DOCSLIB.ORG

Unclassified ENV/EPOC/EAP(2012)10

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Unclassified ENV/EPOC/EAP(2012)10 Unclassified ENV/EPOC/EAP(2012)10 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 11-Sep-2012 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE ENVIRONMENT POLICY COMMITTEE Unclassified ENV/EPOC/EAP(2012)10 TASK FORCE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROGRAMME FOR CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE, CAUCASUS AND CENTRAL ASIA STRENGTHENING THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL DIMENSION OF INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN ARMENIA, AZERBAIJAN AND GEORGIA Case study on the Kura river basin Annual EAP Task Force meeting, 24-25 September 2012, Oslo, Norway Agenda item: 5 ACTION REQUIRED: For information Please contact Ms. Tatiana Efimova by e-mail [email protected] or phone +33 1 45 24 14 34 for any additional information. English JT03326071 Complete document available on OLIS in its original format - This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of Or. English international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. ENV/EPOC/EAP(2012)10 2 ENV/EPOC/EAP(2012)10 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1. Description of framework conditions in the region and demands for project activities ....................... 5 1.2. Project goals .......................................................................................................................................... 6 2. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1. Conceptual framework adopted by the project ..................................................................................... 7 2.2. Key project actions ............................................................................................................................... 9 2.3. Data sources ........................................................................................................................................ 10 3. EXISTING ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS IN ARMENIA, GEORGIA AND AZERBAIJAN.............. 11 3.1. Overview of the existing economic instruments in the three countries .............................................. 11 3.2. Comparative performance assessment of existing instruments .......................................................... 13 4. WATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED BY EXISTING ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 18 4.1. Water management issues at the national level: commonalities and discrepancies ............................ 18 4.2. The trans-boundary dimension of water management issues in the Kura river basin ......................... 19 5. POTENTIAL NEW (INNOVATIVE) ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS FOR THE KURA RIVER BASIN21 5.1. Review of the potential new instruments proposed for the three countries ........................................ 21 5.2. Pre-feasibility assessment of the proposed instruments ...................................................................... 23 5.3. Implementation of new (innovative) economic instruments: overall considerations for the Kura river basin ........................................................................................................................................................... 26 5.4. The benefits of the implementation of new economic instruments for an improved water management ............................................................................................................................................... 27 6. THE POTENTIAL FOR A COMMON APPROACH TO WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE KURA RIVER BASIN .............................................................................................................................................. 29 6.1. A coordinated approach to economic instruments for water management: opportunities and constraints .................................................................................................................................................. 29 6.2.The way forward: suggestions on further steps for continuing the regional dialogue on innovative economic instruments at the river basin level ............................................................................................ 30 7. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 33 ANNEX I. INFORMATION SOURCES FOR THE THREE COUNTRIES ............................................... 36 ANNEX II. OVERVIEW OF THE EXISTING ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS IN ARMENIA, GEORGIA AND AZERBAIJAN ..................................................................................................................................... 39 ANNEX III. WATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES IN THE KURA RIVER BASIN ACCORDING TO THE DPSIR FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................................................. 44 3 ENV/EPOC/EAP(2012)10 Tables Table 1. Comparative performance assessment of existing economic instruments in the three countries ……………………………………………………………………………………………15 Table 2. Water management issues not addressed by the existing economic instruments at the national level .............................................................................................................................................. 18 Table 3. Potential new (innovative) economic instruments proposed for the three countries ............. 21 Table 4. Pre-feasibility assessment of the proposed new (innovative) economic instruments ............ 24 Table 5. Overview of expected benefits at the national level .............................................................. 28 Table 6. List of experts and stakeholders contacted in Armenia ......................................................... 36 Table 7. Data and information sources mobilized for the Armenia Country review ........................... 36 Table 8. Comparative summary of tariffs for drinking water and wastewater treatment in Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan ............................................................................................................................. 39 Table 9. Comparative summary of irrigation water tariffs in Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan ....... 40 Table 10. Comparative summary of pollution fees in Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan .................... 40 Table 11. Comparative summary of abstraction fees applied in Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan ..... 41 Table 12. Comparative summary of fines and penalties applied in Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan 42 Figures Figure 1. Conceptual framework adopted by the project ........................................................................ 8 Figure 2. Proposed approach to continuing a regional dialogue on economic instruments for water management ............................................................................................................................................... 