10 th CAFE Steering Group Meeting - Minutes Brussels, November 2004

Transcription

1 10 th CAFE Steering Group Meeting - Minutes Brussels, November 2004 [Draft for comments] 1. WELCOME, ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING Matti Vainio welcomed the participants to the meeting. The agenda and the minutes of the previous meeting were adopted. Stefan Jacobi reported that: (1) AT, IT, FIN and UK had indicated their willingness to participate in the WG on Implementation with regard to emission related issues and HU, IT, IRL, AT in respect of air quality issues; (2) the interpretation of reporting obligations for the New Member States has been verified and these would be confirmed by DG Environment in due course. 2. OUTLINE OF THEMATIC STRATEGY ON AIR POLLUTION & IMPACT ASSESSMENT Duncan Johnstone presented the outline of the thematic strategy including a brief description of possible measures. Jacques Delsalle also described the outline of the impact assessment that would accompany the thematic strategy. The thematic strategy will be a short document of only 15 pages but would be translated into all Community languages. The impact assessment will be a staff working paper (about 40 pages) but which will not be translated. There were several interventions regarding the available measures and timing, Community versus national measures and the level of ambition of the thematic strategy. The level of ambition would be explored in the range between the estimated CAFE baseline and the Maximum Feasible Technical Reduction scenario. The MTFR was only one piece of information in the formulation of the level of ambition and further scenarios were under consideration which would look at varying degrees of environment ambition. The chairman pointed out that some proposals may accompany the thematic strategy such as the revision of the existing air quality legislation. However, for other potential measures such as Euro V vehicle emissions limits, DG Environment was not responsible and therefore had less control over the precise timing. Regarding the balance between Community and national measures, more information would be available following completion of the modelling work. Some measures by their nature (e.g. product standards) would have to be implemented across the entire Community. Such measures should be cost-effective and be necessary for the attainment of air quality objectives in a majority of Member States. Germany asked for clarification on how the thematic strategy will deal with the implementation of existing directives (NEC ceilings, potential exceedences of air quality limit values). Peter Gammeltoft explained that in some places noncompliance of air quality limit values is expected. He pointed out that Euro 5 and 6 vehicle measures could improve the situation in respect of levels of particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide in ambient air. The CAFE Baseline has shown that in

2 the longer term the problem of compliance will be less important. Peter Gammeltoft also mentioned some reasons for the non compliance including lack of compliance of some directives (LCP for instance), lack of national/local complementary actions (more action needs to be taken to bridge the gap between local scale and nation scale) and not all the possible local measures were being implemented. Peter explained that the Commission did not foresee any change to the existing air quality limit values. 3. TARGETS: A FIRST DISCUSSION André Zuber presented the first ideas on the various targets and objectives that could be used in the policy documents and in the integrated assessment modelling. The distinction between long term (LTO) and interim objectives was highlighted. The concept of significant impact is the main driver in setting the long term objectives, but it not obvious how to set the numerical values for policy purposes since some of the pollutants do not exhibit an effects threshold. There is a large consensus in the WG TSPA concerning choosing Critical Loads and Levels as LTO in policy context and for the IAM for the protection of the environment. The setting of interim targets in IAM has started and IIASA will analyse the scope of improvement between the CAFE baseline and the Maximum Feasible Technical Reduction (MFTR). 4. MAXIMUM FEASIBLE TECHNICAL REDUCTION SCENARIO Markus Amann presented the main results from the MTFR scenario including information on emissions and impacts on health and the environment. The assumptions of the MFTR were outlined namely: only 1997 meteorology, all possible technical measures only and non-eu countries also covered for the year Modifications in behaviour were not included. All the results are available online on the RAINS website. Markus Amann also outlined the major uncertainties i.e. gaps in scientific knowledge, model design, assumption and simplifications, statistical uncertainties (e.g. meteorology) and socio economic drivers (e.g. energy scenario). A workshop on the RAINS model will be organised by IIASA on January 2005 (information on the IIASA web site). This was a good opportunity for stakeholders to learn more and to ask technical questions about the model and its databases. There was some concern that results for the thematic strategy would be based upon a single meteological year (1997). Matti Vainio explained that given the time constraints in developing source-receptor relationships for other years, 1997 was chosen as an average year. The review of the national emissions ceilings directive would use additional years. The year 2020 was chosen as the target year in order to simplify the analysis but ultimately results will be available for 2010 and Markus Amann explained that the cost-effectiveness of individual measures (such as Euro V) could be looked at by scenario runs (relative to the baseline). Some Member States expressed concerns about uncertainties and discrepancies between RAINS data and national data (ammonia, abatement potentials, emissions from ships). These would be looked in detail again in the context of the review of the NECD. Regarding uncertainties, Markus Amann explained that time was limited but some sensitivity runs would be undertaken, including assumptions about the 2

