Table. Emissions and cost of control according to the "new" H1 scenario (H1new) resulting from application of the Carbon15 energy scenario and according to the "old" H1 scenario (NEC) - that selected by the Commission for setting national emission ceilings. Emissions in 1000 tons, costs in millions of euros a year.

Back to top

LRTAP CONVENTION

Effects of the new protocol

Even if carried out, the promised reductions of four pollutants will still not suffice.

The Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone, which was formally adopted and signed by twenty-seven countries in Göteborg, Sweden, on December 1, 1999, is the eighth of those agreed during the twenty years of the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. It sets national emission ceilings, which are binding, for four acidifying, eutrophying, and ozone-forming air pollutants: sulphur dioxide (SO₂), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and ammonia (NH₃).

Provided the signatories adhere to the ceilings set for them, and emissions in the countries that have not signed are brought into line with the reference scenario (as a result of legislation already passed), between 1990 and 2010 the European emissions of SO₂ should have gone down by more than 60 per cent, NOx and VOCs by about 40, and those of NH₃ by 17 per cent. See Table 2.

The protocol also sets emission limit values for a number of specified sources, such as large combustion plants and motor vehicles. These will become mandatory for new stationary sources one year after the protocol's coming into force. For existing stationary sources the implementation date is either one year after its coming into effect or December 31, 2007, whichever is the later. In the case of a country with "an economy in transition," the implementation date for existing stationary sources is eight years after the coming into force.

The limit values for new combustion plants are largely similar to those proposed by the European Commission in July 1998, which have however not yet been passed into EU legislation (AN 3/98). For existing large combustion plants the limit values are approximately the same as those in EU directive 88/609/EEC, which have been mandatory for all new plants in the member states since 1987.

But there is no certainty of limit values being adhered to by all countries, since there is a loophole in the protocol making it possible to evade the requirements. As an alternative to the mandatory requirements a country "may apply different emission reduction strategies that achieve equivalent overall emission levels for all source categories together."

The standards of the protocol for motor fuels and new mobile emission sources, as well as the dates for their application, are largely in line with the most recent ones in the EU. Again, countries with an economy "in transition" are allowed extra time for implementation of the standards - in this case up to five years. There is also an annex to the protocol containing measures for reducing the emissions of ammonia from farming. Furthermore there is a requirement for the use of BAT, best available techniques, both on stationary and mobile sources.

The United States and Canada had to be treated differently, since the advanced computer modelling that has been done for Europe, and has served as basis for the negotiations, does not take in North America. In the first place, these two countries have made commitments only for SO₂, NOx, and VOCs, being agreed that they have no problems with transboundary movements of reduced nitrogen compounds (ammonia and byproducts). Secondly, no commitments for emission ceilings could be set for them at the time of the protocol's adoption, since bilateral negotiations are still underway for these matters, and are not likely to be finalized until later this year, or possibly next. It is expected that emission ceilings for the USA and Canada will be added to the protocol later, when these two countries ratify or approve the protocol.

During the negotiations for the protocol Russia had taken advantage of the possibility of defining a so-called PEMA, Pollutant Emission Management Area. This option is open only for a few very large countries, with a land area of more than 2 million square kilometres. It means that a country can restrict its commitments to certain well-defined parts of its territory. Russia has made its PEMA cover approximately 500,000 sq kilometres in the northwestern part, bordering on Finland and the three Baltic States. Otherwise only Canada and the United States have indicated an intention of falling back on PEMAs.

The twenty-seven countries that signed the protocol are listed in Table 1. Four other countries - Belgium, Greece, Poland, and Russia - have declared their intention of signing in the near future. (The protocol is open for signatures until May 30, 2000.) Others not signing were the European Community, Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, and Moldova. There were also some countries that did not participate in the negotiations, and so not in the preparatory work either, among them being Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Estonia, F.Y.R. Macedonia, Yugoslavia, Georgia, and Turkey.

The Community's avoiding to sign the protocol is explained by the fact of negotiations being in process for the Commission's proposed directive on national emission ceilings (see AN 4/99). According to the EU environment commissioner Margot Wallström, the aims of that directive could be jeopardized if the Commission should be seen to be endorsing the more lax objectives of the protocol. It would undermine the EU's policy for combating ground-level ozone and acidification.

