Minutes of the Air Quality Expert Group

Transcription

1 Minutes of the Air Quality Expert Group Brussels, 20 June 2018 DRAFT MINUTES Air Quality Expert Group (E02790) January 2018, Brussels 1. Approval of the agenda and of the minutes of previous meeting The agenda circulated on 19 January 2018 was approved. One Member State asked to provide an update under agenda item 4.4, i.e. to update on measures to improve air quality in Poland. The minutes of the previous meeting (6 June 2017) were approved, based on the draft circulated on 1 September 2017, as amended to reflect comments received from EEA. 2. Nature of the meeting This non-public meeting of the Air Quality Expert Group focussed on progress with the implementation of the Ambient Air Quality Directives (Directives 2004/107/EC and 2008/50/EC). This meeting focussed in on (1) air quality policy & implementation, (2) air quality monitoring & modelling, (3) air quality assessments & plans, (4) air quality reporting & implementing provisions, and (5) the Fitness Check of the Ambient Air Quality Directives. The meeting was chaired by the European Commission (DG ENV). 3. List of points discussed The Chair welcomed the participants, and outlined three general objectives that would guide the meeting: (1) to update on the evolving understanding of the context within which MSs and the Commission jointly work to improve air quality; (2) to improve the monitoring and reporting of air quality data and related air quality plans; and (3) to facilitate an exchange on current practices and measures to assess and improve air quality. The Chair checked progress on the conclusions of the previous meeting (6 June 2017), i.e.: (1) The Commission indicated that it would involve the Air Quality Expert Group in the upcoming Fitness Check of the Ambient Air Quality Directives. >> A key opportunity for discussion on the Fitness Check will be the planned meeting of the Air Quality Expert Group on 5 July 2018, when MS representatives will be invited to provide initial reflections and feedback. (2) The Commission indicated that it would reflect on the three first Clean Air Dialogues conducted in 2017, and invite those Member States interested in engaging in a Clean Air Dialogue in 2018 to indicate this as soon as possible. >> The shared conclusions of the dialogues conducted in 2017 are now available in the Page 1 of 14

2 Commission's webpages. (3) The Commission noted that the proposed governance approach for FAIRMODE and AQUILA was welcomed by the Air Quality Expert Group. >> The Steering Group of AQUILA is preparing a common proposal on these topics for the next AQUILA meeting in February. (4) The Commission indicated that it would organise an ad-hoc workshop focussing on the use of data generated by measuring and modelling air quality. Member States were invited to express interest by 12 December >> No replies were received. (5) The Commission indicated that it would consider organizing a dedicated workshop focussed on ozone during the course of >> Two Member States (ES, FR) have expressed their interest in being associated with the preparation of workshop, which Spain has offered to host in Madrid. (6) The Commission indicated that it would continue to work on a leaflet regarding the measuring of air pollution with low-cost sensors. >> The leaflet has been finalised and is available in the Commission's webpages. (7) On 16 November 2017, with Commission support, the EEA launched the European Air Quality Index. >> This index has been very well received, by both the media and the wider public. (8) The Commission indicated that it would circulate to all Member States a revised draft of the Joint Reading of Implementing Decision 2011/850 for a final reading and agreement. Unless there were any major objections within two months it would be considered as being concluded and apply from 2018 onwards. >> An update will be provided under agenda item 1.3. Agenda item 1.1: Update on Clean Air Programme for Europe Compliance update: The Commission noted that according to the most recent date the large compliance gap persists. For the year 2016, only 2 Member States (EE, IE) reported no exceedance above any limit and target values, while 2 Member States (EL, MT) had not submitted their full air quality reports for 2016 by the time of this meeting. Currently, 30 infringement proceedings are ongoing related to exceedances, plus a further 2 infringement proceedings related to monitoring shortcomings. Regarding NO2: In 2016, 19 Member States (AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, UK) have reported exceedances for at least one air quality zone. To date, infringement proceedings have been initiated against 13 Member States (plus pilot letters to 3 MS). This includes Reasoned Opinions addressed to 5 Member States. Regarding PM10: In 2016, 13 MS (BG, CZ, DE, ES, FR, HR, HU, IT, PL, RO, SE, SI, SK) have reported exceedances for at least one air quality zone. To date, infringement proceedings Page 2 of 14

