The European Environment Agency (EEA) is an independent EU agency.

Transcription

1 1

2 The European Environment Agency (EEA) is an independent EU agency. Based in Copenhagen with around 210 employees, we work very closely with the European Commission, other EU institutions such as Parliament and Council. EEA also works closely with experts in all European countries. 2

3 EEA works at the interface of science and policy. An important part of our work is assisting countries with their reporting of environmental information, ensuring this information is quality checked and made available for everyone who wishes to access it, and using it for assessments of the state of the environment. EEA is not involved with assessing legal compliance that is the remit of the European Commission. 3

4 EEA has a number of member countries. They comprise the 28 EU Member States, as well as Liechtenstein, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. In addition there is a long-standing cooperation with the West Balkan countries 4

5 EEA s activities are shaped by a 5 year multi-annual strategy. Work on air pollution and noise mainly occurs within the Informing policy implementation strategic area. A broad interpretation of the term is used, including supporting countries with their reporting obligations, capacity building activities, tracking trends in environmental status, distance to target assessments, and supporting Commission and Member States in policy processes 5

6 The different work areas of the EEA in the policy implementation area. 6

7 The detailed work items in the air pollution and noise area can be summarised into three broad groupings 7

8 The following information is mainly based on EEA s State and Outlook report 2015, as well as the most recent Air Quality in Europe 2014 report. Both reports are publicly available online. 8

9 Three main take-home messages. 9

10 Air pollution is a complex issue. Different pollutants affect health and the environment in different ways. Certain pollutants also react in the atmosphere after being emitted to form secondary pollutants which also harm health and the environment. Examples are nitrogen oxides which can react after being emitted forming harmful fine particulate matter as well as ground-level ozone. Air pollution is not just about human health. It also has serious effects on the wider environment. By altering the balance of ecosystems, it reduces species biodiversity. And by damaging crop yields, it has enormous consequences for the agricultural sector and the European economy more generally. Finally, many air pollutants are also greenhouse gases, contributing to global warming. Air pollution is a triple problem: shortening the lives of human beings, damaging the natural systems we depend on, and changing the world s climate. The three pollutants of most concern in Europe in terms of their health impacts are fine particulate matter (PM), ground-level ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 10

11 Why does it matter? Air pollution harms health in different ways. Air quality is a pressing issue in Europe today. Around 90 % of Europeans living in cities the majority of Europe s population are exposed to levels of air pollutants deemed damaging to health according to the World Health Organization. This causes the premature death of hundreds of thousands of people every year, and contributes to illness and sickness for many others. New scientific findings show that even lower concentrations of air pollution than previously thought have an effect on human health if citizens are exposed steadily to those concentrations. A recent review of evidence on health aspects of air pollution also confirmed that effects on human health from air pollution can occur when concentration levels are below the thresholds established by the WHO Air Quality Guidelines. And aside from the human suffering, the health costs of air pollution are a drain on public resources. There are many documented health endpoints associated with air pollution. Some of the most important are displayed in the figure. Some key points not surprisingly, amongst the most harmful impacts of air pollution is on the lungs, affecting also the 11

12 cardio vascular system. Populations particularly sensitive to air pollution include the very young and elderly, as well as those with pre-existing respiratory conditions such as asthma, bronchitis etc. 11

13 This map shows the concentrations of fine particulate matter PM10 at monitoring sites around Europe. The red dots indicate those monitoring stations at which PM10concentrations exceed the EU standard for daily average concentrations. Four hotspot areas in Europe are circled. There can be different reasons for these observed exceedances in the different areas. These include eg a high population density and traffic emissions in the Benelux region; Use of coal burning industry, road traffic and residential combustion in Eastern Europe; The importance of geographical features - the Po valley combined with a region of industralisation and traffic etc 12

14 This map shows the concentrations of ozone O 3 at monitoring sites around Europe. The red dots indicate those monitoring stations at which ozone concentration exceeds the EU standard for daily measurements. Ozone is a secondary pollutant it forms in the atmosphere from other pollutants such as NO 2 and volatile organic compounds. Sunlight and warm temperatures catalyse this reaction - meaning ozone is typically a more of a problem in the southern European countries, and during summer time. 13