The less stringent emission cuts of the protocol would obviously fall far short of the targets for reducing ozone and acidification in the Commission's proposal for a directive on national emission ceilings. The area of ecosystems in the EU, where critical loads for acidification would still be exceeded in 2010, despite implementation of the protocol, is for instance estimated to be 5.3 million hectares, which is 1 million hectares more than would result from application of the NEC directive. Exposure of the population to injurious levels of ozone, expressed according to the cumulative population exposure index, would be nearly one-third higher, or 398 instead of 301 million persons ppm-hours.

The Dutch Ministry of Environment recently published two studies¹ of the protocol. The first describes the preceding analysis, comparing the emission ceilings of the protocol with those of other scenarios discussed during the negotiations, and showing among other things their estimated costs for abatement and the effect on the environment. The second study describes the analysis of the quantifiable benefits (in terms of money) that can be expected from reduction of the emissions, again comparing the outcome of the protocol with that of other scenarios. As in the case of earlier analyses of this kind, only those benefits are considered which can be assessed in terms of money, thus omitting a series of important benefits in the form of less damage to the natural environment and to the cultural heritage with its historic monuments.

It is evident from these studies that the effects of the new protocol will be far from sufficient for achievement of the preliminary aims for 2010 that were agreed in January 1999 (set forth in the guiding scenario, G5/2r.) There is a summary of the calculations in Table 3. Compared with what will be needed to come up to the internationally agreed long-term aim - no more exceeding of the critical loads for pollutants anywhere - they are of course even more inadequate.

In the second Dutch study, the annual monetary benefit of the protocol, as estimated by AEA Technology, is put at euro 12.8 billion for the year 2010. In the IIASA estimate the costs would be about euro 2.8 billion. The benefit-to-cost ratio would thus be 4.6, in other words the benefits would outweigh the costs 4.6 times. It is interesting to note that an even higher benefits-to-costs ratio would be obtained from comparison with the guiding scenario, G5/2r. Then, the annual costs for 2010 would be euro 8.5 billion, and the quantifiable benefits five times more, or euro 42.3 billion.

This only underscores the need for continued effort to bring down the emissions of the four pollutants still further. That can be done both within the framework of the Convention and elsewhere. The ongoing negotiations in the EU for an NEC directive offer a golden opportunity for the member countries to take one more step in the right direction. The matter is especially pertinent now that ten or more countries are wanting to become members of the EU, and the obligations of a coming NEC directive will have to apply for them too.

The protocol provides, moreover, for an update. Article l0 specifies that there are to be reviews, and that the first "shall commence no later than one year after the present Protocol enters into force." It is therefore important that the signatories ratify it without undue delay. (Ratification by sixteen countries is needed for it to come into force.) Previously it has taken anything from two to almost six years to get the Convention's protocols ratified.

Christer Ågren

Note. The full text of the protocol can be found at the Convention's homepage: www.unece.org/env/lrtap.

¹ Amann, M. et al (1999). Integrated Assessment Modelling for the Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone in Europe. Publicatiereeks lucht & energie nr. 132.

Holland, M. et al (1999). Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone in Europe. Publicatiereeks lucht & energie nr. 133.

Both studies are available from the publishers, the Dutch Ministry of Environment, Distributiecentrum VROM, Postbus 351, 2700 AJ Zoetermeer, The Netherlands. Price NLG 30.

Table1. Countries that signed the protocol on December 1, 1999.

Source: Amann, M. et al (November 1999).

Table 3. Environmental improvements. Calculated situation in 2010, according to the reference scenario (REF), the protocol (PRO), and the guiding scenario (G5/2r).

¹ Area of ecosystems with acid depositions above their critical loads for acidification (1000 hectares).
² Cumulative population exposure index (million persons x ppm x hours).
³ Cumulative vegetation exposure index (1000 km² x excess x ppm x hours).
⁴ Area of ecosystems with nitrogen depositions above the critical loads for eutrophication (1000 hectares).