31 4 ENV/EPOC/EAP(2012)10 1. INTRODUCTION The project “Strengthening the financial dimension of integrated water resource management in Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan – Case study on the Kura river basin” was launched by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in the context of the EU Water Initiative National Policy Dialogue on IWRM. It aims at providing support to the Governments of the three countries as part of the implementation of the “Advisory Assistance Programme for Environmental Protection” that is financed by the German Federal Ministry of the Environment. The overall goal of the project is to assess the economic and financial dimension of water management in Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan and to build the basis for a more coordinated approach to economic instruments for water management at the river basin level. When referring to “a more coordinated approach to economic instruments for water management”, two distinct dimensions are considered in the context of this initiative: The trans-boundary dimension of water management; and, The potential for a coordinated application of economic instruments for water management at the river basin scale so economic instruments applied at the national level address effectively trans- boundary water management issues The present report addresses both dimensions, with the purpose of providing an overall perspective of the economic and financial dimension of IWRM at the river basin scale. It builds on the insights on economic instruments for water management in each country gained through three Country reviews carried out by national experts in the first phases of this project1. The following two sections will provide more details about the context and the specific objectives of the project. 1.1. Description of framework conditions in the region and demands for project activities In 2006, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia signed the European Neighbourhood Policy Action Plans with the European Union (EU). Under these plans, each country is committed ”to identify possibilities with neighbouring countries for enhanced regional co-operation, in particular with regard to water issues”. The
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lesson D3 ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS in WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
    EMW ATER E -LEARNING COURSE PROJECT FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION LESSON D 3: ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS IN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT Lesson D3 ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS IN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT Author: Annika Kramer and Julika Post Adelphi Reseach Berlin Revised by Dr. Yavuz Özoguz data-quest Suchi & Berg GmbH Keywords Cost Recovery, Demand Side Management, Polluter Pays Principle, Pollution Charges, Subsidies, Tariff Systems, Water Pricing Table of content EMW ATER E -LEARNING COURSE PROJECT FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION LESSON D 3: ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS IN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY .......................................................................................4 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................4 2. ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS IN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT..........................5 2.1 Objectives..........................................................................................................5 2.1.1 Raise revenues and recover costs....................................................................5 2.1.2 Set incentives for water conservation and pollution prevention ........................5 2.1.3 Awareness raising and economic efficiency .....................................................5 2.2 Mechanisms ......................................................................................................6 3. POLLUTION CHARGES ...........................................................................................7 3.1 Pollution Charges
    [Show full text]
  • The Polluter Pays Principle: Guidelines for Cost Recovery and Burden Sharing in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice
    This article is published in a peer-reviewed section of the Utrecht Law Review The Polluter Pays Principle: Guidelines for Cost Recovery and Burden Sharing in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice Petra E. Lindhout Berthy van den Broek* 1. Introduction On the occasion of the launch of the Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law we would like to use this opportunity to contribute to the development of a normative framework for sustainable water management. We regard the polluter pays principle as an important foundation underlying such a normative framework. The core of the principle that ‘the polluter should pay’ is easy to understand: polluters are responsible for the pollution they have caused. Therefore, polluters should bear the cost of measures aimed at preventing and reducing pollution.1 Over the years, the polluter pays principle has developed into a basis for EU environmental policy.2 Nowadays, the polluter pays principle is referred to in many provisions of EU directives concerning cost recovery, liability or the obligation to take compensatory measures in cases of environmental damage. These provisions are meant to be an incentive for the polluter to prevent or reduce pollution. However, in practice, problems arise in the application of the polluter pays principle.3 One of the current issues is the definition of ‘pollution’ or ‘polluter’. It is generally recognized that negative environmental impacts of the use of our resources consist of both pollution and depletion of natural resources.4 Therefore, sustainable water management should not only concern the prevention and remediation of pollution caused by emissions of pollutants, but also encourage a prudent use of scarce water resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Polluter-Pays Principle and the Regulation of Environmental Pollution in Nigeria: Major Challenges
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE): E-Journals Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3240 (Paper) ISSN 2224-3259 (Online) Vol.70, 2018 Polluter-Pays Principle and the Regulation of Environmental Pollution in Nigeria: Major Challenges Jude O. Ezeanokwasa 1 Department of International Law and Jurisprudence, Faculty of Law, Nnamdi Azikiwe Universty, Awka, Anambra State, Nigeria Abstract Recognizing the internationally acclaimed efficiency of the Polluter-Pays principle (PPP) in achieving environmental protection and improvement, Nigeria adopted it as one of its principles in achieving environmental protection. The principle holds polluters responsible for the environmental degradation and pollution caused by them by getting them pay for them (pollution). To achieve the desired goal the PPP is embodied in major environmental regulations statutes, instruments and institutions in Nigeria such as the 1999 National Policy on Environment, as revised in 2016, National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) (Establishment) Act, National Oil Spill Detection and Response (NOSDRA) (Establishment) Act, Environmental Guidelines and Standards for the Petroleum Industry in Nigeria (EGASPIN), and Mining and Minerals Act 2007. Despite the length of time that has passed from the time Nigeria adopted PPP as a key driving principle of its policy on environment, environment pollution and degradation have not abetted. They are rather on the increase as can be attested by the mountains of solid wastes littering our cities and pollution-related restiveness in the Niger Delta. This led this paper to critically inquire into the efficacy of the PPP in Nigeria.
