Air Quality in Latin America: An Overview - Clean Air Institute

2012 EditionAir Quality in Latin America:An OverviewProduced by the Clean Air Institute

Contents1 Introduction 11.1 Key air pollutant information 32 Objetives 43 Methodology 53.1 Air Quality Data Collection 53.2 National Air Quality Standars 104 Standards and Limit Values 115 Air Quality Concentrations in Latin America and the Caribbean 135.1 Particles 145.2 Ozone 165.3 Nitrogen dioxide 185.4 Sulfur dioxide 196 Discussion and Recommendations 206.1 Air Quality Standards 206.2 Air Quality monitoring data 216.3 Data analysis 216.4 Recommendations based on this analysis 226.5 Broader recommendations for the region 226.6 Final conclusions 237 References 24Annex 1 – Graphical summary of National Air Quality Standards in Latin America 25

1. IntroductionIn Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), at least 100 millionpeople are exposed to air pollution above World Health Organization(WHO) recommended levels (Cifuentes et al, 2005). Thegroups most vulnerable to the harmful health effects of poor airquality include children, the elderly, those with existing healthconditions and people from lower socioeconomic classes.Figure 1. Number of deaths attributable to air pollution (A) 1 ;Number of years of life lost as a result of premature death fromair pollution (B) 1 ; and Number of deaths as a function of urbanpopulation (C) 3 .Both WHO and the United Nations Environment Program(UNEP) have highlighted outdoor air pollution as one of theirkey strategic focus areas to tackle root causes of death and diseaseglobally. The WHO states in a 2011 press release that “For2008, the estimated mortality attributable to outdoor air pollutionin cities amounts to 1.34 million premature deaths.” Similarly,a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operationand Development (OECD) (OECD, 2012) which looks forward tothe year 2050 to estimate the impact on the environment if theworld does not adopt more ambitious green policies states:Number of deaths per country2500020000150001000050000ArgentinaBolivia*Brazil2004 2008ChileColombiaEcuadorMexicoPeruUruguayA* no data for Bolivia in 2008“air pollution is set to become the world’s top environmentalcause of premature mortality, overtaking dirtywater and lack of sanitation” with “the number of prematuredeaths from exposure to particulate matter(PM)…projected to more than double worldwide, fromjust over 1 million today to nearly 3.6 million per yearin 2050”.Within its Global Health Observatory data repository, WHO providesaccess to datasets on priority health topics including mortalityand burden of diseases . Figure 1 displays data from thisObservatory. Graph A shows the nine Latin American countrieswith the highest numbers of deaths and, as shown in Graph C,the countries with the highest death rates in 2008 mirror thosewith the highest urban populations. The number of deaths inthe majority of countries has also seen an increase from 2004to 2008. Graph B shows the number of years of life lost due topremature death from air pollution in those countries. The totalfor the nine countries displayed is over 434 million disability lifeyears lost due to premature death from air pollution in 2004.Disability -Adusted Life Years2004 ('000)Urban Population 2010 ('000s)20000016000012000080000400001800001600001400001200001000008000060000400002000000ArgentinaBoliviaBrazilChileColombia0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000EcuadorMexicoPeruUruguayBCNumber of deaths (2008)1http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2011/air_pollution_20110926/en/2Global Health Observatory, http://apps.who.int/ghodata1

The WHO air quality guidelines (AQGs) are intended for worldwideuse and have been developed as guidance to establishnational and/or local air quality standards, supporting actionsto achieve air quality that protects public health in differentcontexts. The guidelines are updated periodically followingreviews of the latest scientific knowledge and research on thehealth impacts of the pollutants. Air quality standards, on theother hand, are set by each country to protect the public healthof their citizens and are usually embedded into law and as suchare an important component of national risk managementand environmental policies. Primary standards provide publichealth protection, including protecting the health of “sensitive”populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondarystandards provide public welfare protection, includingprotection against decreased visibility and damage to animals,crops, vegetation, and buildings. National standards will vary bycountry as they will need to balance health risks, technologicalfeasibility, economic considerations and various other politicaland social factors, which in turn will depend on, among otherthings, the level of development and national capability to implementair quality management. These standards are usuallyalso subject to periodic review to take into account the latestscientific information and recommendations from WHO.2. ObjetivesThe Clean Air Institute, working with the Iniciativa de Aire Limpiopara América Latina (Clean Air Initiative for Latin America),recognizes the deficiency of consistent, available data on currentair quality concentrations in some cities and countries inthe region. Similarly, there are widely heterogeneous Air QualityStandards, which set target limits of pollutant concentrationsdesigned to protect human health and the environmentfrom the harmful effects of pollution. Procedures to set, update,measure, process and report compliance with those air qualitystandards also differ widely.This report represents the first attempt to collect, analyze andpresent data from air quality monitoring being undertaken inthe region to provide an overview of the current status of airpollution in Latin America cities and recent trends in concentration.The study also brings together the latest information on AirQuality Standards across the region.The objectives are:1. Present the Status and Trends of Air Quality – providing a snapshot of air quality levels in 2011 andtrends in air quality since 1997.2. Present and compare the Status of Air QualityStandards across the region.This is a challenging objective due to the variability in air pollutionmonitoring practices across the region and the difficultyin accessing the necessary information. Not all cities monitorair pollution effectively or at all, and those cities that do use differentmeasuring methods and rarely document whether thereare any quality assurance or quality control practices in place,which hinders a robust scientific comparison. However, thedata that are available will provide the best guidance as to thecurrent status of air pollution concentration in the region.10http://www.cleanairinstitute.org/ial/?id_sitio=1&p_idioma=ESP&idp=434

Table 1. Countries and cities from where data was successfully obtainedCountry City PM 2.5 PM 10 SO 2 NO 2 O 3EcuadorQuitoXXXXXPuerto RicoSan JuanXXXUruguayMontevideoXXXXBelo HorizonteXXBrazilCuritibaXXSao PauloXXXXXMonterrey*XXXXXGuadalajara *XXXXMexicoMexico City *PueblaXXXXXXXXXJuarezXXLeonXXXXColombiaBogotaMedellinXXXXXXXXXCochabambaXXXXBoliviaLa PazXXXSanta CruzXXPeruLima-CallaoXXXXChileSantiagoXXXXXEl SalvadorSan SalvadorXXDominican RepublicSanto DomingoXPanamaPanama CityX* Monitoring stations from across the whole metropolitan area of these cities are included in the analysis.6

The Clean Air Institute (CAI) endeavored to include all of theinformation obtained from each city. However, the monitoringtechnique was not always clear and there were few qualitycontrol procedures available. CAI recorded all the informationavailable regarding monitoring networks. Each city used differentinstruments, some of them manual, automatic or both. Allthe data obtained was used except from the monitoring stationsthat recorded less than 75% of the yearly data to avoid anincorrect representation of the data throughout the given year.An exception to this was data from Santiago, Chile and fromPanama City where official annual average data were providedbut the data underlying the calculations were not obtained. Itis also important to recognize and thank the efforts of citiesthat recorded information, even if they did not reach the 75%threshold. For this reason, Tables 2 to 5 show, for each pollutant,the number of monitoring stations present in each city, for eachmonitoring year and indicate the ones that provided more than75% data capture. Please also note that datasets from a smallnumber of other cities in the original shortlist were also knownto be available due to monitoring reports from the cities beingidentified but the actual data values were not successfully obtained.Similar evidence of monitoring was also found in somecities but no data was identified.The colors in the Tables 2 to 5 describe the monitoring methodor methods from the stations of each city as described below.An [N] indicates that the number of monitoring stations exceeding75% data capture is unknown.manualmanual and automaticautomaticno monitoringMethods were classified as automatic where monitoring is continuousand no intervention is required to receive data, i.e. thedata is polled remotely, usually on an hourly basis, 365 days peryear. This included R&P TEOM for particulates; chemiluminescentNOx analyzers; pulsed and UV fluorescence SO2 analyzers;UV absorption O3 analyzer etc. Methods were classified asmanual when intervention is required to derive the data, suchas filter weighing or chemical analysis. This included PartisolPlus 2025 analyzers and high volume samplers for particles.The number outside the brackets represents the total numberof active stations during a specific year and the number insidethe brackets represents the number of stations that were usedfor our analysis, in other words the stations that had 75% ormore of the yearly data recorded.7

