Effectivness of national and urban policies and programmes in Europe

1
Effectivness of national and urban policies and
programmes in Europe
Cost Effective Control of Urban Air
Pollution Jürgen Schneider Leiter der Abt. für
Lufthygiene
2
Content

• Legal Basis
• Overview of results
• Selected PP and (Non)Compliance with limit
  values
• Selected measures
• Conclusions

3
Legal basis

• The Air Quality Framework Directive (96/62/EC AQ
  FWD) sets the basic principles for air quality
  assessment and management
• Limit values (LV), margins of tolerance (MoT) and
  attainment dates are set in daughter directives
  (DD)
• If the sum of LV and MoT is exceeded before the
  attainment date, plana and programmes (PP) have
  eo be estalished to ensure compliance at the
  attainment date
• Information on the PP has to be submitted to the
  European Commission (EC) within two years
• The first reports were due 2003 for exceedances
  in 2001
• EC has advertised a contract on Assessment of
  Plans and Programmes reported under 1996/62/EC
  to analyse PP submitted so far

4
Legal Basis

• Recommendations by Working Group on
  Implementation
• Adopted by Comitology (Commission Decision
  2004/224/EC), requires 7 forms
• General information on the plan or programme
• Description of the exceedance of the limit value
• Analysis of the causes of exceedance of the limit
  value
• Baseline level
• Details of measures beyond those already required
  by existing legislation
• Optional Possible measures that have not yet
  been taken and long term measures
• Summary of measures

5
Introduction

• By 2006 over 100 reports on plans and programmes
  were received.
• These include
• 370 exceedance situations
• 1290 measures
• Or, in other words, a lot of valuable information
  on the state of the art in European air quality
  planning

6
Reported exceedance situations
year PM10 NO2 SO2 Benzene
2001 44 40 21
2002 61 59 28
2003 79 48 10 1
Sum 184 147 59 1
7
Geographical distribution

• Good coverage of Western Europe.
• Various topographic and climatic zones.
• Note Map contains reported locations of
  exceedances only.

8
Sources of pollution
? Traffic was named most often as main source of
pollution
9
Sources of pollution ranking the sources
Ranking of the sources of pollutions Number of
entries where the six main sources of pollution
were ranked first, second, etc. For 17 exceedance
situations, no ranking was reported.
10
Estimate of the affected area

Road length
Area
11
Estimate of population exposed
For 36  of the exceedance situations, no
estimate of the population exposed was given
12
Classification of stations
13
Types of measures
14
Types of measures
15
Funding and costs
Funding available and costs of measures. Funding
was reported in 27  of cases, and costs were
reported in 18  of cases only.
16
Administrative level

Figure 16 Administrative level at which the
measure could be taken (left) regulatory (right).
17
Time and spatial scale

Time scale
Spatial scale
18
Selected plans

• Graz
• Wien
• Brüssel
• München
• Berlin
• Stuttgart
• Kopenhagen
• Madrid
• Barcelona area
• Paris
• Marseille area
• Bozen
• Mailand
• Amsterdam and other cities
• Stockholm
• Bratislava
• Košice
• London

19
Compliance with LV?
City Main source NO2 (2010) PM10 (2005)
Graz Traffic No No
Vienna Traffic No No
Brussels Traffic Yes No
Copenhagen Traffic Yes x
Paris Traffic No No
Marseille Traffic, Industry n.a. No
Munich Traffic No No
Berlin Traffic No No
Stuttgart Traffic No No
Milan Traffic n.a. No
Bozen Traffic x No
Amsterdam and other cities Traffic No No
Bratislava n.a. n.a. No
Košice n.a. x No
Madrid Traffic n.a. No
Barcelona Industry No n.a.
Stockholm Traffic x No
London Traffic No No
NO2 2 from 9 PM10 non
x no exceed n.a. no info available
20
Reasons for non compliance

• Timing
• Implementation problems
• Technical difficulties
• Other reasons

21
Possible reasons for non-compliance - timing

• Planning (and subsequently also implementation)
  of measures started too late
• Often measures indicated in reports on PP mark
  the beginning of the planning process (studies,
  monitoring)
• Some measures require several years of planning
  and implementation (low emission zones, public
  transport infrastructure,)