Back to top

BELGIUM

Exercising pressure brings results

Of late the Bond Beter Leefmilieu, the federation of environmentalist organizations in the Flemish-speaking part of Belgium, has been making great efforts to get the new Belgian and Flemish governments to alter their stance in regard to the proposals of the European Commission for a directive, and the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution for a protocol, for national ceilings on the emissions of acidifying and ozone-forming air pollutants.

At the time of the last meeting of experts dealing with the new multi-pollutant protocol of the Convention last September, the Bond Beter Leefmilieu had its attention drawn by Air Pollution & Climate Secretariat to the weak bids that had been made by the Belgian representatives during the first round of discussions. The reductions of the four pollutants - SO₂, NOx, VOCs and ammonia - that the Belgians said they would be willing to accept would have been far below those calculated as necessary for achievement of the environmental target that had been set during the negotiations. They were even less than the Belgian representatives had themselves previously proposed. They were also lower than the EU average, despite the fact that to reach the targets for environmental quality, Belgium's reductions should, if they followed the optimized reduction scenario (G5/2r), be amongst the highest in Europe. The concentration of dense road traffic, much industry, and intensive farming onto a small land area makes Belgium a net exporter of acidifying pollutants and ozone-forming substances.

The BBL quickly reacted by arranging a press conference together with the European Environmental Bureau, at which they presented a sharp analysis of the government's line of action, comparing the proposed emission cuts with the targets and aims of its current policy for the environment. From this it could be seen that for some industries the emission reductions which were, according to the Flemish Environmental Policy Plan l997-2001, to be attained in 2002, went further than those wanted for 2010 by Belgian industry for the negotiations on national emission ceilings. In those negotiations the Belgian government would also be failing to reach the goals for the environment set by the Flemish regional government and parliament.

Furthermore, neither the Flemish nor the Belgian authorities had given official notice of the Flemish plan, although it had been in for force since 1997. Consequently the emissions aimed at in that plan had never been registered as agreed measures in European modelling. This meant that in Belgium's case the difference between measures already decided upon and necessary further measures appeared larger and so more expensive than it should have been - which can explain the reluctance of the Flemish and Belgian governments to take further steps.

The official Belgian proposals would also have failed to take account either of a resolution that had been passed in the Flemish parliament to the effect that the high concentrations of ozone should be resolutely dealt with, or of the Flemish government's view that Flanders should be innovative in pushing for international agreements. So the BBL made Belgium's attitude in regard to the protocol on emission ceilings a test case for the new Belgian government (where the Green Party is now also represented for the first time). In an open letter to all the ministers that were involved, deep concern was expressed at the official attitude.

All these efforts have not been without result. The Flemish minister of environment turned to the MINA-Raad for advice as to the attitude Belgium was to take on emission reductions at the meeting of the EU Environment Council in October. (The MINA-Raad is the Flemish environmental advisory committee on which environmentalist organizations such as the BBL as well as industry are represented.) This was the first time the Commission's proposal for national emission ceilings was discussed at such a meeting.

The MINA-Raad urged compliance with existing undertakings such as those made at Kyoto and in the Flemish Advisory Policy Plan. In the view of the Raad, further reductions could be achieved through measures to bring about structural changes and the use of financial instruments, which have so far not been tried.

In the wake of this consultation with the MINA-Raad the Belgian minister of environment, Magda Aelvoet, announced at the meeting of the EU Environment Council on October 12 that Belgium would be agreeing to greater reductions than it had previously been willing to commit itself to - lowering its ceiling for sulphur dioxide from 121,000 to 106,000 tons a year by 2010, and that for nitrogen oxides from 184,000 to 181,000 tons. In answer to a question in parliament, Ms Aelvoet agreed to look for further reductions before the protocol comes up for review. Steps would also be taken to see how measures to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide also affected those of acidifying and ozone-forming substances.

In future, too, environmentalist NGOs would be drawn into the discussions at an early stage, and on the same footing as industry. This will give the BBL and like organizations greater influence on the role Belgium has to take when international agreements are being made in the respect of the environment.