3 have been initiated against 16 Member States. Nearly all of these are at the Reasoned Opinion stage. Two cases (BG, PL) had been referred to the Court of Justice. A ruling in case C- 336/16 (PL) was expected for February Regarding PM2.5: In 2016, 8 Member States (BG, CZ, ES, HR, IT, LV, PL, SI) have reported exceedances for at least one air quality zone. Regarding SO2: In 2016, 1 Member State (BG) has reported exceedances for at least one air quality zone. An infringement proceeding has been launched related to this. One Member State currently subject to infringement proceedings in relation to the exceedance of PM10 levels asked when these proceedings would end, as they are currently below the limit values. The Commission stated that recent air quality data would be considered, but that it is not currently possible to provide further information relating to the timing of these considerations. European Court of Auditors (ECA): The Commission recalled the ongoing ECA performance review of air policy. The overarching question guiding ECA audit is 'have EU air quality policy and EU funding been effective in reducing the health risks from air pollution?' A final report is expected in autumn In the context of this performance review, ECA conducted site visits to Belgium (Brussels), Germany (Stuttgart), Italy (Milano), the Czech Republic (Ostrava), Bulgaria (Sofia) and Poland (Krakow), in view of assessing the PM and NO2 situation and related measures. One Member State welcomed the comprehensive nature of the audit and asked whether the main focus of the audit was on the Commission or on the Member States. The Commission clarified that it is a policy performance review, which include recommendations to the Commission. One Member State also welcomed the comprehensive nature of the audit, adding that the ECA understood the clear dissemination of responsibilities across different governance levels. Agenda item 1.2: Clean Air Forum The Commission highlighted that one of the key elements which was underscored at the forum was that solutions to improve air quality are available and within reach. A strong focus on the need for very well-articulated action across the different levels of governance was also highlighted as a key message coming from the Clean Air Forum. The Commission outlined that there is information and videos of the Clean Air Forum available online, which summarises all the interventions and sessions which took place. Preparations are currently underway for the second Clean Air Forum, planned for 2019, at a location yet to be determined. It is planned to focus discussion on other major areas for action, such as residential heating. The Clean Air Forum in 2019 would also be used to highlight the lessons learned through the Fitness Check of the Ambient Air Quality Directive. One Member State welcomed the Clean Air Forum, highlighting in particular the discussions on agriculture. It suggested to keep, for future editions, dedicated discussions themes, and to Page 3 of 14

4 have the Forum in Central and Eastern Europe. For the discussions themes, residential heating and solid fuel burning were put forward. One Member State asked whether the summary report of the 2007 Clean Air Forum could be translated into other languages. The Commission stated that it would not be possible for the Commission to translate the documents into all languages due to resource constraints, but invited any interested Member State interesting in translating the report at their own costs to contact the Commission. Agenda item 1.3: Clean Air Dialogues The chair expressed thanks to the three Member States who volunteered for dialogues in 2017 (IE, LU, HU), and to SK for hosting the next Clean Air Dialogue in April In addition, Environmental Implementation Review (EIR) Dialogues with some focus on air quality are foreseen in 2018, including in BG, ES, LT, PT, and SE. One Member State stated that it was currently preparing for an EIR Dialogue in which they want to focus on the circular economy, water management and air quality. No date is currently set. The Commission responded that this was a good example of synergies and will ensure that air quality reflects some of the discussion had under the Clean Air Dialogues to make those processes fully complementary. Member States interested in engaging in a Clean Air Dialogue in 2018 are invited to indicate this to as soon as possible so as to facilitate the timely planning of such meetings. Agenda item 1.4: Clean Air Outlook The most recent meeting of the Expert Group with focus on the National Emission Ceiling Directive took place on 28 November The Commission informed that a first, draft analysis carried out for the upcoming Clean Air Outlook had been issued on 9 November 2017 in advance of the Clean Air Forum. The Clean Air Outlook is currently in inter-service consultation and should be finalised and published in the first half of There will be four supporting documents released at the same time as the Outlook: i.e. the detailed analysis underpinning the Outlook; two specific sector reports (agriculture and domestic combustion); and an overall economic analysis. The second Outlook provisionally scheduled for This should include an analysis of the first National Air Pollution Control Programmes, as submitted in Agenda item 1.5: Environmental Implementation Review (EIR) In accordance with the planned 2-yearly cycle of analysis, the Commission has begun preparations for the 2019 EIR country reports. The air quality section will largely remain similar to the 2017 EIR country reports with updated data on compliance with the AAQD and NEC Directives, as well as updated Page 4 of 14

