1. 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

2. 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 PM2.5 Calculations for 1997 meteorology Provisional estimates with generic assumption on urban increment of PM

3. 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 targets for PM2.5

4. 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/m 3. Below 17 μg/m 3 : infeasible for Thessaloniki –17, 16.5, 16.0 μg/m 3 without Thessaloniki. Below 16 μg/m 3 : infeasible for Genova –16, 15.5, 15.0, 14.5 μg/m 3 without Genova

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

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

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

8. 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%

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

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

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

12. Modified gap closure: cut-off for low concentrations To release pressure on countries for lower effects, a cut-off at 7 μg/m 3 has been introduced. Approach: –Determine target level of PM2.5 for a given gap closure percentage –If target level below 7 μg/m 3, target set at 7 μg/m 3 –Optimization for modified targets

13. Costs of the modified gap closure scenarios with cut-off at 7 μg/m 3 [billion €/yr]

14. Costs of the source-based “gap closure” scenarios with a cut-off at 7 μg/m 3 [€/person/year]

15. Costs of a gained month of life expectancy Gap closure with a cut-off at 7 μg/m 3 [€/person/year]

16. 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

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

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

19. Emission control costs for a life year gained Optimization with Europe-wide targets [€/year]

20. Equity and efficiency

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

22. 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.

23. Coefficients of variation of per-capita emission control costs across countries

24. Coefficients of variation of relative health improvements (YOLL) across countries

25. Coefficients of variation of costs per YOLL across countries

26. Conclusions on 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