Bart Martens

Policy advisor, Bond Beter Leefmilieu.

Back to top

At least two doing it

The last round of negotiations before formal signing of the new multi-effect protocol under the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution took place in August and September. The commitments then made by most countries were far from adequate for attainment of the previously agreed aims of the protocol. To somehow get around the dilemma, the possibility was given for any country that so wished to improve on its original commitments.

As reported above Belgium did so, and so did Sweden, where an environmentalist group also acted. In this case it was the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, which took up the matter at a seminar on national targets for environmental quality. In consequence the Swedish government raised its bid for a reduction of the country's emissions of nitrogen oxides by 20,000 tons (the emission ceiling was lowered from 168,000 to 148,000 tons a year). A slight improvement was also made for ammonia. Moreover Sweden's minister of environment wrote to his opposites in the other countries urging them to initiate similar moves.

Back to top

CO₂ FROM CARS

The problem of achieving reduction

European and Asian car makers have agreed with EU to cut down the emissions of CO₂ from new cars in the next few years, but it is doubtful whether they will be able to do it on their own.

According to a recent study, the car makers cannot fulfill the promises they have made to the EU Commission to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide from new vehicles unless they get help from outside. The study, by environmental economist Per Kågeson, was made for T&E, the European Federation for Transport and Environment, and its Swedish member organisation Gröna Bilister (The Swedish Association of Green Motorists).

Kågeson has made a detailed analysis of the agreements made between the EU Commission and the manufacturers' trade associations in Europe, Japan, and Korea - ACEA, JAMA, and KAMA. In essence they mean that the makers have agreed that in 2008 the average new car sold in the EU will be emitting at the most 140 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre - although the Asian companies would have until 2009. This corresponds approximately to a consumption of 5 litres per 100 kilometres for petrol-driven cars, and 4.5 litres for diesels - amounting to a drop of about 25 per cent from today's figures.

The average fuel consumption of new cars sold in the EU has remained unchanged since 1985. Kågeson proposes that the technical improvements made in the meantime should, by today, have brought a reduction of l5-20 per cent. But most of the car makers have, as Kågeson's analysis shows, simply used the improved technology to build heavier vehicles with more powerful engines. The average for new-car consumption would probably have been higher were it not for the increased proportion of diesel-driven vehicles that are being sold (which emit less CO₂ per km).

The question is then what the car makers can do to fulfill their commitments. The ACEA says they will not go in for smaller cars, one probable reason being that profit margins all the way from the factory to the salesroom are very much greater for large cars. The ACEA's solution lies in a great increase in the number of vehicles with engines that emit less carbon dioxide per kilometre, hoping that 90 per cent of the new cars sold in 2008 will either be diesel-driven or have direct-injection engines. The Japanese are aiming at an increasing proportion of petrol-driven cars with direct injection engines and hybrids with part-electric propulsion.

But according to Kågeson's analysis, the car industry will, in this way, only get halfway towards fulfilling its commitments for 2008-09. He concludes that economic incentives will also be needed, to influence the buyers' choice of cars. That will be especially necessary in view of the present trend towards ever larger and more powerful cars.

The EU countries have moreover several reasons for turning to economic instruments for reducing the average fuel consumption of new cars. The Environment Council has set 120 grams per km as an objective for the average new car in 2010, and the EU has committed itself, in the Kyoto protocol, to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by 8 per cent between 1990 and 2008.

After analyzing the various possible instruments for reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide from road traffic, Kågeson arrives at the following:

. The emissions from new cars could be kept down by a system of tradeable emission permits. A manufacturer that has reduced more than its permit requires can sell its surplus allowance to some other that has not; and vice versa, any failing to keep within the permit figure can save itself a fine by buying an extra allowance. In order to get down to the desired emission levels, the sum total of permits has to be successively reduced.

. An alternative to tradeable permits might be a combination of increased fuel taxes with a differentiated sales tax on new cars. So as not to hinder the turning in of old cars for new, the sales taxes should be so scaled as not to affect the average price of new cars. If it is to have any effect, though, the differentiation should be well marked.

