Options for Setting

Environmental Interim Targets

for Health

for CAFE

Summary of presentations to the CAFE Working Group on Target

Setting and Policy Advice

M. Amann, I. Bertok, R. Cabala, J. Cofala, F. Gyarfas, C. Heyes,

Z. Klimont, F. Wagner, W. Schöpp

Loss in life expectancy attributable to anthropogenic PM2.5 [months]

2000 2020 2020

Current legislation Max. feas. reductions

Loss in average statistical life expectancy due to identified anthropogenic PM2.5Calculations for 1997 meteorology Provisional estimates with generic assumption on urban increment of PM

1. Uniform limit value on air quality:Bring down PM2.5 everywhere below an AQ limit value

2. Gap closure:Reduce PM2.5 levels everywhere by same percentage

3. Reduce total European PM2.5 exposure/health impacts at least cost – irrespective of location

Three concepts for interim targetsfor PM2.5

Option 1: Uniform limit value on air quality

• Being aware of the important shortcomings in the modelling of hot spot PM concentrations:

• Series of limit values for PM2.5 in urban background air for the “model world”

– 19, 18, 17 μg/m3. Below 17 μg/m3 : infeasible for Thessaloniki

– 17, 16.5, 16.0 μg/m3 without Thessaloniki.Below 16 μg/m3 : infeasible for Genova

– 16, 15.5, 15.0, 14.5 μg/m3 without Genova

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20

Limit value (microgram/m3)

Strict EU-wide limit value

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20

Limit value (microgram/m3)

Strict EU-wide limit value Exception for Thessaloniki

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20

Limit value (microgram/m3)

Strict EU-wide limit value Exception for Thessaloniki Exceptions for Thessaloniki and Genova

Costs of the limit value scenarios[billion €/yr]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20

Limit value (microgram/m3)

Strict EU-wide limit value Exception for ThessalonikiExceptions for Thessaloniki and Genova Without further road measures

Distribution of costs of the limit value scenarios [€/person/year]

0

20

40

60

80

100

Aus

tria

Bel

gium

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep.

Den

mar

k

Est

onia

Fin

land

Fra

nce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irel

and

Ital

y

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

herla

nds

Pol

and

Por

tuga

l

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

veni

a

Spa

in

Sw

eden UK

EU

-25

Total Costs (Euro/person/yr) 16.5 μg 16 μg 15.5 μg

Costs of a gained month of life expectancy Limit value scenarios [€/person/year]

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Au

stri

a

Be

lgiu

m

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep

.

De

nm

ark

Est

on

ia

Fin

lan

d

Fra

nce

Ge

rma

ny

Gre

ece

Hu

ng

ary

Ire

lan

d

Ita

ly

La

tvia

Lith

ua

nia

Lu

xem

bo

urg

Ma

lta

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

ga

l

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

ven

ia

Sp

ain

Sw

ed

en

UK

EU

-25

16.0 μg 15.5 μg 15 μg

Option 2: Gap closure

• Objective: Reduce population exposure/health impacts in each grid cell or country by the same percentage

• Definition of “gap”:

– For NEC, gap was defined between base year and environmental long-term target (no-effect level)

– Because a uniform gap closure target is limited by the country having least scope for improvement (Cyprus), alternative source-based definition of gap used for CAFE:Gap defined as available scope for further reductions: Scope for practical improvements between CLE and MTFR

• Series of gap closures analyzed from 40 to 90%

Costs of the gap closure scenarios[billion €/yr]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

MTFR 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% CLE

Gap closure without threshold Without further road measures

Distribution of costs of the “gap closure” scenarios [€/person/year]

0

20

40

60

80

Aus

tria

Bel

gium

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep.

Den

mar

k

Est

onia

Fin

land

Fra

nce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irel

and

Ital

y

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

herla

nds

Pol

and

Por

tuga

l

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

veni

a

Spa

in

Sw

eden UK

EU

-25

Total Costs (Euro/person/yr) 60% 70% 80%

Costs of a gained month of life expectancy Gap closure scenarios [€/person/year]

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Au

stri

a

Be

lgiu

m

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep

.

De

nm

ark

Est

on

ia

Fin

lan

d

Fra

nce

Ge

rma

ny

Gre

ece

Hu

ng

ary

Ire

lan

d

Ita

ly

La

tvia

Lith

ua

nia

Lu

xem

bo

urg

Ma

lta

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

ga

l

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

ven

ia

Sp

ain

Sw

ed

en

UK

EU

-25

60% 70% 80%

Modified gap closure: cut-off for low concentrations

• To release pressure on countries for lower effects, a cut-off at 7 μg/m3 has been introduced.

• Approach:– Determine target level of PM2.5 for a given gap closure percentage

– If target level below 7 μg/m3, target set at 7 μg/m3

– Optimization for modified targets

Costs of the modified gap closure scenarioswith cut-off at 7 μg/m3 [billion €/yr]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

MTFR 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% CLE

Gap closure without threshold Gap closure with cut-off at 7 μg/m3

Costs of the source-based “gap closure” scenarios with a cut-off at 7 μg/m3 [€/person/year]

0

20

40

60

80

Aus

tria

Bel

gium

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep.

