Climate and energy transition

Introduction

1. The Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) represents the interests of local and regional authorities federated in 47 national associations from 34 countries. The EU air quality legislation has a considerable impact on local and regional authorities. Even though the directives address the national level, in many member states the implementation responsibility is to a great extent passed through to the regional and local levels. Local and regional authorities have become increasingly aware of the challenges as the legislation's requirements are entering into force.

2. CEMR welcomes the environmental and public health objectives of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution. Air pollution can, in places, cause environmental and public health problems, particularly in urban areas. Local and regional authorities throughout the EU are committed to improve the quality of life of their citizens.

3. Local and regional authorities are already implementing many measures to improve air quality, either as a result of requirements under national and EU legislation, but also on a voluntary basis through their own policies (public transport, transport planning, energy management, clean vehicles etc.).

4. However there are some limitations to what local and regional authorities can achieve on their own in terms of air pollution abatement. Local and regional governments have to pursue other objectives that also contribute to the well-being and needs of citizens, such as economic prosperity, mobility and jobs.

5. Local measures alone are not enough to attain all limit values for air quality. Air quality is a European and a national problem. Exposure to particulate matter must of course be reduced at the local level, but air pollution has a strong transboundary dimension too. Improving air quality requires efforts from all actors. The new European legislation on air quality should be linked to ambitious EU-wide measures. European measures, directed in particular towards transport, are required without any delay.

6. Many times obligations are put on the local and regional levels without a thorough analysis of the implications and costs. Air quality legislation is prepared between the European Commission and national governments, but the implementation is finally the responsibility, to a great extent, of the local and regional authorities. Local and regional authorities need financial help to ensure a proper implementation of these costly requirements and measures.

Implementation / Particulate matters

7. Local and regional authorities throughout the EU are experiencing difficulties implementing the EU air legislation. For instance, there are limits to what local and regional authorities can do to meet the limit values on Particulate Matter 10 (PM-10). Indeed, in many cases the local contribution to the overall PM level is much lower than the background level, that comes from sources up to 500 km away as well as from natural sources.

8. CEMR welcomes the possibility introduced by the draft directive to subtract
natural sources from limit values. This, however, will not solve the whole difficulty for local and regional authorities to reach the targets. For instance, it has been calculated that in Vienna, 60% of the PM pollution is constituted of the regional background, whereas the local contribution accounts for 25% only. This is just one of many examples among many EU cities. Many cities have calculated that even if they managed to significantly cut their PM pollution (e.g. through drastic and costly measures that can have a considerable impact on the economic activity), they would still breach the limit values on the bad days.

 

As an example, in the first half of 2005, Coburg (a German city with 43.000 inhabitants) has already exceeded the PM-10 limit values 12 times. The maximum exceedance has taken place at 3 a.m. one morning at a place which must be regarded as unproblematic with regards to pollution from motorised traffic.

Dutch local authorities are implementing many measures (public transport, low emission zones, diesel filters etc.) : in spite of this, there is no significant immediate improvement of air quality.

9. PM pollution, when excessive, clearly has adverse health effects and therefore needs to be tackled. CEMR welcomes the two steps approach proposed by the European Commission for gradually decreasing PM-2.5 pollution. Nevertheless we would favour the establishment of one limit value only for particulate matters, in order to simplify the requirements and to improve the feasibility of the ambient air directive. It is technically more practical for local authorities to measure one type of particulate matter. Measuring two types would be much more costly. CEMR thinks it would be more efficient to measure the PM type that has the greatest impact on health.

 

10. CEMR believes the priority should be the PM-2,5 limit value, as this value refers to the substances that are most hazardous for public health. Also, the PM-2,5 fraction contains more man-made particular matter; as such it can better be influenced by administrative policies.

11. However, the limit value on PM-10 is already in force. CEMR would thus
like to propose to introduce a revision of the PM provision in 2012. The experience of the existing PM-10 requirement will be evaluated, and it will be decided if the limit value on PM-10 should be replaced by a limit value on PM-2.5. This time will also allow to continue and deepen the research on the impact of PM-10 and PM-2.5 on public health. The results of this research will provide a basis for deciding which type of particulate matter should be more efficient to control.

 

12. If the limit value for PM-10 remains in force after 2012, we would like to propose the replacement of the daily limit value for PM-10 by a yearly limit value.

Measures and funding

13. Because of the clear limitations to what can be done at the local level; given the importance of the regional background level; and in order to ensure a fairer share of the efforts, there is a need for EU-wide source based measures. As examples of such measures, CEMR calls for a fast adoption by the European institutions of stringent Euro standards1 (emission standards for heavy duty vehicles), for EU economic instruments (e.g. fuel taxes), for the introduction of strict emission values on NOx for ships, etc.

14. CEMR welcomes the adoption of the new Euro V standards2 on light vehicles' emissions in December 2005, as announced in the Thematic Strategy. CEMR is satisfied that sport utility vehicles would now be covered by the norms, and that the higher standards would require diesel vehicles to be fitted with particulate filters. CEMR has concerns, however, about the NOx limits3, which are not very stringent. CEMR calls on the EU institutions, in the co-decision procedure, to strengthen the Euro V and to make provisions for their enforcement as soon as possible.

 

15. Measures to decrease air pollution are costly and require specific knowledge for the municipalities and regions. In the first instance it is necessary that the EU does not forbid but support national funding. For example, subsidies for clean motors and retrofit installations (soot filters which were initially not installed in cars) should not be hindered by the EU state aid regime.

Secondly, the directive should include recommendations to national governments as to financially support local and regional authorities for the implementation of ambitious policies, particularly in the most polluted areas that require priority actions.

16. Furthermore, financial funding from the European Union is necessary for measures to improve the air quality. Member states should ensure, in their national strategies, that structural funds are made available for local policies against air pollution, including public transport. Financing should notably target the most polluted areas.

 

17. Improving air quality requires efforts from all actors, not just local and regional authorities. Changes in lifestyles and industrial patterns must be promoted at all levels if we want to substantially decrease air pollution. Local and regional authorities have already been developing numerous initiatives (actions as part of Local Agenda 21 and Aalborg Commitments, public information campaigns, educational actions etc.) aiming to push citizens to adopt more sustainable lifestyles. Producer responsibility is an important principle, that CEMR has always promoted, for the development of cleaner products; it should be further developed as regards the car industry (see also point 26). Furthermore, the EU and national governments should pursue the establishment of a framework that encourages more sustainable consumption and production patterns.

Flexibility

 

18. CEMR welcomes the flexibility introduced by the Ambient Air Directive for what concerns objectives to reduce PM-2.5.

19. Given the current difficulties to reach the PM-10 limit values, in force since the 1st of January 2005, CEMR also welcomes the extension possibility of the deadline for reaching the PM-10 limit values. Nevertheless, we would like the maximum extension to be set at five years after entry into force of this directive and not only until the 31 December 2009 as proposed in the directive proposal.

20. EU air quality legislation should allow to prioritise measures for areas where people are actually endangered. Limit values which are intended to protect peoples' health (such as the particulate matter limit value) should only be applicable in areas where people are exposed for a longer period of time.

 

Non-deterioration

21. The directive proposal puts forward a rather rigid non deterioration principle (article 12) that could risk to be counter-productive. Indeed, it can literally freeze the development of new activities, particularly in areas that suffer from long period of excess of the limit values (in many cases because of the regional background). CEMR proposes an approach that leaves some flexibility inside a zone as long as the air quality objective is maintained for the whole zone.

22. CEMR proposes the introduction, inside a zone or agglomeration in exceedance of pollutants' limit values, of 'sensitive areas" (most populated areas where people are exposed to pollution for longer periods). Actions should focus on curbing pollution in the sensitive areas. For doing so it should be allowed to have pollution variations inside a zone or agglomeration in the case of activity transfer or development.

23. This method will ensure that it is still possible to build new infrastructures that can allow to reduce exposure to air pollutants in most populated areas (fo