Table 2. PM 2.5 monitoring stationsTable 2. PM 2.5monitoring stationsCity199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011QuitoSan JuanMontevideoBelo HorizonteCuritibaSao PauloMonterrey*Guadalajara*Mexico City*PueblaJuarezLeonBogotaMedellinCochabambaLa PazSanta CruzLima-CallaoSantiagoSan SalvadorDominican R.Panama City----------------------------------1[1]---------- - - - - - 5 [4] 5 [5] 5 [5] 5 [5] 5 [5] 5 [5] 5 [5]3 [2] 3 [3] 3 [3] 3 [3] 3 [3] 3 [2] 3 [3] 3 [3] 3 [3] 2 [2] 2 [2] 1 [1] 3 [2]- - - - - - - - 1 [0] 1 [0] 1 [1] 1 [1] 1 [1]- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -1 [0] 1 [0] - 1 [0] 3 [2] 2 [2] 2 [1] 3 [3] 3 [3] 3 [3] 3 [3] 3 [3] 4 [4]------1[1]---------------1[N]---------------5 [0] 5 [2] 5 [0] 5 [0] 5 [1] 5 [3] 7 [1] 7 [3] 7 [5]- - - - - - - - -8 [0] 8 [8] 8 [8] 8 [8] 9 [9] 9 [9] 9 [6] 9 [8] 11 [8]- - - - - - - - -1[0] 1[0] 1 [1] 1 [1]1 [1] 3 [2] 4 [3] 7 [4]- - - - - - - - - - -5 [5] 3 [3] 5 [5] 5 [5] 5 [5] -5 [5] 5 [4] 5 [5] 5 [5] 4[4] 4[4]4[N] 4[N] 4[N] 4[N] 4[N] 4[N] 4[N] 4[N] 4[N] 11[N] 11[N] 11[N]- - - - - - - - - - 2 [2] 2 [2]- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -** Monitoring stations stations from across from the across whole metropolitan the whole area metropolitan of these cities area included of these in the cities analysis. are included in the analysis.------------------------------1[0]-----1[1]-------------------Table 3.Table 3. PM 10monitoring stationsPM 10 monitoring stationsCity199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011QuitoSan JuanMontevideoBelo HorizonteCuritibaSao PauloMonterrey*Guadalajara*Mexico City*PueblaJuarezLeonBogotaMedellinCochabambaLa PazSanta CruzLima-CallaoSantiagoSan SalvadorDominican R.Panama City- - - - - - - - 4 [2] 3 [2] 4 [1] 4 [4] 4 [4] 7 [7] 7 [6]7 [6]-7 [5]-7 [3]-8 [5]-7 [7]-7 [6]-7 [7]-7 [7]-7 [5]-6 [5]-6 [6]3 [1]6 [3]3 [1]3 [1]3 [1]3 [3]4 [2]3 [2]6 [2]- - - - - - - - - - - - 3 [2] 3 [1] -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 7 [5] 8 [5] 8 [7] 6 [5] 6 [5] 8 [6] 8 [7] 8 [5] 8 [6] 9 [6] 9 [8] 9 [9] 9 [8] 9 [9]5 [5] 5 [4] 5 [3] 4 [4] 5 [2] 5 [5] 5 [5] 5 [5] 5 [5] 5 [5] 5 [5] 5 [5] 7 [5] 7 [7] 7 [7]8 [5] 8 [8] 8 [8] 8 [8] 8 [8] 8 [8] 8 [7] 8 [7] 8 [7] 8 [8] 8 [8] 8 [8] 8 [7] 8 [7] 9 [6]10 [7] 10 [10] 10 [10] 16 [9] 15 [13] 15 [12] 15 [12] 14 [13] 14 [13] 14 [11] 15 [13] 14 [12] 15 [11] 15 [13] 17 [11]- - - 4 [0] 4 [4] 4 [3] 4 [4] 4 [3] 4 [0] 4 [2] 4 [1] 3 [0] 2 [0] - -- - - 5 [2] 5 [2] 5 [2] 4 [1] 4 [1] 3 [1] 1 [1] 4 [2] 8 [2] 8 [2] - -- - - - - - - - - 2 [1] 2 [2] 3 [2] 3 [3] 3 [3] 3 [3]9[0] 8[8] 8[8] 8[N] 11[N] 11[11] 12[10] 11[6] 11[5] 12[11] 12[11] 12[7] 14 [11] 14 [11] 14 [11]- - - - - - - - - - 3 [3] 10 [10] 7 [7] 5 [5] 6 [4]- - - - - - - 1 [0] 1 [0] 2 [0] 2 [0] 2 [0] 3 [1] 1 [1] 1 [1]- - - - - - - 3 [0] 4 [0] 4 [0] 4 [0] 4 [0] 5 [1] 5 [1] 5 [1]- - - - - - - 4 [0] 4 [0] 4 [0] 4 [0] 4 [0] 5 [1] 5 [1] 1 [1]- - - 5 [5] 5 [5] 5 [3] 4 [4] 5 [5] 5 [5] -5 [5] 4 [3] 5 [5] 5 [5] 4 [4] 4 [4]7 [N] 7 [N] 7 [N] 7 [N] 7 [N] 7 [N] 7 [N] 7 [N] 7 [N] 7 [N] 7 [N] 8 [N] 11 [N] 11 [N] 11 [N]- - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 [2] 2 [2]- - - - - - - - - - - 2 [2] 2 [2] - -5 [N] 4 [N] 4 [N] 4 [N] 4 [N] 4 [N] 4 [N] 2 [N] 3 [N] 4 [N] 4 [N] 4 [N] 4 [N] 4 [N] 5 [N]* Monitoring stations from across the whole metropolitan area of these cities are included in the analysis.Monitoring stations from across the whole metropolitan area of these cities are included in the analysis.8

Table 4. Ozone monitoring stationsTable 4. Ozone monitoring stationsCity199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011QuitoSan JuanMontevideoBelo HorizonteCuritibaSao PauloMonterrey*Guadalajara*Mexico City*PueblaJuarezLeonBogotaMedellinCochabambaLa PazSanta CruzLima-CallaoSantiagoSan SalvadorDominican R.Panama City7 [6] 7 [7] 8 [7] 8 [8] 8 [8] 8 [8] 8 [8]- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - 1 [1] 1 [1] ----3 [3]-5 [3]-5 [5]-5 [5]-5 [5]-5 [4]-6 [3]-5 [4]-6 [4]-9 [7]-9 [7]-9 [8]-9 [8]-9 [9]5 [4] 5 [2] 5 [2] 5 [4] 5 [4] 5 [5] 5 [5] 5 [5] 5 [5] 5 [5] 5 [5] 5 [5] 7 [7] 7 [7] 7 [7]8 [8] 8 [8] 8 [7] 8 [7] 8 [8] 8 [8] 8 [7] 8 [7] 8 [7] 8 [8] 8 [7] 8 [7] 8 [7] 8 [7] 9 [8]19[15] 19[19] 19[19] 20[19] 20[20] 20[20] 20 [19] 2[19] 21[18] 20[18] 22[19] 22[22] 22[16] 22[22] 29[14]- - - 4 [0] 4 [4] 4 [4] 4 [4] 4 [4] 4 [3] 4 [3] 4 [2] 3 [1] 3 [1] - -3 [2] 3 [1] 3 [0] 3 [1] 3 [2] 3 [1] 3 [2] 3 [2] 3 [2] 3 [1] 3 [2] 3 [2] 3 [1] 3 [2] 3 [2]-5[0]-5[5]-5[5]-7[N]-8[N]-6[0]-6[0]-4[2]-6[1]2 [1]6[4]2 [2]4[4]3 [2 ]12[8]3 [3 ]12[11]3 [3]12[6]3 [2]12[10]- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 [0]- - - - 1 [0] 1 [0] 1 [0] 1 [1] 1 [1] 1 [1] 1 [0] 2 [1 ] 2 [2] 2 [2] 2 [2]- - - - - - - - - - 1 [0] 1 [1] 1 [1] 1 [1] 1 [1]-------- - - - - - - --------- - - - - - - -7[0] 7[7] 7[7] 7[7] 7[7] 7[7] 7[7] 7[7] 7[7] 7[7] 7[7] 7[7] 11[11] 11[11] 11[11]------------* Monitoring stations stations from across from the across whole metropolitan the whole area metropolitan of these cities area included of these in cities analysis. are included in the analysis.Table 5. Sulfur 5. dioxide monitoring stations Sulfur dioxide monitoring stations---------------------- -- -- - - -- - - -City199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011QuitoSan JuanMontevideoBelo HorizonteCuritibaSao PauloMonterrey*5 [4] 5 [5] 5 [5] 5 [5] 6 [6] 6 [6] 6 [6]3 [ 3] 3 [2] 3 [1] 4 [3] 4 [4] 4 [4] 4 [4] 6 [3] 6 [5] 4 [4] 4 [4] 4 [4] 4 [3] 4 [2] 3 [2]- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 [1]------------------------1 [0]4 [3]1 [0]4 [4]--- 2 [0] 2 [2] 2 [2] 2 [2] 2 [2] 8 [8] 8 [8] 8 [8] 8 [8] 8 [7] 8 [8] 8 [8] 8 [8] 8 [8]5 [4] 5 [2] 5 [3] 5 [4] 4 [0] 4 [4] 5 [1] 5 [5] 5 [5] 5 [5] 5 [5] 5 [5] 7 [7] 7 [7] 7 [7]8 [8] 8 [8] 8 [7] 8 [8] 8 [7] 8 [7] 7 [7] 7 [6] 8 [5] 8 [5] 8 [6] 8 [8] 8 [6] 8 [6] 9 [7]Guadalajara*Mexico City* 26[22] 26[21] 26[26] 26[25] 25[24] 25[23] 25 [22] 24[19] 25[21] 24[19] 26[19] 26[15] 26[18] 26[21] 31[16]Puebla- - - 4 [0] 4 [4] 4 [4] 4 [4] 4 [4] 4 [2] 4 [2] 4 [3] 3 [1] 3 [1] - -Juarez- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Leon- - - - - - - - - 2 [1] 2 [2] 3 [2] 3 [3] 3 [3] 3 [2]Bogota10[0] 10[10] 10[10] 10[N] 10[N] 10[N] 8[2] 9[4] 9[5] 11[6] 10[10] 10[10] 10[4] 11[5] 11[6]Medellin- - - - - - - - - - 4 [4] 4 [3] 4 [4] 3 [0] 1 [1]Cochabamba - - - - 1 [0] 1 [0] 1 [0] 1 [0] 1 [1] 1 [1] - 1 [1 ] 1 [1] 1 [1] 1 [1]La Paz-------- - - - - - - -Santa Cruz -------- - - - - - - -Lima-Callao--- 5 [5] 5 [5] 3 [3] 5 [5] 4 [4] 5 [5] 5 [5] 5 [4] 5 [5] 5 [5] 4 [4] 4 [4]Santiago7 [N] 7 [N] 7 [N] 7 [N] 7 [N] 7[N] 7 [N] 7 [N] 7 [N] 7 [N] 7 [N] 7 [N] 7 [N] 7 [N] 7 [N]San Salvador - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Dominican R. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Panama City - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -* Monitoring stations stations from across from the across whole the metropolitan whole metropolitan area of these cities area included of these in the cities analysis. are included in the analysis.9