    [Show full text]
  • Polluter Pays Principle As the Key Element to Environmental Law
    International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 11, Issue 3, March 2021 274 ISSN 2250-3153 Polluter Pays Principle As The Key Element To Environmental Law Ashmita Barthakur DOI: 10.29322/IJSRP.11.03.2021.p11137 http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.11.03.2021.p11137 Abstract- Environmental law is one amongst the rapidest be paid polluter and not by the authorities.1 This principle is developing facets of law. It is generally agreed upon that those taken into account to be the foremost adequate environmental that cause harm or damage should be paying in a method or strategy and has been constituted in numerous international and another for such harm. Such harm may be to the society or to our regional agreements regarding pollution. This conception of surroundings or to our body at an intimate level. Due to lack of Polluter pays has been breathing even prior to the Organization sanctions in environmental law, it became very difficult to keep for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) approved an eye on the hazardous activities. This required the initiation of it as a recognized percept of environmental law. Nevertheless, a penalty to punish the folks that caused damage or harm to the the devil lies in comprehending the concept, pros and cons and environment. This gave ascent to what we all know today as the challenges of the Polluter Pays Principle. Hence, this research ‘Polluter Pays Principle’. This principle implies that the value of paper will endeavour at clearing the air concerning five concepts pollution should be paid polluter and not by the authorities.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Instruments for Environmental Management and Sustainable Development
    ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (UNEP) Environment and Economics Unit (EEU) ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT by Theodore Panayotou International Environment Program Harvard Institute for International Development Harvard University December, 1994 Prepared for the United Nations Environment Programme's Consultative Expert Group Meeting on the Use and Application of Economic Policy Instruments for Environmental Management and Sustainable Development, Nairobi, February 23-24, 1995 Environmental Economics Series Paper No. 16 The views and interpretation reflected in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect an expression of opinion on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme Preface and Acknowledgements The plea for a sustainable development path and the need to cope with transboundary and global pollution issues requires the development of new and effective policies in which economic instruments have an important role to play. The importance of economic instruments for environmental policy is emphasized in both the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21, where it was stressed that the use of economic instruments represents a tool for national authorities to promote the internalization of environmental costs and to apply the polluter-pays principle in the most efficient manner. They provide a means of enhancing the capacity of governments to deal with environmental and development issues in a cost effective manner, promoting technological innovation, influencing consumption and production patterns, as well as providing an important source of funding. This volume presents a comprehensive state-of-the-art on economic instruments for environmental management and sustainable development and reviews the experience of developed countries and its relevance to developing countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Report 12/2021: the Polluter Pays Principle: Inconsistent
    EN 2021 121 Special Report The Polluter Pays Principle: Inconsistent application across EU environmental policies and actions 2 Contents Paragraph Executive summary I-V Introduction 01-14 The origins of the Polluter Pays Principle 03-05 The PPP in the EU 06-14 Policy framework 06-09 EU funding 10-14 Audit scope and approach 15-18 Observations 19-68 The PPP underlies EU environmental legislation 19-41 The PPP applies to the most polluting installations but the cost of residual pollution to society remains high 20-25 Waste legislation reflects the PPP, but does not ensure polluters cover the full cost of pollution 26-31 Polluters do not bear the full costs of water pollution 32-38 No overall EU legislative framework to protect against soil pollution 39-41 The Commission’s action plan to improve the operation of the ELD did not achieve the expected results 42-62 Following the evaluation of the ELD, the Commission adopted an action plan to address the gaps identified 43-48 Key ELD concepts remain undefined 49-55 Some Member States require industrial companies to insure against environmental risks 56-62 The EU has financed environmental remediation projects 63-68 EU funds have been used to clean orphan pollution 65-66 EU funds were also used when national authorities failed to enforce environmental legislation and make the polluters pay 67 Lack of financial security to cover environmental liability increases the risk that costs are borne by taxpayers 68 3 Conclusions and recommendations 69-74 Annex Annex I – Sectors covered by the Industrial Emissions Directive Acronyms and abbreviations Glossary Replies of the Commission Audit team Timeline 4 Executive summary I The Polluter Pays Principle is one of the key principles underlying the European Union’s (EU) environmental policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Application of the Polluter Pays and the Producer Responsibility Principle in Other Areas of EU Environmental