15 Nitrogen dioxide NO 2 - is the 3 rd main pollutant in Europe which harms human health. One important source of NO2 is from road traffic. Diesel vehicles emit more NO2 (and PM) than their petrol counterparts. The European Commission has launched infringements against a number of Member States that have failed to meet the NO2 concentration limits. 14

16 Overall, the percentage of Europeans living in urban areas exposed to PM levels above European daily limit values is in the rnage 20-30% over recent years,, while up to 90 % (in 2012) of the urban population was exposed to concentrations exceeding the stricter WHO Air Quality Guideline (AQG) value for PM10. 15

17 These charts presents the same information as the previous figure, but shows how the % of the European urban population exposed to concentrations above the EU standards (left) and WHO guidelines (right) for the three main pollutants has varied over past years. As mentioned earlier, meteorology plays an important part in terms of pollutants formation, e.g. whether it was a cold winter or not (in which case more fuel is consumed, and hence more air pollution released over the winter months). e.g. the spike in ozone exposure above the EU standard in 2003 was caused by the very warm summer that year. 16

18 This figure shows the attainment, by Member State, of the EU daily limit value for PM10. The length of the bars shows the range of reporting air quality data, with the solid black symbol indicating the mean. It indicates that exceedance of the daily limit value was observed in 21 Member States at one or more stations. Only Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom did not record exceedances of this limit value. 17

19 This figure shows the attainment, by Member State, of the EU daily target value for ozone. The length of the bars shows the range of reporting air quality data, with the solid black symbol indicating the mean. The health-related threshold of the O3 target value (applicable from 2010) was exceeded in almost two thirds of the EU-28 Member States. 18

20 This figure shows the attainment, by Member State, of the EU annual limit target value for NO2. The length of the bars shows the range of reporting air quality data, with the solid black symbol indicating the mean. In 2012, 20 MS recorded exceedances of the limit value at one or more stations. 19

21 In general, European countries have made progress in cutting emissions of several air pollutants in recent decades, greatly reducing both emissions of pollutants and exposure to substances such as sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and lead. However, as shown in preceding slides, despite these past emission reductions, present air quality levels still often exceed EU limit and target values and pose a serious threat to health and the environment. The pie charts (bottom) show the respective contributions of different sectors to EU emissions of selected air pollutants. 20

22 On the basis of air quality monitoring and modelling, it is possible to estimate the health impacts by member state, associated with exposure to air pollution. This table from EEA s Air Quality in Europe 2014 report shows by MS the number of premature deaths associated with exposure to PM10 and ozone. Across the EU, more than occur as a result of exposure to these two air pollutants. 21

23 Beyond around 2025, only slow progress is expected in terms of reducing airpollution associated health impacts (i.e on the basis of existing legislation). In December 2013, the European Commission proposed a new package of measures the Clean Air Policy Package, to ensure further AQ improvements are delivered by 2020 and beyond. One of the planks of the package was a proposal for a new national Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD) under which Member States would have to reduce their national emissions of selected pollutants. This proposal is presently still being discussed by Parliament and Council. 22

24 Certain costs of air pollution harm to health and the environment can be estimated using a standard framework for estimating external costs, developed over the past decades in Europe. These numbers are taken from the European Commission s impact assessment accompanying their proposal for a Clean air Policy package, and show the magnitude of the selected external costs of air pollution in Importantly, the significant monetary benefits associated with implementing additional air pollution measures in the future has been shown to outweigh the costs associated with their introduction. 23

25 The next few slides highlight results from a 2014 report which assessed the costs of air pollution from industrial facilities in Europe. Applying the standard framework for estimating external air pollution costs, it was found the largest industrial facilities across Europe were responsible for EUR 329 billion damage costs across the years A key finding of the work was that half of these costs came from just 147 plants the largest most polluting facilities. 24

26 It is not so surprising that some of the largest industrial plants in Europe are responsible for most pollution. The figure on the left shows the distribution of the industrial air pollution damage costs by country where the facilities are located. Countries with large industrial sectors, and many large facilities e.g. Germany, UK, Italy, Poland) are responsible for highest damage costs. However, it can be important to also consider the operational efficiency of plants and the industrial sector in terms of the outputs it produces. The right hand figure shows the same damage costs but normalised by GDP for each country to reflect the general output of each economy. It can be seen that a number of eastern European countries now have relatively higher damage costs when the output of the national economies are taken into account. Many of these countries still tend to have older, less efficient industrial facilities. 25