Table 6. Nitrogen 6. Dioxide monitoring Nitrogen stations Dioxide monitoring stationsCity199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011QuitoSan JuanMontevideoBelo HorizonteCuritibaSao PauloMonterrey*Guadalajara*Mexico City*PueblaJuarezLeonBogotaMedellinCochabambaLa PazSanta CruzLima-CallaoSantiagoSan SalvadorDominican R.----1 [0] 2 [0] 1 [0] 2 [1] 2 [2] 2 [1] 1 [0] 2 [1] 2 [1] 1 [0] 1 [0] - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 [2]- - - - - - - - - - - - 1 [0] 1 [0] ----4 [3]-5 [1]-4 [2]-5 [4]-5 [4]-5 [3]-5 [2]-4 [1]-5 [2]-6 [5]-6 [5]2 [2]6 [6]2 [2]7 [7]-7 [7]5 [5] 5 [2] 5 [3] 5 [5] 5 [1] 5 [2] 5 [0] 5 [4] 5 [4] 5 [4] 5 [5] 5 [5] 7 [7] 7 [7] 7 [7]8 [2] 8 [7] 8 [8] 8 [8] 8 [7] 8 [5] 8 [7] 8 [7] 8 [6] 8 [5] 8 [3] 8 [5] 8 [4] 8 [4] 9 [7]18[15] 318[18] 18[18] 19[18] 19[19] 19[18] 19 [19] 19[19] 19[18] 18[16] 18[17] 18[16] 18[15] 17[16] 29[12]- - - 4 [0] 4 [4] 4 [3] 4 [3] 4 [2] 4 [0] 4 [1] 4 [1] 3 [0 ] 3 [0 ] - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - 2 [0] 2 [1] 3 [1 ] 3 [1 ] 3 [2] 3 [3]10[0] 10[8] 10[10] 10[N] 10[N] 12[N] 11[3] 6[1] 8[1] 6[3] 6[2] 8[7] 9 [4] 9 [4] 10[2]- - - - - - - - - - 4 [4] 3 [3] 4 [4] 3 [3] 4 [4]- - - - 2 [0] 2 [0] 2 [0] 8 [0] 9 [2] 8 [1] 6 [0] 8 [0] 8 [2] 2 [2] 2 [2]- - - - - - - 7 [0] 7 [0] 8 [0] 10[1] 10[1] 10[1] 10[1] 1 [1]- - - - - - - 11[0] 11[0] 121[0] 11[0] 12[1] 12[1] 12[1] 1 [1]- - - 5[5] 5 [5] 3 [3] 5 [5] 4 [4] 5 [5] 5 [5] 5 [4] 5 [5] 5 [5] 4 [4] 4 [4]3[N] 3[N] 3[N] 3[N] 3[N] 3[N] 3[N] 3[N] 3[N] 3[N] 3[N] 3[N] 11[N] 11[N] 11[N]- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -* Monitoring stations stations from across from the across whole metropolitan the whole area metropolitan of these cities area included of these in cities analysis. are included in the analysis.----6 [4] 6 [6] 6 [6] 6 [6] 6 [6] 6 [6] 6 [6]3.2 National Air Quality StandardsAs discussed in Section 1.1 each country should have its ownset of air quality standards which the country is working towardachieving or has already achieved and is working to maintainthem. In the first instance this research seeks to establish whichcountries in the region do have air quality standards and secondlyhow these compare to the WHO Air Quality Guidelines.The information on air quality standards for LAC countries wascollected from primary sources such as official governmentwebsites and their air quality reports (República de Colombia(2006), Gobierno de Chile (2003, 2011), República de Perú (2001,2008), República de Panamá (2006), República de Nicaragua(2002), USEPA (2010), PRONAR (1990), INE (2011), República deGuatemala) and through secondary sources including the Vulnerabilityto Air Pollution in Latin America and the Caribbean Region(della Maggiora et al, 2006) and the Normativa y regulaciones sobrecalidad del aire ambiental en Centro América (CCAD, 2007).10

4. Standards and Limit ValuesAs discussed in Section 1.1 the WHO air quality guidelines(AQGs) are designed to support and guide countries in developmentof their own national air quality standards. In additionto the guideline values, interim targets are given for each pollutant.These are proposed as incremental steps in a progressivereduction of air pollution and are intended for use in areaswhere pollution is high. These targets aim to promote a shiftfrom high air pollutant concentrations, which have acute andserious health consequences, to lower air pollutant concentrations.The WHO states that progress toward the guideline valuesshould, however, be the ultimate objective of air quality managementand health risk reduction in all areas. Given that thereis no known safe threshold for inhalable particles, guidelines area pragmatic approach to facilitate progress.The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (USEPA, various)and the European Union (EU) (EC, 2008) have set their ownstandards which consider the WHO AQGs as well as local issuesand circumstances. These standards have been considered asadditional reference standards to compare the region’s air qualitystandards against. Table 6 presents the WHO AQGs and theUSEPA and EU standards 11 . A graphic comparison of the nationaland reference guidelines is shown in the Annex 1.Table 7 presents current national ambient Air Quality Standardsin LAC countries. The information is also presented graphicallyfor each pollutant in Annex 1. About two thirds of the LatinAmerican countries have National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS). Honduras, Belize, Haiti, Cuba, Paraguay, Guatemalaand Uruguay do not have any standards in place as far asour research could ascertain, or the information is not accessible.However, Uruguay has submitted a proposal for approval.Of the countries which do have standards, there is some variationacross the region as well as in comparison to the WHOguidelines. Some local standards also exist such as in Argentina,where standards are set at the provincial level, and La Pazin Bolivia. It is possible that other local standards exist in theregion although these have not specifically been sought duringthis study. However, the standards in La Paz have been includedas they are particularly progressive and in line with WHO guidelineswhich is in contrast to the national standards which arelagging somewhat behind the WHO guidelines.11The conversion factors used to convert from ppb to μg/m3 are defined by the WHO at25˚C and 1013 mb. For Ozone 1ppb = 1.96 μg/m3, Nitrogen dioxide 1ppb = 1.88 μg/m3,Carbon monoxide 1ppb = 1.15 μg/m3, and Sulfur dioxide 1 ppb = 2.62 μg/m3.11