. Because the tax on diesel is lower than that for petrol in all the EU countries except Britain, there is a tendency for the gain from having more diesel cars to be offset by people driving longer distances because it is cheaper. Petrol and diesel fuel should be taxed according to carbon content, which would mean that the tax on diesel should be 13 per cent higher than that on petrol.

. The tax on petrol and diesel fuel should be increased every year by an amount equal to 20-30 per cent of the saving that can be got from the decline in cars' fuel consumption. Otherwise the gain will be offset by people driving longer distances, since it would cost less.

. Speed limits and changed driving habits could bring about a marked reduction in the emissions of carbon dioxide from road traffic.

. Reducing cars' emissions of carbon dioxide to 120 grams per km would cause no social hardships. It would not cost much, and smaller cars with less powerful engines would actually result in a gain to society. Failure to grphp the possibilities would force the EU to take measures in other sectors that would be more costly.

. If the 120-gram aim is to be attained by 2010, the EU Commission will have to start deciding on suitable economic instruments without delay.

It is worth noting that one of the measures taken by the Commission, as a means of reducing the fuel consumption of new cars, by requiring a declaration of fuel economy, is unlikely to have much effect. Systems similar to that now being introduced in the EU have been applied in Britain and Sweden during at least two decades. But it is precisely in these two countries that the engine power of new cars has increased most of all, and today Sweden's cars are the heaviest and thirstiest in all Europe.

Per Elvingson

The drive for less fuel. Will the motor industry be able to honour its commitment to the European Union? By Per Kågeson. T&E Report 00/1. Available from the European Federation for Transport and Environment, www.t-e.nu

Back to top

¹ Non-methane hydrocarbons. ² For natural-gas engines only. ³ For diesel engines only.

Back to top

LCPs

Split on existing plants

Despite long-drawn-out negotiations and a number of compromise proposals, the EU Environment Council failed in December to arrive at a so-called Common Position on a proposed revision of the LCP directive.

This is a directive to control the emissions of SO₂, NOx, and particles from combustion plants with a capacity of more than 50 megawatt (see AN 2/99).

The big question has been whether the member countries would be willing to accept the Parliament's proposal to set emission limit values for existing plants as well as new ones. In this the Parliament has the support of most of the member countries, but a group consisting of Spain, Portugal, Greece, Britain, and Ireland is now blocking such a move. Italy, France, and the Netherlands have been undecided, but unlike the last group appear ready to accept a compromise solution.

• Productivity will gain from investment in energy efficiency.
• Technology costs will be reduced.
• As will the import prices for fossil fuels.
• There will be cheaper mixes in the electricity supply.
• Externality costs will be lower.

• Carry out targeted programs to eliminate the high transaction costs that block investments in energy productivity on the demand side. Suitable and proven instruments are voluntary agreements, utilities' incentive programs, fee rebates, mandatory standards for minimum efficiency, and a range of activities, including information, labelling, training and extension services, to build and strengthen the institutional foundations of a functional energy-service industry.
• To ensure high reduction of carbon emissions, these demand-side efforts would have to be complemented by regulatory reforms for utilities, such as fair buy-back rates for on-site electricity production, and market-creation programs on the supply side, such as standards for cogeneration and renewable power.
• Such policies for enhancement and transformation of the electricity market can be given added effectiveness through a reform of energy subsidies and a reorientation of the programs for research and development. Only a moderate energy or carbon tax would be needed to finance these policies and the requisite incentives for investment. They could also be backed up by an EU regime for emissions trading.

A multi-faceted policy of this kind could make carbon abatement profitable for society. With present policy only a small part of the feasible carbon reductions and economic benefits will be realized, according to the IPSEP. This vacuum will mean that the total costs of energy services in the EU will remain a third above least-cost levels in 2020, even after some price reductions resulting from liberalization of the energy market have been accounted for.