5 estimates health and economic impacts of air pollution, as available. Following the adoption of the Directive (EU) 2016/2284, the 2019 EIR country reports will also indicate distance to the 2030 emission reduction targets based on the latest reporting. The 2019 EIR country reports will also follow-up on the key suggested actions identified in Where appropriate, the 2019 EIR country reports will repeat or identify relevant recommendations/actions, including in the area of air quality. The launch of the 2019 EIR package will be followed by discussions with each Member State and political debates in the Environment Council. Consultation with Member States is likely to take place in the second half of The Commission gave a presentation on the EIR Peer-to-Peer process. It was emphasised that it is designed to be a light process which accesses modest amounts of EU funding to facilitate the exchange of experts and best-practices among Members States. One Member State stated that there are considering using the Peer-to-Peer tool. They enquired as to whom they should address several detailed questions they have in relation to the tool. The Commission referred any related questions to: ENV-EIR@ec.europa.eu. Agenda item 1.6: Urban Agenda, Urban Innovative Action and related activities The Commission gave a presentation on the Urban Agenda. The partnership on air quality established under the Urban Agenda finalised its action plan in November This includes reflections and actions planned for better policy for this area. Urban Innovative Actions, which is a part of the ERDF was discussed. Air quality is included as a specific topic within the third call, with an indicative overall budget of between EUR 80 to 100 million and these are projects which can be financed up to EUR 5 million. The Chair thanked NL, HR, PL, and CZ for their contributions to the Air Quality Partnership as national authorities (alongside the contributions made by local or regional authorities, and other stakeholders from other Member States). Agenda item 2.1: Analysis of Monitoring Regimes The Commission presented a report on the Analysis of Monitoring Regimes by Member States. The reports were produced in the framework of the service contract to assess compliance and monitoring implementation of EU air quality policy. The Commission invited comments from the MSs in relation to these reports before 15 March One Member State stated that they will provide feedback adding that the classification of the stations was based on data flow D which was reported in September 2016 but can be updated at any time. This Member State noted that the low data capture of some sampling points can be explained when these have started to report in the middle of the year and additionally noted that it is sometimes not easy to find urban background locations in industrial zones. One Member State welcomed the report and suggested that in the future a lot of these checks could be automated and linked to the e-reporting. This Member State also noted that it would be useful to have a detailed analysis of other pollutants covered by the Directive in the same Page 5 of 14

