Air Quality Management in EU Member States Governance and Institutional Arrangements: International Experience and Implications Air Quality Management in EU Member States 1 Governance and Institutional Arrangements: International Experience and Implications November 2024 Europe and Central Asia Region Environment & Governance Global Practice 1 This report was prepared by a team of World Bank experts from Governance and the Environment, Natural Resources and Blue Economy Global Practices. It was led by Pedro Arizti (Senior Public Sector Specialist) with Silvia Calderon (International Consultant) and John Murlis (International Consultant). The report was prepared under the guidance of Sameer Akbar (Senior Environmental Specialist) and Reena Badiani-Magnusson (Program Leader), with contributions from Klas Sander (Senior Environmental Economist), Maja Murisic (Senior Environmental Economist), Davide Zucchini (Senior Public Sector Specialist), and Urvashi Narain (Lead Economist). The report was peer reviewed by Kai Kaiser (Senior Public Sector Specialist), Nick Menzies (Senior Public Sector Specialist), Ana Luisa Gomes Lima (Senior Environmental Economist), Elena Strukova Golub (Senior Environmental Economist), and Kseniya Lvovsky (International Expert). The country assessments were developed by Silvia Calderon (Austria, Germany, Sweden, Estonia, Slovenia), Jolanta Blazaite (Lithuania), Mihovil Škarica (Croatia), Andrzej Halesiak (Poland), John Murlis with Vasil Borislavov Zlatev (Bulgaria), and Andrei Moarcas (Romania). The report received valuable inputs from: Alexandru Cosmin Buteica and Dimitrie Miheș (Romania); Ivana Ivicic (Croatia); Eolina Petrova Milova (Bulgaria); Christian Nagl and Katharina Isepp at Environment Agency Austria; Heidi Koger and Kadri Tamm at the Estonian Environment Agency; Loreta Jovaišienė from the Ministry of Environment in Lithuania; Špela Žohar, Tanja Bolte, and Tanja Kolesa from the Ministry of the Environment, Climate and Energy and the Slovenian Environment Agency in Slovenia, and; Johan Genberg Safont and Helena Sabelström from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Naturvårdsverket). Son Le and Margaux Jeanne Salmon Genel (Consultants) provided support in collecting data and preparing the air quality data visualizations. The document was edited by Patricia Carley and proofread by Jeremy White. Disclaimer © 2024 The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved This work is a product of the staff of the World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and con- clusions expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denomi- nation, and other information shown in any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Attribution—Please cite the work as follows: “World Bank. {2024}. {Air Quality Management in EU Member States; Governance and Institutional Arrangements: International Experience and Implications}. © World Bank.” Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Disclaimer of Content Please be advised that the analytical work presented in this report was primarily conducted during 2022 and 2023. Certain aspects, including institutional arrangements as well as legal and regulatory mechanisms, may have since changed in the countries covered by this study. Cover design and layout: kuna zlatica, www.kunazlatica.hr Table of contents Abbreviations and Acronyms 6 Executive Summary 8 1. Introduction 19 2. Background: Air Quality in Europe 22 2.1. Efforts to reduce air pollution in Europe 24 The state of air pollution today: major pollutants and sources 2.2.  27 Major regimes to address air pollution: UNECE Convention and EU directives 2.3.  30 Assessing country performance in implementing EU policies 2.4.  32 Air quality and governance challenges in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania 2.5.  33 3. Methodology 37 4. International Experience and Emerging Trends 43 4.1. Legal and regulatory framework 44 4.2. Committed executive 50 4.3. Nested planning 52 4.4. Horizontal and vertical coordination 53 4.5. Accountability and transparency 54 5. Key AQM Strengths and Weaknesses in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania 59 5.1. Legal and regulatory framework 60 5.2. Committed executive 62 5.3. Nested planning 64 5.4. Horizontal and vertical coordination 66 5.5. Accountability and transparency 67 Main AQM governance weaknesses in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania 5.6.  69 6. Recommendations 73 6.1. Legal and regulatory framework 74 6.2. Committed executive 75 6.3. Nested planning 77 6.4. Institutional (horizontal and vertical) coordination 78 6.5. Accountability and transparency 79 6.6. Specific recommendations by country 84 Annex 1. Methodological Approach and Framework 94 Annex 2. AQM Case Studies and International Trends 110 Annex 3. Institutional Arrangements for AQM in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania 132 Annex 4. National Contexts for Air Quality Governance: Pollution Sources, Emission Reductions, and Progress toward Ambient Air Quality Targets 142 Air Quality Management in EU Member States 4 Tables, Figures, and Boxes Table 1. Governance and Institutional Framework for Air Quality Management 39 Table 2. AQM Framework and EU Air Policy 41 Table 3. Emerging Trends across Client and Comparator Countries and Policy Recommendations 80 Table A1.1. Air Quality Performance of Comparator Countries 95 Table A1.2. Governance and Institutional Framework for Air Quality Management 98 Table A1.3. AQM Framework: Attributes, Components, and Questions Adjusted for the EU 105 Table A2.1. Summary of the Institutional Features across Countries and Attributes 125 Figure 1. Preventable Deaths (per 100,000 inhabitants) from PM2.5 Exposure 24 Figure 2. Trends in EU-27 Emissions 25 Figure 3. Three-Year Average of Annual Mean PM2.5 (2018−20) 26 Figure 4. Contributions to EU-27 Emissions (2020) 28 Figure 5. Percentage of the EU Population Exposed to PM2.5 Levels (2018−20) 29 Figure A4.1. Share of the EU Urban Population Exposed to Air Pollutant Concentrations above Certain EU Standards and WHO Guidelines in 2021 144 Figure A4.2. EC Assessment of Confidence in the Attainment of National Emissions Reduction Commitments for the Client Countries 146 Figure A4.3. Trends in Annual Mean Concentrations of PM2.5 (left) and PM10 (right) in Different Categories of Monitoring Sites in Bulgaria 148 Figure A4.4. Exceedances of the U.S. Air Quality Index 50 (left) and the WHO Guideline PM2.5 Daily Value for Bulgaria, 2019−23 148 Figure A4.5. Geographic Distribution of Annual Mean PM2.5 and Seasonal Variation in Exceedances of Short-Term Limit Values for PM10 and Nitrogen Dioxide in Bulgaria 149 Figure A4.6. Total Annual Emissions of PM2.5, Nitrogen Oxides, Ammonia, and Sulfur Dioxide for Bulgaria, 2005−21, with the Contributions from Major Source Sectors 151 Figure A4.7. Bulgaria: Emissions Commitments 154 Figure A4.8. Trends in Annual Mean Concentrations of PM2.5 (left) and PM10 (right) in Different Categories of Monitoring Sites in Croatia 155 Figure A4.9. Exceedances of the U.S. AQI 50 (left) and the WHO Guideline PM2.5 Daily Value for Croatia, 2019−23 155 Figure A4.10. Geographic Distribution of Annual Mean PM2.5 and Seasonal Variation in Exceedances of Short-Term Limit Values for PM10 and Nitrogen Dioxide in Croatia 156 Figure A4.11. Total Annual Emissions of PM2.5, Nitrogen Oxides, Ammonia, and Sulfur Dioxide for Croatia, 2005−21, with the Contributions from Major Source Sectors 157 Figure A4.12. Croatia: Emissions Commitments 159 Figure A4.13. Trends in Annual Mean Concentrations of PM2.5 (left) and PM10 (right) in Different Categories of Monitoring Sites in Poland 160 Tables, Figures, and Boxes 5 Figure A4.14. Exceedances of the U.S. AQI 50 (left) and the WHO Guideline PM2.5 Daily Value for Poland, 2019−23 160 Figure A4.15. Geographic Distribution of Annual Mean PM2.5 and Seasonal Variation in Exceedances of Short-Term Limit Values for PM10 and Nitrogen Dioxide for Poland 161 Figure A4.16. Total Annual Emissions of PM2.5, Nitrogen Oxides, Ammonia, and Sulfur Dioxide for Poland, 2005−21, with the Contributions from Major Source Sectors 163 Figure A4.17. Poland: Emissions Reduction Commitments 164 Figure A4.18. Trends in Annual Mean Concentrations of PM2.5 (left) and PM10 (right) in Different Categories of Monitoring Sites in Romania 165 Figure A4.19. Exceedances of the U.S. AQI 50 (left) and the WHO Guideline PM2.5 Daily Value for Romania, 2019−23 166 Figure A4.20. Geographic Distribution in Romania of Annual Mean PM2.5 and Seasonal Variation in Exceedances of Short-Term Limit Values for PM10 and Nitrogen Dioxide 166 Figure A4.21. Total Annual Emissions of PM2.5, Nitrogen Oxides, Ammonia, and Sulfur Dioxide for Romania, 2005−21, with the Contributions from Major Source Sectors 168 Figure A4.22. Romania: Emissions Reduction Commitments 169 Box 1. Policy Instruments for Air Quality Management 46 Box 2. Market-Based Instruments for AQM 47 Box 3. Air Pollution and Climate Change: From Co-Benefits to Coherent Policy 48 Box 4. Air Quality Information Available via Public Portals in the Case Study Countries 55 Box 5. Components of Robust Air Quality Information Systems 57 Box 6. Underpricing of Pollution 61 Box A1.1. Definitions 96 Box A1.2. Air Quality Management in Europe: A Comparative Analysis of Airshed Approaches 101 Box A2.1. AQM Institutional Arrangements in the European Union 122 Air Quality Management in EU Member States 6 Abbreviations and Acronyms AAQD Ambient Air Quality Directive (EU) AQI Air Quality Index AQM Air Quality Management AQP Air Quality Plan (EU) AQS Air Quality System ARSO Slovenian Environment Agency BMU Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety (Germany) CAB County Administrative Board (Sweden) EC European Commission EEA European Environment Agency EPA Environmental Protection Agency (Lithuania, Romania, Sweden) EQO Environmental Quality Objective (Sweden) ETS Emissions Trading System EU European Union GHG Greenhouse Gas IG-L Immissionsschutzgesetz – Luft (Federal Law on Ambient Air Quality, Austria) LRTAP Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution [Convention] MESD Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development (Croatia) MoEW Ministry of Environment and Water (Bulgaria) NAPCP National Air Pollution Control Programme (EU) Abbreviations and Acronyms 7 NAQIP National Air Quality Improvement Program (Bulgaria) NEC National Emissions Ceiling [Directive] (EU) NGO Nongovernmental Organization NMVOC Non-Methane Volatile Organic Compound NRRP National Recovery and Resilience Plan PM Particular Matter SNEGICA National System for the Evaluation and Integrated Management of Air Quality (Romania) UBA German Environment Agency UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe VOC Volatile Organic Compound WHO World Health Organization Air Quality Management in EU Member States 8 Executive Summary Over the past three decades, emissions of air pollutants have fallen across Europe. In the period between 2005 and 2020, emissions of all major air pollutants in the European Union (EU) fell by between 10 and 80 percent. Although reduced emissions have led to air quality improvements, some regions of the EU still experience high levels of pollutant concentrations, making air pol- lution the largest environmental health risk in Europe. In 2020, exposure to concentrations of particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide, and ozone resulted in 309,000 premature deaths. Pollution levels remain high in certain regions within the EU, such as northern Italy and East- ern Europe. Annual average concentrations of PM2.5, the most harmful pollutant for human health, exceed the recommendation of the World Health Organization (WHO) by a factor of five in multiple Eastern EU countries, including the four client countries covered in this report. Many cities in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania also report concentrations of PM10, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) above EU target and limit values. Accounting for variations across the client countries, the main sectors contributing to poor air quality are residential, commercial, and institutional combustion, road transport, energy supply, and agriculture. The use of biomass and solid fossil fuels for heating and cooking in residential, commercial, and institutional buildings is responsible for high particulate matter concentrations in all four states, while old fleets and low uptake of electric vehicles in the road transport sector contribute to high levels of nitrogen dioxide, non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs), and ozone. The use of sulfur-containing fossil fuels in power stations and other large industries is still a relevant source of sulfur dioxide pollution in Romania and Poland; agriculture, through the production and use of animal manure and artificial fertilizers, is by far the largest source of ammonia in these two countries, as in Bulgaria and Croatia. A common feature of most of these sources is that they consist of numerous small entities, in- cluding individual households, and have proved difficult to regulate. EU air quality, emissions, and source legislation has been transposed into national legislation in the four countries, providing a governance framework that has led to considerable progress on air quality. However, existing institutional arrangements still face challenges in ensuring compliance with EU norms and in effectively implementing measures that address the main causes of pollution. For example, legal frameworks lack the authority and incentives by which local governments can implement emissions reduction measures in the residential and trans- port sectors and sanctions to punish offenders. Institutions responsible for air quality man- agement (AQM) at the national and local level lack adequate technical and financial resources or political leadership to enforce unpopular measures. Municipal air quality plans (AQPs) are too general, and their implementation and impact go unmonitored. Moreover, coordination between national and local governments is weak, and public participation in the AQM policy cycle is undermined by barriers to accessing information on air pollution. Executive Summary 9 Climate and air pollution policies are often treated separately, resulting in tensions and missed opportunities for more cost-effective outcomes. In most client countries, responsibilities for air quality and for climate are divided amongst institutions, hindering efforts to co-­ develop integrated policies. As a result, trade-offs arise between mitigation and AQM, meaning that air pollution policies do not effectively contribute to climate goals and vice versa. By implement- ing targeted, integrated AQM and climate policy tools, countries can achieve more coherent policy outcomes, reduce costs at both the institutional and industry levels, and drive better results for both climate and air quality. The objective of this technical note is to inform the governments of Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania about ongoing efforts and opportunities to strengthen AQM governance to achieve better air quality in these countries. To this end, the note develops a framework by which to assess institutional capacity for effective and efficient AQM. The framework consists of 16 components organized around five attributes and a set of guidance questions to carry out the assessment. The framework has been developed based on international experience, with a view to the dis- tinct challenges faced by each country, such as population and land size, geographic diversity, idiosyncrasies of public administration, and general social dynamics. As such, the framework can be adapted and applied in a wide variety of country settings. The attributes are also in- tended to be as mutually exclusive as possible. Emerging evidence from countries with various maturity levels of air quality planning and management suggests that recommendations for the four client countries can be built on the following governance and institutional attributes: (i) a legal and regulatory framework, (ii) a committed executive2, (iii) nested planning, (iv) horizontal and vertical coordination, and (v) accountability and transparency. This technical note applies this framework to other select countries in the EU to distill emerg- ing lessons and developments in AQM. Relevant trends in institutional arrangements for AQM are presented for the following countries as case studies: Austria, Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, Slovenia, and Sweden. A summary of the main trends in these countries is outlined in the box below: 2 This refers to an executive branch that is fully committed to reforming and enhancing the efficiency of the country’s air quality management system. For more details, see the methodology section. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 10 International Trends in AQM Legal and regulatory framework –– A legal framework is in place, consisting of national standards for ambient air quality and sector pollution control, with a clear mandate to protect the health of the population in accordance with WHO guidelines. –– The framework’s content includes clear roles and responsibilities for each level of government. –– Enforcement and compliance mechanisms are in place that cover jurisdictions, companies, and/or citizens, using a variety of instruments. –– The framework allows for both command-and-control and market-based instruments for enforcement and policy implementation. –– It establishes pollution reduction targets for key pollutants. –– Air quality standards are regularly reviewed and revised. –– The legal framework integrates climate and air quality policies by establishing common objectives, targets, and tools. Committed executive –– A long-term AQM strategy is in place, championed at the highest level, with a clear strategic vision that has well-defined objectives, indicators, and targets, and is backed by sufficient medium-term budgetary funding. The integration of air quality and climate policies is ad- vancing and potential tensions are being managed. –– Across sector ministries, air quality concerns are integrated into sector strategies, and there are policies and programs in place to incentivize the adoption of cleaner technolo- gies and procedures. –– Diverse policy and legislative instruments are in place to incentivize compliance and pe- nalize noncompliance. –– Technical capacity across the relevant government agencies and coordination bodies is adequate. –– Executive institutions have the power to influence and convene sectoral departments on air quality strategy and implementation. Nested planning –– There has been a formal designation of an AQM unit. –– Planning is mandatory and contains targets, prioritized actions, and clearly assigned roles and fund allocations. –– There are official air quality planning and management units at multiple jurisdiction levels that take into consideration the flux of pollutants across borders, where relevant. –– A formal process is in place to classify regions that are out of compliance. –– A nested and well-correlated vertical planning process is informed by independent, timely, and high-quality scientific research and data. Executive Summary 11 Institutional coordination –– A coordination mechanism is in place with a strong mandate and effective political lead- ership to oversee progress and implementation. –– The mechanism can carry out horizontal and vertical coordination and has some level of fiscal and administrative autonomy and decision-making power. –– Its main functions include monitoring air quality, advising on plans, coordinating and monitoring actions, and pooling scientific research. Coordination exists between climate and air policies. –– This mechanism often has broad participation, including the scientific community, private sector, and civil society, and participants generally disclose all data. –– In federations, formal mechanisms at the central executive level (housed at the cabinet office) that have autonomy tend to be the most effective coordination bodies. Accountability and transparency –– There is a robust air quality monitoring and emissions information system in place. –– Emissions from stationary sources are captured and reported regularly. –– There are web-based platforms that perform real-time monitoring and provide publicly available data on the state of air quality, including an air quality index (AQI). –– Audit, control, and accountability institutions examine AQM plans, programs, and data. Applying this same AQM governance framework and using emerging international trends as benchmarks for good practices, country-level assessments of Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania revealed a number of key strengths and weaknesses in AQM governance in these countries: Legal and Regulatory Framework. All four countries have transposed EU air quality directives into national legislation, although with several major shortcomings. Legal and regulatory frame- works formally define AQM roles and responsibilities, yet challenges persist in the interpreta- tion and execution of power division (distribution of authority). Enforcement tools are present in all AQM legal and regulatory frameworks, but are generally insufficient or ineffective. Local transboundary cooperation to manage air quality is either absent from the regulatory frame- work or has never been implemented. Multiple policy tools have been introduced by national AQM legislation, but greater interaction with economic instruments must be put in place. Committed Executive. A long-term vision for AQM has generally been agreed upon through dedicated AQPs and the National Air Pollution Control Programme (NAPCP), although some AQPs have expired and AQP measures are rarely integrated with climate policies. All of the countries save Bulgaria have dedicated national funding mechanisms for environmental prior- ities, including AQM. Nevertheless, air pollution has lost importance on their political agendas, and high-level government officials almost never act as champions of existing policies. Their national and local institutions lack proper capacities to implement and enforce AQM policies and regulations. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 12 Nested Planning. Multi-stakeholder participation in the preparation of AQPs and reporting requirements enrich the AQM planning process. However, geographic areas subject to air quality monitoring and assessment differ from the areas where AQM planning takes place. Few regions with transboundary pollution systematically study pollutant fluxes using airshed approaches and then draw on that information to inform AQM at the local level. Municipalities lack adequate capacities to prepare AQPs, resulting in documents with low quality and weak implementation. Harmonization between national and local air quality policies, programs, and plans must be improved. Horizontal and Vertical Coordination. High-level coordination bodies for AQM are absent or have been created, but have not reached their full potential. Vertical coordination in all countries remains weak, leading to the unharmonized implementation of air quality policies at the local level. Accountability and Transparency. All of the countries save Romania have comprehensive air quality monitoring networks, centralized databases, and publish information on the state of air quality. Control institutions oversee state agencies’ compliance with national and interna- tional AQM legislation, while civil society demands state accountability in air quality matters, although public participation in policy design is far from optimal. However, the air quality monitoring system fails to comply with EU directives in all four states, and the data produced and published is incomplete and inaccessible to the public. After reflecting on international experience and the specific political and institutional con- text across the assessed client countries, the following common policy recommendations on strengthening AQM have been drafted for the consideration of the governments of Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania.3 3 The recommendations presented in this technical note do not arise from detailed quantitative analysis (source apportionment by country and air pollution hot spots). Therefore, the report does not provide an in-depth discussion of specific policy instruments, including both command-and-control measures and market-based instruments, in relation to each country’s unique circumstances. This aspect of policy analysis is outside the scope of the paper, and readers should be aware that a comprehensive evaluation of the adequacy of policy instruments is not included. Executive Summary 13 Summary of Common Reform Options and Recommendations Legal and regulatory framework –– Recommendation 1. Implement strategies to improve and harmonize the manner in which current AQM legislation is interpreted by national, subnational, and local governments. Foster legal discussions between the different levels of government to agree on a common interpretation of the legislation and to identify areas that require amendments. –– Recommendation 2. Strengthen enforcement mechanisms by improving regulatory authorities’ monitoring and sanctioning capacity. Propose and discuss possible amend- ments to current legislation to introduce the legal authority to audit the regulated entities and sanction noncompliant parties. –– Recommendation 3. Propose amendments to current AQM legislation to explicitly demand coordination and cooperation between jurisdictions in cases of local transboundary pollution. Establish clear legal mandates to draw, implement, and co-finance joint AQM plans that address cases of local transboundary pollution. –– Recommendation 4. Enhance existing policy tools for AQM, including command-and-­ control, market-based, and enforcement tools. Combine policy tools to manage air quality across sectors and levels of government. Pay special attention to phasing out or repurposing fossil fuel subsidies, increasing alternatives to fossil fuel consumption and technologies, and introducing air pollution charges. Committed executive –– Recommendation 5. Strengthen narratives on the links between AQM and other priority policy areas while elevating the role of local champions. Strengthen political links be- tween AQM and other current policy priorities, such as addressing climate change, reduc- ing fossil fuel dependency, accessing new markets, and creating green jobs. This should be combined with finding new champions among specific subnational leaders who have been exposed to and managed critical pollution episodes. –– Recommendation 6. Update national AQM planning instruments to renew the govern- ment’s long-term vision on air quality and to establish synergies with climate policies. Update existing NAPCP or nation-wide AQM policies to renew the country’s long-term goals, harmonize existing sectoral policies, and adopt more ambitious targets. Develop an integrated air quality and climate change approach to achieving coherent policy objec- tives through the implementation of packages of targeted AQM and climate policy tools. –– Recommendation 7. Enhance AQM staff capacity, particularly at the local level, by appointing fully AQM-dedicated experts. Equip local authorities with dedicated and ex- pert personnel and technical resources to adequately monitor and enforce air pollution policies and legislation. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 14 Nested planning –– Recommendation 8. Strengthen approaches that integrate AQM planning instruments among national and subnational authorities and jurisdictions where transboundary pollution is an issue. Introduce airshed approaches into existing AQM planning instru- ments and establish joint commissions between affected jurisdictions to adopt coordi- nated action plans. –– Recommendation 9. Build municipal capacity to prepare AQPs and monitor their imple- mentation. Train local staff in airshed planning, strategy, and monitoring through technical assistance and capacity-development programs targeting local authorities. Monitor AQP implementation systematically. –– Recommendation 10. Improve harmonization and alignment between national and local AQM planning instruments. Prepare guidelines for local authorities to harmonize local AQM plans with national and regional ones. Assess and address existing gaps in different planning instruments’ contributions to achieving the national vision. Institutional coordination –– Recommendation 11. Empower existing bodies or create new high-level coordination bodies with the participation of central and subnational governments and high-level political leadership. Enhance or set up coordination bodies to monitor the implementa- tion and ­allocation of resources to enact the national AQM vision, foster collaboration, and promote the importance of AQM across sectors, in cooperation with existing climate coordination mechanisms. –– Recommendation 12. Set up a multi-stakeholder platform to improve dialogue, informa- tion exchange, and coordination between central and local governments and other key stakeholders. Ensure that this platform increases collaboration between central and local administrations and also promotes knowledge exchange and discussions with academic and private sector actors on AQM regulation and policy implementation. Accountability and transparency –– Recommendation 13. Strengthen and expand the air quality monitoring system. En- sure that regulations establish adequate guidelines and requirements for the air quality monitoring network to comply with EU regulations and to strengthen its interactions with climate information, including greenhouse gas inventories. Support central government agencies in operating centralized databases that integrate multiple measuring points and are capable of informing the public on the state of air quality via user-friendly portals. Ensure that quality and assurance tools provide transparency and ownership of data and that the AQI is updated to reflect health criteria. –– Recommendation 14. Enhance public participation along the AQM planning and policy implementation cycle. Ensure and foster public participation in and oversight of plans and policy implementation through streamlined and accessible participation mechanisms that also allow the public to report violations. Executive Summary 15 Using the same structure of the five AQM attributes, this note has also identified country-­ specific recommendations that have been categorized into four tiers based on their priority level and time frame for implementation: top/short term, top/medium term, secondary/short term, and secondary/medium term. Summary of Recommendations for Each Client Country Bulgaria Top Priority/Short Term –– Discuss the need to create a comprehensive funding program for emissions reduction and air quality improvement (committed executive). –– Empower the Ministry of Environment and Water (MoEW) to support municipalities in their design and implementation of local AQPs, National Air Quality Improvement Programs (NAQIPs), and the NAPCP (committed executive). –– Ensure funding to upgrade and expand of the monitoring network to guarantee real-time data and coverage for critical pollutants such as PM2.5 (accountable institutions). –– Continue strengthening the Environment Agency, the MoEW, and the capacity of larger cities to implement an AQI to support public awareness campaigns (accountable institutions). Top Priority/Medium Term –– Assess whether the country’s Clean Ambient Air Act provides enough of a legal basis to support municipal implementation of local AQPs and NAQIPs, and if necessary, propose amendments to strengthen incentives for municipalities to implement these programs (legal and regulatory framework). –– Carry out a review to determine if the legal framework for the low emissions zones must be amended to include a clearer legal basis for enactment and enforcement mechanisms, control, monitoring, and sanctions (legal and regulatory framework). –– Revise legislation relating to the distribution and sale of fuels in the domestic sector to ensure environmental standards are promulgated and enforced (legal and regulatory framework). –– Strengthen capacities in the MoEW, scientific community, and academic institutions for air quality modeling and source apportionment at the national and regional levels (nested planning). –– Once AQPs are established, maintain local AQP councils with a mandate to monitor and provide advice during AQP implementation (nested planning). Secondary Priority/Medium Term –– Re-launch the National Air Quality Council to raise high-level political awareness (vertical and horizontal coordination). Air Quality Management in EU Member States 16 Croatia Top Priority/Short Term –– Rebuild high-level political leadership on air quality (committed executive). –– Inform the public more effectively about their rights (accountable institutions). Top Priority/Medium Term –– Amend existing legislation to fully comply with the EU Industrial Emissions Directive and the Seveso III Directive (legal and regulatory framework). –– Amend the Air Protection Act to clarify the roles and responsibilities for AQM and to in- troduce incentives and sanctions in order to enable local governments to implement local AQPs (legal and regulatory framework). –– Consider the design of different instruments for the allocation and use of funds to help leverage other funding sources (committed executive). –– Strengthen local capacities to lead the air quality planning process (nested planning). Secondary/Short Term –– Update and publish the National Air Quality Report for 2022 and 2023 and incentivize the publication of local AQPs and other government programs (accountable institutions). Secondary/Medium Term –– Set up an Air Quality Management Committee with resources to improve the coherence and appropriate sequencing of various sectoral interventions (vertical and horizontal coordination). Poland Top Priority/Short Term –– Harmonize national and regional solid fuel boiler standards and adjust the sulfur content allowed for household coal use to comply with EU standards (legal and regulatory framework). –– Strengthen the Ministry of Climate’s capacities to prepare uniform guidance for AQP preparation and regulation compliance, and increase funding for municipalities (committ­ ed executive). –– Work with local municipalities to incentivize greater allocation of technical resources to improve AQM (committed executive). –– Transition to a more health-based approach to the dissemination of air quality information, and improve the AQI to strengthen its health criteria (accountable institutions). Executive Summary 17 Top/Medium Term –– Assess the state of the current legislation’s compliance with international agreements (legal and regulatory framework). –– Amend the Environmental Protection Law to introduce incentives and sanctions for local governments (legal and regulatory framework). –– Strengthen AQP preparation guidelines and make them legally binding (nested planning). –– Establish a program to co-fund the expansion, operation, and maintenance of local meas- uring points and monitoring stations (accountable institutions). Secondary/Short Term –– Review the state of implementation of the Clean Air Program and prepare an action plan (committed executive). –– Establish an annual peer learning platform for key regional stakeholders involved in AQM to exchange experiences and lessons learned (vertical and horizontal coordination). Secondary/Medium Term –– Revisit the division of responsibilities between the Ministry of Climate and the Plenipo- tentiary for the Clean Air Program (vertical and horizontal coordination). Romania Top/Short Term –– Establish a government commission to follow up on infringements of EU air legislation and to coordinate the country’s response and compliance (legal and regulatory framework). –– Use the recent submission of the NAPCP to renew high-level political leadership on AQM (committed executive). –– Strengthen the Environmental Guard’s enforcement capacities (committed executive). –– Modify the National Environmental Fund programs to improve their impact on air quality (committed executive). –– Launch a comprehensive program to re-build Romania’s air quality information system (accountable institutions). –– Install a web-based portal with real-time information for public consultation, and develop an AQI based on health criteria (accountable institutions). –– Strengthen national and local capacities for air quality modeling and forecasting as key inputs to AQPs (accountable institutions). –– Design and implement a transparency and accountability strategy to strengthen public participation along the AQP policy cycle (accountable institutions). Air Quality Management in EU Member States 18 Top/Medium Term –– Amend current legislation to increase sanctions on noncompliant public authorities and emissions sources (legal and regulatory framework). –– Update Government Decision 257/2015 on the Methodology for Developing AQPs to include clear steps to ensure coordination and harmonization with the NAPCP and other relevant national policies (nested planning). Secondary/Medium Term –– Improve the capacity building of national and local authorities to oversee the experts hired to develop studies for AQPs, and review whether the National Register of Certified Experts is being too restrictive by limiting the expertise needed for robust studies and plans (nested planning). –– Re-energize the central coordination unit with high-level recognition and adequate resourc- es, and set out the institutional structure for coordinating national- and local-level actions to ensure that air pollution hotspots are addressed (vertical and horizontal coordination). Air Quality Management in EU Member States 19 01 Introduction Air Quality Management in EU Member States 20 1. Introduction Air pollution is critically important both to people and to the broader environment. The World Health Organization (WHO) recently identified air pollution as a major environmental risk factor in noncommunicable disease in humans worldwide, ranking alongside smoking, poor diets, and inactivity. However, air pollution stands out as the one risk factor over which individuals have no control. There are individual remedies to reduce other sources of risk, such as giving up smoking or getting more exercise; however, everyone must breathe the air, and yet has little control over the pollution it contains. Beyond its impacts on human health, air pollution is a major factor in the degradation of the natural environment, which is also directly relevant to human well-being and even survival, from food sources to protection against natural disasters. Air pollution is also a significant factor in global economics, in that there are considerable costs associated with both the harm it causes and the actions required to reduce it. This report is about crucial aspects of air quality management (AQM) and the governance and institutional arrangements needed to develop and implement effective policies and measures to combat air pollution and improve air quality. European Union (EU) legislation on air quality and emissions and pollution sources, described in section 2 below, provides an overarching AQM governance framework for EU member states. However, some members still face gaps in the implementation of this legislation, and their institutional arrangements could be reformed to improve the effectiveness of their air quality policies. This technical note responds to this need with the specific objective of informing the governments of Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania about ongoing efforts and opportunities to strengthen their own AQM governance in order to achieve better air quality in these countries. Through its work worldwide on AQM, the World Bank has identified a set of key governance and institutional factors that have an impact on overall AQM performance. Some factors are fiscal, such as underinvestment in planning, monitoring systems, analysis, and other technical capacities. Others are legal, including outdated environmental regulatory frameworks, lack of enforcement, and inadequate sanctions. There are also important governance and administra- tive factors, including ineffective leadership on air quality issues, weaknesses in coordination machinery, disconnects between central planning and local implementation, and a lack of stakeholder and public participation. A lack of climate and air pollution policy coordination also impacts the ability to achieve sustainable outcomes. Finally, economic instruments to incentivize the adoption of needed measures are generally insufficiently used. By identifying these factors, a coherent framework has been developed to assess the insti- tutional capacity for effective and efficient AQM. This framework consists of 16 components organized around five attributes, and a set of guidance questions to carry out the assessment. The framework is described in section 3 below and further detailed in Annex 1. Introduction 21 This report applies the assessment framework to distill common and emerging trends in AQM, using detailed case studies of six selected countries: Austria, Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, Slovenia, and Sweden. It draws conclusions about what institutional arrangements, practices, and behaviors serve to improve air quality governance, and which work against effective AQM performance. Summaries of the six case study countries can be found in Annex 2 of this doc- ument, and the main trends in air quality governance observed in those case studies, which can serve as benchmarks for the four client countries, are outlined in section 4 below. More thorough descriptions of the case studies are presented in a companion paper. The report also includes the findings of individual assessments of the four client countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania. Section 5 presents a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of AQM in these four countries, while Annex 3 provides brief summaries of the full country studies that are contained in a separate document. Finally, section 6 of the report offers general recommendations and policy reform options for all four countries, in addition to country-specific recommendations that address issues particular to each state. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 22 02 Background: Air Quality in Europe Background: Air Quality in Europe 23 2. Background: Air Quality in Europe This section outlines the main issues associated with air pollution in Europe, including its impacts and current trends in air quality. It also describes cooperative ventures across Europe that have culminated in overarching legal regimes for air protection, the implementation of policies and measures in a number of individual European countries, and subsequent progress on the stated objectives. Air pollution occurs when harmful substances are emitted into the air and dispersed by wind. Trends in air pollution are tracked by measuring the amount of the harmful substance emitted, known as emissions, and their concentration in the air, which is the measure of air quality. A reduction in the ambient concentration of an air pollutant, or an improvement in air quality, is the result of falling emissions levels, meaning that emissions reductions are one of the key measures of air quality improvement. However, managing air pollution through emissi­ ons reductions is a complex challenge that requires a full understanding of the contributions of the many sectors that must be involved to address the problem. Investment time horizons beyond the life of individual interventions and a long-term approach to planning and prioriti- zation are also needed. According to an assessment by the European Environment Agency (EEA), air pollution led to a significant number of premature deaths in the 27 EU member states in 2020. Exposure to concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen dioxide above WHO’s most recent 2021 guideline levels are estimated to have resulted in 238,000 and 49,000 premature deaths, respectively. Acute exposure to ozone is estimated to have caused 24,000 deaths. As serious as these impacts are, the death estimates alone do not provide any data on the harm caused by years of exposure to air pollution in the form of chronic diseases and other ailments. In addition to the human suffering, the burden of air pollution–associated disease places con- siderable strains on health care systems, with both human and economic costs on societies and their constituent families and individuals. The air pollution−related welfare costs for the Europe and Central Asia region are estimated to amount to 4–10 percent of GDP. However, health impacts are not uniform across Europe. Figure 1 shows the estimates of preventable deaths due to exposure to PM2.5. There are considerable variations in excess mortality across the EU, with higher levels in the eastern regions, Italy, and southern Spain. Nevertheless, as the map in Figure 3 shows, PM2.5 levels in this area are broadly within EU limits, which suggests that the current EU limit value for PM2.5, an annual mean of 25 µg/m3, does not provide uniform health protection across the EU. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 24 Figure 1. Preventable Deaths (per 100,000 inhabitants) from PM2.5 Exposure exposure to pm2.5 preventable deaths per 100k inhabitants 90 – 300 55 – 90 45 – 55 35 – 45 25 – 35 0 – 25 Source: EEA; https://discomap.eea.europa.eu/. Air pollution also has serious effects on the natural and built environments, including crop yields. Perhaps the most serious of these is the impact on the natural environment, as hu- manity depends on the services ecosystems provide, such as food and water. In 2020, the EEA determined that 75 percent of the ecosystem of the 27 EU members remained unprotected against the impacts of nitrogen pollution (eutrophication), and that nearly half of the forest across 35 European countries was unprotected against ground-level ozone. 2.1. Efforts to reduce air pollution in Europe Over the past three decades, emissions of air pollution have generally fallen across Europe. In the period between 2005 and 2020 alone, emissions of all major air pollutants in the EU fell by between 10 and 80 percent, depending on the pollutant, as the EEA chart in Figure 2 illustrates. The figure also shows that, over this period, the total GDP of the EU rose by over 10 percent, indicating that the downward trend in air pollution was not caused by an economic contraction and that GDP growth can be achieved without adding to the air pollution burden. Background: Air Quality in Europe 25 Figure 2. Trends in EU-27 Emissions 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Source: EEA, “Sources and Emissions of Air Pollutants in Europe,” https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ air-quality-in-europe-2022/sources-and-emissions-of-air. Note: NH3 = ammonia; CH4 = methane; NMVOC = non-methane volatile organic compound; CO = carbon monoxide; BC = black carbon; NOx = nitrogen oxides; and SO2 = sulfur dioxide. Note, however, that this is an average of emissions across countries and covers only the EU. Even within the EU, there is considerable geographic variation in ambient pollution levels. The map in Figure 3 is of average annual mean ambient levels of a specific pollutant — fine partic- ulate matter, found to be the single greatest threat to human health (see paragraph 8 above). The eastern parts of the EU tend to have higher levels, and there is also a marked north-to- south trend toward a higher amount. Although it does not stand out as clearly in the map, the pollution levels of fine particulate matter tend to be higher in urban areas than in rural ones; emissions from residential and commercial buildings dominate, and the denser populations in cities and towns tend to produce more from the use of solid fuels, especially poor-quality fuels burned in inefficient stoves and ovens, in the eastern areas of the EU. There are also con- siderable temporal differences in pollution levels, with typically higher levels in winter when demand for heating is greater. The immediate cause of the decrease in air pollution and the general improvement in air quality in the EU in recent decades is the systematic reduction of emissions.4 However, this has not come about by accident, but is rather the result of 50 years of cooperation between the nation states of Europe, both inside and outside the EU, in strategic agreements to reduce national emissions of air pollution and to improve air quality. The decrease was accomplished mainly through the creation of emissions standards for major pollution sources, such as power stations, and for individual products, such as road transport vehicles. 4 Although this may seem like a tautology, it must be noted that emissions reductions do not always lead to improved air quality. In fact, total air emissions reductions can happen alongside deteriorating air quality in some locations, because air quality is heavily influenced by the size / height of a source and its location. Emissions from small sources influence air quality and population exposure much more than the same quantity of emissions from large sources. This may lead to a situation in which significant emission reductions from large sources result in total emissions in the area being reduced, while growth in emissions from small sources would still lead to a deterioration in air quality. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 26 Figure 3. Three-Year Average of Annual Mean PM2.5 (2018−20) annual average concentration of pm2.5 (μg/m) in 3 years average (2018–2020) very poor (>25) 18 – 25 15 – 18 14 – 15 12 – 15 10 – 12 7 – 10 5–7 2–5 1–2 very good (≤1) Source: EEA; https://discomap.eea.europa.eu/. Cooperation has thus been critically important in European environmental policy. Coopera­ tion on this issue has ensured uniform aims for health protection and ensured that products traded and used in Europe have a common level of environmental performance. It has also been vital in ensuring that regulations for large emitters and products are effective across the EU-27, and that progress in air quality improvement is reported to uniform and respected standards. Cooperation is also cost effective in that research and administrative costs for the necessary institutions can be shared. Improvement in air quality has also been enabled by the development of new and cleaner technologies. For example, devices for scrubbing the (smoke)stack emissions from power stations are currently in use, and emission control mechanisms are now fitted to all road trans- port vehicles sold in the EU. This is in large part due to the pressure to save energy in buildings and transport, which reduces the demand for energy and, in consequence, the emissions of by-products related to energy use. It is due also to pressure from civil society for better pro- tection of health and the broader natural environment. Reductions in industrial emissions and economic restructuring are significant contributors to air quality improvements. Industrial emissions of all pollutants has decreased in the EU since 2010. The industrial sector in Europe has become less emissions-intensive following gains in energy efficiency and the greater adoption of abatement technologies. The offshoring of heavy-pollutant and energy-intensive manufacturing industries such as textile and metal pro- duction are also a root cause for industrial pollution decreases.5 Economic restructuring in the early 90s, especially in Eastern European countries, led to a significant reduction in industrial 5 European Environmental Agency. “Industrial pollutant release to air Europe”. https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/ indicators/industrial-pollutant-releases-to-air Background: Air Quality in Europe 27 fuel consumption. In addition, many Western European countries have seen an increase in the participation of less polluting service industries, at the expense of a decline in manufacturing. 2.2. The state of air pollution today: major pollutants and sources From among the wide range of substances that are considered air pollutants and are regu- lated as such, several stand out as especially harmful. WHO has identified air pollutants that are of most concern from the perspective of human health, and has set guideline values for the ambient levels that air protection policy should aim for. The three that cause the greatest number of deaths annually are fine particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone. These are represented in Figure 4, which shows emissions and the sources that give rise to them: particulate matter is shown by the size fractions PM2.5 and PM10 (particulate matter that is smaller than 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter, respectively), and nitrogen dioxide by NOx, the term for nitrogen oxides as a whole. In the EU, the largest single source of particulate matter is the use of fossil fuels for heating and cooking in residential, commercial, and institutional buildings. A significant portion of ambient PM2.5 is of a secondary nature, being formed in the air from emitted SOx, NOx, and ammonia. The largest single source of nitrogen dioxide is mo- tor vehicles (road and non-road). Ozone is not directly emitted, but is rather formed through reactions between non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight. The main sources of NMVOCs are road transport, solvents used in industrial processes, and consumer products such as glues and paints. In addition to pol- lutants that harm human health, there are others that cause damage to crops and the natural environment through acid deposition or excess fertilization, known as eutrophication. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 28 Figure 4. Contributions to EU-27 Emissions (2020) bc co nh3 nmvoc nox pm2.5 pm10 so2 ch4 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% agriculture manufacturing and residential, commercial and institutional road transport extractive industry energy supply non-road transport waste Source: EEA, “Contributions to EU-27 Emissions of BC, CO, NH₃, NMVOCs, NOx, Primary PM₁₀, Primary PM₂.₅, SO₂ and CH₄ from the Main Source Sectors in 2020,” https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/contribution-to-­eu-27-emissions/ #tab-googlechartid_googlechartid_googlechartid_chart_1111. Note: BC = black carbon; CO = carbon monoxide; NH3 = ammonia; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; and CH4 = methane. The three most significant pollutants in this category are sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and ammonia. The main source of sulfur dioxide is the use of sulfur-containing fossil fuels in power stations and other large industries, as well as in manufacturing and the residential sector. As noted above, motor vehicles are the largest single source of nitrogen oxides. Ag- riculture, through the production and use of animal manure and artificial fertilizers, is by far the greatest source of ammonia. Considering their cumulative impacts on air pollution, the sectors in Figure 4 that make the greatest contributions to emissions across all pollutants are agriculture and the residential, commercial, and institutional sectors.6 The common feature of these is that they are made up of many small entities, including individual households, and have proved difficult to regulate. WHO’s guidelines for air pollution levels in Europe below which exposure would not cons­titute a significant public health risk were published in 2000.7 The guidelines have been regularly updated, most recently in 2021, and continue to provide a basis for setting air pollutant stand- ards to protect public health and to eliminate or reduce exposure to hazardous pollutants. As 6 The residential, commercial, and institutional sectors refer to emissions generated in buildings. For example, air emissions from the institutional sector stem from such activities as heating, cooling, and lighting within institutions that include hospitals, schools, government buildings, and prisons. 