Warning against flexible mechanisms
The IPSEP warns against the so-called flexible mechanisms of the Kyoto protocol, enabling one country to buy an emission allowance from another. If carried out on a large scale it would mean that the gain from an offensive climate policy was not being taken, and countries that do make cuts will simply increase their competitiveness. The IPSEP estimates that "elsewhere" flexibility will only be economically advantageous in respect of about 10 per cent of the EU's commitments, the rest having to be profitably realized through productivity measures within the Union itself.

"Outdated economic modelling studies have severely distorted the international policy debate on climate protection. With a productivity-oriented climate strategy, the European Union could garner significant GDP, employment, and competitiveness benefits from implementing its Kyoto commitment for 2010. Reductions below 1990 levels could be more than doubled by 2020, at an even greater net economic benefit," is the conclusion of the Californian group.

Per Elvingson

1 Cutting Carbon Emissions While Making Money. Climate Saving Energy Strategies for the European Union. Energy Policy in the Greenhouse: Volume II, Part 2 (1999). By F. Krause, J. Koomey, and D. Olivier. International Project for Sustainable Energy Paths (IPSEP), 7627 Leviston Ave, El Cerrito, California 94530, USA. Available free of charge on internet: www.ipsep.org.

Back to top

In brief

US tightening up
Stricter standards for car emissions and motor fuels are scheduled for introduction in the United States in 2004. The proposals put forward by the EPA in May last year (see AN 2/99) were presented, with only minor changes, as final rules by President Clinton just before Christmas. This means, for instance, that the sulphur content of petrol will have to be lowered from 300 to 30 ppm, and that the emission standards will be the same for all cars, no matter whether they are of the light passenger type or are big SUVs, sport utility vehicles. The difference will be greatest for the heavy types, which at present get off much more leniently than ordinary cars.

The refiners are not pleased at the new regulations. The car makers, on the other hand, are rejoicing at the prospect of fuels with improved quality, even though they had hoped for more time to meet the emission standards. Representatives of environmental interests, the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund, told Reuters that they were very pleased with these decisions.

Source: Reuters, December 21, 1999.

Trouble with benzene
In December 1998 the EU Commission had put forward a proposal for a directive setting new air-quality standards for benzene and carbon monoxide (COM(98)591, see AN 1/99). At the first reading last December the EU Parliament voted not to accept that part of the directive which would allow agglomerations experiencing "severe socio-economic difficulties" in meeting the target for benzene to apply for a five-year derogation from the limits. The Council of Ministers then produced a compromise proposal allowing a five-year derogation provided the concentrations of benzene in the air did not exceed 10 µg/m³ as a yearly average (as compared with 5 µg/m³ in the directive). Spain was the only country to vote against the compromise, considering the level of benzene far too difficult to attain. The directive will be coming up for a second reading in Parliament this spring.

Removing an obstruction
Considering the high sulphur contents allowed for petrol and diesel fuels under EU rules to be a brake on the introduction of new technology for engines and gas cleaning, the German government is pressing for a limit of 10 ppm as from 2007.

The present EU fuel standards date from 1998, when a directive was adopted for limiting the sulphur content of petrol and diesel oil to 350 and 150 ppm respectively by 2000, with a further reduction for both to 50 ppm by 2005.

The German government would like to see a tightening of the directive when it comes up for revision in 2007. It has in any case decided on a tax reduction from November 2001 in Germany for motor fuels with a sulphur content of 50 ppm, and to screw the level down to 10 ppm in January 2003.

In January the EU Commission said it would agree to a tax reduction for fuels with a 50 ppm sulphur content, but wanted more time to consider the environmental and free-trade phpects of a 10 ppm limit.

Heading the windpower league
Last year there was an increase of 30 per cent in installed capacity for windpower in the EU countries. More than half of the increase was however in a single country, Germany, which thereby consolidated its position as No. 1 for windpower in the EU. At the end of 1999 the figures in megawatts were:

Source: European Wind Energy Association (www.ewea.org).

EU aviation strategy
A proposal for an environmental policy in the aviation sector was put forward by the Commission last December, expressing the view that the steady increase in emissions from aircraft is making it impossible to go on relying on technical standards only. An integrated approach will now be necessary, according to the Commission. One of the main items in the proposal would be environmental charges on air travel, corresponding to the emissions. While it would prefer to see such charges adopted on a world basis, the Commission is threatening to introduce them for the EU alone if no decision on global charges should be forthcoming from the ICAO at its next general assembly in 2001.

