International audience ; Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) has a long history, especially in the USA, of being used for the assessment of new regulation, new infrastructure and more recently for new technologies. Under the denomination of Socio-Economic Analysis (SEA), this concept is used in EU safety and environmental regulation, especially for the placing of chemicals on the market (REACh regulation) and the operation of industrial installations (Industrial Emissions Directive). As far as REACh and other EU legislation apply specifically to nanomaterials in the future, SEA might become an important assessment tool for nanotechnologies. The most important asset of SEA regarding nanomaterials, is the comparison with alternatives in socio-economic scenarios, which is key for the understanding of how a nanomaterial "socially" performs in comparison with its alternatives. "Industrial economics" methods should be introduced in SEAs to make industry and the regulator share common concepts and visions about economic competitiveness implications of regulating nanotechnologies, SEA and Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) can complement each other : Socio-Economic LCA are increasingly seen as a complete assessment tool for nanotechnologies, but the perspective between Social LCA and SEA are different and the respective merits and limitations of both approaches should be kept in mind. SEA is a "pragmatic regulatory impact analysis", that uses a cost/benefit framework analysis but remains open to other disciplines than economy, and open to the participation of stakeholders for the construction of scenarios of the deployment of technologies and the identification of alternatives. SEA is "pragmatic" in the sense that it is driven by the purpose to assess "what happens" with the introduction of nanotechnology, and uses methodologies such as Life Cycle Analysis only as far as they really contribute to that goal. We think that, being pragmatic, SEA is also adaptative, which is a key quality to handle the novelty of economic and social effects ...
International audience ; Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) has a long history, especially in the USA, of being used for the assessment of new regulation, new infrastructure and more recently for new technologies. Under the denomination of Socio-Economic Analysis (SEA), this concept is used in EU safety and environmental regulation, especially for the placing of chemicals on the market (REACh regulation) and the operation of industrial installations (Industrial Emissions Directive). As far as REACh and other EU legislation apply specifically to nanomaterials in the future, SEA might become an important assessment tool for nanotechnologies. The most important asset of SEA regarding nanomaterials, is the comparison with alternatives in socio-economic scenarios, which is key for the understanding of how a nanomaterial "socially" performs in comparison with its alternatives. "Industrial economics" methods should be introduced in SEAs to make industry and the regulator share common concepts and visions about economic competitiveness implications of regulating nanotechnologies, SEA and Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) can complement each other : Socio-Economic LCA are increasingly seen as a complete assessment tool for nanotechnologies, but the perspective between Social LCA and SEA are different and the respective merits and limitations of both approaches should be kept in mind. SEA is a "pragmatic regulatory impact analysis", that uses a cost/benefit framework analysis but remains open to other disciplines than economy, and open to the participation of stakeholders for the construction of scenarios of the deployment of technologies and the identification of alternatives. SEA is "pragmatic" in the sense that it is driven by the purpose to assess "what happens" with the introduction of nanotechnology, and uses methodologies such as Life Cycle Analysis only as far as they really contribute to that goal. We think that, being pragmatic, SEA is also adaptative, which is a key quality to handle the novelty of economic and social effects expected from nanotechnology.
International audience Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) has a long history, especially in the USA, of being used for the assessment of new regulation, new infrastructure and more recently for new technologies. Under the denomination of Socio-Economic Analysis (SEA), this concept is used in EU safety and environmental regulation, especially for the placing of chemicals on the market (REACh regulation) and the operation of industrial installations (Industrial Emissions Directive). As far as REACh and other EU legislation apply specifically to nanomaterials in the future, SEA might become an important assessment tool for nanotechnologies. The most important asset of SEA regarding nanomaterials, is the comparison with alternatives in socio-economic scenarios, which is key for the understanding of how a nanomaterial "socially" performs in comparison with its alternatives. "Industrial economics" methods should be introduced in SEAs to make industry and the regulator share common concepts and visions about economic competitiveness implications of regulating nanotechnologies, SEA and Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) can complement each other : Socio-Economic LCA are increasingly seen as a complete assessment tool for nanotechnologies, but the perspective between Social LCA and SEA are different and the respective merits and limitations of both approaches should be kept in mind. SEA is a "pragmatic regulatory impact analysis", that uses a cost/benefit framework analysis but remains open to other disciplines than economy, and open to the participation of stakeholders for the construction of scenarios of the deployment of technologies and the identification of alternatives. SEA is "pragmatic" in the sense that it is driven by the purpose to assess "what happens" with the introduction of nanotechnology, and uses methodologies such as Life Cycle Analysis only as far as they really contribute to that goal. We think that, being pragmatic, SEA is also adaptative, which is a key quality to handle the novelty of economic and social effects ...