7 WHO, Air Quality Guidelines for Europe, Second Edition, WHO Regional Publications, European Series 91 (Copenhagen: World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, 2000), https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789289013581. Background: Air Quality in Europe 29 such, the guideline values are a benchmark for protection against air pollution across Europe. However, although emissions and ambient levels of pollution have generally fallen, the guide- lines themselves have changed in the light of emerging evidence of the health effects of air pollution. This is illustrated by the revised recommended threshold (2021) for PM2.5, which has fallen to 5 μg/m3 from the previous assessment of 10 μg/m3. In the 2021 update, WHO notes that this will be challenging, and a series of interim targets are suggested, ranging up to 35 μg/m3. The current situation in the EU is shown in Figure 5, showing a map of the share of the popu- lation in EU member states exposed to levels of particulate pollution above the revised WHO guideline. The figure indicates that most people in the EU are in fact exposed to levels above the guideline, demonstrating the need to revisit current air quality limit values—the European Commission (EC) has proposed compliance with the 10 µg WHO guideline by 2030—and the need to do more to significantly reduce air pollution emissions. Figure 5. Percentage of the EU Population Exposed to PM2.5 Levels (2018−20) % population exposed to pm2.5 levels above who aqgs thresholds in 3 years average 2018–2020 > 95 – 100 > 90 – 95 > 80 – 90 > 50 – 80 > 25 – 50 0 – 25 Source: EEA; https://discomap.eea.europa.eu. Note: AQGs = Air Quality Guidelines. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 30  ajor regimes to address air pollution: 2.3. M UNECE Convention and EU directives Following many years of research into its origins, effects, and ways to reduce it, air pollution is sufficiently well understood for AQM to have become established practice at the national and local level. However, the emerging understanding that air pollution problems were on a scale beyond the nation state led to increasing demands for an international approach, and regimes for international cooperation on the issue subsequently emerged. The two major instruments for air pollution management in Europe are the United Nations Economic Com- mission for Europe (UNECE) and the EU. UNECE’s air protection policy originally focused on the problems of transboundary and long-range air pollution in Europe, highlighted notably by the acid rain problems of the 1970s. The members of UNECE have since spread beyond the EU, embracing Russia to the east and the United States and Canada to the west. The main vehicle for air pollution management under UNECE is the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP Conven- tion). Parties to the Convention have agreed on several measures to reduce the impact of air pollution in the form of protocols for the reduction of national emissions of air pollutants. In the most recent, the 1999 and 2012 Gothenburg Protocols, the parties agreed to reduce the major emissions responsible for environmental acidification, eutrophication, and damaging health effects. Progress toward the target emissions levels is closely monitored, with support and advice for parties that have difficulty in attaining them. The lack of actual sanctions on members reduces tensions that might otherwise arise and leads to relatively constructive engagement, both within and outside the EU. The aim of the EU’s environmental policy is to achieve its zero-pollution vision for 2050. Part of this is a comprehensive clean air policy based on three pillars: ambient air quality standards, reduced air pollution emissions, and emissions standards for key sources of pollution. The clean air policy is closely linked to the EU’s aim for a zero-carbon future and to other energy and health and welfare policies. The link between promoting air protection, reducing the ex- posure of EU residents to air pollution, and pursuing the net zero-carbon policy is particularly important, as the target is frequently the same: the use of fossil fuels. There is thus a common cause between the delivery of climate and air protection policies in the movement to net zero. Although almost all EU member states had AQM systems to protect occupational and public health before the formation of the EU or before their accession to it, these systems often took many different forms and were of varying effectiveness. Thus, in the interest of ensuring common standards of health protection, the EU has developed a collective regime for air quality, enshrined in the Ambient Air Quality Directive (AAQD). The AAQD contains a set of air quality standards for the most significant air pollutants in the form of a limit value on the ambient concentration of each pollutant within a certain time frame, measured as an annual or daily average.8 To ensure that measurements are as comparable as possible among member states, there are requirements for standard monitoring protocols and the placement of monitoring sites. 8 The current set of limit values can be found at European Commission, “EU Air Quality Standards,” https://environment. ec.europa.eu/topics/air/air-quality/eu-air-quality-standards_en. Background: Air Quality in Europe 31 The basic requirement of the AAQD is that member states must define zones and agglomer- ations within their borders and assess air quality in each using the standard methodology. Where it appears that the measured levels of air pollution currently exceed the limit values or are expected to exceed them in the future, the zone or agglomeration is designated an Air Quali­ty Management Area. An improvement plan should then be prepared, containing policies and measures that can be expected to bring the area into compliance with the limit values. The policies and measures required are to be reported to the EC as an Air Quality Improvement Plan. Considerable progress has been made on this goal, and air quality across Europe has gen- erally improved because of the implementation of the AAQD. Persistent problems remain in the case of fine particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide, which are due to the use of solid fuels in residential heating and aging road transport fleets, respectively. The AAQD works through local governments to address areas of excess pollution following the implementation of measures taken at the national level. The EU, as a party to the LRTAP Convention, provides this framework through the emissions reductions required under the Gothenburg Protocol.9 The 2016 National Emissions Reduction Commitments (NEC) Directive sets emissions reduc- tion commitments for member states for five major air pollutants: nitrogen oxides, NMVOCs, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) for 2020 and 2030. The 2020 targets were designed to meet the Gothenburg Protocol commitments, and the 2030 targets to make a further contribution to air quality by reducing health impacts by 50 percent as compared to 2005. The NEC Directive also requires member states to draw up National Air Pollution Control Programmes (NAPCPs) that outline how emissions reductions are to be achieved. Reporting emissions as an indicator of progress toward targets is a vital part of the NEC Directive, emphasizing the importance of emissions inventories as a tool in national and EU emissions reduction procedures. In addition to the five main pollutants, reports are required to show progress in reducing the emissions of several other key pollutants, including carbon monoxide, particulate pollution, and heavy metals. Member states are also required to assess of the consequences of emissions reductions on air quality improvements as a link to the AAQD. There are other EU measures that, although not aimed directly at air pollution, make signifi­ cant contributions toward better air quality. In particular, the European Green Deal aims to deliver a carbon neutral future for the EU. This will include many measures beneficial to air quality, including the reduction of energy demand in residential, commercial, and institutional buildings through improved insulation. This indicates that there is substantial benefit to be gained from the convergence of the agendas for air quality and climate protection. It should be noted that much of the EU’s contribution to reducing air pollution owes its existence to a somewhat unrelated aim —  the need to ensure the integrity of the single market by removing barriers to trade. For example, vehicles used within the EU have to be made according to common, agreed-upon standards. This means that controls on vehicle ex- haust emissions are required to respond to the need for product standards so that vehicles 9 EEA, “Directive (EU) 2016/2284 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 on the Reduction of National Emissions of Certain Atmospheric Pollutants,” Official Journal of the European Union, December 14, 2016, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016L2284. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 32 circulate freely throughout the EU, and EU directives toward this goal have been set based on the market integrity articles in the EU Treaty. Control of emissions from power stations and other large combustion plants, however, was designed in direct response to environmental problems stemming from transboundary pollution and was agreed upon under specific envi- ronmental articles. 2.4. Assessing country performance in implementing EU policies Air protection ultimately depends on the implementation of the agreements and directives described above. Regardless of how comprehensive and robust strategies, action plans, pro- tocols, and directives may be, air protection depends on the implementation of policies and measures within individual EU member states and parties to the LRTAP Convention. According to an assessment of progress on air pollution reduction targets made by the EEA in 2021, 13 member states have met their respective 2020–29 national emissions reduction commitments for each of the five main pollutants, while 13 others failed to do so for at least one of the five. For one member state, the status is unknown because its national inventory was not reported. The greatest challenge has been in achieving reductions in ammonia emissions, for which the agriculture sector is the main source. Ten members had to cut their 2021 emissions levels to fulfill their 2020–29 reduction commitments. The EEA also notes that ammonia emissions have only slightly decreased in many member states since 2005, and have actually increased in some cases. The EEA estimates that further emissions reductions for almost all pollutants for 2030 and beyond will be a significant challenge for most EU countries, and that the reduction rate for some pollutant emissions is now leveling off. The one notable exception is sulfur dioxide, with many countries already compliant with the 2030 reduction commitment. This assessment suggests that some EU members have experienced significant challenges in implementing EU air legislation that have impacted their AQM performance, and that there is a long way to go before the targets provided in the strategic instruments for air pollution reduction can be achieved throughout Europe. There is therefore considerable interest in understanding these challenges and in supporting member states’ efforts to address them. The role of each member state will therefore be crucial in achieving EU air pollution goals. Although the EU has provided robust and ambitious structures for reducing air pollution by common consent, the implementation of agreed measures by member states, notably the NEC Directive and the AAQD, remains the critical success factor. There are currently serious short- comings, as many member states are experiencing difficulties in planning and implementing the necessary policies and measures. Weakness in governance and ineffective institutional arrangements, along with chronic underinvestment, are major factors. Nevertheless, as the EU works toward its zero-pollution aim, there are significant opportunities for synergy between programs to reduce air pollution and programs to implement the aim of net-zero carbon. Background: Air Quality in Europe 33 In sum, the EU has a long history of emissions source management stemming from the need for uniform standards across member states to secure a level playing field for industry and to provide an equal measure of protection of public health. There are therefore controls on emissions from the largest industrial plants, power stations, and road transport vehicles. Many of the main pollution sources will be impacted by the zero-pollution strategy, but the process of maintaining regulatory control is likely to continue, although with new challenges during the transition period to maintain the integrity of the single market and to afford uniform pro- tection to EU residents.  ir quality and governance challenges in Bulgaria, 2.5. A Croatia, Poland, and Romania Air quality, emissions, and source legislation in the EU has been transposed into national legislation in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania, providing a governance framework that has led to considerable progress on air quality. However, existing institutional arrange- ments still face challenges in ensuring compliance with EU norms and effectively implementing measures that address the main causes of pollution. For example, legal frameworks lack the authority and incentives for local governments to implement emissions reduction measures in the residential and transport sectors and the sanctions to punish offenders. Institutions responsible for AQM at the national and local levels do not have adequate technical and finan- cial resources or the political leadership to enforce unpopular measures. Municipal air quality plans (AQPs) are too general, and their implementation and impact go unmonitored. Moreover, coordination between national and local governments is weak, and public participation in the AQM policy cycle is undermined by barriers to accessing information on air pollution. This subsection summarizes the main challenges associated with air pollution and air quality governance in these four client countries. The following summary table utilizes in advance the framework described in detail in section 3, which is built on five attributes of governance: (i) a legal and regulatory framework, (ii) a committed executive, (iii) nested planning, (iv) horizontal and vertical coordination, and (v) accountability and transparency. It is presented here as a brief overview of several conceptual and analytical points that are developed in subsequent sections of the report. More information on AQM governance in each of the countries can be found in section 5 and Annex 3. In addition, Annex 4 describes pollution sources, emi­ssions reductions efforts, and progress toward ambient air quality targets in the four states in greater detail. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 34 Bulgaria Air Quality Challenges Governance Challenges Emissions of particulate –– Legal and regulatory framework: There are generally matter from solid fuel insufficient incentives, sanctions, and authority in heaters in homes, nitrogen existing regulatory frameworks for local governments oxides from traffic and to implement emissions reduction measures in the home heaters, and residential and transport sectors. The legal framework ammonia from agriculture for inspection, monitoring, and enforcement requires must all be reduced to strengthening. Regulations for domestic fuel quality are meet EU air quality limit in place but not effectively enforced at the local level. values and emissions –– Committed executive: The national government reduction commitments. struggles to allocate sufficient resources for municipalities to implement residential heating and transport measures to reduce particulate matter and nitrogen oxide emissions. Municipal institutions are under-resourced, and local leadership struggles to enact effective pollution control measures and achieve public buy-in. –– Nested planning: There is a lack of incentives for regional air quality modeling and weak local capacity to prepare robust AQPs. –– Coordination: Achieving effective multi-level governance for AQM in Bulgaria has proven to be a significant challenge, and the National Air Quality Council for coordination across government has yet to begin functioning. Reduction measures require integrated project management and information systems to facilitate coordination among the actors involved. Horizontal coordination could be enhanced to improve the effectiveness of measures to reduce ammonia emissions. –– Accountable institutions: The monitoring network must be modernized, and public awareness of the links between air quality and health benefits must be strengthened. Background: Air Quality in Europe 35 Croatia Air Quality Challenges Governance Challenges The most pressing air –– Legal and regulatory framework: There have been pollution priority is shortcomings in the transposition of EU directives to address ambient and legislation, and the legal assignment of roles and particulate matter, which responsibilities is unclear. will mainly require action –– Committed executive: Air quality is not recognized as an to reduce emissions especially important policy area within critical parts of from solid fuel household government. heaters. To secure the –– Nested planning: Municipal AQP measures lack EU emissions reduction specificity, are not monitored, and often fail to address commitments for nitrogen the main pollution sources. Plans must include and oxides and to reduce enact special measures in areas where fuel and heating ambient nitrogen dioxides, appliance standards are not leading to pollution transport fleet emissions reductions. will have to be reduced. –– Coordination: Vertical coordination is formal and hierarchical, without a permanent body or platform to bring together national and subnational institutions and actors. –– Accountable institutions: Transparency on AQPs and data can and should be improved. Poland Air Quality Challenges Governance Challenges The major cause of –– Legal and regulatory framework: The AQM regulatory noncompliance with EU framework in Poland is comprehensive but is not fully legislation is particulate aligned with international conventions. Also, some air pollution, PM10 and standards must be strengthened and harmonized PM2.5. Benzo(a)pyrene with EU benchmarks, and the implementation of AQPs concentrations are also should be legally incentivized. higher in Poland than in –– Committed executive: Institutional roles and other EU countries. The responsibilities for AQM must be clarified. There is a main source of pollution lack of decisive political leadership to implement an is residential heating with energy transition and plans to phase out coal. solid fuels. Other sources –– Nested planning: AQPs are uneven, reflecting the include commercial variability of funding and technical expertise across heating with wood or other regions. biomass, motor vehicle –– Coordination: Coordination between government exhaust (especially from institutions must be strengthened, as some of the roles diesel engines), industrial assigned to the Plenipotentiary for Clean Air could also emissions, and forest fires. be considered duties of the Minister of Environment. –– Accountable institutions: Civil society participation lacks an institutional framework, and information access must be improved. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 36 Romania Air Quality Challenges Governance Challenges Despite good performance –– Legal and regulatory framework: Legal sanctions for in reducing emissions of noncompliance on the part of public authorities and sulfur dioxide and nitrogen emissions sources are ineffective. oxides from large power –– Committed executive: There is a lack of sufficient plants and heavy industry, personnel, technical capacity, and funding for the Romania continues to Environmental Guard and the authorities that experience high levels of perform inspections. Air pollution problems have ambient nitrogen dioxide an insufficiently high profile at the top levels of and particulate matter government. in urban areas. In the –– Nested planning: Local AQPs are not harmonized with case of nitrogen oxides, the NAPCP. further reductions within –– Coordination: Vertical and horizontal coordination the passenger car fleet in the AQM system needs improvement. The central would make a significant planning/coordination unit for air quality is an excellent contribution and seem initiative, but inadequate resources and influence make feasible. In the case of it less effective than it could and should be. particulate matter, action –– Accountable institutions: Public access to air quality will fall mainly on the information is difficult, and the information provided is residential sector with the insufficient and outdated. Many monitoring stations do replacement of stoves and not comply with EU standards. boilers. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 37 03 Methodology Air Quality Management in EU Member States 38 3. Methodology This section outlines the overarching methodology used to determine the specific govern- ance and institutional structures needed to ensure successful AQM. This report uses an EU adapted version of the Governance and Institutional Framework for Air Quality Management developed in 2021 under the World Bank project, “Governance and Institutional Arrangements: International Experience and Implications for India". This framework has been developed based on international experience, with a view to the distinct challenges faced by each country, such as population and land size, geographic diversity, idiosyncrasies of public administration, and general social dynamics. As such, the framework can be adapted and applied in a wide variety of country settings The analysis framework identifies key features of an effective air quality governance structure, highlighting the presence and functionality of institutional arrangements, processes, and mechanisms that promote successful AQM. The framework consists of five key attributes that have been determined to be critical to AQM: a legal and regulatory framework, a committed executive10, nested planning arrangements, horizontal and vertical institutional coordination, and accountability and transparency. Each of these attributes contains specific components and a set of questions to guide the assessment, as shown in Table 1. The framework has been used to identify trends and best practices in a set of relevant com- parator countries.11 Adapting some of the most relevant best practices to client countries’ realities can guide potential improvements in existing AQM governance frameworks in these countries. It is important to note that the recommendations presented in this technical note do not arise from detailed quantitative analyses (source apportionment by country and air pollution hot spots). Therefore, the report does not provide an in-depth discussion of specific policy instruments, including both command-and-control measures and market-based instru- ments, in relation to each country’s unique circumstances. This aspect of policy analysis is outside the scope of the paper, and readers should be aware that a comprehensive evaluation of the adequacy of policy instruments is not included. 10 This refers to an executive branch that is fully committed to reforming and enhancing the efficiency of the country’s air quality management system. 11 Comparator countries were selected based on their proximity to the client countries and their better air quality performance, as measured by average annual PM2.5 concentrations. See Annex 1. Methodology 39 Table 1. Governance and Institutional Framework for Air Quality Management Attributes Components Legal and Regulatory Framework Series of laws, acts, and regulations for defining –– Legal framework the mandate for effective AQM, setting the –– Roles and responsibilities country’s air quality standards, assigning the –– Enforcement mechanisms required institutional roles and responsibilities, –– Transboundary mandate and establishing compliance, creating reporting international commitments and enforcement mechanisms, addressing transboundary air pollution, and adhering to international commitments. Committed Executive Strength of the executive’s commitment to the –– Strategic vision AQM agenda revealed by the existence of a clear –– Funding allocations and publicly available vision and strategy backed –– Incentives by adequate resources, policy instruments, and –– Government capacity incentives, with capabilities in place to provide assurance that the strategy will be implemented to meet its targets. Track record of effective enforcement. Nested Planning Quality and effectiveness of AQM planning –– Planning process instruments at different levels of government. –– Independent and evidence- based expert advice Horizontal and Vertical Coordination Existing functional arrangements to coordinate –– Political leadership AQM stakeholders across sectors (horizontal) –– Membership to match and between different levels of government –– Functional reach and powers (vertical). This attribute includes a description –– Independent funding of the membership, functions, tools for effective program/project management, and overall effectiveness of the coordination mechanisms. Accountability and Transparency Mechanisms to disclose information, track and –– Transparency: data generation evaluate progress, promote public and private and disclosure sector participation, and hold institutions to –– Auditing, monitoring, and account through adequate evidence/databases, evaluation information disclosure, and established channels –– Citizen participation for recourse. –– Legal recourse Air Quality Management in EU Member States 40 As noted, the methodological approach begins by adapting the existing Bank framework to reflect specific institutional developments arising from country implementation of EU air policy. The EU has a comprehensive air policy supported by multiple legal instruments, with the objective of pursuing a zero-pollution ambition to protect the health and well-being of Eu- ropeans. EU air policy consists of directives and regulations issued by the European Parliament and the Council’s adoption of standards, emissions limits, and policy instruments to improve air quality. There are three main regulatory pillars supporting the policy. First, the AAQD, which establishes standards of air quality, requires specific actions to improve air quality in noncom- pliant regions, and sets common rules for air quality monitoring and for the transparency of information. Second, the NEC Directive, establishes emissions reduction commitments for member states based on the implementation of their NAPCPs, with descriptions of the policies and measures required for attainment alongside strong scientific evidence from projections, inventories, and other analytical and reporting tools that they will deliver. Finally, the EU has a set of source pollution legislation defining emissions and energy-efficiency targets and standards for key pollution sources, including industry, vehicles, and fuels.12 The chart below summarizes the main pillars of EU air policy. Pillars of EU Air Policy Ambient Air Quality National Emissions Source-Specific Directive Ceiling Directive Emissions Standards Protect citizens from Establish emissions Control pollution directly the harmful effects of air reduction commitments at the source pollution on health and for member states' the environment anthropogenic emissions –– Define common –– Define reduction –– Industrial Emissions methods to monitor and commitments Directive assess air quality –– Elaborate accurate –– Medium Combustion –– Establish standards of projections Plan Directive air quality to achieve –– Establish National –– Eco-design Directive across the EU Air Pollution Control –– Energy efficiency –– Ensure that information Programmes –– Euro and fuel standards on air quality is made –– Ensure monitoring and –– Other public reporting –– Design and implement air quality plans –– Maintain good air quality, improve it where it is not good 12 A list of the EU source pollution legislation can be found here. Methodology 41 The Governance and Institutional Framework for Air Quality Management can be adapted to highlight institutional arrangements that are particular to the European context, acknowl- edging countries that go beyond EU legislation requirements. This is achieved by identifying elements in EU air policy that respond directly to one or more of the framework’s attributes and components outlined above and evaluating them to determine if the existing questions capture EU policy developments. For example, the AAQD sets binding air quality standards on all member states with a clear mandate to protect the health of the population. Some of these standards consider the exposure of the population to certain pollutant concentrations. In this case, the framework is adapted by modifying the questions that elaborate on the legal framework component of the legal and regulatory framework attribute. The modification aims to identify the legal instrument through which the Air Quality Directive was transposed into national legislation and assess whether the country has adopted more stringent standards. Finally, by identifying certain elements in EU air policy that exemplify ways in which to develop AQM governance framework, the methodology avoids becoming an EU legislation compliance checklist. Table 3 displays the main elements of EU air policy in relation to the components and attributes of the Bank’s Governance and Institutional Framework for Air Quality Management. Table 2. AQM Framework and EU Air Policy Governance and Institutional Framework Elements in EU Air Policy Present in the for Air Quality Management Framework Legal and –– Legal framework –– Standards for air quality health Regulatory –– Roles and responsibilities –– Designation of appropriate bodies Framework –– Enforcement or authorities for air quality mechanisms assessment and management –– Transboundary mandate –– Mandate to cooperate in cases of and international transboundary air pollution commitments –– AQPs for regions breaching standards –– NAPCPs –– Source-specific emissions standards Committed –– Strategic vision –– AQPs for regions breaching Executive –– Funding allocation standards –– Incentives –– Political emissions reduction –– Government capacity targets –– NAPCPs Air Quality Management in EU Member States 42 Nested –– Planning process –– Areas for air quality assessment Planning –– Independent and and management evidence-based expert –– AQPs for regions breaching advice standards –– Short-term action plans for areas at risk of exceeding thresholds –– NAPCPs –– Cost-effective reduction potential in all sectors and optimization of national emissions reductions Vertical and –– Political leadership –– Mandate to cooperate between Horizontal –– Membership to match member states in cases of Coordination –– Functional reach, powers transboundary air pollution to match, effective –– Establishment of coordination program/project mechanisms between member management states –– Independent funding –– Cooperation with other EU members Transparency –– Transparency of –– Common methods to monitor, and data generation and measure, and assess air quality Accountable disclosure –– National emissions inventories Institutions –– Auditing, monitoring, and –– National emissions projections evaluation –– Information on air quality that –– Citizen participation must be made public –– Legal recourse –– Mandatory member state reports on compliance with the AAQD and the NEC Directive –– Commission’s legal action instruments against members in violation of EU legislation EU legislation does not require member states to adopt a prescribed AQM governance sys- tem. However, the existing framework remains a valid tool to assess the institutional structure built by each country to govern air quality. Adapting the framework then focuses on reviewing the questionnaire to eliminate redundant questions, introducing new ones reflecting imple- mentation of EU legislation, and adjusting others to the European context. Annex 1 shows the modifications made to the questionnaire. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 43 04 International Experience and Emerging Trends Air Quality Management in EU Member States 44 4. International Experience and Emerging Trends For each of the framework’s five attributes outlined above, this section summarizes the un- derlying institutional arrangements for AQM in six case study countries: Austria, Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, Slovenia, and Sweden. More information can be found in Annex 2 and in the detailed companion report on the case studies. The examples used are not meant to be portrayed as ideal cases and do not constitute full assessments of the country systems in question. They were instead developed to capture what seem to be useful institutional arrange- ments, functions, and processes that can inspire institutional strengthening for structural and policy changes and reforms in the client countries. This section identifies common elements across the case studies, allowing them to be grouped as basic elements that should be present in any AQM governance structure. It also includes a list of emerging trends that were identified as being at the forefront of current institutional arrangements. 4.1. Legal and regulatory framework Basic elements In all six countries studied, national legal frameworks transpose EU ambient air and emis- sions ceilings directives, setting source-specific emissions standards and, in some cases, more stringent standards for certain pollutants. National legal frameworks that address air quality and adequately adopt EU ambient air legislation provide the de jure basis for making policy on and implementing air quality standards, and for achieving air quality goals. All coun- tries under study transposed EU ambient air and emissions ceilings directives into their legal frameworks as required by EU legislation. Adopting EU directives takes different shapes and forms in response to each country’s constitutional and legal structure. For example, Austria, Germany, and Estonia adopted the EU air directives by issuing parliamentary acts. Other countries, such as Sweden and Slovenia, passed secondary legislation, e.g. government or ministerial ordinances. In Lithuania, air quality standards are set jointly by the environment and health ministries. All six countries have adopted EU air quality standards, though some countries, such as Austria, have more stringent benchmarks. Internal regulations may also set higher standards. For example, pollution permits in Austria and Sweden can be more stringent than national regulations.13 The legal and regulatory framework clearly distributes roles and responsibilities between central government and subnational authorities. A clear distribution of roles and respon- sibilities is linked to greater efficiency and complementarity in AQM policy implementation. The description of the roles and responsibilities of different state actors is common practice in all AQM legislation under study. Some legislation provides greater detail in the distribution of roles and responsibilities than others. For instance, Austria’s Federal Law on Ambient Air 13 However, in the case of directives limiting emissions from products, including road transport vehicles, EU members must adopt EU norms and cannot unilaterally impose higher environmental standards. International Experience and Emerging Trends 45 Quality (Immissionsschutzgesetz-Luft [IG-L]) contains a list of measures to improve air quality with the responsible actors attached. Sweden’s Air Ordinance distributes competences be- tween central, regional, and municipal governments. In Germany, legislation indicates that air pollution control management is shared between the federal government, which is in charge of enacting legislation, and state and local governments, which lead policy implementation. In Lithuania, the national-level institutions provide regulation and guidance, while subnational authorities are responsible for measures to ensure good air quality. Estonia’s AQM legislation allocates most responsibilities to central government institutions, but gives some competenc- es for pollution control to local authorities. Slovenia’s legislation also assigns the bulk of AQM responsibilities to the central government, although a lack of clarity exists in certain areas, such as which entities are responsible for implementing AQPs. Legal frameworks establish a combination of policy tools for AQM, including com- mand-and-control, market-based instruments, and enforcement tools. The use of a variety of policy instruments allows states to incentivize pollution control through different and com- plementary methods, while providing more flexibility to regulated entities. All countries under study have a toolbox of policy instruments to manage air quality across sectors and levels of government, with differences in the relevance of each instrument in curbing air pollution. The most common command-and-control tools are found in the licensing and permitting systems. Subnational governments typically have at their disposal such instruments as restricting vehi- cle circulation, establishing low-emissions zones, demanding the use of diesel particle filters, determining speed limits, and banning open burning. However, difficulties exist in enforcing these command-and-control measures, especially in the commercial and residential building sectors, as well as in the control of quality standards for fuels and appliances used for heating. All countries also use environmental and pollution charges, yet fossil fuel subsidies remain high, and discussion on repurposing or eliminating them is quite limited.14 Enforcement tools, such as fines, penalties, prosecution of violators, and plant closure or machinery confiscation, are also commonly established in all legal frameworks under study. 14 According to the EEA, fossil fuel subsidies as a percentage of GDP for each case study are: Germany 0.41, Lithuania 0.34, Sweden 0.16, Austria, 0.08, and Estonia 0.14. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 46 Box 1. Policy Instruments for Air Quality Management 15 The use of a wide range of instruments in environmental policy allows the state to incentivize pollution control through different and complementary methods, while providing more flexi- bility to regulated entities. Policy instruments for AQM include: Command-and-control: This is the most common form of environmental regulation and requires a regulating entity to specify the actions a polluter must take to control pollution. Command-and-control can take many forms, including determining maximum pollution le­vels and specifying the types of equipment companies must install to control pollution. However, command-and-control regulation lacks mechanisms to equalize the marginal cost of reducing pollution among polluters. Environmental permits and licenses allow the regulator to establish the specific command-and-control actions for an industrial facility to be allowed to operate. Other command-and-control actions to reduce air pollution include restricting vehicle circula- tion, establishing low-emissions zones, demanding the use of diesel particle filters, introducing speed limits, and banning open burning. Economic or market-based instruments: This type of policy instrument introduces an economic cost on pollution or an economic benefit for abatement, allowing the market to reach optimum levels of pollution control. These instruments aim to change the incentives of economic agents so that individual decisions take environmental concerns into account. The most common economic instruments for AQM are tradable emissions permits, environmental subsidies for clean technology, pollution fees and charges, and taxes. Enforcement tools: These are tools that the regulator uses to ensure full compliance with en- vironmental regulation. Enforcement usually has two components: auditing regulated entities and applying penalties on noncompliant actors. Economic fines and penalties for exceeding emissions limits, plant closure or equipment confiscation, and prosecution and imprisonment of violators are examples of enforcement tools. Litigation and public recourse: Individuals or organizations are entitled and able to bring le- gal cases against the state or private entities for the violation of clean air rights or air quality legislation. 15 Adapted from C. D. Kolstad, Environmental Economics (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000). International Experience and Emerging Trends 47 The legal framework includes specific legislation on the use of market-based instruments, such as environmental taxes and pollution charges. Market-based instruments apply the polluter pays principle through which pollution has an economic cost and its reduction an economic benefit, allowing the market to reach optimum levels of pollution/abatement. Aus- tria, Germany, Lithuania, Slovenia, and Estonia have specific legislative instruments estab- lishing environmental charges corresponding to the polluter pays principle. In Austria, the 2022 Ecological Tax Reform introduced a national carbon cap and trade system. In Estonia, the 2006 Environmental Charges Act established air pollution taxes and a carbon tax, and in Slovenia, the 1997 Pollution Taxes Decree created a carbon tax. Through a dedicated legal act in 2018, Lithuania introduced additional taxation on polluting cars. A one-time progressive tax applies when regis­tering cars and light trucks with emissions higher than 130 g/km CO2. Germany launched its own national emissions trading system (ETS) for heating and transport fuels in 2021. Sweden, however, has established multiple pollution charges through various pieces of legislation. Box 2. Market-Based Instruments for AQM 16 Tradable permits: A tradable permit allows a polluter to buy and sell the right to pollute. Trad- able permits are part of cap-and-trade systems or emissions trading systems (ETS), in which regulated facilities have a cap on the level of pollution allowed; and if pollution is higher than the cap, they can purchase tradable permits issued by the regulator. The United States was the first country to establish a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions in 1995. Through this scheme, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sets a cap on overall emissions while allowances are allocated to regulated units that may choose between saving or selling them as long as they hold sufficient allowances at the end of the period to cover their allocated levels. Other regions, such as the EU, subsequently established an ETS for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with positive effects on curbing air pollution. Environmental fees/charges/taxes and subsidies: Environmental fees/charges/taxes involve paying a charge for a unit of pollution generated to internalize the social cost of pollution in a private polluter, thereby incentivizing emissions reductions. Environmental taxes have the ad- ditional purpose of raising fiscal revenues, which can be then used to further combat pollution. Environmental subsidies aim to reduce the final cost of clean technologies in order to incentiv- ize their use. They have a negative fiscal effect. For AQM, fees/charges/taxes can be imposed on emissions of air pollutants, carbon emissions, and fossil energy produced and consumed. 16 Ibid. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 48 Emerging trends The legal framework integrates climate and air policies by setting common objectives, targets, and tools. Synergies between climate and air policies are needed to manage potential tensions and maximize benefits on both fronts. Climate is becoming a priority in the EU environmental policy agenda, and countries are establishing policy tools that contribute to both air pollution control and climate mitigation. In Sweden, preceding the adoption of the 2018 Climate Policy Framework, parliament called for greater integration between climate and air policies. One result from this integration is that the country’s NAPCP identifies the climate policy’s contri- bution to emissions ceilings targets. Estonia’s AQM regulatory framework integrates climate by regulating atmospheric emissions from stationary and mobile sources for climate change mitigation and ozone layer protection. This integration also enables installations applying for an environmental permit to concurrently make progress in accessing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions allowances. Lithuania’s NAPCP, adopted in 2019, and successive strategic docu- ments position the clean air agenda as part of the country’s effort to mitigate climate change. Box 3. Air Pollution and Climate Change: From Co-Benefits to Coherent Policy The World Bank 2022 publication “Air Pollution and Climate Change: From Co-Benefits to Co- herent Policy” highlights the potential benefits of a joint response to climate protection and AQM. It indicates the substantial synergies that can be realized through measures designed to reduce both GHGs and air pollutants. Since sources of air pollution are also sources of GHG emissions, there is clearly scope for improving the benefit-to-cost ratios with measures that control the whole basket of emissions from a single source without adding proportionally to costs. For example, measures designed to increase the rate of conversion of vehicle fleets to electricity reduce CO2 and other regulated air pollutants. However, the report also notes the tensions that can arise through “trade-offs” between climate mitigation and AQM: air pollution policies do not always lead to a cooler climate and carbon reduction measures are not necessarily good for air quality. For example, the incentives that decreased the use of diesel in road vehicle fleets delivered carbon reductions but at the cost of an increase in emissions of fine particulate matter. Similarly, a price on carbon emissions can encourage firms to switch off air pollution filters, thereby saving energy but increasing air pollution, and inefficient emissions control devices on cars or industrial plants can come with a higher demand for power and thus a consequent increase in carbon emissions. Co-development of air and climate policies is needed to manage these tensions. This could be done, for example, by deciding on priority pollutants and emissions sources and then looking for specific solutions to reduce the whole basket of emissions. These might be regulations or market schemes, but the aim would be to encourage businesses and consumers to adopt tech- nical and behavioral measures that save lives in the short term by improving air quality while navigating the longer journey to a low-carbon future. The report recommends that governments International Experience and Emerging Trends 49 take an integrated approach to air quality and climate change policies, maximizing synergies while avoiding trade-offs in order to focus on expanding health benefits and simultaneously paving the way to phasing out fossil fuel use in the longer term. The EC recognizes the benefits of a linked approach to policy in the EU Green Deal and the various instruments that implement it, especially the Fit for 55 initiative, a package of meas- ures for delivering the EU’s climate aims.17 This combines environmental, economic, and social objectives, including the protection of health from environmental pollution. In practice, however, governments have found it very difficult to develop well-linked climate and air quality policies. This is partly due to institutional arrangements for governance, with policy responsibilities for air quality and climate usually located either in different units within the environment ministry or in separate ministries altogether, e.g. environment and energy. Even where units for air and climate policy are in the same ministry, the focus on different targets with different time horizons makes it difficult for teams to work together effectively on a har- monized action plan. Furthermore, because of energy policy's central importance to climate issues, policy units in an environment department are highly dependent on the direction in developing their own objectives, e.g. the reduction of the impact of fossil fuels. However, en- ergy ministries have many other items on their agenda, including fuel sustainability, continuity of supply, energy poverty, and energy infrastructure. In other words, environmental concerns are not necessarily at the top of their agenda. Solutions to this disconnect are to be found in specific combined air and climate units with high-level ministerial commitment to the development of linked policies. Interministerial com- mitments will also be needed to ensure engagement between ministries so that policies on air, climate, energy, and transport develop in close cooperation. This will require a willingness on the part of ministers and other public servants to work together, as well as specific resource allocations to manage the joint process. 17 Fit for 55 is a package of measures designed to reduce the EU’s GHG emissions by 55 percent by 2030. It is part of the European Green Deal, which was first presented in December 2019. The package was proposed in July 2021 by the EC. See “Fit for 55: Delivering on the Proposals,” https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/ european-green-deal/delivering-european-green-deal/fit-55-delivering-proposals_en. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 50 4.2. Committed executive Basic elements With a committed executive, high-level government officials champion air and climate poli- cies and have clear long-term agendas to achieve goals and targets on both fronts. Properly functioning AQM institutional systems require a dynamic, consistent, and strongly committed executive, firm leadership, and a funded mandate, integrated with other priority areas such as climate change. Most countries in the case study group currently have governments that embrace climate and air pollution mitigation in alignment with the European Green Deal. For example, in Estonia, green, energy, and climate policies are at the forefront of the priorities of the current prime minister, who also chairs the National Green Policy Steering Committee. Estonia’s long-term development strategy, Estonia 2035, aims to achieve carbon neutrality by implementing a number of actions, including phasing out shale oil in the energy sector by 2040, which would radically improve air quality. Slovenia’s prime minister, elected in 2022, has signaled a commitment to prioritize green policies and announced a vision of a carbon-free society. In Sweden, the 2019–21 Minister for the Environment stated that “Tackling air pollution is an essential part of tackling climate change. It’s a win-win situation.” NAPCPs determine countries’ long-term AQM strategies and are aligned with broader environmental policies and multi-sectoral development plans. Having a long-term AQM plan that articulates a consistent, goal-oriented vision and is harmonized with other country development priorities is key to achieving successful air quality results. As required by the EU NEC Directive, NAPCPs are planning instruments to identify the measures, policies, and institutional framework required to achieve members’ emissions reduction targets. Though the quality and completeness of NAPCPs vary across the case studies, all have identified key policies and sectoral plans that contribute to reducing air emissions. For example, Austria’s NAPCP highlights the country’s climate and energy objectives and the Common Agricultural Policy as key strategies to achieving its targets. Sweden’s NAPCP highlights that actions to realize its transport climate target will also contribute to achieving air pollution goals. In Slo- venia, the NAPCP incorporates policy actions established in the previously approved GHG Operational Plan and in the transport, agriculture, and industry development programs. Lithu­ ania’s two consecutive cabinets have demonstrated a consistent strategic vision of clean air and climate change abatement that guides the development of various key sectors, including energy, transport, agriculture, and housing. The institutional setup for AQM is comprised of multiple institutions playing complemen- tary roles in policy making, regulation, enforcement, funding, and information and data generation. Improving air quality requires the use of multiple policy tools by institutions with matching and harmonized authority that collaborate to achieve policy results. In this regard, all case studies showcase complex institutional frameworks for AQM whose differences are based on such issues as the type of government structure (i.e., unitary or federation). It is com- mon for ministries of the environment to play a role in policymaking and preparing legislation, while environmental protection agencies typically lead the implementation of environmental policy, together with regulatory and enforcement authorities. In Slovenia, and until recently in Estonia, a separate institution undertakes environmental inspection tasks. In addition, some countries have a separate agency specialized in generating environmental data and information, International Experience and Emerging Trends 51 as in Austria and Germany. The German Environment Agency (Umweltbundesampt [UBA]) is responsible for managing the nation’s air pollution data network and preparing its national emissions inventories. Lithuania has three dedicated policy implementation institutions: agencies responsible for measuring, assessing, and providing information on air pollution; agencies that ensure the coherent use of available financial resources; and a department that controls environmental protection. Moreover, all countries but Sweden have specific funding mechanisms to support diverse investments, with positive effects on curbing pollution. AQM policy is also implemented at the subnational level by local institutions with highly divergent institutional setups across countries. The central government has specialized financing institutions that support green investments. Reducing pollution requires public and private investments in multiple sectors, such as trans- portation, industry, power generation, and commercial and residential buildings. Specialized public institutions can offer different financial instruments to unlock the investments required to achieve this goal. In Austria, the Climate and Energy Fund, run by the Ministry of Climate Action (Bundesministerium für Klimaschutz [BMK]), provides subsidies for climate-friendly technologies. The Estonian Environmental Investment Centre funds projects from private actors and municipal governments for pollution control equipment and environmental super- vision, renewable energy, electric mobility, and others. The Slovenian Environmental Public Fund provides support to environmental investments made by companies, municipalities, and individuals through guarantees, soft loans, and grants, with funds from energy fees and carbon allowances and long-term loans from the European Investment Bank and the Slovenian Export and Development Bank. The Lithuanian Environmental Protection Investment Fund finances investment projects related to the acquisition of technologies and equipment for water and air purification. Thirty percent of taxes collected from air and water pollution finance this Fund. Emerging trends Public funding for environmental protection and the green transition has been increasing in recent years. A committed executive articulates a consistent vision of what AQM entails for the national budget, which includes not only allocating specific resources, but also main- streaming AQM objectives across budget expenditures. In this regard, the case studies show that central government budgets are allocating greater funding for environmental protection. All six countries have increased their budget allocation for green energy and infrastructure, which has a longer-term positive effect on reducing air pollution. For example, in Austria, the total allocation for climate, environment, and energy programs was four times higher in 2022 than in 2021. In Sweden, the increase was twofold, while in Slovenia it was 17 percent. From 2022 to 2023, Lithuania increased its green transformation budget by 2.8 times, from €366 million to €1.24 billion. In Estonia, the share of environmental protection in total public expenditures increased from 0.1 percent of GDP in 2020 to 0.7 percent in 2022. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether general budget increases e.g. in infrastructure projects, also benefit government pro- grams to improve air quality networks and increase the capacity of government institutions to manage air quality. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 52 4.3. Nested planning Basic elements Effective nested planning for AQM takes place between national and subnational AQM planning instruments. Harmonization between national air quality programs, sectoral strat- egies, and regional and local air improvement plans is highly relevant, as local policies have the potential to accelerate or delay a country’s efforts to achieve national pollution limits and emissions reduction targets. Some of the countries under study have a clear harmonization of plans between levels of government. For example, in Slovenia, the NAPCP coordinates measures in multiple sectoral programs and local AQPs. In Estonia, national AQM legislation requires that industry-level pollution control plans and municipal or county air improvement strategies be harmonized, guaranteeing coordination and nesting between different planning instruments. In Austria, the successful implementation of AQPs in all nine provinces comes from integrated approaches between local and national air quality programs. Nesting between AQP planning and development instruments and coordination to address local transboundary pollution are required by law. All countries under study have integrated nesting instruments for air quality planning and management. For example, the Air Protection Act in Estonia and the Ambient Air Protection Law in Lithuania require that AQPs be embed- ded in local development plans. In Austria, Sweden, Estonia, and Lithuania, environment or AQM legislation requires jurisdictions to cooperatively draw up joint air quality programs to comply with limit values when exceedance is the result of local transboundary air pollution. Slovenia has modeled air basins in regions such as Ljubljana to identify air quality dynamics and determine best management options. In Germany, the UBA’s stations measure the quality of air masses transported over long distances and across national borders. Planning instruments for AQM identify specific measures and have access to national and international funding for their implementation. Multiple elements influence successful air quality planning, including the definition of specific measures under the competence of local governments, based on evidence and broad stakeholder consultation. Successful plan imple- mentation is also linked to the capacity to budget the cost of implementing measures and identify and manage potential sources of funding. AQPs in the countries under study follow EU and national legislation guidelines and therefore identify specific measures in the trans- port, commercial, and residential energy sectors. Though plans do not usually have attached budgets or analyses of funding mechanisms (which are optional for EU legislation), cities and local governments usually have access to both national and EU funds. Some of the EU funds available to support clean air policies are: the Recovery and Resilience Facility, the LIFE Pro- gram, European Structural and Investment Funds, and the European Regional and Development Fund. The estimated EU contribution to improving air quality across member states through all of its programs was €46 billion between 2014 and 2020.18 18 European Commission, “Funding for Clean Air,” https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/air/funding-clean-air_en. International Experience and Emerging Trends 53 4.4. Horizontal and vertical coordination Basic elements Multiple instruments exist to improve vertical coordination between federal or central state governments and subnational governments on AQP policy design and implementa- tion. Coordination, complementarity, and concurrence between federal/central government and subnational authorities enables multilevel governance, which is a key precondition for effective AQM. The existence of specific coordination bodies with functional arrangements to facilitate and enforce priorities, allocate resources, and implement strategies ensures better air quality outcomes. These functional arrangements comprise both formal institutions and actual behaviors to facilitate operations and greater policy effectiveness. Mechanisms to improve vertical coordination are particularly important in federations like Austria and Germany and more decentralized unitary states like Sweden. For example, in Austria, provincial authorities coordinate closely with the federal government when prepar- ing and implementing provincial air quality programs. Vertical coordination for broader envi- ronmental matters takes place through the Conference of Regional Environment Ministers (Umwelt-Landeskonferenz [LURK]), where federal and provincial officials meet annually to coordinate the implementation of environmental law. At the 2022 LURK, provincial ministers adopted a resolution to reduce ammonia and increase cooperation with the federal govern- ment to stop exhaust gas manipulation in trucks. In Sweden, the Supervision and Regulation Council, established by parliament, has improved communication between national, regional, and local authorities on issues related to the implementation of environmental law, which is led by local governments in coordination with central state institutions. Estonia and Slovenia are highly centralized unitary states, and vertical coordination between the central government and local authorities remains challenging. In Slovenia, the lack of coordination is leading to difficulties in monitoring the quality of environmental management at the local level; in Esto- nia, gaps in vertical coordination are one root cause of weaker local and regional government capacities. Lithuania has introduced measures to address loopholes in information collection and performance monitoring, both of which have been weakening coordinated AQM action. Horizontal coordination is more common across the case study countries, especially for the planning phase of AQM, as well as in program monitoring and control. Cross-sectoral coordination integrates air quality with sectoral priorities, making clean air a broader, cross-­ cutting policy goal. AQM requires tight coordination between the ministries of the environment, transport, energy, internal affairs, and health—at a minimum. Coordination with the treasury and the finance ministry also improves the operationalization of AQM. Preparing the NAPCP and AQPs is a multi-sector process in all countries under study. For example, in Estonia, the NAPCP is prepared by the Ministry of Climate, but must be approved and adopted by each corresponding responsible ministry. The situation is similar in Sweden, where the Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA) must draft the NAPCP after consultation with other relevant ministries and actors. In Austria, the successful implementation of an AQP is attributed to a strong integrated and horizontal coordination approach. In Slovenia, inter-sectoral coordination takes place during the preparation of the National Environment Action Program, Air Quality Operational Programs, and the NAPCP, which are the main AQM planning instruments in the country. The Lithuanian Law on Ambient Air Protection charges the Ministry of Environment Air Quality Management in EU Member States 54 with a leadership role in horizontal AQM coordination; sectoral ministries share responsibili- ties in implementing the National Energy and Climate Area Plan and other cross-sectoral pro- grams. Air quality associations in Sweden coordinate regional, municipal, and private air quality monitoring efforts, providing accurate data management. In Austria, provincial governments coordinate closely with the federal government when implementing provincial air pollution control programs, since competence over measures to achieve limit values may vary between the federal government (Bund) and the Bundesländer (states or provinces). Emerging trends Multi-level coordination platforms exist to improve the implementation of environmental and AQM policy through collaboration tools. Formal and practical institutional arrangements increase the likelihood of coordination, while proving useful to enhancing policy implemen- tation. In Sweden, Environmental Collaboration Sweden (Miljösamverkan Sverige) is the peak of government coordination on environmental policy. As a collaborative body, the purpose of Miljösamverkan Sverige is to increase consensus between regional administrations in the exercise of environmental authority and to support regional institutions in their interpretation of environmental legislation. It also develops guidance documents on several issues, including air pollution regulation. 4.5. Accountability and transparency Basic elements Where there is accountability and transparency, civil society and individual citizens have basic access to air quality information and are able to participate in policy making, while national legislation enables them to file cases against governments for lack of compliance with air policy regulation. Public awareness and understanding of air pollution sources and participation along the AQM cycle increase the possibility of gaining support for action to im- prove air quality. The case study countries have all ratified the 1998 UNECE Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, which protects every person’s right to live in a healthy environment by guaranteeing public rights to information access, public participation, and environmental justice. The Convention’s compliance committee has reviewed each country’s lack of compli- ance with its principles, leading to multiple legislative adjustments. For example, Germany amended its legislation on the standing of environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Additionally, in compliance with EU regulation, all countries under study publish infor- mation on the state of air quality for public access through web-based portals, though these are not always integrated or user friendly. The legislation of all countries, also in response to EU regulations, have procedures to ensure public participation in the preparation of AQPs and the NAPCP, although, recent complaints in Slovenia indicate that public information on and citizen participation in environmental decision making is becoming less timely, accessi- ble, and affordable. In most countries, NGOs have filed air pollution cases against the state at some point. For example, several NGOs in Austria filed a case in 2014 demanding that Salzburg International Experience and Emerging Trends 55 comply with nitrogen dioxide limit values. In 2010, the EU Court of Justice condemned Sweden for exceeding EU air quality limit values for PM10 in Stockholm and Gothenburg in response to actions taken by the Swedish Association on Nature Conservation. Box 4. Air Quality Information Available via Public Portals in the Case Study Countries Austria: Through its public website, the Austrian Environment Agency publishes real-time information from the country’s air quality network, with maps of measuring points and time courses, an air quality forecast, and data on current and past exceedances, as well as annual reports on the state of air quality. In addition, the Austrian Air Quality Index (AQI) is continu- ously reported through civil platforms and the European AQI platform. Estonia: The Estonian Environment Research Center has created a website with real-time air quality results from 22 air quality monitoring stations. The website has a color scale to inform on air quality, and a yearly report is published on monitoring results. Germany: In Germany, the UBA brings together air quality data from its own network and the Land (state) networks and makes the information available to the public on its website. The data is used to provide, maps showing the current air quality situation in all of Germany for each measured pollutant, and is updated continuously. One hour after being recorded, the data is available via the air data web portal and an app, making it possible to obtain current air quality information at a selected station or across Germany.19 In 2019, the UBA launched the free app “Luftqualität” (Ger. 'air quality') for Android and iOS devices. Lithuania: The country’s EPA developed an interactive national air quality map that provides real-time monitoring of air pollutant concentrations and historical data. The capital city of Vilnius has its own interactive air pollution map called the Lungs of the City, which provides data on air pollution, including major pollutants as well as pollen. Slovenia: The Slovenian Environmental Agency (ARSO) operates a website with 180 environ- mental indicators, including information about major air pollutants and the state of air quality. Sweden: The Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute has a centralized database for air quality measurements, available on the web. However, the dataset is available only in specialized formats and is not friendly to the lay public. Some civic platforms (like the LoV-IoT project or the World Air Quality Project) compile the data from the EPA’s air quality stations and provide continuous information on air quality levels. 19 UBA, “Air Quality 2019: Preliminary Evaluation” (Berlin: German Environment Agency, 2020), https://www.umweltbundesamt. de/sites/default/files/medien/1410/publikationen/2020-03-20_hgp_air-quality-2019_bf.pdf Air Quality Management in EU Member States 56 Air quality monitoring networks integrate national, regional, and local measurement stations. All six case study countries have built air quality networks, adding stations managed by central and local governments and, in some cases, by academic and private institutions. In most cas- es, however, upgrading the stations and ensuring adequate resources for their maintenance remain a challenge. For example, in Slovenia, the EC has highlighted the need for the country to upgrade and improve its air quality monitoring network. In Sweden, some cities and mu- nicipalities perform poorly in monitoring air quality due to a lack of adequate resources, and Lithuania’s 2022 state audit identified flaws in municipal-level air quality monitoring. Parliaments and national legislatures actively monitor their country’s air quality performance and foster discussions that lead to policy updates and integration. In countries with effective AQM, legislative and judiciary bodies and human rights commissions audit, monitor, and scru- tinize the functioning of AQM systems, increasing the accountability of institutions that lead policy implementation. In most of the case study countries, parliaments play an active role in monitoring and suggesting policy reforms to improve AQM. For example, in Sweden, a parlia- mentary cross-party committee advised on the adoption of a cohesive clean air policy strategy in synergy with the Climate Framework, and proposed a series of targets for the country that were adopted later in the NAPCP. The Estonian and Lithuanian parliaments have established an Environmental Committee to create and improve legislation related to environmental pro- tection, the use of natural resources, and nature conservation. International Experience and Emerging Trends 57 Components of Robust Air Quality Box 5.  Information Systems According to the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute,20 a centralized database for air quality measurements that integrates national, regional, and local measuring points or stations and is publicly available encourages transparency, quality assurance, and efficiency. A well-functioning data host opens doors to further air quality assessments and applications, for example, modeling and reporting data to international institutions such as the EU. Key attributes of robust air quality systems are: –– Automated data flow. The data flow process from local data providers to the national data host is automated to a great extent, with validation checks for format and completeness. –– Quality assurance. Multiple tools are used to assist the quality assurance of measurement data, using e.g. visual comparisons of time series as well as checks of verification flags. –– User-friendly web portal. Data should be available to the public through web portals with visualization services and options for data downloading. In the United States, air quality is integrated into an air quality information system consisting of:21 –– The Ambient Monitoring Technology Information Center, which contains technical infor- mation on monitoring programs, including the networks of state or local air monitoring stations (SLAMS), monitoring methods, and quality assurance and control procedures. –– The Air Quality System, which is a national repository of ambient air pollution data co­ llected by the federal, state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies. It also contains descriptive information about each monitoring station (including its geographic location and operator) and data quality assurance/quality control. –– The Air Data website, which provides public access to air quality data collected at outdoor monitors, including the ability to download data, create summary reports, visualize the data, and access an interactive map of monitors.  –– The AirNow website, which provides easy access to real-time and forecasted air quality information using the AQI. 20 Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, “Air Quality Data Hosting,” https://www.smhi.se/en/services/ air-quality/consulting-assignments/data-hosting-1.106987. 21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Managing Air Quality – Ambient Air Monitoring,“ https://www.epa.gov/ air-quality-management-process/managing-air-quality-ambient-air-monitoring. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 58 Emerging trends Air quality and pollution information systems are integrated and easily accessible by the public. Integrated air quality information systems with tools that facilitate public access and are user friendly encourage transparency, quality assurance, and efficiency. Most countries under study produce information on air quality, but in some cases, the information is not in- tegrated or user friendly, or the systems do not have all the components needed make an air quality information system robust (see Box 5 above). In Austria and Germany, however, pro- gress on this front provides a highlight. Through their public websites, the Austrian Environ- ment Agency and the UBA publish real-time information from the country’s air quality network, with maps of measuring points and time courses, an air quality forecast, data on current and past exceedances, and annual reports on the state of air quality. In addition, the Austrian and German Air Quality Indexes (AQIs) are continuously reported through civil platforms and the European AQI platform. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 59 05 Key AQM Strengths and Weaknesses in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania Air Quality Management in EU Member States 60 Key AQM Strengths and Weaknesses in Bulgaria, 5.  Croatia, Poland, and Romania This section summarizes the key governance strengths and weaknesses relating to AQM based on individual assessments of the four client countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania. The section first presents common strengths and weaknesses in all four countries by attribute and then summarizes the main governance challenges in each state. Annex 3 contains more information on the institutional procedures in the four countries, while the full detailed case studies of both reference (case study) and client countries are contained in a companion case studies publication. The key strengths and weaknesses presented below are organized by attribute. Both common features across countries and country-specific issues are noted. 5.1. Legal and regulatory framework The legal and regulatory framework for AQM in the four client countries shows similar levels of development and faces similar challenges to those in the case study countries. Strengths The client countries have transposed EU air quality directives into national legislation, although with several major shortcomings. The four client countries have transposed the AAQD and the NEC Directive into primary or secondary legislation and are signatories to the UNECE’s air pollution conventions. However, all four have been investigated by the EC for a lack of follow-through on implementation. Croatia has had shortcomings in fully complying with the directives on atmospheric emissions and air quality (Industrial Emissions Directive and Control of Major Accident Hazards). In 2018, the EC brought an action before the Court of Justice against Poland for not following daily and annual limit values for PM10 and for not correctly transposing the provisions of the Air Directive concerning AQPs. In addition, Poland has not yet ratified some of the UNECE Air Convention Protocols (the Amended Gothenburg Protocol and the Protocols on Heavy Metals and Persistent Organic Pollutants [POPs]). In 2020, the Commission initiated an infringement procedure against Bulgaria, demanding that the government remove barriers to access to justice in air quality matters. In 2021, the EC decided to refer Romania to the EU Court of Justice for failing to comply with EU rules on industrial pollution and adopt an air pollution control program. Weaknesses AQM legal and regulatory frameworks formally define AQM roles and responsibilities, yet challenges persist in the interpretation and execution of division of power. Most of the countries face challenges in this regard, such as in Croatia, where there are overlapping re- sponsibilities between municipalities and counties concerning local networks of air quality monitoring stations and the development of subnational strategic AQM plans. In Bulgaria, Key AQM Strengths and Weaknesses in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania 61 local authorities do not have jurisdiction over certain pollutants affecting local air quality, and coordination with the responsible authorities is challenging. In addition, the legal framework does not create shared responsibilities, meaning that some sectoral policies, such as the winter fuel supplemental program administered by the Ministry of Labor, are not coordinated with other key ministries such as the Ministry of Environment and Water (MoEW). Moreover, the latter has no responsibilities in firewood control and only limited ability to control emissions in the residential sector. In Poland, national and regional standards on solid fuel boilers are not harmonized, posing challenges to implementation. Box 6. Underpricing of Pollution According to the 2023 World Bank report, “Detox Development: Repurposing Environmentally Harmful Subsidies”, pollution is underpriced worldwide as governments provide explicit fossil fuel subsidies, which were estimated to amount to US$577 billion in 2021. In the client coun- tries, the amount of fossil fuel subsidies as a percentage of GDP is among the highest in the EU: 0.96% in Bulgaria, 0.36% in Poland, and 0.36% in Romania. Croatia’s subsidies, however, account for 0.26% of the GDP, below the EU average of 0.37%. According to the World Bank, lowering fossil fuel prices incentivizes their overconsumption in the short run, while aggravating fiscal imbalances, entrenching pollution, and ensuring inefficient government expenditure in the long run. Even when fossil fuels reflect market prices, these prices do not capture the full scale of damage to the population’s health and the global climate. Subsidy reform encompasses various elements, including subsidy removal and repurposing. When political economy, social protection, and other factors are considered, reform may involve a package of measures, in which subsidy repurposing can be relevant. Subsidy repurposing may be relevant for smaller sources usually generated by vulnerable groups, to avoid adverse social and environmental effects. Enforcement tools are present in all of the AQM legal and regulatory frameworks, but are generally insufficient or ineffective. Most of the client countries face enforcement challenges due to inadequate legal provisions or weaknesses in the use of enforcement tools. For example, the legal framework in Bulgaria does not create provisions for routine monitoring of emissions from newly installed space heaters or for the fuels in use, and no sanctions exist for cases where replacement heaters are incorrectly operated. This is in part because of concerns that enforcement might lead to an invasion of privacy, and partly because there would be diffi­culties in establishing the necessary new offenses and sanctions in legislation. In Romania, noncom- pliance sanctions are too low to ensure a deterrent effect; additionally, there is no database to provide a record of noncomplying companies. In Croatia, fines are envisaged for noncom- pliance among public institutions, such as local governments, but have never been imposed. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 62 Local transboundary cooperation to manage air quality is either absent from the regula- tory framework or has never been implemented. In Bulgaria, the national legal framework does not include specific provisions to promote cooperation between jurisdictions on local transboundary air pollution. In Romania, the law calls for joint action plans in the event of air pollution, but no cases of this happening have been identified in practice. On the other hand, Croatia's Air Protection Act recognizes the possible threat of local transboundary air pollution and explicitly advocates for cooperation with other countries’ authorities in order to develop appropriate measures to mitigate the risks and to eliminate exceedances of limit values. Multiple policy tools have been introduced by national AQM legislation, but greater inter- action with economic instruments must be put in place. Although the client countries have introduced some economic incentives to drive the desired change for most pollutants, as shown in Box 6, they must still expand their options to consider pollution charges and carbon taxes, to phase out fossil fuels, to introduce new financial incentives for clean energy, and especially to generate emissions reductions from households. The use of economic ins­ truments opens a new range of opportunities within climate policy. 5.2. Committed executive Commitment from high-level officials and the presence of an AQM strategic vision varies across the client countries. Variations are also present between budget appropriations for AQM and the availability of national funding sources. In turn, government capacities to imple- ment, enforce, and monitor AQM policies are fragile in all four states. Strengths Two countries have agreed upon a long-term vision for AQM through dedicated AQPs and the NAPCP. In Bulgaria, the 2018–2024 National Air Quality Improvement Program (NAQIP) and the NAPCP have been adopted by the Council of Ministers. While the former outlines measures to address PM10 exceedances, the latter sets the longer-term and sectoral vision for AQM. In Poland, multiple documents capture the country’s long-term AQM vision. The 2022 National Air Quality Plan sets goals and actions to improve air quality, and the Clean Air Program su­ pports the transition away from individual coal-fired heating. Finally, the NAPCP prioritizes the measures to reduce emissions. The strategic vision is reinforced by the appointment of the Plenipotentiary for the Clean Air Program, a high-level figure appointed by the prime minister to coordinate government activities to fully implement the recommendations of the program. In contrast, Croatia has not updated its statutory Air Protection Plan, which is supposed to serve as the highest-order planning document for AQM. Similarly, Romania has no cu­rrent national AQM program, and the NAPCP was adopted five years after the NEC deadline. Several of the client countries have dedicated national funding mechanisms for environ- mental priorities, including AQM. This feature is more clearly apparent in Croatia, Poland, and Romania. In Croatia, the Environmental Protection and Energy Efficiency Fund supports air quality directly by co-financing projects to modernize, renew, and expand the National Key AQM Strengths and Weaknesses in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania 63 Network for Air Quality Monitoring. In addition, by financing projects in energy efficiency and waste management, it contributes indirectly to air quality, helping to minimize sources of air pollution. In Romania, the National Environmental Fund has been used to finance measures outlined in AQPs. In Poland, the National and Voivodeship (Regional) Funds for Environmental Protection and Water Management provide support for measures that reduce emissions.22 In Bulgaria, however, the main sources of funding for key emissions reduction measures are EU financial instruments. Weaknesses The importance of air pollution on the political agenda in the client countries appears to have weakened recently. In these countries, as in most of the rest of Europe, governments have faced many urgent and unforeseen challenges, including measures required to confront the COVID-19 pandemic and the energy shock delivered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. These emergency concerns, together with the ongoing search for financial security in a turbulent world economy, have become highly prominent in the political sphere, and have taken up a considerable share of many governments’ time and energy. Health ministries in particular have been slow to press the case for action on air pollution, despite compelling evidence from glo­ bal assessments that air pollution is a priority public health issue. Additionally, environmental matters in general are often displaced in public attention by other more immediate social and economic concerns. As a result, there are few instances in which high-level government officials in the four countries act as champions even of existing air pollution policies. In Croatia, the prime min- ister arguably never brings up or discusses air quality policies in public debates or interviews, although broader topics, such as the green transition, clean energy, and climate change are regularly addressed. In Bulgaria, air quality is not high on the agenda of most ministries, as they must deal with other, often more politically and socially charged issues. However, recent EC action against Bulgaria for failures in air quality have empowered the environment ministry and enabled it to compete more successfully for attention in higher levels of government. In Romania, at the strategic level, there appears to be insufficient high-level leadership, which has led to the seven ongoing EU infringement procedures, the late adoption of the NAPCP, and systemic enforcement problems. Poland seems to be the only country where air pollution gets adequate attention from political leadership, though policy implementation must often confront political considerations with regard to the negative effects of certain measures on local constituents. Nevertheless, the problem of air pollution remains a topic with the potential to disrupt the agenda of any of the four governments. Although air pollution levels are decreasing in certain European regions that have successfully implemented robust AQM systems, new evidence of the health impacts of air pollution, episodes of particularly poor air quality, or EC infringement proceedings due to government inaction could swiftly bring air pollution to the public’s atten- tion or to the political forefront. However, there is a significant risk that any progress made on air pollution could be easily reversed if the issue continues to lag behind as a priority concern. 22 Poland has a four-tier government administration: national, voivodeship, powiat (county or district) , and gmina (municipality) levels. Voivodeships correspond to regions. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 64 National and local institutions generally lack proper capacities to implement and enforce AQM policies and regulations. All four countries report lack of capacity as a significant chal- lenge, especially for local authorities. Public administration finance models fail to separate the costs of AQM planning and implementation. Where measures are not costed separately from plans, allocation decisions can be very difficult, leading to actions being funded without sufficient analysis. Some of the rural municipalities in client countries cannot design plans without effective support mechanisms. In Croatia, for example, the department at the Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development (MESD) that deals with air quality is understaffed. In addition, municipalities and counties often lack either the human or technical resources to have a decisive impact on air quality and carry out the activities outlined. In Romania, the Environmental Guard, which is responsible for enforcement, lacks personnel and technical expertise; this includes insufficient equipment and funding, as well as a lack of modern infor- mation technology and specific personnel (for example, for the use of mapping software, joint databases with other public authorities, etc.). Moreover, there are no departments at the local level fully dedicated to air quality. Similarly, most municipalities in Bulgaria, save the largest, do not have dedicated staff for AQM. Thus, in most cases, there is insufficient human capacity to systematically implement municipal AQPs. In Poland, there is a need to strengthen the Ministry of Climate and Environment to improve its role of providing uniform guidance and technical expertise to voivodeships for AQP development and regulation compliance. At the local level, some municipalities lack the capacity to enforce fines or penalties and to deliver strong AQPs with sufficient information to ensure an integrated AQM approach. 5.3. Nested planning The four countries have established requirements and procedures to plan for AQM. However, planning procedures face several gaps, such as the lack of an airshed vision where transboundary pollution is an issue, low local capacities to prepare and adopt plans, and weak harmonization with other national programs. Strengths Multi-stakeholder participation in the preparation of AQPs and reporting requirements en- rich the AQM planning process. This feature is present in Bulgaria and Romania. In Bulgaria, municipalities are obligated to establish an AQP council with the participation of representa- tives of the different municipal departments, the respective regional environment and health inspectors, businesses, academia, and civil society. Effective participation of these stake- holders is not always guaranteed, however. Municipalities are obligated to report annually on AQP implementation to the respective environment inspectors, to the MoEW’s Protection Department, and, in most cases, to their respective city councils. In Romania, AQPs are drawn up by a technical commission constituted at the level of the local public administration, with participation from municipalities, technical departments, local or county public institutions and authorities in the fields of forestry, health, transport, agriculture, public order, statistics, and law enforcement, as well as relevant economic operators and any other body with respon- sibilities in the field, where needed. However, academic actors, research institutes, or NGOs are not required to participate. Key AQM Strengths and Weaknesses in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania 65 Weaknesses Geographic areas subject to air quality monitoring and assessment differ from the areas where AQM planning takes place. This division makes AQM fragmented, which limits the capacity of jurisdictions to use integrated approaches to solve pollution challenges, and is be- coming a major issue, especially with regard to local transboundary pollution. This is the case in all four client countries. In Croatia, zones and agglomerations are primarily for monitoring, quality assessment, and statistical functions, and not for planning and/or policy purposes. In Bulgaria, AQPs are developed at the municipal level rather than at zone or agglomeration ­level. Therefore, municipalities neighboring those with AQPs might not be obligated to develop their own AQP, even though emissions sources in these municipalities may be contributing to air pollution in the areas that have plans in place. Municipalities lack adequate capacities to prepare AQPs, which results in documents with low quality and weak implementation. In most of the client countries, municipalities hire external consultants to develop AQPs, a process that does nothing to improve the capacities of local institutions. As a result, AQM planning becomes an external procedure instead of a multi-stakeholder process to establish and coordinate actions needed to achieve long-term compliance with air quality values. Moreover, the output of private consultancies is not always in the public domain, as their local inventories of emissions and sources are often considered proprietary and not publicly accessible. In Croatia, the adoption of AQPs usually corresponds to a formal obligation. In most cases these plans do not achieve their goals, since they are usually developed once the old plan has expired, which suggests that they did not contrib- ute significantly to the reduction of the pollutant in question. In Bulgaria, AQPs often focus on measures that only indirectly reduce emissions rather than targeting primary emissi­ ons reductions. The AQPs generally include measures that are already being implemented and do not have clear prioritization, timeline, or resource allocation objectives. One exception is the residential sector, which AQPs and the NAPCP recognize as the major source of PM10 and PM2.5. However, the necessary replacement of old and inefficient household heaters remains an implementation challenge. In Romania, AQPs lack uniformity and are not usually based on strong evidence, since there is insufficient monitoring data to develop measures that specifi­ cally tackle local problems, including the complete omission of several of the de facto main sources of air pollution. In Poland, the robustness of AQPs mirrors variations in the level of funding and technical capacity across regions. Some AQPs tend to have more of a diagnostic rather than a prescriptive focus and, as noted above, lack the information needed to ensure the implementation of an integrated AQM approach. Harmonization between national and local air quality policies, programs, and plans could be improved. Nesting between national and local AQM planning is important if local actions are to genuinely contribute to the national air quality vision. The level of harmonization varies across client countries. In Croatia, regional/municipal programs must be harmonized with the national air protection plan. However, since no new air protection plan has been adopted since 2017, a new generation of subnational plans are being adopted without the necessary reference points. In addition, plans are very diverse, and existing plans are not aligned with the NAPCP. In Bulgaria, however, functional relations between the national strategic programs— NAQIP and NAPCP—and the local AQPs have been improving in recent years. In Romania, a de facto harmonization between AQPs and other plans already takes place, but a guideline and a stricter approach could be beneficial. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 66 5.4. Horizontal and vertical coordination The use of bodies for horizontal and vertical coordination is mixed in the four client coun- tries. Overall, coordination must be strengthened to improve efficiency in policy planning and implementation. Strengths High-level coordination bodies for AQM have been created, but have not reached their full potential. There is a mixed use of high-level coordination agencies to improve horizontal colla­boration between ministries in the client countries. Bulgaria, Poland, and Romania have established this type of institutional arrangement, while Croatia has not. Bulgaria established the National Air Quality Council for to develop national AQPs, with representation from the ministries of finance, energy, and transport. However, this Council has met only rarely, and most ministries do not consider it a priority or of sufficient importance to warrant high-level participation or resource investment to support its work. Poland has a Steering Committee of the National Air Quality Plan, with representatives from government ministries, headed by the Plenipotentiary of the Prime Minister for the Clean Air Program. The Committee and the Plenipotentiary have improved coordination and monitoring of country progress on air quality, yet still face challenges, such as the possible duplication of efforts between the Plenipoten- tiary and the Ministry of Climate and Environment. In Romania, the National System for the Evaluation and Integrated Management of Air Quality (SNEGICA) acts as the main horizontal coordination body with cross-sectoral participation, including the ministry in charge of na- tional security. However, SNEGICA appears to lack efficacy as it has not been able to achieve sufficient resource allocation for AQM policy in Romania, nor has it been able to use data to inform policy making. Weaknesses Vertical coordination in all countries remains weak, leading to unharmonized implemen- tation of air quality policies at the local level. Although all four countries acknowledge that coordination between central and local governments does take place, it tends to be ad hoc and could be improved. In Croatia, all local AQPs must be approved ex ante by the MESD, which determines whether local plans are aligned with national policies. However, the country lacks a permanent standing body to harmonize the air protection efforts of various territorial tiers or to provide a platform for the exchange of experience and know-how. In Romania, more efforts are needed to ensure air quality policies are strategically harmonized; although local-level coor- dination between public authorities is functional overall, it has been known to break down e.g. in managing illegal waste and stubble burning. In Poland, there is a lack of mandatory uniform guidance for local authorities, such as for developing emissions inventories and conducting air dispersion/air quality modeling. In Bulgaria, vertical coordination appears to be ad hoc, largely carried out through irregular meetings of stakeholders within the different delivery bodies for air quality policy. In general, there is little evidence of the kind of implementation management system that would effectively control the process as a whole and ensure policies and measures are delivered as expected and on time. Key AQM Strengths and Weaknesses in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania 67 5.5. Accountability and transparency The client countries have built air quality information systems with public access. Civil society and control institutions oversee state compliance with national and international legislation. However, Romania stands out as having severe gaps on this front, and the EU has initiated infringement procedures. Strengths Three of the four client countries have comprehensive air quality monitoring networks. With the exception of Romania, all client countries have a network of multiple well-functioning monitoring stations, though some of them need upgrading. In Croatia, the monitoring network consists of stations managed by national and local authorities and by big polluters; national stations have been continuously upgraded since 2017. In Bulgaria, the monitoring network consists of automatic stations spread across cities in the country. Since most stations are more than 20 years old, they often fail to report data over long periods of time, so Bulgaria is considering upgrading them. It is also considering expanding its PM2.5 monitoring coverage. Poland has an extensive air quality monitoring network providing real-time information on air quality throughout the country, though some municipalities face challenges due to an insuf- ficient number of stations and a lack of funds for maintenance. Three of the client countries have well-functioning centralized databases and publish infor- mation on the state of air quality. All countries have centralized databases available for public consultation, and all also produce AQIs, though these could be improved. In Croatia, moni- toring results from all stations are continually delivered to the MESD’s centralized database and published in real time on a specialized website. Croatia’s AQI is calculated every hour and is available to the public, as are results from the spatial modeling of emissions distributions and mapping. In Bulgaria, the Executive Environment Agency manages and operates the air quality monitoring network; it is also responsible for national emissions inventory reports and disseminates air quality data to the public. A daily air quality bulletin is published in which ex- ceedances of pollutant limit values recorded at air quality monitoring stations are summarized for the previous day. In Poland, real-time information on air quality throughout the country is provided through a portal operated by the Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection (CIEP), as well as on the websites of the respective Voivodeship Inspectorates of Environmen- tal Protection (VIEPs). The CIEP site also displays hourly updated air quality maps, provides air quality forecasts (for ozone), and maintains historical air quality measurements and annual air quality assessments. VIEPs also provide air quality forecasts. The Polish AQI is not based on health criteria, however, and thus underestimates the real health risks of air pollution to the public. Romania uploads data on air quality measurements to a public website that is usually not up to date and is difficult to access.23 23  For a link to Romania’s National Air Quality Monitoring Network, see https://www.calitateaer.ro/public/monitoring-page/ reports-reports-page/?__locale=ro. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 68 Control institutions in all four countries oversee state agencies’ compliance with national and international AQM legislation. In Croatia, the People’s Ombudsperson is particularly active in reporting and investigating cases of air pollution that are reported by citizens and NGOs. In Bulgaria, the National Audit Office conducted an audit in 2018 focusing on the efficiency and efficacy of measures undertaken to tackle air pollution at both the national and local levels, reviewing three sample municipalities. In Poland, a parliamentary smog panel was set up sev- eral years ago, but its activities have proven to be limited. Weaknesses Civil society demands state accountability in air quality matters in the client countries, but public participation in policy design is far from optimal. Civil society plays different roles in air quality matters in the four countries. For example, the Croatian Association for Air Protection organizes a conference every two years on air quality in cooperation with other NGOs, environmental experts, and public officials. In Bulgaria, an NGO operates an air quality sensor-based monitoring platform, Airbg.info, with over 1,000 monitoring points across the country, publishing air quality data in real time. In Poland, there are numerous NGOs that try to inform the public about the dangers of poor air quality (including health dangers) and to support local governments by organizing networks of eco-advisors. Romania, however, does not report positive results in terms of civil society participation. Due to the length of judicial proceedings and the lack of efficient means for the public to notify authorities of violations of air quality standards, it is difficult for the public to become involved in AQM. The air quality monitoring system does not comply with EU directives in any of client coun- tries, and the data produced and published is incomplete and inaccessible to the public. The EU has identified several issues with Romania’s systemic failure to comply with obligations to moni­ tor air pollution. This includes the poor placement of monitoring stations, inoperable stations, insufficient network size, and other concerns. Additionally, NGOs have highlighted the inadequacy of the data made public, which is in a format that cannot be easily used and which often becomes invalid after being assessed by the National Environmental Agency. This leads to reporting that does not correctly reflect reality and underscores the dysfunctional nature of the monitoring network’s overall management system. Key AQM Strengths and Weaknesses in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania 69 Main AQM governance weaknesses in Bulgaria, 5.6.  Croatia, Poland, and Romania This subsection summarizes the main weaknesses associated with AQM in Bulgaria, Croa- tia, Poland, and Romania for each attribute used in the framework. More information on the governance structure and institutional setup for AQM in each country can be found in Annex 3. Bulgaria Legal and Regulatory Framework The existing regulatory framework has insufficient incentives and sanctions for local governments to implement measures to reduce emissions stemming from the residential and transport sectors. The Clean Ambient Air Act, the main AQM legislation in Bulgaria, recognizes that responsibilities for implementing measures to improve air quality are split between national and local institutions. However, existing incentives and sanctions are insufficient for municipalities to implement local AQPs and to contribute to implementing the NAQIP (2018−25) and NAPCP measures to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from residential heating and nitrogen oxide emissions from transport. The legal framework for inspection, monitoring, and enforcement requires strengthening. Regulations for domestic fuel quality (wood and coal) are in place, but are not effectively enforced at the local level. Committed Executive There are insufficient resources available to municipalities enabling them to implement national and local residential heating and transport measures to reduce particulate matter and nitrogen oxide emissions. This is especially the case for formulating and implementing local AQPs, and thus technical support and training for local officials through a central support mechanism are needed. Local leadership is too weak to enact pollution control measures and achieve public buy-in. As municipalities are responsible for implementing key measures in local AQPs, local leadership has an opportunity to create public buy-in to measures that would ultimately result in better air quality and improved public health. Nested Planning There are few incentives for regional air quality modeling, which is exacerbated by the low local capacity to prepare robust AQPs. Incentives to use dispersion models and source apportionment to identify regional pollution are weak, which in turn reduces incentives for joint action. Municipalities therefore outsource AQP preparation; as a result, AQPs do not have clear prioritization, timeline, and resource allocations to implement the measures. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 70 Coordination Multi-level governance for AQM in Bulgaria is ineffective, and the National Air Quality Council lacks influence. The principal mechanism for coordination between national government bodies, the National Air Quality Council, has met infrequently and has not been given the necessary priority by ministries, other than MoEW, to be effective. A more streamlined and informed dialogue between MoEW and municipalities is required to improve vertical coordination. Accountable Institutions The monitoring network must be modernized, and public awareness on the links between air quality and health benefits strengthened. Although Bulgaria has progressed in setting up robust air quality information systems, the monitoring network needs to be modernized, and public awareness of air quality as a health issue, tied to such measures as the replacement of old heating appliances, must be improved. Croatia Legal and Regulatory Framework The transposition of EU legislation has suffered several shortcomings, and the legal allocation and definition of roles and responsibilities are unclear. The provisions of relevant legislation are noncompliant with the Industrial Emissions and Seveso III Directives. The legal framework does not clearly distribute competencies between municipalities and counties in relation to local networks of air quality monitoring stations and the development of the subnational strategic AQM plans. Committed Executive Air quality is not recognized as an especially important policy area. Air quality is mostly perceived as a technical issue rather than an important political, economic, and social concern. Air quality, climate, and green transition policies are not harmonized, and the country still lacks a National Air Protection Plan (aligned with the 2019 NAPCP). The NAPCP lacks clear funding mechanisms and budget lines. Nested Planning Municipal AQPs lack specificity in their measures, are not monitored, and fail to address the main pollution sources. Municipal action plans are very extensive in their analysis of the problems and circumstances, but are quite vague on response measures. In most cases, action plans do not achieve their goals, since they are usually simply renewed once the old plan has expired, suggesting that they did not contribute significantly to the reduction of the pollutant(s) in question. Coordination Vertical coordination is formal and hierarchical, without a permanent body or platform to bring together national and subnational institutions and actors. Additionally, at the subnational level, intercounty or intermunicipal horizontal coordination in preparing and/ or implementing air protection programs or action plans is arguably nonexistent or reduced to occasional—and mostly informal—communication. Key AQM Strengths and Weaknesses in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania 71 Accountable Institutions Transparency on AQPs and data needs can be improved. Local government plans and programs are not regularly submitted to the MESD to be published. Municipal and county webpages are sometimes difficult to navigate, so the national portal is the most prominent platform for sharing information on air quality in Croatia. The legal standing of NGOs is unclear. Poland Legal and Regulatory Framework The AQM regulatory framework in Poland is comprehensive, but it is not fully aligned with international conventions, some standards must be raised and harmonized, and AQP implementation requires legal incentives. Poland is behind in signing and ratifying agreements under the LRTAP Convention. The implementation of the 2015 Anti-Smog Resolutions remains challenging, given the differences between national and regional standards for solid fuels and boilers. Permittable sulfur content for coal used in households remains higher in Poland than in other EU countries. Local authorities have no legal incentives or sanctions by which to implement local AQPs. Committed Executive Institutional roles and responsibilities for AQM must be clarified. Given the multi-sectoral sources of pollution and the stakeholders involved, the allocation of roles and responsibilities for the implementation of measures at the national, regional, and city levels must be clarified. Detailed guidelines for developing air quality control strategies as part of the AQP do not exist. Nested Planning The robustness of regional AQPs mirrors variations in the level of funding and technical capacity across regions. Some AQPs are diagnostic and do not have adequate information to support local measures. Coordination Some of the roles assigned to the Plenipotentiary for Clean Air could also be considered duties of the Minister of Environment. It is not readily obvious where the Minister or the Plenipotentiary would have ultimate authority and which has the capacity to direct funds to solve specific air quality problems in Poland. Accountable Institutions The monitoring network and emissions inventories must be strengthened. Health-based approaches to the dissemination of air quality information must be improved. In addition, there is currently a minimal official framework for the involvement of NGOs and the scientific community. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 72 Romania Legal and Regulatory Framework Legal sanctions for noncompliance from public authorities and emissions sources are ineffective. Sanctions for companies that breach air quality permits and norms are too low to incentivize compliance, and there is no method through which public authorities can keep track of repeated offenders or ensure efficiency in following up. Committed Executive There is a lack of sufficient personnel, technical capacity, and funding for the Environmental Guard and the authorities that perform inspections. Insufficient laboratories, technical equipment, digitalization, and know-how have been noted as limiting the range of actions that the Environmental Guard can take. There seems to be no direct coordination between air quality and climate policies. Insufficient attention is paid to air pollution problems within the top echelons of government. Nested Planning Local AQPs are not harmonized with the NAPCP. AQPs are usually prepared by external consultants, and local authorities have very little capacity to develop them. Coordination Vertical and horizontal coordination in the AQM system requires improvement. More effort is needed to ensure strategic harmonization. There is a central unit for coordination, but it lacks sufficient resources and does not carry adequate weight within the government. Although local-level coordination between public authorities is functional overall, there have been instances where it has broken down. This has led to regulatory failures e.g. in the case of the continuation of illegal waste and stubble burning, which are major contributors to exceedances of air quality limit values. Accountable Institutions Public access to air quality information is difficult, and the information provided is insufficient and outdated. Many monitoring stations do not comply with EU standards. Additionally, civil society organizations have indicated that the data made public is inadequate: it is in a format that cannot be easily used, and it often becomes invalid after being assessed by the national EPA, leading to reporting that does not correctly reflect reality. The monitoring network's overall management system appears dysfunctional. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 73 06 Recommendations Air Quality Management in EU Member States 74 6. Recommendations Based on the conditions and major trends identified and outlined above, and taking into consideration the AQM policies and regulations in place for EU member states, this section proposes a set of concrete policy recommendations and possible related implementation actions for the consideration of the four client governments. In recent decades, the governments of Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania have developed and adopted institutional arrangements to comply with EU AQM legislation and to address high pollution levels. Although air quality in general has improved in these countries, multiple challenges with specific pollutants still exist, and the situation remains complex in certain regions. In addition, air quality has lost importance in the policy arena, leading to a decrease in the overall capacities of institutions to adopt policies and enforce regulations. Given these developments, the overarching message and primary recommendation of this report is that all four countries must (i) build civic awareness of the importance of air quality and improve political leadership in national and especially local authorities to address air qual- ity as a major contributing factor to the improvement of health, welfare, and environmental protection, and (ii) reinvigorate existing institutions to fully implement policies and enforce regulations with more active participation from civil society throughout the policy cycle. More specifically, the report offers a number of general recommendations and options for reform along the five key attributes, followed by a series of recommendations for each of the four client countries that identify the stakeholders involved, the level of priority attached to each recommendation, and the time frame for their implementation. 6.1. Legal and regulatory framework The legal and regulatory framework has been developed to comply with EU requirements, but its effect on policy development and implementation has been limited where it lacks clarity with regard to functions, responsibilities, and accountability. The functional assignments must be clarified to secure implementation, provide accountability, and facilitate coordination and enforcement. Recommendation 1. Implement strategies to improve and harmonize the interpretation of current AQM legislation by national, subnational, and local governments and to more clearly integrate or harmonize climate and clean air legal frameworks. By mapping areas in which there are challenges in interpretation or unclear divisions of authority, countries can foster legal discussions between national, subnational, and local authorities as to where and how to update legislation and agree on a common interpretation. A clear division of authority and responsibilities is a necessary—albeit not the only—condition for the adequate exercise of authority. In most cases, coordination mechanisms should also be in place to build agreements on the scope and integrated approach needed to enact AQM legislation. In addition, areas of coordination or tension between clean air and climate legal frameworks must be mapped in order to better integrate and harmonize policy tools that maximize objectives on both fronts. Recommendations 75 Recommendation 2. Strengthen enforcement mechanisms by improving regulatory authori­ ties’ monitoring and sanctioning capacity. It is critical to review existing legislation to ensure it empowers enforcement bodies with the legal capacities to audit regulated entities and ­ sanction noncompliant parties. If current legislation lacks monitoring mandates and/or suffi- ciently strong sanctions, the government should work with the legislature to propose amend- ments. The inspection and monitoring roles and capacities of the relevant enforcement bodies should be strengthened to collect evidence and build strong cases when offenders must be prosecuted within the judicial system. Cooperation between different state authorities with enforcement powers should be promoted. Recommendation 3. Propose amendments to current AQM legislation to explicitly de- mand coordination and cooperation between local jurisdictions where pollution is shared between municipalities. These amendments should outline the need to draft, implement, finance joint AQM plans and the sanction mechanisms that are to be put in place for and co-­ noncompliant jurisdictions. For countries where local transboundary pollution cooperation is nonexistent despite statutory provisions, dialogue between affected jurisdictions should be fostered and technical support provided to draft joint action plans with adequate monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms. Recommendation 4. Enhance existing policy tools for AQM, including command-and-­control, market-based, and enforcement tools. The use of a variety of policy instruments allows states to incentivize pollution control through different and complementary methods, while providing more flexibility to regulated entities. In line with practice in most EU countries, it would be useful to consider developing a toolbox of policy instruments to manage air quality across sectors and levels of government. Special attention should be paid to fully pricing fossil fuels as a key strategy for reducing air pollution. Entry points for this type of policy include: (i) repurposing fossil fuel subsidies for smaller sources, and/or phasing out subsidies for the most toxic fuels and larger sources, (ii) increasing the price elasticity of fuel consumption by investing in public transport or access to clean technologies, and (iii) introducing air pollution charges that tackle the polluting activity and fossil fuel taxes based on their level of pollution. Pricing policies are more effective when combined with command-and-control policies that aim to increase the consumption elasticity of pollution, such as mandating polluting filters in power or industrial plants (see Box 1 and Box 6).24 6.2. Committed executive Across the assessed countries, air quality is not at the top of the list of priority policies and reforms. In this kind of scenario, which effectively suggests no vision, a lack of leadership, and limited established capacities, major actions cannot be expected. Governments must urgent- ly signal that this agenda is critical, and lead the change by establishing goals and programs backed by resources, incentives, and instruments. The EC’s most recent “Communication on 24 R. Damania et al., Detox Development. Repurposing Environmentally Harmful Subsidies (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2023). Air Quality Management in EU Member States 76 Enhancing the European Administrative Space (ComPact)” aims to help members’ public ad- ministrations deliver on EU policies and priorities, including their capacity to lead the green transition. The following recommendations can be rolled out with the support and guidance of the EC as part of ComPact and other relevant governance initiatives. Recommendation 5. Strengthen narratives on the connections between AQM and other priority policy areas while elevating the role of local champions. Strengthen political links between AQM and other current policy priorities, such as addressing climate change, reducing fossil fuel dependency, accessing new markets, and creating green jobs. High-level missions to discuss the impacts of air pollution and the economic opportunities offered by furthering a clean air agenda are one strategy to build political momentum and renew high-level commit- ment. It is additionally important to raise civic awareness and knowledge of the topic, which will also provide incentives for political leadership. This can be done by implementing clear and explicit communication strategies that invite societal participation in the implementation of the government’s high-level AQM vision and highlight the importance of health benefits, e.g. by using WHO assessments and guidelines. New champions from among subnational leaders who have been exposed to and managed critical pollution episodes should be supported, and their actions made more widely known. Recommendation 6. Update national AQM planning instruments to renew the government’s long-term vision on improving air quality and to establish synergies with climate policies. By updating the NAPCP or other national planning instruments, governments can assess cur- rent progress, evaluate and measure effectiveness, and discuss the best options to accelerate action to improve air quality and meet EU targets. A robust planning process can help build sectoral and subnational commitments and renew mechanisms for the vertical and horizontal coordination needed to enact legislation and implement policy. Since most countries have made progress on setting climate targets and policy priorities, there is an opportunity to iden- tify synergies and manage potential tensions between these two environmental priorities. As recommended by the World Bank’s 2022 document “Air Pollution and Climate Change”, govern- ments should take an integrated air quality and climate change approach that begins at the airshed level. This approach recommends that governments first estimate GHG emissions as a way to pinpoint the sources of air pollution. After prioritizing least-cost abatement measures at the airshed level, governments must estimate the GHG emissions reductions effect of these measures and identify synergies and trade-offs. Finally, the implementation of packages of targeted AQM and climate change policy instruments to induce emitters to apply prioritized integrated measures should be followed by the financing, inter-institutional coordination, and management of social and behavioral responses. Recommendation 7. Enhance AQM staff capacity, particularly at the local level, by appoint- ing fully AQM-dedicated experts. A major investment plan to equip local authorities should be established, with dedicated and expert personnel and technical resources to adequately monitor and enforce air pollution policies and legislation. EU funding mechanisms can be used and national budgets ramped up for AQM capacity building. National institutions should be empowered with the capacity to provide technical assistance and guidance to local gov- ernments in terms of air quality planning, policy implementation, and regulatory compliance. Recommendations 77 6.3. Nested planning An effective national AQM system requires strong and coordinated planning between na- tional and subnational authorities and jurisdictions where transboundary pollution is an issue. In the assessed countries, there is a divergence between regions for planning and those for monitoring, and AQM policy is not fully coordinated across different levels of government. Local governments still lack capacities and alignment with the national level. Recommendation 8. Strengthen approaches that integrate AQM planning instruments be- tween national and subnational authorities and jurisdictions where transboundary pollution is an issue. Municipal AQPs should be drawn based on a deep understanding of the fluxes of pollutants and on airshed modeling in targeted regions. Local authorities will need technical support to implement robust pollutant dispersion modeling. Measures within AQPs must acco­unt for the actions that other jurisdictions should take to reduce local air pollution. Joint commissions can be established between jurisdictions within an airshed to adopt coordinated action plans and establish communication and sanction mechanisms where cooperation is lacking. Implementing this recommendation will require considerably improved cooperation between local authorities and central governments. Recommendation 9. Build municipal capacities to prepare AQPs and monitor their imple- mentation. Training of local technical staff in planning would help guide local authorities in their air quality planning functions. National governments can run a technical assistance and capacity development program for local institutions to improve tools, processes, and skills in order to draft results-based plans that effectively assign responsibilities and financial resourc- es to support their actions. Establishing back-stop desks at the national environment minis- tries would support local governments in their planning tasks by providing advisory support on guidelines, quality assurance, and technical expertise. Developing a systematized way to monitor the level of AQP implementation can provide local, regional, and central government authorities with information to adopt the technical, financial, and political measures needed to accelerate implementation. Recommendation 10. Improve harmonization and alignment between national and local AQM planning instruments. The AQM planning process at any government level should con- sider existing targets, prioritized measures, and costs. To facilitate nesting and harmonization, environment ministries can prepare guidelines for local authorities to consider when drafting plans. Central governments should assess if the sum of municipal actions will significantly contribute to the overall vision of air quality in the country, and what actions must be enhanced at the central level to ensure that the country’s targets are achieved. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 78 6.4. Institutional (horizontal and vertical) coordination Institutional coordination, both vertical and horizontal, is always a significant challenge for many governments. It is quite common across countries that weak policy implemen- tation results from informal decision making, conflicting policies, a lack of policy scrutiny, and weak sectoral (horizontal) and subnational (vertical) coordination, together with limited implementation follow-up, poor information management, and a lack of formal mechanisms for program/project control. AQM is, by definition, a cross-cutting issue that requires strong institutional coordination. Recommendation 11. Empower existing or create new high-level coordination bodies with the participation of central and subnational governments and high-level political leader- ship. The mechanism can be housed at the office of the president or prime minister, but it must have sufficient power and resources, as well as an appropriate mandate and potentially dispute resolution capacity. The functions of this mechanism should be closely coordinated with the environment ministry to avoid duplications and should include (a) monitoring the implementation and resource allocation of the NAPCP as well as progress in individual AQM programs and targets, with a mechanism for course correction where needed; (b) fostering the development of joint programs and collaboration between jurisdictions with shared air- sheds; (c) promoting ownership of AQM across economic sectors, and; (d) leading a national air quality policy communication strategy. For example, the Austrian Conference of Regional Environment Ministers successfully serves as a high-level coordination venue for federal and regional ministers to coordinate the implementation of environmental law. In Poland, the Steering Committee of the National Air Quality Plan, headed by the Plenipotentiary to the Prime Minister, has improved coordination in monitoring the country’s progress on air quality. Finally, any high-level mechanism must collaborate with existing climate policy coordination bodies to ensure alignment and coherent integration between climate and air quality policies. Recommendation 12. Set up a multi-stakeholder platform to improve dialogue, information exchange, and coordination among central and local governments and other key stake- holders. The objective of this type of platform is to establish a collaborative body to increase consensus between central and local administrations in the exercise of AQM regulations. It can also serve as a platform for knowledge exchange and a venue for collaboration between different government tiers, but also between other key actors, including academia and the private sector. For example, Environmental Collaboration Sweden (Miljösamverkan Sverige) is a collaborative body created to increase consensus between regional administrations in exer- cising environmental authority and to support regional governments in their interpretation of environmental legislation. It also develops guidance documents on several issues, including air pollution regulation. Recommendations 79 6.5. Accountability and transparency Air quality data transparency will not only enhance the robustness of the AQM system, but also provide valuable dividends in the form of trust in government and greater government credibility. Citizens are increasingly interested in understanding the costs and benefits of and progress on this important agenda. Stronger transparency and accountability systems will respond to these needs and provide a positive feedback loop. Two lines of action are needed: one focusing on strengthening data-generation and dissemination processes (transparency), and the other promoting scrutiny and the use of auditing tools (accountability). Recommendation 13. Strengthen and expand the air quality monitoring system. The central government must ensure the issuance or update of regulations containing the monitoring and reporting requirements for decentralized stations and provide incentives for jurisdictions or private actors to comply with regulatory requirements. In addition, the local agency devoted to environmental protection should build its capacity to operate a centralized database inte- grating information from national, regional, and local measuring points, connected to tools available to the public through user-friendly portals. It should also build its capacity to display quality assurance tools and to ensure transparency and data ownership by civil society and the public. Finally, the methodologies used to construct AQIs must be constantly updated to reflect health criteria. Recommendation 14. Enhance public participation throughout the entire AQM planning and policy implementation cycle. Countries must maintain public participation mechanisms in the preparation and upgrading of national and local AQPs. Public oversight and consultation on plan and policy implementation is also a good practice that encourages transparency and helps governments stay connected with public concerns over the impacts of air pollution while garnering buy-in for government AQM measures. Governments must establish stream- lined and accessible mechanisms for the public to report violations and obtain information on government responses. Having a plan for the comprehensive implementation of the Aarhus Convention will help streamline the adoption of all of the above recommendations, while en- suring client countries’ compliance with international commitments. Table 3 below summarizes, per attribute, the institutional arrangements and emerging trends across the six comparator countries and the current strengths and weaknesses of AQM in the four client countries. It also encapsulates the policy recommendations and options for the client governments’ consideration. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 80 Table 3. Emerging Trends across Client and Comparator Countries and Policy Recommendations Basic Institutional Institutional Arrangements and Arrangements Emerging Trends across Six in Bulgaria, Croatia, Comparator Countries25 Poland, and Romania Policy Recommendations and Options Legal and Regulatory Framework Basic Elements Strengths –– Recommendation 1. Implement –– National legal frameworks –– The four countries strategies to improve and harmonize transpose EU ambient air have transposed the interpretation of current AQM and emissions ceilings EU air quality legislation by national, subnational, directives and in some directives into and local governments. Foster legal cases set more stringent national legislation discussions between different levels standards for certain and are parties of government to agree on a common pollutants. to international interpretation of the legislation and to –– The legal and regulatory treaties addressing identify areas that require amendment. framework establishes a air pollution. –– Recommendation 2. Strengthen clear distribution of roles enforcement mechanisms by and responsibilities among Weaknesses improving regulatory authorities’ the central government –– The legal and monitoring and sanctioning capacity. and subnational regulatory Propose and discuss possible authorities. frameworks amendments to current legislation –– Legal frameworks establish formally delineate that introduce legal capacities for a combination of policy AQM roles and enforcement powers to audit regulated tools for AQM, including responsibilities, yet entities and to sanction noncompliant command-and-control and challenges persist parties. market-based instruments in interpretation/ –– Recommendation 3. Propose and enforcement tools. execution of division amendments to current AQM –– The legal framework of authority. legislation to explicitly demand includes specific –– Enforcement coordination and cooperation legislation on the use of tools are present between jurisdictions in cases of local market-based instruments, in all AQM legal transboundary pollution. Ensure that such as environmental and regulatory clear mandates to draft, implement, taxes and pollution frameworks but and co-finance joint AQM plans are charges. are insufficient or in the legislation in cases of local ineffective. transboundary pollution. Emerging Trends –– Local transboundary –– Recommendation 4. Enhance existing –– The legal framework cooperation to policy tools for AQM, including integrates climate and manage air quality command-and-control, market- air policies by setting is either lacking based, and enforcement tools. common objectives, from the regulatory Combine policy tools to manage air targets, and tools. framework or quality across sectors and levels of has never been government. Pay special attention implemented. to phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, increasing alternatives to fossil fuel consumption and technologies, and introducing air pollution charges. 25 These institutional arrangements and emerging trends across public sector administrations to manage AQM have been developed from the country cases of Austria, Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, Slovenia, and Sweden. These countries were chosen for their air quality performance and proximity to the client countries. Recommendations 81 Committed Executive Basic Elements Strengths –– Recommendation 5. Strengthen –– High-level government –– A long-term vision the narratives on the connection officials champion air and for AQM has been between AQM and other priority climate policies and have agreed upon policy areas while elevating the role of clear long-term agendas to through dedicated local champions. Strengthen political achieve goals and targets AQPs and the links between AQM and other current on both fronts. NAPCP. policy priorities, such as addressing –– NAPCPs determine –– Countries have climate change, reducing fossil fuel countries’ long-term dedicated dependency, accessing new markets, AQM strategies and are national funding and creating green jobs. This should be aligned with broader mechanisms for combined with finding new champions environmental policies environmental from among specific subnational and multi-sectoral priorities, including leaders who have been exposed to and development plans. AQM. managed critical pollution episodes. –– The institutional setup –– Recommendation 6. Update national responsible for AQM is Weaknesses AQM planning instruments to renew comprised of multiple –– AQM has lost the government’s long-term vision institutions playing political buy-in on improving air quality. Update the complementary roles in from high-level existing NAPCP or nationwide AQM policy making, regulation, government officials. policies to renew the country’s long- enforcement, funding, –– The national vision term goals, harmonize existing sectoral and data and information AQM is outdated, policies, and adopt more ambitious generation. and planning targets. –– The central government instruments have –– Recommendation 7. Enhance AQM has specialized financing expired. staff capacity, particularly at the institutions supporting –– National and local local level, by appointing fully green investments. institutions lack the AQM-dedicated experts. Equip local proper capacities authorities with dedicated and expert Emerging Trends to implement and personnel and technical resources to –– Public funding for enforce AQM adequately monitor and enforce air environmental protection policies and pollution policies and legislation. and the green transition regulations. has been increasing in recent years. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 82 Nested Planning Basic Elements Strengths –– Recommendation 8. Strengthen –– Nesting takes place –– Multi-stakeholder approaches that integrate AQM between national and participation in planning instruments between subnational AQM planning AQP preparation national and subnational instruments. and reporting authorities and jurisdictions where –– Nesting between AQP requirements transboundary pollution is an issue. planning and development enriches the AQM Introduce airshed approaches into instruments, as well as planning process. existing AQM planning instruments coordination to address and establish joint commissions local transboundary Weaknesses between affected jurisdictions to adopt pollution, is required by –– Geographic areas coordinated action plans. law. subject to air –– Recommendation 9. Build municipal –– Planning instruments quality monitoring capacities to prepare and monitor for AQM identify specific and assessment AQP implementation. Train local measures and have differ from the staff in airshed planning, strategy, access to national and areas where AQM and monitoring through technical international funding for planning takes assistance and capacity development their implementation. place. programs targeting local authorities. –– Municipalities lack Monitor AQP implementation adequate capacities systematically. to prepare AQPs, –– Recommendation 10. Improve which results in harmonization and alignment documents with low between national and local AQM quality and weak planning instruments. Prepare implementation. guidelines for local authorities to –– Harmonization harmonize local with national and between national regional AQM plans. Assess and and local air quality address existing gaps in the different policies, programs, planning instruments’ contribution to and plans could be achieving the national vision. improved. Horizontal and Vertical Coordination Basic Elements Weaknesses –– Recommendation 11. Empower –– Multiple instruments –– High-level existing or create new high-level exist to improve vertical coordination coordination bodies with the coordination between bodies for AQM are participation of central and federal or central state absent or have been subnational governments and high- governments and created but have not level political leadership. Enhance subnational governments reached their full or establish coordination bodies on AQP policy design and potential. that monitor the implementation implementation. –– Vertical and allocation of resources in order –– Horizontal coordination coordination in all to enact the national AQM vision, is more common across countries remains foster collaboration, and promote the countries, especially for weak, leading to importance of AQM across sectors. the planning phase of unharmonized –– Recommendation 12. Set up a multi- AQM. implementation of stakeholder platform to improve air quality policies at dialogue, information exchange, and Emerging Trends the local level. coordination between the central –– Multi-level coordination and local governments and other key platforms exist to improve stakeholders. Ensure that this type the implementation of platform increases collaboration of environmental and between central and local AQP policy through administrations and also promotes collaboration tools. knowledge exchange and discussions with academic and private sector actors on AQM regulation and policy implementation. Recommendations 83 Accountability and Transparency Basic Elements Strengths –– Recommendation 13. Strengthen and –– Civil society and individual –– Countries have expand the air quality monitoring citizens have basic access comprehensive air system. Ensure that regulations to air quality information quality monitoring establish adequate guidelines and and participate in policy networks. requirements for the air quality making, while national –– Countries have monitoring network to comply with legislation enables them centralized EU regulations. Verify that central to file cases against databases and government agencies are operating governments for a lack of publish information centralized databases that integrate compliance with air policy on the state of air multiple measuring points and are regulation. quality. capable of informing the public on the –– Air quality monitoring –– Control institutions state of air quality via user-friendly networks integrate oversee institutions’ portals. Ensure that quality and national, regional, and compliance with assurance tools provide transparency local measurement national and and ownership of data, and update the stations. international AQM AQI to reflect health criteria. –– Parliaments and national legislation. –– Recommendation 14. Enhance public legislatures actively participation along the AQM planning monitor a country’s air Weaknesses and policy implementation cycle. quality performance and –– Civil society Ensure and foster public participation foster discussions leading demands state and oversight of plans and policy to policy updates and accountability in implementation through streamlined integration. air quality matters, and accessible participation although public mechanisms that also allow the public Emerging Trends participation in to report violations. –– Air quality and pollution policy design is far information systems are from optimal. integrated and easily –– The air quality accessible by the public. monitoring system does not comply with EU directives, and the data produced and published are incomplete and inaccessible to the public. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 84 6.6. Specific recommendations by country This subsection of the report lays out a series of recommendations for each of the four client countries.26 Recommendations have been identified by employing the governance framework presented in this note, examining international trends from the six case study countries, and consulting previous work developed by the World Bank for Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania.27 Recommendations have been prepared in response to the air quality challenges faced by each country and described in Annex 4 and the gaps identified in the governance and institutional frameworks for each country presented in Section 5. A summary of both air quality and governance challenges by country can also be found in section 2.5. The recommendations are organized per attribute, and each recommendation identifies the main stakeholder responsible for implementation. In addition, the recommendations are fied as either top or secondary priorities and for the short or medium term in their tim- classi­ ing and sequence. The report uses the following color-coding to facilitate the prioritization of the recommendations. Timing and Sequence Priority Short Term Medium Term Top Top/Short Term Top/Medium Term Secondary Secondary/Short Term Secondary/Medium Term Bulgaria Recommendation Stakeholders Priority/Timing Legal and Regulatory Framework Recommendation 1: Assess whether Government of Top/Medium Term the Clean Ambient Air Act provides Bulgaria (GoB) enough of a legal basis to support municipal implementation of local AQPs and NAQIPs, and if necessary, propose amendments to strengthen incentives for municipalities to implement these programs. 26 The recommendations presented in this technical note do not arise from detailed quantitative analysis (source apportionment by country and air pollution hot spots). Therefore, the report does not provide an in-depth discussion of specific policy instruments, including both command-and-control measures and market-based instruments, in relation to each country’s unique circumstances. This aspect of policy analysis is outside the scope of the paper, and readers should be aware that a comprehensive evaluation of the adequacy of policy instruments is not included. 27 The main documents consulted are: World Bank, “Air Quality Deep Dive: Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania. Sustainable Cities Implementation Framework” (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2022); World Bank, “Supporting the Implementation of Residential Heating Measures in Bulgaria’s National Air Quality Improvement Plan and National Air Pollution Control Program (NAPCP). Technical Note” (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2020); and World Bank, “Poland: Air Quality Management. Final Report” (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2019). Recommendations 85 Recommendation 2: Carry out a GoB Top/Medium Term review to determine whether the legal framework for the low emissions zones must be amended to include a clearer legal basis for enactment and enforcement mechanisms, control, monitoring, and sanctions for breach of zone restrictions. Recommendation 3: Revise legislation GoB Top/Medium Term relating to the distribution and sale of fuels in the domestic sector to ensure environmental standards are promulgated and enforced. Committed Executive Recommendation 4: Discuss the need to MoEW, Ministry of Top/Short Term create a comprehensive funding program Finance that leverages EU funds and public investments with financial instruments focused on emissions reduction and air quality improvement. Recommendation 5: Empower the MoEW Top/Short Term MoEW to support municipalities in their design and implementation of local AQPs, NAQIPs, and the NAPCP, either directly or by means of a supporting mechanism. Nested Planning Recommendation 6: Strengthen MoEW, Scientific Top/Medium Term capacities in MoEW, scientific Community, community, and academic institutions and Academic for air quality modeling and source Institutions apportionment at the national and regional levels. Recommendation 7: Once AQPs are Municipalities Top/Medium Term established, maintain local AQP councils with a mandate to monitor and advise during AQP implementation. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 86 Vertical and Horizontal Coordination Recommendation 8: Re-launch the GoB Secondary/ National Air Quality Council to raise Medium Term high-level political awareness of the importance of implementing national AQM policies and allocating proper budgets for existing and additional measures. Accountable Institutions Recommendation 9: Ensure funding Ministry of Finance, Top/Short Term to upgrade and expand the monitoring MoEW network to guarantee real-time data and coverage for critical pollutants such as PM2.5. Recommendation 10: Continue Executive Top/Short Term strengthening the Environment Agency, Environment Agency, MoEW, and the capacity of larger cities MoEW, Large Cities to implement an AQI to support public awareness campaigns. Croatia Recommendation Stakeholders Priority/Timing Legal and Regulatory Framework Recommendation 1: Amend existing Government of Top/Medium Term legislation to fully comply with the EU Croatia (GoC) Industrial Emissions Directive and the Seveso III Directive (control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances). Recommendation 2: Amend the Air GoC Top/Medium Term Protection Act to clarify the roles and responsibilities for AQM between municipalities and counties and to introduce incentives and sanctions to enable local governments to implement local AQPs. Recommendations 87 Committed Executive Recommendation 3: Rebuild high-level MESD Top/Short Term political leadership on air quality by renewing the government’s commitment through the adoption of a new national air protection plan with targets, policies, and budget lines in alignment with the current NAPCP and with climate and green transition policies. Recommendation 4: Consider the design MESD Top/Medium Term of different instruments to allocate and use funds to help leverage other funding sources for air quality measures, including EU and private sources. Nested Planning Recommendation 5: Strengthen local MESD Top/Medium Term capacities to lead the air quality planning process by establishing a commission within MESD with resources (i) to monitor and provide technical assistance to prepare a new generation of air protection programs, and (ii) to provide guidance on how to align local programs with the NAPCP and other national AQM policies. Include methodologies in the technical guidance that can help to prioritize actions, allow for preparation time, and address resource allocation so that programs are more realistic, and stipulate a requirement to report on the progress made. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 88 Vertical and Horizontal Coordination Recommendation 6: Following the MESD Secondary/ example of the inter-ministerial climate Medium Term change committees, set up an Air Quality Management Committee with resources to improve the coherence and appropriate sequencing of various sectoral interventions, to provide guidelines for local governments on how to interpret and implement air quality legislation and policies, and to create information and knowledge exchange platforms to improve harmonization between local and national plans. Accountable Institutions Recommendation 7: Update and publish MESD Secondary/ the National Air Quality Report for 2022 Short Term/ and 2023 and incentivize the publication of local AQPs and other government programs. Recommendation 8: Inform the public MESD Top/Short Term more effectively about their rights. Ensure legal standing for environmental NGOs to challenge all environmentally relevant permits and to bring challenges relating to nature or air quality. Poland Recommendation Stakeholders Priority/Timing Legal and Regulatory Framework Recommendation 1: Assess the state of Government of Top/Medium Term the current legislation’s compliance with Poland international agreements, including the LRTAP Convention, even for instruments that have not been ratified. Recommendation 2: Harmonize national Ministry of Top/Short Term and regional solid fuel boiler standards Development and and adjust the sulfur content allowed for Finance, household coal use to comply with EU Ministry of Energy standards. Recommendations 89 Recommendation 3: Amend the Ministry of Climate Top/Medium Term Environmental Protection Law to introduce incentives and sanctions for local governments, enabling them to achieve local AQP targets and to make AQP guidelines binding. Committed Executive Recommendation 4: Review the state of Plenipotentiary Secondary/ implementation of the Clean Air Program for the Clean Air Short Term and prepare action plans for measures Program and that must be accelerated, with a clear Ministry of Climate allocation of roles and responsibilities at the national, regional, and city levels and a clear indication of how each relate to and support the other. Recommendation 5: Strengthen the Ministry of Climate Top/Short Term Ministry of Climate’s capacities to prepare uniform guidance and technical expertise for AQP preparation and compliance with regulations, and increase funding for municipalities to implement a broader range of AQM functions. Recommendation 6: Work with local Municipalities Top/Short Term municipalities to incentivize greater allocation of technical resources to improve AQM, e.g. by creating eco- manager positions and training staff, police, and municipal guards. Nested Planning Recommendation 7: Strengthen AQP Ministry of Climate Top/Medium Term preparation guidelines and make them legally binding. Establish an effective quality assurance function over AQP design and implementation. Vertical and Horizontal Coordination Recommendation 8: Revisit the division Plenipotentiary Secondary/ of responsibilities between the Ministry for the Clean Air Medium Term of Climate and the Plenipotentiary Program and for the Clean Air Program to avoid Ministry of Climate duplications and to ensure that each reinforces and supports the action of the other. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 90 Recommendation 9: Establish an Ministry of Climate - Secondary/ annual peer learning platform for the key Voivodeship Council Short Term regional stakeholders involved in AQM to exchange experiences and lessons learned. Accountable Institutions Recommendation 10: Establish a Chief Inspector Top/Medium Term program to co-fund the expansion, of Environmental operation, and maintenance of local Protection measuring points and monitoring stations, and develop detailed regional emissions inventories, including a database of local sources that incorporates information from the energy certificates of new buildings. Recommendation 11: Transition to a Mistry of Climate Top/Short Term more health-based approach to the -National Fund for dissemination of air quality information, Environmental and improve the AQI to strengthen Protection its health criteria. Increase public awareness of the need to improve air quality in Poland through campaigns, and establish a proper institutional framework for civil society participation. Romania Recommendation Stakeholders Priority/Timing Legal and Regulatory Framework Recommendation 1: Amend current Government of Top/Medium Term legislation to increase sanctions on Romania (GoR) noncompliant public authorities and emissions sources. Establish a register of regulated emissions sources (stationary and mobile) and monitor breaches. Incentivize cooperation between enforcement authorities in charge of inspections, procedures, technology, databases, and communication channels. Recommendation 2: Establish a GoR Top/Short Term government commission to follow up on infringements of EU air legislation and to coordinate the country’s response and compliance. Recommendations 91 Committed Executive Recommendation 3: Use the recent GoR Top/Short Term submission of the NAPCP to renew high- level political leadership on AQM, link the country’s air and climate policies, and allocate additional resources to implementing the NAPCP. Recommendation 4: Strengthen the Ministry of Top/Short Term Environmental Guard’s enforcement Environment capacities by supplementing its equipment, technical expertise, and personnel. Recommendation 5: Modify the National Ministry of Top/Short Term Environmental Fund programs to Environment improve impacts on air quality. Nested Planning Recommendation 6: Update Government GoR Top/Medium Term Decision 257/2015 on the Methodology for Developing AQPs to include clear steps to ensure coordination and harmonization with the NAPCP and other relevant national policies. Include clear methods in the update to incorporate acceptable regional pollution models into the Air Quality Studies. Recommendation 7: Improve the Ministry of Secondary/ capacity building of national and local Environment Medium Term authorities to oversee experts hired to develop studies for AQPs. Review whether the National Register of Certified Experts is being too restrictive by limiting the expertise needed for robust Air Quality Studies and plans. Vertical and Horizontal Coordination Recommendation 8: Re-energize the SNEGICA Secondary/ central coordination unit with high-level Medium Term/ recognition and resources adequate to its task. Establish the institutional structure for coordinating national- and local- level actions to ensure that air pollution hotspots are addressed, linking with city and county authorities and enhancing national capacity to mobilize, finance, and implement actions. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 92 Accountable Institutions Recommendation 9: Launch a National Automatic Top/Short Term comprehensive program to rebuild Air Quality Romania’s air quality information system, Monitoring Centre thereby strengthening the national, regional, and local monitoring network to capture data in a centralized database and complying with EU regulations on transparency and quality assurance. Recommendation 10: Install a web- National EPA Top/Short Term based portal with real-time information for public consultation, and develop an AQI based on health criteria. Recommendation 11: Strengthen National Automatic Top/Short Term national and local capacities for air Air Quality quality modeling and forecasting as key Monitoring Centre inputs to AQPs. Recommendation 12: Design and Ministry of Top/Short Term implement a transparency and Environment accountability strategy to strengthen public participation along the AQP policy cycle. Ensure public access to environmental stakeholder dialogue. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 93 Annexes Air Quality Management in EU Member States 94 Annex 1. Methodological Approach and Framework Identifying desirable institutional arrangements What constitutes a strong air quality management (AQM) governance and institutional ar- rangement? There is no universal definition of a strong, effective, and efficient AQM system. Currently, there exists only an implicit and emerging framework based on country cases that produce good outcomes in highly diverse institutional, social, legal, and cultural settings. The methodological approach taken in this document has included the identification of strong case studies (benchmark countries) and the development of core attributes to pinpoint the desirable institutional, organizational, and managerial arrangements, as well as emerging trends across countries. Based upon these, recommendations have been drawn up for context in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania. Identifying benchmark countries The Air Quality Governance Framework adjusted for the European Union (EU) was applied to a set of comparator countries to exhibit emerging trends in governance systems with relatively higher air quality performance. Six countries were selected based on two criteria: geographic proximity to the assessment countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania) and air quality performance based on IQAir’s 2021 World Air Quality Report.28 Using a plain methodology, each country is rated by adding the scores for each criterion. The following chart provides a description of each criterion and the score distribution. Criteria Air Quality Performance Country Ranking for Population Weighted, 2021 Score Geographic Proximity to Client Country average PM2.5 concentration (µg/m3)29 3 Shares a border with one of the The methodology provides a score from client countries 1 to 3 based on the country’s position in the ranking for Europe. The ranking has 41 2 Does not share a border but countries, with 41 indicating the highest is considered an Eastern performance and the lowest 2021 PM2.5 European country average concentration. 1 Does not fall into any of the other categories 28 IQAir. “2021 World Air Quality Report: Region and City PM2.5 Ranking” (Goldach, Switzerland: IQAir, 2021), https://www. iqair.com/world-air-quality-report. 29 The 2021 Air Quality Report divides countries according to their annual average PM2.5 concentrations. Seven color- coded categories are determined based on the times an average concentration exceeds or meets the 2021 World Health Organization (WHO) PM2.5 guideline. Blue meets the target, green exceeds by 1−2 times, yellow by 2−3 times, orange by 3−5 times, red by 5−7 times, purple by 7−10 times, and maroon by over 10 times. Annex 1. Methodological Approach and Framework 95 The countries chosen were Austria, Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, Slovenia, and Sweden. These countries represent different government systems; Estonia, Lithuania, and Slovenia are unitary republics similar to the client countries. Germany and Austria are federal republics, and Sweden is a unitary constitutional monarchy. Despite these differences, all six countries have functioning air quality governance systems and better air quality than the client countries measured in annual average PM2.5 concentrations. Table A1.1. Air Quality Performance of Comparator Countries Air Quality Performance Country Geographic Proximity (Position in Ranking) Total Score Germany 3 2.1 (29/41) 5.1 Estonia 2 2.9 (41/41) 4.9 Austria 3 1.8 (25/41) 4.8 Slovenia 3 1.4 (19/41) 4.4 Sweden 1 2.8 (38/41) 3.8 Lithuania 2 1.5 (20/41) 3.5 Denmark 1 2.2 (30/41) 3.2 The framework The proposed framework attempts to identify formal institutions and actual behaviors.30 Public sector management reforms are often thought of as changes to the formal (de jure) in- stitutional and managerial arrangements in the Center of Government and in sector agencies, such as new civil service laws or budgetary procedures and revised funding arrangements for health care. Changes to formal arrangements are often critical, but ultimately public sector management reform is about changing the informal de facto behaviors of agents within the public sector. Behavioral change does not necessarily commence with legal or other formal reforms, as changes in how downstream agencies and departments function day to day can provide the springboard for more formal changes in laws and procedures. The public sector results chain is about ensuring that formal institutions and actual behaviors are mutually con- sistent and targeted at delivering results. The framework identifies both formal and informal, de jure and de facto, behaviors of agents within the public sector leading to AQM. The proposed framework attempts to favor organizational and institutional function over form. In the past, many development interventions, particularly around institution building and state capacity strengthening, have proposed the direct import of standard responses to predetermined problems. This means basically copying or reproducing institutional designs from one place to another, disregarding context and foregoing a more nuanced analysis of the problem. This in turn has encouraged the recipient of assistance to prioritize form over function 30 Most of the information initially gathered for the case studies was prepared as a desk review using secondary information that could be complemented with interviews and field assessments to also capture actual (de facto) behaviors. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 96 (e.g., it looks like what is trying to be achieved, but it does not function like it). This has been called isomorphic mimicry—the adoption of the forms of other functional states and organi- zations in a way that camouflages a persistent lack of function.31 This framework attempts to identify institutional, managerial, and organizational functions and arrangements in place that will lead to strong AQM systems—specifically, roles, responsibilities and activities carried out by institutions and backed by active policies, regulations, and organizational frameworks. Box A1.1. Definitions The framework and the case studies use several terms that vary across countries. For the purpose of uniformity and to allow reasonable comparisons across countries, these terms are defined generically as follows: The term law is used to define the system of rules that a country or state recognizes as regulating the actions of its citizens, firms, and organizations and that it may enforce by the imposition of penalties. In some countries, these will be referred to as acts and/or legal norms. Laws gov- erning the EU are referred to as directives and regulations. Enacted laws, acts, and legal norms are generally developed by public administrations to form operational and administrative tools that include plans, regulations, strategies, policy documents, guidance notes, and so forth. The framework more broadly employs the term legal and regulatory framework, which is used to define the set of constitutional, legislative, regulatory, jurisprudential, and managerial rules that in this case regulate and mandate the AQM behavior of citizens and public and private organizations. The legal framework will also cover regulations. Regulation, as defined by the OECD, is broadly explained as the imposition of rules by government, backed by the use of penalties that are intended specifically to modify the economic behavior of individuals and firms in the private sector.32 In the EU specifically, the term “regulation” means a legal act that becomes immedia­ tely enforceable as law in all member states simultaneously (as opposed to directives). The framework also refers to the term “policy” or “public policy,” which can be interpreted as the principles or formal rules of the game that include laws, regulations, and institutions. The term levels of government is understood as different governments with their own elected representatives and areas of responsibility, functions, roles, and accountability. Countries vary in the number of layers they have, but there tend to be three: (i) national/federal, (ii) region/state/ territory, and (iii) local/municipal. The case study countries are all federations that are essentially unions of partially self-governing states or regions under a central federal government. Sover- eign power is divided between the federal government and states/regions, and the roles and responsibilities for specific functions, such as AQM, must be clearly determined for each level. 31 L. Pritchett, M. Woolcock, and M. Andrews, “Capability Traps? The Mechanisms of Persistent Implementation Failure,” Working Paper 234 (Washington, DC: Center for Global Development, 2010), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=1824519. 32 Various regulatory instruments or targets exist. Prices, outputs, rates of return (in the form of profits, margins, or commissions), disclosure of information, standards, and ownership ceilings are among those frequently used. Annex 1. Methodological Approach and Framework 97 Coordination bodies refer to the mechanisms (councils, commissions, working groups, or committees and their functioning rules and procedures) to improve policy implementation among the different actors involved. They can be horizontal (e.g. different sectors involved in AQM) and vertical (different levels of government). The latter area also refers to what are called intergovernmental relations, which are an important component of governance, particularly in modern federal systems. The interdependence between the different orders of government is an inevitable condition of federal structures in which there are jurisdictional overlaps in the design, development, and implementation of policies such as AQM. The separation of powers between multiple orders of government has generally required the development of processes of consultation, collaboration, and coordination that enable the different players in the federal system to influence outcomes in various areas. Audit, control, and accountability institutions refer to such organizations or agencies as In- formation Commissions, Ombudsman, or Supreme Audit Institutions, but also government internal control and audit departments and civil society watchdogs and think tanks. All of these together work to report, monitor, analyze, and evaluate progress on the country’s air quality objectives and commitments. An airshed can be generally defined as a geographical area within which the air is frequently confined; this area is thus subject to similar air pollution conditions. It is essentially an area that shares a common flow of air that can be uniformly polluted and stagnant. The official definition of airsheds for a region or country is fundamental to AQM systems as it sets the unit of analysis. This unit is then used to plan coherent interventions, execute projects and programs, gather data, monitor progress, and evaluate the impact of policies and programs. Nested planning refers to the function and instruments of strategic planning at various lev- els of government (national, regional, local, and airshed level). Nested planning covers the effectiveness of planning units at the various levels and the quality of planning instruments and procedures in each institution. It also encompasses the functional relationship between planning units and tools and the coordination and alignment among them. Nested planning is part of the overall AQM framework. Attributes and normative questions The framework consists of 16 components organized around five attributes and a set of guid- ance questions to carry out the assessment. The framework has been developed specifically to distill lessons for policy makers, with a view to the distinct challenges that the country faces (e.g. population and land area, geographic diversity, idiosyncrasies of public administration, type of federation, and general social dynamics). However, the framework can also be adapted and applied in other country settings, and an attempt has been made to make the attributes as mutually exclusive as possible. Emerging evidence from countries with various maturity levels for airshed planning and management suggests that recommendations can be built on the following governance and institutional attributes: (i) legal and regulatory framework, (ii) committed executive, (iii) nested planning, (iv) horizontal and vertical coordination, and (v) ac- countability and transparency. Table A1.2 summarizes the five attributes and their components. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 98 Table A1.2. Governance and Institutional Framework for Air Quality Management Attributes Components Legal and Regulatory Framework Series of laws, acts, and regulations for defining –– Legal framework the mandate for effective AQM, setting the –– Roles and responsibilities country’s air quality standards, assigning the –– Enforcement mechanisms required institutional roles and responsibilities, –– Transboundary mandate and establishing compliance, creating reporting international commitments and enforcement mechanisms, addressing transboundary air pollution, and adhering to international commitments. Committed Executive Strength of the executive’s commitment to the –– Strategic vision AQM agenda revealed by the existence of a clear –– Funding allocations and publicly available vision and strategy backed –– Incentives by adequate resources, policy instruments, and –– Government capacity incentives, with capabilities in place to provide assurance that the strategy will be implemented to meet its targets. Track record of effective enforcement. Nested Planning Quality and effectiveness of AQM planning –– Planning process instruments at different levels of government. –– Independent and evidence- based expert advice Horizontal and Vertical Coordination Existing functional arrangements to coordinate –– Political leadership AQM stakeholders across sectors (horizontal) –– Membership to match and between different levels of government –– Functional reach and powers (vertical). This attribute includes a description –– Independent funding of the membership, functions, tools for effective program/project management, and overall effectiveness of the coordination mechanisms. Accountability and Transparency Mechanisms to disclose information, track and –– Transparency: data generation evaluate progress, promote public and private and disclosure sector participation, and hold institutions to –– Auditing, monitoring, and account through adequate evidence/databases, evaluation information disclosure, and established channels –– Citizen participation for recourse. –– Legal recourse Annex 1. Methodological Approach and Framework 99 This annex provides details on the framework, including the specific questions that guide the assessment across the attributes and components (summarized in Table A1.3 below). A summary table with the institutional arrangements and emerging trends across the case study countries, the situation in the four assessed countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania), and the policy recommendations and options for reform is provided above in section 6 (Table 3). Annex 2 contains a summary table with the details of the main institutional arrangements in each of the six country case studies (Table A2.1). Legal and regulatory framework A modern and effective legal and regulatory framework is the basis upon which to build a successful and effective AQM system. It provides the de jure basis for policy making, the implementation of AQM standards, and for the achievement of healthy air quality goals. This attribute reviews the series of laws, acts, and regulations to ensure that they (a) define the mandate for effective AQM, (b) set the country’s air quality national standards, and (c) assign the required institutional roles and responsibilities. Additionally, it reviews the existence (and proper functioning) of (d) compliance, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms, and (e) instru- ments to plan and control air pollution with a transboundary vision. The attribute has the following components: legal framework, roles and responsibilities, enforcement mechanisms, and transboundary mandates and international commitments. The specific questions to guide the assessment of the strength of the legal and regulatory framework are contained in Table A1.3. The legal framework component revises the existence of legal instruments regulating AQM and setting air quality standards to protect the health of the population with regard to pollution concentration and exposure. The roles and responsibil- ities component reviews whether the legal and regulatory framework is clear on the roles and responsibilities that each level of government must fulfill and whether it consists of sufficient source-control air pollution legislation. The enforcement mechanisms component reviews the existence and proper operation of a legal and administrative mechanism to tackle non- compliance and the existence of regulatory tools and instruments to facilitate enforcement (e.g, penalties, licenses, control programs). Finally, the transboundary mandates and inter- national commitments component checks whether the legal framework empowers actors to act beyond municipal and state boundaries, promotes engagement with other national and international stakeholders, and adheres to and is consistent with international air quality treaties and commitments. Committed executive Properly functioning AQM systems require a dynamic, consistent, and strongly committed executive, firm leadership, and a funded mandate. Any long-term AQM agenda with fiscally consistent costs and expenditure frameworks must be explicitly defined and championed or endorsed by high-level officials like the prime minister within and across layers of government. This is particularly the case if the agenda’s objectives and targets are to be clearly reflected in annual and multi-annual medium-term budgets. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 100 Strong leadership is critical to ensuring that analyses of the potential air quality impact of investment projects and expenditure programs are conducted and considered during budget decision making. Leadership also implies the capacity to articulate a consistent vision of what AQM entails for the national budget, which includes not only allocating specific resources, but mainstreaming AQM objectives across budget expenditures. Additionally, the strategy and its related plans must be properly funded, and instruments must be available to finance the envisioned activities, projects, and programs. In sum, the manifestation of commitment varies across countries, but ultimately, strong leadership, a clear vision, and an explicit and goal-oriented strategy, together with funding mechanisms, policy instruments, and incentives, are all necessary conditions for success. Finally, staff and team technical capabilities in selected government agencies are fundamental. A committed executive implies that AQM policy implementation and regulation enforcement relies on specific institutions usually located in the executive branch of the government, par- ticularly at the center, but present at all levels: national, regional, and local. A fully committed executive exhibits strong leadership backed by technical teams, cognizant of the law and with funded mandates, and implements AQM policy through multiple instruments that are usually a combination of command-and-control and economic tools. Clear enforcement functions are part of a committed executive, and the prosecution of noncompliant citizens or corporations must rely on information and evidence from committed executive institutions. The attribute has the following components: strategic vision, funding allocations, incentives, and government capacity. The specific questions to guide the assessment of the strength of the executive’s vision and capabilities are contained in Table A1.3. The strategic vision compo- nent reviews the official AQM strategy and plans in place, the existence of clear goals, targets, indicators, and assigned functions, and roles for their implementation. The funding component reviews whether the plan is sufficiently funded. The incentives component reviews the exist- ence of policy instruments, such as control programs, permits, or emissions trading systems, to support the implementation of the AQM system and related plans. Finally, the government capacity component attempts to identify whether the capabilities of key actors in the public sector are sufficient to implement the vision stated. A full assessment of government capabil- ities might require a comprehensive review of national and local teams, highlighting the most prominent strengths and shortcomings, and should be followed up by more in-depth reviews, such as functional studies of specific agencies. Nested planning Nested planning assesses the planning functions in place for administering the AQM sys- tem across different airsheds and other relevant geographic areas. Even though airshed definitions vary in form and scope, countries should decide on AQM policies based on a deep understanding of the emissions sources and their dispersion across their territories. Robust and effective AQM governance systems use scientific data to support the definition of these units and to inform the overall planning process. The current framework highlights the impor- tance of airsheds as relevant geographic units for AQM, although the use of airsheds has seen less application in the EU for AQM purposes, as described in Box A1.2. Annex 1. Methodological Approach and Framework 101 Box A1.2. Air Quality Management in Europe: A Comparative Analysis of Airshed Approaches The adoption of airshed approaches to AQM has demonstrated success in various regions, notably the United States, Australia, and Canada. However, airsheds for AQM are not uniformly implemented at the national or federal level across countries. The use of airsheds is regularly found in regional or local AQM efforts rather than at the national level. These approaches have proven instrumental in evaluating policies and measures aimed at reducing emissions and improving air quality. The fundamental idea behind an airshed approach is to ensure that the assessment of policies considers both the pollution generated within a specific geographic unit and any transfers of pollution into or outside its boundaries. The importance of this approach lies in preventing the dilution of the impact of measures taken within a geographic unit by significantly importing pollution from without. Conversely, measures within the unit must also account for the export of pollution to areas beyond its boundaries. An airshed is typically a large area where imports and exports of pollution are minimal, often constrained by geographic or meteorological barriers. However, intriguingly, this airshed approach is notably absent in the EU context. The histor- ical evolution of AQM in Europe provides insights into this absence. In the early 20th century, air pollution management was primarily viewed as a local issue, leading to measures that fo- cused on controlling specific local sources, such as large industrial plants. The institutional framework reflected this local-centric approach, with local authorities given responsibility for air pollution control. The realization of the importance of longer-range transport of pollution in Europe emerged after efforts to solve local air pollution problems inadvertently led to the large-scale pollution of forests and natural ecosystems. This prompted the development of methods to calculate long-range impacts, culminating in international agreements within the United Nations Eco- nomic Commission for Europe (UNECE). The Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Pol- lution (LRTAP Convention) outlined responsibilities for managing air pollution at the national level, with transboundary impacts controlled through agreements limiting emissions within each nation. In the EU, pollution reductions are delivered through legislation on communally agreed emissi­ ons reductions under the National Emission Ceilings. Despite these international agreements, the local impact of air pollution within nation states continues to be managed under national frameworks, responding to air quality objectives. Air quality standards within the EU are communally agreed upon, and member states are man- dated to develop plans for attaining them, designating specific geographic areas as Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs). While member states have the option to declare airsheds to be geographic areas for assessment, administrative boundaries are typically preferred. This preference is partly due to the potential administrative burden associated with involving multiple local authorities and defining airshed boundaries. The absence of significant geographic barriers to long-range pollution transport across Europe further complicates the delineation of airsheds. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 102 National-level assessments are conducted within borders, with international flows calculated in the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme system for European-scale air quality data. However, at the local level within AQMAs, arrangements for assessing and managing external influences from pollution sources outside the area are variable. Local assessments may rely on long-term air pollution monitoring at AQMA boundaries or use numerical models, such as the Sherpa model developed by the EU Joint Research Centre.33 The nested planning attribute consists of two components: (i) the planning process and (ii) independent advice. Table A1.3 contains the specific questions used to assess this attribute. The planning process assesses the strength of the AQM planning function. To this end, it re- views several important features, such as (a) the existence of an official air quality planning unit (airshed, administrative boundary, or other delineation), (b) the existence of nested planning mechanisms between different airshed zone units and administrative borders, and between federal and state and state and local jurisdictions, and (c) whether these plans are clearly fo- cused on results and properly funded. It also reviews whether the different planning mecha- nisms are coordinated and harmonized. The component on independent advice reviews rigor in data use and the level of expert participation throughout the planning process. To do so, it reviews the existence of a mechanism for producing plans with independent, science-based, and evidence-based advice that are developed in consultation with all relevant stakeholders. Horizontal and vertical coordination Coordination, complementarity, and concurrence of effort between different players are key preconditions to an effective AQM system. Accordingly, specific coordination bodies, with func- tional solutions or arrangements to facilitate and enforce the alignment of priorities, resource allocations, and strategy implementation, might need to be in place to ensure that all actors achieve the desired air quality outcomes. These functional arrangements enable multi-­ level governance and intersectoral coordination between national and subnational governments. Effective coordination arrangements include vertical and horizontal coordination, and gen- erally require the existence of a high-level coordination body with a strong mandate in place. The horizontal and vertical coordination attribute contains four components: political lead- ership, membership to match, functional reach/powers to match, and independent funding. Table A1.3 contains the specific questions used to assess this attribute, which reviews whether vertical and horizontal coordination of the AQM agenda has a formal structure and whether those arrangements are operational and effective. National and regional (vertical) coordina- tion ensures that air quality is integrated into national state, airshed, and city-level programs, while cross-sectoral (horizontal) coordination should ensure air quality’s integration into sector 33 SHERPA (Screening for High Emission Reduction Potential on Air) is a Python tool that allows for a rapid exploration of potential air quality improvements resulting from national/regional/local emission reduction measures. The tool was developed with the aim of supporting national, regional, and local authorities in designing and assessing their air quality plans. Annex 1. Methodological Approach and Framework 103 policies and plans and across sectors that contribute to air pollution (the mandate goes be- yond environmental agencies). The political leadership component affirms the existence of a high-level coordination body (or any type of functional arrangement) that has a strong mandate and enough political leadership to oversee progress and the implementation of policies to achieve air quality standards. The membership to match component reviews whether the coordination body includes federal, regional, and state authorities and the sectors that contribute to air pollu- tion, and whether the scientific community, the private sector, and civil society participate in, and advise the coordination body or have the mechanisms to do so. The functional reach and powers to match component assesses whether the coordination bodies have functions to (a) monitor, plan, and develop policies and programs, (b) enforce AQM regulations, and (c) support the generation and dissemination of evidence-based air quality information for legislative and government decision making. Finally, the independent funding component determines whether the coordination bodies have independent funding to finance their operations and invest in AQM priority programs and projects. Accountability and transparency Accountability and transparency mechanisms in place are critical to achieving air quality objectives. Countries must have accurate, reliable, timely, participatory, and transparent data generation systems for monitoring air quality and assessing policy effectiveness. Internal ac- countability (among public agencies and officials) and external accountability (to parliament, citizens, and civil society) increase knowledge and trust in air quality spending priorities and targets. This helps effectively integrate various public and private agents into the process, while also helping to validate and protect resources. It also allows broad civic participation, from the formulation of AQM strategies to the definition of desired objectives. The existence of a mechanism to report on the state of air quality, the implementation of AQM policies, and the attainment of standards is crucial to keeping citizens and voters informed and engaging their participation. This includes the implementation of air quality monitoring systems, emissions inventories, and forecasting systems with public access to real-time data. Accountability mechanisms may also exist to hold subnational governments accountable to the federal/national state or the courts. Accountability also relies on active citizens who, through organizations and initiatives, stay informed and advocate for increased ambition and policy implementation to influence government and political stances on air quality goals. Accountability also reinforces the traceability and transparency of resources supporting air quality goals, thus enhancing political support, social inclusion, and buy-in. When prop- erly supported in projects, programs, and schemes, just as in monitoring and IT evaluation systems, accountability allows both government agencies and external stakeholders to track a country’s progress on achieving air quality targets with different sources and uses of funding. The accountability and transparency attribute includes four components: transparency (data generation and disclosure); auditing, monitoring, and evaluation; citizen participation; and legal recourse. Table A1.3 contains the specific questions used to assess this attribute. The transparency (data generation and disclosure) component reviews the existence of (a) Air Quality Management in EU Member States 104 reporting standards and procedures to facilitate consultations on and validation and social control of air pollution-related interventions, and (b) active and well-funded air quality moni- toring systems, emissions inventories, and air quality forecast models (with airshed or defined geographic coverage). It also reviews whether there is an obligation to report timely information about air quality to the public and whether there are air quality indexes (AQIs), especially at the airshed or defined geographic level. The auditing, monitoring, and evaluation component reviews whether the audit, control, and accountability institutions, such as legislative bodies or human rights commissions, scrutinize and report on the overall functioning of the AQM system. The citizen participation component assesses the level of public participation and whether this engagement is encouraged along the AQM planning and implementation process. Finally, the legal recourse component reviews whether the general public has legal recourse if air quality standards are violated, and whether there are channels by which the public can report air quality regulation violations. Table A1.3 summarizes the described AQM framework: Annex 1. Methodological Approach and Framework 105 Table A1.3. AQM Framework: Attributes, Components, and Questions Adjusted for the EU Attributes Description Components Questions 1 Legal and Series of laws, i. Legal framework: The Legal framework: Regulatory acts, and national law and the –– (New) What legal instrument was used to transpose Framework regulations development strategy EU air quality legislation into national legislation? for: defining contain air quality –– Does the legal framework consist of national and the mandate standards, established international instruments for AQM and pollution for effective to protect the health control? AQM, setting of the population with –– Does the legal and regulatory framework have a clear the country’s air regard to pollution mandate to protect the health of the population? quality standards, concentration and –– (New) Does the legal and regulatory framework adopt assigning exposure. It also covers the same or more stringent EU standards? Do the the required other legal instruments standards compare with WHO guidelines? institutional that control air quality. –– Does it set standards that consider the exposure roles and ii. Roles and of the population to both pollution and pollution responsibilities, responsibilities: The concentration levels? establishing legal and policy –– (New) Did the country comply with the EU compliance, framework mandates legislation’s air quality standards during the initial creating reporting air quality planning or extended compliance periods? Does the country and enforcement and control that is have a national exposure reduction target for PM2.5? mechanisms, delineated to tackle a –– How do national governments monitor and addressing comprehensive set of support subnational implementation of air quality transboundary pollutant sources, with regulations? air pollution, a clear assignment of –– What legal instruments were used to transpose the and adhering roles for each agency main EU legislation on pollution sources? to international and level of government. commitments. iii. Enforcement Roles and responsibilities: mechanisms: There is a –– (Adjusted) Does the legal and regulatory framework legal and administrative designate appropriate authorities for AQM, clearly mechanism for tackling determining the roles and responsibilities for each noncompliance that level of government (national, regional, local)? Are operates with regulatory there any gaps or duplications in the functions that tools and instruments to each level of government must carry out? facilitate enforcement. –– (Adjusted) Does the legal and regulatory framework iv. Transboundary mandate require state or federal governments to design and and international adopt plans to achieve air quality standards? commitments: The –– (New) Has the legal and regulatory framework legal framework transposed EU source-control air pollution empowers actors to act legislation? beyond municipal and state boundaries and Enforcement mechanisms: promotes engagement –– Does the legal and regulatory framework have with other national enforcement mechanisms for noncompliant and international jurisdictions, companies, or citizens? stakeholders. The legal –– Are enforcement mechanisms operational through framework adheres regulatory tools and instruments, such as penalties, to and is consistent licenses, and control programs? with international air –– Does enforcement work in practice? quality treaties and commitments. Transboundary mandate and international commitments: –– (Adjusted) Does the legal and regulatory framework address transboundary air pollution and include provisions to promote cooperation between jurisdictions in cases of transboundary air pollution? –– Is the legal framework consistent with international law, and does it adhere to international treaties and commitments on air quality? Air Quality Management in EU Member States 106 2 Committed Strength of i. Strategic vision: An Strategic vision: Executive the executive’s official strategy and –– Is there a long-term AQM agenda championed by commitment plans are in place with high-level leadership (e.g., prime minister) within and and pledge to clear goals, indicators, across layers of government? the AQM agenda and assigned functions –– Is the strategy in place clear on the vision, goals, revealed by the and roles. outcomes, activities, indicators, and targets, and is it existence of an ii. Funding allocations: publicly available? Are the roles and responsibilities explicit, clear, and An array of budget for implementing the strategy clearly assigned? publicly available programs are in place –– (New) How has high-level leadership embraced air vision and to fund all levels of quality plans (AQPs), National Air Pollution Control strategy, properly government. Programmes (NAPCPs), and Emission Reduction backed by enough iii. Incentives: There are Targets? resources, policy policies to incentivize –– (New) Are AQM policies aligned with climate instruments, compliance. policies? incentives, and iv. Government capacity: capabilities in There are sufficient skills Funding allocations: place to provide at the national and –– Is the long-term strategy or national AQM plan assurance that it subnational levels. properly and clearly financed in the national budget? will be effectively Are AQM objectives explicitly prioritized in annual implemented and and multi-annual budgets? meet its targets. –– Is sufficient and consistent funding provided to or by the states to manage air pollution? –– (New) Has the country accessed EU financial instruments to fund its national AQM strategies, plans, or programs? –– (New) Are there financial schemes designed to incentivize private investments in pollution control, such as credit guarantee schemes or public-private partnerships? Incentives: –– Do executive institutions have policy and regulatory tools to incentivize compliance or penalize noncompliance with AQM policy and legislation? –– Are there policy instruments to support the implementation of AQM policies, such as control programs, permits, or emissions trading schemes? Government capacity: –– Are the relevant departments sufficiently staffed, including with technical experts? Annex 1. Methodological Approach and Framework 107 3 Nested Modalities i. Planning process: Planning process: Planning and planning There are planning –– Is there an official air quality planning unit (airshed or procedures for mechanisms in different administrative boundary) defined across the national administering jurisdictions. territory? the AQM system ii. Independent and –– (New) What criteria did the country use to define across different evidence-based expert zones and agglomerations for air quality assessment planning levels, advice: A mechanism and planning? including exists to produce plans –– (New) Has the country established AQPs for zones and with independent, nonattainment zones and agglomerations as required agglomerations science-based, and by the Air Directive? and at the evidence-based –– (Adjusted) Is there a national requirement to develop national level. advice, developed additional AQM plans at a planning unit different in consultation with from EU legislation at the national, state, and airshed stakeholders. levels? –– (New) Does the country draw short-term action plans in areas where there is a risk of exceeding alert thresholds as required by the Air Directive? –– Are plans devised by the executive or the regulator? –– Are transboundary aspects considered in air quality planning? –– (New) Does the country have an NAPCP? –– (New) What is the functional relationship between the NAPCP, AQP, and other national, state, and airshed AQM plans? –– Is AQM planning focused on results at all levels of government? Does it include clear budget requirements and allocate specific responsibilities at all levels of government? Independent and evidence-based expert advice: –– Is the AQM planning process informed by scientific research and data, and does it include the participation of academic actors and other independent bodies? –– (New) Are there specific requirements for evidence- based AQM policy formulation, such as cost-effective or cost-benefit analyses, and is there a dedicated agency/unit for research and development? –– (New) Do the NAPCP and AQPs include baselines, targets, and indicators for each milestone, program, scheme, and project? Air Quality Management in EU Member States 108 4 ­ orizontal H Existing i. National and regional Political leadership: and functional (vertical) coordination: –– Is there a high-level coordination body, or functional ­Vertical arrangements to Air quality is integrated arrangements, with a strong mandate and Coordina- coordinate AQM into national and state political leadership to oversee progress and policy tion stakeholders programs and at the implementation to achieve air quality standards? across sectors airshed and city levels. (horizontal) ii. Cross-sectoral Membership to match: and between (horizontal) –– Is the coordination body comprised of federal, different levels coordination: Air quality regional, and state authorities and the sectors that of government is integrated into sector contribute to air pollution? (vertical). This policies and plans –– Do members of the scientific community, the private attribute includes and across sectors sector, and civil society participate in and advise the a description that contribute to air coordination body, or have the mechanisms to do so? of membership, pollution. The mandate functions, goes beyond the Functional reach and powers to match: management, and environment agencies. –– Do the coordination bodies have functions to monitor, the effectiveness plan, and develop policies and programs and enforce of coordination AQM regulations? mechanisms. –– Do the coordination bodies support the generation and dissemination of evidence-based air quality information for legislative and government decision making? Independent funding: –– Do coordination bodies have independent funding to finance their operations and invest in AQM priority programs and projects? Cooperation with other EU member states (New) –– (New) Does the country engage in EU cooperation mechanisms with other member states in response to transboundary air pollution? –– (New) Is the country active in EU coordination venues, such as the Ambient Air Quality Expert Group, the Clean Air Dialogues, or the Clean Air Forum? Annex 1. Methodological Approach and Framework 109 5 Accounta- Mechanisms i. Transparency: data Transparency: data generation and disclosure: bility and to disclose generation and –– Are there specific reporting standards and Transpa­ information, disclosure: There are procedures to facilitate consultation on, and rency track and air quality monitoring validation and social control of, air pollution-related evaluate progress, systems and emissions interventions? promote public inventories and –– Are there robust air quality monitoring systems, participation, and mechanisms for public emissions inventories, and air quality forecast hold institutions access to data. models with airshed or defined geographic coverage to account ii. Auditing, monitoring, operating on a regular basis and with appropriate through adequate and evaluation: resources? evidence/ Mechanisms and –– (New) Does the air monitoring network in the country databases, institutions actively comply with the Air Directive’s requirements to information audit, monitor, and monitor, measure, and assess air quality? disclosure, and evaluate the impact –– (New) Are AQPs, annual reports on the state of established of policies, programs, air quality, the NAPCP, and national emissions channels for and projects and verify inventories and projections public according to the recourse. This progress on legal, Air and NEC Directives? attribute also administrative, and –– (New) Are reports have the obligation to report timely includes a political commitments information about air quality to their citizens public at description of and goals contained in the airshed or defined geographic level? the existing strategies/plans/laws. –– (New) Are alert systems in place to inform the instruments to iii. Citizen participation: public of exceeded thresholds as required by the Air hold governments Systems are in place Directive? accountable to promote the –– (New) Does the country submit annual reports to the when national participation of civil EU Commission assessing the level of compliance or subnational society in setting policy with EU air quality standards as required by the Air jurisdictions are goals and budget Directive? in nonattainment programs. of air quality iv. Legal recourse: Auditing, monitoring, and evaluation: standards. Mechanisms are in –– Do audit, control, and accountability institutions place and operational have access to AQM frameworks, budgets, and allowing NGOs to seek expenditures, and do they prepare and publish annual legal recourse and to act reports? upon it. –– Is timely, quality, and accessible performance information on AQM interventions available in a cost-effective way, and is it produced, managed, and used to support accountability reporting on AQM to different audiences? Citizen participation: –– Is public participation and engagement encouraged along the AQM planning and implementation process? Legal recourse: –– Does the public have legal recourse if air quality standards are violated? –– Are there channels through which the public can report violations of air quality regulations? –– (New) Has the Commission taken legal action against the member state for noncompliance with EU air legislation? Air Quality Management in EU Member States 110 Annex 2. AQM Case Studies and International Trends This annex summarizes the case study assessments and provides a table outlining the main messages from the application of the framework to the selected federations. The case studies were developed to highlight effective institutional arrangements in place across the selected attributes of the air quality management (AQM) framework. The cases are not meant to portray ideal examples and do not constitute full assessments of the country systems. However, they do capture useful institutional arrangements, functions, and processes that can inform insti- tutional strengthening in the four assessed countries. As such, and as noted below, in many instances the selected countries continue to suffer from air pollution challenges that require sustained attention from policy makers and further innovation in governance arrangements. More complete details on the country assessments are contained in a separate companion document. Austria Air emissions have declined significantly in recent decades in Austria, decoupling from eco- nomic growth. Emissions from major air pollutants have declined since the 1990s, thanks to the early adoption of strict regulation that led to cleaner technologies in the industry and power sectors, stricter vehicle standards, and fuel switching. Despite progress, air quality remains a cause of concern, causing approximately 4,500 deaths in 2021 from short-term exposure to PM2.5, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone in a country with a population of approximately 8.9 million.34 Road transport, energy use in industries, and commercial, institutional, and household heating are the main contributors of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter.35 Limit values are still exceed- ed for nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and PM10, causing the European Commission (EC) to examine persistent breaches of air quality requirements. Despite challenges in air quality, Austria has complied with the emissions ceilings established by European Union (EU) regulation since 2014. The Austrian Constitution assigns the main competence for legislation on and the implemen- tation of air pollution control to the federal government. The 1997 Federal Law on Ambient Air Quality (Immissionsschutzgesetz-Luft [IG-L]) and the 2018 Air Emissions Act transpose EU air and emissions directives into national legislation, setting more stringent standards for certain pollutants. These legal instruments divide roles and responsibilities between the fed- eration (Bund), nine states or provinces (Bundesländer), and 2,098 municipalities. Generally, the federal government leads air policy making and enforcement in most sectors except for agriculture, building heating, and regional planning, which are highly decentralized. How­ ever, ultimate responsibility depends on the type of policy measure. For example, measures to prevent hazards that indirectly affect ambient air quality are the jurisdiction of the provinces, which creates a complex distribution of competences, sometimes making it difficult to find the right legislation for specific installations. 34 European Environment Agency, “Austria – Air Pollution Country Fact Sheet,” https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/ country-fact-sheets/2023-country-fact-sheets/austria-air-pollution-country. 35 Nitrogen oxides and particulate matter emissions are associated with increased car use due to urban sprawl, large cross-border freight traffic, energy refining, iron and steel production, and domestic heating. Annex 2. AQM Case Studies and International Trends 111 Regulatory provisions imply that the implementation of air legislation lies with the provinces, with participation from local governments. Provincial governors are responsible for acting on limit and target value exceedances by adopting ordinances with emissions reduction programs for each pollutant and taking measures in noncompliant areas toward attaining standards. For example, Burgenland, Styria, Tyrol, Vorarlberg, Upper Austria, and Salzburg have banned old vehicles on the road and set up emissions-dependent speed restrictions. Provinces must coordinate their actions in areas of transboundary pollution, while districts act in areas with multiple local authorities, unless the provincial government also shares responsibility. Austria’s regulatory framework incorporates different command-and-control, market-based, and enforcement tools to control air pollution. Multiple legislative instruments regulate air emissions by means of permits. Permits have limit values that are sometimes more stringent than national standards. Provincial or local governments are empowered with enforcement tools in most sectors to penalize permit breaches. These tools include permit withdrawal, plant closure, confiscation of assets, fines, and even criminal charges and imprisonment. Austria has multiple environmental taxes, including a recent CO2 levy, but lags behind other EU coun- tries in adopting air pollution taxes. Citizens can enforce government action by demanding measures from governors and taking them to the State Administrative Court as a second instance. Bundesländer that are noncompliant with EU legislation or international treaties can be taken to the EU Court of Justice before the federal state can withdraw authority and formally require action. Austria does not have a stand-alone AQM policy but has established a long-term vision suppor­ ted by the government’s current priorities. State action to control air pollution is driven by its stringent regulatory framework aligned with EU directives. The 2019 National Air Pollution Control Programme (NAPCP) presents the country’s long-term vision, which is to be achieved through a series of sectoral efforts, including Austria’s climate and energy strategy, the national electro-mobility plan, and the Common Agricultural Policy. Although measures and targets are set, a failure to allocate responsibilities or budget lines for their implementation put the country on track for noncompliance with the National Emissions Reduction Commit- ments (NEC) Directive 2020−2029 targets for nitrogen oxides, ammonia, and PM2.5. Improving ambient air quality and tackling climate change are political priorities for the current govern- ment, which increased the 2022 federal budget for climate, environment, and energy by four times compared to 2021. Federal institutions are responsible for air policy and data, while provincial agencies are designed to implement and enforce policies. The Federal Ministry of Climate, Environment, Energy, Mobility, and Innovation (Bundesministerium für Klimaschutz, Umwelt, Energie, Mobilität, Innovation und Technologie [BMK]) and the Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundes- amt) have policy design, project funding, and data generation responsibilities. Having air and climate policies under the same institutional umbrella and environmental policy sharing an agenda with energy and infrastructure facilitates policy integration and target setting. At the provincial level, each Bundesland has a ministry responsible for environmental matters that prepares air pollution control programs or air quality plans (AQPs). AQPs use policy instruments, such as banning and restricting polluting equipment, in collaboration with the Bund. These complement other policy tools, such as licensing, inspection, and enforcement. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 112 Air quality planning and management is aligned with EU directives, although federal and provincial instruments are not necessarily integrated. Austria has 11 air quality zones and agglomerations established according to different criteria, including transboundary pollution. In 2023, the country had eight AQPs, but all nine provinces had adopted plans for nitrogen di- oxide, PM10, and benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P). AQPs in Austria have medium-term actions to bring air quality to permitted levels, but show weak integration with the country’s long-term AQM vision established in the NAPCP. Austria implements co-operative federalism in environmental policy, which facilitates co- ordination between the Bund and Bundesländer. The Conference of Regional Environment Ministers is the main vertical coordination instrument for the implementation of environmental law, but other mechanisms have been established, such as the IMC Klimate, the Kyoto Forum, the Environmental Council, and the Council of Sustainable Development. The air quality regu- latory framework suggests close coordination between levels of government when preparing and implementing provincial air pollution control programs. Austria’s management of air quality information is considered transparent, facilitating civil participation. The Federal Environmental Agency (Unwelbundesamt) operates an air quality portal that feeds from a network of 180 monitoring stations, plus others operated by provincial governments. A public air quality index (AQI), and periodic reports to the National Council on the state of air quality demonstrate that the country has generally transparent management of information. Civil society has also been active in demanding government action through civil and administrative cases. Estonia Air pollution in Estonia has improved since 2000, helping the country to meet the guide- line values of the World Health Organization (WHO) for PM10 and PM2.5. In addition, Estonia achieved EU PM10 concentration targets two years early and currently enjoys among the best air quality in Central Europe. Air quality improvements resulted from economic restructuring in the 1990s, which helped industries shift from fossil fuels to cleaner electricity and reduced the sulfur content in fossil fuels. Air quality is poorer in some regions of the country, especially those near power generators and shale oil extraction sites. In 2021, Estonia had 140 premature deaths attributable to exposure to PM2.5, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone in a country with a popu­ lation of 1.3 million.36 Estonia is compliant with EU limit values in all its zones and agglome­ rations, but must still make additional efforts to ensure compliance with emissions ceilings for 2020−29, particularly for ammonia, and from 2030 onwards. Estonia’s Atmospheric Air Protection Act sets the legal framework for air pollution regula- tion and climate mitigation. This 1999 Act has been amended several times to fully adopt EU air quality and emissions directives. It is aligned with Estonia’s Environmental Code in relation to the general principles, rights, obligations, and responsibilities of environmental protection. Although emissions limits are established through subordinate regulations, the Air Protection 36 European Environmental Agency, “Estonia – Air Pollution Country Fact Sheet,” https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/ country-fact-sheets/2023-country-fact-sheets/estonia-air-pollution-country. Annex 2. AQM Case Studies and International Trends 113 Act sets provisions to regulate atmospheric emissions from stationary and mobile sources in order to mitigate climate change and protect the ozone. The Act clearly divides the roles and responsibilities for AQM between national and subnational governments and establishes procedures to regulate emissions through permits and other regulatory tools. As a highly centralized unitary state, Estonia allocates a significant share of AQM responsi- bilities to national entities. The Ministry of the Environment,37 the Environment Agency, and the Environmental Board bear responsibilities ranging from policy making and air quality mon- itoring to issuance, management, and inspection of integrated and emissions permits. The Air Protection Act also allocates some responsibilities to local authorities, mainly related to the preparation of air quality improvement plans for zones, agglomerations, or other areas when these exceed or are likely to exceed limit and target values established for one or several pol- lutants. In addition, local authorities have the right to restrict vehicle movement and to adopt other measures to limit industrial and domestic heating and transport emissions. Estonia’s AQM regulatory framework consists mainly of integrated permits, environmental charges with compensating mechanisms, and enforcement tools. Integrated permits calculate limit values for each pollutant, which, according to the OECD, incentivizes the use of end-of- pipe technologies instead of clean production. Environmental charges for the emission of air pollutants may be replaced with investments in pollution reduction measures, which, according to the OECD, does not provide a strong incentive for pollution control. Despite potential areas of improvement, these regulatory tools are complemented by a series of enforcement mecha- nisms for environmental compliance that include physical force, penalties, and imprisonment. Estonia’s long-term development strategy aims to improve air quality and reach carbon neutrality. The Estonia 2035 Plan feeds directly from sectoral development plans, the Gen- eral Principles of Climate Policy, and the NAPCP. All of these combine their policy vision and set common targets. For instance, the NAPCP builds on measures established in the energy development plan. The Principles of Climate Policy aim to phase out shale oil by 2040, which would radically improve air quality in certain regions. The current government embraces a long- term vision of a green transition, and national budget allocation for environmental protection increased from 0.1 percent in 2021 to 0.7 percent in 2022. Government allocation of funding for measures to reduce pollution demonstrate the credibility of the NAPCP and make compliance with the 2020−29 target more likely for most pollutants. The central government has multiple institutions leading air quality policy, but regional and municipal authorities lack resources and capacities. The Ministry of the Environment man- ages an integrated system of environmental protection, with approximately 12 institutions reporting to it. A key institution for air quality policy is the Environmental Board, a large entity with 28 regional offices and a wide range of responsibilities, including issuing, managing, and inspecting air pollution and other integrated environmental permits. Estonia also has an En- vironmental Investment Centre that manages funds from environmental charges, EU funds, and funds from other international programs to implement environmental projects. Estonia’s autonomous municipalities have multiple environmental responsibilities but also face budget- ary and human capacity challenges, as well as weak coordination with the central government. 