EU action to protect human health from air pollution has not delivered its expected impact, according to a new report from the European Court of Auditors, upon which former environment minister Leo Brincat sits.
Every year, air pollution causes about 400,000 premature deaths in the EU and hundreds of billions of euros in health-related external costs. However, these significant human and economic costs have not yet been reflected in adequate action across the Union, warn the auditors.
The EU Auditors add that particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and ground level ozone are the air pollutants responsible for most of the early deaths and that people in urban areas are particularly exposed.
The 2008 Ambient Air Quality Directive is the cornerstone of the EU's clean air policy, as it sets air quality standards for the concentrations of pollutants in the air. The auditors assessed the Directive's design, whether Member States had implemented it effectively and how the Commission had monitored and enforced it. Moreover, they assessed whether air quality was adequately reflected in other EU policies and supported by EU funds, and whether the public has been well informed on air quality matters.
"Air pollution is the biggest environmental risk to health in the European Union," said Janusz Wojciechowski, the Member of the European Court of Auditors responsible for the report. "In recent decades, EU policies have contributed to emission reductions, but air quality has not improved at the same rate and there are still considerable impacts on public health."
EU air quality standards were set almost 20 years ago, and the auditors found that some of them are much weaker than the World Health Organisation guidelines and what the latest scientific evidence suggests. While emissions of air pollutants have been decreasing, most Member States still do not comply with the EU's air quality standards and are not taking enough effective action to improve air quality, say the auditors.
There is also a risk that air pollution has been underestimated because it may not have been monitored in the right places. Air Quality Plans - a key requirement under the Ambient Air Quality Directive - have often not delivered their expected results.
There are limitations in the European Commission's monitoring of Member States' performance in meeting air quality targets. Its enforcement procedures so far have not ensured that Member States comply with the air quality limits set by the Directive. Despite the Commission taking legal action against many Member States and achieving favourable rulings, Member States continue to breach air quality limits frequently, say the auditors.
The auditors note that EU funding for air quality can provide useful support, but that funded projects are not always sufficiently well targeted. During their visits to Member States they did see some good projects - particularly among those supported by the EU's LIFE programme.
Air pollution is a pressing public health issue, and public awareness and information has a critical role to play in addressing it, say the auditors. Recently, citizens have been getting more involved in air quality issues and have brought cases before national courts, which in several Member States have ruled in favour of their right to clean air. Yet the auditors found that the Ambient Air Quality Directive is less explicit in protecting citizens' access to justice than some other environmental Directives. The information made available to citizens on air quality was sometimes unclear, they say.
PM, Sahara dust and sea salt aerosols: the Malta situation
The Environment and Resources Authority recently stated that Malta's poor showing in air quality indices was partially down to.
The Environment and Resources Authority confirmed that traffic is the main source of anthropogenic (that is 'man made') PM10 in the Maltese Islands. However, it is to be clarified that none of the air monitoring stations situated in various locations around the Maltese Islands have, over the past five years, exceeded the environmental quality objectives, or the so called "limit values" mandated by national and European Union legislation.
This does not mean that no action should be taken to curb traffic flows and related emissions; however the Authority considers that statements on "dangerous levels of PM10 pollution" are considered to be misleading. By way of clarification, PM10 levels at Msida station (which is a traffic site) are normally hovering below the limit. The situation is not helped by the fact that Saharan dust and sea salt aerosols contribute significantly to these levels and health implications cannot be excluded for either the man-made or the natural components.
In addition, the Authority said that Malta's uniqueness amongst European Member States plays a significant role and should be taken into account when interpreting statistics in reports comparing European member states amongst each other. In size and population density, Malta compares more to a major city within Europe than to a whole European state with expanses of open spaces. In addition, being a small island with significant exposure to sea spray, our geographical location in close proximity to North Africa and in particular to the Sahara need also to be taken into consideration. These unique circumstances are not accounted for in reports such as that published by the European Environment Agency, making Malta appear to perform 'worse' than other countries which do not suffer from similar geographical specificities and climatic conditions.
Apart from the real time data which is already available from each monitoring station on its website, the Authority is in the process of finalising an 'air quality index', which will provide the general public with information on air quality levels in Malta. This information will be provided for every station and pollutant, including that of particulate matter, which might be of a health concern if present at high levels.