3 increase in the background level of ozone up to 2020 (3 ppb) and energy baseline. He pointed out that the RAINS model had been passed fit for use by the peer review exercise and that much of the uncertainty could be reduced in the way that policy targets were set (e.g. relative gap closure targets). 5. IMPACT OF THE CAFE BASELINE ON HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT (INCLUDING AN UPDATE OF THE CBA METHODOLOGY) Peter Gammeltoft chaired the afternoon session starting with Paul Watkiss from AEA Technology who gave a presentation on the impacts of the CAFE Baseline on human health and the environment. Provisional estimates showed that damage from human exposure to airborne particulate matter were much greater than for exposure to ozone. It was also clear that there was a range of morbidity effects with very considerable numbers of cases even in Matti Vainio explained that the CBA methodology was wholly based upon the agreed Commission impact assessment guidelines and emphasised the fact that the CBA methodology had undergone independent peer-review. Paul Watkiss responded that such an analysis of the uncertainties in the estimations of damages/benefits would be available as part of the CBA analysis. Matti Vainio and Paul Watkiss explained that after each scenario modelled run had been completed by IIASA the results would be transmitted to the CBA team. From there, headline numbers for the damage costs would be calculated in a few days. After a week or so a detailed set of estimates disaggregated by Member State would be available. 6. DISCUSSION OF THE MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE THEMATIC STRATEGY 6.1. Streamlining and consolidating Air Quality Framework and Daughter Directives Marco Gasparinetti gave a presentation of the possibility of merging the Air Quality Framework Directive (AQFD) together with the first three daughter directives in connection with the Commission s initiative on Better Regulation and the simplification of existing legislation. It was intended that any revisionary proposal would be prepared on the same timescale as the Thematic Strategy. Peter Gammeltoft invited Member States to provide written suggestions on how to amend the existing legislation by the end of It was also pointed out that it was only intended to make relatively minor modifications to clean up the directives. There was a short discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of such an approach particularly with respect to changes in the limit values (in the Council and EP) where this was not proposed by the Commission. Marco Gasparinetti pointed out that it was always possible for the Commission to withdraw its proposal and, in circumstances where the Commission did not consent, the Council would have to pass amendments by unanimity. The Steering Group supported the attempt to simplify the air quality legislation and to simplify existing ambiguities. Several Member States urged 3

4 the Commission to take account of Member State experience when revising the Directive. Stefan Jacobi pointed out that the Working Group on Implementation had made several useful recommendations and these would of course be taken into account How to include PM 2.5 in European air quality legislation Stefan Jacobi gave a presentation of one possible way to introduce an air quality limit value for PM 2.5 in ambient air as a means of initiating a discussion in the steering group. There was a lively debate regarding (1) whether a limit value for PM2.5 was actually required; (2) about providing Member States sufficient time to complete any transition from PM10 to PM 2.5 assessment and management; (3) the difficulty in controlling compliance with any limit value for PM2.5 due to the significant transboundary component to measured concentrations; (4) the link to the revision of the National Emission Ceilings Directive and whether a ceiling for PM2.5 presented a better control mechanism; (5) the need to consider natural sources of PM; and (6) the need to maintain the limit value for PM10 to protect against exposure to the coarse fraction. Although there were a number on Member States indicating their support to introduce an environmental objective for PM2.5, in summary only one Member State delegation (DK) supported the swift transition to a limit value for PM2.5 and the repeal of a limit value for PM10. Most delegations supported either the need for a transition period for any shift in emphasis to PM2.5 and/or supported the introduction of a national emission ceiling for primary PM2.5. Peter Gammeltoft appreciated the views expressed and the Commission would reflect upon those views before coming forward with a firm proposal that was both environmentally ambitious but practical Streamlining and making more effective reporting and monitoring Andrej Kobe presented the Commission s activities and ideas on simplification of monitoring and reporting. There were concrete areas where progress could be made including the 3-year air quality report and emissions reporting under the national emissions ceilings directive. The Commission intends to propose improvements in the procedures for reporting such as the data exchange of air quality monitoring information. The steering group agreed that there were too many reporting requirements. Peter Gammeltoft asked the member States to send their suggestions for improvements by end of December Research needs up to 2020 André Zuber presented ideas on the future research required to support Community air pollution policy. Research issues would form part of the forthcoming thematic strategy and represented an opportunity to influence the direction and content of the 7 th RTD programme. 4