National audience ; Apart from its impact on human health, particulate matter is involved in different environmental problems, such as climate change, tropospheric ozone formation, visibility impairment and hydrology disruption. The role of particulate matter in global warming depends on the composition of the particles, and can lead to a cooling or a warming effect. New scientific results are currently showing the possibility of a stronger warming of the atmosphere by black carbon aerosols than previously thought. For that reason, some scientists claim that strategies to fight global warming should include black carbon emission reductions. These reductions would have an immediate action of slowing global warming, that would complete actions taken on CO2 targeting long-term effects. Such a strategy would bring ancillary benefits in terms of air quality and health effects. At least, past and current European policies of emission reduction of SO2 and NH3 are expected to lead to a decrease in the cooling effect of sulphate and nitrate aerosols, that should be offset as much as possible by efforts on black carbon emission reductions, otherwise the net effect of aerosols on global warming in Europe could go the wrong way. Pollution by particulate matter and tropospheric ozone formation are closely interconnected (particulate matter impacts on photolysis rates, secondary aerosol and ozone have common precursor gases,.), and for that reason the North-American Strategy on Tropospheric Ozone (NARSTO) chose to integrate both aspects in its strategy. Such a concern for consistency should be considered at a higher degree within the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution in Europe. Another environmental effect of particulate matter is visibility impairment, mainly attributable to sulphate and organic aerosols. In the United States, it is considered as an important problem that affects not only National Parks but also the entire population. It has been evaluated in the US that monetarised benefits from the Clean Air Act are twice as high as benefits expected from reduced damages to crops by tropospheric ozone. There is very few knowledge about public perception of this environmental problem in Europe, nor European countries seem to have policies to address the issue. However, a recent study found that visibility impairment was more pronounced for most parts of Europe than in the USA. Finally, considering all environmental effects of particulate matter, it is likely that the best way to address such a variety of problems is to search for a simultaneous and general reduction of all air pollutants emissions. It is especially important that future emissions reduction of atmospheric pollutants address black carbon, if we want to avoid the risk that these reductions might lead to counter-productive effects in terms of climate change. ; En dehors de leur effet sur la santé humaine, les particules interviennent dans de nombreuses problématiques environnementales, dont le changement climatique, la formation d'ozone troposphérique, la réduction de la visibilité, et les régimes hydrologiques. L'effet des particules en termes de changement climatique est complexe et emprunte plusieurs voies. Il se traduit par des effets opposés de réchauffement ou de refroidissement de l'atmosphère, notamment selon la composition chimique des particules. On semble assister actuellement à la remise en cause de l'idée qui prévalait que, globalement, les aérosols refroidissaient l'atmosphère, notamment en raison de nouveaux faits scientifiques concernant l'action réchauffante des particules de carbone. Par conséquent, certains scientifiques estiment que les stratégies de lutte contre le changement climatique pourraient inclure une réduction des aérosols de carbone-suie, en permettant un effet à court terme de ralentissement du changement climatique, complémentaire des actions sur le CO2, qui sont plus difficiles à mettre en place à court terme, et qui n'auront pas un impact rapide. Des bénéfices supplémentaires en termes de qualité de l'air sont en outre à attendre d'une telle stratégie. Enfin, les politiques passées et actuelles de réduction importante des émissions de SO2 et NH3 en Europe vont amener une baisse des aérosols secondaires de sulfate et de nitrate, globalement refroidissants, qui devrait être accompagnée par une baisse suffisante des aérosols de carbone-suie, sous peine d'une évolution négative du forçage radiatif global par les aérosols en Europe. Des liens étroits unissent pollution particulaire et formation d'ozone (impact des particules sur les réactions photo-oxydantes, précurseurs communs pour les particules secondaires et l'ozone,.), ce qui a conduit à intégrer complètement les deux stratégies, dans le cadre de la Stratégie Nord Américaine pour l'Ozone Troposphérique (NARSTO). Ce souci de cohérence des stratégies de réduction des particules avec les problèmes