6 way as with PM10 and NO2. The Commission replied that it is not planning to replicate this analysis for other pollutants before the current reports are finalised and that, for future work, more automatized methods may be used. The EEA reminded that different viewers are already available online via the Air Quality Portal. One Member State reiterated that the report is representative of the situation in 2015 and the data has since then been updated as a result of the implementation of a new monitoring strategy in The Commission recognised this but stated that the reports must address the same time frame for all Member States, regardless of whether individual updates. One Member State noted they have many more PM10 sampling stations than is obligatory and it is subsequently important that, when establishing the ratio for pollutants, this counts only the obligatory stations. One Member State asked if the report will be made public. They further suggested that good results can be obtained from modelling reducing the number of measurement stations. The Commission recognized the value of the modelling within the boundaries of the Ambient Air Quality Directives and clarified that the publication of the report is a secondary objective, the main objective is to support Member States in improving their networks. The report will be published when, building into the contributions from the Member States, is complete. Two Member States welcomed the report, in particular its detailed conclusion. They commented that there might be some faults in the report, but that they can still use it to improve their monitoring. One Member State asked for clarification regarding if this report is based on data from 2015 or data from 2014, as reported in The Commission confirmed that the reports are based on data from Agenda item 2.2: Update on FAIRMODE The Commission expressed that the need for an interface between the Expert Group and the FAIRMODE network. The next plenary of the FAIRMODE network will be on the 26/27 February It would be useful if Expert Group members could liaise with their FAIRMODE national contact points prior to this. The Commission provided a presentation to update on the activities of FAIRMODE and focus in particular on the new governance approach, which has been adopted. One Member State noted that Member States need clear recommendations on how to assess the representativeness of stations, despite the observance that harmonisation will not be easily achieved. The Commission agreed, but also reminded that some harmonisation was attempted in the past, without any concrete result. Developing guidelines remains a difficult task. One Member State noted that the current AAQD relies on monitoring in particular locations and that using modelling instead will be very difficult. It was further noted that modelling is the only way to make the link between the emissions and concentrations and to uncover if the right measures are being taken to address air quality. One Member State noted that modelling and monitoring are not the same and that modelling cannot replace monitoring. The Commission replied that modelling and monitoring are complementary and are not in conflict with each other. Page 6 of 14

7 The Commission further added that modelling helps (i) to design monitoring networks; (ii) to supplement monitoring results; (iii) to help quantify the impact of exposure to poor air quality and the associated impacts; (iv) to underpin planning, link emissions and air quality concentrations. One Member State added that money should be spent efficiently and that fixed monitoring is rather expensive compared to modelling. Agenda item 2.3: Update on AQUILA The Commission explained that significant progress has been made with regards to the updated governance of AQUILA, with the notable addition of a Vice Chair. The Steering Group of AQUILA is preparing a common proposal on these topics for the next AQUILA meeting in February. One Member State stated that they will discuss with their national AQUILA experts to address concerns about maintaining flexibility in terms of the work plan. One Member State also expressed the same concern regarding the change of the structure and notes that any change should only take place with consensus. The Chair recognises Member State concerns, making clear that changes are intended to encourage interaction and exchange; adding that more will be done to highlight and explain the proposed structural changes. The Commission provided a presentation to update on the activities of AQUILA and focus in particular on the inter-comparison for PM, metals, and PAHs, as well as new sensor challenges. One Member State asked whether the brochure on low cost sensors could be translated. The Commission answered that due to resource restrictions it would not be possible for the Commission to translate the brochure into other languages. However, individual MS are welcome to translate the brochure themselves with the express permission of the EC. One Member State enquired whether the brochure would be updated regularly in line with technology developments and new research. They further asked whether there were any other applications for the sensors and whether there was a possibility for a working group in relation to sensors. The Commission stated that different applications for sensors depends on their performance. When sensors are used in a mobile context, rather than a stationary context, performance decreases considerably Agenda item 2.4: Update on Air Quality Index The EEA provided a presentation on the status of the European Air Quality Index. The Chair thanked the EEA for its presentation and commented on the great success of the Index and its usefulness in obtaining public awareness and facilitating the convenient access to this information by any concerned citizens. One Member State asked how monitoring stations were designated in the context of the Member State. The EEA answered that all submitted UTD (up-to-date) data used for this. It Page 7 of 14