TableTable7. Ambient7.Air Quality GuidelinesAmbientand StandardsAir Quality Guidelines and StandardsPollutantPM 2.5(µg/m 3 )PM 10(µg/m 3 )Ozone 2(µg/m 3 )SO 2(µg/m 3 )NO 2(µg/m 3 )CO(µg/m 3 )Averaging TimeUnited States(US)European Union(EU)World HealthOrganization (WHO)Interim target 1Interim target 2Interim target 3Table 8.PollutantAveragingTimeArgentina 1Buenos Aires 2BoliviaLa Paz 3BrasilColombiaChile 4Costa RicaEcuadorEl SalvadorJamaicaMexicoNicaraguaPanama 5PeruPuerto RicoRep. DominicanaVenezuelaHondurasBelizeHaitiCubaParaguayGuatemalaUruguayPM 2.5(µg/m 3 )24-hr24-hrAnnual- - - -65 15 150 50- -25 10- -50 2550 20- -65 1565 15- -65 15- -- -50 6 -35 1565 15- -Annual35 a 15 b 150 -75 3550 2538 1524-hr24-hr150 70100 5075 30Table 8. Summary of National Ambient Air Quality Standards in Latin AmericaSummary of National Ambient Air Quality Standards in Latin AmericaPM 10(µg/m 3 )Annual150 5050 20150 50100 50150 50196 - -235 157 -236 - -- 100 60160 - -120 80 -- 120 -150 50 160 - -150 50 160 120 -150 50 235 120 60150 50120 50150 50150 50150 50150 -150 50150 501-hrOzone 2(µg/m 3 )8-hrAnnual235 - -216 157 -235 160 -235 157 -- 120 -235 147 -250 160 -200 160 -1-hr3-hr- - - -- 1300 365 80- - 365 80- - 20 -- - 365 80- 750 250 80- - 250 80- 1500 365 80- - 350 80- - 365 80700 - 365 80524 - 288 66- - 365 80- - 365 80- - 80 6 -- - 367 79450 - 150 100- 1300 365 80No standardsNo standardsNo information availableNo information availableNo standardsNo standardsNo standardsSO 2(µg/m 3 )24-hrAnnual1-hrNO 2(µg/m 3 )24-hrAnnual- - -- - 100400 150 -200 - 100320 - 100200 150 100400 - 100400 - 100- 150 100- 150 100100 - -395 - 100400 - 100- 150 100200 - 100188 - 100400 300 100367 300 1001-hrCO(µg/m 3 )8-hr58 1240 1040 100.03 0.0140 1040 1030 1040 1040 1040 1040 10- 1340 1030 1030 1040 1040 1035 101Provinces in Argentina set their regulations, including own standards. Therefore Buenos Aires is included in the table to demonstrate the1more Provinces advanced in Argentina status set their of standards regulations, including at the province own standards. level. Therefore 2 Various Buenos averaging Aires is included periods in and/or the table allowable to demonstrate exceedences the more advanced are adopted. status of standards at theprovince 3 level.La Paz also 2 Various averaging periods and/or allowable exceedenceshas a 10 minute limit for SO2 of 500 μg/m3. 4 are adopted.For Chile all 3 La Paz also has a 10 minute limit for SOpollutant annual averages are 2of 500 μg/mthe average 3 . 4 For Chile all pollutant annual averagesof 3 consecutive previous years,are the average of 3 consecutive previous years, 24-h standard for particles is the annual 98th percentile and 1-hr standard for gases is annual 99th percentile (Gobierno de Chile (2011).5 24-h Draft laws standard only - available for particles via website is the (República annual de 98th Panamá percentile (2006). 6 The and current 1-hr 24-hour standard standards for gases for PMis annual 99th percentile (Gobierno de Chile (2011).5Draft laws only - available via website (República de Panamá (2006)). 6 2.5and SO 2in Peru will drop to 25 μg/m 3 and 20 μg/m 3 respectively in 2014.The current 24-hour standards for PM2.5 and SO2 in Peru will dropto 25 μg/m3 and 20 μg/m3 respectively in 2014.Annual1-hr8-hrAnnual- 147 c -- 160 -- - -- - -10 min- 1310 - 197- - 125 -- - 50 -- - - -188 a - 100- 25 b 50 d 40 - 120 - - - 125 e 350 f200 g - 403-hr- - -- - -- - -40 10- 10 h25 10 50 20 - 100 - 500 - 20 - 200 - 40 - -24-hr1-hr1-hr24-hrAnnual1-hr8-hr- -- -- -a98th percentile averaged over 3 years; b averaged over 3 years; c Annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hr concentration averageda98th percentile averagedover 3 years; d over 3 years;35 exceedences allowed; b averaged over e 3 years;3 exceedences c Annual fourth highestallowed; f daily maximum 8-hr concentration24 exceedences allowed; g averaged over 3 years;18 exceedences allowed; d 35 exceedences h allowed;25 dayse 3 exceedencesallowed; f 24 exceedences allowed; g 18 exceedences allowed; h 25 days exceedences allowed averaged over 3 years.exceedences allowed averaged over 3 years.12

The key observations from Table 7 are:• PM 2.5: Approximately half of the countries do not have standards for PM 2.5despite this being an important pollutant. Thecountries that have national standards mostly follow limits equivalent to WHO Interim Target 3 for the annual mean, asopposed to the recommended WHO Air Quality Guideline, but this is the lowest Interim Target and achieving this valuewould be a significant step toward achieving the full AQG. This is a key pollutant which other countries should consideras part of their national standards.• PM 10: All countries that have standards have a standard for this important pollutant. However, all of the countries havestandards equivalent to the WHO Interim Target 1 for the 24 –hour limit and Interim Target 2 for the annual limit (exceptColombia which is still using Interim Target 1). Scientific evidence suggests that for both PM 10and PM 2.5there is no safeambient particulate matter threshold level below which health damage does not occur (WHO, 1987; WHO, 2006). Moreefforts are therefore needed in order to reach the WHO AQG to minimize the extent of exposure effects.• O 3: Eleven of the sixteen countries with standards include an 8-hour ozone standard in line with the WHO guidelines.Most of these are between the Interim Target and the optimal limit of the WHO 8-hour guideline with Colombia having astandard even stricter than the WHO. Conversely all countries have set an hourly limit despite there being no guidelinefor this from the WHO or any standard for a 1-hour mean within the USA or in Europe. This is likely to be due to the USEPApreviously having a 1-hour standard which was revoked in 2005 12 . It would be optimal for the countries to have an 8-hourstandard instead of, or as well as, a 1-hour standard to allow for comparison to international WHO standards and to providea standard more in line with the current knowledge on health effects and exposure times.• NO 2: The annual standards for NO 2for all countries are higher than the WHO guideline but follow the USEPA NAAQS. Theeffects of NO 2are most significant with short term exposure and so the short-term standards are of particular importance.Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Peru and Colombia have standards the same or close to the WHO guideline limits, but the othercountries either have much higher standards or no standards at all.• SO 2: The LAC standards for SO 224-hour in almost all countries are significantly higher than the WHO guidelines. This isa cause for concern due to direct effects of SO 2on health being observed at considerably lower concentrations (as low as5μg/m 3 ) (WHO, 2006). There are not any countries with standards for the 10 minute WHO Guideline but this is likely to beassociated with the equipment required to allow such measurements to be obtained. However, LAC countries have setannual standards that are not suggested by the WHO, but that aim to reduce the emission of SO 2.• CO: Most LAC countries have standards for 1-hour and 8-hour standards, in line with the USEPA standards.5. Air Quality Concentrations in Latin America and the CaribbeanThe overall purpose of this report is to highlight the currentgeneral air quality problem across the LAC region, not to emphasizethose cities where pollution levels are high. The factthat the few cities presented in this report are monitoring airpollution at all and have made their data available is a hugelypositive point regardless of the concentrations found.The following sections for each pollutant present three differentgraphs:1. Annual average concentrations for each city for 2011in which each city has been assigned a letter to provideanonymity.2. A histogram showing the number of cities representedin a number of pollutant concentration ranges.This provides a visual representation of the spread ofconcentrations across all the cities and may providean idea of likely ranges across the region.3. The annual average concentrations of the annualaverages from all cities for each year from 1997 to2011 (where data permits) to demonstrate theyear-on- year trends across all 21 cities.These analyses have some intrinsic inaccuracies due to the averagingand comparing of data from different types of monitoringtechniques, different monitoring locations and, for the thirdanalysis, varying numbers of monitoring stations in each cityyear to year. However, the data provide a valuable indication ofthe current status of air pollution.12http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/oindex.html13