de formation d'ozone serait utile à considérer pour la Convention de Genève sur la Pollution Atmosphérique Transfrontière en Europe. Un autre impact qui leur est imputable est la réduction de la visibilité,qui est principalement le fait des aérosols de sulfates et des aérosols organiques. Aux Etats-Unis, il s'agit d'un problème important, considéré comme portant atteinte aux parcs nationaux, mais également à l'ensemble de la population. On a pu évaluer aux USA que les bénéfices monétarisés du Clean Air Act sont deux fois plus importants en termes d'amélioration de la visibilité, que pour la réduction des dommages aux cultures par l'ozone troposphérique. Peu de connaissance est disponible sur la perception de cette question par les populations, et aucun pays d'Europe ne semble disposer d'une politique en la matière. Cependant, une étude récente a estimé que la réduction de visibilité est significativement plus grande en Europe qu'aux Etats-Unis. Au vu de cette synthèse des effets environnementaux des particules, il semble probable que la seule façon d'obtenir des politiques globalement positives pour l'ensemble des effets pris en considération, soit de rechercher une baisse continue et simultanée des émissions de l'ensemble des polluants atmosphériques. Il semble notamment important de veiller à ce que les mesures de réduction des émissions de polluants atmosphériques prises dans le futur, hors gaz à effets de serre, prennent en compte le carbone-suie, car sinon il existe un risque qu'elles conduisent à un effet contre-productif en termes de lutte contre le réchauffement global.
An integrated modelling chain capable of evaluating air pollution policies with respect to their costs, their impacts on air quality and associated health effects was developed and implemented at Ineris. It allows quantifying and monetising health effects of both complex sets of emission reduction measures (policy scenarios) and individual measures, and also taking into account the air quality impact of climate change. The modelling chain is based on the Impact Pathway Approach which follows a logical progression from emission, through dispersion and exposure to quantification of impacts and their valuation. Three models form the core of the modelling chain: the integrated assessment model GAINS-FR, the chemistry-transport model CHIMERE and the health impact analysis tool ARP-FR. GAINS provides information on emission reductions and costs of air pollution mitigation strategies. CHIMERE allows calculating these strategies' effect on air quality, and ARP-FR serves to assess benefits in the form of avoided health effects. In cost-benefit analyses, the health benefits are put into perspective with information on the costs of emission reduction measures and/or scenarios. The modelling chain has been used in studies providing support to decision makers as well as in research projects ; U ne chaîne de modèles intégrés a été développée et mise en oeuvre à l'Ineris pour évaluer les politiques de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique en termes de coûts des actions, de leurs effets sur la qualité de l'air et des bénéfices sanitaires associés. Elle permet de quantifier puis de monétariser les effets sanitaires de politiques publiques caractérisées par des jeux de mesures complexes (scénarios) ou des mesures individuelles de réduction des émissions atmosphériques. Elle permet également de tenir compte de l'impact du changement climatique sur la qualité de l'air pour des scénarios de plus long terme. Cette chaîne de calcul a été utilisée dans différents cadres d'applications, tant dans des études d'appui aux pouvoirs publics au niveau national (notamment le Plan national de réduction des émissions de polluants atmosphériques ou PREPA, adopté pour la période 2017-2021, cf. décret et arrêté du 10 mai 2017), que dans des projets de recherche plus prospectifs au niveau national et européen (projets PRIMEQUAL)
An integrated modelling chain capable of evaluating air pollution policies with respect to their costs, their impacts on air quality and associated health effects was developed and implemented at Ineris. It allows quantifying and monetising health effects of both complex sets of emission reduction measures (policy scenarios) and individual measures, and also taking into account the air quality impact of climate change. The modelling chain is based on the Impact Pathway Approach which follows a logical progression from emission, through dispersion and exposure to quantification of impacts and their valuation. Three models form the core of the modelling chain: the integrated assessment model GAINS-FR, the chemistry-transport model CHIMERE and the health impact analysis tool ARP-FR. GAINS provides information on emission reductions and costs of air pollution mitigation strategies. CHIMERE allows calculating these strategies' effect on air quality, and ARP-FR serves to assess