Conclusions

The increasing awareness of EU citizens and institutions to global air pollution and climate change effects on human health and the ecosystem, the recent developments of the enlargement process, the consequent restructuring of the EU energy supply and current economic fluctuations and instability of oil prices and markets raised a number of policy and energy challenges. This book set out an integrated vision embracing recent regulations for transboundary air pollution, climate change and energy policies in the new Europe. With the book having explored this vision a summary overview can be attempted of the light shed on each of these issues. First, the extent to which global pollution influences policy decisions at central, local and international scales. Chapter 2 outlined the way how global air pollution is regulated in the EU according to four main views: EU, Member State, source and international level. At EU level, a big step forward was witnessed under the Sixth Framework Programme. The results of the CAFE program provided valuable research insights to assess air quality on human health and the ecosystem. Policy analysis took accurately into account not only the enlargement process but also a number of subsequent energy (i.e. carbon market price increase), critical loads and multi-pollutants scenarios which would develop over a 30-year period (2000-30). Notably pollution and mortality rates reductions made the CAFE program a useful tool for claiming further policies in consequent years. The follow-up measures set in the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution (European Commission, 2005b) were particularly consistent in terms of achieving no exceedance of critical loads by 2020 as well as policies ensuring energy efficiency through the Green Paper (European Union, 2005b). At Member State level, air quality regulation is mainly of command and control type. This was subject to an extensive streamlining of existing legislation. The 2008 New Air Quality Directive (European Commission, 2008b) merges the four Daughter Directives (European Commission, 1999a, 2000a, 2002a and 2005a) into one. It also assesses and manages SO2, NO2, NO×, lead and fine particles (PM10 and PM2.5) as well as arsenic, cadmium,

mercury, nickel and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons which were not included in previous legislation. Monitoring measures are also reinforced to ensure the fulfilment of compulsory limit values across installations. Furthermore, the extension of compliance measures up to 2015 favours a degree of flexibility to those countries (all Member States except for Ireland, Luxembourg, Bulgaria and Romania) having difficulties in meeting the new limits. Nonetheless various efforts are put into place by Member States. The Estonian government as well as other Balkan countries, for example, pushed ahead the internal procedures to join the ETS for local companies. This was a success despite the difficulties of the domestic restructuring process after the accession. The Dutch government, on the other hand, welcomed a new round of legislation which allows for a further binding time frame to comply with requirements at the central level. Its relative spatial location as a focal transportation node would make the country effortless to reach NO2 and fine particles reductions by the 2010 deadline. In addition, the revision of the NEC would extend the ceiling by 2020 taking into account proposals for the transport sectors along with simultaneous actions for renewable sources. These proposals are now being discussed. In France, for example, emission taxes or further measures to be considered in NAPs for approval in future ETS trading phases have been announced; in Slovenia, revisions of concentration limits for new and existing plants in the energy sector would provide further reduction in acidifying and ozone depletion pollutants; and in Sweden fiscal and renewable use measures are presently in place and contribute to closing the gap between NO2 emissions and proposed ceilings. At source level, most of EU regulation is now focussing on stationary pollution in particular sectors such as heavy energy, chemical waste, plastic, paper, printing, chemical and medicine industries. The regulation body comprises at present of the IPPC Directive (European Commission, 2008c) and the so called ‘six sectoral’ directives such as the Large Combustion Plant Directive (European Commission, 2001a), the Waste Incineration Directive (European Commission, 2000b), the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Solvent Directive and the Paints Directive (European Commission, 1999b, 2004a) and the three Directives for Titanium Dioxide Industries (European Commission, 1978, 1982, 1992b). A proposal to streamline the IPPC and the sectoral directives into one single piece of legislation on industrial emissions is currently under discussion at the Commission. The main issue for its approval is the controversial question of the understanding of the BAT as it is specified under the IPPC Directive. While the directive provides an extensive definition of BAT, it does not offer further details. The proposal for the new industrial emission directive would integrate the definition and interpretation of BATs, which are effectively installed, fabricated, administered and controlled, to close the legislative gap. This would also determine

more accurate estimates of emission projections in preparation of air quality directives, compliance measures, policy scenarios and NAPs in view to extend the ETS to SO2 and NO× allowances. At the international level the EU is engaged in a number of agreements for air quality. After the success of the Montreal Protocol, the EU is currently party to the commitments of the eight protocols of the CLRTAP and is achieving emission reductions for acidifying and ozone pollutants and fine particles. The effort is enforced by the targets outlined in the Gothenburg Protocol (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, 1999b) which the Commission transposes at EU level through the NEC Directive (European Commission, 2001b). Targets should be met by 2010. Furthermore, the question of harmonising environmental policies is also briefly discussed in Chapter 2. Over the past years this controversial debate was born due to the implementation of harmonising fiscal as well as monetary rules within the EU. A debate ran also for harmonising environmental policies. The principle would not apply for natural resources because it would not be efficient in terms of the ecological capacity of the natural system. Harmonisation of environmental policy would not only worsen the direction of mobile production factors but also produce negative welfare effects. The application of more restrictive environmental standards in countries in which natural resources are scarce would cause welfare losses due to the deterioration of the environment. Nonetheless, a standard case for harmonisation is claimed to be in the transport sector where road user charges across EU countries are more similar than those of other fuels. Those on other fuels (i.e. carbon tax) would in fact provide second best policy solutions (compared to a zero-emission reductions scenario) given the difficulty of estimating aggregated damaging effects.