37 Currently called the Ministry of Climate. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 114 Horizontal coordination facilitates a cross-sectoral vision of air policy, but vertical coordi- nation remains a challenge. Multiple ministries contribute to preparing key policy documents such as the NAPCP, while a working group on sustainable development responding to the secretary general mainstreams this issue in development planning. The coordination found at the national level is lacking between central and local government agencies. Local authorities, however, have created associations to promote cooperation between them and to coordinate actions with the central government. Estonia complies with EU requirements on air quality monitoring and planning and has a thriving nesting system for its planning instruments. Estonia has four air quality zones and agglomerations established with different criteria, including geography distribution and trans- boundary pollution. Since 2012, no regions have been outside the limit values, so the country does not have any active AQPs. Nesting occurs between pollution control plans at the facility and municipal AQPs. National-level plans are harmonized. Air quality information management is transparent, and accountability mechanisms are in place. The Environmental Research Centre manages a website with public information on air quality from 22 monitoring stations, while the Ministry of the Environment and the Environment Agency publish emissions information. The Ministry of the Environment holds annual meetings to present its workplan and priorities. In addition, Estonian parliament has established the En- vironmental Committee to create and improve legislation related to environmental protection, the use of natural resources, and nature conservation. Legal standing is rights-based and more restrictive for individuals than for nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Germany Air pollution in Germany has fallen significantly over the past two decades, though challenges remain. Between 2010 and 2021, there was a general decline in measured levels of atmospher- ic pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The mean annual limit value for nitrogen dioxide of 40 µg/m3 is rarely exceeded except at traffic-oriented measuring sites. Additionally, the share of urban population exposed to particulate matter con- centrations above EU standards is close to zero. Nonetheless, negative impacts on and risks to human health and the environment are still significant. In 2021, 45,150 premature deaths were attributed to PM2.5, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone in a country with a population of 83.2 million.38 Air quality control in Germany is mainly governed by the Act on the Prevention of Harmful Effects on the Environment Caused by Air Pollution, Noise, Vibration and Similar Phenomena, or the Federal Immission Control Act (BImSchG) for short, and its implementing ordinances and administrative regulations. Additionally, Germany’s regulations on air quality are all based on provisions adopted by the EU. Through complete alignment with EU air quality legislation, the limit values and standards are stipulated in European air pollution control directives and then transposed into German law. Thus, the NEC Directive was transposed into national legis­ lation via the 43rd Ordinance on the Implementation of the Federal Immission Control Act (43rd Bundes-Immissionsschutzgesetz [BImSchV]). 38 European Environment Agency, “Germany: Air Pollution Country Fact Sheet,” https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/ country-fact-sheets/2023-country-fact-sheets/germany-air-pollution-country. Annex 2. AQM Case Studies and International Trends 115 Air pollution control management is considered a concurrent function shared between the federal government, Land (or state) governments, and local governments. The federal gov- ernment takes the lead in enacting environmental legislation, and the powers of the Länder are limited in this regard. On the other hand, the role of implementing air pollution laws falls to the Länder and local governments, in large part without direction from the federal government. The Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety (BMU) and its subordinate, the German Environment Agency (Umweltbundesampt [UBA]), are Germany’s main environmental actors at the federal level. The BMU is tasked with preparing legislation on air pollution management and transposing EU directives into national law. The Ministry is also responsible for issuing ordinances and administrative regulations, both of which provide further details on the Federal Immission Control Act. The BMU uses revenues from environ- mental fiscal instruments—taxes and emissions trading—to provide funding for research, development, and the launch of innovative technologies. National and international coordina- tion are also important tasks of the BMU. The UBA falls under the BMU and is responsible for providing the scientific basis for environmental policy in Germany. Its tasks include monitoring and assessing air quality in the country, determining the causes of air pollution, and preparing regulations. The UBA has approximately 1,500 technical and scientific staff members and its own air quality measurement network with measuring stations distributed throughout the country. It also provides information to the public on environmental issues. As noted, Länder have the primary responsibility for enforcement of air quality laws. The Länder environment ministries form part of the respective Land’s government and lead on environmental matters, such as monitoring, statewide planning, and distribution of funds for environmental protection. The Länder are responsible for emissions registers, establishing air quality surveillance areas, clean air plans, establishing low emission zones, issuing licenses for the construction and operation of industrial plants, power stations, inspecting industrial plants and power plants, and imposing administrative fines in cases of noncompliance. The implementation of environmental protection is shared between the general administration and special administrative bodies for specific tasks. The latter can include specialized agencies to provide technical assistance; these are staffed with scientific and technical experts. Local governments—counties, independent cities without a county affiliation, and municipalities— also play a role in environmental management. One of the main tasks of local governments is to include environmental concerns in their local plans. Environmental administration is financed mostly through taxes and, to an extent, fees. Tax- es, including personal and corporate income tax and sales tax, are split between the federal level and the Länder. Other taxes are assigned to the federal or Land level. Local governments also earn revenue from local business and property taxes. Länder bear the responsibility of financing environmental expenditures, as the role of implementing environmental protection falls on them. Air pollution management is focused on a regulatory approach. The government issues rules of behavior (either orders or prohibitions), monitors compliance, and issues penalties for violations. Typical regulatory instruments are environmental standards formulated as emissions, quality, or product-related standards. Economic incentive-based instruments, such as environmental taxes, fees, duties, and subsidies, are playing an increasing role in environmental protection to motivate individuals and companies to change their behavior towards environmentally friendly Air Quality Management in EU Member States 116 practices due to the financial benefit. Finally, the German government relies on environmental liability as another instrument to compensate for environmental damage, and uses the threat of liability claims as a deterrent to harmful environmental activities. The authorities have a mandate to impose fines for noncompliance with specific environmental acts. EU air quality directives require member states to follow a mandated planning approach. They require the explicit formulation of certain plans or programs (on local governance layers) that represent the essential vehicle for implementation.39 Across Germany, this planning app­roach plays out differently with regard to the choice of responsible authority, the number of vertical governance levels and organizations involved, and collaboration and cooperation with partic- ipating single actors and organizations. Unlike similar EU environmental directives, air quality legislation mandates planning only when zones or agglomerations exceed pollutant limit values. Federal and Land governments coordinate, develop programs, and formulate joint strategies to ensure that legal provisions are implemented efficiently. One of the main forums is the Conference of Environment Ministers (Umweltminterkonnferenz [UMK]) from the federal and state governments, though inter-ministerial working groups and committees are also convened. The federal minister participates as a guest, and chairmanship of the UMK rotates among the Länder. The group meets twice a year and decisions are made by consensus. The Environmen- tal Information Act (Umweltinformationsgesetz) at the federal level and corresponding acts at the Land level provide the public with access to information. The air monitoring networks operated by the UBA and the Länder fulfill different tasks. Access to justice is also an important tool by which to foster implementation of environmental regulations. Individuals have the right to file an appeal against decisions of a public authority within a specified period of time. Environmental associations can also bring actions before administrative courts without their own rights being affected. As previously noted, the EC can take action against members like Germany for noncompliance, and the German government in turn holds states politically accountable. In June 2021, the European Court of Justice found Germany guilty of excessive air pollution in various cities. The country was consequently ob- ligated to introduce appropriate measures to reduce air pollution as soon as possible or face the imposition of fines starting at €10 million per day for continued breach of the law. 39 J. Gollata and J. Newig, “Policy Implementation through Multi-Level Governance: Analysing Practical Implementation of EU Air Quality Directives in Germany,” Journal of European Public Policy 24, no. 9 (2017): 1308–27; and J. Newig and T. Koontz, “Multi-Level Governance, Policy Implementation and Participation: The EU’s Mandated Participatory Planning Approach to Implementing Environmental Policy,” Journal of European Public Policy 21, no. 2 (2014): 248–67. Annex 2. AQM Case Studies and International Trends 117 Lithuania The annual mean concentration of air pollutants in Lithuania has been declining during the past decade, and air pollutant emissions have been consistently below the EU threshold. Air quality reports position Lithuania in the upper third of the world’s countries with the cleanest ambient air. However, several cities in the country do not meet the particulate matter con- centration rate required by the EU, and cities with the highest number of people exceed the air pollution levels recommended by WHO. Progress toward clean air goals has been uneven across sectors. Transport is the country’s principal source of nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter, and emissions have increased by 38 percent over the past decade. Emissions from the energy sector declined by almost three times from 1990 to 2021 but have been growing since 2020, due to greater heat demand and rising natural gas prices. Residential heating using solid fuels remains a major source of air pollution in the cold season. The Lithuanian government demonstrates a long-standing strategic commitment to improv- ing air quality that has been reinforced by the country’s climate change mitigation agenda. EU environmental regulation plays an essential role in improving the ambient air in Lithuania. It provides guidelines, benchmarks, and control mechanisms that facilitate the country’s AQM. However, Lithuania’s commitment to ensuring clean air for its inhabitants is also rooted in national laws passed in 1993−99 and has been sustained by several consecutive cabinets. The NAPCP, adopted in 2019, joined climate change mitigating goals and measures with the country’s clean air agenda. Lithuania’s ambitious medium- and long-term climate change mit- igation targets, such as reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 14 percent by 2030 as compared to 2005 and becoming a carbon-neutral country by 2050, would significantly contribute to cleaner ambient air in the country. To reach these targets, Lithuania amended the Plan in 2022, supplementing it with measures targeting the energy, transport, agriculture, and industry sectors. The country’s budget designated for the green transition nearly tripled from 2022 to 2023. In the second half of 2023, Lithuania implemented significant amendments to its legal frame- work with the primary goal of mitigating air pollution. Notably, new legislation addressed emissions of motor vehicles on Lithuania’s roads. Officers from the Lithuanian Transport Safety Administration and the Environmental Protection Department were authorized to stop vehicles to verify their emission compliance with the standards established by the Ministry of Transport. Additionally, Lithuania tightened the requirements of the EU emissions trading system (ETS). Adhering to the ETS regulation, which extends the system to encompass the building, road transportation, and ancillary sectors, new obligations for fuel distributors were introduced. Simultaneously, shipping companies were obligated to monitor their GHG emis- sions, declare them in the EU’s GHG register, and offset them with carbon credits equivalent to the volume of GHGs emitted throughout the year. Finally, a carbon border adjustment mech- anism instituted a mandate for importers to disclose the GHG emissions associated with the production of goods originating from third countries. Importers of certain products, such as cement, synthetic fertilizers, steel, aluminum, and electricity, are required to submit quarterly reports to the country’s Environmental Protection Agency. AQM roles are distributed between the national, subnational, and individual levels. National-­ level institutions provide strategic guidance, control, and funding. The network of national-­ level institutions consists of a parliamentary committee and the Ministries of Environment Air Quality Management in EU Member States 118 and Health. Two dedicated agencies and a department at the Ministry of Environment are responsible for measuring, assessing, and providing information on air pollution, controlling environmental protection, and managing national and EU environmental funds. The National Public Health Center under the Ministry of Health conducts public health impact assessments, reviews municipal AQM programs, and participates in issuing pollution permits. Lithuania’s AQM system, with key roles assigned to the Ministries of Environment and Health, promotes a comprehensive approach to air pollution and its effects and provides for a broader network of air pollution control. The Ministries of Environment and Health jointly implement the function of assessing the impact of economic activities on the environment and issuing pollution permits. On the subnational level, municipalities design and implement AQM measures to ensure clean ambient air in their territories. National, subnational, and legal entity-level establishments jointly implement the function of air quality monitoring. The importance of the legal entity level is growing in AQM, due to rising environmental awareness in the business community and the implementation of modern technologies that reduce pollution. Public initiatives increasingly complement and incentivize AQM action on all three levels. However, a whole-of-­government approach has yet to be achieved. Reports the by State Auditor and OECD call for the better coordination of sectoral policies and urge municipalities to be more active in advancing the country’s clean air agenda. Monitoring, evaluation, and analysis in Lithuania must be improved. The OECD and national experts have identified flaws in the collection of air quality information, monitoring of legal entity and municipality performance, implementation of the National Energy and Climate Plan, and compliance. The Lithuanian government has begun addressing these AQM areas through regulatory and strategic measures, such as amendments to the NAPCP passed in 2022 and the establishment of the National Environmental Analysis Centre this same year, which will conduct environmental analyses and evaluate the impact of the country’s applied and planned policy measures on the ambient air. Lithuania has demonstrated a commitment to transparency, accountability, and civic en- gagement. A variety of sources, including interactive air quality maps, inform the Lithuanian public and interested institutions about ambient air pollution levels. Since 2021, Lithuania has introduced several initiatives aimed at environmental awareness and the engagement of civil society, such as a new mechanism of public consultations and more rights granted to part- time voluntary environmental protection inspectors. Lithuania is implementing a coherent clean air strategy that is integrated with climate mitigation goals. Realizing that progress was too slow, in recent years, Lithuania has taken additional measures and allocated additional funds in order to fulfill its clean air commitments. The overall AQM strategy combines and coordinates sector-specific actions, with the highest concentration of measures targeting the key problem areas of transport and heat production. AQM in Lithuania would benefit from better alignment across sectors and the more active involvement of subnational authorities. A binary approach to AQM that combines the public health and environmental perspectives is a relative strength of the Lithuanian AQM system, while improvement is needed in monitoring, analysis, and enforcement of environmental regulation. Annex 2. AQM Case Studies and International Trends 119 Slovenia Air emissions in Slovenia have decreased over the past decades, but Slovenia still faces high levels of particulate matter and ozone pollution. Major emissions reductions in carbon monoxide and sulfur oxides came from measures taken in thermal power, the introduction of low-sulfur fuels in transport and households, and the closure of polluting production lines. Although emissions of particulate matter and ozone have also decreased, these remain high due to the use of wood in household heating and diesel for road transport. In 2021, 1,490 pre- mature deaths were attributable to particulate matter, ozone, and nitrogen dioxide concentra- tions in a country with a population of just over 2 million.40 In more recent years, a few zones still exceeded EU limit values, mainly for ozone, and Slovenia has a pending EU infringement case for exceeding PM10 limits. Slovenia has complied with EU emissions ceilings since 2013. The Slovenian Environmental Protection Act, the Regulation on Ambient Air Quality, and the Decree on National Emissions Ceilings establish the main rules and objectives of air quality policy. Although the Act sets the overarching rules and principles for air protection, the Regulation on Ambient Air Quality and the Decree on Emissions Ceilings set air quality standards and emissions levels, as well as other dispositions, including the content required for air improvement plans and the classification of zones and agglomerations based on their pollution level. AQM legal instruments assign most environmental protection responsibilities to the cen- tral state, but in some cases, there is a lack of clarity on the allocation of roles and respon- sibilities between levels of government. Slovenia’s political system is comprised of a central state and 212 municipalities. Some regulations assign municipalities clear competences over spatial development planning, local and public transport management, local energy plans, and waste collection and disposal. However, confusion exists as to the allocation of responsibil- ities in areas such as AQP implementation. This lack of clarity has led to a situation in which municipalities with poor air quality adopt AQPs but are unable to adequately implement them. Slovenia combines command-and-control, market-based, and enforcement tools for en- vironmental protection. A highly centralized permitting system is run by the Ministry of the Environment, Climate and Energy and the Slovenian Environment Agency (ARSO). Upon issu- ance, consents and pollution permits are forwarded to municipal governments and the public is informed. The legal framework also enables the creation of pollution taxes. In 1997, eight pollution taxes were created by decree, including a CO2 tax. Slovenia does not have specific taxes on air emissions, except for a tax on volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for paints and varnishes for motor vehicles. ARSO and the Inspectorate for the Environment and Spatial Planning perform regulatory and inspectorate roles by implementing environmental inspection plans; they also have the capacity to revoke permits, impose fines and penalties, and report criminal offenses to public prosecutors. Slovenia’s programmatic vision to improve air quality is contained in the National Environ- mental Action Program, operational programs, and the NAPCP. The current Action Program 40 European Environment Agency, “Slovenia: Air Pollution Country Fact Sheet,” https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/ country-fact-sheets/2023-country-fact-sheets/slovenia-air-pollution-country. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 120 2020−2030, adopted in 2020 by the National Assembly, establishes the goal of complying with air quality limit values and approaching WHO’s air quality levels by 2030. Several operational programs have been adopted aimed at reducing GHGs and PM10 and complying with emis- sions ceilings through measures in multiple sectors in alignment with the NAPCP and local AQPs. However, the programs suffer from a fragmentation of funds due to a failure to prioritize strategies. The current government administration has announced a vision of a carbon-free society bolstered by nuclear technologies, increased solar power, and the electrification of key sectors. This vision is supported by an increased central budget in 2022 of 17 percent for environmental protection and infrastructure and the 2021 National Recovery and Resilience Plan, which earmarked funds for green transition projects. National environmental institutions lead air policy implementation, funding, regulation, and inspection, while municipal agencies adopt specific air quality measures. The Ministry of the Environment currently covers most areas of environmental protection, especially in relation to the preparation of legislation, programs, and plans. The Ministry relies on ARSO and the Environment and Energy Inspectorate for air quality monitoring and reporting and for inspection and the enforcement of regulations. ARSO and the Inspectorate are larger bodies with regional offices, though recent UN reports indicate that ARSO faces gaps in human and financial resources. Slovenia’s Environmental Public Fund provides financial support for envi- ronmental investments made by companies, municipalities, and individuals through guarantees, soft loans, and grants, with funds from energy fees and carbon allowances and also long-term loans from the European Investment Bank and the Slovenian Export and Development Bank. The main role of municipal environmental departments is to draw up plans in multiple sectors, while local public transport agencies have the authority to carry out air quality measures. Vertical coordination challenges exist, whereas horizontal coordination takes place espe- cially in the preparation of air quality planning instruments. According to the OECD, Slovenia has suffered from a governance gap between national and municipal governments, leading to difficulties in monitoring the level of environmental management at the local level. Coordi- nation between regions and municipalities is enhanced through development agencies and joint municipal environmental inspectorates. Horizontal coordination is also enhanced dur- ing the preparation of the National Environmental Action Program, the air quality operational program, and the NAPCP. The Ministry of the Environment determines zones and agglomerations and areas that need AQPs. In 2022, the country had 11 areas, two of which were agglomerations and nine of which were non-agglomerations. Eight areas currently have AQPs until PM10 concentrations remain under the limit value for at least three years. Slovenia has modeled air basins in regions such as ­Ljubljana to identify air quality dynamics and determine the best management options. Addition- ally, Slovenia maps transboundary pollution through international organizations. Nesting plan- ning is present, as national-level plans are harmonized with sectoral and territorial instruments. The air quality information system must be upgraded, and the country has recently faced challenges in data transparency and public participation in environmental matters. In 2017, the national measurement grid consisted of 21 measurement points, with additional points provided by local communities. Multiple national and international oversight institutions have indicated the need to improve Slovenia’s air quality monitoring network. Although public ac- cess to environmental data and participation is required by law, in recent years, NGOs have Annex 2. AQM Case Studies and International Trends 121 accused the government of undermining their right to advocate for environmental protection, suggesting that information on and participation in environmental decision making was be- coming less timely, accessible, and affordable. Sweden Sweden enjoys good air quality and frequently meets WHO PM10 targets. Air emissions have decreased since the early 1990s, decoupling from economic growth. Policies on cleaner fuels and vehicles, stricter regulations on studded tires, and the implementation of air pollution charges are responsible for improved air quality. Some regions, however, still face pollution challenges due to increased road traffic and the burning of fuels in residential and commercial buildings. In 2021, 910 premature deaths were attributed to fine particulate matter, ozone, and nitrogen dioxide in a country with a population of approximately 10.4 million.41 PM10 limit values are still exceeded in several zones, and the EU is examining persistent breaches. Sweden has complied with the emissions ceilings established by EU regulation since 2013. The Swedish Environmental Code and the Air and Pollution Control Ordinances establish the main rules and objectives of air quality policy. The Code’s key objective is to prevent emis- sions from reaching damaging levels, and specific ordinances have been enabled to dictate the standards and procedures needed to achieve this goal. The 2010 Air Ordinance and the 2018 Pollution Control Ordinance transpose EU air quality and emissions directives, setting more stringent values for some pollutants. Sweden is a highly decentralized unitary state where municipalities are autonomous in implementing national policy and legislation. Sweden’s air quality regulatory framework is hierarchical and comprehensive and clearly divides roles and responsibilities, thus facilitating policy implementation and coordination. Municipalities are responsible for checking and controlling air quality within their jurisdic- tions and coordinate actions in cases of regionally distributed air pollution. Upon notification from the national Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the County Administrative Boards (CABs), municipalities draw up and implement programs to comply with standards in areas of high pollution levels. Municipalities also provide information on air quality and its impact on human health. The EPA issues regulations on air quality measurement and management, keeps the country’s emissions inventories and forecasts, and reports to the EU. Sweden combines command-and-control with market-based and enforcement instruments to demand and incentivize pollution abatement. Besides the regulatory measures introduced by municipal AQPs, legislation also introduces integrated permits with emissions limit values. Municipalities, CABs, and Land and Environmental Courts operate the permitting system for environmental hazardous activities. In addition, through multiple acts, Sweden has introduced a toolbox of market-based instruments to curb air and climate pollution, to which multiple actors attribute the improvements in air quality since 1990. An environmental charge for emis- sions of nitrogen oxides from larger power plants, a sulfur tax on fuels, an emissions charge on domestic aircraft, and a carbon tax are all on the list of environmental levies. Finally, the 41 European Environment Agency, “Sweden: Air Pollution Country Fact Sheet,” https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/ country-fact-sheets/2023-country-fact-sheets/sweden-air-pollution-country. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 122 environmental code introduces fines, imprisonment, and sanction charges for individual or economic agents who neglect to comply with environmental legislation. Sweden’s Environmental Quality Objectives (EQOs) determine the country’s long-term vi- sion on key issues, such as improving air quality and fighting climate change. Clean air is a top policy concern for Sweden as stated in the EQO framework. The fact that climate action is now becoming the country’s leading priority is positive for air pollution abatement, given the strong linkages between policy measures to tackle both objectives. High-level officials and parliament continually elevate the need to combine the air-climate agendas and succeeded in doubling budget allocation for environmental protection between 2021 and 2022. The new administration, however, which took office in 2023, seems to have reduced the importance of environmental protection and decreased its budget. The 2019 NAPCP embraces the 2018 Climate Policy Framework, setting the same objective of making Sweden a fossil fuel−free country. Despite identifying sectoral measures and the competent responsible authorities, the NAPCP does not allocate budget lines for their implementation. Box A2.1. AQM Institutional Arrangements in the European Union Air quality has improved in the EU thanks to its comprehensive air quality and emissions reg- ulatory framework and member states’ efforts to achieve compliance. The main components of the EU’s institutional framework for AQM are: Legal and Regulatory Framework: EU air quality legislation consists of directives and regula- tions issued by European Parliament and the Council’s adoption of standards, emissions limits, and policy instruments to improve air quality. The most relevant are: –– The Ambient Air Quality Directive-Air Directive (Directive 2008/50/EC) defining and es- tablishing objectives for ambient air quality to avoid, prevent, or reduce harmful effects on human health and the environment –– The National Emissions Ceiling Directive – NEC Directive (Directive 2016/2284) establish- ing emissions reductions commitments for member states’ anthropogenic atmospheric emissions –– A set of EU source pollution legislation defining emissions and energy-efficiency targets and standards for key sources, including vehicles, fuels, industry, non-road machinery, refineries, and agricultural sources The EU legal and regulatory framework has a clear mandate to protect human and environmen- tal health, although some standards are weaker than current WHO guidelines. It responds to international conventions, such as the UNECE Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP Convention), adopted in 1979, and the Paris Agreement of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The framework divides roles and responsibilities between the EU and member states. The EC enforces compliance using its authority to take legal action against noncompliant members by filing infringements with the Court of Justice. Annex 2. AQM Case Studies and International Trends 123 Committed Executive: Improving air quality has long been a priority in the EU’s environment policy framework. The main policy instruments adopting long-term air quality objectives are: The 2021−2030 Green Deal – Zero Pollution Ambition, the 2018 Clean Air for All Communication, and the 2013 Clean Air Policy Package – Clean Air Programme. The main institutions leading AQM policy are the Environment Directorate General at the EC and the European Environment Agency. The EU has multiple funding mechanisms supporting members’ AQM objectives. EU legislation requires member states to take combined approaches to the implementation of air quality policy through market-based, command-and-control, and enforcement instruments. Nested Planning: EU legislation determines that air quality zones and agglomerations are the main unit for air quality assessment, planning, and management. Zones and agglomerations must assess airshed dynamics and transboundary pollution. The main planning instrument is the AQP, which is implemented once zones and agglomerations exceed limit or target values, aiming to bring these areas into compliance with air standards The NAPCP sets the national vision to achieve emissions ceilings and should be harmonized with AQPs. The EU requires regional and transboundary coordination in planning and management. Coordination: The EU has multiple coordination mechanisms for AQM and policy implemen- tation. The Ambient Air Quality Expert Group provides advice and expertise to the EC to co- ordinate with member states, including discussions about the implementation of air quality policy and legislation. The Clean Air Dialogue, a bilateral mechanism to exchange information with members, improves the understanding of the different implementation models, including challenges and successes, as well as best practices that could be useful for other countries. The EU Urban Agenda involves urban authorities in the design and implementation of EU ur- ban policies and legislation. Accountable Institutions: The EU has an air quality monitoring network of over 4,000 moni- toring stations with harmonized, reliable, and representative data. It publishes its information via multiple public portals, including the European Air Quality Portal. It has developed and published tools, such as the European Air Quality Index, and has a data viewer on emissions and a Pollutant Release and Transfer Register. Member states must report noncompliant zones. The EU Court of Auditors and the EU Parliament perform regular studies and accountability checks. Citizens have filed cases against member states with national courts. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 124 Institutions responsible for air quality span from the executive to the judicial branches of government. Sweden's executive branch includes the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise and the EPA. Although the former is a small policy-guiding institution, the latter is a large technical entity with regional offices with hands-on policy implementation. The CABs and municipali- ties have the main responsibility of enforcing air quality standards through permit issuance, inspection, and specific policy tools such as adopting environmental zones. The judiciary also participates in air policy implementation through five Land and Environmental Courts that hold civil and administrative authority to issue licenses and set permitting conditions for environmentally hazardous activities. Sweden has created multiple institutional coordination mechanisms to advance the country’s environment and air quality objectives. The EQO system is the most relevant environmental cooperative initiative in the country, whose results are monitored by the parliamentary EQO cross-party committee. Parliament’s Supervision and Regulation Council also aims to improve communication between national, regional, and local institutions regarding the implementation of environmental legislation. Finally, Environmental Collaboration Sweden (Miljösamverkan Sverige) and similar regional cooperating bodies help entities navigate environmental legisla- tion and share experiences and practices. Air quality planning and management in Sweden is aligned with EU directives, although national and local instruments are not necessarily integrated. Sweden has six air quality zones and agglomerations established with different criteria, including geographic distribu- tion and transboundary pollution. In 2019, eight AQPs remained valid, with two having been implemented and six being in their first year of implementation. It is unclear if AQM planning in the country is adequately nested between levels of government, since no reference was found between AQPs and the NAPCP. Sweden has multiple institutional arrangements to establish transparency in information and accountability mechanisms, but challenges to transparency persist. Air quality data is collected by municipalities and the EPA, creating a network of 43 air quality stations whose information is published on the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute website. However, several sources report that some municipalities perform poorly in reporting and that data is not accessible. In addition, in 2019, some lines of the National Monitoring Program lacked funding, and an independent review of the NAPCP noted that Sweden’s submitted pro- jections suffer challenges in transparency of reporting. As regards accountability, legislation gives NGOs and citizens legal standing; in the past, the EU Court of Justice has condemned Sweden for exceeding PM10 limits in response to action taken by the Swedish Association on Nature Conservation. Annex 2. AQM Case Studies and International Trends 125 Table A2.1. Summary of the Institutional Features across Countries and Attributes AUSTRIA Horizontal and Country Characteristics Legal and Regulatory Framework Committed Executive Nested Planning Vertical Coordination Accountability Republic Main legislation Leadership Zones and Coordination Air quality monitoring Federal state Air Pollution Control Act (1997) Climate change is mentioned as one of agglomerations mechanisms network Parliamentary democracy Air Emissions Ceiling Act (2008) current president’s top three priorities. 54 zones and Federal cooperation Network of 180 air Measurement Concept Ordinance (2012) agglomerations in facilitates quality monitoring Federation Funding 2023 designated coordination on stations operated (Bund), states Bundesländer), Roles and responsibilities Federal budget for climate, environment, and by the Federal environmental law by the Federal municipalities According to the constitution, the federal energy programs has increased fourfold in Environment Agency. implementation: Environment Agency government has the main responsibility for air recent years. –– Conference Strengths pollution legislation and implementation, though Air quality plans of Regional Public portals –– Stringent regulatory several legislative instruments imply that provincial Long-term strategies Nine AQPs adopted Environment Federal Environment framework governments have this responsibility. In the case of Austria does not have a stand-alone air by provincial Ministers Agency database on –– Enforcement tools pollution permits, the competence depends on the policy, but state action is driven by its governments. –– IMC Klimate air quality –– Allowing government to policy measure and sector. This creates a complex comprehensive and stringent regulatory –– Kyoto Forum Air quality index regulate businesses distribution of competences, and it is sometimes framework. Nested planning and –– Environment –– Allowing citizens to difficult to find legislation applicable to each facility. The 2019 NAPCP (submitted after the EU NAPCP Council Accountable regulate governments deadline) presents the long-term vision and is No clear alignment –– Austria Council institutions –– Allowing federation to Regulatory tools articulated with sectoral policies: between NAPCP and of Sustainable BMK presents regular regulate Bundesländer The main command-and-control tool used is permits, Climate and Energy Strategy, Common AQPs Development and reports to parliament –– Federal Ministry of Climate which set pollution limits that are sometimes more Agricultural Policy, National electromobility the Committee on the state of the Action, Environment, stringent than national standards. plan. for a Sustainable environment. Energy, Mobility, and Several environmental taxes are levied on vehicles, Austria Innovation (BMK) while carbon pricing exists through Austria’s Institutions Legal recourse integrates environment, participation in the EU Emissions Trading System National Air quality NGOs have legal climate, and sectoral (ETS). In 2022, the country passed an Ecological Tax -BMK – Integrates climate with air pollution Legislation suggests standing and have policies and has a climate Reform that introduced a carbon levy as part of a and environment with other sectors. close coordination been active in filing and energy fund. national ETS. -Climate and Energy Fund under BMK with the federal cases against the –– Transparent use of air -Federal Environment Agency government when government. quality information and Enforcement preparing and Bundesländer not active civil society There are several enforcement tools available to Regional and municipal institutions implementing complying with provinces and local administrations, including Bundesländer – Provincial ministries of provincial air pollution EU legislation or Weaknesses permit withdrawal, equipment confiscation, fines, environment control programs. international treaties –– Distribution of or imprisonment for violations of environmental District administrative authorities and can be taken to the competences in permitting legislation. municipalities EU Court of Justice. –– Weak alignment between Citizens can apply to the governor to enact a taxes and air policies specific measure and resort to a second instance at Incentives, policies, and regulatory tools –– NAPCP may not ensure the State Administrative Court. Air quality regulatory tools are within the compliance with 2030 NEC Bundesländer not complying with EU legislation or permitting system and the AQPs. targets. international treaties can be taken to the EU Court –– Weak alignment between of Justice. Market-based instruments exist, but greater NAPCP and AQPs effort to align these with air pollution International legislation objectives is needed. There are taxes on LTARP – Gothenburg vehicles and road tolls for freight vehicles, Paris Climate Agreement depending on emission class. A carbon levy was introduced in 2022. There are no air pollution taxes. Annex 2. AQM Case Studies and International Trends 126 ESTONIA Horizontal and Country Characteristics Legal and Regulatory Framework Committed Executive Nested Planning Vertical Coordination Accountability Republic Main legislation Leadership Zones and Coordination Air quality monitoring Unitary Air legislation is aligned with overarching Current president and prime minister agglomerations mechanisms network Parliamentary system regulation’s principles of environmental protection champion the energy transition and climate Determined Strong horizontal 22 air quality and human health. Air and climate regulations are policy. through Ministry coordination but weak monitoring stations Central state, counties, and integrated. Main regulatory instruments: of Environment’s vertical coordination. municipalities Environmental Code (2015) Funding ruling. Four zones and Some mechanisms Public portals Atmospheric Air Protection Act (1999) Share of environmental protection in the agglomerations include: Ambient Air Quality Strengths Environmental Charges Act (2006) national budget increased from 0.1% in 2020 Portal –– Air Protection Act includes Other regulations issued by Ministry of the to 0.7% in 2021. Air quality plans National Green Policy Environmental climate mitigation Environment No current AQPs Steering Committee. Research Center measures. Long-term strategies due to air quality Sustainable –– Nested planning: permits Roles and responsibilities Longer-term vision of development integrates standards compliance development inter- Accountable with AQPs and NAPCP As a highly centralized unitary state, legislation air quality improvements and climate ministerial working institutions with sectoral plans and allocates most AQM responsibilities to national neutrality. The main strategies are: Nested planning and group at the Deputy Environmental the Principles for Climate government institutions. Local authorities also have Long-Term Development Strategy - Estonia NAPCP Secretary General Committee at Policy responsibilities related to AQP adoption and the 2035 Industrial pollution Parliament –– Earmark Fund for the use of command-and-control tools to curb pollution. NAPCP (submitted before the EU deadline) control plans aligned Highlight environment, plus funding 2030 Energy Development Plan with AQPs Horizontal Legal recourse allocation for air pollution Regulatory tools General Principles of Climate Policy until 2050 NAPCP aligned with coordination to Legal standing is measures in the NAPCP Integrated permits exist and are issued, monitored, sectoral development prepare NAPCP rights-based and and enforced at the national level of government. Institutions plans determined by Air more restrictive Weaknesses Methods for emissions limits estimations Estonia is a highly centralized country, with Protection Act for individuals than –– Highly centralized may incentivize end-of-pipe instead of cleaner central government institutions leading air Local associations to NGOs. state, with weak vertical technologies. The Environmental Charges Act policy while regional and local authorities lack cooperate coordination and local introduced levies on the emissions of sulfur dioxide, resources and capacities. authorities with limited carbon monoxide, CO2, particulate matter, nitrogen National Challenges resources and capacities. oxides, and VOCs except methane. Charges may be Ministry of Climate Vertical coordination replaced with investments. Environment Agency challenge due to Environmental Board and Inspectorate highly centralized Enforcement Environmental Research Centre governance, low Fines, monetary penalties, and imprisonment. Estonian Environmental Investment Centre capacities at local The Environment Inspectorate (which merged Subnational level, and weak with the Environmental Board in 2021) conducts County governments (governed by central regional governance. investigations. government representatives) Legal standing is rights-based and more restrictive Municipal environmental departments for individuals than NGOs. Incentives, policies, and regulatory tools International Legislation Integrated permits with incentives to use end- LTARP – Gothenburg of-pipe technologies Paris Climate Agreement Economic instruments include a carbon tax, plus air pollution charges. Others include diesel and petrol tax, vehicle registration tax based on CO2 emissions, road pricing systems, and congestion charges, which have recently been approved. Annex 2. AQM Case Studies and International Trends 127 GERMANY Horizontal and Country Characteristics Legal and Regulatory Framework Committed Executive Nested Planning Vertical Coordination Accountability Republic Main legislation Planning unit Coordination Air quality monitoring Federal state Based on provisions adopted by the EU: The NEC Institutions and funding Clean Air Plan mechanisms network Parliamentary democracy Directive was transposed into national legislation Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature at the Land level, Air pollution control UBA network via the 43rd Ordinance on the Implementation of Conservation and Nuclear Safety; Federal only once zones is managed by operates measuring the Federal Immission Control Act (43rd Bundes- Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt or agglomerations concurrent federal stations far away from Immissionsschutzgesetz [BImSchV]) [UBA]) exceed pollutant limit legislation and a high densely populated Technical Instruction on air quality control (TA Luft) Thünen Institute values level of coordination areas and cities. between federal and Länder operate Roles and responsibilities Long-term strategies Planning instruments regional governments. measuring stations Federal government has the lead role and the National Clean Air Program adopted by the Air quality and action Länder in Germany in cities. Länder take part in the legislative process German government on May 22, 2019. plans in order to meet have independent Data from about 400 through the Bundesrat. Länder have the primary limit values; a Clean jurisdictional monitoring stations responsibility for enforcement of air quality laws. Incentives, policies, and regulatory tools Air Plan is large scale responsibilities. are collected by the Command-and-control instruments: Severe and usually covers an Environment UBA. Enforcement cases of nonattainment can result in criminal entire urban area. Ministers Conference Close to 99 percent Environmental law is generally strictly enforced. liability; sanctions include imprisonment and to coordinate among of the monitoring Exceedances usually prompt an immediate fines. The administrative fines for offenses Airshed approach federal states. data (recorded every response from the authorities, including closing can be up to €50,000. Coordination among hour) are delivered down the offending operations and imposing fines. regional governments by federal state for planning and monitoring stations. International agreements management required LRTAP Convention – EU wide Public portals Nested planning AQI can be tracked Air quality action through the free plans are coordinated and ad-free app with air quality “Luftqualität”; citizens directives at the EU can receive a health level. advisory when the air quality is poor. Accountable institutions Federal level has the lead role and the Länder take part in the legislative process through the Bundesrat. Citizen participation Citizens and NGOs enjoy right of recourse before the courts. Involvement of stakeholders and general public in clean air plans and projects Annex 2. AQM Case Studies and International Trends 128 LITHUANIA Country Characteristics Legal and Regulatory Framework Committed Executive Unitary semi-presidential Main legislation Leadership Representative democratic republic Law on Environmental Protection (1992) The vision of clean air is integrated into strategic documents such as the Law on Ambient Air Protection (1999) National Development Strategy approved by parliament in 2015. 60 local authorities (municipalities) Environmental Monitoring Law Lithuania’s government leads the implementation of its strategic vision. (1997) Directions related to clean air were last outlined in the Implementation Plan Strengths Law on Environmental Impact of Planned Economic Activities (1996) of the Program of the XVIII Government in 2021. –– Clean air vision is consistently integrated into the country’s Roles and responsibilities Funding national and sectoral strategies and Legislative and regulatory: Parliamentary committee and national government (Ministries of The funding framework for AQM implementation consists of EU, national, is backed by funding commitments. Environment and Health) and municipal funds. Lithuania’s budget for climate was considered –– Efforts to achieve the clean air goals Implementation of laws and regulatory acts: municipal authorities comparatively low until 2022, but then nearly tripled from 2022 to 2023. The have intensified, and funding from Air quality monitoring: Ministry of Environment, municipal authorities, legal entities funds to implement the goals set in the NAPCP for 2023−29 are estimated at the national budget has increased. Environmental impact assessment and permits: over €3.1 billion. –– The clean air agenda is reinforced Ministries of Environment and Health by climate change mitigation Long-term strategies measures. AQM responsibilities are defined in legislation, and the roles in the AQM process are Lithuania’s NAPCP, adopted in 2019, was reviewed in 2022. The National –– Supreme national-level oversight is established and aligned. Climate Change Management Agenda (NCCMA), passed in 2021, declares implemented by the National Audit The AQM framework has some gaps: it lacks an arrangement for control over the a goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. The National Energy and Climate Plan Office. implementation of municipal functions and capacity for strategic analysis, which was laid out medium-term (2021−30) measures to support the implementation of –– AQM system integrates institutions addressed by establishing a National Environmental Analysis Center in 2022. the NCCMA. Sectoral development strategies in agriculture, transport, and within the health and environment industry have integrated clean air goals. sectors, thus increasing the Regulatory tools capacity for pollution prevention Most regulatory mechanisms are transposed from EU law to ensure the implementation of Institutions and control. EU directives. Lithuania participates in EU ETS? and has a regulatory framework that covers The Ministry of Environment forms clean ambient air state policy –– Public awareness is growing, all natural and legal persons operating an EU ETS object of economic activity or carrying out The EPA is responsible for measuring, assessing, and providing information and new mechanisms of civic economic activity. Lithuanian laws specify cases in which a facility must be registered or in on air pollution in zones and agglomerations. involvement help to improve AQM. which an integrated pollution prevention and control permit, a pollution permit, or another The Department of Environmental Protection implements control of permit must be obtained. In 2018, Lithuania introduced additional taxation on polluting cars. environmental protection. Weaknesses   The Environmental Project Management Agency ensures coherent use of –– Lack of regimentation in pursuing Enforcement available financial resources. strategic goals- Measures, such as mandatory instructions, permit withdrawal, administrative penalties, The National Public Health Center under the Ministry of Health reviews the –– Insufficient involvement of and fines for violators, are established by law. Guilty parties may be prosecuted and may be AQM programs and their implementation plans prepared by municipalities, subnational governments in required to provide compensation for the environmental damage caused. issues pollution permits, and conducts a public health impact assessment. implementing AQM Enforcement of regulatory measures is not robust enough, due to poor maintenance of Municipalities implement air quality monitoring in their territories and –– Poor monitoring, analysis, and information on regulated entities and reactive monitoring. High noncompliance due to the develop a municipal ambient AQM program and an implementation plan. evaluation, including a lack low level and collection rate of administrative fines. of: monitoring of municipal Legal provisions made in 2022 allow for more active public involvement in pollution control. Incentives performance, monitoring   Air quality regulatory tools are within the permitting system and the AQPs. of program implementation, International legislation  Incentives aimed at the public sector, businesses, and individuals integrated information systems The 2016/2284 EU Directive on the Reduction of National Emissions of Certain Atmospheric complement regulatory AQM measures. Over 15 subsidy schemes address on air pollution and air-polluting Pollutants sets caps on Lithuania’s total annual emissions, and the 1979 LRTAP Convention transport, the use of solid fuel, and the operation of fuel-burning devices. entities, integrated analysis and guides Lithuania in international collaboration. Public procurement provides incentives to enterprises to install fewer evaluation to inform decisions Gothenburg Protocol in 2004. Based on the 2020 implementation data, Lithuania should polluting technologies and establish environmental management systems. –– Poor compliance control and low- speed up its progress toward the committed emissions reductions. Some municipalities incentivize actions toward better air quality. level fines Under the Paris Agreement within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Lithuania has committed jointly with the EU and its member states to reduce GHG emissions by at least 55% during the period 2021–2030. In 2022, Lithuania introduced a set of new measures to be able to reach the established goals. Annex 2. AQM Case Studies and International Trends 129 LITHUANIA Nested Planning Horizontal and Vertical Coordination Accountability Zones and agglomerations Legal framework Air quality monitoring network There are 2 agglomerations, with territories corresponding to the The Law on Ambient Air Protection establishes that the Ministries of The national ambient air monitoring network consists of 3 borders of the cities of Vilnius and Kaunas; the rest of the country’s Environment and Health Protection and municipal administrations background air pollution monitoring stations and 14 automated urban territory is zone 1.  