benefits in the form of avoided health effects. In cost-benefit analyses, the health benefits are put into perspective with information on the costs of emission reduction measures and/or scenarios. The modelling chain has been used in studies providing support to decision makers as well as in research projects ; U ne chaîne de modèles intégrés a été développée et mise en oeuvre à l'Ineris pour évaluer les politiques de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique en termes de coûts des actions, de leurs effets sur la qualité de l'air et des bénéfices sanitaires associés. Elle permet de quantifier puis de monétariser les effets sanitaires de politiques publiques caractérisées par des jeux de mesures complexes (scénarios) ou des mesures individuelles de réduction des émissions atmosphériques. Elle permet également de tenir compte de l'impact du changement climatique sur la qualité de l'air pour des scénarios de plus long terme. Cette chaîne de calcul a été utilisée dans différents cadres d'applications, tant dans des études d'appui aux pouvoirs ...
U-chain of integrated models has been developed and implemented at INERIS to assess air pollution control policies in terms of the costs of the actions, their impact on air quality and the associated health benefits. It makes it possible to quantify and then monetise the health effects of public policies characterised by complex sets of measures (scenarios) or individual measures to reduce atmospheric emissions. It also allows the impact of climate change on air quality to be taken into account for longer term scenarios. This calculation chain has been used in various application frameworks, both in studies to support public authorities at national level (in particular the National Plan for Reducing Air Pollutant Emissions or PREPA, adopted for the period 2017-2021, cf. Decree and Decree of 10 May 2017), and in more forward-looking research projects at national and European level (PRIMEQUAL projects). ; An integrated modelling chain capable of evaluating air pollution policies with respect to their costs, their impacts on air quality and associated health effects was developed and implemented at Ineris. It allows quantifying and monetising health effects of both complex sets of emission reduction measures (policy scenarios) and individual measures, and also taking into account the air quality impact of climate change. The modelling chain is based on the Impact Pathway Approach which follows a logical progression from emission, through dispersion and exposure to quantification of impacts and their valuation. Three models form the core of the modelling chain: the integrated assessment model GAINS-FR, the chemistry-transport model CHIMERE and the health impact analysis tool ARP-FR. GAINS provides information on emission reductions and costs of air pollution mitigation strategies. CHIMERE allows calculating these strategies' effect on air quality, and ARP-FR serves to assess benefits in the form of avoided health effects. In cost-benefit analyses, the health benefits are put into perspective with information on the ...
National audience ; L'adoption récente de la directive 2000/60/CE du 23 octobre 2000 (JOCE du 22 décembre 2000) établissant un cadre pour une politique communautaire dans le domaine de l'eau rappelle et renforce les orientations communautaires relatives au bon état des écosystèmes aquatiques. En particulier, l'article 16 de cette Directive définit un cadre légal et méthodologique pour hiérarchiser et réduire les problèmes posés par la présence de substances polluantes dans les milieux aquatiques. Dans ce cadre, la décision 2455/2001 du 16 décembre 2001 complète la directive (Annexe X) en établissant une liste de 33 substances prioritaires dans le domaine de l'eau, dont 11 sont considérées comme " dangereuses ". La Directive prévoit la réduction progressive des rejets, émissions et pertes des substances prioritaires, et la suppression progressive, dans un délai de vingt ans, des rejets, émissions et pertes des substances " dangereuses " prioritaires. Des mesures de réduction des émissions devaient être proposées par la Commission, au moins pour le contrôle des sources ponctuelles avant fin 2003. Face à cet objectif ambitieux, il est d'abord apparu nécessaire d'acquérir des données et des connaissances sur les substances prioritaires, avant d'envisager une action des pouvoirs publics. Le travail mené dans ce sens par L'INERIS, avec les DRIRE, les Agences de l'Eau et le soutien du Ministère de l'Ecologie et du développement durable en France s'oriente selon deux axes complémentaires : - d'une part la recherche d'informations techniques et économiques sur l'emploi, l'état et les perspectives de substitution des substances prioritaires (bibliographie et enquêtes), - d'autre part l'analyse directe des substances prioritaires dans les rejets aqueux d'un grand nombre d'établissements industriels.