5.1 ParticlesFigure 2 shows the annual averages for PM 10and PM 2.5whilstFigure 2 shows the spread of concentrations found across theregion. Of the 16 cities that measured concentrations of PM 10in2011 all exceeded the WHO annual guideline of 20 µg/m 3 and9 of them exceeded the EU annual guideline of 40 µg/m 3 . Allbut 1 city exceeded the Interim Target 3 (30 µg/m 3 ); 7 exceededthe Interim Target 2 (50 µg/m 3 ); and Monterey and Guadalajaraalso exceeded the Interim Target 1 (70 µg/m 3 ) with a maximumconcentration of 85.9 µg/m 3 , more than four times greater thanthe WHO guideline value. Figure 2 shows that the majority fallwithin the range 30 to 40 µg/m 3 . This is above the WHO Guideline,but shows that cities are moving toward this value.From the 11 cities that recorded concentrations of PM 2.5in 2011,10 exceeded the WHO (10 µg/m 3 ) and the US (15 µg/m 3 ) annualguidelines and eight of them exceeded the EU (25 µg/m 3 ) annualguideline. All of the exceedences were also over the InterimTarget 3 (15 µg/m 3 ); eight of them exceeded Interim Target 2 (25µg/m 3 ); and one exceeded the least stringent target, Interim Target1 (35 µg/m 3 ). If the pattern in Figure 2, with the majority (6)of cities in the range 25 to 35 µg/m 3 , is common to the region, itsuggests that that the majority of cities are likely exceeding theWHO Interim Target 2 ( 25 µg/m 3 ), but that less are exceedingthe Interim Target 1 (35 µg/m 3 ).Figure 2. Annual average concentrations for PM 10and PM 2.5– 2011.Panama CitySanto DomingoSanSalvadorSantiagoLimaSanta Cr uzLa PazCochabambaMedellínBogotáLeonJuarezPueblaPM1039.567.062.235.930.269.749.052.939.0WHOEU20 μg/m 3 40 μg/m 3Panama CitySanto DomingoSan SalvadorSantiagoLimaSanta CruzLa PazCochabambaMedellínBogotáLeonJuarezPueblaPM2.528.026.031.5WHOUSEU10 μg/m 3 12 μg/m 3 25 μg/m 329.035.1Mexico City57.0Mexico City26.2Guadalajara70.1GuadalajaraMonterey85.9Monterey25.9Sao Paulo36.5Sao Paulo20.3CuritibaCuritibaBelo HorizonteBelo HorizonteMontevideo45.0Montevideo28.0San Juan24.5San Juan5.5Quito37.8Quito17.80 20 40 60 80 1000 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40PM10 concentration (μg/ m 3 )PM 2.5 concentration (μg/m 3 )NB: There is no USEPA Annual Standard for PM 1014

Figure 3. Summary showing the distribution of cities in relation to annual average concentrations of PM 10and PM 2.56WHO AnnualAQGPM10654Number of Cities321020 -30 30 -40 40 -50 50 -60 60 -70 70 -80 80 -90PM 10 concentration (μg/m 3 )WHO AnnualAQG10 μg/m 3 PM 2.5 concentrationPM2.55420 μg/m 3 0Number of cities3210 -10 10 -20 20 -30 30 -40 40 -50(μg/m 3 )Figure 4 shows the annual trends. The concentrations of PM 2.5have not decreased consistently over the time period 2001 to2011. There was a decrease in concentrations from 2007 to2010 but 2011 has reversed this pattern. The low concentrationrecorded in 2006 may be a factor of the analysis method as thisyear is an average of just five stations. PM 10concentrations inLAC have seen a slow decreasing trend from 66.0 µg/m 3 in 1998to 50.1 µg/m 3 in 2011. As with PM 2.5there is an increase in con-centration in 2011 compared to the previous year. These trendsmay reflect the efforts of environmental programs to decreaseemissions and meet the established air quality standards. Theseefforts need to continue and expand to ensure that the concentrationsacross the region fall below WHO recommended concentrations.Figure 4. Regional Mean Annual Average Concentrations of PM 10and PM 2.5.PM 10concentration (μg/m 3 )70605040302065.1 66.0 35PM10PM2.531.058.1 59.6 58.4 58.9 29.53028.7 28.7 28.555.354.453.053.0 54.0 27.527.249.350.124.82524.346.5 46.622.521.62015WHOWHO20 μg/m 3 10 μg/m 3(μg/ m 3 )PM 2.5concentration1010501997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Year02001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Year15

5.2 OzoneFigure 5 shows the annual averages for ozone, Figure 6 showsthe spread of concentrations found across the region and Figure12 shows the annual trends. Ozone has no annual standardsor guidelines due to the impacts on health seen at shorter exposuretimes but the annual average data was the most accessiblemetric to obtain from across the region and so are presented asa way to look at differences in concentrations across the regionand temporal trends.Figure 5. Annual average concentrations for O 3– 2011.Santiago28.8O 3LimaSanta Cr uzLa Paz31.9Cochabamba62.4MedellínBogotá21.1Leon68.9Juarez46.3PueblaMexico City59.4Guadalajara69.3Monterey55.2Sao Paulo36.0CuritibaBelo HorizonteMontevideoSan JuanQuito44.10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80O3 concentration (μg/ m 3 )Figura 6. : Distribution of cities in relation to annual averageconcentrations of O 3.Figura 7. Regional Mean Annual Average Concentrations – O 3.454O3O 351.735250.5 50.9 50.050Number of cities2O 3 concentration μg/m 3484648.345.246.1 46.048.145.947.544.645.648.047.614442020 - 30 30- 40 40- 50 50 - 60 60 - 70O 3 concentration (μg/m 3 )401997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Year16

The wide variety of ozone concentrations across the region,as seen in Figure 5, suggests that this is an issue in some citiesand maybe not others. This variation is due to differences inthe key drivers of ozone formation: the prevalence of sunshineand the emissions of ozone precursors in the locality. The effectof topography and meteorology on the dispersion of the precursorpollutants as well as the availability of ozone depletingsubstances will also impact on this complex equation of ozoneproduction and depletion. Although it is not possible to deduceeight hour mean concentrations from the annual averages, theannual average concentrations presented in Figure 5 and Figure6 strongly suggest that ozone is a significant issue in a numberof cities across the region. Figure 7 also suggests that concentrationsof ozone have seen little reduction in the region overthe last decade.As ozone is a key pollutant across the region it was deemed byCAI important to undertake some analysis against the WHO8-hour AQG. However, the different countries have differentmethods of analyzing and presenting their data against theirown standards and so sourcing data to do a comparison againstthis WHO metric across the region was complicated and timeintensive. Instead, the analysis was undertaken on three citieswhere hourly average data was supplied for 2011, allowing themaximum 8-hour average to be calculated. Figure 8 presentsthe annual average for each city averaged across all monitoringstations and the maximum 8-hour average recorded ineach city during 2011. This is only a small data set but Figure 8demonstrates that even those cities with a low annual averageconcentration can produce short-term concentrations of ozoneclose to concentrations deemed unsafe for public health byWHO. This also suggests that the majority of cities with annualaverage concentrations presented in Figure 5 are likely to haveexceeded the 8-hour WHO AQG during 2011.To look in further detail at ozone concentrations across MexicoCity, Figure 9 shows the ozone concentrations from all themonitoring stations across the city. As shown in Figure 8 themaximum 8-hour concentration in the city during 2011 was infact 270 μg/m 3 and Figure 9 shows that this is a typical concentrationat monitoring stations across the city and all monitoringstations were located in areas exceeding the WHO AQG.Figure 8. Maximum annual average and maximum 8-houraverage concentrations for ozone recorded three cities – 2011.Figure 9. Maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations as monitoredby stations across Mexico City - 2011.300Annual AverageO3 Concentration (μg/m 3 )25020015010050044Maximum 8-hourAverage162WHO 8-hr100 μg/m 359270Quito Mexico City SantiagoCity29148Maximum 8-hour average concentration (μg/m 3 )300250200150100500192204270246 248WHO100 μg/m 32122651831 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Avg234248Monitoring St ations in Mexico City23020723727023217

5.3 Nitrogen dioxideFigure 10. Annual average concentrations for NO 2– 2011.Figure 10 shows the annual averages for NO2, Figure 11 showsthe spread of concentrations found across the region and Figure12 shows the annual trends.Panama CitySanto DomingoSan SalvadorSantiagoLimaSanta Cr uzLa PazCochabambaMedellínBogotáLeonJuarezPueblaMexico CityGuadalajaraMontereySao PauloCuritibaBelo HorizonteMontevideoSan JuanQuito12.8NO2WHO40 μg/m 3 EU40 μg/m 341.040.640.330.632.032.845.554.257.229.039.970.023.30 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80NO2 concentration (μg/ m 3 )Figure 11. Distribution of cities in relation to annual averageconcentrations of NO 2.Figure 12. Regional Mean Annual Average Concentrations –NO 2.Number of cities43270NO2WHO AnnualAQG63.140 μg/m 3NO 2 concentration μg/ m 36050403057.552.749.739.3 40.9 54.642.4 44.1 41.0 41.9 39.5NO2WHO40 μg/m 335.8 36.4 39.21201000 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70NO 2 concentration (μg/m 3 )01997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011YearNitrogen dioxide, as expected, seems to be a lesser issue thanparticles with approximately half (7 of the 13) of the cities exceedingWHO guidelines and EU standard both of 40 µg/m 3 . Ifthe pattern in Figure 11 is representative of the whole region,this suggests that the majority of cities will fall around the WHOguideline value. However, this figure suggests that this pollutantis still a bigger issue in some cities. A more detailed analysis ofthe 1-hour concentrations should be carried out if data are availableas compliance with the annual average WHO guideline doesnot guarantee that the hourly concentrations are below the WHO1-hour guideline.The annual trend in NO 2is less conclusive than for particles. Theconcentrations in 1997 and 1998 are higher than later years butthere is no clear trend from 2001 to 2011. The first two years ofhigher concentrations are due to these data points being comprisedof only four cities, including the three most polluted citiesin the study. From 2001 to 2011 concentrations of NO 2have beenvery slowly reducing and for the last four years the average concentrationin this data set has been just below the WHO air qualityguideline. This suggests that across the region actions may havebeen contributing to a reduction in NO 2, but this limited datasetdoes not allow us to suggest that the whole region is achievingthe WHO AQG.18

