Presentation on theme: "Air Quality Management Resource Centre, UWE, Bristol 0117 328 3825 CO-MANAGEMENT OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND LOCAL AIR QUALITY: Identifying the."— Presentation transcript:
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, UWE, Bristol 0117 328 3825 firstname.lastname@example.org CO-MANAGEMENT OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND LOCAL AIR QUALITY: Identifying the Win:Win Actions Tim Chatterton email@example.com University of the West of England, Bristol, UK Tuesday 11 th March 2008 Scottish Government Annual Air Quality Seminar 2008
Outline Council duties and responsibilities Why Co-Manage? Why Not to Co-Manage? Some easy places to start 3 examples of co-management Some specific wins and loses Conclusions
UK Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) Local authorities have a statutory duty to review and assess local air quality against health based objectives. This process has been in place since 1997 To date 218 (50%) of local authorities in the UK have declared an AQMA and have prepared, or are in the process of developing, an AQAP. In Scotland only 9 out of 32 LAs (28%) have AQMAs
UK Climate Change Management Conversely, local authorities have no statutory obligation to manage climate change at a local level. However, some proactive authorities have joined initiatives such as the Nottingham Declaration 1 and Cities for Climate Protection 2. 236 local authorities have signed the Nottingham Declaration (since 2000) 37 have joined the Cities for Climate Protection. 1 The Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change: http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/housingbuildings/localauthorities/NottinghamDeclaration/http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/housingbuildings/localauthorities/NottinghamDeclaration/ 2 Cities for Climate Protection Programme: http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=800http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=800
Is Climate Change the Responsibility of LAs? “Tackling climate change is the greatest challenge of our generation. Local government is not just a partner in this fight. You are one of the leaders of this fight.” Hilary Benn, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Speaking at the annual conference of the Local Government Association 2007) “…local authorities have a special status as local, directly elected bodies. They are uniquely placed to provide vision and leadership to their local communities, and their wide range of responsibilities and contacts means that they are critical to the delivery of this programme.” UK Climate Change Programme 2006
Why Co-Manage AQ & CC? Both areas relate to management of atmospheric emissions Much of the skills and knowledge required are the same Many of the sources being managed are the same Some of the solutions are the same BUT some are not
The Stern Report Chapter 12 ‘ Policies to meet air pollution and climate change goals are not always compatible. But if governments wish to meet both objectives together, there can be considerable cost savings compared to pursuing both separately’
Comparing Impacts from Transport London Borough of Camden www.travelfootprint.org Life cycle impact of travel modes Full vehicle & fuel cycle AQ & climate change impacts Several fuel types considered
Why Not? “Climate Change measures are far reaching, whereas effective LAQM can be relatively straightforward where distinct actions can provide some significant and appropriate reductions. Integration of Climate Change into LAQM will result in climate change dominating the LAQM agenda.” “LAQM has failed to deliver the required improvements in air quality and I see no reason why it would deliver the required improvements in carbon emissions.” “Climate change is an air pollution issue but it does not lend itself to the LAQM "hotspots" methodology (which is why ozone is not within the LAQM framework).” “Although the two areas have strong links in some areas, they can be entirely independent in others. While LAQM may address some aspects of climate change very well, in other important areas it will have no effect whatsoever.” –Quotes from PhD work of Simon Baldwin @ UWE
Royal Commission for Environmental Pollution
Which Has the Higher Profile? Climate Change has a huge profile with the media and politicians There is evidence to show that members of the public relate more closely to air quality issues Therefore co-management can be used to ‘sell’ both AQ and CC solutions to appropriate audiences
Role in establishing baseline data to assess the emissions to the atmosphere from within a local authority. They can: –Assess priority polluters –Assist in setting effective emissions reductions targets –Assist in monitoring progress. An integrated emissions inventory can act as a basis for LAQM and Climate Change planning, actions and strategies. England and Wales now have N194 & N185 tools for calculating LA emissions\footprints Integration of CO 2 management into aspects of LAQM – emission inventories
