Thank you. The Chair has introduced my colleagues so I will just add that Mr. Moore and Mr. O'Sullivan are involved in the detailed discussions on the proposal for a directive in Brussels and through working groups. Therefore, I will defer to their expertise in response to more detailed questions.
It is good to have the opportunity to brief the committee on the proposal which had its origins in the Clean Air for Europe, CAFÉ, programme launched by the European Commission in 2001. This was a technical analysis and policy formulation programme which aimed to develop long-term, strategic and integrated policy advice to protect against significant negative effects of air pollution on human health and the environment. The discussion the committee had with Professor McGlade earlier helped to reinforce the importance of addressing air pollution, particularly pollution from sources we probably take for granted in our daily environment.
The CAFÉ programme underpinned the development of the thematic strategy on air pollution, adopted by the Commission in September 2005. The thematic strategy takes a medium perspective to 2020. Despite the significant improvements in air quality which have been achieved through legislation and other initiatives, air pollutants continue to have negative effects on human health and the environment and will continue to have such effects, even when all existing legislation is fully implemented. Therefore, we still need to address this. The thematic strategy establishes ambitious objectives for tackling air pollution in the European Union and proposes measures for achieving them.
The aim is to cut the annual number of premature deaths from air pollution-related diseases by almost 40% from 370,000 in 2000 to 230,000 in 2020. It also aims to reduce substantially the area of forests and other ecosystems suffering damage from airborne pollutants. The Commission estimates that the thematic strategy will deliver at least €42 billion per year in projected health benefits through fewer premature deaths, less illness, fewer hospital admissions and improved productivity. In contrast, the costs of implementing the thematic strategy are put at approximately €7 billion per year. On this analysis, the cost-benefit equation more than stacks up. The monetary benefits do not take into account the additional intangible benefits of improved ecosystems or the potential benefits to the EU economy in gaining an edge in research and development into less-polluting technologies which third countries will eventually need to adopt.
The proposed directive was published in conjunction with the thematic strategy. It sets out to simplify and streamline current air quality legislation through the consolidation of the 1996 air quality framework directive and the first three daughter directives into a single directive. Such consolidation will have beneficial impacts on competitiveness by reducing red tape, eliminating ambiguity and obsolescence and modernising reporting requirements. This will lighten the administrative burden on member states. The daughter directives address various pollutants, for example, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter known as PM10, lead, benzene, carbon monoxide and ozone in ambient air. The proposed directive maintains the standards for these pollutants and introduces new requirements for fine particulate matter, referred to as PM2.5.
The latest scientific evidence confirms PM2.5 as being responsible for serious effects on human health and there is no identifiable threshold below which it does not pose a threat to health. The Commission propose a twin-track approach which comprises a binding "concentration cap" on PM2.5 of 25 micrograms per cubic metre to be met by 2010 and, in parallel, a non-binding "exposure reduction target" to cut PM2.5 by 20% by 2020 compared with the average established between 2008 and 2010. The non-binding nature is to be reviewed five years after adoption of the directive.
The rationale for the twin approach is, first, the need to protect against unduly high risks in urban pollution hot spots through the "concentration cap", and second, to protect public health more generally through the "exposure reduction target". The reason is that there is no known safe level of exposure for some pollutants such as particulate matter.
In taking this approach it is borne in mind that while some member states have higher fine particulate pollution levels than others, it is impractical to set a uniform stringent standard which can be universally achieved. Given the variation in air quality across member states, the approach is in line with the concept of equity, as all member states are obliged to share the burden of effort to improve air quality by achieving the same relative level of pollution reduction — 20%. This is welcome.