22
Possible reasons for non-compliance
implementation problems

• Limited public and political acceptance of
  measures (esp. for traffic)
• However, CC in London and Stockholm show the
  importance of well prepared information campaign
  and public consultations

• High costs of measures versus limited funding
  (esp. for public transport)
• Legal responsibilities split between different
  administrative levels or authorities

23
Possible reasons for non-compliance technical
difficulties

• Difficulty of allocating sources for PM10
• Inaccurate emission inventories
• Underestimation of real world emission factors of
  certain vehicles
• Uncertainty concerning the date and level of
  attainment of new EURO standards

24
Possible reasons for non-compliance other
reasons

• High background levels for PM10, hence limited
  local possibilities
• High overall concentrations, hence only drastic
  measures might result in compliance

25
Effectiveness of measures

• Necessary information
• Quantification of emission reduction
• Effect on air quality
• Assessment of costs
• Assessment of benefits

26
Effectiveness of measures - information given in
PP
City Emission reduction quantified Effect on AQ quantified Assessment of costs Assessment of benefits
Graz
Vienna
Brussels
Copenhagen
Paris
Marseille
Munich
Berlin
Stuttgart
Milan
Bozen
Amsterdam
Bratislava
Košice
Madrid
Barcelona
Stockholm
London
27
Effectiveness of measures - analysis of costs

• Cost-benefit analysis only for very few regions
  available
• UK
• London (low emission zone, congestion charge)
• Stockholm (congestion charge)
• Madrid
• For some plans administrative costs or estimation
  of costs per ton emission reduction are given

28
Selected measures

• Integration of traffic plans
• Communication, stakeholder involvement
• Low Emission Zones (Berlin DE, Sweden, London
  UK)
• Congestion charge (London UK, Stockholm SE)
• Ecological management of construction sites
  (Vienna AT Berlin, Stuttgart DE)
• Traffic restrictions during episodes (Graz AT,
  Bozen IT)
• Speed limit restrictions (Graz, Vienna AT,
  Berlin, Munich DE, Paris FR)
• Winter sanding
• Retrofitting of diesel vehicles with particle
  traps (several cities)
• Public transport improvement (several cities)
• Domestic heating (Bozen IT, Graz AT)
• Measures on stationary sources (Marseille F,
  Košice SK )

29
Ecological management of construction sites

• Construction sites have been identified as major
  PM and soot sources in various countries
• CH 25 of exhaust PM emissions come from
  construction machinery
• Vienna 32 of inner city lorries due to
  construction work
• In CH particle filters are mandatory since Sept.
  03 (besides other measures
• Draft best practice guide for London
• Ecological management pilot studies in Vienna
  (e.g. transport via rail)
• Problem emission estimates very uncertain
• Effect of measures difficult to predict

30
Speed limits - Graz, Vienna, Berlin, Munich, Paris

• Graz 130?100 kph, 100?80, 50?30
• As only limited no. of streets are affected, not
  much influence on AQ -2.6 PM10 emission
• Much larger effect for motorways -17 PM10, ?36
  NOx, even larger if enforced
• Similar result for Rotterdam
• Cost effective measure as only small investment
  necessary (depending on scheme)

A12 motorway NOx emissions passenger cars
31
Traffic restrictions

• Bozen Ban of vehicles older than Euro 2 and
  diesel vehicles if PM10 levels are above 50ug/m3
  for 5 consecutive days
• Ban from 7am to 7pm in environmental zones
• Stepwise plan for the next few years
• Clear indication for improved AQ if traffic
  decreases by 30-40
• Graz draft ordinance similar to Bozen (but limit
  75ug/m3 in first year, then 50ug/m3)

32
Verkehrsbeschränkungen
33
Traffic restriction effects on NO2 (blue) and
PM10 (red)
34
Optimising winter salting and sanding
35
Conclusions

• Current PP not sufficient to ensure compliance
  with LV
• Effectiveness of measures is often not assessed
• However, several measures have well documented
  effects - good practice examples
• Political and public support is often missing
• Integrated approaches are needed