35% of SW and 38% English LA respondents have a voluntary Local Air Quality Strategy Recommended in the Policy Guidance where there is no current AQMA Local and Regional Air Quality Strategies Integration of wide number of policy areas Utilise the experience and knowledge of a large and diverse consultation group. Tool for dissemination of information Integration of CO 2 management into aspects of LAQM – Local AQ strategies
Action planning consideration of CO 2 should be introduced early in the process. CO 2 emissions reduction through an AQAP should not be considered as an ‘add-in’ but rather an integral component. A combined action plan is primarily about identifying synergistic or ‘win-win’ options and if possible avoiding options that require trade-off. Monitor the combined action plan. –Development of indicators – ‘surrogate’ indicators. –Statutory obligation for reporting on CO 2 ? Integration of CO 2 management into aspects of LAQM – AQAP
3 AQAP Case Studies Gateshead – Transport Neath Port Talbot – Industrial Leeds – Domestic
Urban authority, declared an AQMA for Nitrogen Dioxide in 2005. Climate Change was considered throughout the AQAP development process. All actions were graded to identify ‘win-win’ and ‘trade off’ options under a ‘Wider Environmental Impact’ heading using a matrix approach: very positive, positive, both positive and negative, negative, very negative and neutral. Additionally, both local air quality relevant (Local Development Framework, Community Plans) and climate change relevant (Local Agenda 21, local Climate Change Action Plan) were considered. Good example of effective co-management through the AQAP process and identification of synergistic and antagonistic options. AQAP was integrated into the Local Transport Plan in which air quality was one of four shared key priorities – unfortunately climate change was not a priority!! Gateshead Council Case Study: Transport AQAP
Declared an AQMA for PM 10 in 2000. Attributed to a local steel works and associated infrastructure. AQAP was developed in close liaison with the operators and local regulatory agency (in this case the Environment Agency). AQAP was developed prior to climate change becoming high on the local and national agenda Authority was proactive in identifying co-beneficial actions such as: BAT improvements to the process, establishing sustainable development policies, green transport plans, tree planting and fleet improvement. Industrial AQAPs also have the additional issue of balancing sustainable economic operation with effective and efficient co- beneficial actions. Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council Case Study: Industrial AQAP
Urban authority, declared an AQMA for PM 10 in 2001. Attributed to domestic use of solid fuel from domestic heating and cooking. Provision of gas for domestic use solved the local air quality issue but is not considered a sustainable, climate friendly action. Majority of ‘win-win’ actions for domestic AQAPs are usually for future developments rather than solving current issues. Future development such as energy efficiency plans, awareness raising and sustainable development control (of cumulative impacts) can ensure that the need for domestic related AQMAs does not reoccur. Leeds City Council Case Study: Domestic AQAP
AQ Win : CC Lose Relocation of traffic (incl. Bypasses)? Hydrogen vehicles from unsustainable sources? Electric vehicles from unsustainable sources? Park and Ride?
CC Win : AQ Lose Some bio-fuels for transport? Some biomass heat/power generation? –Questions over full life cycle climate impacts –These have potential increases in Black Carbon emissions –Some estimates suggest BC has Global Warming Potential ≈ 650 (but lower Global Temperature Potential) –They don’t necessarily drive clean technology forwards Park and Ride?
Win:Win(:Win)s More efficient & cleaner vehicles Creating modal shift to Non-Motorised Transport (also wins on health) Increased (clean) public transport use Demand management Some traffic management More green spaces and trees (also wins on health) Encouraging and supporting Energy Efficiency (can also win on health) Electricity/Hydrogen/Biogas from sustainable sources
Drivers for successful integration: Identifying ‘wilful’ and proactive individuals Improving the provision of training, guidance and support Improving the channels of communications (internal and external) Advantages of integration: Identification and implementation of co-beneficial actions Health and quality of life benefits Sustainable decision making and development Cost effectiveness Dissemination of relevant information to individuals and business Key Drivers and Advantages for Successful Co-Management
Conclusions AQ and Climate Change NOT interchangeable AQM and Climate Change closely linked in some areas Both disciplines have important knowledge and skills to share All AQ work on emissions should consider Greenhouse Gases All CC work should consider other environmental, social and public health impacts (and not just ‘carbon reduction’) Big savings or better cost:benefit ratios can be achieved Greater political leverage can be achieved Sensible, integrated governance!