8 added that they would like to improve the system to identify station closures when they begin to receive no data for certain stations. One Member State suggested that information be added to the Air Quality Index by ways of maps to inform the public of the date on which the data was recorded. Agenda item 2.5: National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Programme One Member State provided a detailed presentation showcasing the recent decision to expand their national air quality monitoring network. Other Member States asked based on this expansion any recommendations on how to finance such a large upgrade of their monitoring stations could be provided Agenda item 3.1: Common Understanding of the Implementing Decision 2011/850, i.e. the former 'IPR Guidance' The Commission introduced the updated version of the 'Member States' and European Commission's Common Understanding of the Commission Implementing Decision 2011/850' (i.e. the former 'IPR Guidance).' This version was sent to Member States by on 18 December 2017 inviting notification of any disagreement by 15 January 2018 at the latest. No feedback was received except for three factual corrections suggested by one Member State. At the meeting one additional Member State made minor editorial comment. It was agreed to integrate these final comments into the updated version of the document, and circulate it among Member States for a final check to confirm that it would be the guiding Common Understanding of the Commission Implementing Decision 2011/850 as of Agenda item 3.2: Overview of reporting of air quality data in 2016 The EEA provided an overview of the reporting of air quality data in One Member State asked whether the EEA intended to add additional quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) checks for the next reporting round. The EEA replied that there are currently no plans to add additional checks or blockers. They further stated that the next IPR meeting would most likely take place in June, but this has not yet been confirmed. One Member State commented that the CDR test space is not an isolated test environment in itself. They further commented that they could not go through all their data sets and compare how consistent they were due to this and as such they stated that it would be useful if it was a separate test environment to test the coherence of the different data flows. The EEA answered that this is a problem which is being considered. Further, EEA stated that the change of local ID's is a problem for both MS and the EEA. One Member State questioned whether it would be possible to copy data from Data flow H to Data flow I, J and K. The EEA stated that they would need to check with their IT department as to whether this would be possible. They further requested the Member State concerned to forward their query to the Air Quality Portal helpdesk. Agenda item 4.1: Assessment of PM2.5 Compliance The Commission provided a presentation to overview of compliance with PM2.5 standards. Member States were invited to provide feedback by 15 March Page 8 of 14

9 One Member State asked for clarity on the issue of a postponement of the average exposure indicator base year to 2015, in the context of their accession to the EU. The Commission recognised the inaccuracy in the report and that it edited according to the terms of the Accession Agreement. Agenda item 4.2: Urban PM2.5 Atlas: Air Quality in European Cities The Commission provided a presentation to update on the Urban PM2.5 Atlas. Agenda item 4.3: The UK Plan for Tackling Roadside Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations The UK presented their plan for tackling roadside nitrogen dioxide concentrations, including the Zero Emission Transport Strategy and the Clean Air Strategy The Chair thanked the UK for their presentation and reiterated that the UK presentation follows a standing invitation by the Commission to all MS, to provide updates on their progress at national level. One Member State asked when the UK expects to achieve NO2 compliance. The UK responded that they expect to be NO2 compliant in all zones by One Member State asked the UK to clarify if they meant that they would be in full compliance for all street canyons by The Member State further enquired why the amount of diesel cars on the road continues to grow. The UK stated that they would achieve NO2 compliance based on all 200 Directive-compliant monitoring stations in the UK. They furthered clarified that there is a recent downtrend in the sale of diesel vehicles. One Member State highlighted that in the UK plan, local authorities are expected to present local action plans and asked how the UK national government engages with these local authorities to ensure they presented local action plans. The UK responded by outlining that in their 2015 plan 5 cities were selected to work with. In the 2017 plan, the UK government began to work alongside a further 23 local authorities in addition to these 5 cities. Statutory rules were implemented requiring the cooperation of the 28 local authorities. There has been a mixed reaction from the various authorities involved. Agenda item 4.4: Update on measures to improve air quality in Poland PL presented an update on the air quality situation and measures taking, including analysis that confirms housing as the main emitter affecting air quality in the country. PL highlighted that the Polish Clean Air Programme includes recommendations on solid fuels (fuel quality monitoring, quality requirements for solid fuels, connecting buildings to district heating, financial instruments), introducing lower electricity prices during off-peak hours, improvements to the monitoring network, informing low-income households on more efficient use of heating installations, emission road testing, tax incentives for low emission transport (hybrid cars, electric vehicles), new regulation to facilitate the introduction of low emission zones by local government, R&D on low emission technologies, as well as monitoring and reporting about the implementation of the above-mentioned recommendations. Page 9 of 14