Press release from the EU Commission, December 1, 1999.

Compensation for pollution
The Kobe District Court in Japan has awarded 210 million yen in compensation to the residents of Amagasaki (Hyogo) Prefecture for pollution caused by vehicle exhaust emissions. The Japanese central government and the Hanshin Expressway Public Corporation will both pay, the court having ruled that the two are responsible for failing to keep the daily level of exposure to suspended particulate matter to the permissible maximum of 0.15 mg/m³.

Car Lines, January 2000.

Better done abroad
The Japanese government is to offer China a loan of 16 billion yen - equal to about 120 million euro - to help reduce air pollution. It is intended that the money shall first be used to clean up in three of the country's most polluted (and polluting) cities - Dalian, Chongqing, and Guyiang - but if the results are good there, the program can be extended. The Japanese hope that low-interest loans will enable the Chinese to develop alternatives to coal firing, mainly through increased use of the country's gas reserves. Japan is the recipient of a great amount of air pollution from China.

Ny Teknik, 2000:6 (February, 2000).

Road charging for heavy vehicles
Germany is continuing to make preparations for the introduction of a new system of road charging for heavy vehicles. The Ministry of Transport has started to negotiate a contract for a satellite-based system which will make it possible to charge according to the use of the highways. An independent commission has recommended a charge of DM 0.25 (0.13 euro) per kilometre, to be applicable in 2002 or 2003, and that the income should be used for investments in the road infrastructure. The Ministry also wants the emissions of air pollutants to be reflected in the charges, if that should be technically possible. But tariff rates have in any case still to be fixed.

If such a charging system should be adopted, Germany will be the third country in Europe to take the step. Switzerland and Austria have already prepared systems for 2001 and 2002 respectively. If Germany does it, it will mean leaving the Eurovignette system, in which eight EU countries are now participating. In that system the charges are differentiated according to the vehicle's environmental characteristics, varying between 750 and 1550 euro a year, but no account is taken of the distance travelled.

The EU is itself preparing for abandonment of the Eurovignette system and going over to road charging on the German lines. A report giving the details is expected next year.

ENDS Daily, February 3 and 14, 2000.

European investment bank criticized
A network of environmentalist organizations in central and eastern Europe - CEE Bankwatch - is keeping an eye on the activities of the international investment banks in the area. In February, for instance, it criticized the European Investment Bank, EIB. While its lending has so far been mainly to present EU members, the EIB is now expected to be increasingly active in the candidate countries. But the NGOs claim that some of the projects it has financed are in breach of national environmental laws - naming specifically the Budapest ring road, for which the bank has lent 72 million euro even though projections have shown that the pollution would be higher than permitted either in Hungarian or EU law.

CEE Bankwatch asserts that the bank operates in a manner "largely exempt from the overall policy direction of the EU" and that it "disregards environmental considerations." Underlying these problems, the NGOs say, is the bank's secretive manner of operating, which prevents it being held publicly to account for its actions.

Further information: www.bankwatch.org.

Back to top

Recent publications

The effects of acidification (1999)
A twenty-minute videofilm describing the ecological effects of air pollution on forests, small freshwater lakes, and grasslands. In English. Produced by the Dutch Ministry of Environment. Available free of charge from the publisher: Distribution Centre of the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, Box 2727, 3430 GC Nieuwegein, the Netherlands. Fax: +31 70 3391568.

Controlling Traffic Pollution and the Auto-Oil Programme (1999)
By F. Goodwin, the European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E). A comprehensive evaluation of the two Auto-Oil programs, examining the applicability of the Auto-Oil model for other legislative initiatives, and looking into the future of controlling emissions from traffic. T&E 99/8. Available from T&E, www.t-e.nu

Aviation and its Impact on the Environment (1999)
Comprehensive and easy-to-read, up-to-date information on aviation and its effects on the environment at the turn of the century. Update of a German publication from 1997. T&E 99/10. Available from the T&E, address as above.