5.4 Sulfur dioxideFigure 13. Annual average concentrations for SO 2– 2011Figure 13 shows the annual averages for SO 2, Figure 14 showsthe spread of concentrations found across the region and Figure15 shows the annual trends. There are no WHO guidelinesor USEPA or EU standards to compare the annual mean data tohowever the annual mean concentrations are not excessivelyhigh. Nonetheless, a more detailed analysis of the 24-hour concentrationsshould be carried out if data are available to do suchan analysis.The annual trend shows that the concentration of SO 2in LAChas decreased significantly from 28.3 µg/m 3 in 2000 to 10.5 µg/m 3 in 2011. Figure 14 shows the spread of concentrations foundacross the region and Figure 15 shows the annual trends. Theannual trend shows that the concentration of SO 2in LAC hasdecreased significantly from 27.4 µg/m 3 in 2000 to 10.0 µg/m 3 in2011. Thus, efforts to reduce SO 2, such as improved fuel quality,seem to be a good example of success in improving air qualityin the region.Panama CitySO2Santo DomingoSan SalvadorSantiago4.0Lima8.0Santa Cr uzLa PazCochabamba8.4Medellín16.0Bogotá9.2Leon23.4JuarezPueblaMexico City15.3Guadalajara8.6Monterey13.1Sao Paulo4.4CuritibaBelo HorizonteMontevideo12.0San Juan3.0Quito4.50 5 10 15 20 25SO2 concentration (μg/ m 3 )NB. There are no WHO, USEPA or EU annual standards for SO 2.Figura 14. Distribution of cities in relation to annual averageconcentrations of SO 2.Figura 15. Regional Mean Annual Average Concentrations –SO 2.4SO230SO227.425.6 25.8 22.732524.722.7Number of cities2SO 2 concentration μg/m 320151020.620.118.813.2 13.0 13.5 10.79.4 10.01500 - 5 5 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25SO 2 concentration (μg/m 3 )01997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Year19

6. Discussion and Recommendations6.1 Air Quality StandardsIt is a positive finding that many countries and cities in the regionhave set official air quality standards to protect health. Inparticular, La Paz (Bolivia) is notable for having local standardsin line with WHO guidelines. However at a national level thereare many possible improvements:········Many Latin American countries do not have nationalPM 2.5standards. This is a key pollutant both with respectto its severe health implications but also due tothe fact that reducing this pollutant will also result inreductions of black carbon. Introducing a standard willalso mean that countries have to introduce some monitoringcapacity.Both the annual and 24-hour PM10 standards for allcountries are higher than the WHO Air Quality Guidelines.With scientific evidence suggesting that there is nosafe ambient particulate matter threshold level belowwhich health damage does not occur (WHO, 1987;WHO, 2006) the standards for both PM10 and PM2.5 areof utmost importance.The annual standards for NO 2for all countries are higherthan the WHO guideline but follow the UESPA NAAQS.The effects of NO 2are most significant with short termexposure but all countries, except Jamaica, Puerto Rico,Peru and Colombia, have standards set significantlyhigher than the WHO 1 hour AQG or have no standardat all. Introducing a 1 hour standard is important to protectthe health of citizens.The standards for SO 224-hour in all countries are significantlyhigher than the WHO guidelines. This is acause for concern due to direct effects of SO 2on healthrecorded in some scientific studies being observed atconsiderably lower concentrations (as low as 5μg/m 3 )(WHO, 2006).Eleven of the sixteen countries with standards have an8-hour ozone standard in line with the WHO guidelines.It would be optimal to see all the countries have an8-hour standard instead of a 1-hour standard.There are currently no identified standards in Honduras,Belize, Haiti, Cuba, Paraguay, Guatemala and Uruguay(although Uruguay has submitted a proposal forapproval).It is also important that these standards are legally mandatoryand not simply used as guidelines. If the standards arenot legally enforceable there is no incentive for compliance.Air quality standards should also be part of a sound air qualitymanagement system involving both national and sub nationalresponsibilities.6.2 Air quality monitoring dataThe presence and availability of data in the region was a keyissue highlighted by the research. Although there were someexcellent examples of monitoring, data availability and regularreporting, most notably in México (and México City in particular),this was not common across the region. Data were onlysuccessfully collected from 20 of the 42 largest cities in the region(based on search criteria taking into account no more thanfour cities from a single country). It is possible that monitoringis undertaken in the other cities but that we were not able tolocate or get access to the data. However, if this is not the case itsuggests that some cities may not be undertaking any air qualitymonitoring despite having national air quality standards inplace.Anticipating the difficulty in obtaining data, the research wasrestricted to collecting annual average concentration. Howevereven these data were, in most cases, difficult to locate and to acquire,particularly the most recent information. In the majorityof cases the data had to be obtained through personal emailsor phone calls which had its own set of issues with identifyingindividuals responsible who would be able to provide the informationwe required. Where websites existed most were notuser friendly and provided no analysis against the country’sstandards. Online data sources also contained insufficient informationon the instruments and monitoring practices. This lackof transparency raises issues such as public accessibility to importantinformation.The data itself was also of variable quality. There are no standardizedmonitoring techniques or data collection or averagingprotocols across the region. There is also limited evidence forquality control or assurance activities ensuring optimum dataquality although personal communication has highlightedsome good practices such as in Bolivia, which has internal nationalstandards and a reference laboratory that performs thequality control procedures for monitoring networks to verify thequality of their data. It is likely that other countries have similarsystems but these are not transparent. Some countries are alsolikely to be carrying out less than optimum monitoring practices.It is therefore clear that the region would benefit fromcapacity building and training activities in this area. Implementinga knowledge exchange and harmonization platform wouldbe of a great value to speed up an air quality and public health20

improvement process.6.3 Data analysisThe data analyzed in this report strongly suggests that particulatematter, especially PM 2.5, and ozone are the pollutants ofmost concern. Most cities exceed the WHO AQG for PM 10andPM 2.5and the data suggests cities are also likely to be exceedingthe WHO AQG for ozone. In addition, despite some cities successfullyachieving some decreases, at a broader regional levelno real reduction trend is evident for either finer particles orozone over the last decade. As particles and ozone are importantfor both health and climate this should be a priority area offocus for the region.The annual mean concentrations of NO 2were exceeded at anumber of locations but there were more cities with concentrationsbelow the WHO AQG compared to particle concentrations.The report recommends a more in-depth investigation into theshorter term exposure to NO 2which would allow a fuller pictureof the impacts of this pollutant on health in each city.The annual mean concentrations of SO 2were not excessivelyhigh and concentrations over the last decade have reducedconsiderably, however a more detailed analysis of the 24-hourconcentrations is recommended.6.4 Recommendations based on this analysisBased on the observations and findings of this report the CleanAir Institute puts forward the following recommendations:4.to providing proxy information on potential black carbonreductions. Funding should be made available toexpand monitoring of this pollutant.For future assessment and monitoring of air pollutionconcentrations in the region, and for robust assessmentsagainst national air quality standards, it is essentialthat countries and/or cities initiate monitoring or,where it exists but it is not optimal, improve their monitoringpractices. Activities to strengthen capacities inthis area include:a.b.c.d.e.f.g.Training and technical assistance.Regional communities of practice on air qualitystandards, monitoring and air quality managementgood practices.Further in-depth review of existing monitoringpractices and recommendations.Provision of funding to ensure robust monitoring atkey locations now and in the future.Utilizing existing international knowledge to establishregion-wide guidance and best practice asto how to undertake effective monitoring, qualitycontrol and assurance, and the collection, processingand analysis of data would be invaluable to improvingthe quality of data from the region.Harmonization in measurement is also vital to ensureconsistency in sampling periods, calculationmethods and comparable sampling techniques.Identification of alternative funding mechanisms tosupport air quality monitoring network implementationand operation, including analysis of goodpractices and successful cases.1.2.3.Countries in the region should adopt a harmonizedset of standards (i.e. WHO Air Quality Guidelines), evenif countries adopt interim target values and differentcompliance dates based on their individual circumstancesas they progress in reducing emissions. Thiswill allow for regional reporting, analysis and benchmarkingas well as to start strengthening a regionalfocus on improving air quality.All countries should adopt a PM 2.5standard for bothhealth and climate change assessments, preferablywithin a framework suggested above. Funding shouldbe made available to expand monitoring of this pollutant.This is important from a health perspective andalso with respect to providing proxy information onpotential black carbon reductions which contribute toclimate change.The shortage of PM 2.5monitoring is noted which isimportant from both a health perspective, to assesscompliance against a standard, and also with respect5.6.Each country should improve accessibility to the dataand improve the visibility of the information they arecollecting. The Clean Air Institute recommends that acentral database of the monitoring data from key pollutantsacross the region be established to formalizeand harmonize data presentation and analysis. Thiswould be a more cost effective option than each countrydeveloping their own database systems and datadissemination tools. In addition, it would be of a greatvalue to implement an integrated regional online platformon air quality, which could be hosted by UNEPand/or other regional organizations, to report air qualityinformation in a standardized fashion.Highlight and disseminate good practice and encouragecapacity building in activities associated withgood air quality monitoring, such as efficient datamanagement, effective dissemination of air qualitydata, successful public information dissemination, andimplementation of air quality indices to easily communicatecurrent pollution levels to the public and sensitivepopulations.21