    1 Slide 2 Liability On 12 December 1999 the oil tanker Erika, flying the Maltese flag and chartered by Total International Ltd, sank about 35 nautical miles south-west of the Pointe de Penmarc’h (Finistère, France), spilling part of her cargo and oil from her bunkers at sea and causing pollution of the Atlantic coast of France. On 9 June 2000 the Commune de Mesquer brought proceedings against the Total companies in the Tribunal de commerce de Saint-Nazaire (Commercial Court, Saint- Nazaire), seeking inter alia a ruling that the companies should be liable for the consequences of the damage caused by the waste spread on the territory of the municipality and be ordered jointly and severally to pay the costs (some 70,000 €) incurred by the municipality for cleaning and anti-pollution measures. The Cour d’appel de Rennes accepted that the heavy fuel oil thus spilled and mixed with water and sand formed waste, but nevertheless considered that there was no provision under which the Total companies could be held liable, since they could not be regarded as producers or holders of that waste. The municipality appealed on a point of law to the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) which asked the following questions top the ECJ: Can the producer of the heavy fuel oil (Total raffinage [distribution]) and/or the seller and carrier (Total International Ltd) be regarded as the producer and/or holder of waste within the meaning of Article 1(b) and (c) of [Directive 2006/12] and for the purposes of applying Article 15 of that directive, even though at the time of the accident which transformed it into waste the product was being transported by a third party?’ Article 15 Waste Framework Directive regulates the polluter-pays principle.
    [Show full text]
  • Physico-Chemical Parameters and Health Risk Analysis of Groundwater Quality
    applied sciences Article Physico-Chemical Parameters and Health Risk Analysis of Groundwater Quality Alina Soceanu 1, Simona Dobrinas 1,*, Corina Ionela Dumitrescu 2 , Natalia Manea 3 , Anca Sirbu 4 , Viorica Popescu 1 and Georgiana Vizitiu 1 1 Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Department, Faculty of Applied Chemistry and Engineering, “Ovidius” University of Constanta, 900527 Constanta, Romania; [email protected] (A.S.); [email protected] (V.P.); [email protected] (G.V.) 2 Department of Economics, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, Business Engineering and Management, University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest, 060042 Bucharest, Romania; [email protected] 3 Department of Economic Engineering, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, Business Engineering and Management, University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest, 060042 Bucharest, Romania; [email protected] 4 Department of Fundamental Sciences and Humanities, Constanta Maritime University, 900663 Constanta, Romania; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Groundwater pollution is a very common problem worldwide, as it poses a serious threat to both the environment and the economic and social development and consequently generates several types of costs. The analysis of pollution control involves a permanent comparison between pollution costs and the costs associated with various methods of pollution reduction. An environmental policy based on economic instruments is more effective than an environmental policy focused on command and control tools. In this respect, the present paper provides a case study showing how anthropogenic factors such as wastewater, industrial, agricultural, and natural factors are able to Citation: Soceanu, A.; Dobrinas, S.; change the physical and chemical parameters of groundwater in the study area, thus endangering Dumitrescu, C.I.; Manea, N.; their quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Use of Pesticides Recommendations on the Review of Directive 2009/128/EC
    8 April 2021 Sustainable Use of Pesticides Recommendations on the review of Directive 2009/128/EC Background The Farm2Fork (F2F) Strategy announced the evaluation of Directive 2009/128/EC establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the Sustainable Use of Pesticides - SUD. The principles enshrined in article 191.2 of the TFEU, namely the precautionary principle, the principles that preventive actions should be taken and that the environmental damage should, as a priority, be rectified at the source, as well as the polluter-pays principle, must guide not only the EU environmental policy but all the Strategies of the Green Deal. In order to fulfil water services’ mission of safeguarding public health and the environment, the protection of water resources is of utmost importance: article 11 of the SUD contains specific measures to protect the aquatic environment and drinking water. Although the wording of the article refers to the Water Framework Directive provisions (especially relevant is art.7.3 WFD), these general obligations on Member States have failed to deliver. Water utilities have not witnessed a significant decline in the presence and in the concentration of pesticides in water resources over the past decade. That is why EurEau fully supports the ambition of the F2F Strategy and the Commission’s proposed reduction goal for pesticide use of 50% by 2030, stresses the importance of reduction of emissions in drinking catchment areas, as well as the provision (art.8) of the new Drinking Water Directive that obliges competent authorities to carry out a risk assessment of the catchment area. The less drinking water resources are polluted, the less technical, energy intensive water treatment is necessary and drinking water can be delivered as a real natural foodstuff.
