Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Cost-effectiveness Analysis in CAFE and the Need for Information about Urban Air Quality

The CAFE assessment process of DG-ENV

CAFE’s interest in urban air quality Health impact assessment for future air quality scenarios Balancing cost-effectiveness between EU-wide and urban emission controls as a basis for revised national emission ceilings and source- specific legislation

The model: RAINS developed by IIASA Energy/agriculture projections Emissions Emission control options Atmospheric dispersion Environmental impacts Environmental targets Costs OPTIMIZATION

Purpose: Integrated assessment of options to control air pollution in Europe Model the full chain from sources to impacts Multi-effects: acidification, health (O 3, PM), eutrophication, vegetation (O 3 ) Grasp full picture, cover all sectors (stationary, mobile, agriculture, industry) Includes all Europe (48 countries) Multi-pollutant The RAINS model

A multi-pollutant/multi-effect problem

Test cases for linearity in regional source-receptor relationships EmissionsPrimary PM ConcentrationsPM 2.5PM coarseVOCNO x NH 3 SO 2 PM coarse primary ++ PM 2.5 primary + O3O3 ++ PM sec. organic +++ PM sec.inorganic +++ NH 4 NO HNO SO 4 ++ (NH 4 ) 1.5 SO 4 ++

Recommendations from a WHO report ” Quantification of Health Effects of Exposure to Air Pollution” WHO, 2001 Cohort (long-term) studies provide most complete estimates of attributable deaths and average reduction of lifespan Time-series studies of daily mortality provide lower bound on attributable deaths, valuable for –demonstrating effects, –quantifying effects of short-term variations of air pollution, –basis for alert systems.  Long-term concentrations are needed for impact assessment

Health impact assessment “ Most epidemiological studies actually measure the relation between ambient concentrations and response. We generally interpret these estimates as measuring the effects of average exposures of the entire population (or broad strata of it) across broad geographic areas.” (WHO, 2001)  Representative situation with limited spatial resolution required for HIA

Introducing urban air quality in RAINS Objectives: Conduct health impact assessment Determine cost-effective balance between Europe- wide and local measures to reduce health impacts NOT: compliance with DD limit values For PM (PM2.5, PM10, etc.) and O 3 Starting point: Scenarios and cost-effectiveness analysis for regional air quality (50*50 km) for entire Europe

Methodology Identify systematic differences between regional AQ (50*50 km) and “representative” AQ in cities for health- relevant (long-term) metrics, for PM x and O 3 Focus on differences in the responses to emission reductions (“deltas”), not on present-day situation Through model intercomparison, identify and acknowledge range of model responses (“uncertainty”) For a number of test cities Is generalization for other cities possible, which explanatory variables are required (city emissions?)

Intercomparison scenarios Comparison between EMEP model run and city model run using European emissions BC from EMEP run regional (200 km) emissions city emissions 1CLE1 2CLE+NOx_12 3CLE+NOx_23 4CLE+VOC4 5CLE+NOx+VOC5 6CLE+PM2.56 7CLE+PMcoarse7 8CLE1 CLE+NOx 9CLE1 CLE+VOC 10CLE1 CLE+NOx+VOC CLE: Emissions in 2010 with current legislation (sectoral profiles will be provided by IIASA)

Output to be reported For ozone: Daily maximum eight-hour mean concentrations for the summer half year (exact time period needs to be determined). From these daily data, various AOTx metrics can be derived (AOT60, AOT40, possibly AOT30 to provide for potential changes in the WHO guidelines) AOT40 for vegetation, i.e., the accumulated excess of hourly ozone values over 40 ppb during daylight hours over a three month vegetation period (exact period needs to be decided, can be different for each city). For PM: Daily average concentrations of PMcoarse and PM2.5 for 365 days

Time schedule CAFE has to provide policy guidance in 2004/2005 Exploring alternative policy scenarios in 2004 All models and databases must be ready and reviewed by end of 2003 Methodologies must be ready in early 2003 Findings from model intercomparison should be clear in late 2002