10 Agenda item 4.5: Initial assessment of Ozone Compliance The Commission provided a presentation on the initial assessment of ozone compliance. Further information is available from EEA s Air Quality in Europe 2017 Report. Agenda item 5: A.O.B. No points raised. Agenda item 6.1: Overview, Roadmap, and Analysis The Commission provided a presentation on the Fitness Check of the AAQD covering: what is a Fitness Check; what the Fitness Check will analyse with regards to the legislation and how it will be done; and thirdly an overview of the contract with the consultants involved in carrying out the Fitness Check. It was explained that there would be a range of events and workshops on the Fitness Check over the forthcoming year, including: a dedicated meeting of the Air Quality Expert Group in Brussels on 5 July; various discussions at Green Week in May; a stakeholder workshop in Brussels on 18 June; and a further stakeholder workshop in January Several Member State asked how stakeholders and Member States will be selected for the focus groups and in-depth studies. They further asked, in relation to the seven case studies, how these will be selected and what unique aspects these Member States shall be subject to. The Commission explained that it will seek to ensure balanced representation from Member States, civil society representatives, business organisations, etc. Concerning selection criteria for the case studies, there will also be a balanced the following elements will be considered: 1. The level of compliance, including at least one Member State which is largely compliant and one which is not. 2. The level of progress, one Member State which has made high levels of progress and one Member State which has had poor progress in addressing air quality issues. 3. At least one Member State should have ongoing infringement proceedings and at least one that does not. 4. There should be a geographical balance, including north/south and east/west. 5. There should be at least one Member State with a higher level of economic development, and least one country with a lower level of economic development and funding 6. There should be one Member State with a federal and one Member State with a centralized governance structure. 7. There should be an availability of evidence in the Member State Furthermore, an open invitation is expressed to any Member State who may be interested in taking part, to inform COM. One Member State commented that different scales of agglomerations should also be part of the exercise. One Member State asked how much effort is required from a participating Member States. The Commission answered that they will know more after agreeing on a consultation strategy. However, it was foreseen that the Member State would direct the Commission to the relevant Page 10 of 14

11 information, not to do the analysis itself. Two Member States requested that the Commission keeps Member States informed of which stakeholders and case studies are selected. They further requested that all Member States are involved and regularly updated, notably through the AQ Expert Group. The Commission responded that there is an 'open door' for all Member States and stakeholders to have an input within the limits of feasibility. One Member State asked if the Fitness Check was an intermediate step towards revision of the AAQDs. The Commission stated that they do not currently know this and that a Fitness Check does not pre-empt a decision on revising the AAQDs. One Member State requested that the Commission send official information to all Member State administrations when seeking input. The Commission replied that official communication will take place with the selected Member State. One Member State asked if the Commission will discuss with the Member States for the seven case studies whether they are interested before choosing them. The Commission replied that they would, along with the consultants, need to discuss how to proceed exactly to ensure an adequate representation of the Member States in the case studies, but that informal contact may be made before formal letters are sent to the chosen Member State. Agenda item 6.2: Discussion of Evaluation Questions Member State representatives discussed the five evaluation criteria's of the Fitness Check. They were invited to provide initial reflections and feedback, with particular focus on guiding the Commission in its review of relevant information and establishing an evidence base. The Commission provided a summary of the discussions along the five evaluation criteria of the Fitness Check. Effectiveness: Which factors have influenced non-compliance, and which factors have influenced compliance and how much of this can be attributed to the AQD. One Member State stated that one aspect is still missing, referring to agricultural policy which has seen a growth in livestock and the subsequent capacity of agriculture to contribute to air pollution. One Member State emphasized the lack of information and awareness among people using solid fuels and small combustion installations, highlighting the importance of the proper preparations, correct fuels and the proper operation of boilers. Efficiency: The costs and benefits of implementing the policy was considered, with a focus on what data is available and on whether there are missing questions or do the questions need to be refocused. Coherence: Focus was on coherence with other environment policies and coherence with sectoral policies. Relevance: Discussions focused on the need to address relevance to citizens; the work of civil societies, NGOs etc. The relevance of the pollutants addressed by the directive was also considered, primarily in terms of the associated health effects. It was highlighted that PM1 was becoming increasingly important. Page 11 of 14