National audience ; L'adoption récente de la directive 2000/60/CE du 23 octobre 2000 (JOCE du 22 décembre 2000) établissant un cadre pour une politique communautaire dans le domaine de l'eau rappelle et renforce les orientations communautaires relatives au bon état des écosystèmes aquatiques. En particulier, l'article 16 de cette Directive définit un cadre légal et méthodologique pour hiérarchiser et réduire les problèmes posés par la présence de substances polluantes dans les milieux aquatiques. Dans ce cadre, la décision 2455/2001 du 16 décembre 2001 complète la directive (Annexe X) en établissant une liste de 33 substances prioritaires dans le domaine de l'eau, dont 11 sont considérées comme " dangereuses ". La Directive prévoit la réduction progressive des rejets, émissions et pertes des substances prioritaires, et la suppression progressive, dans un délai de vingt ans, des rejets, émissions et pertes des substances " dangereuses " prioritaires. Des mesures de réduction des émissions devaient être proposées par la Commission, au moins pour le contrôle des sources ponctuelles avant fin 2003. Face à cet objectif ambitieux, il est d'abord apparu nécessaire d'acquérir des données et des connaissances sur les substances prioritaires, avant d'envisager une action des pouvoirs publics. Le travail mené dans ce sens par L'INERIS, avec les DRIRE, les Agences de l'Eau et le soutien du Ministère de l'Ecologie et du développement durable en France s'oriente selon deux axes complémentaires : - d'une part la recherche d'informations techniques et économiques sur l'emploi, l'état et les perspectives de substitution des substances prioritaires (bibliographie et enquêtes), - d'autre part l'analyse directe des substances prioritaires dans les rejets aqueux d'un grand nombre d'établissements industriels.
International audience ; Identifying and ranking substances of concern is a complex task, because the meaning of 'substance of concern' differs according to the specific regulation, public policy, ranking exercise, and individual opinion. In terms of public actions, the choice of priority substances is generally supported by rankings of substances constructed by experts. In this article we suggest a process that adds to this ranking others based on views identified among others involved in the decision process, including but not limited to groups of decision makers, stakeholders, and members of civil society. Participatory multicriteria methods may be used for this purpose. These methods structure the participatory approach and make explicit the underlying logic of each ranking generated; they can be adapted to the available data. These methods have been implemented with stakeholders in other ranking exercises, dealing with various environmental issues, but not yet, to our knowledge, for ranking substances of concern. Using this ranking process for choosing priority substances in light of a specific objective, decision-makers can illuminate and nourish their analyses with several different rankings, characterized by their underlying logic, rather than by a single ranking that presupposes a consensus that does not necessarily exist. These different rankings will enable them, to some extent, to understand and take into account the diversity of the viewpoints that can be selected to meet the objective. This process can be adapted to any type of context and objective. An application conducted in 2012, to support the choice of the priority substances of the future French Environmental Health National Action Plan (PNSE3), illustrates each step of the process. ; Identifier et hiérarchiser des substances préoccupantes est une tâche complexe, car la notion même de substance préoccupante revêt un sens différent selon les réglementations, les politiques publiques, les exercices de hiérarchisation existants ou les opinions ...
