The Air Quality Initiative of Regions position paper says that: "Simplification of the limit value regime should ensure action is targeted where there are the greatest impacts on human health. The selection of limit values should be determined by the available health evidence". Nevertheless, health evidence is often quite difficult to prove. Air pollution is universally recognized but still there are no official “bad air-dead”. Don't you think that this could determine a lowering of the alert level for lack of evidence?

Evidence of the health effects of air pollution today is stronger, not weaker than it was 4 years ago when the Directive on air quality was adopted by the Member States. In fact, the mounting evidence was strengthened again as recently as last month, when the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released its new findings on the health effects of diesel emissions on 12 June. IARC classified diesel engine exhaust as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), based on sufficient evidence that exposure is associated with an increased risk for lung cancer. Until now, diesel exhaust was only classified as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A).

This is just the tip of the iceberg. There is now a large body of evidence on the health significance of air pollution. This is why the Commission continues to attach the highest priority to this policy area. We have launched a comprehensive review of the EU's air policy which will be finalised by the end of 2013 at the latest. To this end, we are working with the World Health Organisation to conduct a review of the latest scientific evidence on the health impacts of all pollutants regulated under the Air Quality legislation, together with an evaluation of emerging risks to health from air pollution.

More information about the review can be found on the dedicated website and related CIRCA library publicly available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/review_air_policy.htm.

The Commission remains committed to improve air quality throughout the EU, thereby protecting human health and the environment. To this purpose, it will continue to review its policy, and will update it where necessary, on the basis of the best available scientific knowledge. As regards the risk of lowering the existing levels of protection, to which your question refers, the EU institutions are also bound by the precautionary principle laid down in the Treaty on the functioning of the EU.

The Regions that have signed the position paper say that “Euro standards were the primary policy lever to reduce emissions but they proved to be ineffective”. Do you agree with this statement?

Resolving the transport emissions problem is a particular priority for the Commission. For heavy duty vehicles, we have already made good progress in resolving the real-world emissions issue i.e. the degree to which emissions under test conditions differ from those which really occur while driving. But I recognise that, as regards diesel passenger cars in particular, there is room for further improvement.

I should stress that, while the EU is competent for the placing on the market of new cars and vehicles – meaning we can regulate the emissions of new vehicles – this does not affect the use of existing vehicles on the road. For this reason, even if the EURO standards were perfect, they take time to deliver their effects on air quality as new cars only gradually take their place in the EU car fleet. That's why the standards need to be complemented by local measures to control the use of the most polluting existing vehicles (like low emission zones, for example).

Whilst vehicles are a significant source of emissions, they are not the only reason why so many Member States still do not comply with the limits agreed back in 1999. As recently as 2008, Member States and the European Parliament confirmed the PM10 and NO2 limit values that were set in 1999. They also agreed on the conditions for and length of the extension of the deadline for compliance (June 2011 for PM10, 2015 for NO2). The Commission has a duty to implement this decision, all the more so in the light of the very significant adverse effects of air pollution on public health.

Italy has repeatedly exceeded the PM10 limits set by European directives for years, without incurring penalties. Why the European Commission has never intervened?

The Commission has intervened. On 24 November 2010, the Commission took Italy to the EU Court of Justice for its persistent failure to comply with the PM10 limit values as initially laid down in Directive 1999/30/EC and later (unchanged) in Directive 2008/50/EC . The case relates to several zones and agglomerations. The decision to refer Italy to the Court followed two earlier Commission Decisions (respectively on 28 September 2009 and 1 February 2010) objecting to requests by Italy for temporary exemptions from the obligation to meet the PM10 limit values, on the grounds that Italy did not meet the criteria laid down in the Directive.

Leggi l'intervista in italiano