Air Pollution Evidence and Policy in Europe: the CAFE Experience Environmental Inequalities

1
Air Pollution Evidence and Policy in Europe the
CAFE ExperienceEnvironmental Inequalities 4,
Newcastle, 16-17 Jan 07

• Fintan Hurley (IOM) fintan.hurley_at_iom-world.org
• With thanks to the CAFE CBA team
• Mike Holland (EMRC), Steve Pye (AEA Technology)
• Paul Watkiss Alistair Hunt (University of Bath)
  
• and to Bert Brunekreef (IRAS, Utrecht) for some
  slides

2
CAFE Clean Air for Europe

• Clean Air For Europe programme
• Umbrella programme of the European Commission on
  control of ambient air pollution
• Led by EC DG Environment
• Commissions objectives included
• Health protection, expressed especially as
  reductions in mortality from air pollution
• Protection of ecosystems
• Extensive work programme managed by DG
  Environment.
• Strongly based in evidence, including detailed
  evaluations for CAFE by expert groups convened by
  the World Health Organisation (WHO).
• Mostly qualitative, not quantitative
• See http//ec.europa.eu/environment/air/cafe/index
  .htm

3
HIA and CBA within CAFE

• Health Impact Assessment (HIA)
• A combination of procedures, methods and tools
• by which a policy, programme or project may be
  judged
• as to its potential effects on the health of a
  population,
• and the distribution of those effects within the
  population'.
• WHO/ECHP, 1999, Gothenburg Consensus Paper
• CAFE included a full HIA and cost-benefit
  analysis (CBA) of policies baseline and new
  policies
• Described in full at http//cafe-cba.aeat.com/htm
  l/reports.htm

4
Components of air pollution HIA
Population at risk overall subgroups
Pollution sources emissions pathways
Background data morbidity rates
C-R functions Risks as change Per unit
pollutant
Incremental pollution background
Valuations
Impacts
Benefits of improved air quality
5
Inequalities and air pollution HIA

• Differences in air pollution
• The nature of the air pollution mixture
• Associated concentrations of individual
  pollutants (i.e. PM, O3, NO2 etc.), as measured
  at fixed-point monitoring stations
• Personal exposures, for a given background
  concentration
• Differences in relative risks, per unit exposure
  (µg/m3)
• expressed as change in risk of adverse health
  effect
• Differences in background rates of mortality or
  morbidity
• the same change implies a different absolute
  level of impact, if background rates differ
• Differences in monetary valuation of health
  effects
• Willingness To Pay depends on income

6
Differences included in CAFE HIA methods

• Differences in air pollution (PM, O3)
• Modelled differences by location
• 50km x 50km grid crude
• Personal exposures ignored - change based on
  background concentrations
• Differences in relative risks background rates
• By age-group (e.g. 0-14 15-64 65)
• (By gender)
• By health status (e.g. exacerbations of asthma)
• By country or region (e.g. rates of asthma)
• Differences in monetary valuation of health
  effects
• Standard values used throughout EU-25
• Some higher values for children

7
Health Effects Quantified in CAFE CBA

• Chronic exposure
• Mortality (PM) the dominant effect
• Development of bronchitis (PM)
• Acute exposure (daily variations)
• Mortality (O3)
• Hospital admissions
• Respiratory (PM, O3) Cardiovascular (PM)
• Days of Restricted Activity Days off Work (PM,
  O3)
• Days with symptoms (PM, O3)
• In people with chronic lung disease (asthma,
  COPD)
• In the general population
• No threshold for PM from human activity
  cut-point of 35ppb for O3

8
HIA/ CBA Process in CAFE (1)

• CBA Team selected in open competition
• Preferred team was long-established ExternE,
  through the 1990s.
• Led by AEA Technology (Paul Watkiss)
• IOM led on HIA methods
• CAFE CBA methods consistent with WHO
  recommendations
• WHO for CAFE, including meta-analyses
• WHO in Task Force on Health of UNECE Convention
  on Long-Range Trans-boundary Air Pollution
• But in many instances we needed to go beyond WHO
  recommendations, especially for morbidity
• Uncertainty assessed qualitatively and
  quantitatively (Monte Carlo methods, subjective
  distributional assumptions)

9
HIA/ CBA Process in CAFE (2)

• Several stakeholder consultation days
• Comments on draft methodology
• Strong industry representation detailed comments
• Detailed UNICE comments formal response (32
  pages)
• Most member states generally passive
• Yes UK comments
• Comments from other DGs, especially DG Enterprise
• Formal external review of draft methodology
• High-level US HIA/ CBA team (HIA Bart Ostro)