Identifying and ranking substances of concern is a complex task: the notion of substance of concern has a different meaning depending on regulations, public policies, existing ranking exercises or individual opinions. The choice of priority substances is generally supported by orders of substances constructed on an expert opinion. The process suggests providing, in addition, orders of substances elaborated on the basis of views identified among other people involved in the decision process: groups of decision makers, stakeholders, people from civil society, etc. This process advises using participatory multi-criteria methods. These methods give structure to the participatory approach, they make explicit the underlying logic of each generated order and they can be adapted to the available data. The process can adapt to any type of context and ranking objective. An application conducted in 2012, to support the choice of the priority substances of the future French Environmental Health National Action Plan (PNSE3), illustrate the process. ; Une des priorités du deuxième Plan National Santé-Environnement (PNSE2) est de définir une méthode d'identification et de hiérarchisation des substances toxiques les plus préoccupantes. La notion même de substance préoccupante revêt un sens différent selon les réglementations, les politiques publiques, les exercices de hiérarchisation existants ou les opinions individuelles. Différents critères peuvent être mis en avant, par exemple : le danger, le caractère Persistant Bioaccumulable et Toxique (PBT), la protection de populations sensibles et le risque individuel inacceptable. En termes d'actions publiques, le choix de substances prioritaires s'appuie généralement sur des ordres de substances construits sur la base d'un avis d'experts. Le processus décrit ici propose de fournir, en complément, des ordres de substances basés sur des points de vue identifiés parmi d'autres acteurs de la décision : groupe de décideurs, représentants d'intérêts divers, personnes issues de la ...
International audience ; Identifying and ranking substances of concern is a complex task, because the meaning of 'substance of concern' differs according to the specific regulation, public policy, ranking exercise, and individual opinion. In terms of public actions, the choice of priority substances is generally supported by rankings of substances constructed by experts. In this article we suggest a process that adds to this ranking others based on views identified among others involved in the decision process, including but not limited to groups of decision makers, stakeholders, and members of civil society. Participatory multicriteria methods may be used for this purpose. These methods structure the participatory approach and make explicit the underlying logic of each ranking generated; they can be adapted to the available data. These methods have been implemented with stakeholders in other ranking exercises, dealing with various environmental issues, but not yet, to our knowledge, for ranking substances of concern. Using this ranking process for choosing priority substances in light of a specific objective, decision-makers can illuminate and nourish their analyses with several different rankings, characterized by their underlying logic, rather than by a single ranking that presupposes a consensus that does not necessarily exist. These different rankings will enable them, to some extent, to understand and take into account the diversity of the viewpoints that can be selected to meet the objective. This process can be adapted to any type of context and objective. An application conducted in 2012, to support the choice of the priority substances of the future French Environmental Health National Action Plan (PNSE3), illustrates each step of the process. ; Identifier et hiérarchiser des substances préoccupantes est une tâche complexe, car la notion même de substance préoccupante revêt un sens différent selon les réglementations, les politiques publiques, les exercices de hiérarchisation existants ou les opinions ...
International audience ; Identifying and ranking substances of concern is a complex task, because the meaning of 'substance of concern' differs according to the specific regulation, public policy, ranking exercise, and individual opinion. In terms of public actions, the choice of priority substances is generally supported by rankings of substances constructed by experts. In this article we suggest a process that adds to this ranking others based on views identified among others involved in the decision process, including but not limited to groups of decision makers, stakeholders, and members of civil society. Participatory multicriteria methods may be used for this purpose. These methods structure the participatory approach and make explicit the underlying logic of each ranking generated; they can be adapted to the available data. These methods have been implemented with stakeholders in other ranking exercises, dealing with various environmental issues, but not yet, to our knowledge, for ranking substances of concern. Using this ranking process for choosing priority substances in light of a specific objective, decision-makers can illuminate and nourish their analyses with several different rankings, characterized by their underlying logic, rather than by a single ranking that presupposes a consensus that does not necessarily exist. These different rankings will enable them, to some extent, to understand and take into account the diversity of the viewpoints that can be selected to meet the objective. This process can be adapted to any type of context and objective. An application conducted in 2012, to support the choice of the priority substances of the future French Environmental Health National Action Plan (PNSE3), illustrates each step of the process. ; Identifier et hiérarchiser des substances préoccupantes est une tâche complexe, car la notion même de substance préoccupante revêt un sens différent selon les réglementations, les politiques publiques, les exercices de hiérarchisation existants ou les opinions ...
