DustConf 2007

Toespraak | 23-04-2007

Jacqueline Cramer, our environment minister, sends her regret that she cannot be here to talk to you about the important issue of fine particles. I will be speaking today on her behalf.

Ladies and gentlemen,

We have a problem. A major problem. If there is one thing thats bad for health, it is air pollution caused by fine particles. According to estimates, around thousands and thousands lives are lost in the EU each year due to premature death, and many more people suffer serious respiratory problems. British researchers recently concluded that it is healthier to live in Chernobyl than in London. The chance of early death is 2.8 times higher in London, thanks to air pollution from diesel motor engines.

In short, we have an important task ahead: we need to clean up the air! The health risk has to be reduced to an acceptable level. I say acceptable because you can never eliminate all risks. Since fine particles often come from natural sources, that would not be possible. And we should not foster the illusion that it is. But we can do something about particles generated by human activity. And those particles are thought to be the most damaging. It is clear what the problem is. Now we need to take action.

But first, a short history lesson. In 1999 the EU issued strict air-quality limits, based on recommendations by the World Health Organisation. The plans were so ambitious that most EU member states have been struggling for the last two years to comply with its standards. But every cloud has a silver lining: these strict standards have made us far more mindful of the need to reduce particle emissions.

In the Netherlands the question has taken on a new urgency because of the relationship between air quality and urban and regional development. Because of air quality concerns, court judgments have put a stop to a number of important projects such as the construction of industrial parks and new residential areas. This is a major issue in a small country like the Netherlands, where space is at a premium. This puts pressure on economic development.

Reports produced by EU member states in 2005 show that fine particles limits have been exceeded in all major urban areas. This is particularly true of densely populated, economically important areas: the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Northern France (including Paris). If you want to make intensive use of space, you need to make extra efforts to reduce emissions. The health of the people of Europe depends on it.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Air pollution does not respect borders. As an international problem, it requires an international solution. That is why I am so delighted to see you all here. If we want to reduce concentrations we have to do something about it ourselves. Yet our success is also dependent on the success of our neighbours. That is why the Netherlands organised this conference. We soon found partners in Germany, Belgium and France who wanted to be involved. We need to share experiences today, tomorrow, and in the future, if we want to reduce fine particle emissions.

In the Netherlands, as elsewhere, particle reduction efforts focus mainly on traffic-generated particles. There is a reason for that. In urban areas, traffic is a major source of this type of pollutant. Whats more, soot particles emitted by diesel engines damage health.

The Dutch government has drawn up a detailed package of traffic control measures. A budget of 1.3 billion euros has been allocated for its implementation. Most of the measures are aimed at cleaning up diesel cars, lorries and vans. Extra funds have been made available for traffic control measures at local level.

Introducing particulate filters as soon as possible will be a major step forward. Yet we are dependent on EU policy for tightening up emission rules. It is a pity that, due to market considerations, the European Commission has refused our request for permission to make particulate filters compulsory for new diesel passenger cars.

By concentrating on road traffic we risk forgetting that there are other major sources of fine particles. Shipping is one of them. Industry and agriculture also play a role; I recently read in Time magazine that a thick T-bone is like a Hummer on a plate. And open fires and wood-burning stoves used in homes are being cited more and more in the public debate as possible major particle producers.

It is true that industry has done much to improve particle control in recent years. The cheap and easy measures have already been taken. The Dutch government has set out to take the necessary steps to reduce the estimated 12 kilotons currently emitted by industry by at least 2 kilotons by 2020. This fits in well with the governments aim of making the Netherlands one of Europes most sustainable and efficient energy consumers by 2020.

The challenge is to establish which industrial energy consumer should be tackled first. Have we mapped all major causes of pollution? What measures will be most effective, and in which sectors? And do we have the tools in hand to take them? These are vital questions. I hope that we will be able to answer them during this conference.

Ladies and gentlemen,

One source of fine particles which has been underestimated until recently is agriculture. The significance of agricultural emissions is still unclear. It is, however, clear that almost a quarter of all emissions are caused by intensive cattle farming. It is no surprise that this results in local hotspots which consistently exceed air quality standards. In the Netherlands we are hoping that wet air scrubbers might be part of the solution. They can be used to kill three birds with one stone: ammonia, offensive odours and particles! I would be interested to hear about other countries experiences.

Moving on to the energy sector& Large-scale energy generation in the Netherlands contributes relatively little to particle emissions. Power stations are reasonably clean, partly because of the widespread use of gas. It seems that small-scale domestic wood burning produces relatively more particles. But what will happen if we start using coal-powered stations or biomass to meet the increasing demand for energy? How can the EUs ambitious climate objectives contribute to this? The most important thing is for air quality and climate and energy policy to be aligned at both EU and national level. The Dutch government intends to raise this issue at European level.

Ladies and gentlemen,

We are all aware that new international legislation on fine particles is on the way. Hopefully the Environment Council and the European Parliament will agree on a new air quality directive before the end of the year. The directive will set the standards required to achieve PM 2.5, as well as the current air-quality limits for PM10. But fine particles will also feature in the upcoming revisions of the National Emissions Ceiling Directive and the UN ECE Gothenburg Protocol. The question is: what measures need to be taken at national level to reach our goal? And, what measures could be taken at EU level to ensure that the member states dont have to solve the problem alone?

Ladies and gentlemen,

In closing I would like to mention one more point. The greatest problem we face in answering the questions I have put to you today is our imperfect knowledge of particles. This gets in the way of a focused, concrete and decisive control policy. More research is needed. At the same time, the gravity and scope of the health effects demand immediate action. An intelligent approach to this issue should include research, policy and implementation at local level. And you can help us. Im very interested to hear your recommendations and conclusions in the course of this conference.

Thank you.