10
Mortality, Morbidity and Valuation

• Mortality expressed as
• (i) changes in life expectancy and (ii)
  attributable deaths
• CAFE CBA team strongly preferred (i) peer
  reviewers and Commission wanted (ii) also
• Monetary valuation and Mortality
• Value of a life year (VOLY) 50k - 120k
• Value of statistical life, of a prevented
  fatality (VSL/VPF) 1-2M.
• Morbidity
• Mix of medical costs, lost productivity and
  willingness to pay (WTP)

11
Results general comments

• Results presented for physical effects and in
  monetary terms
• Key question How do benefits of reducing air
  pollution compare with costs?
• Focus was on EU-wide results
• Limited disaggregation
• By age main impacts are in older people
• By country

12
Results physical impacts
13
Number of Premature Deaths from PM2000 and 2020
in the baseline
14
IIASA estimates of loss of life expectancy in (i)
2000 and (ii) 2020 CAFE Baseline
15
CBA Results in Monetary Terms

• Key question How do benefits of reducing air
  pollution compare with costs?
• Results presented for four policy scenarios, in
  increasing degree of severity
• A, B, C, MTFR Maximum Technically Feasible
  Reduction
• Four benefits estimates given
• Using deaths (higher) or life-years (lower)
• Using mean (higher) or median (lower) values from
  monetary valuation studies
• http//europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/cafe/pdf
  /ia_report_en050921_final.pdf (Commission staff
  paper, Table 33)

16
General Results Benefit-Cost Ratio

• Both costs and benefits increase as PM is reduced
  
• Benefits much greater than costs at the point
  where the Commission decided to target its
  reduction policies (i.e. 20 reduction in PM2.5)
  i.e. benefit-cost ratio gt1.
• Benefit-cost ratio varies by country only just
  gt1 in Ireland
• There is a strong economic case for even stronger
  reductions i.e. Europe-wide, the benefit-cost
  ratio of further reductions is also gt1

17
Results Billion Euro/yr
18
Benefit / Cost Ratio varies by Country
19
EU25 Results Marginal Benefit/Costs
20
Commissions proposals for ambient PM

• Focus on PM2.5 rather than PM10
• 20 reduction in PM2.5, by the year
• Target, i.e. not legally binding
• A cap of 25 µg/m3 PM2.5
• Roughly equivalent to 40 µg/m3 PM10
• Legally binding
• Changes to anthropological PM10
• Inequalities
• Proposals would reduce inequalities in health
  protection
• But imply corresponding inequalities in costs of
  compliance

21
Comments on policy and what shaped it (1)

• Move to PM2.5 focus on annual average
  progressive but major problem 20 reduction not
  legally binding
• Cost benefit analysis extremely useful in
  assessing potential policies and so as input to
  the policy decision
• Must be scientific and evidence based -
  independent inputs
• Peer review and consultation is essential
• But final policy not decided by the CBA further
  reductions warranted
• Different groups initially sceptical (NGO and
  industry) but used analysis to support their
  arguments opportunistically
• Reducing inequalities not a primary driver of the
  policy

22
Comments on policy and what shaped it (2)

• Commissions policy proposals (PM Directive)
  considered by many scientists as not stringent
  enough, and indeed a step backwards
• Letter, early 2006 Further statement, September
  2006
• Apparently DG Environment willing to do more but
  very strong lobby against further reductions
• Various DGs (Enterprise, Transport, Agriculture,
  , apparently, Commission President?)
  competitiveness rather than health
• Industry
• Various Member States
• Focus moved to European Parliament and Council of
  Ministers

23
Media reporting

• Popular press articles aimed at policy makers
• Wholesale attempts to discredit the science in
  non-scientific media
• Manufacturing uncertainty
• Attacks on individual scientists
• Thanks to Bert Brunekreef, IRAS, Utrecht, for
  next 2 slides

24
(No Transcript)
25
February 2006
The PM Panic machine is a textbook example of
how to make politics from science
26
European Parliament and Council of Ministers

• Parliament (September 2006)
• MEPs adopted a co-decision report (1st reading)
• 571 for, 43 against, 18 abstentions
• More ambitious targets, greater flexibility
• e.g. Target of 20 (not 25) µg/m3 PM2.5 by 2010
  Binding by 2015
• More flexibility implies more scope for special
  cases Implies greater health inequalities?
• Council of Ministers (October 2006)
• More flexibility..
• But rejects Parliaments call for stricter
  limits.
• The story continues.

27

• THANK YOU!