91997E2943

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2943/97 by Heidi Hautala (V), Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL), Doeke Eisma (ELDR), David Bowe (PSE) and Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: Cost-benefit criteria in Auto/Oil Programme

The European Commission has recently placed a call for tender for a study on the cost-effectiveness of measures to reduce emissions from road transport (ref. B1/ETU/970013).

The European Parliament has adopted another approach: cost-benefit criteria. 'Whereas in so far as the cost of measures adopted will in any case be borne by the consumer, the Auto/Oil study has not taken into account a macroeconomic cost-benefit analysis including not only the cost-effectiveness aspects but also the social costs, in particular the savings on health services which higher air quality standards will make possible' (Amendment 7 - EP Report A4-0096/97).

Is the European Commission familiar with the cost-benefit analysis of the Clean Air Act of the United States from 1970 until 1990, which showed that even taking the most conservative estimates the benefits were much higher than the costs?

Will the European Commission therefore revise its call for tender for studies for the Auto/Oil II programme?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (10 November 1997)

The Commission wishes to stress that its approach in essence does not differ from the approach adopted in the Parliament, provided that the auto-oil programme ((COM(96) 248. )) is seen in the context of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management ((OJ L 296, 21.11.1996. )) and daughter directives. With regard to the latter, the Commission adopted a proposal for a directive setting limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and lead ((COM(96) 500. )) on 8 October 1997. Other daughter directives are currently being prepared. These aim at establishing the appropriate level of Community air quality standards for a number of pollutants, taking into account the savings associated with stricter standards. The analytical framework employed includes a cost-benefit analysis. The Commission is familiar with the cost-benefit analysis of the clean air Act of the United States and keeps good relations with institutions responsible in this area.

Air quality standards proposed for the daughter directives will also be used as targets for the auto-oil programme. The purpose of the programme, however, is to identify the mix of measures that can be applied to the road transport sector to achieve the targets at least cost, taking into account the potential contributions from sectors other than road transport. The appropriate framework for this is a cost-effectiveness analysis. Changing from the auto-oil programme's analytical framework of cost-effectiveness to cost-benefit would ignore the work done in the ambient air quality framework directive.

However, the Commission also wishes to confirm its commitment to address the Parliament's concerns with regard to the definition of a relevant cost concept to be employed in the programme as well as the need to assess the side-effects of possible policy scenarios, including eventual macro-economic effects.

For the reasons explained above, the Commission does not intend to revise its call for tender for the study on the cost-effectiveness of measures to reduce emissions from road transport.