    [Show full text]
  • Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) Was First Mentioned in the Recommendation of the OECD of 26Th May 1972 and Reaffirmed in the Recommendation of 14Th November 1974
    Slide 1 Session on the oldest environmental principle to start with. 1 Slide 2 Outline of the presentation 2 Slide 3 • The polluter pays principle (PPP) was first mentioned in the recommendation of the OECD of 26th May 1972 and reaffirmed in the recommendation of 14th November 1974. • In the 1972 Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm the principles did not feature, but in 1992 in Rio PPP was laid down as Principle 16 of the UN Declaration on Environment and Development. • The European Community took up the OECD recommendation in its first Environmental Action Program (1973-1976) and then in a Recommendation of 3 March 1975 regarding cost allocation and action by public authorities on environmental matters. Since 1987 the principle has also been enshrined in the Treaty of the European Communities and in numerous national legislations world-wide 3 Slide 4 As a main function of the principle the OECD recommendations specify the allocation “of costs of pollution prevention and control measures to encourage rational use of scarce environmental resources and to avoid distortions in international trade and investment.” The polluter should bear the expense of carrying out the measures “decided by public authorities to ensure that the environment is in an acceptable state” (OECD 1972). 4 Slide 5 The principle as laid down in the Rio Declaration. If environmental costs are not internalized (or if state subsidies are given to polluting industries or if preventive measures are paid by the state) this could lead to distortion of international trade and investment.
    [Show full text]
  • Conclusions and Recommendations*
    OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF SWITZERLAND ISBN 92-64-03053-0 © OECD 2007 1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS * This report examines Switzerland’s progress since the previous Environmental Performance Review by the OECD in 1998, and the extent to which the country has met national objectives and honoured international commitments. The report also reviews Switzerland’s progress in the context of the OECD Environmental Strategy.** Some 46 recommendations are made that could contribute to further environmental progress in Switzerland. Switzerland’s environment is subject to severe pressures (pollution, extraction of natural resources, spatial restructuring), due in particular to industry, agriculture, transport and tourism. These pressures stem from very high population densities and a high level of economic activity, and from Switzerland’s location at the heart of Europe. For over 30 years, the ambitious environmental policies promoted by the Confederation have been implemented by the cantons and the communes. They have been based on a prescriptive approach, sustained government funding and active public opinion that is deeply concerned about the environment (especially following certain major industrial accidents, the environmental impact of intensive farming, the deforestation debate and the 1987 floods). These policies have yielded remarkable results in combating pollution and natural hazards. More recently, and during the period under review, environmental policies have focused on partnerships with economic interests and civil society as a whole, on application of the polluter pays principle and on prevention (e.g. in risk management and management of natural resources). Despite the progress made in factoring the imperatives of sustainable development into sectoral policies, including energy, transport and agricultural policies, it is still difficult to translate the concept of sustainable development into consumption patterns, e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Waste Incineration and Particulate Pollution: a Failure of Governance
    Waste Incineration and Particulate Pollution: A failure of governance • Incinerators exceed pollution-reporting thresholds but public not told • We reveal emissions of PM and NOx from English incinerators - see overleaf • Incinerator pollution costs £billions: ‘Polluter pays’ principle must apply Particulate matter (PM) is the minute particles emitted by many industrial processes; in this case we are concerned with waste incineration. PM comes in various sizes: PM10 is all particles whose average diameter is less than 10 micrometres (a micrometre is 1/1000 of a millimetre). PM2.5 is all particles that measure up to 2½ micrometres in diameter, and PM0.1 is particles up to one-tenth of a micrometre. They are invisible and dangerous to health. Public kept in the dark DEFRA Minister Thérèse Coffey MP has told Parliament that the Environment Agency (EA) is ‘required’ to set ‘limit PARTICULATE POLLUTION: THE HEALTH EFFECTS values’ for PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, and that a ‘strict monitoring system’ is in place to enforce these rules.1 What the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants says: The EA has set a reporting threshold for PM10 and PM2.5 ‘Particles [particulate matter] emitted directly from a range of pollution sources…and those formed by emissions at one tonne per year.2 This means that if chemical reactions in the atmosphere are associated with adverse effects on health and the current emissions reach those levels then this information should consensus is that these associations are, at least in part, causal. Hence, reductions in concentrations of both 8 be made public via the EA’s Pollution Inventory.
    [Show full text]