12 One Member State questioned whether the Directive still addressed the most relevant pollutants as there are differences across Member State. It was highlighted that within the concerned Member State there is only one station, which observes an exceedance in PM10 values but that this is not seen across the other Member State. EU added value: It was stated that air quality has much improved over the last 10 years and this is much to do with EU legislation. Following the AAQDs there is subsequently better monitoring network; improved data quality; more real time data available; and an increasing amount of publicly available information. 4. Conclusions The Chair acknowledged the Member States' continued efforts to improve air quality and remarked that the challenge is now to keep or improve the pace, and to keep the period of exceedance of air quality target values and limit values as short as possible. The Chair also thanked for the good work done by the air policy support networks at European level (including via the EEA and the ETC ACM, as well as via AQUILA, FAIRMODE and IPR Technical Meetings). The Chair reminded of the several information points provided at this meeting, and reminded that on several items specific follow-up action was needed (see below, next steps). 5. Next steps (1) Member States are invited to provide feedback on the analysis of Monitoring Regimes in Member States as was presented at this meeting, and in particular on the respective Member State specific analysis by 15 March (2) Member States are invited to provide feedback on the analysis of PM2.5 Compliance in Member States as was presented at this meeting, and in particular on the respective Member State specific analysis by 15 March (3) The Commission will circulate to all Member States a revised draft of the Common Understanding of Implementing Decision 2011/850 for a final reading and agreement (including minor edits suggested at the meeting). Unless there are any final objections by 9 February 2018 the revised draft will be considered final, and applicable as from (4) The Commission will work on an update of the air quality sections in the 2019 Environment Implementation Review Country Reports. Member States should expect to comment on draft versions during the summer. (5) The Commission noted that the proposed governance approach for AQUILA was confirmed by the Air Quality Expert Group. This framework will now be implemented in close interaction with the Steering Group and in discussion with the AQUILA network. Also, Air Quality Expert Group members will liaise with the respective national contact points. (6) The Commission will organise in close cooperation with Spain and France an ad-hoc workshop on focussed on air quality policy implementation related to ozone in autumn (7) The Commission will organise a meeting of the Air Quality Expert Group focussed on the Page 12 of 14

13 Fitness Check of the Ambient Air Quality Directives. This meeting of the Ambient Air Quality Expert Group will seek Member States' inputs to key evaluation questions. It will take place on 5 July 2018 in Brussels. 6. Next meeting The Commission indicated that the next meeting of the Air Quality Expert Group focussed on the Ambient Air Quality Directives will take place on 5 July This meeting will focus on the Fitness Check of the Ambient Air Quality Directives. 7. List of participants Representatives from the following 25 Member States attended the meeting: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. A list of participating Member States and their competent authorities is annexed. Additionally, the European Environment Agency (EEA) attended on invitation by the Commission. Furthermore, Commission staff from DG ENV and DG JRC participated. Page 13 of 14

14 Annex: List of participating Member States Member State AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LV LU NL PL PT RO SI SK SE National Authority/Organisation Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management Belgian Interregional Environment Agency Flemish Government - Nature and Environment Ministry of Environment and Water Ministry of Labour, Welfare and Social Insurance Ministry of the Environment German Federal Environment Agency Landesamt für Natur, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen Danish Environmental Protection Agency Ministry for Agriculture and Fisheries, Food and Environment Ministry of the Environment Ministère de l'environnement, de l'enérgie et de la Mer Institut National de l'environnement industriel et des risques INERIS Ministry of Environment and Nature Protection Croatian Environment Agency Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture: Environment Conservation Department Environment Protection Agency Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea Environment Protection Agency of Lithuania Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development Administration de l'environnement Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment Chief Environmental Protection Inspectorate Portuguese Environment Protection Agency National Environment Protection Agency Slovenian Environment Agency Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Unit Instruments Climate and Air UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Page 14 of 14