6.5 Broader recommendations for the regionIt is clear that all urban areas in the region share some commonair pollution issues. Improved monitoring and adoptionof air quality standards are key to addressing these issues butthere is also a broader suite of activities and actions required tomove towards improved air quality. This can be encompassedin an overall Air Quality Management planning process. Sucha strategy would consider the following stages and actions incombination with a strong communication and stakeholder engagementplan:improvement plan for Lima and Callao 2005-2010), and Bogotá’sPlan Decenal de Descontaminación del Aire para Bogotá(Ten Year Air Decontamination Plan for Bogotá) 15 to name just afew. However, the prevalence and comprehensiveness of suchplans across the region is unclear, as is the extent to which plansare being successfully implemented. Assessing and continuouslyenhancing the capacity of national/federal and local governmentsto manage air quality to this extent is key to targetingassistance and effort to improve air quality across the region.6.6 Final conclusions······Setting local air quality goals based on National AirQuality Standards.Ensuring robust air quality monitoring to assess complianceagainst the goals or standards.Establishing detailed emissions inventories to understandand quantify the emission reductions neededfrom key sources to accomplish air quality goals.Definition of strategies to achieve emission reductionsfrom identified sources, such as sustainable urbantransport interventions; industrial permitting, enforcementand auditing; reduction in wood burning fordomestic heating; reduction in emission from energyproduction facilities.Implement strategies by means of a combination ofpolicy instruments at national and sub national levelsto enforce or encourage emission reduction activities,including, among others:----Regulations (emission standards, fuel quality specifications,fuel efficiency standards, etc.)Economic instruments (taxes, levies, surcharges, etc.)Information dissemination and public engagement/awareness.Establish institutional arrangements and capacities includingdedicated government structures, budget andother resources.Others.Implementation of an air quality management monitoring,reporting and verification system.Poor air quality is having serious impacts on health, social welfareand economic development worldwide and in the LatinAmerican and Caribbean (LAC) region. Concentrations of harmfulair pollutants are exceeding, in many cases excessively, WorldHealth Organization recommended guidelines across the LACregion. These high concentrations of air pollutants are impactingcitizens by reducing quality of life and causing prematuredeath and illness, whilst in turn directly impacting the nationaleconomies of the LAC countries and their economic and socialdevelopment.This situation is preventable and reversible. Air Quality Managementplanning is essential for governments to build successfulstrategies for reducing emissions and improving air quality. Aspart of this wider planning process, air quality standards and effectiveair quality monitoring is a necessity. Governments mustbe encouraged and supported to take on this responsibility andmust understand the importance of this issue. This should alsobe considered a major mechanism and opportunity to makereal national commitments to the UN Millennium DevelopmentGoals; protect public health; advance social and economic developmentfor all; increase competitiveness; mitigate climatechange; and open up investment opportunities.Many Air Quality Management plans are already in place acrossthe region, such as Mexico’s PROAIRE 2011-2020 program forimproving air quality in the Metropolitan Zone of the Valley ofMexico (Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México) (ZMVM) 13 andseven other Mexican cities with a further five under preparation.Other examples include Peru’s “Plan integral de saneamiento atmosféricopara Lima y Callao 2005-2010” 14 (General air quality22

13http://www.sma.df.gob.mx/proaire2011_2020/index.php?opcion=214http://cdam.minam.gob.pe:8080/handle/123456789/17315http://ambientebogota.gov.co/plan-decenal-de-descontaminacion-del-aire-para-bogota23

7. ReferencesCCCAD (2007). Diagnostico de la Normativa Tecnica sobre Calidad delAire en Centroamérica, San Salvador. Comisión Centroamericana deAmbiente y Desarrollo: Sistema de Integración Centroamericana.Cifuentes, L A, Krupnick, A J, O’Ryan R and Toman M A (2005). UrbanAir Quality and Human Health in Latin America and the Caribbean. PanAmerican Health Organization, Washington DC.Della Maggiora, C and López-Silva, J A (2006). Vulnerability to Air Pollutionin Latin America and the Caribbean Region. Sustainable DevelopmentWorking Paper No. 28. The World Bank, Latin America and theCaribbean Region Environmentally and Socially Sustainable DevelopmentDepartment. September 2006. Available at: http://irispublic.worldbank.org/85257559006C22E9/All+Documents/85257559006C22E9852572810068B623/$File/LAST0FINAL0VERSION1AirQuality1S-DWP.pdfEC (2008). Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe.European Commission Environment. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008L0050:EN:NOTand summarized at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/standards.htm.Gobierno de Chile (2003). Normas Ambientales. Dictadas bajo la leyde bases del medio ambiente No. 19.300. Comisión Nacional del MedioAmbiente. Available at http://sinca.mma.gob.cl/uploads/documentos/71196ec2a22baa2e7e8444df6a40d8ab.pdfGobierno de Chile (2011). Establece Norma Primaria de Calidad AmbientalPara Material Particulado Fino Respirable MP2 ,5. Ministerio delMedio Ambiente. Available at http://sinca.mma.gob.cl/uploads/documentos/20120409_NORMA%20MP2,5_9969.pdfINE (2011) Cuarto almanaque de datos y tendencias de la calidad delaire en 20 ciudades mexicanas. Estados Unidos Mexicanos: Availableat. And at http://www.ine.gob.mx/calaire-informacion-basica/585-calaire-val-normados.Miranda J (2006). Impacto Económico en la Salud por Contaminacióndel Aire en Lima Metropolitana. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.Setiembre, 2006.NRC (2008). Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefitsfrom Controlling Ozone Air Pollution. Committee on EstimatingMortality Risk Reduction Benefits from Decreasing Tropospheric OzoneExposure. National Research Council. ISBN: 978-0-309-11994-8. Executivesummary available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12198.OECD (2012). OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050: TheConsequences of Inaction. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264122246-enPRONAR (1990) RESOLUÇÃO CONAMA nº 3, de 28 de junho de 1990Publicada no DOU, de 22 de agosto de 1990, Seção 1, páginas 15937-15939. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Available at http://www.mma.gov.br/port/conama/legiabre.cfm?codlegi=100.Available at http://www.acaire.org/doc/normas/resolucion601de2006-Minambiente.pdfRepública de Guatemala (unknown). Programa de Calidad del Airede INSIVUMEH para la República de Guatemala. NORMAS Y REGULA-CIONES. Available at http://www.insivumeh.gob.gt:8080/calidadaire/regulaciones.htm.República de Nicaragua (2002). Secretaría Ejecutiva de la ComisiónNacional de modernización Técnica y Calidad: Norma Técnica ObligatoriaNicaragüense de Calidad del Aire. Available at http://legislacion.asamblea.gob.ni/Normaweb.nsf/%28$All%29/A7D9462EF09F1931062571320055ED61?OpenDocument.República de Panamá (2006). Anteproyecto de Norma de Calidad Ambiental.Gobierno Nacional: República de Panamá. Available at http://www.anam.gob.pa/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28&Itemid=399&lang=es.Républica de Perú (2008). DECRETO SUPREMO N° 003 -2008 –MINAM.APRUEBAN ESTÁNDARES DE CALIDAD AMBIENTAL PARA AIRE.Républica de Perú (2001). Decreto Supremo N˚ 074-2001-PCM. Reglamentode Estandares Nacionales de Calidad Ambiental del Aire. Républicade Perú. Available at https://www.miraflores.gob.pe/Gestorw3b/files/pdf/5104-1266-ds_-074_2001_pcm-_eca_aire.pdfUN (2012). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 66/288. Thefuture we want. United Nations A/RES/66/288*, 11 September 2012.Available at: http://www.uncsd2012.org/thefuturewewant.htmlUSEPA (2010). Puerto Rico’s Air Quality in 2010 and New EPA Initiatives.Available at http://cohemis.uprm.edu/planetatierra/pres/08_trodriguez.pdf.USEPA (various). US Environmental Protection Agency - National AmbientAir Quality Standards (NAAQS) Available at http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html.WHO (2008). Health and Environment: Managing the Linkages for SustainableDevelopment. A tool for Decision Makers. World Health Organization,United Nations Environment Program. Health and EnvironmentLinkages Initiative (HELI). 2008.WHO (2006). WHO Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone,nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Global update 2005. Summary ofrisk assessment. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe,2006 (WHO Regional Publications, European Series, No. 91).WHO (2000). Air quality guidelines for Europe, 2nd ed. Copenhagen,World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, 2000 (WHO RegionalPublications, European Series, No. 91).WHO (1987). Air quality guidelines for Europe. Copenhagen, WorldHealth Organization Regional Office for Europe, 1987 (WHO RegionalPublications, European Series, No. 23).República de Colombia (2006). Resolución Número 601. Ministerio deAmbiente Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial. República de Colombia.24