Further to the provisions contained in the proposed directive, it is understood that the Commission intends to bring forward additional legislative proposals to help control the levels of PM2.5 travelling over long distances, known as transboundary air pollution. Professor McGlade highlighted the difficulty for some countries, including Ireland, where much of the pollution in the air is outside our direct control because it travels on the wind. The transboundary elements of PM2.5 concentrations are a major concern and it is likely that these elements will eventually be addressed through vehicle emissions standards and a revision of the national emission ceilings directive. However, some member states are of the opinion that the transboundary levels of PM2.5 will make it impossible to meet limit values and they want to draw up an EU-wide package of measures to combat this element prior to the introduction of new objectives and targets.
In looking at the implications for Ireland, I stress that our air quality is recognised as being very good. This is borne out by the EPA's Ambient Air Quality in Ireland Report 2004 based on data from all air quality monitoring stations operated by the EPA and local authorities. In 2004 we met all air quality standards in force for all pollutants.
Our air quality is far too important ever to be taken for granted, particularly given trends in car ownership and growth in heavy traffic. Promoting shifts in transport modes through LUAS, DART, QBCs, cycle lanes etc., together with demand management through large infrastructural projects such as the M50 upgrade, the Dublin Port Tunnel, various town by-passes and general measures to help relieve traffic congestion etc., will all contribute to meeting this challenge. We will also rely on, for example, the progressive introduction by the European Union of vehicle standards through the application of the so-called "Euro" emission standards for vehicles.
The Department is in full agreement with the Commission's assessment of current air quality legislation and the fact that, even if fully implemented, it will not achieve the sixth environmental action plan objectives of " levels of air quality that do not give rise to significant negative impacts on, and risks to, human health and the environment". We also believe it is necessary to go beyond merely implementing current legislation and we therefore support the Commission's proposal to establish ambitious interim objectives under the thematic strategy that are cost-effective and consistent with the Lisbon and sustainable development strategies.
The Department also believes the proposed directive lays the foundations for achieving some of the laudable aims of the thematic strategy on air pollution. In particular, the introduction of standards for PM2.5 in ambient air can be expected to have a positive effect on health in Ireland. A strong association has been established between fine particles and injurious health impacts, creating a compelling argument for an appropriate level of standard for PM2.5. Ireland should support the action to initiate reduction measures for fine particles.
The introduction of burden sharing among member states in addressing PM2.5 and in improving air quality across the EU is also an equitable and welcome development. The policy measures proposed by the thematic strategy are focused on the various sectoral areas causing the pollution, for example, transport, aviation, shipping, agriculture and small combustion plants. Ireland is primarily a technology-taker and as such relies on Commission proposals in these areas, through the aforementioned Euro emission standards for vehicles but also, for example, through integrated pollution and prevention control licensing. Without these common and co-ordinated policies it is difficult to establish what is realistically achievable, even when the most cost-effective abatement technology and management practices are applied. This is compounded by the transboundary emission problem which I have spoken about, a problem over which individual member states often have no control.
The Commission has stated clearly on many occasions its intention that the emissions reduction target should be non-binding. However, we are not satisfied that the current wording is sufficiently unambiguous in this respect and many member states share this concern. There are also concerns about the legal status of this obligation. There has been only a limited amount of PM2.5 monitoring undertaken in Ireland and in other member states and without more data it is extremely difficult to say what reductions are achievable within the economic, technical, social and practical limitations. Absolute clarity is crucial in the initial non-binding approach adopted by the Commission. This will ensure time for sufficient data to be developed and evaluated to determine the feasibility of achieving binding targets in the future under the proposed review. Despite these uncertainties, Ireland supports the proposed 20% reduction and believes it is necessary and reasonable.
The application in the proposed directive of better regulation through the rationalisation and simplification of the existing air quality legislative measures is, in the Department's view, a very welcome step. It is expected that this will lighten the administrative burden on the Department, the local authorities and the Environmental Protection Agency. Overall, the Department considers that the thematic strategy and the proposed directive are a step forward in addressing the problem of air pollution all across Europe and will have significant beneficial effects in Ireland across a number of different areas.
I thank the members for their attention and for affording the Department the opportunity of briefing the committee on this matter. We will be happy to answer any questions.