5 Suggestions were made in relation to ammonia abatement techniques, air pollution modelling and the influence of meteorology. André Zuber explained that a note on future research needs would be circulated following the meeting and the Steering Group participants would be invited to provide comments in the three weeks following the meeting. 7. UPDATE OF COMMISSION WORK ON SOME POTENTIAL MEASURES 7.1. Emissions from Ships Nicola Robinson presented an update of commission work on shipping measures. The German representative highlighted the need to include inland waterway shipping. Nicola Robinson mentioned the impact of low sulphur fuels and the recent inclusion of inland vessels in Directive 2004/ 26/EC (emissions from non-road mobile machinery). Christer Agren asked why no retrofit options for NOx were included in RAINS modelling of MFTR. Nicola Robinson replied that this would be further discussed with the IIASA team. The Dutch representative highlighted the need to take aviation into account. Matti Vainio mentioned a report 1 published on the website of the Commission which showed that the contribution from aviation was small in comparison to shipping emissions. All Member States were encouraged to ratify Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention because even inland Member States could suffer effects of longrange emissions from sea ships Euro 5 for passenger cars and Euro 6 for HDVs Günter Hörmandinger presented an update of Commission work on vehicle emission standards. Jacques Delsalle presented ongoing work on other measures in the transport field (e.g. demand, retrofit) which on would be addressed in the scope of TREMOVE modelling undertaken for the thematic strategy. In relation to vehicle emissions, several issues were discussed including (1) increased levels of NO 2 in diesel exhaust because of oxidation catalysts, (2) the difference between real world and test cycle emissions, (3) the introduction of diesel particulate filters and technology-neutral emission standards, (4) emissions of particulate matter from tyre wear, and (5) chip tuning and engine management systems. In relation to TREMOVE modelling, the following issues were discussed: (1) model use in developing urban policies, (2) the issue of emissions from used cars in the new Member States, and (3) incentivisation of cleaner fuels and retrofitting of older vehicles

6 7.3. Small scale combustion plants Stephen Pye of AEA Technology presented the main findings of the contract concerning emissions from small scale combustion plant. This is a complex sector with combustion plant spanning the range from tens of kilowatt to 50 megawatt. One suggested approach to treat these small combustion plant was to lower the limit of LCP to 1 MW. Poland mentioned a study launched in Krakow in order to identify possible measures to reduce emissions from this sector. France and Belgium supported the introduction of standards for installations. Some concern was expressed about data accuracy particularly if further measures were to be applied to this sector. The final report will, however, include case studies which will help address the lack of comprehensive statistics Emissions from Agriculture Michel Sponar recalled the main results of the baseline for agricultural emissions of NH3 and presented the first ideas for potential measures for agriculture (integrated approach, extension of the IPPC scope notably to cattle farming, incentive measures through second pillar of the CAP, implementation of the Gothenburg protocol). Christer Agren mentioned the need for targeted information campaigns and Slovenia the utility of good farming practices and agro-environmental schemes. The representative from Poland highlighted the need to understand better the links between the technologies as used in RAINS for the CLE and MFTR scenarios and the implementation of the IPPC Directive. Sweden insisted on the necessity to include measures in the Thematic Strategy. Michel Sponar explained that another study is planned for 2005 in order to understand better the potential implication on ammonia emissions of an extended IPPC Directive. A better assessment of the relationship with the Nitrate directive as well as with emissions of N2O and methane is also needed, (i.e. an integrated approach of the N-cycle ). 8. PUBLIC CONSULTATION OF THE THEMATIC STRATEGY Michel Sponar explained that DG Environment intended to launch a public consultation in relation to the possible content of the thematic strategy. The consultation commenced on 1 December 2004 and is open until 31 January Several Member States discussed the possibility of having the consultation available in several languages but it was explained that given the current constraints on translation this would not be possible unless individual Member States prepared the translations. Member States agreed to help as best they could with translations and in promoting the consultation nationally. The questions can be accessed at 9. REVIEW OF THE NEC DIRECTIVE INCLUDING THE CEILINGS Duncan Johnstone gave a short presentation concerning the timing and certain technical issues regarding the review of the national emissions ceilings directive. It 6

