Strasbourg, 27/09/2006 (Agence Europe) - Taking position, on 26 September, on two reports on the quality of air in Europe, European Parliament has opted, at first reading, for an upward revision of the targeted objectives, together with a certain flexibility towards the Member States in the achievement of these objectives. However, at the same time, it has curtailed the ambitions of the European Commission concerning the obligatory reduction of fine particles, which are of the greatest danger for human health. In doing so, the assembly has, with a few exceptions, gone along with the recommendations of its committee on the environment, which had diluted the initial proposal of the European Commission- which is almost unheard of- to the great consternation of the group of Greens/EFA, Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, and environmental protection NGOs (EUROPE 9217).
Under examination were the thematic strategy to fight air pollution in Europe, under the sixth action programme for the environment (own-initiative report by Dorette Corbey, PES, Netherlands) and the proposed directive on ambient air quality, accompanying the strategy (report by Holger Krahmer (ALDE, Germany).
On the directive - an essential element of the strategy, as it aims to impose thresholds for fine particles (PM10 and PM 2.5) for the very first time- the Parliament recommends objectives which are globally more ambitious than those of the European Commission in terms of the reduction of ceilings for the concentration of pollutants. In this way, for the largest microparticles (PM10) the Parliament is calling for these thresholds to be changed to 33 microgrammes/m3 as an annual average in 2010 (whereas the Commission proposed that they should be kept at 40 microgrammes/m3). For daily threshold values to be observed (50 microgrammes/m3) for these same particles, the Parliament showed greater flexibility than the Commission, by providing a maximum of 55 days of excess every year (compared to 35 per year in the initial proposal) for the Member States which are not able to do any better than this, due to specific geographic or climatic conditions, or due to significant cross-border pollution.
On the other hand, for the finest microparticles (PM 2.5) which penetrate most deeply into human lungs, the Parliament is keeping a low profile, taking the view that it is too early to set threshold values given the current state of scientific knowledge. The MEPs propose that, initially, a "target value" should be defined, which will be less binding and lower than that proposed by the Commission (20 microgrammes/m3 in 2010 instead of 25 microgramme/m3), then wait for 2015 - when the directive is to be revised- to make it binding (the Commission had no plans to make the threshold value of 25 microgrammes/m3 any stricter).
The Parliament is also calling for greater flexibility in the granting of temporary derogations to zones or urban areas which are unable to come into line with the requirements of the future directive. Instead of the possibility of a five-year derogation, as provided by the Commission, the MEPs would like the Member States in question to be entitled to a four-year derogation, which can be extended by two years for PM 2.5 and PM 10 - as long, however, as they submit a plan showing why it is impossible to respect the ceilings despite measures taken at national and local level, and listing measures planned to resolve this problem in future.
As for the objective of reducing the exposure of the population of the EU to polluting particles by 20% between now and 2020, the Parliament believes that this objective should be relaxed, by setting differentiated percentages for reduction depending on the rates of concentration registered.
The Parliament has also brought into the proposed directive new articles referring to measures to be taken at source in the Member States to reduce atmospheric pollution- such as new standards for incinerators, heavy goods vehicles (Euro VI), domestic heating systems, and measures coordinated at European level to encourage ship owners to reduce emissions.
For the thematic strategy, the MEPs chose, by a large majority (563 votes in favour, 19 against and 47 abstentions), to set more ambitious objectives for the reduction of concentration rates for nitrogen oxide (Nox), in volatile organic compounds (VOC) and in fine particles (PM 2.5). They are also calling for extra efforts to be made to act at the source of pollution, particularly in the shipping and agriculture sectors. The stricter threshold values brought in by the Parliament are counter-balanced by the extension of the timescales granted to the Member States and urban areas in difficulty to come into line.
In the view of rapporteur Holger Krahmer, the vote of the Parliament is a well-balanced compromise between the need for stricter protection for health and the flexibility required at national level, particularly for regions suffering pollution coming from neighbouring countries. Opposing, the Greens/EFA stressed that "as air pollution in Europe is behind 350,000 early deaths every year and the increase of health costs by 9% every year, the vote of the European Parliament is irresponsible. It undermines the existing rules. Already, as things stand, the European pollution standards proposed are a long way off respecting the recommendations of the World Health Organisation (WHO), particularly for PM10 fine particles. Even the American Federal government called for more binding rules for very fine PM25 particles".
Disappointed at having lost the first battle in the fight against the finest particles, Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas notes a contradiction in the position of the MEPs. He declares (our translation): "I welcome the desire expressed by the Parliament to conclude even more ambitious protection levels. However, I am disappointed that the amendments brought to the directive on air quality seemed to go against this objective, by undermining the legislation which we proposed on certain essential points. Atmospheric pollution shortens the life expectancy of all European citizens by an average of eight months. We must attack this issue with determination".