lead AQM coordination. air quality research stations. The EPA at the Ministry of Environment operates the network. Air quality plans Coordination mechanisms   According to the EU database, Lithuania had 21 AQPs in the The Ministry of Environment coordinates the involvement of, and Public portals 2014−2020 period. develops measures together with, sectoral ministries. Ministries share Environmental and health institutions and municipal administrations responsibilities in implementing cross-sectoral programs. disseminate air quality information on their websites. Interactive Nested planning and NAPCP Municipal administrations coordinate measures with national-level national and capital city air quality maps are available online. NAPCP and AQPs are thematically aligned. NAPCP puts the greatest institutions and with a variety of public and private actors within their Ambient air pollution level is reported on radio and television. emphasis on the transport sector, and pollution from transport- administrative borders. related sources is addressed by 10 AQPs. 5 AQPs address pollution by The Association of Local Authorities coordinates and promotes Accountable institutions local industry, including power production, which is another key area cooperation between municipalities in AQM. The Association Information is fragmented across different websites, making it more of concern in the NAPCP. represents the interests of municipalities in national government difficult to find and use. There is no open access to compliance- institutions. related information about individual polluting installations.   Coordination oversight Civic engagement In 2022, the National Audit Office of Lithuania implemented a Lithuania’s 2021 Environmental Performance Review by OECD notes performance audit of public entities participating in AQM, and issued low civic engagement in environmental matters. Since 2021, Lithuania recommendations for better coordinated action. has introduced several initiatives aimed at environmental awareness and engagement of civil society. Legal recourse Courts protect the public interest, and NGOs have used the process to protect the environmental rights of citizens; however, there is no record of cases against the government in ambient air protection. Annex 2. AQM Case Studies and International Trends 130 SLOVENIA Horizontal and Country Characteristics Legal and Regulatory Framework Committed Executive Nested Planning Vertical Coordination Accountability Republic Main legislation Leadership Zones and Coordination Air quality monitoring Unitary Air regulation responds to the principles and rules The current government champions a vision agglomerations mechanisms network Parliamentary system of environmental legislation. Main regulatory of a carbon-free society. Determined Weaker vertical 21 measurement instruments: by Ministry of coordination, points (need upgrade Central state and municipalities Environmental Protection Act (1993) Funding Environment and especially during and funding) Air Quality Regulation (2011) Central budget for environment and Spatial Planning by implementation Strengths Rules on Air Quality Assessment Ordinance (2011) infrastructure increased by 17% in 2022. decree. Public portals –– Comprehensive regulation National Emissions Ceiling Decree (2018) 11 (in 2022): 2 Stronger horizontal Environmental with clear responsibilities Pollution Taxes Decree (1997) Long-term strategies agglomerations / 9 coordination Indicators portal run primarily vested in the National Environmental Action Program non-agglomerations especially for AQP by ARSO central government Roles and responsibilities (2020−30) planning Ministry of –– Combination of command- Highly centralized state, where legislation Operational programs for Air quality plans Environment and and-control, market-based, allocates most AQM responsibilities to the central PM10 and GHGs For PM10 in 9 areas Some coordination Spatial Planning and enforcement tools government. Although municipalities have clear NAPCP (submitted late) (municipalities mechanisms are: prepares environment –– Central government competence over areas such as land use planning, Operational programs suffer from and other regions Regional development report every 4 years. financial instrument for there is confusion as to whether local or national fragmentation of funds, due to a failure to determined by decree) agencies to facilitate environmental investments governments implement AQPs. prioritize strategies. vertical coordination Accountable Nested planning and Joint municipal institutions Weaknesses Regulatory tools Institutions NAPCP inspectors to Multiple control –– Governance gaps between Environmental permits are issued by the Air quality policy implementation and NAPCP aligned with facilitate horizontal institutions, such as central government and central government and local governments and oversight takes place at the central National Energy coordination between the Ombudsman municipalities communities are informed. Slovenia pioneered the government level. ARSO has gaps in human Program municipalities UN Special –– Lack of innovation in introduction of a carbon tax in 1997, although it and financial resources. Transport Policy Rapporteur on the use of economic does not have specific air pollution taxes, except for National Local AQPs Human Rights has instruments for air a tax on VOCs for paints. Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning National pointed at recent loss pollution ARSO Environmental in environmental data –– Fragmentation of funds Enforcement Environment Inspectorate Action Program and transparency and from having multiple ARSO and the Environment Inspectorate have EcoFund operational programs access. planning instruments the capacity to revoke permits, impose fines and Subnational Airshed studies in Slovenia taken to the (National Environmental penalties, and report criminal offenses to public Municipal environmental departments regions like Ljubljana EU Court of Justice Action Program, prosecutors. Operational programs have fragmentation in 2018. operational programs, etc.) NGOs and individuals have legal standing. of funds. –– Central agencies lack Legal recourse resources to monitor International legislation Incentives, policies, and regulatory tools Civil and criminal pollution LTARP – Gothenburg Environmental protection subscribes to best liabilities for –– Air quality information Paris Climate Agreement available technologies. environmental system requires update A combination of economic instruments damage and funding exists on 79% of carbon emissions. No air –– Recent fallout over pollution taxes except for a VOC tax. Others NGOs and individuals environmental data include motor vehicle tax based on CO2 have legal standing. transparency and public emissions and fuel standards. participation Annex 2. AQM Case Studies and International Trends 131 SWEDEN Country Horizontal and Characteristics Legal and Regulatory Framework Committed Executive Nested Planning Vertical Coordination Accountability Constitutional Main legislation Leadership Zones and Coordination Air quality monitoring parliamentary Air legislation is hierarchical and comprehensive: Prime Minister champions Sweden’s climate and fossil agglomerations mechanisms network monarchy Environmental Code (1999) free economy ambition. 6 zones and Parliament leads 43 air quality station Highly decentralized Air Quality Ordinance (2010) agglomerations in coordination measurement points unitary state Air Pollution Control Ordinance (2018) Funding 2022 designated mechanisms to (need upgrade) EPA Resolution (2016) Doubling of environment protection budget in recent by the EPA. discuss environmental Central state, EPA regulations on sampling, measuring, and monitoring years legislation: Public portals counties, and Climate Act (2018) Air quality plans parliamentary cross- Centralized database municipalities Energy Production Act (1960) Long-term strategies Eight AQPs in party committee for of air quality EQOs set the long-term policy framework and align air 2019 EQOs and Supervision measurements Strengths Roles and responsibilities and climate policies. and Regulation managed by -Clear division As a highly decentralized country, municipalities are The 2019 NAPCP was submitted before the EU deadline Nested planning Council the Swedish of roles and autonomous in implementing national policy and and is aligned with the Climate Policy Framework (2018). and NAPCP Meteorological and responsibilities legislation. Allocates measures and responsible entities but no Unclear nesting Highlight Hydrological Institute -Comprehensive Legislation clearly divides roles and responsibilities budget. Does not mention AQPs. between planning An innovative with transparency use of air pollution between national, county (administered by national instruments mechanism is challenges charges government entities), and local governments. Institutions Environmental -Clear long-term National institutions are policy-making and data- Collaboration Sweden, Accountable policy vision Regulatory tools management oriented, while regional and municipal a multi-stakeholder institutions established in the Besides the tools established in the municipal AQPs, agencies lead implementation and enforcement. platform to discuss air Parliament has EQO system regulation introduces integrated permits with emissions Executive and judiciary branches of government have air policy implementation created multiple -Clear integration limits operated by municipalities, CABS, and Land and quality administrative responsibilities. and share best AQM oversight between climate Environmental Courts. National institutions: Ministry of Environment and practices. and coordination and air policy Sweden has a highly comprehensive list of environmental Climate, EPA, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological mechanisms. -Multiple taxes, putting a price on air pollution. The most relevant Institute The EU Court of coordination bodies are an environmental charge for nitrogen oxide emissions, Regional and municipal institutions: CABs (central Justice condemned to discuss legislation, a CO2 tax, a sulfur tax on fuels, an emissions charge on government agencies) - Environmental Assessment Sweden in 2010 for the highlight domestic aircraft, and an environmental classification of Delegations to issue permits. exceeding EU PM10 is “Collaboration fuels and vehicles, with differentiated taxation. Municipalities: Environmental Committees, limit values after Sweden” Intermunicipal environmental agencies cases were brought by Enforcement Judiciary Branch: Courts have civil and administrative civil society groups. Weaknesses The environmental code introduces fines, imprisonment, functions, including issuance of environmental permits. -Lack of integration and sanction charges for individuals and economic Regional Environmental Courts, Environmental Court of Legal recourse between AQPs and agents who fail to comply with environmental legislation. Appeal NGOs and citizens NAPCPs Citizens and NGOs have legal standing. have legal standing, -Data transparency Incentives, policies, and regulatory tools and the public can challenges at the International Legislation Air quality regulatory tools are within the permitting demand action at the municipal and LTARP – Gothenburg system and the AQPs. Environmental and national levels Paris Climate Agreement A highlight is the use of multiple air pollution charges: a Land Courts. Member of Arctic Council tax on sulfur emissions and the sulfur content of oil, a carbon tax, and a nitrogen oxide emissions charge; also, an emissions charge on domestic aircraft. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 132 Annex 3. Institutional Arrangements for AQM in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania Bulgaria Bulgaria has comprehensive air protection programs with plans for alignment with the Am- bient Air Quality Directive (AAQD) and National Emissions Reduction Commitments (NEC) Directive of the European Union (EU), but challenges remain in implementing the measures within these programs. The Ministry of Environment and Water (MoEW), utilizing multilateral assistance, drafted the National Air Quality Improvement Program (NAQIP) and the National Air Pollution Control Programme (NAPCP). The two programs are aligned with EU directives that require a plan with a set of policies and measures to reduce air pollutant emissions to below an agreed level and to achieve EU air quality standards. The main pollutants of concern for the two strategic programs are PM10 and PM2.5, for which exceedances of EU limit values persist. The key measures to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations relate to restricting the use of solid fuels for residential heating. Responsibilities for implementing measures in the residential heating sector are split between the national level (the MoEW, Ministry of Energy, Ministry of Economy) and the local level, meaning that municipalities are in practice respon- sible for implementing and coordinating the switch to cleaner heating in households on their territories. Most measures to be implemented in other sectors and which target other pollut- ants are typically also under the jurisdiction of more than one institution. Not surprisingly, the involvement of such a large number of stakeholders poses challenges to the efficient govern- ance of measures to reduce pollutant concentrations. The governance arrangements for delivering the measures in the national programs are complex. Although final responsibility for program delivery lies with the MoEW, there is a wide network of stakeholders across government at both the national and local (municipal) levels that are important in both developing policies and measures and in funding and delivering them. The effectiveness of leadership and coordination, horizontally and vertically, is therefore crucial to the outcome of the programs. Multi-level governance for air quality management (AQM) in Bulgaria is not sufficiently ef- fective. The principal mechanism for coordination between national government bodies, the National Air Quality Council, has met only infrequently and has not been appropriately prior- itized by ministries, other than the MoEW, to be effective. More regular and better attended meetings of the Council would improve horizontal coordination. Vertically, the relationships between the MoEW and municipalities have been somewhat formal. A more streamlined and informed dialogue between the Ministry and municipalities is needed to improve vertical co- ordination. Moreover, the experience of AQM in Bulgaria suggests that the resources available to municipalities are insufficient to the task of making and implementing local air quality plans (AQPs), and hence technical support and training for local officials through a central support mechanism would be helpful. However, coordination with municipalities is improving, with resources from the EU and support from the World Bank. Coordination between the MoEW and municipalities has in- creased, and the EU-funded Operational Program Environment, administered by the MoEW, has become the primary instrument to finance local air quality planning and the implementation of Annex 3. Institutional Arrangements for AQM in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania 133 key emissions reduction measures. Municipalities have also participated in the development of the national air quality programs, supported by technical assistance from the World Bank. Future cooperation with the Ministry of Health, linked to a public information campaign on the dangers of air pollution, should help raise the profile of air quality within government and, with suitable public messaging, within municipalities and among the public. Stronger health messaging at the local level, coupled with existing financial assistance to switch to cleaner heating, could also speed up the replacement of old solid fuel heating appliances. There are a number of barriers to the sustainable implementation of key measures in the national programs. Municipalities face both fiscal and resource challenges that impede the faster implementation of key measures to reduce particulate matter concentrations, such as the replacement of old heating methods. Moreover, monitoring and enforcement, e.g. to ensure the use of suitable fuels in cleaner heating appliances, is compromised by the inade- quate capacity of inspectorates and a lack of effective sanctions. Some shortcomings in the legislative framework, such as the legislation regulating quality standards for firewood, also limit opportunities to effectively implement and enforce measures to reduce emissions from the residential heating sector. In addition, difficulties in profiting from the synergies between energy, climate, and air pro- tection policies remain. Energy efficiency programs, e.g. for home insulation administered by Ministry of Rural Development and Public Works (MRDPW), could have an impact on air pollutant emissions, yet such considerations are neither included in the MRDPW program nor generally incorporated into air protection measures. This is partly a governance issue, resulting from a lack of coordination at both the institutional and policy levels between the competent institutions for residential energy efficiency and air quality. The Operational Program Environ- ment includes a mechanism for prioritizing the replacement of heating appliances in dwellings that have implemented energy efficiency measures. However, given that the MRDPW program has much larger funding capacity than the Operational Program, opportunities for achieving larger air pollutant emissions reductions by maximizing synergies between energy efficiency, climate, and air quality funding programs have been missed. There is considerable scope for improving engagement on national air quality programs with civil society organizations and the general public in Bulgaria. Governance of air quality could be strengthened in Bulgaria by improving general public awareness of air quality as a health issue at the national level and by promoting effective messaging at the municipal level, espe- cially that linked to the replacement of old heating appliances. Civil society groups advocating for improvements in public health are potential natural partners in this effort. Renewing and reinvigorating the National Council for Air Quality with top-level backing from other ministries would broaden support for air protection measures across government. In addition, improved contact with industry bodies would bring experience and enrich the information available to develop more effective policies and measures to reduce air pollution. EU infringement procedures against Bulgaria have raised the profile of air quality for the gov- ernment and the general public, but opportunities to use public health benefits as a motivator for action still exist. At a strategic level, air quality action has been seen as an administrative matter of compliance with EU law and a way to avoid further infringement proceedings rather than as a major factor in the protection of public health against environmental pollution. The EU infringement procedures have enabled MoEW to receive sufficient government attention Air Quality Management in EU Member States 134 and the cooperation of other ministries to develop national air pollution programs. In the longer run, however, arguments for action based on the benefits of air pollution reduction to public health are likely to be more sustainable. There are signs of growing public awareness of air pollution as a health issue, at least at the municipal level, where the impacts are felt by the residents of polluted areas. As municipalities are responsible for the implementation of key measures in local AQPs, this provides opportunities for local leadership to achieve public buy-in to measures that would ultimately result in better air quality and improved public health. Croatia The emissions of key air pollutants in Croatia have had a steady and clear declining trajectory in the past several decades, although this decline has slowed since 2005. In the 1990−2019 period, emissions of sulfur dioxide decreased by 95 percent, nitrogen oxides by 52 percent, ammonia by 32 percent, PM10 by 19 percent, and PM2.5 by 26 percent. However, concentrations of particulate matter, and to a lesser extent nitrogen dioxide and ground-level ozone, are still problematic, though usually only in geographically concentrated urban agglomerations and industrial zones. Due to its geographic characteristics and position, Croatia receives the bulk of its air pollution from other countries, mostly from Bosnia and Herzegovina (sulfur dioxide) and Italy (nitrogen oxides). Environmental protection in general and air quality in particular are not recognized as an especially important policy area, nor is this agenda of special government concern. Air qual- ity is mostly perceived as a technical issue rather than an important political one. Monitoring, measuring, and reporting activities are performed without much political discussion or societal impact and feedback. The necessary connection between air quality and health benefits has not been clearly established and sufficiently publicly communicated. The prime minister, who is a key political figure in the Croatian parliamentary system, arguably never raises or discusses air quality policies specifically in public debates or interviews, although broader topics, such as the green transition, clean energy, and climate change, are regularly addressed. An EU member state since 2013, Croatia has harmonized its domestic primary, secondary, horizontal, and sectoral legislation with the relevant EU acquis. However, Croatia has not adopted higher air quality standards than those required by the EU, and limit values of key air pollutants laid down in domestic legislation are identical to those envisaged in Directive 2008/50/EC, the AAQD. The legal and regulatory framework establishes a clear and hierarchical system of strategic planning in the air protection policy field, but many of these plans are currently not in place. The 2009 Strategy of Sustainable Development expired in 2019, and as of 2023 no new strategy had yet been adopted. Similarly, since the previous National Air Protection Plan (2013−2017) expired, no new plan has been drafted. The absence of the necessary strategic plans indicates that domestic political actors are not genuinely committed to air quality protection and im- provement. The gap in strategic planning at central government level has been partially filled by the 2020−2029 NAPCP, adopted by the government in 2019, as required by the NEC Directive. Annex 3. Institutional Arrangements for AQM in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania 135 The administrative departments at the national level that are responsible for environmental protection policies are structurally unstable, having undergone many organizational reshuf- flings in the past 20 years. After the 2020 parliamentary elections, the Ministry of Environmen- tal Protection and Energy was merged with the Ministry of Economy into a new ministry: the Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development (MESD). For the first time, “environmental protection” was not directly reflected in the title of the competent ministry. The current place- ment of environmental protection within the new ministry further downplays the importance of this issue, which is often publicly and politically overshadowed by economic problems and considerations, especially in the communication and attention of the economic minister. There is no permanent high-level coordination body t0 oversee, monitor, and coordinate the implementation of air quality policies at the inter-ministerial (horizontal) level. MESD, as the main responsible body, relies mostly on ad hoc and informal coordination mechanisms with other relevant line ministries that manage sources of pollution: agriculture, transport, construction, and so forth. The absence of a permanent and specialized inter-ministerial plat- form on air pollution and air quality endangers the coherence and appropriate sequencing of various sectoral interventions and measures in this policy area. Compounding the problem is the fact that MESD lacks the political authority to impose its guidance in air quality policies on other relevant ministries and steer them more decisively, especially in the absence of an overarching national air quality strategy. The financing of environmental protection in Croatia relies mostly on European Structural and Investment Funds and their domestic operational programs. Total national environmental protection expenditure in Croatia amounted to 2.3 percent of GDP in 2020, which is slightly higher than the EU average of 2 percent. Due to the absence of central strategic documents, the main objectives in air protection are not appropriately connected to budgetary resourc- es. The NAPCP, as the only standing national plan, has also failed to provide a clear financial perspective on the implementation of its measures and policies. Responsibilities for air quality governance in Croatia are distributed between national, regio­ nal (counties), and local (municipal) government authorities. By providing numerous public services that are usually sources of air pollution (public transport, heating, urban planning, construction permits, etc.), subnational authorities directly influence the level of air quality. The Croatian system of local and regional government is territorially fragmented, with a low level of functional autonomy. Therefore, municipalities and counties often lack either resourc- es or competencies (or both), preventing them from having a decisive impact on air quality and from carrying out the necessary activities and measures outlined in national planning documents, or even their own. Strategic air protection planning at the subnational government level follows the pattern of general administrative territorial divisions. The subnational units required to adopt air protection programs are counties and large towns, meaning those with a population above 35,000. To avoid overlapping, they are instructed to cooperate in devising their programs, but this cooperation is not a widespread practice. Currently, only nine out of 20 counties and seven out of 16 large towns have adopted air protection programs and published them on their websites. Although the legislation stipulates penalties for local authorities that do not have a plan, these have never been imposed. Moreover, regional/municipal programs should be harmonized with the national air protection plan, but since no new national plan has been Air Quality Management in EU Member States 136 adopted since 2017, a new generation of sub-plans have been developed without the necessary reference point. Consequently, the content, intentions, and implementation of these programs are highly diverse in practice. Vertical coordination between national and local/regional institutions is mostly formal and hierarchical, without a permanent body or platform to bring together national and subnational institutions and actors. There is no permanent standing body to harmonize the air protection efforts of the various territorial tiers or to provide a platform for the exchange of experience and know-how. Additionally, at the subnational level, intercounty or intermunicipal horizontal coordination in preparing and/or implementing air protection programs or action plans is ar- guably nonexistent or limited to occasional and informal communication. For the purpose of assessment against the limit and target values set out in the AAQD, Cro- atian territory is divided into five zones and four agglomerations. Zones and agglomerations as airshed units serve primarily for monitoring, quality assessment, and statistical purposes, and not for policy planning goals, as strategic/action plans and programs are never developed on the territorial scale of a zone or agglomeration. “Incidental” planning occurs when limit values of some air pollutants are exceeded in a certain zone or agglomeration. A municipality where an exceedance is recorded is obligated to devise an action plan for air quality improvement to mitigate the pollution. However, provisions of the Air Protection Act contradict the plans’ territorial reach. Although they are purportedly adopted “for the zone or agglomeration in which an exceedance occurred,” they are in fact adopted by the municipal council of a city where the exceedance was recorded and only for this jurisdic- tion. This mismatch between the territorial scope of actions plans and the zones and agglom- erations harms the impact of the devised action plans on air quality improvement. As a rule, municipal action plans are quite extensive in their analysis of problems and circumstances, but very vague about response measures. In most cases, action plans do not achieve their goals, since they are usually simply renewed once the old plan has expired, suggesting that they did not contribute significantly to the reduction of the pollutant(s) in question. Responsibility for air quality monitoring and data generation in Croatia is shared between cen- tral institutions, local and regional governments, and polluters. National and local networks are mutually complimentary, highly coordinated and integrated, and generally well managed. The national network for permanent air quality monitoring is comprised of 29 monitoring sta- tions, distributed across all zones and agglomerations. The network has been continuously upgraded by adding new monitoring stations and modernizing existing ones. As a rule, local networks are established in areas that have recorded increased limit values and consist of 50 monitoring stations. Monitoring results from all stations are continually delivered to the MESD database and inte- grated and published in real time on the specialized website. These data shape the Air Quality Index (AQI) for Croatia, which is methodologically harmonized with the European AQI and re- ported to the European Environment Agency (EEA). In 2018, MESD established a specialized web portal for the spatial mapping and distribution of emissions that provides detailed insights into the spatial distribution of key air pollutants. Annex 3. Institutional Arrangements for AQM in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania 137 Public participation and consultation with citizens are mandatory for all public institutions included in air protection policies in all phases of the policy cycle, but they are not specif- ically encouraged. At the national level, public consultations are usually held on the online platform, e-consultations, while the practice at the local level varies and is usually more difficult. However, online consultations do not sufficiently attract the relevant stakeholders. Air protec- tion does not appear to be highly ranked on the agenda of environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), unlike the issues of water protection, waste management, and climate change, all of which receive considerably more attention. Poland Alongside the country’s rapid economic progress, significant environmental improvements have been achieved; however, Poland continues to be home to 21 of the 50 most air pollut- ed cities in Europe,42 with significant negative effects on the population’s health. Progress has been largely a result of restructuring the industrial and energy sectors and adopting and implementing environmental policies, both of which have led to a notable reduction in sulfur and nitrogen dioxide. However, elevated ambient concentrations of PM2.5, PM10, and benzo[a] pyrene (B[a]P) remain a substantial challenge. Single family and multi-family houses are the largest emitters of harmful particulate matter pollution (PM2.5 and PM10) in most areas in Poland due to residential heating practices. App­ roximately 50 percent of households live in single family homes. Many burn polluting solid fuels in their boilers and stoves for heating purposes, including coal and biomass, poor-quality coal wastes, and other waste, leading to smog incidents in many places, especially during winter months. In addition, about 70 percent of private homes in Poland have low or very low ther- mal insulation standards, leading to high energy consumption and emissions. Other sources of harmful pollution include commercial heating with wood or other biomass, motor vehicle exhaust (especially from diesel engines), industrial emissions, and forest fires. Poland’s legal framework for managing air pollution is complex and decentralized. It is guided by EU resolutions and the country’s four-tier government administration: national, voivodeship (regional), powiat (county or district), and gmina (municipality) levels. This organizational structure requires the interaction of many stakeholders. At the same time, Poland lags in ratifying important international protocols: it has failed to sign or ratify three agreements un- der the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP Convention): (i) the Gothenburg Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication, and Ground-level Ozone; (ii) the Persistent Organic Pollutants Protocol under the UNECE Air Convention, and; (iii) the Heavy Metals Protocol.43 Against the backdrop of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing energy crisis, interest in air quality issues has waned. Influenced by growing public and, to a lesser extent, EU pres- sure, several initiatives have been launched in recent years to bring about a breakthrough on 42 EEA, “European City Air Quality View,” https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/urban-air-quality/european-city-air-quality-viewer. 43 EC, “Environmental Implementation Review 2022. Country Report – Poland” (Brussels: European Commission, 2022), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=comnat%3ASWD_2022_0269_FIN. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 138 the most dangerous forms of air pollution, particularly smog reduction. In 2022, however, all of these efforts lost momentum due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the related energy short- ages. As a result, air protection has receded (although perhaps only temporarily) into the back- ground, as meeting basic needs became the main priority, even at the cost of lower air quality. With the change in government in December 2023, there is now an increased likelihood that a compromise with the European Commission (EC) will be reached regarding the unlock- ing of National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) funds, including those for Clean Air. Component B of the Polish NRRP specifically addresses “Green Energy and Energy-Intensity Reduction.” The envisaged reforms and investments include, among others, (i) modernizing district heating systems, (ii) replacing emissions-intensive heat sources and improving the en- ergy efficiency of single- and multi-family dwellings, (iii) implementing thermal modernization of schools, and (iv) improving the energy efficiency of local social facilities and replacing their emissions-intensive heat sources with cleaner alternatives. Residential investment will be channeled by means of the Clean Air Program, whose upgrade in line with the long-term ren- ovation strategy under the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive is one of the key reforms foreseen under component B.44 The NRRP investment funds provided to support the Clean Air Program (roughly €3 billion) should, help increase the pace of the thermal modernization and replacement of heat sources once the operational issues of the program itself are resolved. The implementation of the NRRP-financed investment should be completed by June 30, 2026. The need for more effective AQM has been widely acknowledged in Poland. One way to im- prove the coordination of activities was to create the position of government Plenipotentiary for the Clean Air Program. So far, the change has not had the desired effect, and there have been relatively few investments that could lead to a reduction in harmful emissions. One prob- lem is the inefficiency of the standardized approach, as it has become clear that finances are not the only reason for the lack of interest in this type of investment. In addition to funding issues, the requirements of individual locations, e.g. large towns and rural areas, are not the same. The process of change could therefore be accelerated if regional and local authorities were more decisive in imposing bans on the use of certain types of equipment and effectively enforcing those bans. This has been hindered by social (concern for the poorest) and also by political considerations (fear of a reaction from the local electorate). The effectiveness of Poland's current system of environmental institutions and procedures has not been thoroughly reviewed or evaluated. Regional institutions responsible for mon- itoring and financing environmental activities, including those against air pollution, could benefit from a thorough review and evaluation. These institutions were established at the turn of the century, and an in-depth analysis of their tasks and how they are carried out could lead to improvements in efficiency. Moreover, AQM would benefit from increased transparency and public involvement. There is currently a minimal official framework for the involvement of NGOs and the scientific community, and air quality data sources are not easily accessible to the general public, as required by EU law. 44 Directive (EU) 2024/1275 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 on the energy performance of buildings, http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1275/oj. Annex 3. Institutional Arrangements for AQM in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania 139 With a relatively small number of current investment projects, funds are available, but a problem may arise if the target number of projects is reached. Funding for air quality meas- ures in Poland comes from a range of sources, both domestic and EU. EU funding continues to be used to improve the monitoring network. So far, the flagship Clean Air Program has been financed by funds from the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management, but EU funds are also expected to be used. According to plans, the program is to be boosted by €3.1 billion from the NRRP. In addition, €2 billion for the Clean Air Program is to come from the EU Cohesion Fund.45 However, it should be noted that, the EC has not yet made a decision on disbursing NRRP funds to Poland. This is an offshoot of the government’s dispute with the Commission, according to which Poland does not meet a particular criterion in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (the independence of the judiciary is called into question). Moreover, at the beginning of 2023, it was reported that the disbursement of funds from the regular EU budget may also be at risk for this same reason. Under such circumstances, it is possible that Clean Air grants could face a funding barrier if there were a surge in interest. As an EU member, Poland has a well-defined system for AQM. However, in practice, progress in reducing air pollution is obstructed by cross-cutting shortcomings that are diverse in nature: some arise from information gaps and overstretched human and technical capacity, while oth- ers result from structural issues, such as a lack of ownership over implementation agendas, insufficient coordination, and issues with public-private engagement and consultations. All of this translates into the absence of the proper calibration of support programs and an inability to reach final beneficiaries. The socio-political factor is also not insignificant, as the problem of replacing obsolete boilers largely affects the elderly and/or low-income populations, people who may have limited mobility or who cannot afford even a relatively small own contribution. Romania Air quality in Romania has proved difficult to assess. Emissions of some major air pollutants, including sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, show downward trends, while emissions of par- ticulate matter have plateaued and even increased recently after a decline in the early 2000s. The impact of this increase on ambient levels of air pollution has been difficult to determine; although recent changes to the monitoring network have improved geographic coverage, they have also produced datasets of uneven quality and/or limited longitudinal extent. EU limit values for sulfur dioxide have been achieved. However, it is clear that standards for nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter are routinely breached in major cities and in some rural areas. Romania has therefore been required to develop a comprehensive national air quality improvement plan with measures that can be expected to deliver compliance with EU norms. Air quality does not appear to be a major strategic issue in Romania. Despite the potentially serious health impacts of current air pollution levels in cities and some rural areas, air quality does not appear prominently in the public health discourse or seem to be a high government or parliamentary priority. As a consequence, at a strategic level, there is insufficient high-level leadership, and the Ministry of Environment, Water and Forests struggles to achieve the requisite 45 “Subsidies in Clean Air Will Increase and It Will Be Easier to Obtain Them,” September 23, 2022, https://www.gramwzielone. pl/walka-ze-smogiem/108956/dotacje-w-czystym-powietrzu-wzrosna-i-bedzie-o-nie-latwiej. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 140 attention in government to secure the necessary legislation in a timely manner. Additionally, there are inadequate resources available to develop effective air protection strategies or air quality improvement plans. This has led to the seven ongoing EU infringement procedures, including the late adoption of the NAPCP and systemic enforcement problems. Nevertheless, Romania has developed a robust legal framework for air protection and a clear national AQM structure. As an EU member state, Romania has addressed the strategic air quality challenge primarily through the transposition of the EU acquis into Romanian law, particularly the Clean Air Policy Package. This requires Romania to meet the requirements of (i) the NEC Directive, containing specific national emissions limits for major air pollutants and to submit a NAPCP, and (ii) the AAQD, which requires air quality in Romania to be assessed against EU air quality limit values and air quality zones and agglomerations to be delineated. Within these zones, AQPs, which should be submitted to the EC, are required to bring air quality into compliance. In Romania, this is primarily achieved through the main legal act dealing with the protection of air quality, Law 104/2011 on Ambient Air Quality, as well as a package of sec- ondary legislation that supports it. The NAPCP for Romania was registered on February 24, 2023. There is a clearly defined national system for AQM. The air protection law establishes the Na- tional System for the Evaluation and Integrated Management of Air Quality (SNEGICA) and lists the competent authorities in the major sectors of the economy. It also assigns responsibilities for air quality assessment and management both horizontally and vertically, with important roles given to the National Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Environmental Guard, and county and local authorities. The latter are the major delivery agents for legislation at the local level, coordinating input from a range of relevant local stakeholders to produce AQPs. The plans are based on Air Quality Studies developed by accredited private contractors and approved by local EPAs. Measures contained in the AQPs must be implemented by the rele- vant agencies, which are specified within the plan. All measures listed in an AQP should also indicate a source of funding. Funding is available but remains inadequate. Funding of air quality measures comes from a range of sources. EU funding continues to be used to improve the monitoring network, both through the operational programs and the Recovery and Resilience Facility. National funding programs (such as the National Environmental Fund) are used to finance a range of initiatives, many of which have a secondary impact on air quality and are therefore included in the lists of measures in AQPs. All administrative costs for AQM (including developing the Air Quality Studies, running the monitoring network, providing the technical expertise, etc.) are covered by the relevant institutions themselves. There is no dedicated air quality funding program at the national level. The experience of AQM in practice shows difficulties in implementation. The clear definition of roles and responsibilities, with a single national focal point for AQM, would be a definite strength if adopted into the Romanian system. Resources and expertise for local authorities in developing and implementing AQPs should also be provided. However, in practice, AQM faces many difficulties that have limited the effectiveness of overall air quality improvement measures. The main issues encountered in Romania are a lack of technical and human capacity, a sys- temic shortage of funds, and shortcomings in enforcement mechanisms. For the authorities responsible for implementation and enforcement, as well as for those developing AQPs and Annex 3. Institutional Arrangements for AQM in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania 141 other policies, the shortage of human resources and expertise is a major limiting factor. This is systemic and includes capacity within the central coordination body, SNEGICA, and in the National and Local Environmental Guard, the principal source of enforcement for air quality measures. There are also issues arising from the accreditation system for local contractors commissioned to draw up plans, which is not sufficiently rigorous to deliver consistently high standards of expertise or performance. An overhaul of the way the database for accredited environmental experts functions has also been called for by the NGO community, as the current system produces uneven results and seems to limit opportunities to access relevant expertise from foreign organizations. In terms of multi-level governance, vertical and horizontal coordination in the AQM system needs improvement. More efforts are required to ensure strategic harmonization, and although local-level coordination between public authorities is functional overall, there have been in- stances where it has broken down. This has led particularly to a continuation of illegal waste and stubble burning, which are major contributors to air quality exceedances. Arrangements for monitoring the process of implementation should therefore be strengthened to ensure that the issues that arise are noted and addressed. Additional funding is necessary in many areas to support multi-level governance, particularly technical equipment, which must be complemented by modern verification and enforcement methods, such as common databases, common methodologies, communication channels, use of satellite imagery, forecasting ca- pacity, and many others. The enforcement of environmental regulations and AQP provisions is compromised by difficulties in inspection and verification. Sanctions for breaches of regu- lations are relatively rare, and there is no common database of infringements or convictions to deter repeat offenders. There is weak engagement with civil society bodies and the citizenry in general in AQM. Air quality governance in Romania would benefit from increased transparency and public involve- ment. There is currently a minimal official framework for the involvement of NGOs and the scientific community in AQM. Air quality data sources are not easily accessible to the public as required by EU law. A common approach, whereby national and local authorities, together with civil society and the scientific community, collaborate to reach objectives on AQM is the only method by which to ensure that visible and sustainable air quality improvements take place. This must be combined with a robust enforcement system that has access to up-to- date and high-quality data. Romania has a well-defined system for AQM. However, due to the government’s failure to prioritize it and communicate its health benefits, air protection measures are hindered by a lack of resources, effective enforcement, transparency, and public engagement. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 142 Annex 4. National Contexts for Air Quality Governance: Pollution Sources, Emission Reductions, and Progress toward Ambient Air Quality Targets This annex to the governance report examines the main air pollution issues that are the context for air protection governance in each of the four client countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania. Given that these countries are all part of the European Union (EU) and bound to communally agreed-upon EU directives to on air protection, their success in ad- dressing these air pollution challenges will determine their ability to deliver good air quality as required by EU legislation. Each country has specific challenges, however, and these are most easily understood by considering the recent history of air pollution emissions and how this has impacted current air quality in all four states. EU air protection instruments Air pollution emissions arising from different sources are managed in the EU by the National Emissions Ceiling (NEC) Directive, which specifies the national emissions maximum of each major air pollutant allowed for each member state. These national maximums or emissions ceilings are based on EU-scale modeling studies and are estimated to provide a high level of protection for both human health and the natural ecosystem by ensuring that ambient levels of key air pollutants do not generally exceed target levels, known as air quality standards or norms. The emissions ceilings are also calculated to minimize the flows of air pollution across boundaries between member states. However, even with the implementation of the required national emissions reduction measu­ res, some areas in several member states will likely require further local-level action to ensure that ambient levels do not exceed air quality limit values. Provisions for the necessary moni- toring, assessment, and — where needed — implementation of additional local-level measures are contained in the EU Ambient Air Quality Directives (AAQDs). Both of these strategic air protection instruments have reporting requirements that are specified in the related directive and in its implementing provisions. In the case of the NEC, they are linked to the reporting requirements from the Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollu- tion (LRTAP) Convention’s Gothenburg Protocol of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and from the report of the EU as a Party to the Protocol. The standards for reporting on emissions of air pollutants, including the definitions of air pollution source cate­gories, are set out in the air pollutant inventory guidebook of the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme and the European Environment Agency (EEA).46 46 EEA and EMEP, “EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook 2023: Technical Guidance to Prepare National Emission Inventories,” EEA Report 06/2023 (Copenhagen: European Environment Agency, 2023), https://www.eea.europa. eu/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2023. Annex 4. National Contexts for Air Quality Governance 143 In addition to these main strategic instruments, the EU has agreed on specific air pollution emissions requirements for sectors in the form of directives that regulate e.g. industrial sites, vehicles, and fuels to comply with common standards. EU commitments to zero-pollution air quality will also have considerable bearing on future emissions of air pollutants. In particular, measures to reduce carbon emissions as part of a climate protection strategy could have important secondary effects on air pollution, as the use of fossil fuels, an important factor in climate forcing, is also the main source of air pollution. Implementation of measures and assessing impacts The success of air quality management in providing a healthy atmosphere for people and the natural environment depends on the proper functioning of all of these measures. It also depends on the regulation of the total emissions of each member state at the national level and the successful management of local ambient air quality, together with the effective implementation of sector-based EU air pollution directives and measures for climate protec- tion. All of these factors depend crucially on governance arrangements to ensure that all the necessary institutions work effectively together to devise, execute, and monitor the policies and measures required to reduce air pollution emissions. However, geographic, social, and economic circumstances vary considerably across the different EU members, resulting in different pollutants and diverse pollution sources in each state. Together, these variations and differences have led to highly specific challenges in meeting targets for emissions reductions and improvements in ambient air quality—challenges that are the main context for the governance issues faced by EU governments, including the four client countries discussed in this report. Any current assessment of progress on air protection is based on the immediate efforts be- ing made to comply with the NEC’s targets and the AAQD’s air quality standards. However, the levels of protection provided by the NEC and AAQD are recognized as inadequate, as they are constrained by economic factors and human needs, e.g. for energy services. In the case of air quality standards for the protection of health, EU norms are set with reference to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Air Quality Guidelines, though they are not fully aligned with these guidelines and are in fact less stringent. Consequently, EU norms for air quality are continually under review and are subject to change upon an improved understanding of air pollution and any technological progress in air pollution prevention. Governance arrangements require the flexibility to anticipate and adapt to these progressively stringent standards and targets. In addition, any assessments of health outcomes must consider progress with respect to both current EU standards and WHO guidelines, with the latter as the reference standard. An evaluation of the current difference in the protection afforded by the EU’s air quality limit values and the WHO guidelines is illustrated in Figure A4.1 below. For the analysis in this annex, the immediate aim of member state policy with regard to air protection is defined as the attainment of EU air quality limit values and emissions reduction commitments. The assessment of air pollution’s impact on health in EU countries, however, is referenced to the WHO guidelines. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 144 Figure A4.1. Share of the EU Urban Population Exposed to Air Pollutant Concentrations above Certain EU Standards and WHO Guidelines in 202147 EU standards WHO guidelines Fine particulate <1% 97% matter (pm2.5) particulate 10% 76% matter (pm10) ozone 10% 94% (o3) nitrogen dioxide <1% 90% (no2) benzo(a)pyrene 14% 64% (BaP) sulphur dioxide <1% <1% (so2) 47 European Environment Agency, “Europe’s Air Quality Status 2023,” https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/europes-air-quality-status-2023. Annex 4. National Contexts for Air Quality Governance 145 As a final note on understanding the governance context, any assessment of progress on air quality must rely on the availability of suitable data on ambient concentrations of air pollutants. Reference standards for monitoring air pollution are specified in the EU’s AAQDs, and assessments for compliance purposes are made based on the data collected with regard to these standards. It is recognized that many factors will determine the ambient pollution measured, including the accuracy of the monitoring technology and, crucially, the placement of the monitor. These factors must be taken into account when comparing pollution datasets with air quality limit values. Compliance with EU legislation is referenced to these values and to emissions reduction commitments, which are assessed using data that complies with the specified standards, including monitoring protocols. To assess health impacts, there is a larger range of data available, including measurements made with protocols that do not correspond to the specified EU standards. These are considered a valid basis for the assessment of health impacts, but not for compliance purposes. EU air quality standards are intended principally to protect human health. However, air pol- lution is also harmful to the natural environment. Air pollutants contribute to environmental acidity and, primarily through nitrogen sources, to eutrophication, the process of excessive fertilization of landscapes. Exposure to photochemical pollution, mainly ozone, is toxic to plants and reduces the yields of food-producing plants at high levels. For this reason, there are emissions limits on ammonia and on ozone precursors, nitrogen oxides and non-­methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs). The NEC Directive is the principal instrument for eco- system protection in the EU. Emissions reduction: the scale of the challenge The scale of the problem facing the four client countries in delivering even the current emis- sions reductions targets for key air pollutants is illustrated in Figure A4.2, which shows spe- cific air pollutants covered by the NEC, national targets, and a 2020 assessment of progress on NEC implementation carried out by the European Commission (EC).48 In the case of Bulgaria, for example, the EC assessment showed that there is a high risk of emissions targets not being met for three of the five air pollutants covered by the Directive: nitrogen oxides, NMVOCs, and ammonia. For Poland, no target is considered safe, and in Romania, problems with data quality make any assessment extremely difficult, if not impossible. Notably, the emissions targets for the ozone precursor, NMVOCs, and for ammonia are not considered attainable in any of the four countries. There is therefore an urgent need to consider how EU legislation is implement- ed in practice in the client states, as well as the fundamental governance issues this reveals. 48 EC, “Annexes to the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Progress Made on the Implementation of Directive (EU) 2016/2284 on the Reduction of National Emissions of Certain Atmospheric Pollutants” (Brussels: European Commission, 2020). Air Quality Management in EU Member States 146 Figure A4.2. EC Assessment of Confidence in the Attainment of National Emissions Reduction Commitments for the Client Countries commitment bulgaria croatia poland romania Sulphur dioxide (SO2) 2020-2029 78% 55% 59% 77% Risk of noncompliance Medium Low High - 2030 ondward 88% 83% 70% 88% Risk of noncompliance Low Low High - Nitrogen oxides (Nox) 2020-2029 41% 31% 30% 45% Risk of noncompliance High Low High 2030 ondward 58% 57% 39% 60% Risk of noncompliance High Low High Non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) 2020-2029 21% 34% 25% 25% Risk of noncompliance High Medium High 2030 ondward 42% 48% 26% 45% Risk of noncompliance High Medium High Ammonia (NH3) 2020-2029 3% 1% 1% 13% Risk of noncompliance High Medium High 2030 ondward 12% 25% 17% 25% Risk of noncompliance High Medium High Particulate matter (PM2.5) 2020-2029 20% 18% 16% 28% Risk of noncompliance Low Medium Medium 2030 ondward 41% 55% 58% 58% Risk of noncompliance Low Medium High Annex 4. National Contexts for Air Quality Governance 147 The client countries: pollution sources, emissions reductions, and progress toward ambient air quality targets In the following sections, the specific air pollution problems of the four client countries are summarized using the best current data available. Data quality problems, including ongoing quality assurance/quality control and data gaps, make this assessment provisional, though the information that does exist is sufficient to highlight the key air quality problems and the sources responsible. The emissions data in these sections come from official sources and show trends, together with the “attainment gap” between the most recent data and the emis- sions reduction commitments for 2020 and 2030. Where there is a gap, a color-coded marking shows the scale as indicated below: Key to the Assessments of Emissions Reductions Commitments Current emissions levels are below the emissions reduction commitment. Emissions reduction of less than 10 percent from current levels is needed. Emissions reduction of 10−30 percent from current levels is needed. Emissions reduction of 30−50 percent from current levels is needed. Emissions reduction of more than 50 percent from current levels is needed. Bulgaria Bulgaria is considered an upper-middle-income economy. It has a GDP (purchasing power parity [PPP]) of roughly US$216 billion (2023) and a GDP per capita of US$33,850. The average annual net salary is approximately €10,350, making it the lowest in the EU. The country’s cu­ rrent population is about 6.6 million, of which about 73 percent live in urban areas, but this total is projected to decline to 5.5 million by 2050. The major sectors of the economy are services, industry (in which coal mining plays a major part), and agriculture. Air quality overview Air quality in Bulgaria has generally improved in recent years, but concentrations of several air pollutants continue to exceed EU limit values in some locations. The period between 2017 and 2021 was marked by a decrease in the ambient concentrations of most air pollutants.49 However, exposure to PM2.5 and nitrogen dioxide levels above the WHO guidelines is estima­ ted to cause some 13,000 deaths annually, or two deaths per 1,000 people compared to an all-causes death rate of 27 per 1,000 people. 49 European Environment Agency, “Air Quality Statistics,” https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/ air-quality-statistics. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 148 Figure A4.3. Trends in Annual Mean Concentrations of PM2.5 (left) and PM10 (right) in Different Categories of Monitoring Sites in Bulgaria50 30 100 25 80 cONCENTRATIONS (μg/m3) cONCENTRATIONS (μg/m3) 20 60 15 40 10 20 5 0 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 traffic stations THRESHOLD traffic stations other or unknown background rural annual avg background rural THRESHOLD background urban / suburban background urban / suburban annual avg Figure A4.4. Exceedances of the U.S. Air Quality Index 50 (left) and the WHO Guideline PM2.5 Daily Value for Bulgaria, 2019−23 no. days with the average us aqi > 50 for the most no. days with the average pm2.5 concetration > who POPULOUS municipalities THRESHOLD for the most POPULOUS municipalities 200 240 burgas 169 58 107 87 177 burgas 198 80 135 106 206 180 220 200 plovdiv 197 80 117 94 128 160 plovdiv 232 94 155 121 167 180 140 rousse 207 93 115 94 147 rousse 236 118 134 132 174 160 120 140 stolichna 179 73 94 61 104 100 stolichna 215 97 113 89 127 120 80 100 vama 197 78 143 132 213 vama 219 106 178 170 241 60 80 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 year year 50 European Environment Agency, “Bulgaria – Air Pollution Country Fact Sheet,” https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/ country-fact-sheets/2023-country-fact-sheets/bulgaria-air-pollution-country. Annex 4. National Contexts for Air Quality Governance 149 For fine particulates (PM2.5), ambient levels measured at all site categories have been below the annual average limit value (25 µg/m3) since 2015 and the indicative 2020 limit value of 20 µg/m3 since 2019. Particulate matter (PM10) measurements from recent years show levels just below the annual average limit value of 40 µg/m3. However, data also shows that the num- ber of days above the daily limit value of 50 µg/m3 for PM10 exceeded the 35 days permitted at some monitoring stations. Overall pollution levels were above the Air Quality Index (AQI) 50 level in major urban areas over the 2019−23 period (Figure A4.4, left). Over this same period, monitored ambient PM2.5 levels (Figure A4.4, right) were above the WHO guideline (no more than three−four exceedances of 15 µg/m3 daily average per year) in the same cities, indicating that particulate matter is having significant health impacts. In general, particulate levels are higher in urban areas and in the winter when the weather is at its coldest and there is a high demand for heating. This is also when there is the largest number of days above the daily limit value (see Figure A4.5). Figure A4.5. Geographic Distribution of Annual Mean PM2.5 and Seasonal Variation in Exceedances of Short-Term Limit Values for PM10 and Nitrogen Dioxide in Bulgaria 17.5 ruse 15.0 number of exceedances 12.5 varna 10.0 sofia burgas 7.5 plovdiv 5.0 2.5 0.0 winter spring summer fall pm10 (daily) no2 (hourly) 0 5 10 15 20 251000 eu thresholds (μg/m3) Air Quality Management in EU Member States 150 Annual average levels of nitrogen dioxide show a very gradual decrease since 2012 and are below the annual limit value of 40 µg/m3. However, there are breaches of the requirement that the one-hour limit value of 200 µg/m3 be exceeded no more than 18 times in a year. In general, these breaches are associated with monitoring sites influenced by high levels of road traffic. In addition, Bulgaria is the only country in the EU that by 2021 still reported exceedances of sulfur dioxide limit values. These findings show that action will be needed in the short term to improve air quality in Bulgaria and to address immediate air pollution problems in relation to current EU legislation. The major pollutants of concern are particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide, both assessed as significant threats to human health. Further action will also be needed when, as expected, EU limit values become more stringent to align more closely with the WHO guidelines. Emissions and sources National total emissions of key air pollutants have mainly declined or remained stable in Bul- garia since 2010, but in some cases, further action will be needed to meet emissions targets. To improve air quality in Bulgaria and to comply with EU AAQDs and the NEC, emissions reduc- tions will be required. Figure A4.6 shows the reported emissions of ammonia, nitrogen oxides, PM2.5, and sulfur dioxide with the source allocations and maximum emissions levels required to comply with the 2020 and 2030 emissions reduction commitments in the NEC Directive. Annex 4. National Contexts for Air Quality Governance 151 Figure A4.6. Total Annual Emissions of PM2.5, Nitrogen Oxides, Ammonia, and Sulfur Dioxide for Bulgaria, 2005−21, with the Contributions from Major Source Sectors51 bulgaria's nh3 emissions by sector bulgaria's nox emissions by sector 2020 nh3 commitment 140 40 2030 nh3 commitment 120 35 emissions (1000 tonnes gg) 2020 nox commitment 30 100 cONCENTRATIONS (μg/m) 25 80 2030 nox commitment 20 60 15 40 10 5 20 0 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 year year bulgaria's pm2.5 emissions by sector bulgaria's so2 emissions by sector 35 1000 2020 pm2.5 commitment 30 800 emissions (1000 tonnes gg) cONCENTRATIONS (μg/m) 25 2030 pm2.5 commitment 600 15 400 10 200 2020 so2 commitment 5 2030 so2 commitment 0 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 year year agriculture manufacturing and residential, commercial transport extractive industry and institutional energy supply waste 51 European Environment Agency, “National Air Pollutant Emissions Data Viewer 2005−2021,” https://www.eea.europa.eu/ data-and-maps/dashboards/necd-directive-data-viewer-7/. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 152 In the case of particulate pollution in Bulgaria, emissions, measured as PM10 and PM2.5, have remained relatively stable since 2016 but have risen slightly in recent years. The emissions reduction commitment (expressed for the NEC as the maximum allowable emissions of PM2.5) for 2020 was 31.59 gigagrams (Gg), and the outturn 2020 emissions were 31.36 Gg. Although this complies with the reduction commitments, it is uncomfortably tight, and further reduction would be needed to make headroom for year-to-year fluctuations. The 2030 reduction com- mitment is 23.30 Gg, requiring a roughly 30 percent reduction from current PM2.5 emissions levels. This highlights the need for additional measures to reduce annual total emissions in compliance with the NEC, measures that can also be expected to bring concentrations of both PM2.5 and PM10 closer to EU ambient concentration limit values. The main contributor to PM2.5 (and PM10) concentrations is heating using solid fuels, which are mainly biomass and poor-quality coal in the domestic sector, as shown in Figure A4.6. In 2020, combustion in the residential, commercial, and institutional building sector contributed 58 and 79 percent to the total annual emissions of PM10 and PM2.5, respectively. By contrast, road transport contributed about 9 percent and industry about 12.5 percent of PM 2.5. The key emi­ssions reduction measure in the country’s National Air Pollution Control Programme (NAPCP) is therefore focused on the replacement of solid fuel heaters and boilers in homes. Alternatives, including, e.g. more efficient low-emissions replacement stoves or electrical heat- ing using heat-pump technology, are likely to be costly compared to the average household income, meaning that a significant package of funding support would be needed. EU funds are available but would not support replacement with solid fuel appliances. Emissions from other sectors, transport and industry, are expected to fall as a consequence of fleet turnover to higher Euro standards and, in industry, improved inspection and enforcement of emissions rules as required by the EU Industrial Emissions Directive. Agriculture makes a small but sig- nificant contribution to PM2.5 emissions, but the implementation of measures to enforce the ban on open field burning will ensure that this source does not grow in the future. Emissions of nitrogen oxides have fallen in recent years, from a high of 145 Gg in 2011 to 80 Gg in 2021. This 2021 figure is well below the emissions reduction commitment of 105.36 Gg for 2020. However, it is above the 2030 commitment of 74.29 Gg, and thus measures will be required to ensure that the 2030 pledge is achieved with a reasonable margin of certainty. Transport is the largest single source of nitrogen dioxide, with a 38 percent share in total annual nitrogen oxide emissions in 2021. Energy supply contributed 18.7 percent. It is expected that nitrogen oxide levels from road transport will fall; the current fleet is relatively old (67 percent of registered vehicles were over 15 years old in 2019, according to official figures,52 and 39 percent over 20 years old), and vehicles are likely to be replaced by those designed to comply with more stringent limits on nitrogen oxide emissions. This provides considerable scope to reduce fleet emissions over time (Euro 4 passenger car standards have been mandated for new cars beginning in 2026 and Euro 6 standards since 2015). More immediately, more rigorous inspection and maintenance could be used to ensure that the current fleet’s emissions control equipment is performing to design standards. In the longer term, although natural fleet turnover will ensure a switch to vehicles with lower nitrogen oxide limit values, scrappage schemes to remove the most polluting vehicles would accelerate the process. Emissions from the public 52 Bulgaria, Government of, “Bulgaria’s Informative Inventory Report 2021 (IIR). Submission under the UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution” (Sofia: Ministry of Environment and Water, 2021). Annex 4. National Contexts for Air Quality Governance 153 power sector have fallen from the 2011 level of 78 Gg, half the national total, to about 19 Gg in 2021, mainly due to improved abatement measures and a decline in the use of coal. Further reductions in nitrogen oxides from large coal-fired plants could be achieved through the use of advanced reduction technology, for example, selective catalytic reduction; however, this would be a costly option, and investment in it risks becoming stranded as EU carbon reduction strategies phase out the use of fossil fuels. Coal burning in the large thermal power plants in the country’s southeast region is the main contributor to sulfur dioxide levels above air quality limit values. However, national total emissions have been below the 2020 and 2030 reduction commitments (210.18 Gg and 114.65 Gg, respectively) since 2013. Total emissions for 2021 were 50.82 Gg. At its recent peak in 2011, the total was over 650 Gg, with the subsequent decline in public power sector emissions due to lower coal use and improved abatement technologies. However, since 2017, sulfur dioxide emissions from the energy supply have been almost static, and further measures taken at the local level would be needed to address exceedances of ambient limit values. Emissions of NMVOCs are controlled by the NEC, as they are a major component in the pro- duction of photo-chemical oxidants, including ozone. Bulgaria’s reduction commitments for NMVOCs are 73.39 Gg and 53.15 Gg for 2020 and 2030, respectively. The emissions reported for 2021, 69.2 Gg. were just below the 2020 commitment. However, the current trend is only gradually downward, and Bulgaria is unlikely to meet its 2030 goal without further action. The largest source of emissions in 2021 was the industrial use of solvents and other volatile process agents; other sources include fuel combustion in residential, commercial, and institutional buildings as well as agriculture and transport. Emissions from industry and transport are ex- pected to fall as they respond to EU strategies to reduce solvent use and the implementation of more stringent vehicle emissions standards. Replacement of old and inefficient heaters in households will also help to reduce NMVOC emissions. Emissions of ammonia are controlled in the NEC Directive because they contribute to envi- ronmental eutrophication and to the long-range transport of secondary pollutants formed by the combination of ammonia with nitrogen and sulfur oxides. The result of these reactions is a fine particulate of ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate that forms a substantial part of the overall PM2.5 burden. Reducing ammonia emissions to protect the ecosystem is a major aim of the EU that has proved difficult to achieve. The primary source of ammonia in Bulgaria is the production and use of manures and artificial fertilizers in agriculture, contributing about 90 percent of the 2021 total. Ammonia emissions in the country increased between 2011 and 2017, though they have remained more or less constant since then. In 2021, emissions were at 43 Gg, above the reduction commitment of 41.99 Gg. The 2030 commitment is 38.09 Gg, but given the current trend, this is unlikely to be achieved without measures to reduce emissions by about 30 percent from current levels. The immediate measures required in Bulgaria are the full implementation of the Nitrates Directive and measures for the management of manures, including covers for slurry pits. Figure A4.7 shows a summary of the additional effort required in Bulgaria to attain its emissions reduction commitments. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 154 Figure A4.7. Bulgaria: Emissions Commitments Ammonia Nitrogen Oxides PM2.5 Sulfur Dioxide Bulgaria 2020 2.4% Above 30.4% Below 3.3% Below 313.5% Below target target target target 2030 11.5% Above 7.2% Above 23.8% Above 125.6% Below target target target target Conclusions Bulgaria continues to have air quality problems requiring emissions reductions from major air pollution sources. In particular, emissions of particulate matter from solid fuel heaters in homes, nitrogen oxides from vehicle traffic and domestic heaters, and ammonia from agriculture all must be reduced to meet EU air quality limit values and emissions reduction commitments. This will be challenging, particularly in the residential sector, given the generally low wages among the population and the high costs of viable alternatives to solid fuel heaters and, in the transport sector, the comparatively old vehicle fleet. As the measures envisage, replacing home heaters in particular will require local action, and effective multi-level governance will be a critical success factor. In the case of transport and agriculture measures, effective coop- eration across government will also be crucial. Croatia Croatia is considered a high-income economy. It has a GDP (PPP) of roughly US$155 billion (2023) and a GDP per capita of US$40,240. A major sector of the economy is services, in which tourism is a primary component, followed by industry and agriculture. The country’s current population is approximately 4.1 million, but this is projected to decline to 3.3 million by 2050. The average annual net salary is about €14,868. Air quality overview Air quality in Croatia has generally improved in recent years, but concentrations of partic- ulate matter continue to be high in urban agglomerations. Ambient concentrations of most major air pollutants have fallen steadily at least since 2012, with the exception of particulate matter (PM10 ) and fine particulates (PM2.5), where the trend has been erratic but with a grad- ual decline since 2016. However, exposure to levels of air pollution above the WHO guidelines is estimated to cause some 4,200 deaths annually, or 1 per 1,000 people compared with an all-causes death rate of 16.2 per 1,000 people. Annex 4. National Contexts for Air Quality Governance 155 Figure A4.8. Trends in Annual Mean Concentrations of PM2.5 (left) and PM10 (right) in Different Categories of Monitoring Sites in Croatia53 30 100 25 80 cONCENTRATIONS (μg/m3) cONCENTRATIONS (μg/m3) 20 60 15 40 10 20 5 0 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 traffic stations THRESHOLD traffic stations other or unknown background rural annual avg background rural THRESHOLD background urban / suburban background urban / suburban annual avg Figure A4.9. Exceedances of the U.S. AQI 50 (left) and the WHO Guideline PM2.5 Daily Value for Croatia, 2019−23 no. days with the average us aqi > 50 for the most no. days with the average pm2.5 concetration > who POPULOUS municipalities THRESHOLD for the most POPULOUS municipalities 240 260 osijek 243 152 178 187 250 osijek 261 172 202 208 268 220 240 rijeka 181 134 161 186 184 200 rijeka 199 157 180 205 208 220 180 200 split 156 93 152 136 178 split 171 114 171 167 203 160 180 zadar 170 104 144 159 175 140 zadar 189 125 169 181 195 160 120 140 zagreb 258 168 213 235 238 zagreb 277 211 242 266 256 100 120 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 year year 53 European Environment Agency, “Croatia – Air Pollution Country Fact Sheet,”https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/ country-fact-sheets/2023-country-fact-sheets/croatia-air-pollution-country. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 156 Figure A4.10. Geographic Distribution of Annual Mean PM2.5 and Seasonal Variation in Exceedances of Short-Term Limit Values for PM10 and Nitrogen Dioxide in Croatia 17.5 15.0 zagreb number of exceedances osijek 12.5 rijeka 10.0 7.5 5.0 zadar 2.5 split 0.0 winter spring summer fall pm10 (daily) no2 (hourly) 0 5 10 15 20 251000 eu thresholds (μg/m3) Although the trend is erratic, for fine particulates (PM2.5), ambient levels measured at all site categories have been below the annual average limit value (25 µg/m3) since 2017 and the indicative 2020 limit value of 20 µg/m3 since 2019. Ambient levels of PM10, however, have been above the annual limit value of 40 µg/m3 each year since 2012 in all locations except the rural background (Figure A4.8). Higher particulate matter levels were recorded in urban and industrial areas and in autumn and winter, likely due to demand for heating in the domestic sector during cold weather (Figure A4.10). Persistent exceedances above EU limit values set by the AAQD have been reported for PM10 and PM2.5. The EC, in consequence, opened infringe- ment proceedings in 2022. Overall pollution levels were above the AQI 50 level in major urban areas over the 2019−23 period (Figure A4.9, left). Over this same period, monitored ambient PM2.5 levels (Figure A4.9, right) were above the WHO guideline in the same cities, indicating a significant impact on people’s health. There is therefore an immediate requirement that Croatia take measures to improve air quality by reducing emissions of particulate matter. In the longer term, further action on a wider range of pollutants will be needed as EU limit values become more stringent in closer alignment with the WHO guidelines. Emissions and sources The emissions of key air pollutants in Croatia have steadily fallen since 2010, and air pollut- ants covered by the NEC complied with 2020 reduction commitments. However, the rate of decline has slowed since about 2014, and further action on several regulated emissions will be needed to meet 2030 commitments. Figure A4.11 shows the reported emissions of ammonia, nitrogen oxides, PM2.5, and sulfur dioxide with the source allocations and maximum emissions levels required to comply with the NEC’s 2020 and 2030 reduction commitments. Annex 4. National Contexts for Air Quality Governance 157 Figure A4.11. Total Annual Emissions of PM2.5, Nitrogen Oxides, Ammonia, and Sulfur Dioxide for Croatia, 2005−21, with the Contributions from Major Source Sectors54 croatia's nh3 emissions by sector croatia's nox emissions by sector 70 35 60 30 emissions (1000 tonnes gg) 50 cONCENTRATIONS (μg/m) 25 40 20 15 30 10 20 5 10 0 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 year year croatia's pm2.5 emissions by sector croatia's so2 emissions by sector 40 35 35 30 30 emissions (1000 tonnes gg) 25 cONCENTRATIONS (μg/m) 25 20 15 15 10 10 5 5 0 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 year year agriculture manufacturing and residential, commercial transport extractive industry and institutional energy supply waste 54 European Environment Agency, “National Air Pollutant Emissions Data Viewer 2005−2021,” https://www.eea.europa.eu/ data-and-maps/dashboards/necd-directive-data-viewer-7. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 158 In the 1990–2019 period, emissions of sulfur dioxides decreased by 95 percent, nitrogen ox- ides by 52 percent, ammonia by 32 percent, PM10 by 19 percent, and PM2.5 by 26 percent.55 This was due to a number of actions, including the enforcement of stricter environmental legislation and the implementation of voluntary air emissions reduction measures. The latter were mainly in energy production through the use of natural gas and renewable energy, the promotion of electricity for heating, and the phasing out of old coal power plants. In residential buildings, improvements were made through energy-efficiency measures, a reduced reliance on solid fuel heating, the renewal of appliances, and extended district heating and gas networks. In the transport sector, fleet renewal, the introduction of low-sulfur diesel and gasoline fuels, and the use of particulate matter filters in diesel vehicles reduced fleet emissions. Better public transport offset some of the growing demand for travel. Industrial emissions were controlled by regulations based on best available techniques, and agricultural emissions of ammonia were reduced through reductions in the number of livestock and in the use of mineral fertilizers. These measures taken together enabled Croatia to achieve its 2020 emissions reduction commitments. However, the recent slow rate at which emissions have fallen has, with the exception of sulfur dioxide, placed its attainment of the 2030 commitments in doubt, indicat- ing that further action will be required on particulate matter, NMVOCs, nitrogen oxides, and ammonia. For PM2.5, the major source is currently the residential, commercial, and institutional building sector, which produced 80 percent of the total emissions in 2021. Emissions in 2020 were roughly 65 percent of the baseline, so they easily met Croatia’s 2020 commitment of 18 percent. However, the 2030 commitment is 55 percent, which, at the current trend, would ­require further action, with the most promising target a reduction in the residential use of fossil fuels. This could be achieved by, for example, heater replacement schemes, further measures on thermal efficiency in homes, and the promotion of efficient district heating. In the case of nitrogen oxides, 2020 emissions (45.81 Gg) were roughly 48 percent below the baseline, meeting the reduction commitment of 31 percent. However, the 2030 commitment is 57 percent, which will require emissions to be below 37 Gg. The nitrogen oxide emissions for 2021 showed that the largest single source was road transport, with just over half of the total, and half of this was from passenger cars. Some further reductions will come with a fleet renewal following the purchase of vehicles that adhere to new EU emissions standards. How- ever, targeting emissions reductions in urban areas, for example, through the implementation of low emission zones, might be needed to reduce the high ambient levels that threaten the achievement of nitrogen dioxide limit values. Ammonia emissions stem predominantly from the agriculture sector. In 2021, agricultural emissions were over 80 percent of the total, equally divided between arable farming and animal husbandry. The reduction commitments for 2020 were met by a wide margin, but the 2030 target of a 25 percent reduction will be more challenging. Currently, emissions show lit- tle sign of falling, and at just over 31 Gg, are a narrow margin above the commitment level of 30 Gg. Implementing the EU Nitrates Directive fully, as well as measures to manage manure according to best practices, would provide some necessary headroom. Figure A4.12 below shows a summary of the additional effort required for Croatia to attain its emissions reduction commitments (validated data not available as of May 2024). 55 World Bank, “Air Quality Deep Dive: Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania. Sustainable Cities Implementation Framework” (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2022). Annex 4. National Contexts for Air Quality Governance 159 Figure A4.12. Croatia: Emissions Commitments Ammonia Nitrogen Oxides PM2.5 Sulfur Dioxide Croatia 2020 21.6% Below 22.9% Below 30.4% Below 76.9% Below target target target target 2030 3.5% Above 23.7% Above 45.1% Above 38.9% Below target target target target Conclusions Croatia’s most pressing air quality problem is to address particulate air pollution, and this will require action mainly to reduce emissions from household use of solid fuel for heating. To secure the commitments both for nitrogen oxide and ammonia emissions, reductions will be required from the transport fleet and from the agricultural use of manures and artificial fertilizers. Horizontal governance — that is, ensuring good functioning between various depart- ments — as well as vertical governance will be essential to ensuring that local government is well equipped and supported in implementing measures within municipalities. Central coor- dination will also be needed to ensure that ministries work effectively together and that the implementation of policies and measures is monitored. Poland Poland is considered a high-income economy. It has a GDP (PPP) of approximately US$1,625 billion (2023) and a GDP per capita of US$44,134. Major sectors of the economy are services, industry (in which coal mining plays a major part), and agriculture. Poland’s current popula- tion is roughly 40.6 million, but this is projected to decline to 34.6 million by 2050. The average annual net salary is about €15,492. Although nitrogen and sulfur dioxide pollution are not widespread problems across Poland, elevated ambient concentrations of PM2.5, PM10, and benzo(a)pyrene remain a significant challenge. Varied efforts by Poland during and after the transition period, including environ- mental policy reforms, industrial restructuring, and technological improvements, contributed to marked emissions reductions of some pollutants. As a result, exceedances of the annual ave­ rage limit values for nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide pollution are not widespread problems across the country. However, the EEA estimates that exposure to PM2.5 and nitrogen dioxide above WHO guideline levels causes some 47,000 deaths annually, or 1.16 per 1,000 inhabitants compared to an all-causes annual death rate of just over 10 per 1,000. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 160 Figure A4.13. Trends in Annual Mean Concentrations of PM2.5 (left) and PM10 (right) in Different Categories of Monitoring Sites in Poland56 35 70 30 60 cONCENTRATIONS (μg/m3) cONCENTRATIONS (μg/m3) 25 50 20 40 15 30 10 20 5 10 0 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 traffic stations other or unknown traffic stations other or unknown background rural THRESHOLD background rural THRESHOLD background urban / suburban annual avg background urban / suburban annual avg Figure A4.14. Exceedances of the U.S. AQI 50 (left) and the WHO Guideline PM2.5 Daily Value for Poland, 2019−23 no. days with the average us aqi > 50 for the most no. days with the average pm2.5 concetration > who POPULOUS municipalities THRESHOLD for the most POPULOUS municipalities 300 320 Kraków 301 214 317 298 311 Kraków 307 232 334 318 325 280 300 260 280 Poznań 194 140 212 191 226 Poznań 211 160 233 207 243 240 260 warszawa 257 170 272 247 273 220 warszawa 274 193 301 269 295 240 200 220 Wrocław 201 158 216 212 221 Wrocław 222 184 238 229 236 180 200 160 180 Łódź 264 183 261 234 247 Łódź 280 211 287 263 271 140 160 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 year year 56 European Environment Agency, “Poland – Air Pollution Country Fact Sheet,” https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/ country-fact-sheets/2023-country-fact-sheets/poland-air-pollution-country. Annex 4. National Contexts for Air Quality Governance 161 Figure A4.15. Geographic Distribution of Annual Mean PM2.5 and Seasonal Variation in Exceedances of Short-Term Limit Values for PM10 and Nitrogen Dioxide for Poland 17.5 15.0 number of exceedances 12.5 10.0 Poznań 7.5 warszawa Łódź 5.0 2.5 Wrocław 0.0 Kraków winter spring summer fall pm10 (daily) no2 (hourly) 0 5 10 15 20 251000 eu thresholds (μg/m3) Figure A4.13 shows trends in ambient levels of particulate pollution in Poland. Annual mean concentrations of PM10 across cities and agglomerations have decreased in recent years, but still remain above the EU annual limit value of 40 µg/m3 for the most part, with only rural back- ground sites reporting annual means consistently below this. The exceedances of the daily EU limit value are significant, with local populations across almost all voivodeships (regions) exposed to very high short-term PM10 concentrations.57 High concentrations of PM2.5, however, are the most serious remaining air quality problem in Poland, with levels in urban areas gener- ally above WHO guidelines (Figure A4.14, right). The equivalent exceedances for the U.S. AQI 50 were very similar, showing the major influence of particulate matter in the overall air pollution burden. Particulate pollution levels are generally higher in densely populated urban areas in the winter and autumn (Figure A4.15). These are linked to demand for heating, with the consequent burning of polluting solid fuels in small boilers and individual stoves in residential heating. Benzo(a)pyrene concentrations are generally higher in Poland than in other EU countries. Un- like PM10 and PM2.5, there is no consistent pattern of declining concentrations of ­benzo(a)pyrene across the country as a whole.58 The main source of benzo(a)pyrene in ambient air is residential wood burning, although there are also contributions from other sources, including commercial heating with wood or other biomass, motor vehicle exhaust (especially from diesel engines), industrial emissions, and forest fires. 57 World Bank, “Poland: Air Quality Management. Final Report” (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2019). 58 Ibid. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 162 In 2020, levels exceeding the limit values set by the AAQD were registered for nitrogen di- oxide in two air quality zones (out of 46) and for PM10 and PM2.5 particulate matter in 16 and two zones, respectively. Furthermore, the target values for ozone concentration were not met in three air quality zones. Emissions and sources National total emissions of key air pollutants have declined only gradually since 2010 for the most part or remained fairly constant. Sulfur dioxide is the exception, with a reduction of over 50 percent in this period. As a consequence, the EC considers each of the reduction commitments to be at a high or medium risk of noncompliance. Further measures will be re- quired across sectors to improve air quality and to ensure compliance with the NEC. Figure A4.16 shows the reported emissions of ammonia, nitrogen oxides, PM2.5, and sulfur dioxide with the source allocations and maximum emissions levels required to comply with the 2020 and 2030 emissions reduction commitments in the NEC Directive. Annex 4. National Contexts for Air Quality Governance 163 Figure A4.16. Total Annual Emissions of PM2.5, Nitrogen Oxides, Ammonia, and Sulfur Dioxide for Poland, 2005−21, with the Contributions from Major Source Sectors59 poland's nh3 emissions by sector poland's nox emissions by sector 2020 nh3 commitment 300 600 2020 nox commitment 2030 nh3 commitment 250 500 2030 nox commitment emissions (1000 tonnes gg) cONCENTRATIONS (μg/m) 200 400 150 300 100 200 50 100 0 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 year year poland's pm2.5 emissions by sector poland's so2 emissions by sector 350 1200 300 1000 2020 pm2.5 commitment emissions (1000 tonnes gg) 250 cONCENTRATIONS (μg/m) 800 200 600 150 2030 pm2.5 commitment 2020 so2 commitment 400 100 2030 so2 commitment 200 50 0 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 year year agriculture manufacturing and residential, commercial transport extractive industry and institutional energy supply waste 59 European Environment Agency, “National Air Pollutant Emissions Data Viewer 2005−2021,” https://www.eea.europa.eu/ data-and-maps/dashboards/necd-directive-data-viewer-7. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 164 For particulate matter, emissions of PM2.5 exceeded the reduction commitment by about 10 percent. A reduction of over 50 percent from current levels is required for the 2030 commit- ment. The largest emissions source is the residential, commercial, and institutional building sector, mainly from household heating with solid fuels. A large-scale replacement program is required and planned. However, the EC remains concerned about the pace of change, particu- larly about the need to replace the most outdated solid fuel boilers and to implement reforms in the transport sector. An EC internal paper published in September 2022 concludes that: “there has been some progress on air quality, which nevertheless continues to give cause for serious concern, as Polish cities are among the most polluted in Europe due to the exceedances for fine particulate matter and benzo(a)pyrene”.60 Nitrogen oxide emissions in 2020 very nearly met the reduction commitment, but the 2030 commitment will require further reductions. Some of this will come from domestic heater replacement. However, although nitrogen oxide emissions from residential heating made a con- tribution to the total, energy and transport were the largest single sources, and there is scope for further action on the vehicle fleet. Circulation restrictions, e.g. low emission zones, can help with the problem of nitrogen dioxide limit value exceedances, but replacement of the oldest vehicles would be needed to improve the emissions total. Accelerated fleet turnover, perhaps with the incentive of a scrappage scheme, would help, as would keeping the emissions perfor- mance of current fleets to design standards through inspection and maintenance programs. Ammonia emissions in Poland almost met the 2020 reduction commitment. However, the 2030 standard is more stringent and will need the full implementation of the EU Nitrates Direc- tive and the use of best practices in manure management. Figure A4.17 below shows a summary of the additional efforts required by Poland to attain its emissions reduction commitments. Figure A4.17. Poland: Emissions Reduction Commitments Ammonia Nitrogen Oxides PM2.5 Sulfur Dioxide Poland 2020 10.5% Below 6.8% Below 9.0% Above 18.0% Below target target target target 2030 7.3% Above 6.9% Above 54.5% Above 13.7% Above target target target target 60 EC, “Environmental Implementation Review 2022. Country Report – Poland” (Brussels: European Commission, 2022), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=comnat%3ASWD_2022_0269_FIN. Annex 4. National Contexts for Air Quality Governance 165 Conclusions Poland has an especially challenging route to air quality and acceptable emissions levels that meet current EU norms and the requirements of the NEC. In particular, plans to replace household heaters must be accelerated, which would contribute to improvements in air quality across the board. There are likely to be governance challenges, as suggested by the slow rate of progress. What is needed therefore is determined political leadership, effective working across government departments, and support for regional and local governments that is backed by resources and critical expertise. Romania Romania is considered a high-income economy. It has a GDP (PPP) of roughly US$829 billion (2024) and a GDP per capita of US$43,747. The major sectors of the economy are services, in- dustry, and agriculture. Romania’s current population (2024) is 19.6 million, but this is project- ed to decline to 17.5 million by 2050. The average net annual salary is approximately €12,250. Air quality overview It appears from available data that air quality in Romania has shown only a slight improvement or no significant change since 2012. On the basis of an uneven dataset, it looks as if the levels of key air quality pollutants, with the exception of sulfur dioxide, exceed air quality limit values. Figure A4.18. Trends in Annual Mean Concentrations of PM2.5 (left) and PM10 (right) in Different Categories of Monitoring Sites in Romania61 25 50 20 40 cONCENTRATIONS (μg/m3) cONCENTRATIONS (μg/m3) 15 30 10 20 5 10 0 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 traffic stations other or unknown traffic stations other or unknown background rural THRESHOLD background rural THRESHOLD background urban / suburban annual avg background urban / suburban annual avg 61 European Environment Agency, “Romania – “Air Pollution Country Fact Sheet,” https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/ country-fact-sheets/2023-country-fact-sheets/romania-air-pollution-country. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 166 Figure A4.19. Exceedances of the U.S. AQI 50 (left) and the WHO Guideline PM2.5 Daily Value for Romania, 2019−23 no. days with the average us aqi > 50 for the most no. days with the average pm2.5 concetration > who POPULOUS municipalities THRESHOLD for the most POPULOUS municipalities 300 300 bucharest 337 182 308 277 277 bucharest 346 208 323 301 300 275 275 250 250 Cluj-Napoca 216 126 142 140 150 Cluj-Napoca 243 145 174 168 177 225 225 constanta 173 97 206 194 244 200 constanta 201 131 238 230 276 200 175 175 Iași 191 76 115 98 146 Iași 212 89 131 112 180 150 150 125 125 timisoara 245 146 177 187 205 timisoara 271 167 209 205 225 100 100 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 year year Figure A4.20. Geographic Distribution in Romania of Annual Mean PM2.5 and Seasonal Variation in Exceedances of Short-Term Limit Values for PM10 and Nitrogen Dioxide 6 5 number of exceedances Iași Cluj-Napoca 4 3 timisoara 2 bucharest 1 constanta 0 winter spring summer fall pm10 (daily) no2 (hourly) 0 5 10 15 20 251000 eu thresholds (μg/m3) Annex 4. National Contexts for Air Quality Governance 167 Data on air quality is weak in Romania, making it difficult to assess trends or the country’s compliance with EU limit values. The poor quality of data is partially due to a recent expan- sion of the national air quality monitoring network62 and the resulting uneven longitudinal datasets, as well as to poorly sited monitors. There was varying availability of air quality mon- itoring data for the period between 2017 and 2021. The number of reporting stations declined in 2019 and especially in 2020, followed by an increase in 2021. This dynamic of irregular data availability hampers the analysis of air quality trends. Nevertheless, it can be acknowledged that the country is compliant with sulfur dioxide limit values but noncompliant with the limit values for other pollutants. Although annual average nitrogen dioxide concentrations appear to be below the annual limit value, levels consistently exceeded the EU hourly limits in Bucharest and other cities, including Timisoara, Cluj-Napoca, Brasov, and Iasi, in the 2017–21 period. Air quality monitoring in Iasi consistently showed noncompliance with annual average PM10 and PM2.5 limit values. Exceedances of the days allowed per year with a PM10 daily limit value of 50 µg/m3 are regular- ly recorded in Iasi, Craiova, and Bucharest, and since 2021, at some rural monitoring stations. Widespread breaches have been recorded in urban areas as a consequence of the expansion of the air quality monitoring network, and following its extension into rural areas, exceedanc- es have been registered there as well. Higher pollution levels are recorded in urban areas and in the winter and autumn (Figure A4.20), suggesting a link to heating demand with the use of poor-quality fuels and inefficient heating appliances. Overall pollution levels were above the AQI 50 value in major urban areas over the 2019−23 period (Figure A4.19, left). Over this same time, monitored ambient PM2.5 emissions (Figure A4.19, right) were above the WHO guideline level in the same cities, indicating that particulate matter has had an impact on health. These findings show that urgent action will be needed to improve ambient air quality and air pollution data in Romania. Reductions in emissions from the sources of almost all air pollutants will be required to bring levels into compliance with EU limit values. Emissions and sources Emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides have declined since 2011, whereas particulate matter emissions have remained stable or increased slightly. Nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions are above the 2020 emissions reduction commitments and will require fur- ther action to comply with the 2030 numbers. Figure A4.21 shows the reported emissions of ammonia, nitrogen oxides, PM2.5, and sulfur dioxide with the source allocations and maximum emissions levels required to comply with the 2020 and 2030 reduction commitments in the NEC. 62 European Environment Agency, “Air Quality Statistics,” https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/air-­ quality-statistics. Air Quality Management in EU Member States 168 Figure A4.21. Total Annual Emissions of PM2.5, Nitrogen Oxides, Ammonia, and Sulfur Dioxide for Romania, 2005−21, with the Contributions from Major Source Sectors63 romania's nh3 emissions by sector romania's nox emissions by sector 200 175 2020 nh3 commitment 200 150 emissions (1000 tonnes gg) cONCENTRATIONS (μg/m) 2030 nh3 commitment 2020 nox commitment 125 150 100 2030 nox commitment 100 75 50 50 25 0 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 year year romania's pm2.5 emissions by sector romania's so2 emissions by sector 120 600 100 500 emissions (1000 tonnes gg) cONCENTRATIONS (μg/m) 2020 pm2.5 commitment 80 400 60 300 2030 pm2.5 commitment 40 200 2020 so2 commitment 20 100 2030 so2 commitment 0 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 year year agriculture manufacturing and residential, commercial transport extractive industry and institutional energy supply waste 63 European Environment Agency, “National Air Pollutant Emissions Data Viewer 2005−2021,” https://www.eea.europa.eu/ data-and-maps/dashboards/necd-directive-data-viewer-7. Annex 4. National Contexts for Air Quality Governance 169 National sulfur dioxide emissions have fallen rapidly since 2011, and the reported 2020 emissi­ ons were 80 percent below 2010 levels. The current (2021) levels meet the 2020 reduction commitments and are 8 percent below the 2030 figures. This is a notable achievement pro- duced by reductions in emissions from the energy supply sector through a range of measures, including the use of lower sulfur fuels, some flue-gas desulfurization, and fuel switching. It is unlikely that further action will be needed to reduce energy system emissions for the 2030 reduction commitments. Nitrogen oxide emissions also decreased by just under 20 percent in the 2010−11 period due to lower emissions from the public power and industrial sectors. Transport emissions of nitrogen oxides remained roughly level over this same period. In 2020, total national nitro- gen oxide emissions exceeded the reduction commitment by about 5 percent. The 2021 total exceeded the 2030 commitment by over 40 percent, signaling the scale of further reduction required: a decline of 40 Gg of nitrogen oxides, equivalent to half of the current nitrogen oxide emissions from the transport sector. A 50 percent reduction in this sector is feasible, but will require significant action to produce rapid results. Nitrogen oxides from the passenger car fleet is a high proportion (87 percent) of total transport emissions, so plans to enhance current fleet performance through inspection and maintenance programs, to increase fleet turnover, and to improve electric vehicle penetration would likely be the most effective. Across all sectors, however, this signals a very urgent need for action on emissions to deliver the EU limit values for ambient nitrogen dioxide and the commitments in the NEC Directive. Particulate matter emissions, both PM10 and PM2.5, have remained relatively stable since 2011 but have been increasing slightly since about 2015. Levels of PM2.5 in 2020 exceeded the 2020 reduction commitments by over 25 percent and the 2030 number by over 100 per- cent. After a period in which they fell, PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from the residential sector have both grown by about 3 percent since 2015. In 2021, PM2.5 emissions from the residential sector were nearly 85 percent of the total, underscoring the need to address the use of solid fuels in inefficient heating appliances in Romania. Moreover, it appears that PM10 emissions from the agriculture sector increased by about 35 percent in 2021 compared to 2011. Although the cause of this increase is not apparent, it must be identified and action taken to address it. Figure A4.22 below shows a summary of the additional effort required in Romania to attain its emissions reduction commitments. Figure A4.22. Romania: Emissions Reduction Commitments Ammonia Nitrogen Oxides PM2.5 Sulfur Dioxide Romania 2020 6.3% Below 7.3% Above 25.7% Above 109.3% Below target target target target 2030 8.3% Above 32.7% Above 56.6% Above 9.2% Below target target target target Air Quality Management in EU Member States 170 Conclusions Despite good performance in reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from large power plants and heavy industry, Romania continues to experience high levels of ambient nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter. Emissions data show that the reduction commitments in the NEC are unlikely to be achieved; exceedances of both nitrogen oxides and particulate matter in 2020 were significant, and without aggressive action to reduce these emissions, the 2030 commitments will also be unattainable. In the case of nitrogen oxides, a further reduction within the passenger car fleet would make a significant contribution and seems feasible. In the case of particulate matter, action will be required mainly from the resi­ dential sector with the replacement of stoves and boilers; indeed, replacing just over half of these appliances with a zero-emissions alternative would close the gap between the 2021 and 2030 emissions. However, this would be costly, and given that the burden will fall on the poor, a financial support mechanism would be needed. 171