27 Europe s top 5 facilities with the highest damage costs are all examples of power stations burning coal/lignite. 26

28 Summary - air pollution and the environment 27

29 Summary - air pollution and health 28

30 29

31 Three main take-home messages. 30

32 There a number of adverse health endpoints associated with exposure to environmental noise. WHO is presently reviewing the latest scientific evidence looking at the causality links between adverse health outcomes and noise, and is scheduled to publish new noise guidelines for Europe in 2016 which will present new evidence in this area. 31

33 EEA has estimated various impacts associated with exposure to noise across Europe. Some of the key figures are shown on this slide, for adverse impacts ranging from annoyance through to premature deaths. In terms of health impacts, WHO has identified that environmental noise is the second most harmful environmental issue in Europe behind only air pollution from final particulate matter. 32

34 One of the problems EEA and others have when trying to make an assessment of the health impacts of noise is that the data received from Member States under the Environmental Noise Directive (END) is incomplete. For health impact assessments we rely on countries reporting strategic noise maps so far there have been two reporting rounds in 2007 and 2012 (5 yearly). Two years before the reporting, Member States are obliged to report the number of sources for which the subsequent reporting of noise maps is expected. This table shows for major roads an estimate of the completeness of data available for the two previous reporting rounds. 33

35 This table shows for railways a similar estimate of the completeness of data available for the two previous reporting rounds. 34

36 This table shows for airports a similar estimate of the completeness of data available for the two previous reporting rounds. 35

37 This table shows for major agglomerations a similar estimate of the completeness of data available for the two previous reporting rounds. 36

38 The END specifies the use of two different noise exposure indicators - Lden (Day Evening Night Sound Level > 55db) and Lnight (night sound level > 50 db) It is clear that the road transport sector is responsible for the highest exposure of the population to elevated levels of noise around 125 million people, a quarter of Europe's population, are exposed to road noise > 55 db Lden 37

39 This chart presents the same figures as the previous slide, but shows the impact of the missing data from member states. EEA has applied a simple gap-filling routine to address gaps in the data to compensate for incomplete data submissions from countries. Any gap-filling of course introduces uncertainties compared to the preferred situation of using official data reported by countries. A stronger focus on improved implementation of the directive's reporting requirements would clearly lead to higher reliability of environmental assessments. 38

40 The percentage of the urban population in Europe s capitals are shown here. These are the only capitals for which data was available at the time of analysis. It is also important to note that countries presently use very different methods and techniques to model population noise exposure. This means it is difficult (highly uncertain) to compare the reported noise exposure in one city compared to another. From 2018 onward, a new common methodological framework will be in place to help ensure the consistency of data reported by Member States. 39

41 Figure showing, by Member State, the fraction of urban population exposed to road noise > 55 db Lden. As noted for the previous slide, there are different methodologies used within and between countries for estimating population exposure and therefore any comparison between countries is uncertain. 40

42 The requirement of the END for Member States to submit Action Plans is one of the foci of the workshop. This chart shows a summary of the different types of measures from the first reporting round for Action plans. The type of measures implemented by countries/local authorities clearly differs according to the different noise sources. Rather than measures which attempt to abate noise once it is produced, some of the most successful measures are those which reduce or eliminate the production of noise in the first place e.g. through improved spatial planning, and reducing noise levels at source (quieter tyres etc) 41

43 Quiet areas will also be addressed during the workshop. One of the reports published several years by EEA is an informal good practice guide on quiet areas designed for MS authorities. While not addressing quiet areas specifically, EEA has developed a simple methodology based on land use categorisation etc which allows a quietness suitability index to be produced. This shows a standardised presentation of quieter areas across Europe. We will publish a report early in 2016 showing a similar analysis by country together with an accessibility index which shows average distance people have to travel to reach quieter areas. 42

44 This picture shows an example of noise modelling performed in Dublin, Ireland. Here you can see the noise levels associated with road traffic, street by street. Dublin has also proposed a number of inner-city urban areas as formal quiet spaces under the END. 43

45 Key conclusions. 44

46 45