Annex 1Graphical summary of National Air Quality Standards in Latin AmericaFigure A1. 24 –Hr PM 2.5Standards in Latin American countriesFigure A2. Annual PM 2.5Standards in Latin American countriesCountriesArgentina (B Aires)BelizeArgentina (B Aires)BelizeBoliviaBoliviaBrasilBrasilChileChileColombiaColombiaCosta RicaCosta RicaCubaCubaEcuadorEcuadorEl SalvadorEl SalvadorGuatemalaGuatemalaEUHaitíHaití25 μg/m 3HondurasHondurasJamaicaMéxicoNicaraguaPanamáParaguayUS35 μg/m 3JamaicaMéxicoNicaraguaPanamáParaguayWHO10 μg/m 3 US12 μg/m 3WHO25 μg/mPeruPeruPuerto RicoPuerto RicoDominican RepublicDominican RepublicUruguayUruguayVenezuelaVenezuela0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700 5 10 15 20 25 3024 -hr PM 2.5 Standard (μg/m 3 )Annual PM 2.5 Standard (μg/m 3 )CountriesFigure A3. 24 –Hr PM 10Standards in Latin American countriesFigure A4. Annual PM 10Standards in Latin American countriesCountriesArgentina(BAires)BelizeBoliviaBrazilChileColombiaCosta RicaCubaDominican RepublicEcuadorEl SalvadorGuatemalaHaitiHondurasJamaicaMexicoNicaraguaPanamaParaguayPeruPuerto RicoUruguayVenezuelaEU50 μg/m 3 USWHO50 μg/m 3150 μg/m 30 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 16024 -hr PM 10 Standard (μg/m 3 )CountriesArgentina (B Aires)BelizeBoliviaBrazilChileColombiaCosta RicaCubaDominican RepublicEcuadorEl SalvadorGuatemalaHaitiHondurasJamaicaMexicoNicaraguaPanamaParaguayPeruPuerto RicoUruguayVenezuelaWHO20 μg/m 3EU40 μg/m 30 10 20 30 40 50 60Annual PM 10 Standard (μg/m 3 )25

Figure A5. 24 –Hr SO 2Standards in Latin American countriesFigure A6. Annual SO 2Standards in Latin American countriesCountriesArgentina (B Aires)BeliceArgentina (B Aires)BeliceBoliviaBoliviaBrazilBrazilChileChileColombiaColombiaCosta RicaCosta RicaCubaCubaDominican RepublicDominican RepublicEcuadorEcuadorEl SalvadorEl SalvadorGuatemalaGuatemalaHaitiWHO EU20 μg/mHonduras125 μg/m 3HaitiHondurasJamaicaJamaicaMexicoMexicoNicaraguaNicaraguaPanamaPanamaParaguayParaguayPeruPeruPuerto RicoPuerto RicoUruguayUruguayVenezuelaVenezuela0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 4000 20 40 60 80 100 12024 -hr SO 2 Standard (μg/m 3 )Annual SO 2 Standard (μg/m 3 )CountriesFigure A7. 1 –Hr NO 2Standards in Latin American countriesFigura A8. Annual NO 2Standards in Latin American countriesCountriesArgentina (B Aires)BeliceBoliviaBrazilChileColombiaCosta RicaCubaDominican RepublicEcuadorEl SalvadorGuatemalaHaitiHondurasJamaicaMexicoNicaraguaPanamaParaguayPeruPuerto RicoUruguayVenezuelaEU200 μg/m 3US188 μg/m 3 WHO200 μg/m 30 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 4501 -hr NO 2 Standard (μg/m 3 )CountriesArgentina (B Aires)BeliceBoliviaBrazilChileColombiaCosta RicaCubaDominican RepublicEcuadorEl SalvadorGuatemalaHaitiHondurasJamaicaMexicoNicaraguaPanamaParaguayPeruPuerto RicoUruguayVenezuelaEU40 μg/m 3WHOUS40 μg/m 399.6 μg/m 30 20 40 60 80 100 120Annual NO 2 Standard (μg/m 3 )26

Figure A9. 24 -Hr NO 2Standards in Latin American countriesFigura A10. 1 -Hr Ozone Standards in Latin American countriesCountriesArgentina (B Aires)BeliceBoliviaBrazilChileColombiaCosta RicaCubaDominican RepublicEcuadorEl SalvadorGuatemalaHaitiHondurasJamaicaMexicoNicaraguaPanamaParaguayPeruPuerto RicoUruguayVenezuelaCountriesArgentina (B Aires)BeliceBoliviaBrazilChileColombiaCostaRicaCubaDominican RepublicEcuadorEl SalvadorGuatemalaHaitiHondurasJamaicaMexicoNicaraguaPanamaParaguayPeruPuerto RicoUruguayVenezuela0 50 100 150 200 250 300 35024 -hr NO 2 Standard (μg/m 3 )0 50 100 150 200 250 3001 -hr O 3 Standard (μg/m 3 )Figure A11. 8 -Hr Ozone Standards in Latin American countriesFigure A12. 1 -Hr CO Standards in Latin American countriesCountriesArgentina (B Aires)BeliceBoliviaBrazilChileColombiaCosta RicaCubaDominican RepublicEcuadorEl SalvadorGuatemalaHaitiHondurasJamaicaMexicoNicaraguaPanamaParaguayPeruPuerto RicoUruguayVenezuelaUS147 μg/m 3WHOEU100 μg/m 3 120 μg/m 3CountriesArgentina(BAires)BeliceBoliviaBrazilChileColombiaCosta RicaCubaDominican RepublicEcuadorEl SalvadorGuatemalaHaitiHondurasJamaicaMexicoNicaraguaPanamaParaguayPeruPuerto RicoUruguayVenezuelaUS40.25 μg/m 30 50 100 150 2008 -hr O 3 Standard (μg/m 3 )0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 451 -hr CO Standard (μg/m3)27

Figure A13. 8 -Hr CO Standards in Latin American countriesCountriesArgentina (B Aires)BeliceBoliviaBrazilChileColombiaCosta RicaCubaDominican RepublicEcuadorEl SalvadorGuatemalaHaitiHondurasJamaicaMexicoNicaraguaPanamaParaguayPeruPuerto RicoUruguayVenezuelaEU US10 μg/m 3 10.35 μg/m 30 2 4 6 8 10 12 148 -hr CO Standard (μg/m 3 )28

Full report and Summary available at:http://www.cleanairinstitute.org/calidaddelaireamericalatina/Air Quality in Latin America: An OverviewProduce by The Clean Air Institute1100 H Street NW, Suite 800, Washington D.C., 20005 USA.Phone: +1 (202) 464 5450, Fax: +1 (202) 785 4313http://www.cleanairinstitute.org | info@cleanairinstitute.orgThe Clean Air Institute would like to thank all of the local, national and international institution and individuals whocontributed data, other information and support for the preparation of this document.The Clean Air Institute thanks the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the World Bank, and the SFLAC Fund for Latin Americaand the Caribbean and for its generous financial support for carrying out this work and for related activities with itsdesign and development. This report is part of a series of documents being produced under the Sustainable Transportand Air Quality Program efforts.