Den

mar

k

Est

onia

Fin

land

Fra

nce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irel

and

Ital

y

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

herla

nds

Pol

and

Por

tuga

l

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

veni

a

Spa

in

Sw

eden UK

EU

-25

Total Costs (Euro/person/yr) 60% 70% 80%

Costs of a gained month of life expectancy Gap closure with a cut-off at 7 μg/m3 [€/person/year]

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Au

stri

a

Be

lgiu

m

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep

.

De

nm

ark

Est

on

ia

Fin

lan

d

Fra

nce

Ge

rma

ny

Gre

ece

Hu

ng

ary

Ire

lan

d

Ita

ly

La

tvia

Lith

ua

nia

Lu

xem

bo

urg

Ma

lta

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

ga

l

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

ven

ia

Sp

ain

Sw

ed

en

UK

EU

-25

60% 70% 80%

Option 3: Reduce total European PM2.5 exposure/ health impacts at least cost

• Target on total reduction of Years of Life Lost (YOLL) in the EU-25

• Irrespective of place

• Optimization searches for cost-minimal set of emission controls

Costs of the Europe-wide scenarios [billion €/yr]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140

Years of life lost (million years)

Distribution of costs of the Europe-wide scenarios[€/person/year]

0

20

40

60

80

Aus

tria

Bel

gium

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep.

Den

mar

k

Est

onia

Fin

land

Fra

nce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irel

and

Ital

y

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

herla

nds

Pol

and

Por

tuga

l

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

veni

a

Spa

in

Sw

eden UK

EU

-25

Total Costs (Euro/person/yr) 110 104 101

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Au

stri

a

Be

lgiu

m

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep

.

De

nm

ark

Est

on

ia

Fin

lan

d

Fra

nce

Ge

rma

ny

Gre

ece

Hu

ng

ary

Ire

lan

d

Ita

ly

La

tvia

Lith

ua

nia

Lu

xem

bo

urg

Ma

lta

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

ga

l

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

ven

ia

Sp

ain

Sw

ed

en

UK

EU

-25

110 mio YOLL

Emission control costs for a life year gainedOptimization with Europe-wide targets [€/year]

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Au

stri

a

Be

lgiu

m

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep

.

De

nm

ark

Est

on

ia

Fin

lan

d

Fra

nce

Ge

rma

ny

Gre

ece

Hu

ng

ary

Ire

lan

d

Ita

ly

La

tvia

Lith

ua

nia

Lu

xem

bo

urg

Ma

lta

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

ga

l

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

ven

ia

Sp

ain

Sw

ed

en

UK

EU

-25

110 mio YOLL 104 mio YOLL

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Au

stri

a

Be

lgiu

m

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep

.

De

nm

ark

Est

on

ia

Fin

lan

d

Fra

nce

Ge

rma

ny

Gre

ece

Hu

ng

ary

Ire

lan

d

Ita

ly

La

tvia

Lith

ua

nia

Lu

xem

bo

urg

Ma

lta

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

ga

l

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

ven

ia

Sp

ain

Sw

ed

en

UK

EU

-25

110 mio YOLL 104 mio YOLL 101 mio YOLL

Equity and efficiency

Comparison of cost-effectiveness Costs [billion €/yr] vs. YOLL

0

10

20

30

40

90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140

Years of life lost (million years)

Limit value Gap closure Europe-wide target

0

10

20

30

40

90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140

Years of life lost (million years)

Limit value Gap closure Europe-wide target

Some measures of equity

• Coefficient of variation (CV):

The smaller the CV, the closer (i.e., more equal) are the Member States to the EU mean

• Possible criteria:– Relative emission reductions compared to base year

– Per-capita emissions

– Emission control costs (per-capita, per GDP (MER/PPS)

– Health impacts (absolute)

– Environmental improvements/benefits (absolute/relative)

– Costs per YOLL

– Etc.

%100*tan

mean

deviationdardsCV

Coefficients of variationof per-capita emission control costs across countries

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

600%

Low ambition Medium ambition High ambition MTFR

Strict limit values Limit values with exceptions Strict gap closureGap closure with cut-off Europe-wide target

Coefficients of variationof relative health improvements (YOLL) across countries

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

600%

Low ambition Medium ambition High ambition MTFR

Strict limit values Limit values with derogations Strict gap closureGap closure with cut-off Europe-wide target

Coefficients of variationof costs per YOLL across countries

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

600%

Low ambition Medium ambition High ambition MTFR

Strict limit values Limit values with derogations Strict gap closureGap closure with cut-off Europe-wide target

Conclusionson target setting approaches

• Limit value approach:– Highly sensitive towards understanding of and weight given to worst

polluted site

– Economically inefficient

– Distribution of costs and benefits across MS very uneven

• Gap closure approach:– More robust towards model uncertainties (biases cancel out)

– (Arbitrary) cut-off for less polluted sites can increase equity and efficiency

• Europe-wide target approach:– Sensitive towards model quality for typical and medium-cost

situations, less influenced by extreme cases

– Per definition most efficient

– Also superior for many equity criteria