Ecologically-viable Alpine transport
Pamphlet published by Federal Ministry of the Environment, Youth and Family, Stubenbastei 5, 1010 Vienna, Austria.

The environmental and social costs of mobility in Italy, second report: Executive Summary
By Amici della Terra (Friends of the Earth, Italy). This 44-page English-language executive summary describes the current situation in Italy.

Air Pollution from the Transport Sector - A Scenario Study for Europe (1999)
62 pp., 81 kronor. Report 5023. Published by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 106 48 Stockholm, Sweden.

Ground-Level Ozone - A Threat to Vegetation (1999)
Edited by H. Pleijel. A general survey of the problem of ground-level ozone, especially in regard to its effects on crops, forest trees, and natural vegetation. Report 4970. Obtainable from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, address as above.

European Directory of Sustainable and Energy Efficient Building (1999)
Presenting buildings with low energy consumption and/or using systems for renewable energy. Includes both new and refurbished buildings, and lists individuals to contact, suppliers, etc. Published by James & James Ltd, 35-37 William Road, London NW1 3ER, England.

Ozone Position Paper (1999)
Underying material for the EU Commission's proposal for the directive on ozone, prepared by the Ad hoc Working Group on Ozone Directive and Reduction Strategy Development. 171 pp. 26.50 euros. Published by the Office for Official Publications of the EC. Avavilable from all national outlets for EU publications.

Voluntary Approaches for Environmental Policy: An Assessment (2000)
The use of voluntary approaches in environmental policy (e.g.negotiated agreements between government and industry) is spreading and attracting growing interest in OECD countries. This book provides a systematic analysis of the different types of voluntary approaches, their economic characteristics, their role and effectiveness. 144 pp. 180 francs. Can be ordered from OECD, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France.

OECD Environmental Data: Compendium 1999 Edition
A compendium presenting data that link pollution and natural resources with activity in such economic sectors as energy, transport, industry and agriculture. 332 pp. 370 francs. Bilingual (English/French). Obtainable from OECD, address as above.

Environmental Performance Reviews: Turkey (1999)
This book is part of the OECD Environmental Performance Review Program, which conducts peer reviews of environmental conditions and progress in each member country. 188 pp. 180 francs. Available from OECD, address as above.

Road Congestion in Europe (1999)
This publication, the results of the 110th Roundtable of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport 1998, defines congestion, determines the scale of the problem and considers possible solutions. 240 pp. 320 francs. Can be ordered from OECD, address as above.

Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone (1999)
Pamphlet, 12 pp., describing the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution and the development and content of the new protocol. Available from the UN ECE, Environment and Human Settlements Division, Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland. Internet: www.unece.org/env/lrtap.

The Göteborg Protocol clears the air
Newsletter from the Ministry of Environment, Sweden, describing the new Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone. 4 pp. Article No. M99.017. Can be ordered from Ministry of Environment, att. Anna Larsson, 103 33 Stockholm, Sweden.

Facts about Swedish Policy: Acid Rain (1999)
Eight-page pamphlet available from the Ministry of Environment, 103 33 Stockholm, Sweden. Tel. +46-8-4051000.

Something in the Air (1999)
Pamphlet from the regional authorities of western Sweden, highlighting the problems of acidification. 8 pp. Can be ordered from Länsstyrelsen Västra Götalands län, 462 82 Vänersborg, Sweden. Tel. +46-521-60 50 00.

Green Taxes. Economic Theory and Empirical Evidence from Scandinavia (1999)
Edited by R. Brännlund and I-M. Gren. Examines the possibility of a green tax reform in the Scandinavian countries. 176 pp. £39.95. Published by Edward Elgar Publishing, Glensanda House, Montpellier Parade, Cheltenham Glos GL50 1UA, England. Internet: www.e-elgar.co.uk.

Guide to Research Databases of Acid Rain Assessment and Policy Literature (1999)
By W.F. Dietrich. ENRP Discussion Paper E-99-04. Available from Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 79 JFK Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. Internet: http://environment.harvard.edu/gea.

Back to top

Published in June 2000.