directive states the twofold objective of maintaining air quality where it is good, as well as improving it. This should prevent a deterioration in conditions even in cases where the air quality readings are below the limit values. The ESC welcomes the fact that human health 3. 7. takes priority in the definition of what is to be protected, and that some of the limit values also refer to the protection of vegetation. When the Commission refers in places to ‘the protection of ecosystems’, this clearly means vegetation. When setting the limit values no account is taken of material damage through air pollution even though it has already been well documented in some Member States and can have considerable economic implications. (3) OJ C 180, 8. 7. 1987 and OJ C 287, 4. 11. 1992. (4) OJ C 212, 22. 7. 1996. C 214/4 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 7. 98 3. 8. Establishing the limit values on the basis of the work done by the WHO follows the line taken in the 5th action programme and specifically in the ESC opinion (1). The WHO values are agreed internationally; they are recommendations which should not be exceeded if damage to human health is to be prevented. 4. Comments on individual provisions 4. 1. Limit values in detail 4. 1. 1. L i m i t v a l u e s f o r S O 2 The Commission’s proposal to transpose the 3. 8. 1. WHO recommendations into Community law in line with the framework directive is endorsed by the ESC for the following reasons: — Transposition into Community law is consistent with the EU’s basic thinking on environment policy, which the ESC has repeatedly endorsed (see point 3. 1. 1 of this opinion). — The Member States can only be obliged to take a uniform approach under comparable conditions if the WHO recommendations are adopted as legally- binding standards; this will harmonize the level of protection afforded by the measures taken to protect health and the environment in line with the precepts of the EC Treaty. — Only legal provisions can form a basis for adminis- trative decisions according to Article 10 of the directive concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (2). The provisions on limit values for pollutants 3. 8. 2. in ambient air are to serve as a basis for improvement plans within the meaning of Article 8 of the framework directive. This article requires the Member States to draw up (a) a list of zones and agglomerations in which the levels of one or more pollutants are higher than the limit value plus the margin of tolerance, and (b) an improvement plan for such areas to ensure that the limit value can be attained within the specific time limit. The ESC assumes that such improvement plans can also be implemented by way of an environmental agreement (3). 3. 9. As regards the limit values to protect vegetation, a distinction is rightly made between agglomerations and other areas. But the Commission proposal does not provide a clear delineation. Under the subsidiarity principle, the Member States have responsibility for fleshing this out, but it is doubtful whether this will be adequate. The ESC suggests drawing up recommen- dations for the Member States. The fact that the new limit values are to be 3. 10. phased in over time should be seen as a compromise. For some areas, consideration should be given to whether the grace periods allowed are appropriate. (1) See point 5. 3 of the ESC opinion on the 5th Action Programme — OJ C 287, 4. 11. 1992. (2) Directive 96/61/EC of 24 9. 1996 — OJ L 257, p. 26. (3) Commission communication of 27. 11. 1996 (COM(96) 561 final). The ESC would ask that consideration be given to whether the limit values should be made more stringent: — The values aimed at protecting human health are to significantly reduce health risks, insufficient especially in agglomerations. — Limit values as proposed by the ESC for protection against material damage (e. g. corrosion, damage to outside paintwork etc. ), which refer to SO2 and particulate matter, would in some cases be more stringent than those for the protection of human health, making a cost-benefit evaluation particularly important. 4. 1. 2. L i m i t v a l u e s f o r N O 2 For health and economic reasons, the ESC would ask that consideration be given to whether these values, which serve to protect human health, could not come into effect in 2005 along with the values for other pollutants, rather than in 2010 as provided for in the draft directive. 4. 1. 3. L i m i t v a l u e s f o r p a r t i c u l a t e m a t t e r — The ESC feels it is correct to apply the limit values to particles with a diameter of up to 10ím in the first instance and to indicate only ‘action levels’ for smaller particles (2. 5 ím), as no Europe-wide measurements are yet available for smaller particles. These reference variables should be revised once more refined measuring techniques are available, providing data for urban, industrial and rural areas. The Commission should report on this no later than two years after the directive has come into force. This aspect is particularly important as WHO and American studies show that smaller particles are an especially serious health risk. — The time periods for implementation of the limit values and for frequency distribution also need to be reviewed. In some Member States, the values envisaged for 2010 in the draft directive will already apply in 2005. — The lack of limit values for material damage (with a possible differentiation between agglomerations and other areas) is of particular concern in the case of particulate matter, especially as SO2 and particles have a cumulative effect and the limit values for human health do not entirely rule out material damage. — Guide values based on empirical and scientific findings, or recommendations for appropriate pro- tection measures, should be drawn up which the Member States could implement to protect historic city centres, buildings or monuments forming part of the European, national or regional cultural heritage. 10. 7. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 214/5 4. 1. 4. L i m i t v a l u e s f o r l e a d The Commission’s proposals should be seen as just a first step towards protecting human health; Article 10 rightly provides for a review of the effect of lead depositions on surfaces for the progress report due in 2003. Such depositions could damage human health via the food chain. 4. 2. Other provisions in the draft directive Under Article 7(6) of the draft in conjunction 4. 2. 1. with Article 12 of the framework directive, the technical details concerning measurement and sampling are to be adapted to progress by the Commission using the so-called comitology procedure. But according to the second sentence of Article 12(1) of the framework directive, amendments which result in a direct or indirect modification of limit values or alarm thresholds must be dealt with under the normal legislative procedure. This will be the case for amendments to Annexes VI and VII of the draft insofar as they have a direct bearing on the limit values. 4. 2. 2. Article 8 of the draft requires the Member States to inform the public; the ESC is particularly pleased to see that environmental organizations, con- sumer associations and other relevant bodies are to be involved in this process. The information should be provided in a generally understandable form. Naturally, this does not affect the rights of everyone to information Brussels, 29 April 1998. under Directive 90/313/EEC on the freedom of access to information on the environment. (1) 5. Concluding remarks 5. 1. The Commission proposal contains limit values for only a few pollutants; the ESC would suggest that work on drawing up limit values for the other substances included in the programme of the framework directive be completed soon and the relevant draft directives submitted. When extending the directive as regards limit values for pollutants, the provisions concerning alarm thresholds should also be extended, because at this stage the thresholds refer only to SO2. 5. 2. Conformity with EU air quality values will be a challenge for new states coming into the Union. The adoption of air quality limit values — if necessary over a certain period of time — should be included in accession negotiations at an early stage. 5. 3. The progress reports to be presented by the Commission (Article 10 of the draft), which the European Environment Agency will also be involved in drafting (Article 11(3) of the framework directive), should also be submitted to the ESC. Consideration could be given to combining the progress report with proposals for revision or expansion of the directive. This is the procedure used with other environment policy legislation. (1) OJ L 158, 23. 6. 1990. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS