Air pollution: Our health still insufficiently protected

Executive summary

Air pollution is the biggest environmental risk to health in the European Union

I

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), air pollution is the biggest environmental risk to health in the European Union (EU). Each year in the EU, it causes about 400 000 premature deaths, and hundreds of billions of euro in health related external costs. People in urban areas are particularly exposed. Particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and ground level ozone are the air pollutants responsible for most of these early deaths.

II

The 2008 Ambient Air Quality Directive is the cornerstone of the EU’s clean air policy, as it sets air quality standards for the concentrations of pollutants in the air we breathe. In recent decades, EU policies have contributed to emission reductions, but air quality has not improved at the same rate and there are still considerable impacts on public health.

What we audited:

III

In this audit, we assessed whether EU actions to protect human health from air pollution have been effective. To do this, we examined whether (i) the AAQ Directive was well designed to tackle the health impact of air pollution; (ii) Member States’ effectively implemented the Directive; (iii) the Commission monitored and enforced implementation of the Directive; (iv) air quality was adequately reflected in other EU policies and adequately supported by EU funds; and (v) the public has been well informed on air quality matters.

IV

We concluded that EU action to protect human health from air pollution had not delivered the expected impact. The significant human and economic costs have not yet been reflected in adequate action across the EU.

1. The EU’s air quality standards were set almost twenty years ago and some of them are much weaker than WHO guidelines and the level suggested by the latest scientific evidence on human health impacts.
2. While air quality has been improving, most Member States still do not comply with the EU’s air quality standards and were not taking enough effective action to sufficiently improve air quality. Air pollution can be underestimated as it might not be monitored in the right places. Air Quality Plans – a key requirement of the Ambient Air Quality Directive – often did not deliver expected results.
3. The Commission faces limitations in monitoring Member States’ performance. Subsequent enforcement by the Commission could not ensure that Member States complied with the air quality limits set by the Ambient Air Quality Directive. Despite the Commission taking legal action against many Member States and achieving favourable rulings, Member States continue to frequently breach air quality limits.
4. Many EU policies have an impact on air quality, but, given the significant human and economic costs, we consider that some EU policies do not yet sufficiently well reflect the importance of improving air quality. Climate and energy, transport, industry, and agriculture are EU polices with a direct impact on air quality, and choices made to implement them can be detrimental to clean air. We noted that direct EU funding for air quality can provide useful support, but funded projects were not always sufficiently well targeted. We also saw some good projects – particularly some projects supported by the LIFE programme.
5. Public awareness and information has a critical role in addressing air pollution, a pressing public health issue. Recently, citizens have been getting more involved in air quality issues and have gone to national Courts, which have ruled in favour of their right to clean air in several Member States. Yet, we found that the Ambient Air Quality Directive protects citizens’ rights to access to justice less explicitly than some other environmental Directives. The information made available to citizens on air quality was sometimes unclear.

What we recommend:

V

Our report makes recommendations to the Commission aimed at improving air quality. Our recommendations cover more effective actions which should be taken by the Commission; the update of the Ambient Air Quality Directive; the prioritisation and mainstreaming of air quality policy into other EU policies; and the improvement of public awareness and information.

Introduction

Why air pollution matters

01

Air pollution occurs when gases, dust particles and smoke are released into the atmosphere, making it harmful to humans, infrastructure and the environment. The World Health Organization (WHO) classifies air pollution as the biggest environmental risk to health in Europe¹. In the EU, air pollution causes more than 1 000 premature deaths on average each day, which is more than 10 times the number killed by road accidents². Figure 1 shows that lost years of healthy life in some EU Member States are similar to countries often associated with poor quality air, such as China and India. In 2013, the EU Commission estimated the total health related external costs of air pollution at between €330 and €940 billion per year³.

People in cities are the most affected

02

According to the EEA, in 2015, around one-quarter of Europeans living in urban areas were exposed to air pollutant levels exceeding some EU air quality standards and up to 96 % of EU citizens living in urban areas were exposed to levels of air pollutants considered by the WHO as damaging to health⁴. Air pollution tends to affect city dwellers more than inhabitants of rural areas because the density of people living in cities means that air pollutants are released on a larger scale (for example, from road transport) and because dispersion is more difficult in cities than in the countryside.

What shortens people’s lives and how?

03

The WHO identifies Particulate Matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), sulphur dioxide (SO₂) and ground-level ozone (O₃) as the air pollutants that are most harmful to human health (see Box 1)⁵. The EEA reported that, in 2014, fine particles (PM_2.5) caused about 400 000 premature deaths of EU citizens; NO₂ caused 75 000 and O₃ caused 13 600⁶. The EEA warns that air pollution affects people on a daily basis, and that while pollution peaks are its most visible effect, long-term exposure to lower doses poses a greater threat to human health⁷.

04

According to the WHO, heart disease and stroke cause 80 % of premature deaths due to air pollution. Lung diseases including cancer, and other diseases follow¹⁰. Figure 2 summarises the main health impacts of the four air pollutants mentioned above.

05

Box 2 explains what factors affect the levels of air pollution and Figure 3 shows the percentages of the air pollutants emissions from each source in the EU.

What has the EU been doing?

06

The EU tackles air pollution by setting (a) concentration limit values of pollutants for the air that people breathe, and (b) standards on pollutants’ emission sources.

07

In 1980, Directive 80/779/EC first established EU limits for SO₂ concentrations. Other Directives have followed, covering more air pollutants and updating their limit values¹². The 2008 Ambient Air Quality Directive (AAQ Directive)¹³ sets air quality standards (including limit values) for the concentrations of air pollutants with the biggest health impacts (see paragraph 18). It focuses on improving citizens’ health through better quality of the air that people breathe.

08

The AAQ Directive requires that Member States define air quality zones within their territory. Member States carry out preliminary air quality assessments in each zone and set networks of fixed measuring stations in polluted areas. The Directive contains criteria both for the location and for the minimum number of sampling points (see paragraph 32)¹⁴.

09

Member States collect data from their networks and report this to the Commission and the EEA each year (see Box 3). The Commission assesses these data against the EU standards¹⁵ of the AAQ Directive. Where concentrations exceed the standards, Member States must produce Air Quality Plans (AQPs) that tackle the problem as soon as possible. The Commission assesses these plans and takes legal action where it considers that Member States fail to comply with the Directive. The Directive imposes public information obligations on the Member States, including alert and information thresholds.

10

In addition to setting concentration limits, the EU has legislated to reduce air pollutant emissions from several sectors¹⁶.

11

The EEA points out that in recent decades European Directives (see Annex I) and Regulations (such as those leading to fuel switching or abatement of inefficient equipment) have contributed to reductions in air pollutant emissions. Between 1990 and 2015, SO_X emissions in the EU decreased by 89 % and NO_X emissions by 56 %. Since 2000, PM_2.5 emissions have decreased by 26 %¹⁷ as shown in Figure 4.

12

According to the WHO and the EEA, this decrease in the total emissions of air pollutants does not automatically translate into similar reductions in air pollutant concentrations¹⁸. The EU source legislation does not focus on reducing emissions in places where people suffer most from air pollution or where concentrations are highest (see Figure 5). For example, if car engines emit less, due to stricter EU emission standards, air pollution can still increase if car use increases. Therefore, specific action in populated areas is necessary to reduce concentrations of air pollutants as human exposure, particularly to PM and NO₂, remains high.

13

Following earlier strategies, in December 2013, the European Commission published the Clean Air Programme for Europe. This aims to tackle the widespread non-compliance with the EU’s air quality standards and ensure full compliance with existing legislation by 2020. It also sets a pathway for the EU to meet by 2030 the long-term goal of reducing premature mortality due to PM and O₃ by 52 % relative to year 2005. The Commission recognised that significant compliance gaps for some pollutants remain, and launched a fitness check in 2017 to examine the performance of the Ambient Air Quality Directive.

Audit scope and approach

14

This report assesses whether EU actions to protect human health from air pollution have been effective. We examined whether (i) the AAQ Directive was well designed to tackle the health impact of air pollution; (ii) Member States’ effectively implemented the Directive; (iii) the Commission monitored and enforced implementation of the Directive; (iv) air quality was adequately reflected in other EU policies and adequately supported by EU funds; and (v) the public has been well informed on air quality matters.

15

We focused on the provisions of the AAQ Directive related to human health and on the air pollutants with the greatest health impact: PM, NO₂, SO₂ and O₃ (see paragraph 3)¹⁹.

16

We concentrated on urban areas, as this is where air pollution most affects health (see paragraph 2). We examined how six urban centres in the EU dealt with the problem and used funding from the EU’s Cohesion policy and LIFE programmes (see Box 4)²⁰.

17

We covered the period from the adoption of the AAQ Directive in 2008 to March 2018. We examined the policy design and Commission’s monitoring of implementation of the AAQ Directive through reviewing documents, interviewing staff and checking databases at the Commission and the EEA. To examine Member States’ implementation of the Directive and EU-funded air quality projects, we carried out on-the-spot visits, examined project documentation and interviewed local stakeholders (national and local authorities, project beneficiaries, and other civil society stakeholders) in the six selected cities and in the capitals of the respective Member States. For the audit work in Poland, we cooperated with the Supreme Audit Office (NIK)²¹. We took into account expert advice on the design, implementation and monitoring of the AAQ Directive. We also contributed to an international cooperative audit on air quality by EUROSAI.

Observations

The Directive’s standards are weaker than the evidence on health impacts of air pollution suggests

18

The EU standards for health protection set out in the AAQ Directive address both short and long-term health impacts²². They limit the number of times concentrations can exceed short-term (daily and hourly) values; they also require annual averages to be below defined values. The AAQ Directive states that “(…) appropriate objectives [should be] set for ambient air quality taking into account relevant World Health Organisation standards, guidelines and programmes”²³.

19

However, EU ambient air quality limits are much weaker than the WHO guidelines for PM_2.5 and SO₂, and weaker for PM₁₀ (annual average) and for ozone. For PM₁₀ (daily value) and NO₂, EU standards are aligned with WHO guidelines, and permit some occasions when limits are exceeded. Table 1 provides a comparison of WHO air quality guidelines and EU standards and Box 5 explains the difference between guidelines and standards.

Table 1

EU air quality standards and WHO Guidelines

Pollutant	Period	WHO Guidelines μg/m3	EU AAQ Directive limit values μg/m3	No. of times in a year that the EU standards can be exceeded
NO2	1 year	40	40	-
	1 hour	200	200	18
O3	8 hours	100	120	25
PM10	1 year	20	40	-
	24 hours	50(a)	50	35
PM2.5	1 year	10	25	-
	24 hours	25	-	-
SO2	24 hours	20	125	3
	1 hour	-	350	24
	10 minutes	500	-	-

(a) The WHO recommends following this guideline as the 99^th percentile (3 exceedances).

20

The AAQ Directive was the first Directive to set limit values for PM_2.5, but not the first to regulate concentrations of PM₁₀, NO₂, SO₂, and O₃. As it did not introduce any changes to the values set by the Directives that it updated²⁶, the limit values for PM₁₀, NO₂ and SO₂ are now almost 20 years old²⁷, and the target value of O₃ is over 15 years old²⁸.

21

The EU legislators weakened the Commission’s proposal of 1997 by setting higher limit values or number of times they might be exceeded²⁹. The O₃ target value in the AAQ Directive is less strict than in the past³⁰.

22

The WHO considers PM_2.5 to be the most harmful air pollutant³¹. WHO guidelines include a short-term value for PM_2.5 but the AAQ Directive does not. This means that the EU standard relies only on a yearly average and high and harmful PM_2.5 emissions from household heating during the winter are offset by the lower summer levels (see Box 1). The annual limit value set in the AAQ Directive (25μg/m³) is more than the double of the WHO guideline value (10μg/m³). The AAQ Directive introduced the possibility of updating the limit value to 20μg/m³, but the Commission did not do so when it examined the issue in 2013.

23

The EU daily limit value for SO₂ is over six times the WHO guideline value. Although almost all Member States comply with the EU daily limit (see Figure 6), the EEA points out that in 2015 20 % of the EU urban population was still exposed to concentrations above the WHO’s guideline value³². The general compliance with the undemanding limit values for SO₂ in the AAQ Directive means that the Commission is only taking enforcement action against one Member State (Bulgaria, see Annex III).

24

Setting very undemanding standards has serious implications for reporting and enforcement actions, notably for SO₂ and PM_2.5 (see paragraphs 22 to 23). For example, places with SO₂ concentrations significantly higher than WHO guideline values remain compliant with the AAQ Directive and, consequently, they are obliged to set up fewer measuring stations, to report data from fewer places and they often give no consideration on tackling SO₂ concentrations in their AQPs.

25

The Commission assessed the direct costs of complying with their proposal for the AAQ Directive at between €5 and €8 billion, and the monetised health benefits at between €37 to €119 billion per annum in 2020. The Commission concluded that benefits of the air quality policy greatly exceeded implementation costs³³.

26

In 2013, the WHO carried out a “Review of evidence on health aspects of air pollution”. This recommended the Commission to ensure that the evidence on health effects of air pollutants and the implications for air quality were reviewed regularly. The WHO review found that scientific evidence supported stricter EU limit values for PM₁₀ and PM_2.5, and regulating short-term averages (e.g. 24 hours) for PM_2.5. This exercise aimed to support the Commission’s 2013 review of EU air quality policies, but did not lead to any change in the original AAQ Directive limit values.

27

More recently, several professional medical organisations have called for the EU to take account of the latest scientific evidence in support of stricter standards and a new short-term standard for PM_2.5³⁴.

Most Member States did not effectively implement the AAQ Directive

28

In 2016, 13 Member States breached PM limit values³⁵, 19 NO₂ limit values³⁶ and one SO₂ limit values³⁷. All 28 EU Member States except Estonia, Ireland, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania and Malta were in breach of one or more of these limit values (see Figure 7).

29

Figure 8 compares the PM and NO₂ concentrations in each of the cities we visited, to EU limit values³⁸. Overall, measured air pollutant concentrations have decreased – most significantly for PM₁₀ – but they still exceed at least one of the AAQ Directive limit values in all cities. In particular, there was almost no progress in Krakow (PM) and Sofia (PM_2.5) since 2009. In Brussels and Milan, NO₂ concentrations changed little between 2012 and 2016 (see Annex II). However, part of the improvements in the measurements may not have resulted from better air quality, as explained in paragraphs 32 and 33.

and the provisions for measuring air quality offer a degree of flexibility that makes verification difficult

30

Getting good measurements on air pollution levels is important because this serves as the trigger for actions by Member States to reduce pollution. Furthermore, accurate and comparable data on pollution are important for the Commission to consider enforcement actions (see paragraph 49).

31

For the purposes of the AAQ Directive, Member States measure air quality through a network of monitoring stations containing devices (sampling points) that analyse and measure the levels of several air pollutants⁴⁰. Many Member States display air quality levels in websites for public information. Member States need to send validated data to the Commission once a year. The Commission then assesses compliance with the Directive. Member States are required to produce Air Quality Plans when the validated data shows that pollution exceeded AAQ Directive limits.

32

The AAQ Directive sets criteria for the minimum number of the sampling points and for their site locations. However, the site location provisions involve multiple criteria and offer a degree of flexibility which can make verification more difficult. They require Member States to locate sampling points both “where the highest concentrations occur” (with traffic or industrial type stations) and in other areas which are “representative of the general population’s exposure”⁴¹ (with background type stations). As a result, Member States do not necessarily measure air quality near major industries or main urban traffic routes. Complying with the Directive may be easier when the number of traffic or industrial stations is low. Box 6 shows that practices vary in the six cities that we visited⁴².

33

The minimum number of sampling points depends on the population living in each air quality zone. All the cities we visited had more monitoring points than required by the Directive. These extra measurements do not have to be included in the official data reported by the Member States even when they identify high levels of pollution (see Box 7). The AAQ Directive requires that Member States maintain sampling points that have exceeded PM₁₀, but this obligation does not apply to other pollutants (in particular, NO₂ and PM_2.5)⁴³.

34

The AAQ Directive does not require any specific monitoring in problematic border areas. Tackling effectively transboundary pollution requires coordinated action. For example, if Ostrava fuel quality laws are enforced, they may only be effective in improving air quality if neighbouring regions of Poland take action. If not, people will still be able to use cheap, low quality fuel bought across the border. Under Article 25 of the Directive, Member States shall invite the Commission to assist in any cooperation regarding cross-border air pollution. The Member States most affected by transboundary pollution that we visited did not consider the relevant provisions of the Directive helpful and they did not undertake any coordinated actions in their AQPs. They did not request the Commission to intervene.

35

In 2017, Member States we visited mostly reported data on time. Timely air quality data is important, both for the Member States to take appropriate actions to reduce air pollution, and for the Commission to act earlier to take enforcement procedures against the Member State. The AAQ Directive requires that Member States provide annual validated data by 30 September of the following year⁴⁴. However, earlier Directives required Member States to report to the Commission within six months of the measuring period⁴⁵. Technological developments over recent years (such as e-Reporting) enable earlier reporting.

while Air Quality Plans are not designed as effective monitoring tools

36

Breaches of the Directive mean that Member States need to produce Air Quality Plans (AQPs) to deal with the problem (see paragraph 9). Real improvements in air quality depend on Member States implementing quick and effective actions to reduce emissions, using good Air Quality Plans.

AQP measures are frequently poorly targeted

37

The AAQ Directive requires that AQPs set out appropriate measures, so that the time air pollution exceeds limits is kept as short as possible. We reviewed the AQPs of the visited cities.

38

Based on our analysis of AQPs we identified three main reasons that compromise their effectiveness. These were that the measures in the AQPs:

• were not targeted and could not be implemented quickly for the areas where the highest concentrations were measured;
• could not deliver significant results in the short term because they went beyond the powers of the local authorities responsible for implementing them or because they were designed for the long-term;
• were not supported by cost estimates or were not funded.

39

Box 8 provides examples of weaknesses in AQPs compromising the goal of reducing air pollution concentrations.

40

While the AQPs identified the main pollution sources, they did not always contain specific measures to tackle their emissions. For example, Krakow’s latest AQP contains only limited measures that reduce industrial emissions – which is a major source of NO₂ pollution, while Sofia’s AQP does not include any measure that reduces emissions from households – which is a major source of PM pollution (see Box 4).

41

AQPs frequently proposed measures that do not have a direct impact on reducing air pollutant concentrations such as administrative simplification measures, evaluations or surveys. We also found that AQPs did not assess the cost effectiveness of the measures.

42

Achieving air quality targets sometimes requires difficult political decisions. For example, the use of personal vehicles is a major source of urban air pollution in Brussels, Stuttgart and Milan, and the most effective measures would be to limit their use.

AQPs privilege quantity over the quality of information

43

All the six cities we visited have been producing AQPs for a long time. The plans typically cover four to five year periods. The Air Quality Directive does not require Member States to report on implementation of their AQPs to the Commission, or to update them when new measures are adopted or when progress is visibly insufficient. Member States only need to update their AQPs at the end of the plan’s period, if air quality still does not meet the standards.

44

Because of widespread high levels of pollution, Member States prepare a high number of AQPs. The AQPs we examined were lengthy⁴⁶ and often did not contain all relevant air quality measures planned or taken⁴⁷. Member States also report more documents containing additional measures when requested by the Commission.

45

The production of AQPs is a lengthy process. When Member States send them to the Commission, they usually deal with a breach of an air pollution limit that occurred more than two years earlier⁴⁸, but provide no information about subsequent progress.

46

The above factors combine to make monitoring of Member State actions by the Commission a difficult exercise. This slowed monitoring of the implementation of the Directive.

47

The continuing, although decreasing, high levels of pollution (see Figure 4), show that producing AQPs have not been sufficient to ensure compliance with the AAQ Directive and reduce pollution as soon as possible. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) confirmed this in recent rulings (see paragraph 52).

The Commission faces limitations in checking compliance and the enforcement process is slow

48

The AAQ Directive requires the Commission to monitor and enforce Member States’ implementation of the Directive. However, Member States do not have to report on implementation of their AQPs, or to update them when they adopt new measures, or when progress is insufficient (see paragraph 43). Some provisions of the Directive are by their nature difficult to verify (such as ensuring that Member States comply with their public information duties; or checking the location of more than four thousand monitoring stations).

49

While air pollution limits are frequently exceeded, the Commission identifies the most serious breaches of compliance and starts dialogues with the Member States, until it decides to close the process or concludes that the Member State has failed to put forward sufficiently ambitious and convincing measures. At this stage, the Commission can launch infringement proceedings against the Member State.

50

As of January 2018, the Commission had 16 ongoing infringement proceedings due to PM pollution, 13 due to NO₂, one due to SO₂ and two other infringement proceedings regarding air pollution monitoring (see Annex III).

51

We analysed the ongoing infringements processes involving the six cities we visited⁴⁹. All six Member States applied for the postponement of attainment deadlines under Article 22⁵⁰. Consequently, the infringement procedure could only start once the Commission decided on these applications for postponement.

52

The Commission has on four occasions⁵¹ succeeded in obtaining favourable rulings against Member States for exceeding air pollution limits, but that did not require the Member State to take corrective action. As a result, the Commission has redefined its approach and recently won Court cases against Bulgaria (on 5 April 2017) and Poland (on 22 February 2018)⁵². In its rulings, the ECJ confirmed that merely adopting an AQP to comply with the Directive was not enough, and ruled that Bulgaria and Poland had not fulfilled their obligations to keep the period in which limits were exceeded as short as possible. Figure 9 shows that it took between six and eight years until the Commission referred these cases related to PM₁₀ infringements to the ECJ⁵³. To apply financial penalties, the Commission has to go back to the ECJ and seek a new ruling⁵⁴. The NO₂ infringements started much later and no case has yet been referred to the ECJ. There is no ongoing infringement procedure on ozone⁵⁵.

53

Member States have more than two years to submit their AQPs, after they detect breaches of air quality limits. As subsequent dialogues in the context of infringement procedures between the Member States and the Commission have lasted more than 5 years in some cases, it is very likely that during this period Member States update their AQPs. This requires the Commission to examine the updated AQP. Consequently, it has taken at least 7 years from the moment of the original breach until the Commission refers the case to the ECJ.

54

Overall, we found that the lengthy enforcement procedure has not yet ensured compliance with the Directive.

Some EU policies do not sufficiently reflect the importance of air pollution

55

Many EU policies have an impact on air pollutants and thus on air quality, particularly climate change, energy, transport and mobility, industry and agriculture.

56

The targets in the EU’s 2030 climate and energy framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 %, to have at least 27 % energy from renewable sources, and to improve energy efficiency by at least 27 %, can all support the reduction of emissions. We reported in a Landscape Review of 2017 that one of the main challenges facing EU action on energy and climate change was the transition of the EU to low carbon energy sources, and that this transition can offer benefits to air quality⁵⁶.

57

Diesel vehicles were a key element for car manufacturers in the EU to comply with their carbon dioxide (CO₂) reduction obligations⁵⁷, as they produce lower CO₂ emissions than petrol cars. Technological developments and EURO standards⁵⁸ have significantly reduced CO₂ and PM emissions – but were not as successful in reducing NO_X emissions – from such vehicles. It has been known for years⁵⁹ that real NO_X emissions were higher than those produced under test conditions. The “Dieselgate” scandal which came to notice when inspectors in the USA detected suspicious readings in vehicle inspections, highlighted the scale and causes of these discrepancies⁶⁰. Before Dieselgate, the European Commission had launched work on a more realistic EU test procedure. Yet conformity factors mean that in practice the EURO 6 emission target of 80 mg NO_X emissions per km (decided by the EU legislators in 2007 for implementation in 2014) will not have to be met for the Real Driving Emissions test before 2023⁶¹.

58

Fuel taxation supports diesel sales in all Member States except Hungary and the UK⁶². While purchases of new diesel cars fell after Dieselgate, around 40 % of all cars on the road in the EU are diesel powered⁶³. As road transport, and particularly diesel cars, are a major source of NO₂ emissions (see Figure 3), efforts to reduce them are complicated.

59

The EU’s climate change policies support biomass as a renewable source of energy⁶⁴. The Renewable Energy Directive⁶⁵ required in 2009 that the EU meets at least 20 % of its total energy needs with renewables by 2020. EU funding for biomass projects has since more than doubled⁶⁶. In our Special Report No 5/2018 on renewable energy for sustainable rural development, we reported that combustion of wood biomass can also lead to higher emissions of certain harmful air pollutants. The EEA has identified similar issues⁶⁷.

60

The use of inefficient solid-fuel boilers or heaters exacerbates the problem of air pollution from local heating. The EU has set standards to improve the efficiency of such devices (the Ecodesign Directive⁶⁸ with its implementing regulations), but such standards will only come into force for new devices in 2022.

61

The Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) is the main EU instrument regulating air pollutant emissions from industrial installations (see Annex I). The Directive allows Member States to set less stringent emission limit values if applying best available techniques (BATs) would lead to “disproportionately higher costs” compared to the environmental benefits. The Directive also allows certain “flexibility instruments” by way of exemption from the limits set for large combustion plants. For example, 15 Member States⁶⁹ have adopted “Transitional National Plans” which allow higher emission ceilings until 2020; some district heating plants have been granted special derogation until 2023; and other plants do not need to apply BATs if they limit their operations and close by 2024.

62

Agriculture accounts for 94 % of ammonia (NH₃) emissions in the EU⁷⁰. Ammonia is a precursor of PM. The EEA indicates that NH₃ emissions from agriculture contribute to episodes of high PM concentrations experienced across certain regions of Europe that breach AAQ Directive PM₁₀ limit values⁷¹.

63

Although EU policies regulate agricultural practices⁷², progress on reducing air pollutants from agriculture has been very slow⁷³ and since 2012, NH₃ emissions have even increased⁷⁴. The EEA notes that despite the existence of technically and economically viable measures such as agronomic, livestock or energy measures, they have yet to be adopted at the scale and intensity necessary to deliver significant emission reductions⁷⁵.

and EU funding is useful but not always targeted

64

We examined how the LIFE programme, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF) supported actions to improve air quality in the six Member States that we visited.

LIFE Programme

65

The EU supports air quality through its LIFE Programme⁷⁶. We reviewed six LIFE projects related to air quality in Germany, Italy and Poland⁷⁷. These included the project “LIFE Legal Actions – Legal Actions on Clean Air” that supported civil society stakeholders, who could, for example, launch Court cases seeking improvements in air quality⁷⁸ (see paragraph 73). The use of the LIFE budget to support civil action at Member State level is a novel, cost effective, rapid route to encourage Member States and cities to support air quality policy.

66

Since 2014, Integrated Projects of the LIFE Programme support the planning of air quality policy through the use of other available EU funds. For example, an integrated project supported implementation of the Malopolska AQP in Poland. It included an information campaign, addressed to the citizens of the region, raising awareness on the danger of smoke from solid fuel boilers (see poster in Figure 10 that says: “fumes from your boiler kill”).

Cohesion policy funding

67

The ERDF and the CF provide most EU funding for air quality. While some actions explicitly aim to reduce air pollution, many that target other objectives (e.g. clean urban transport or energy efficiency) may also benefit air quality.

68

Dedicated funding⁷⁹ available increased from €880 million in the 2007 - 2013 programming period to €1.8 billion in the 2014-2020 period but this amounted to less than 1 % of total cohesion policy funding. Three of the Member States we visited used these funds, but only in Poland did the respective amounts increase significantly between the previous and current programming periods. In the Czech Republic, funding remained stable, while in Bulgaria it fell significantly (see Table 2).

Table 2

Dedicated air quality funding in Bulgaria, Czech Republic and parts of Poland

(in million euro)	2007/2013	2014/2020	Variation
Bulgaria	120	50	-58 %
Czech Republic	446	454	+2 %
Poland(1)	140	368	+163 %

(1) Amounts from the Operational Programme Infrastructure and Environment and the Regional Operational Programme Malopolska.

Source: European Commission and Member States.

69

We found cases where Member States did not prioritise this funding on projects that target the main sources and pollutants identified in the air quality zones we visited (see Box 4). For example, no projects target emission reductions from domestic heating in Sofia (a major source of PM emissions)⁸⁰.

70

We also found that EU funded projects were not sufficiently well supported by Member States’ plans to improve air quality. For example, a boiler replacement scheme in Krakow is being implemented without the national authorities restricting the availability of inefficient boilers and low quality coal.

71

We also found good examples of EU-funded projects that were well targeted and contributed directly to reductions in local emissions, as identified in Member States’ AQPs. This was the case, for example, of the replacement of old diesel buses by buses running on compressed natural gas (CNG); and the boiler replacement schemes in Ostrava. There were also projects to modernise inefficient household heating systems (in Krakow), and public transport (in Krakow and Sofia). Until 2013, there were projects to reduce industrial emissions in Krakow and Ostrava (a major source of PM and NO_X emissions)⁸¹.

Citizen action has a growing role

72

The EEA regards public information as an essential element to address air pollution and reduce its harmful impacts⁸² and the WHO underlines that “improving transparency and sharing quality information widely in cities will further empower people to participate productively in decision-making processes”⁸³. The AAQ Directive sets alert thresholds for SO₂, NO₂ and O₃, but not for PM⁸⁴, and requires Member States to provide detailed information to the public⁸⁵. Citizens can thus play a key role in monitoring the Member States’ implementation of the AAQ Directive, in particular when results imply difficult political choices. Local action is important, but requires public awareness: only if citizens are well informed can they be involved in the policy and take action, where appropriate, including changing their own behaviour.

73

The increasing importance of the citizens’ actions is shown by the recent Court cases launched by citizens and NGOs against their national authorities. In the Czech Republic, Germany, France, Italy and the UK, national courts have ruled in favour of citizens’ right to clean air and required the Member States concerned to take further action to tackle air pollution.

but public rights to access to justice are not explicitly protected by the Directive

74

The right to justice, to environmental information and to public participation in environmental decision-making, is established by the Aarhus Convention, to which the EU and its 28 Member States are parties⁸⁶. We found that other environmental Directives contain explicit provisions that guarantee the rights of members of the public to justice, while the AAQ Directive does not⁸⁷.

75

National laws vary considerably and civil society organisations have identified obstacles to citizens when seeking access to justice in some Member States.

and air quality information is sometimes unclear

76

We checked the information made available online by public authorities to the citizens of the six cities visited. To do this we examined air quality indices, information on the health impacts of air pollution, the availability of real time air quality data, and other tools.

77

Air quality indices are tools that can give understandable information to citizens. Five of the six cities we visited use such indices. We found that Member States, regions and cities define air quality indices differently, which results in different assessments for the same air quality (see, for example, Table 3). As the damage to human health is no different for the same air pollution, independent of the location, different classifications for the same quality of air compromise the credibility of the information provided.

Table 3

PM₁₀ air quality indices (as of March 2018)

Index based on PM hourly/daily value	0	10	20		30		40	50	60	70		80	90	100	140				180	200+
EEA	good		fair			moderate		poor						very poor
Brussels	excellent	very good	good		fairly good		moderate	poor	very poor	bad		very bad		horrible
Milan	good			fair				mediocre			bad			horrible
Krakow	very good		good						moderate					sufficient	bad					very bad
Ostrava	very good		good				fair			suitable			poor						very poor
Stuttgart	very good	good	satisfactory			sufficient		bad						very bad
Sofia	good							fair						sufficient				bad		very bad

Source: EEA and cities websites.

78

As Member States had not agreed on a common index, the EEA in cooperation with the European Commission recently launched an index for the whole territory of the EU (see Figure 11 below). By consulting the EEA index, citizens can compare air quality across Europe in real time. This is not the same as assessing compliance with the EU standards (which requires longer data series).

79

The AAQ Directive requires that Member States inform the public on the possible health effects of air pollution. The online information provided by public authorities regarding the health impacts of air pollution and the measures citizens can take to mitigate risks was sometimes scarce and hard to find. This is all the more important if one considers that EU standards underestimate the risks posed by poor air quality (see paragraphs 19 to 27).

80

Member States are required to report real-time air quality data to the Commission⁸⁸. At the time of our audit, twenty-five Member States did so⁸⁹. Of the six cities we visited, four displayed real time data on their websites⁹⁰. These cities used a variety of tools to keep the public informed. Table 4 shows some of the good practices they used to inform citizens.

Table 4

Good practices to inform citizens

Spatial maps using modelling	Brussels, Milan, Ostrava
Notification during pollution peaks (SMS or email etc.)	Brussels, Krakow, Ostrava
Smartphone apps	Ostrava, Krakow
Display panels in public spaces (streets, metro)	Krakow, Sofia
Downloadable data series for analysis	Brussels, Stuttgart, Milan, Krakow
Early PM alert system based on weather forecasts	Stuttgart

81

While most of the cities we visited produced air quality indices and real time air quality data, and some had adopted other good practices, we concluded that the quality of public information was not as clear or useful as the information made available by some other European cities⁹¹.

Conclusions and recommendations

82

According to the World Health Organization, air pollution is the biggest environmental risk to health in the EU, and the EEA estimates that it causes about 400 000 premature deaths each year, with people in urban areas particularly exposed. Particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and ground level ozone are the most harmful of these air pollutants. The 2008 Ambient Air Quality (AAQ) Directive is the cornerstone of the EU’s clean air policy, as this sets concentration limits for pollutants in the air we breathe.

83

We concluded that EU action to protect human health from air pollution had not delivered the expected impact. The significant human and economic costs have not yet been reflected in adequate action across the EU.

84

Although air quality has benefited from emission reductions, citizens’ health is still heavily affected by air pollution. Several of the EU’s air quality standards are weaker than the evidence on health impacts of air pollution suggests. Member States often do not comply with these standards, and they have not taken enough effective action to improve air quality. The Commission’s monitoring and subsequent enforcement did not lead to effective change. We found that some EU policies do not yet sufficiently well reflect the importance of improving air quality, while noting that EU funding provides useful support. Citizens can play a key role in monitoring the Member States implementation of the AAQ Directive, as seen in successful Court action in several Member States, and public awareness and information was growing. The following paragraphs detail our main conclusions and respective recommendations.

85

The AAQ Directive is based on air quality standards that are by now 15 to 20 years old. Some of these standards are much weaker than the World Health Organization guidelines. Furthermore, the standards allow limits to be exceeded frequently and do not include any short-term standard for PM_2.5, a very harmful air pollutant (see Table 1 and paragraphs 18 to 26). Health professionals support stricter standards in the EU (see paragraph 27). Setting weak standards does not provide the right framework for protecting human health. It means that some locations with poor air quality are compliant with EU law.

86

While the situation is improving, most Member States still do not comply with the EU’s air quality standards (paragraphs 28 to 29).

87

Concerning the measurement of air quality, we found that there were insufficient guarantees that air quality was being measured by the Member States in the right locations. Due to imprecise criteria in the Directive, the Member States did not necessarily measure concentrations near main urban roads or big industrial sites (see paragraphs 32 to 34), which were still major sources of pollution. We note that the deadline for Member States to report data to the Commission as set by the AAQ Directive is less strict than in earlier Directives (paragraph 35).

88

We found that Member States were not taking enough effective action to improve air quality as quickly as possible. Overall, the quality of Member States’ Air Quality Plans was insufficient and included poorly targeted measures. They often suffered from weak governance (for example, a lack of coordination between national and local authorities); were not costed or funded; and did not provide information about the real impact of measures taken on air quality. The AAQ Directive does not oblige Member States to inform the Commission on the performance of their Plans. The insufficient progress in improvement of air quality illustrates a need for more effective action (see paragraphs 36 to 47).

89

The Commission faces limitations in its monitoring of Member States’ performance. Member States are not required to report on implementation of their Air Quality Plans. Some provisions of the Directive are difficult to verify, and the Commission receives hundreds of Air Quality Plans and extensive data sets to review. We found that the Commission has pursued Member States at the European Court of Justice when it considered that they were in serious breach of the Directive (see paragraphs 48 to 50). However, these enforcement measures are lengthy, and to date, despite obtaining several favourable judgements (paragraphs 51 to 54), air quality limits continue to be frequently breached.

Recommendation 1 – More effective action by the Commission

To take more effective action to improve air quality, the Commission should:

1. Share best practice from Member States who have successfully reflected the requirements of the AAQ Directive in their Air Quality Plans, including on issues such as information relevant for monitoring purposes; targeted, budgeted and short-term measures to improve air quality; and planned reductions in concentration levels at specific locations.
2. Actively manage each stage of the infringement procedure to shorten the period before cases are resolved or submitted to the European Court of Justice.
3. Assist the Member States most affected by intra EU transboundary air pollution in their cooperation and joint activities, including introducing relevant measures in their Air Quality Plans.

Target implementation date: 2020.

90

Our conclusions relating to air quality standards, actions by Member States to improve air quality, and subsequent monitoring and enforcement, and public awareness and information (see below) lead us to recommend to the Commission to consider an ambitious update of the Ambient Air Quality Directive, which remains a significant instrument to make our air cleaner.

Recommendation 2 – Ambitious update of the AAQ Directive

The Commission should address the following issues when preparing its proposal to the legislator:

1. Considering updating the EU limit and target values (for PM, SO₂ and O₃), in line with the latest WHO guidance; reducing the number of times that concentrations can exceed standards (for PM, NO₂, SO₂ and O₃); and setting a short-term limit value for PM_2.5 and alert thresholds for PM.
2. Improvements to the Air Quality Plans, notably by making them result oriented; and by requiring yearly reporting of their implementation; and their update whenever necessary. The number of Air Quality Plans by air quality zone should be limited.
3. The precision of the requirements for locating industrial and traffic measuring stations, to better measure the highest exposure of the population to air pollution; and to set a minimum number of measurement stations per type (traffic, industrial or background).
4. The possibility for the Commission to require additional monitoring points where it considers this is necessary to better measure air pollution.
5. Advancing the date (currently 30 September of year n+1) to at least 30 June n+1, to report validated data, and explicitly requiring Member States to provide up-to-date (real time) data.
6. Explicit provisions that ensure citizens’ rights to access justice.

Target implementation date: 2022.

91

Many EU policies have an impact on air quality. Given the significant human and economic costs of air pollution, we consider that the importance of this problem is not yet sufficiently well reflected in some EU policies. For example, climate and energy, transport, industry, and agriculture policies contain elements that can be detrimental to clean air (see paragraphs 55 to 63).

92

Less than 1 % of EU cohesion policy funding is directly allocated to air quality measures. However other cohesion policy actions can indirectly benefit air quality. We found that EU funded projects were not sufficiently well targeted and supported by Member States’ plans to improve air quality, but we also identified several good examples. We saw that LIFE projects helped citizens take action seeking to improve air quality in their Member States and better target EU funded actions (paragraphs 64 to 71).

Recommendation 3 – Prioritising and mainstreaming air quality into EU policies

To further mainstream air quality into EU policies, the Commission should produce assessments of:

1. other EU policies that contain elements that can be detrimental to clean air, and take action to better align these policies with the air quality objective.
2. the actual use of relevant funding available in support of EU air quality objectives to tackle air pollution emissions, notably PM, NO_X and SO_X.

Target implementation date: 2022.

93

Public awareness and information has a critical role in addressing air pollution. Recently, citizens have been getting more involved in air quality issues and national Courts have ruled in favour of citizens’ right to clean air in several Member States (paragraphs 72 and 73). Yet, we found that, compared to other environmental Directives the AAQ Directive contains no specific provisions to guarantee the rights of citizens to access to justice (see paragraph 74). We also saw that the quality of information made available to citizens on air quality was sometimes unclear (see paragraphs 76 to 81).

Recommendation 4 – Improving public awareness and information

To improve the quality of information for citizens, the Commission should:

1. Identify and compile, with the help of health professionals, the most critical information that the Commission and Member States authorities should make available to citizens (including health impacts and behavioural recommendations).
2. Support the Member States to adopt best practices to communicate with and involve citizens in air quality matters.
3. Publish rankings of air quality zones with the best and worst progress achieved each year and share the best practices applied by the most successful locations.
4. Develop an online tool that allows citizens to report on air quality violations and provide feedback to the Commission on issues related to Member States’ actions on air quality.
5. Support the Member States to develop user-friendly tools for the access of general public to air quality information and monitoring (for example, smartphone apps and/or social media dedicated pages).
6. Together with the Member States, seek an agreement on harmonising air quality indices.

Target implementation date: 2022.

This Report was adopted by Chamber I, headed by Mr Nikolaos A. Milionis, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 11 July 2018.

Glossary and abbreviations

AAQ Directive: Ambient Air Quality Directive (Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ L 152, 11.6.2008, p. 1)).

Ammonia (NH₃): Colourless, pungent gas.

AQP: Air Quality Plan

BATs: ‘Best available techniques’ means the most effective and advanced stage in the development of activities and their methods of operation which indicates the practical suitability of particular techniques for providing the basis for emission limit values and other permit conditions designed to prevent and, where that is not practicable, to reduce emissions and the impact on the environment as a whole.

Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP): BaP is a solid emitted as a result of the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biofuels. Its main sources are domestic heating (in particular, wood and coal burning), electricity generation in power plants, waste incineration, coke production and steel production.

Black carbon: Black carbon is a constituent of PM_2.5, formed from incomplete fuel combustion, with the main sources being transport and domestic heating.

Carbon dioxide (CO₂): CO₂ is a colourless gas which is the most significant greenhouse gas in the earth’s atmosphere. It is mostly released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels.

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG): CNG is natural gas stored at a high pressure which can be used instead of gasoline, propane or diesel fuel.

DALYs Dispersion conditions: Disability Adjusted Life Years Dispersion conditions indicate the ability of the atmosphere to dilute airborne pollutants.

ECJ: European Court of Justice

EEA: European Environment Agency

Fitness check: Comprehensive policy evaluation aimed at assessing whether the regulatory framework for a particular policy sector is ‘fit for purpose’.

IED: Industrial Emissions Directive (Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17) (Recast)).

Low Emission Zone (LEZ): A LEZ is a defined area where access by some polluting vehicles is restricted or deterred with the aim of improving air quality.

NEC Directive: National Emission Ceilings Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/2284 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, amending Directive 2003/35/EC and repealing Directive 2001/81/EC (OJ L 344, 17.12.2016, p. 1)).

Nitrogen dioxide (NO₂): Toxic reddish-brown gas. A nitrogen oxide (NO_X).

Non Methane Volatile Organic Compounds (NMVOC): NMVOC is a designation that includes many different chemical compounds, such as benzene, ethanol, formaldehyde, cyclohexane, or acetone.

Ozone (Ground-level ozone, O₃): Colourless gas with a sharp odour that is not directly emitted into the atmosphere, but is formed by the chemical reaction of pollutants in the presence of sunlight.

Premature deaths: Deaths that occur before a person reaches the standard life expectancy for a country and gender.

Particulate matter (PM): Solid and liquid particles suspended in the air. Depending on its size, PM is classified as coarse particles (PM₁₀) and fine particles (PM_2.5).

Sulphur dioxide (SO₂): Toxic colourless gas. A sulphur oxide (SO_X).

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): VOCs are organic chemicals that easily evaporate.

WHO: World Health Organization

µg/m³: Micrograms per cubic meter (unit of measure of the concentration of a pollutant in the air).

Audit team

The ECA’s special reports set out the results of its audits of EU policies and programmes, or of management-related topics from specific budgetary areas. The ECA selects and designs these audit tasks to be of maximum impact by considering the risks to performance or compliance, the level of income or spending involved, forthcoming developments and political and public interest.

This performance audit was carried out by Audit Chamber I Sustainable use of natural resources, headed by ECA Member Nikolaos Milionis. The audit was led by ECA Member Janusz Wojciechowski, supported by Kinga Wisniewska-Danek, Head of Private Office and Katarzyna Radecka-Moroz, Private Office Attaché; Colm Friel, Principal Manager; João Coelho, Head of Task; Frédéric Soblet, deputy Head of Task; Vivi Niemenmaa, Blanka Happach, Jan Kubat, Joachim Otto, Lorenzo Pirelli, Radostina Simeonova, and Anna Zalega, Auditors; and Rachel O’Doherty, Assistant. Linguistic support was provided by Hannah Critoph, Marek Riha, Mila Todorova and Mark Smith.

Contact

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1
Enquiries: eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/ContactForm.aspx
Website: eca.europa.eu
Twitter: @EUAuditors

More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018

PDF	ISBN 978-92-847-0627-3	ISSN 1977-5679	doi:10.2865/46457	QJ-AB-18-019-EN-N
HTML	ISBN 978-92-847-0628-0	ISSN 1977-5679	doi:10.2865/80097	QJ-AB-18-019-EN-Q

© European Union, 2018.

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the European Union copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders.

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU

In person
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct Information Centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

On the phone or by email
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service

• by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
• at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or
• by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact/write-to-us_en

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU

Online
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en

EU publications
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/web/general-publications/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en)

EU law and related documents
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

Open data from the EU
The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/home?) provides access to datasets from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, both for commercial and non-commercial purposes.