7 is foreseen that a proposal to revise the directive (and the individual ceilings) will be adopted by the College in the middle of Information about supporting contracts would be posted to the CAFE website in due course ( ). It was noted that all Member States are required to report greenhouse gas projections (and energy projections by implication) to the Commission by 15 March Member States would then have until 15 June 2005 in which to finalise these projections. In order to be consistent with these obligations, the Commission s contractor on integrated assessment modelling would commence bilateral consultations on energy balances and emissions projections from the 1 st April The duration of these consultations will be confirmed by the Commission once the contractor has been appointed. It was also noted that there was an urgent need for Member States to establish and/or improve national estimates and forecasts of primary PM2.5 emissions in readiness for the revision of the NECD. This was also the case for ammonia emissions which need to be updated to reflect better the impacts of reform to the Common Agricultural Policy. Norway undertook to ask whether the Task Force on Emission Inventories could provide additional assistance to the Member States in connection with their emissions inventories. 10. GUIDANCE FOR THE DEMONSTRATION OF EQUIVALENCE The chairman of the WG on Equivalence presented further information on the development of the Guidance to the Demonstration of Equivalence of ambient air monitoring methods. The Commission clarified that the guidance paper is not legally binding but should serve as an appropriate way for Member States to comply with the requirement to demonstrate equivalence of non-reference measurement methods. Since the last steering group meeting the guidance document was amended to take into account comments made by different stakeholders (for details refer to the presentation). However, not all delegations had received the document and requested more time to review its contents. Stefan Jacobi stated that comments would be gratefully received until the end of February 2005 and then the issue would be placed on the agenda of a subsequent steering group meeting. 11. STANDARDISATION, ELECTRONIC REPORTING INITIATIVE, DATA EXCHANGE GROUP Andrej Kobe presented several issues related to monitoring and reporting. Following adoption of 4 th Daughter Directive, two mandates for development of standard measurement methods had been proposed to CEN (PAH deposition and measurements of Hg). Several standard methods are expected to be finally adopted by CEN in 2005 (measurements of nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, ozone, carbon monoxide, benzene, PM2.5). On the Electronic Reporting Initiative, under which electronic reporting to the Reportnet would be recognised as fulfilment of the reporting obligation to the Commission, the Commission stated that the initiative had not been implemented in the last reporting cycle of the 2004/461/EC due to legal considerations, but this will be pursued as part of the revision of AQ legislation. The procedure will be audited 7

8 by the Data Exchange Group, which had a kick-off meeting in November. DEG group has drafted its Terms of Reference, based on the endorsement given by SG in May The commission suggested explicitly to limit DEG s work to existing EU legislation and to Member States, candidate countries and EFTA participants, with participants from other states as observers. The Steering Group accepted the Commission position. 12. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Matti Vainio explained that the US-EPA had announced during the workshop in October in Gothenburg that they intended to propose a new taskforce under the LRTAP Convention to deal with hemispheric transport of air pollutants. First reactions of Member States were rather positive. The Commission would be willing to co-chair such a group. The deadline for Member States to deliver updated sectoral energy balances and national projection up to 2020 has been postponed from end of November 2004 until 15 March Member States were informed that in parallel to the Steering Group meeting there was a meeting of the COST 633 action on "Particulate Matter Properties related to health effects" (18-20 November) in Brussels. To find more information on this activity, which is part of the funding system of DG RTD, please refer to the following internet address: http//cost.cordis.lu/src/whatiscost.cfm. 8